HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 2 LOT D2 1989 VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER PARKING AGREEMENT LEGAL\oo
r989
210 10640800 1
Vail Village Filing 2
Resubdivision, Lot D
Lot D-2
U-
s | ilr EY scHULTZ-ARCH rft?-.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArr. coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7BeO
Decenber 26, 1989
REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
VAIL NATIONAL BANK BU]LDING
VNB Parcel
1n Septernber of this year, the Department of Cornnunity Develop-
nent approved the enclosure of 2I3 square feet of corridor on the
third floor of the Vail National Bank Building. VNB Building
Corp. is now requesting to enclose both decks on the south side
of the building as Phase Two of this project.
As the building elevations show, overall height of the building
will not be increased by these additions. A11 window and wa11
mater j.a1s will match those that currently exist. The following
is a breakdown of the ner.r areas that will be created rqhen
construction is cornplete and their parking demand:(.etccc\rlG1..rcc5
213 square f eet {:${5 spaces (.t;) ?t''tur(1 r93rt*\
422 square f eet
Southwest Deck 854 square feet
TOTAL NEW AREA 1,48g SQUARE FEET 7.445 SPACES so{ n''' !o\'r\}{'w\'\t
Town of Vail statistics dated 24 Apri1, 1989 showed a 0.8 parking
surplus. With the addition of the space at the condensing unit
the building would have a surplus of 1..8. The total net parking
demand created with this proposal is 5.6, or six new spaces. In
the agreement between VNB Building Corp. and Vail Val1ey Medical
Center, the Vail National Bank Building will have exclusive
rights to twelv.e parking spaces in the Hospital's new parking
structure. After construction of the additions to the Vail
National Bank Building are complete in the summer of 1990, and
until the Hospitalrs structure is complete in Novernber of 1-990'
addltional parking dernand may be acconrnodated in the Lionts Head
parking structure.
Corridor
Southeast Deck #14 spaces ,."*\
€J-s--E-P-e-es-g t '1'5 /
MEMBER, IHE
W
AMERICAN INSTITUIE OF ARCHITECTS
,\? '
la i
rJ
Date of onnr?"rron 24 December, 1989
I.
DISTRICT DE\TELOPMENT PLAN
This procedure is required for any project that wouId go throughthe Special Development District proced,ure.
The application will not be accepted until all information is submitted.
A. NAME OF APPLICANT VNB Building Corp.
ADDRESS 3033 E. i-st Ave. Denver, C0 80206 PHONE 388-4331
APPLICA}IT I S REPRESEITTATIVE Sidney Schultz
APPLTCATTON FORM FOR SpEcrAL DEVELoPMENT Nt4l?ryvllr
141 East Meadow Drive Vail PHONE 476-7890
c.AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER
SIGNATURE VNB Building Corp
ADDRESS 3033 E. Lst Ave Denver, C0 PHONE 388-4331
B.NA}TE OF
ADDRESS
D.LOCATION
ADDRESS
OF PROPOSAL
108 S. Frontage Road West
A List of the name of owners of
Subject property and their niling
II. Four (4) copies of the foJ-J-owing information:A, Detailed written,/graphic description of Droposal .,B. An environmental impact report shill-.be submitted to the zoningadrn:inistrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived,by Section 18.55.030, exempt projects;
C. An open sPace and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development without undue burd.en on availableor proposed public facilities;
(0vER)
LEGAL DESCRIpTION VNB Parcel
FEEE.
F.a1I property adjacent to the
a.ddresses.
- | , Application torlpecial- Development Distrf DevelopmeBt Plan
D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than fivefeet if the average sJ.ope of the site j-s twenty percent or 1ess,or with contour intervals of not rnore than ten feet if the averageslope of the site is greater than troenty percent.
E. A proposed site plan, at a scale not srnaller than one inch equal-sfifty feet, showing the approxj-mate l-ocations and dimensions ofall buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facili-ties, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entrj.es, driveways,
and off-street parking and loading areas with proposed contoursafter grading and site development;
F. A preliminary landscape plan, at a scale not srnaller than one inchequals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retainedor removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped sitedevelopment features. such as outdoor recreational facilities,bicycle paths, trails' pedestrian plazas and walkways, water featuresand other elements;
G. Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floor plans, ata scale not smaller t,han one-eighth equals one foot, in sufficient' detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interiocirculation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed development.
III. Time Requirements
The-..Pliuning and Environmental Commri'ssion rneets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanyingmaterial- must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meating
NOTE I It is recommended that before a special developrnent district applicationis subnitted, a review and conment neeting should be set up with theDepartnent of Community Developnent.
\
oz
t
=d,
uJo.
o
(t
IJJult!
ts
=t
IJJc
RN-SN\h*
I
I
I
Ol ,O\@t 6Or. O\
,--{ I
F- lk ^.lo(Jt (J
-l
tx
lFlgDl oHr tA
H,< &
eiFe
rd ;o Fr
8:e H
t6ri
UJF
cI
F
z
=o
o22
outFoz
o2
6I
@€(,
=z
l.]
ltJ
uJo
=I
Eot!
GoFo
Fzoo
IEo
.'l..- \l;d
J
\ "(t\frr*tr\es s{
F
z
F1
o
E
0tE
c]o
qtE
o
ooq*q.
6
.E
EqJoE
otc6
oEoo
CD
.Es
:to
E
o
=cf
do
o
ct
CLo
'.tD
E
-a- o c6*6.9
a E€:
EEEE
€ sE:9
:E*EloSo
iEiF
EE; E
$;;.eSEieo!E oE*e€9Ac6
EEE!
- o..!J <)
--c)60'-E.ca o o
sEi;
FffE
iE$E
c'\f .$\'rn N
N(fl
e
E
=c,IuA(,z6
.o
z()
uJI()z
o-
?IEF()ulJul
(,z
6
=
o-
()
z
UJ-
uJlll
z9
F
UJeoure,
oc
oo
3Iu
UJEzI
att
uJo
F
atto
utoo?z
UJJ()
x
F
UJoD
an
UJ
u,ll!
tr
=E
IJJG
J
Fo
ozo
o
J
9cFc)ul
ul
o
=to-
o.
9z
E()
BJI
ts
H
NO[Vn'lYA
tl= lf;l::"131tlttl
= i .s l$l^.:::lElH
E: IE
;e=;;lE
E ! fiHls
Ei #13
zoF
l
tr
o
o.
=oe
uJc
F
€
G,
o-lUG
J
z
F
4
2o
F
e
UJ
J
=UJz
aD
=zfz
3o
o
I
at)
=z
=['3
o
u,lo
5I
u,l
l!-
ctz
F
=F
E
!J
=
tr
qtaulzII
F
2
trI
oz
I_T
ol
r'1 Izl
zl-I
I
I
"r-il
it
f;t
lroo
3
-l
F
Fo
JlslFIzl
zl
.. >l
gj
IJJgJzot
(r
ulo-
J
zI
=oo
z
tro
5o
I
I
I
E{q c\J6-J
= c\lr{ -a-\.JcoOz ,--<!JFl
(.)
c.l
I
Ot
F
-d.
@
o\
@
C)
ul
ts
U'
@o-)zo
Fo.
u.lY
UJ
.D
oF
F
t
LrJ
o,lro
o-oo
I
lllFoz
uJF
o
EE3a;3
HHH
tr:tru,clto
EHE<gaIE
EE9'-tt
=ut-E FE! 6tE ooI hurE =O-T HEsi
Llt6o
z
oPzeoo
=zJOo- u-
E
=E
lrJo-zoF
C)3E
6zoo
!!!
oo
c^l
FlE
g2
ao
H
z
|JH
uJ
=z
@_.
-)
l'$l d)l -.{ l 6l!4+lNH INc' >4 1 |p{ <l -ilBl\o
t3t ?
Fl rqlqlzol< ol
A.l F- |vt -tl dI Ir4
5 flEl HEu.l gil>xE5
oz
C'
uJE
J
oz3oF
o2
o
IIJ
G,
-/
lro
z
=F
tG
ll-
cjz
o
uJG
J
l!
z;oF
oz
oUE
J
a
tt
z3oF
I
I
IzlolHlHI
JI8l4lol'lF{l2l<t
3l
IaEI
rIl
oz
d
u.l
IE
J
ttoz3oF
Hz
F
U)
zH
E
=g
2?
33fFd6o
t-lXirg+.G.F!-o2
-rO<FG()
IJJ <zguJha6
()
IN
'\ - \.\.
,.'1. .:.'r. rl \.:\,
a hr 1
^^,,-- tst'\.,ALLtrFt | \ i.. ./.
HUR
e
SPE CTIONTOWN OF
REQUEST
VAIL
NAME
READY FOR INSPECTION:MON
l !'v t-
TUES WED(-\
LOCATION:
1Y
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
D ROUGH / WATER
FOUNDATI
FRAMING
ON / STEEL
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETBOCK NAIL -
r-l
O FINAL
ELECTRfCAL.
O TEMP. POWER
O ROUGH
B COMDUIT
r-r ,
tr FINAL
tr
tr
o FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
O SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
yd4eenoved
CORRECTIOITIS:
O DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
*
INSPECTION,TOWN OF
REOUEST
VAIL
oor, \flZb Joe NrAN4e
READY FOR
LOCATION:
THUR FRI
Turu
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
INSPECTION:
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
O FRAMING
r-r ROOF & SHEEF" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
D SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL D FINAL
APPROYED -r'2'tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR
tffisrop
t1> v'"-
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
oor, 'f JoB NAME
'*"?;':)' r.i"'i,
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION REQUEST
CALLER /3ob li r) h.t ,.-- T yr*4/
TUES WED AM PM
otr 1 J'-o o
[, / / / TOWNOFVAILtt / / / JV4, ' t'-// fttt,./.(n"(dz_o,)
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH i D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
O FRAMING
r-r ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION D POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROC^ Y*
O FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER _ tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
\rt*ou=o tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
oor, /"//-7a rNSPEcroR,
a/,
u,l
UJlrt
=E|rId
I -tt let, h +I
I
l.,
l3
I
I
I
I
IEE
la2
t=
le
o\
@o\
\o
Fat)
Hrdrc
IH
lo
I
I
I
I
I
I
l-
rc)
t
ib
rE
r*
F-
v)HE
z
G
u,lz3o
lll
Foz
.@tsrn.t \o
ZFlo@() C')F-C(')o
FX[:r o .
f4 Ce F]
Edo<u)A{>
ts
z
tEl
Ff
iE;9c
E
gE3E
iiiEF
EEEEg
E"= E"E €
!gEgg
iEiii
u,
UJttlII
E
=eIuG
J
FoF
krl
F
l=
lfr
E
EtvlG<oEI
=bE
="8FZr
ffi
E,*
EQza
U<
E
>E
-rd)f,tn8
=lOol
zz99b* gfx=E:It-tlano
EgL<o*gs
'i$i
J
lt
E
tti
cn
Mz
j
rl
z
FfH
'it=z
too-l
ll*I lcnI lF.| | c.)I l..lllr
I o''l "
l:l
l3l
lg!
l3r
E
H
H
z
tsFi<z
Fl
H
tlt
2
oz
oLl(E
J
lt
2]oF
N
F'
Ft
ts
z
H
=c
tl-
\o
lt'l\orn
Irn\T6
I
(\
ciz
d
UJE
J
?
l!oz;oF
z
HH
dHv)z
tn
te
tt
rn
.$
I
c',\.v
Ir.l Itt
-l
=l
I
.lotz.l
OI
uJl
rElll
tA
aFI
HMts
Fl
E
z
=z fl,
E
-rO<F0aouJ<zF
I.lJ Fo3
C)
g"g
s3:)Fd6()
tlir+ ,+{+EFt-o2 o
o
=
ts-e,
UJo.
fa
C.l
Io\f.\.if
z
,,t 9zt.oo
=z=fa-,P
J
:Ei
!!!
E
E
u,lo.ltoEgE3€u{E
'95EE ;=E FE
E EEE FT
E. E FgJ
UJ
.D'oF
EEN
CD
c!
\.J
nJt
at,!loazo
Fo-
IJJY
IJJo
oF
E
=tuJ oro-P61i-{o.l9Hlol'lHur9Ezo
E
=E
UJo-zoF
C)fE
6zoo
@
FINAL INSPECTION'S COMPLETED
The belor items need togivingapermitafinal
Please check off Jn the
be compl ete beforeCof0.
box provided.
FINAL PLUMBING
FINAL ELECTRICAL
FINAL BUILDING TEMPORARY C of O
CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY
./, 1 /t '-,,4 '/ IJ \'
lt <-)/|
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT -
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
CALLER
INSPECTION: MON TUES WED ,.THUR2 r c/ '--r-'/ +u ,t/con -,?Ot
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V.
E ROUGH / WATERD FRAMING
tr
tr
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING O GAS PIPING
INSULATION O POOL / H. TUB
D SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
[4oro"O EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
tr_
tr SUPPLY AIR
E
O FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED N REINSPECTION REQUIRED
nlftso,or
oo-= /2-/- /7 rNSPEcroR
sr tGY scHULz-ARCH rilC,*.
Wr,/r
Si9r,epre1y,
(-JtA
4U
Sidney Schultz, AIA
Novernber 14, 1989
MR. PETER PATTEN
0ffice of Conmunity Development
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, C0 81657
re: Vail- National- Bank Building North Parking
Dear Peter:
As per your request, the three large cottonwood trees north of
the Vail National Bank Building will remain in their present
Location and parking will be located around them. I want to nake
sure that you and your staff understand that by preserving these
trees the building will have one less parkine space than whqt wqs
approved.by thq Town. As I understand it, the original conditlon
ffi survival be guaranteed for two years wiLl
also be lifted
V DRIVE
81657
E.B. Chester
MEMEER THE AN4ERICAN INSTITLITE OF ANCHIECTS
t
APPLICATION DATE:6ltr{ &
DATE OF
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION I.IILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBI4ITTED*****
I. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-application meeting with a planning staff member is strongly suggested to
determine if any additiona'l information is needed. No application wil'l be accepted
unless it is complete (must include all items required by the zoning administrator).It is the applicant's responsibility to make an appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a C0MPLETE applica-
tion wil'l streamljne the approval process for your project by decreasing the number
of conditions of approval that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval must
be resolved before a bui'lding permit is issued.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:.v%snNa blUttoo"rS
DRB }IEEiiNG:
-) 4,. 'u
B. LOCATION OF
Address muOe%rve
Bl ockLotLegal
Zoning
Descri pti on
*r2
Firinq ySr@aAv
terephone &t[7Zt
tel ephone
C. NME OF APPLICANT:
Address
D. NAME OF
Address
E. NAME OF OWNERS:NA
APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE :
f+l v tvlearx.- gRrv'e
F.
Si gnature
Address
DRB FEE: The fee will
VALUATION
L+r
be paid at the time a building
':FEE
telephone %A-+971
permit is requested.
$ o-$ lo,ooo
$10,001 -$ 50,000.
$50,001 -$ 150,000'
$150,001 - $ ,500,000
$500,001 - $1,000,000$ 0ver $1,000,000
$ 10.00
$ 25.00
$ 50.00
$100 . oo' $2oo.oo
$300 .00
IMPORTANT NOTICT REGARDING ALL'SUBMISSIONS TO THE DRB:
1. In addition to meeting submittal requirements, the applicant must stake the site
to indicate property lines and building corners. Trees that will be removed
should also be inart<ed. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
si te.
2. The review process for NEW BUILDINGS will normally involve two separate meetings
of the Desiln Review Board, so plan on at least two meetings for their approval .
3. people who fai'l to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled-
meeting and who have'hot asked for a postponement will be required to be
republ i shed.
: :. -. .-.l:--:r-.1^I:-^
I
i(
Project Application
I ,'t L ,,i !J,, ; Lj, j,-,q/f 7[,
lr,1, ir-r -). tL l(Pro,ect Name:
-.Q- t! ; 1-
Project Description:
Contact Person and
-,)Y-Owner. Address and Phone:
.ic>33 a-- t)i / );, t.1.-2r.,.=,
Archilect, Address and Phone:
Design Review Board
Date
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
Summary:
'1
..-\l' /--' f //. , //'-, \ ul i !,*/ \-/ / \v/ J L' !r i! -
Town Planner
/ , .-t, I r- / , 4n^t^. l'/ +7 /A
I
}t"t Approval
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL. coLoRAo 81657
3O3/476-78W
0ctober 10, 1989
MR. I.{IKE MOLLICA
Town of Va1l
Connunlty Developnent Depar tmen t
75 South Frontage RoadVal1, C0 81657
Dear Mlke' '-
".rr,As you may recall r some time ago I indefinitely tabled the Deslgn
Revlen Board hearing for the proposed new slgnage for FlrstNatlonal Bank of ValL. At this tine I wlsh to forrnally wlthdrawthat propoeal on behal.f of my cllent.
Please tranefer the $20.00 sign appl.ication fee to a new slgnapplicatlon for a "Plus Systen'r slgn on the north slde of theVal1 National Bank. I have discussed this applicatlon uith Betsy
and she has alL the pertinent. information regardlng thls slgn.
If you have any queetions regarding t,hese natters please give mea call.
Sincerely,
J ' L/ )' "'/ Pu l',"\n L'
lr"
7al4i1u" J()/(n7L
rctia,,i'/ ' .''rt-'^"(7v'- t'u tur"'Lt*
srfi rv scHULTZ-ARCH llar,,.
Sidney Schultz
MEt\rBEn. THE AMEQICAJ NSIIUIE OF AI€HI1ECIS
TO:
FROM:
DATEs
SU&'ECT3
oo
Planning irnd Environmental Connission
Comnunity Development Department
September 26, 1989
Staff approval of a minor
DeveJ.opnent District for23, at 108 South FrontageApplicant: Vail National
oo
amendnent to the Specialthe Vail Natlonal Bank Building No.
Road West.
Bank Building Corporation
The purpose of this merno is to inforrn the Planning and Environmental
Cornrnission of the minor arnendment approval which is requlred by theSpecial Development District OrdLnance. The VaiI National BankBuilding Corporatlon, has requested to add 218 square feet of office
space to ttre existing Vall National Bank Building. This space is
located on the third floor on the southwest corner of the building.
The buil-ding addition is entirely within the interior of the building.Basically, a corridor is being converted to office space.
The new office space generates a parking reguirenent of .872 spaces or
one ner,r space. In the Planning and Environmental Commission memo
concerning the VaiI National Eank Buitding, date April 24' 1989, the
vaiL National Bank Building has the following parking requirements:
Parking required for existing building
Parking requlred for proposed expansionTotal spaces reguiredTotal spaces proposed
87 spaces
The applicant proposes to locate a nerr/ space in the location of an
existing condensing unit on the southeast corner of the site. The
parking space will be established prior to construction of the office
space.
The existing offlce building has a total square footage of L9,976
square feet. The nel,r expansion under constructlon called for an
aaaitionaL L,74o square feet. A ninor amendment nay alJ'ow.99T an
increase of up to SU of the total square footage of the building. 52
of 2Lr?16 sguire feet is 1rOg5.08 square feet. The addition falls
within the allowable amount for a ninor arnendment.
The staff considers this reguest to be a minor anendnent' as it does
not change the basic intent and character of the approved Special
Developm6nt District. In addition, the srnaLl expansion has no inpact'
on the'exterior appearance of the buildtng. The ninor amendment is
considered to be L-change to gross floor area of not more than 5t. F-or
these reasons, staff has recomnended approval of the minor amendment'
"l' 'r"'I D\-' lool ication Number
SIGN APPLICATION Dd
AoQcf) ee
lL*'-t
Fee Paid
Name of Project
Name or person sia*:tt:nW vnone 41b-7&a
Location or project VAtt- irltvt$fM- gA K arg
Description of Project
The fol lowing'
to the Design
Sign submittal
infornation is required for
Review Board before a final
fee is $20"00.
submittal by the applica.nt
approva'l can be given.
I-I
II
,n
i
rlB. Description of sisn aee NteU+@-
c. size or sisn 4t-b X 2t'e2 * 4 6il$N&t- lfu'
Length of Frontaoe (Ft. ) 116'
U4 -l'Ah tu vt-{_e.a ,
D.
E.Corments
Material
2. Drawings sfi6friif-Ex'act'location3. Photogiaphs showing proposed IocaTlon]4. Actual siqn5. Colored sialE?FE-ding- _6. Photograph of sign
Approved for DRB Submittal
MATERIALS SUBMITTED WITH APPLICATION
1. Site Plan
Dibapproved for DRB Submitta'i]
SIgn TdmI ni-lrator
Ea
0)
e
e(t
_a
-Tx
E6
I I
EEIE}F
tsi5!ltr lcg$l
Io2
tl,
;"3 lr\"' i ,!i
!r';llE5
il lll
il
liilfilrilll'iliirrrrdr.*
iilliiiliiiii.tadd
o
fl
q
IE6
fl
E
E
9
8
6
q
6
', ',, Q.
I u,r,itg I1- "Dlt--t
v
0
6IIt
i+t
,i
I
7L1op23 Azw4tS
o
75 south trontage road
Yail, colorado 81657
(303) 4792138
(3(B) 4792139
September 19, 1989
olfice ot community development
Ms. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Land Title
P.O. Box 357Vail, Colorado 8l-558
Re: Vail National Bank office expansion
Dear Gail,
Sid Schultz has explained to me that you would Iike a letter from thestaff stating our opinion on the possible expansion of the southwestoffice space on the third floor of the Vail National Bank Building. Inorder to add this sguare footage, you would need to amend the existingSpecial Development District. Depending on the amount of squarefootage you wish to add, the expansion would either be a ninor
amendment which requires only Planning commission approval, or a rnajor
arnendrnent which reguires Planning Commission and Town Council approval .A minor amendment is defined as rr...changes to gross floor area(excluding residential uses), of not nore than 5? of the approvedsquare footage of retail, office, common areas, and other non-residential floor area.rr (Town of Vail Zoning Code L8.40.O2O (B))
The primary area of concern with this expansion hrould probably beparking. There may also be other issues for the expansion such as viewimpacts and inpacts on the bulk of the building. At this time, thestaff does not feel it is appropriate to write a letter stating thatthe expansion is acceptable and would most likely be approved. We feelit is helpful to point out the apparent issues that may be related tothe expansion. However, lre are not comfortable stating that these arethe only concerns that rnay arise during the revielr process.
cail l{ahrlich-Lowenthal
continued
I hope you can understand our caution in glving you any staff positionat this tine. If you have any further questions, please feel free tocall me at 479-2138.
Sincerely,r) I nt
{ndan Yfit-i"ilt"tr' irrttzSenior Planner
KP:IT
cc: Peter Patten
Sidney Schultz
sr D0f scHULTZ-ARCH ro?*.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
VAIL, COLORAO 81657
3O3/476-78e0
September 12, 1989
Town of Vail
Dept. of Cournunity
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vai-1, C0 81657
Development
West
re: Vail National Bank Bui 1d i ng -Thi r d Floor 0ffice Addition
PHASE ONE APPLICATION
The Vail National Bank Building wishes to re-partition and add
office lease space to the Southwest corner of the third floor of
the buil-ding. Phase 0ne of this proposal would enclose the
existing corridor at Suites 306, 308 and 3L0. This construction
would take place this Fall. This urodification would have no
i-npact to the exterior design of the building as the corri.dor is
entirely interior space.
According to Town of Vail statistics dated 24 ApriL, 1989, the
Vail National Bank Building currently has a parking surplus of
0.8 spaces. Enclosure of the corridor would generate a
requirement of 1.06 spaces, a net increase of .98 or one apace.
An existing condensing unit that now is nounted by the South
stairwell. wilL be removed prior to consLruction. That space can
then used to satisfy the parking required by enclosing the
corridor.
Attached is a floor plan that highlights the corridor to be
enclosed i.n Phase One.
MEMBER. IHE AMERICAN INSTIIIJI'E OF ARCHITECB
?(
I'Y
'ft*rrt?'gue Date or onnrJi "" W gpkrrrtq4Sl
AppLrcATroN FoRM FoR spEcrAL DEVELopMEuT fitll0R &v!fg*t{6llff
I.
DISTRICT DEVEIOPMENT PLAII
This proced,ure is required for any project that would go throughthe Special Development District Procedure.
The application will- not be accepted until alL information is submitted.
A. NAME oF on"r,rcoou VNB BUtLplt|! d€F
c0 $072c-1ww Sc+wve-
PHoNE 3?-o,96as
,^o*, 47b7810
ooo*rrf,
|Jrftr loas
B. NAME OF APPIICANTIS REPRESENTATIVE
C. AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATUR3
ADDRESS
LOCATION
ADDRESS
OF PROPOSAL
ADDRE'' l4l E yltBAnh.^J'Dle" pnoxn$lLaXlg_
D.
5,
LEGAI, DESCRIPTION .3 2+
E. FEE
A List of the name of owners of all property adjacent to the
Subject Property and their niling addresses.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information:
A, Detailed written/graphic description of proposal .,B. An environmentil impact reirort shilt'be submitted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waived
by Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
C. An open space and recreational plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the development without undue burden on availableor proposed public facilities;
gloo.oo rnro-1fl$[ " ':
, Cffi//{ tt/"/st
6 ..: :1'r ":' ' -, )t.. I
F.
(0vER)
,, lt, Application tlpecial DeveloPment ois!!} DeveloPment Plan
D. Existing contours having contour intervals of not more than five
feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or less,
or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average
slope of the site is greater than twenty percent.
E. A proposed site plan, at a scale not srnaller than one inch equals
fifty feet, showing the aPproximate locations and dimensions of
all buildings and structures' usestherei.:n, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas, recreational facili-
ties, pedestrian plazas and walkways' service entries, driveways,
and off-street parking and loading areas with proposed contours
after grading and site development;
F. A prelj-minary landscape plan, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals fifty feet, showJ-ng existing landscape features to be retained
or removed, and showing proPosed landscaping and landscaped site
development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities,
bicycle paths, trails, ped.estrian plazas and walkways, water features,
and other elements;
c. Prelirninary building elevations' sections, and floor plans, at
a scale not smaller than one-eighth eguals one foot, in sufficient
detail to determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interior
circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed development.
III. Time Requirements
The-.Plimning and Environmental Commrlssion meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
NOTE: It is recornmended that before a special developnent district applicationis subtnitted, a review and comnent neeting should be set up with the
Departnent of Cornmunity Development.
MINOR AI,TENDUENT TO THE SPECIAL DEVEIPPMENT DISTRICT
FOR THE VAII-, NATIONAL BAI{K BUILDINGLocated at 108 South Frontage Road West
PUBI.',IC NOTICE TO AN'ACENT PROPERTIES
The purpose of this notlfication is to make you arirare of a Community
Development Department staff approval of a minor amendment to theSpecial Development District for Vatl Natlonal Bank Building located at
108 South Frontage Road West. The staff approved an increase in offlce
square footage for the office building of 218 square feet. Thisnotificatlon would have no irnpact to the exterior appearance of thebuilding, as the corrLdor that is being converted to offlce space, isentirely interior space. one additional parking space will be provided
on slte for the office apace. This staff approval was made on
September 15, 1989. The Planning and Environrnental Commisslon of the
Town of Vall wl]t be lnformed of the staff,s decision at their
September 26, 1989 meeting. The Plannlng and Environmental Commlssion
meetings are held in the Town Council Charnbers at 75 South Frontage,
Vail , Colorado. Please contact the Conmunity Developnent Departrnentoffice to find out the specific time ttre rneeting will begin on
Septenber 26. You may reach the Comrnunity Developnent Department at(303) 47e-2L38.
Appeal of staff decisions nay be fiLed by adJacent property owners'
oritnerg of property within the Special Develppnent District, the
applicant, Planning and EnvLronmental Commission members, or menbers of
the Town Council, as outllned in Section 18.66.030 A of the Town'ofvail Municipal code. If you have any guestions about the staff
approval , please contact Kristan Pritz, Senior Planner, at the Toltn ofVaiI Conmunity Developrnent Departrnent, 479-2L38.
fnatie fu Jt-Q"R- 6wwe.E;\) u g,
t
flr2161 _
sr#v sCHULz-ARCHTTOT,^.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
VAIL, COLORAO 81657
303/476-7890
Vail National Bank
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
The Alphorn Condoniniun Association
c/ o l4r. Ben Boutell
Post 0ffice Box 3648Vail, C0 81658
Scorpio Condoninium Association
4919 Hanpden Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814
Skaal Hus Phase Lc/o Mr. Ron Anderson
727 Pennay lvania Ave.
llolton , KS 66436
Skaal Hus Phase 2c/o Mr. Ross Davis
Post Office Box 190Vail-, C0 81658
Vail VaLLey Medical Center
181 lrest Meadow DriveVail., C0 81657
(Doubletree Hotel )Vail HoLdings, Inc.c/o J. Michael HolLoway
American Credit Services, Inc.
2Ol E. Broad Street
Rochester, NY 74604
Doubletree Condominiun Assoc.c/o Mr. Gene Petracca
602 Park Ave.
Manhasset, NY 10030
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.VaiL, CO 81657
MEMBER, I}€ AMERICAN INSNME OF A'€HMCTS
sr{rEd?colo^^Do
OEPAETMENT OF HIGHWAYS
714 Grand Av6., P.O. Box 298
Eaglo, Colorado 81 6t!1-0298
(303) 328.638s
Septenber 11, 1989
Vail National Bank
108 South Frontage Road WestVai1, C0 81657
Re: Enter and exit signs for Vail National Bank
Gentlemen:
Aftel review of your request for enter and do not enter signsthe Department of Highways will agree to the enter and do iotenter signs only. These signs should be sized to the enter anddo n-ot enter portion only to prohibit any advertisements. Thishas been agreed to by C, Dunn, District iOw Engineer, and bymyseLf using the Departmentrs signing standards.
Very truly yours,
J. Bryce Sanburg
Hwy. Maint. Supt. III
Sanburg,/Drieth
Dunn
Pierce/Hi11
PatroL 20
,,firut.;*;;;tBT,*.
141 EAST MEADOW DR1VE
VAIL, COLORAO 81657
3A3/476-789A
September 6, 1989
MS. KRISTAN PRITZ
Town of Vail
Dept. of Community Developnent
75 S. Frontage Rd. West
Vai1. C0 81657
Vail National Bank Buildine-Third Floor 0ffice Addition
Dear Kristan,
The Vail National Bank Building wishes to re-partition and add
office lease space to the Southwest corner of the third floor of
the building. Phase 0ne of this proposal would enclose the
existing corridor at Suites 306, 308 and 310. This construction
would take place this Fa11, Phase Two involves enclosing the
existing deck on that corner the following Spring. This
modification would have negligible impact to the West elevation'
and wi 11 create a roofline that aligns with the existing roof
over the South stairwell.
According to Town of Vail statistics dated 24 ApriL' 1989, the
Vail National Bank Building currently has a parking surplus of
0.8 spaces. Enclosure of the corridor would generate a
requirenent of 1.06 spaces, a net increase of .98 or one space.
An existing condensing unit that now is mounted by the South
stairwell will be renoved later thi s week. That space can then
used to satisfy the parking required by enclosing the corridor.
When the deck is enclosed in the Spring of 1990 an additional
four parking spaces will be required. As you are aware, the Bank
Building has an option to purchase one dozen spaces in the new
parki.ng structure at the Vail Va11ey Medical Center. By the tine
Phase Two is scheduled to begin, the Bank Building will have
either exercised this option or leased spaces elsewhere to
satisfy the parking requirement.
s1{JL,
the
s the
it if you
t
tll . ,-
t lt I t \-Ltart tl t f
- -att, 'lvf I
I
As it is now so late in the year and we need to expedite
start of this construction, we will be rnaking separate
applications for Phase One and Phase Two, Because the
prospective tenant requires the declc enclosure as well a
corridor to make the space feasible, I would appreciate
and the other Staff would 1et me know if you foresee any
potential problerns with the total proposal.
MEMBER, THE AMER CAN INSTITU-IE OF ARCNITECTS
Sidney Schultz, AIA
r \'';rfliFfi' .
i
o
Fee paid JO.OO 'SIGii APPLICATTOII
Narne of Project Vd,hA'on
Nanie of Person Subrnitting
. Location of Projeci t68 .. S. trron
Des cri pti on of_.proj ec{D.ed6
-&n' Vi Nahann (t ' fu "
The f ol lorvingto ihe Design
Sign subni'r,'ual
lnfornaiicn is required for subnittal by the applicant
Re'riel EoarC bei-cre a final approva'l can be givel
fee is 520.00.
A. Sign I'tateri a1 fllonn,:n Fan'ts ,Tvpc E l6e ;Q) tnn'l-'[ sf =.:'=.
:!lo lexan {-a.et i (c) fatslad;E - ,o9o qlon)n,m &.ezs. - :"
o:,*t g" en*c. ?',er ( al sg, ttbc,
B. Description of Sii ! >lF wntt "irn-" Vo;l No-trom"l Botrk',
,1,# A,:i'l.'
+{,firg
D. Length'of Frentaee fFt. )
E. Comerts
I
L O. lzil.rcu."la{61
AP?licrtion rtrSer <
' A\\IF F' <ta,J,,1J' ^lo ^Jo+ FNTF(h '3a
\ \o Nor EitrcP' ' eqh v *f "
\a1. Site Plan A
2. Drar'ti ngs sho';lr ng -
exgcf | 0c3-r''l on
5: Fnotoeisphs sho'.rin9 propcsed locs;ton
4. Aciual sign
5. Colored Scale ore';rtng
-
...i".,.-
.:f;"': ,
:.'7
a. Photcgraph of sign
ApProved for ORE Subnitirl
Di iapproved for ORE Sub::ti ii: I
-
I
I
I\I
: .l _
Jlgn AdfllntsE,ralor
o
=
E
=e,lrjo-
c.)
.if
o
\o
U'
r,u
UJl!
==t
IIJo-
6s/It sBeL( *{t
o\
@o\
o
cf)
z
F-)
zH
4&
E
>.1
I
NlHH
JAI
6ztr<tr F{o i,n(, l.-lz&dsz
$l
I
|lt
o
oF
&Fat
=.
(,z
F.
I fri ta
l!: lF<
lEh'r
l819
lslE
l.lE
lila
tEt;
lFlS
IEE
le3
lEsl3*ll€lc0| .rF
l9E| =*t
G,
IIJz3o
u.lIF
oz
co
@
FJli
l5
I llJ;toxl=trtIPlc;te
g{E
=r tItr
6N (\'l-
' ' \\ite
Y,ttE )IE
0)I\ tv
=.\t.Y,l.r\ l F
\r tz
.\ \ t;
o'
Ec6
oooo
CDHcat
E Eilo,gx.
E HgO ftr
=rd.5 Se- ('AEc,i r;uo. lqt altl
a :lii
E fiIiiq)ltl
olc
c.9ttoE
4;oEo(J
c
.9
.9.:.Eot'
at,
Ec6
CD
.ECoN
-ut
;BoF
o,
o
.otc
Eooa(s
Et
0:
o
.9
s
,It
o
Ec6
ai,''6
oG
E
=
'.>c\
E
(,
o
o
E
CD6
-otiEo(,'
E:OG
Itt;89C,=6tc
FP;o6C;'6.o!tF'>- =g(!ot
5't
=>,FO-
=EooEo'-o0t-5i
E3Ei-, cl9o6C66
arC-.9
-_(0
FFa.9r-. Co'-a9
0)+,?icg.:B'a>!.'(!:
hio€o
EoEE
OCDo6
-o
E
oo
.12
E
E,5
ct
E
o6
!,op
eo.c
.9
G
E
o
.g
0,E
(5
6t
o
6o
It
6i6
o.
-9CI
o
EJ(,aoc(!
E(D
'5
C'
E
c
.9
It
E
o
o4
5
'c
o'-1=
1oio'0)
,1E
,o
^6qq
]CLo
dt
.t2E
tt6o
o
oE
(!E
o
CDt
-e
'ocJ()6
.cto
q)
E
\'
cr)
N
c{rr \o\o
o
rn
N
\:i
(\l N |r)r\
rn
crt
Ettr
uJGoz
cl!f
ao
-()
UJI
z
JC
IcF()
gJ
tr
Izo
=
d
J
9z
Eoltl
=
ut
UJltzI
F
UJEollJE
oE
o
ao
=g
UJEz(,
ulo
F
atI
uJo
o.lz
uJ
o
x
F
llJol
at)
UJ
uJl!
=
=EIucJ
FoF
oz
oJ
(D
J
9E
Fo
UJJ
uJ
(,zoT
o,
Iz
ollJI
'-l
ts
H
NO[Vn]YA
lEIt
IFIFIXIII]
IFlz
x
gg
tL&ordzt-l
77o-
FEt!. ro=
f;Ezrd
ue
-
>E
-l(rlEtnS
=@N
zz99F^<to==?^=EEqro
Egl!<o*
Eg
t!]
a
Mz
Fl
z
HH
z
FlH
Fder
tr
2I
J
{t!
4
cfoE(,
u.,
F
o
\o
e
uJ
xX5
z
Eoo
zIF
G
UJF
;u,z.
lttltl
ll
=fz9oFlu<oo<
=HRtrX.i<z
F
9z
d63E
IJJ
JJ
v,o
uJ2YI
F
2
tr
5
oz
--+
I
al)z
Flpr
I
I
=3
F
!J
3
o
o
lil
zl
zl
.. >louj
gJglzoF
E
u,l
z
E
.ir
(\
o
=a)
5q)
In-
ll,l=
il;:lt >ogIFI
N
I
Np-
I')l
e-l
.l@5 Lcldo
=9?
(, lLJz{sl:.
luF
o
lrJta,oo1
2o
Fo-l!Y
uJo
oFt
GI!
o-
t!o
o.oo
I
uJFoz
Ad
H2
H
a
G'rQl-iH
z
oPzeoo
=z=t3o-- P
=l
J
il=ri
FnFqrtr
F4r rF4 r}dJ
ts:G|rlLlt
E9E<8aEo{P
'9'E
o.-E:
=ulEFodE=,PXEXE6tq
€=
Hol-
-.-.
rt4| -'/vE\ 1"1 rl-wt'=
-
t-1F?
rX't+txltxl
E
=G
lrJ
o-zo
FofE
62oo
EfrF[ro}[
h{ItFll(r<{1trlHl*tl(,tzF-:9d
F1F]
FZz
Fl
z
Hts
z
FlH
'ii=z
(D
-r
\o.ir
I\o
c
Fl
ti
g
tsza
tn
vtatIutro
t
o\
cot\
I\o
io-
J
6
E
E
r4
.J.
at't.A
UJeo
:
a
NH|j
ah
ts
z
Htn
.c
l!
@
rn
Ir\N
co
I
c\
oz
ci
UJe,
a
t!oz
BoF
2
Hts
H
U)z
tr{trl
att
.
tr
I
I
I
rl ciz
(,
UJ
CE
J-
ttoz
=oF
I
;l
;l
pl p:
G,
-rO<F0a(JuJ<ztulF(rz-o
tgP
E?-G
d6o
Eh
'rli+EOz
i-
INSPECTION REQUEST
. TOWN OF VAIL
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:ruES (*eo-'-\._.THUR FRI
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
PMAM
' :'{'4 t- ' ",; | )LPffi
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
/ STEEL
PLUMBING:
O UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W.V,
tr ROUGH / WATEB
ON / STEEL
- BOOF & SHEEBu PLYwooD NATLTNG D GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
N POOL / H. TUB
NAIL tr
tr
ofFtruRt-O FINAL
ELECTRIGAL: ,MECHANICAL:
tr TEMP, POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
D
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED F RETNSPECTTON REQUTRED
DATE INSPECTOR
e'v
\\SS
PERMIT NUMBER OF PXOJECT TOWN OF
--\F\ t\.i- I \r-
oot. i> -|\>-'\\\ JoB NAME
CALLER
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:MON TUES @\ THUR FRI @PM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDEBGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W,V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
ELE
trI
trF
EC
tr.-
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAT
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
a,
39ftr
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DAIE /' /l -93 roB
rN#;roNTOWN OF
REOUEST
VAIL
Nnlile 1/4r/ ,ttgf/otrp/ 4lrrt/<
CALLER
MON TUESREADY FOR
LOGATION:
INSPECTION:WED r@.d FRI AM
BUILDING:
N FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
o
tr
tr
tr
D
tr
D
UMBING:
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATERtr
tr
D
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION POOL / H, TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
(r'ruot D FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
O TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr
tr
o
tr
HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIREO
INSPECTOR
tNs
I
PE CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
READY FOR INSPECTION:
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DArE )\---Y.:r--\\ JoB NAME
LOCATION:
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH i D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATEB
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
FOOTINGS / STEEL
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr
tr
tr
tr
POOL / H. TUB
NAIL
FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANlCAL:
O HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONOUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
.tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
g#sn
I
PE
/ t ,..-, sDA].E 'l | 7; JOB NAME \./ .r,l
CTION REOUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
i' , r,8...--
READY FOR INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES WEDMON
\4',.-:.
,/ ,1..:'14.,<
.^ ,4
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
LOCATION ' |' i'{
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr F9UNDATTON i STEEL
,/ ,l
s/rnnutruc a-\Y-..'tr ROUGH i WATER
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr POOL / H. TUB
NAIL o
cl
trFINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
,GnppnovEo
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
DATE
o
INSPE
'.. '\ ''r
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
, MON -,] TUES
, !\. | \ JoB NAME
TOWN OF
;:\-
i AM 'r PM
INSPECTION REQUEST
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
D FOUNDATION / STEE-
tr
D
tr
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr
tr
E
tr
POOL / H. TUB
o
tr FINAL FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH E EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
FINAL tr FINAL
/"/q,APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
rffisre
DATE INSPECTOR
\:... - .-+o
PErNs CTION REOUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
r, i.
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
It:t JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUES WED THUR FRI AM'
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
n
tr
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEEB
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
O INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELE
trT
!EF
trC
tr
CTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
PrSisroP
-) ,, I r'/--) / --' '.INSPECTION REOUEST
VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE JOB NAME
TOWN OF
, ,'/
CALLER
MON TUES wED ,{lyi FRIREADY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
&nppaoveo --':'- n tr DtsAppRovED tr RElNSPEcrloN REoUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
l
'.{
,I
{
I.l
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBlNG:
tr UNDEBGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
B FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
-ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr HEATING
O ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
DATE INSPECTOR
pffi*rop
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
INS
o
PE CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
t i" t.
,'\ \ ',!lDATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
CALLER
MON TUES
I
''lt ..
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
F
tr
tr
tr
tr
,FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr
tr
tr
u
POOL / H. TUB
NAIL
tr FINAL FINAL
ELEGTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH O EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
-"-'tr APPBOVED
/,,CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
'.
INSPECTORDATE
pffis,e
INSPECTION REOUEST
,\ \ 'r \ '-)]-:**,Tuo''
'"J r*. \. ,\.',''. \ ,r....*/ \>t\^tbrDATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
JOB NAME
MON -------@ tt
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
CALLER lt\ ,\(A'..
ruES wED ($) r*'
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr BOUGH / D.W,V.tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr ROUGH / WATER
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL/ H. TUB
ELEGTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
TPaoveo
"coRREcttoNS,
T] DISAPPROVEO tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
-t-rooA fun l*dl, C.,', ,,= t-r -(c0,,.,u ?} .
INSPECT
I
PEtNs
j1 1
CTION
TOWN, OF
REOUEST
VAIL
DATE
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
CALLER
TUES THUR
/ 4-. 1,,
WED
Bl
tr
tr
o
tr
tr
tr
tr
ILDING:PL
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
tr
UMBING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATER
FOUNDATION / STEEL
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELE
trT
F.F
0(
tr_
CTRICAL:M
tr
tr
tr
tr
ECHANICAL:
TEMP. POWER HEATING
ROUGH EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
\PPROVEW
RRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
#*oc
]'? !r-INSPECTION REQUEST. TOWN OF VAIL
lf {1 | ).-:-
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE 7 - ' -.''r JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUESREADY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:THUR GFDWED 6rt
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER- PLYWOOD NAILING E GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH .O EXHAUST HOODS
tr
tr
CONDUIT E SUPPLY AIR
T] FINAL i. . tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED O REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
p#ee
- .-1 !' <".1"-. ! -) L.
I
PEtNs CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE JOB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
O ROUGH / D.W.V,tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
dfnnutruc tr ROUGH / WATER
,- ROOF & SHEER" yxv'tooD NATL|NG
E lNSULATlofrl r'
tr GAS PIPING
POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAT
E DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
COBRECTIONS:
INSPECTOR'-
.-. i I i,^t| ' !,,FEnr'rttrNffi INSPECTION REQUEST
Tow| oF vAlL
DATE ., 'JOB NAME
CALLER
MON TUES WEDREADY FOR INSPECTTON:
LOCATION:,'(
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
tr
tr
tr
tr
D
o
UMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
,_ ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
B HEATING
$oun"tr
tr
n
EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT
r'1
SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
/1APPROVED - 1'tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
t
,' '1 ,4,- (i -<tr1\
PEBMIT N MBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR INSPECTION:
LOCATION:
/ JOB NAME
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN. OF VAIL
tr REINSPECTION REQUIREDVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK
tr POOL / H. TUB
NAIL tr
o
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
tr,FOUNDATION i STEEL
# r*or,*n -/'L''7;J;:1 l;/:::,i
DATE INSPECTOR
O
PEINS
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
i. *_ \
DATE .......
CALLER
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THUR FRI AM PMREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STEFOUNDATION / STEEL
tr
D
tr
tr
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
SHEETROCK NAIL tr
trrF \( \\-'.r\ \( \\- 1r\|
tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
tr ROUGH
tr CONDUIT
n
tr FINALtr FINAL
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOOOS
tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
E-APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPBOVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
Date 9/'/f'""''- Y lNSPEcroR
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
INSPECTION:MON
INSPECTION REOUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
.)
CALLER
TUES PMAMWEDTHURFRIREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr BOUGH / D.W.V
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr GAS PIPING
tr POOL i H. TUB
n
f-1
O FINAL
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
O EXHAUST HOODS
tr SUPPLY AIR
-
f1
O FINAL
tr ROUGH / WATER
tr GAS PIPING
tr POOL / H. TUB
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING
B INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
D
tr FINAL
ELE
trT
br
trC
tr-
CTRIGAL:
TEMP. POWER
ROUGH
CONDUIT
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED ;
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTIOU:.REQUIRED
#'-
DATE INSPECTOR
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
t
INSPECTION REQUEST
----4Q'"
JOB NAME
CALLER
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED
'l,Pita
READY FOR
LOCATION:I u-'
4{C,-'
TOWN OF VAIL
freenoveo
GORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIFED
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
CALLER
READY FOR INSPECTION: MON TUES WED THUR FRI AM PM
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDEBGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
O FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER
" pLYWooD NATLTNG tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
D
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRI MECHANICAL:
g
.t
B.
i
tr
tr
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT O SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
APPROVED .tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
DATE INSPECTOR
sfiSs,cp
o
PEtNs CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI AM
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
O ROUGH /WATER
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr
D
EI
tr
o
tr
FRAMING
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
tr POOL / H. TUB
NAIL tr
tr
trFINAL FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANIGAL:
tr HEATING
ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
EI
tr
tr
CONOUIT D SUPPLY AIR
FINAL
tr
tr FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
ffisrop
o
PE
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
INSPECTION:
INS CTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES'WED THUR FRI AM PMREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS i STEEL
PLUMBING:
O UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
T] SHEETROCK NAIL tr
o
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL tr FINAL
F.APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
DATE INSPECTOR
ffilrc,r
t I\\SS INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
NAME
READY FOR INSPECTION:MON TUES @ IHUR FRI
LOCATION:b,
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PL
tr
tr
tr
tr
D
tr
n
UMBING:
EI FOUNDATION / STEEL
UNDERGROUND
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATERtr FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
MECHANICAL:
D HEATING
tr
D
t-l
EXHAUST HOODS
SUPPLY AIR
n
tr FINAL O FINAL
APPBOVED 7 tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
CORRECTIONS:
r.l,'
nfihso"
oor, /- ?6'/2 rNSpEcroR
,r. iii l4l ,; , r'r .tI
'l\\\
PERMIT NUMBEF OF PROJECT
READY FOR
LOCATION:
JOB NAME
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
rgRl
CALLER
TUES THURWED
/,/t*- -,.{ :C t'1
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr FOUNDATION / STEE-
tr UNDERGROUND
D ROUGH / D.W,V.
tr ROUGH / WATERD FRAMING
n ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
O INSULATION O POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
O FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:MECHANICAL:
tr
tr
tr
tr
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH o
tr
f'l
EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
fu,*o'D FINAL
7{aeeaoveo f
CORRECTIONS:
D DISAPPROVED tr BEINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
,t-'
\ Lr=cr. .r \.J {)
DATE
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
JOB NAME
CALLER
INSPECTION:MON TUES WED THURREADY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
.,:\
._)\
Qrl \PM ]AM
6
BUILDING:
U FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
E UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D,W.V.B FouNDAto*) rrr=,-
FRAMING tr ROUGH / WATER
J ROOF & SHEER tr GAS PIPINGPLYWOOD NAILING
tr INSULATION D POOL / H. TUB
tr
tr
SHEETRQCK NAIL D
tr ..'.'
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELE
trT
trF
trC
tr_
CTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL O FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
INSPECTOB
INSPECTION REQUEST
TOWN OF VAIL
INSPECTION:
i NAME
MON TUES @ THUR R PMAMREADY FOR
LOCATION:
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
oo-E\-A-\.,oe
CALLER
BUILDING:
tr FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.
tr ROUGH / WATER
D FOUNDATION / STEEL
tr FRAMING
- ROOF & SHEER" PLYWOOD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
D POOL / H. TUB
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELEGTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT SUPPLY AIR
O FINAL
APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
EI DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIRED
INSPECTOR
n
-'Jn/z' r l'JD
PERMIT NI.ATBER OF PROJECT
I
NSPECTION
TOWN OF
, { -V-
a,\^V--..--
REQUEST
VAIL
I
,rt-l c)^oor. lr,\F JoB NAME
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
CALLER
TUES WED THUR FRI (
BUIIDING:PLUMBING:
FOOTINGS / STEEL tr UNDERGROUND
tr ROUGH / D.W.V.tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
ON / STEEL
tr
tr
B
tr
ROOF & SHEER
PLYWOOD NAILING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:MECHANICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER tr HEATING
tr ROUGH tr EXHAUST HOODS
tr CONDUIT E SUPPLY AIR
tr
tr FINAL tr FINAL
NG
trP
;/paaoveo(/conRectrotrs:
tr DISAPPROVED tr RETNSPECttOru neQUlneo
INSPECTOR
t
INSPECTIONTOWN OF
.,,xi.,.\ Lt".i
REQUEST
VAILPERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
READY FOR
LOCATION:
INSPECTION:
UALL tr|.I
MON TUES WED
BUILDING:PLUMBING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL NDERGROUND
FOUNDATION / STEEL tr
tr
tr
E
tr
tr
tr
ROUGH / D.W.V.
ROUGH / WATERtr
o
tr
tr
tr
tr
FRAMINGr rr^rvrrrY\,I
-ROOF & SHEER GAS PIPINGPLYWOOD NAILING
INSULATION
SHEETROCK
POOL / H. TUB
NAIL
FINAL FINAL
ELECTRIGAL:MECHANICAL:
tr
tr
tr
D
tr
TEMP. POWER D HEATING
ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIf tr SUPPLY AIR
IJ
FINAL tr FINAL q
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REOUIREDn(h RppRoveo;/\
.CORRECTIONS:
oor= ,l/- i -t7 rNSpECroR
nffisrrcp
t
rNsPECr|*O!|,
l-^.t Ilr,r,..^( t-c, *K
}
REQUEST
VAIL
wED @)tn -------@ PM
F ,.^-\t--*{ \x
-)t._)a)PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE JOB NAME
INSPECTION:
CALLER
MON TUESREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
D FOOTINGS / STEEL
PLUMBING:
D UNDERGROUND
tr FOUNDATION / STEEL l.ftoucn / D.w.v.
tr FRAMING "paouca / wArER
,_ ROOF & SHEER" PLYWooD NAILING tr GAS PIPING
tr INSULATION tr POOL / H. TUB
tr SHEETROCK NAIL tr
trtr
O FINAL O FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
tr TEMP. POWER
MECHANICAL:
tr HEATING
o
tr
tr
ROUGH D EXHAUST HOODS
CONDUIT tr SUPPLY AIR
tr FINAL D FINAL
tr APPROVED
CORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
.'|'
t'\ t- . -a)-< l'-\)<)l\J\J
PERMIT NUMBER OF PROJECT
DATE
IN
i". -,c aa, \ \rl
REQUEST
VAIL
t
SPECTION
TOWN OF
INSPEC
JOB NAME
MON
CALLER
TUES WEDREADY FOR
LOCATION:
BUILDING:
O FOOTINGS
tr FOUNDATI
tr FRAMING
/ STEEL
ON / STEEL
PLUMBING:
tr UNDERGROUND
-
r l,/_ DKROUGH / D.w.V. 4
't-r: - f-'V_ JXSOUGH/WATER ( { .
_ tr GAS PIPING
_ tr POOL i H. TUB
r-t
f-1
_ tr FINAL
MECHANICAL:
_ O HEATING
_ D EXHAUST HOODS
_ O SUPPLY AIR
-
r-.l
- ROOF & SHEER
" pLYwooD NAtLtNG
O INSULATION
tr SHEETROCK NAIL
tr FINAL
ELECTRICAL:
O TEMP. POWER
D
tr
tr
ROUGH
CONDUIT
tr FINAL tr FINAL
'pceaoveo
gCORRECTIONS:
tr DISAPPROVED tr REINSPECTION REQUIRED
INSPECTOR
,ti,lillir
L'., - $rl\ a\i I ;
$)El{ ".\*,LNL\CO \i*{Ys\i rd5s!
\si5 {! };:9+,\'>\NN- |t\\ fr
\t:$9u \\Nlt
i$N r$'< g$lie$thak* N-k{'$rsftEvaF fi$sl=N\\7dll+ "'-)$t?rN'..\f N *i\!"' '
il3+\jtj pih[tF
,F$..:sc,:S \sNstscsa\ \,ii tr .
E\Sn\J N? E:i:i,
E
:.--
(J
O
i
\lI
sI
NJlI
N
f-
'\I
\
I
tf
E.
(-
u-
(
r F------------li i tz.tv "
1
I
shlw slgn & Awnlng, lnc" wlll nol ba a€6pon!{Ic lor drmqps lo
|Il|na*€d uidorlaoirtd udldaa, spr h trdbrldOluE cabh3
thal may occlr whlh Indanng CEE. All dErr{ca artd lubs€qipnl
ropal! shall be the 8de .o$qBlullly ol lho p.ooorty dv|le, tomnl
andror aoant.
Ouo to lh€ dilliculty in malchhg romr cobr!, varialiorlt nay occlr
duhg prodE on. All olsclrbal slgns wfll bc wlrsd 120 rrdl ptimdy
sorylco unlo3s dh€ildko rolod. Olh€r volagca ro 6ran$lo at addl.
llonrl cost. Prlrnsry 8enho, lln! dockt oi olhgr 0lecflcal dovlcog
rro not Includod In lhl! Drolonla on,
ThA diasing iir autmitl€d for U3e in a proiocl t €aitg plann€d lo.
you by Shavr Slgn & Arvtlng, l'rc. & msy nd bo t€productd. copl€d, i
grnbled or nund&tul9d by lny dhe @mplny q pc.!o.F wlthqn
wrlttcn ponnbllon lrDm Sha{ Slqn & Awnlng, Ins. Vlohno|r ol lho
abqvo cdrttltrito a cornponlltory lo.lo Shatr 3l9n t Awilng, Inc.
SH\W
SIGN
&
\wNtNG, lNC
1326 t ,bbstor Ava. R. CollinE. CO 8052,1 (303) 49$6244
cLlENI. VA.1L- nA\-rt2t-lA.L pAN|l)
va 4,, rnarfiAa? frn Vt,
LOCATION: \./A.lL
DArE: 4" . 22.ffi
SCALE: t/2//= /-A//
ACCEPTED BY:SPECIAL INSTRUSTIONS:
RIflHHS ta?rA SALESPERSON:DEStGNER:;2rfpp,_
Oo
oo
J
'\
vr)
J\
\J'/-
s
Uv
J-c
\
\
l--joo
oo
oo
oo
oo
oo
I
s
i .r
cJ\a{<-\
n
J
II
o
+..q
Y
A
/-
.t6
t
I
Iq
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
l1
I
I
I
l
I
I
il
tl
il
o.(\|
O6
97z
b?d
=t2
2?"fi
qq"E
;=El
zI
o-
L.JFnl
I
I
I
.--.. I
-l
I
I
-/-
I
nq ...-
d)-q
t;,
ooh
l1| + ,-,A'lll
I
lat9
,OI
?&,5
F-
F
s'/
I
N(t,
dt(0
-r
I
t_
I
I
lt
r+
It
n-ro.
dl I I II I l-J-_)
oo oo
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. OEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS, RESEARCH
itune 20, 1989
KrLetan Pritz
Town of Vall
75 S. Frontage Road lfeetVail, CO 81657
Dear KriEtan:
The purpose of this letter is to acknowledge that the loading
zone indicated upon the attached site plan of the VaiI National
Bank is located wlthin tbe area of Vail Holdings, Inc. property
whLch will be an easenent granted to the Vail Valley ltedlcalCenter for the pur?oaeE of parking. Vail Holdings, Inc. haE noproblen rith the locatLon of this loading zone within ttriEportion of the eaEenent.
Please let ne know lf you have guestions or reguire additionalinformation.
Pit: ne
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Fronlage Road \A/est . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
RESOLUTION
ily the Director of \rNB Building corp.:
BE IT RESOLVED that Sidney Schuttz
retained as Agent for VNB Buil<iing
the purpoEe of making applications
Town of Vail for the re-zoning and
of its Vail National Bank suildinq
aEsociated property.
is hereby
Corp. for
to the
renovation
and
E. B. Chester
lH No/MPrside,
-.ocal Jurisdiction:
Dist/Section/Palrol:
DOH Permit No.:
Permit Fee:
Date ol Transmitlal:
is. hereby granted permission to construct and use an access lo the state highway at the location noted below.The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with ihe terms and conditions of this permit,including.the State Highway Access Code and listed .attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuingauthority it at any time the permitted access an d its use violate any of the terms and conditions of this perm it. The useof advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers are required at alltimes during accessconstruction within State.right-of-way in conformance with the MAN0AL ON UNTFORM TRAFFIC CoNTROL
P:YP^:"1::1Yl:Il"^i.jlils_?!t-holti,.thg oepartment and their duty appoinred asenrs and emptoyees shatr be herd
ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO:
220 lodge rooms, 7400 sq.ft. of meeting/conference space and 24 condos.
OTHER TERMS AND CONDTTIONS:
See Attached Sheet.
MUNICIPALITY OR COUNTY APPROVAL
The person signing as ihe permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permittedaccess and have tll[';'oi'EB3'fi i "FS S'; 5'"FriTF
Date L - t-t-c'i
t[e_pglqrlt and aJl it's tqrrls and conditions.
Permltlee (X)
This permit is not valid until si ned by a authorized representative of the State Department ol Highways.
STATE OF ON OF HWAYS
ROBERT IEF
Upon the signing of this permit the permitGeigreeltd
l::f"'l:ll*.j:LTlilal!:_":lllpJl:9 h :l expeditious.ano sare mannei anJ sharr be rinished wirhin 45 days rrominitiation' The permitted acc€ss- shall be completed in accordance with the t"rrt ino conditions of the permit pnor robeing used. The permlttee shalt no$ty A1 pierce - - --' '- -
wlth lhe Colorado Department ol Hlghwayc In at ?"R_rr?Rs ,at least 48 hourc prlor to commenclng conelructon wlthln the state xighwsy rlghl-of-way.
of State Highway 70 South Frontage Road, a distancefrom MlIe Post 175.
1. District (Original)
2. Applicant y'
3. Stalt ROW
Make copies as necessary for;
LocalAuthority Insp€ctor
MTCE P8trol Trallic Engineer
COLORADO DEPARTA,TEN}r HIGHWAYS
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
THE PERMITTEE;
On the south sideof 4382 feet east
By (x)Date
Requrred;
. . Vail Holdings .elo J. M. Holloway
Amerlcan Gredit Services, Inc.201 East Broad Streec
Rochester, NY 14604
harmtessasainstanvaction forpersonh inlurybipro;;;ttil;;;;;.t;i;;il,;;;;;;il';;;;;i;ijfi1;ili#;
Previous Edilrons aro Obsotste and will not be use(
DOH Fo.m 10'
9/8t
r70sF/77s.76/R
Town of Vail
30219
389037
$75.00
6- 14-89
District
COPY OISTHIBUTION:
o
-Title
{
The lottowtng paragraphs are pe.rtn"lhtlghlr of the state Highwey Accerr Coa". L" ","
proytded for your conr.nlenco bul
do not alleyiale compliance wlth all sections ol the Access Code. A copy ol the Stale Hlghway Accet! Code Ir avallablclrom youa
local issulng authorlty (local government) or lhe Slate Depsrtmenl ol HlghwsyB (Oepattment). When thls pcrmlt wrr lttued, the
lssuing authorily made lts decision based In part on Inlormation submltted by the appllcant, on lh€ acco$ categoly whlch lr
assigned to lhe highway, urhat allernative access to olher public roads and street! ls avallable, and 3ately and d€slgn dandards.
Changes in use or de3ign nol approyed by the permil or the issuing aulhorily may causelhe reyocallon orsuspentlon otthe pe?mll.
I Appeals
1. Should the permittee or applicant chose lo obiect to any ot the lerms or conditions ot the permit placed therein by ihe
Department, an appeal must be f iled with the Colorado Highway Commission within 60 days ol transmittal of the permit for
permittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Highway
Com m ission, 420 1 East Arkansas Aven ue, Denver, Colorad o 80222. The req uest shall include reasons lor the appeal and
may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him.
2. The Department may consider any ob.lections and requested revisions at the request ol lhe applicant or permittee. lf
agreement is reached, the Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (if applicable), may revisethe permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require lhe applicant to submit a new application for reconsideration. Changes in the
original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application.
3. Regardless ot any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and obiections to
the permit, if the pe.mittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, theappeal must be
brought ro the Commission within 60 days of transmittal of the permit.
4. Any appeal by the applicant or permittee ot action by the local issuing authority when it is the appropriate local authority(under subsection 2.4), shall be filed with the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures of the local
authority.
5. lf the tinal action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with lhe County Clerk
and Recorder.
ll Construction slandards and requirements
1. The access must be under conslruction within one year of the permit dale. However, under certain conditions a one vear
trme extenston may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration.
2. The a pplicant shall notif y the otf ice s pecif ied on the perm it at least 48 hou rs prior to construclion. A copy ot the permit shall
be available lor review at the construction site. lnspections will be made during construction.
3. The access construction within highway right-of-way must be completed within 45 days.
4. lt is th e respo nsibility ol ihe permittee to co m plete the con structio n of rhe access accord ing to the terms and conditions of
the permit. It the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by the issuing
authority and Department and included on lhe permit. The Department or issuing authority may order a halt to any
unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvemenls 10 the access may be required when the permittee has
lailed to meet required specifications ol design or materials. lf any construction element fails within two years due to
improper construction or material specitications, the permittee is responsible lor all repairs.
5 In t he eve nt it becomes necessary to re move an y rig ht-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securelv
braced with an approverd end post before the fence is cut to prevent any slacking of the remaining lence. All posts and wiri
removed are Departmeht property and shall be turned over lo a represenlative of the Department.
6. A copy ol the permit shall be avaitable tor review at the construction site. It necessary, mihor changes and additions shalt be
ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditions.
7. The access shall be consl ructed and maintained in a man ner that shall not cause waler to enter onto the roadway, and shall
not interfere with the drainage system in the right-ot-way.
8. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a tralfic control device or public or private ulilities tor the construction of a
permitted access, the work shall be accom plished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and
at the d ireclion of the Department or ulility company. Any damage to the stale highway or other public right-oFway beyond
that which is allowed in lhe permit shall be repaired immediately.
9. Adeq uate advance warn ing is req u ired at all times d uring access consl ruclion, in conlormance with the Manual on U niform
Tratfic Control Devices Jor Streets and Hig hways. This may include the use of signs, llashers, barricades and flaggers. This
is also requiredby section 42-4-501,C.F.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and their duly appointedagents and employees shall be held harmless against any actlon tor personal injury or property damage sustained by
reason of the exercise ol the oermit.
lll Changes in use and violations
1 . lf there are ch anges in the use of the access, the access permit-issuing authority must be notified of the change. A change inproperty use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conlormance with the Access Code or the termJandconditions of the permit, may require lhe reconstruction or relocation ot the access, Examples of changes in access use are;
an increase in vehicular votume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a lefl lurn.The issuing authority will review the originat permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply for a new permit.
2. All terms and conditions ot the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors-in-interest and heirs. -
3. When a perm itted d riveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local government or Department mayobtain a court order lo halt the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority.
lV Furlher inlormation
1. When the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by tiling acompleted permit application f orm wilh the iss u ing authority. The issuing authority may take action only on the request iorimprovement. Denial does nol revoke the existing access.
2. The permitlee, hisheirs, successors-in-interest, andassigns, ot the property serviced by the access shall be responsible formeeting the terms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the access even thouohdeposiled on lhe access in lhe course ol Department snow removal operations. The Department shall maintain'inunincorporated areas the highway drainage system, including those culverts under the access which are part ol that sysiemwithin the riEht-of-way.
3. The issue date of the permit is the date the Department representalive signs the permit which is alter the permi ee hasreturned the permit signed and paid any required tees.
4. The Department may, when necessary for the improved satety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, orredesrgn the highway including any auxiliary lane.
5 Any driveway, whether constructed before, on, or after June 30, 1979, may be required by the Department, with writtenconcurrence of lhe appropriate local authorily, to be reconstrucled or relocated to conform to the Access Code, either atthe properly owner's expense if the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by a change in the use of the propertywhlch results in a change in the type of driveway operation; or at the expense of the Department it the reconstruction oirelocation is necessitated by changes in road ortraffic conditions. Thg necessity for th€ ;elocation or reconstruction shallt;' t " . tr h\/ rntCtFaaa trr ihr...:lrj,rtrrr; S1'l lJltrl tn tlle AalCeSS COOe.
PERIqIT NO. 389037
L0
1i.
L2
L3
Local ordinance requires a construction perrnit from Toun ofVail.
Driveway shall .be constructed 35 feet wide with 15 footradrJ-. surfacing_for driveway approach is required asfolLows: L2tt of class l_ gravei Lh'z, 6'! lifts;'-e; or class 6gravel in 1., 6rt lifts. -
3 Also 3rr of HBp il Z, L.50il lifts of grade E, EX, orequivalgnt. The asphart cement in the HBp-sharr be AC 10.Approach and lanes Gnatt be constructed per ptins dated3-7-89 last revision 3-9-89. No randscabinq'other thangI1:: p!,gnn5oved fl_owers sharl be praced ii ttre approach
:191:.trrangLes. .Upon_completion of the approach iiIexlsErng Iandscapj.ng wiII be reviewed and lny plants foundto interfere with the safe operation of the- lpfiioactr sharlbe removed.
Lanes sharl be constructed as per cororado Departnent ofIigh:lf:' specifications, witfi ir,E i;lt;;i;s;5t;;i;i-piiceaEor_,rJ-naJ- grade: r-2rr ABc, class li 6n anc, class 6i ind 3r'9F,HBP, Grading E or Ex piace in the fotto;int-fiftr, 2 _ 6nIiftsr l- - 6"liftr 2 - L'.5" liits . Shoulderi along thespeed change lanes shall be 4 feet and pavJd. in. n",pavement shall slope on the same plane is the presentpavement surface. The entire roadway sharl be'overlaid with1.5r! of HBp. permanent highway striiing ana sitni;;-;h"ii--'be done by the colorado oivisi6n of irigfrw;tJ i6e actuarcost of the work wi]l be billed to the"perilittee. The costwill not exceed an estimated g2ooo. a hncrsrnnnoPRoJ'Ess roryAL ENGTNEER mu s t p rov i de ce rti f-IEEfo-i-that a 1 rwork was done neeting speci-fication. cERTrFrcATroN wirr-lesent to the Colorado Division of Hignw;t;._- NoTE-avementdesign for construction rnay be mooiiiea'up6-submission oran approved design. by 3 professional engiireer. Such designsharl have a structulal fturnber no ress €han s.so. writteiapproval of the roodified design is reguired beforeconstruction.
No drai-nage from this site shalr enter onto.rthe surface ofEne hrglway. All existing drainage structures shall beextended to accornmodate 5ll new 6onstruction ana-lafetystandards.contractor sharr forrow the applicabre constructionspecifications set-for by the'b-partment of Highways in thelatest manual stanaara s6ecirications -ior-noia'ani' eria.re::+F+c!ig+ rl," _pr::+t1:l::_11=1rnt"d by the construction of this drivewa| andar! expenses j_ncurred for repair. Any darnage to any:I_i:!ll? Iist-'y.y faciriries Sniir be iepair6o fiior toconErnulng other work.cornpaction of sub-grade, embankments and backfill sharlggnply with section zoa.rr or the Divisio"-"i-Hitnr.y=Standard Specif ications.Compaction of Hot Bituninous pavement (HBp) shall conplywith.section 4or..r-7 of the division or'nigirwiys-stanaaraSpecifications.ff fro-st is present.in the sub-grade, no surfacing materialshall be placed until all frost-is gone or removed. .-sahr or score asphart to assure a stiaight "-g;-t-i patching.The first zo feit beyond trre-crosest nighwit'iu;;, i;.iii;i;;:p::|^:hglse lanes, _sharl slope down and awiy riorir tne
*+9"Y1{_1t.? 2E Sra_qg.to ensure proper drainige control.Arr- excavacrons on utiLity Iines, culverts, other trenchesor tunnels shall meet the- requirlments of doloradoDepartment of Highways, osHAf colorado rndustrial commissionand the Colorado Division of Mines whichever applies.The area around the new work shalr be wel} gr"'a'"a-t" drain,top soiled, fertilized, mulched and reseede6..work sha1l BEGrN AFTER 8:30 A.M. and all equipment sha11 beoff the roadway BEFORE 3:30 p.M. each day. - '
L4
L5
PAGE NO. ],
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
. Vall Holdings
c/o J. H. Hollowav
Amer ican Credit Slrvices, Inc.
201 East Broad Street
Rochester, NY 14604
,v '."-"ron oi tn" "i"i6i." J tne perm it,.
LOCATION:
is hereby granted permission to construct and use an access to the state highway at the location noted below.The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with t-he terms and conditions of this permit,including the State Highway Access Code and listed attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuingauthority it at any lime the perm itted access and its use violate a ny ol the terms and coni itions ol th is permit. The useof advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades Lnd flaggers are required at alt times during accessconstruction within State.right-oFway in conformance with the MANDAL ON UNTFORM TRAFFTC CONTROLDEVlcEs' Part vl. The issuing authoriiy, the Department and their duly appointed agents and employees shall be held
on the south slde of rnterstate 70 south Frontage Road, a distance of4013 feet east from Mile post r75 (250 south Fro-ntage Road west).
ACCESS TO PROVIOE SERVICE TO:
One hotel plus private condos (24), service on1y.
OTHER TERMS AND GONDITTONS:
See Attached Sheet.
MUNICIPALITY OB COUNTY APPROVAL
Required only when the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority.
Bv (x)Not Required
Date Title
access and have full to accept the permit and all it's terms and conditions.AIL A..Gg4qral _PartnershirPermltlee (X) Er:ti Date t r.r'i'r
This permit is not valid until signed by a duly representative of lhe State Department of Highways.
STATE OF COLORADO ON OF HI
ROBERT ENGIN
By (x)
No/MP/Side:
Local Jurisdiclion:
Oisl/Section/Patrol:
DOH Permit No.:
Permit Fee:
Date of Transmittal:
r70sFl175.76lR
Town of Vai I
30219
389038
$7s.00
6-14-89
Upon th^esigning ol this permit the p€rmittee ag
*L:'l:lll-".^T:I*li91a{f "glql9t9d in an expeditious and safe rnann.,
"nJ shart be finished wirhin 4s days frominitiation. The permitted access shall be complele-d-i! accordance with the terms and conditions of the iermit prior tobeing used. The permlttee shall noilfy ' Al Pierce - '- - -
wllh the Colorsdo Depailment of Highways In
al least 48 hours prior to commenclng comtrucilon wlthln the state Hlghway -gr,t-ot-way.
The person signing as the permittee must be the owner or legal representative of the property served by the permitted
Requrred:
1. O'strict (Origirai
2. Apglicdnl -
3. Slalf ROW
Make copie3 as n€cessary to.:
LocalAuthority Insp6ctor
MTCE Patrol Traflic Engineer
Ptevious Editions ars ObcoHe and wilt not be us6c
. *"to-#
District
COPY DISTFIBUTION:
Thefottowlng paragraphra?e p€rlnenfrrrgnr!otthe strte Htgn*"rol""r. "oo".tl"r" orovtded toryourconJ"n,"n""ou,
do nol !llevlste compllence wllh all rectlone ol the Acce!! Code. A copy of th. Strto Hlghwey Accaa. Code h rvrllrblc lrom your
local ls!ulng authorlty (local goyernment) or the Slste Deparlment ot Hlghway0 (Department). When thlr pormll wrr |rtucd, tho
i3sulng aulhorlly made it3 decl3lon barcd In prrt on lntormatlon submlltod by tho appllcant, on lho rccc|' calrgory whlch tt .
assigned to the highway, what alletnallye acc633lo other publlc roadt and !lre€t3 li avallable, and lltety rnd derign slsndardr.
Changes in u3e or design not approved by lhe permlt or the l!!ulng authorlty may cause lhe revocallon or!ulpenrlon otthe permlt.
lAppeals
1 . Should the permittee or applicant chose to obiect to any of the terms or conditions of the permit placed therein by th€
Department, an appeal musl be tiled with the Colorado Highway Commission within 60days of transmittalol the permitfor
permitlee signature. The request for the hearing shall be filed in writing and submitted to the Colorado Highway
Commission,4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Denver, Colorad o 80222. Ths r€quesl shall include reasons forthe appeal and
may include recommendations by the permittee or applicant that would be acceptable to him.
2. The Deparlment may consider any oblections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or permittee. It
ag reement is reached,lhe Department, with the approval of the local issuing authority (il applicable), may revise the permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or require the applicant to submit a new applicalion lor reconsideration. Changes in lhe
original application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal ol a new application.
3. Begardless of any communications, meetings, or negotiations with the Department regarding revisions and obiections to
the permit, if the permitlee or applicant wishes to appeal the Departmenl's decision to the Commission, the appeal must bebroughl tolh€ Commission within 60 days ol transmittal of the permit.
4 Any appeal by the applicant or permittee ol action by the local issuing authority when il is the appropriate local authority(under subseclion 2.4), shall be filed wilh the local authority and be consistent with the appeal procedures ol the localauthority.
5. lf the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record the decision with the County Clerkand Recorder.
ll Construction 3landards and requl?em€nls
1. The access must be under construction within one y€ar of the p€rmit date. However, under certain conditions a one year
lime extension may be granted if requested in writing prior to permit expiration.
2. The applicant shall notity the office specilied on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy ol the permit shall
be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction.
3. The access conslruclion within highway right-of-way must be completed within 45 days.
4. lt is the responsibility of ihe permittee to complete the construclion of the access accord ing to the lerms and conditions of
the permit. lf the permittee wishes to use the access prior to complelion, arrangements musi be approved by the issuingaulhority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority may order i halt to any
unauthorized use of the access. Reconstruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permiltee hasfailed to meet required specifications of design or materials. lf any construction element tails within two years due toimproper construction or material specifications, the permittee is responsible for all repairs.
5. In the event it becomes necessary lo remove any right-of-way tence, the posts on either side of lhe access shall be securely
braced with an approvep.end post before the tence is cut to prevent any slacking ofthe remaining tence. All posts and wire
removed are Departmeht property and shall be turned over to a representative of the Department.
6. A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the conslruction sile. lf necessary, minor changes and additions shall beordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site condilions.
7. The access shallbe constructed and maintained in a manner that shallnot cause waterto enlerontothe roadway, and shallnot intertere with the drainage syslem in the right-ot-way.
8. Where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a traffic control device or public or private utilities for the construction of apetmitted access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without cost to the Department or issuing authority, and
at the direction ol the Department or utility company. Any damage to the state highway or other public right-oFway beyondthat which is allowed in the permit shall be repaired immedialely.
9. Adeq uate advance warn ing is requ ired at all times du ring access construction, in conformance with the Manual on UnilormTraftic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use of signs, flashers, barricades and llaggers. This
rs also requrredby section 42-4-501,C.R.S. as amended. The isQuing authority, the Department and their duly appointedagents and employees shall be held harmless against any action tor personal injury or property damage sustained byreason of the exercise ol the oermit.
lll Changes in use and violations
1. lf thereare changes in the use of the access, lhe access permit-issuing authority must be notilied olthechange. Achange inproperty use which makes the existing access design or use in non-conformance with the Access Code oi the termJandconditions of the permit, may require lhe reconstruction or relocatlon of the access. Examples of changes in access use are;an increase in vehicu lar volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent of a directional characteristic such as a left lurn.The issu ing authority will review the original permit; it may decide it is adequate or request that you apply lor a new permit.
2. All terms and conditions of the permit are binding upon all assigns, successors-in-inlerest and heirs.
3 When a permitted driveway is constructed or used in violation of the Access Code, the local govern ment or Depanment mayobtain a court order to hall the violation. Such access permits may be revoked by the issuing authority.lV Further inlormalion
1. when the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his request by filing acompleted permit application f orm with the issuing authority. The issuing aulhority may tate action only oiine request torimprovement. Denial does not revoke the exisling access.
2. The perm ittee, h is heirs, successors-in-interest, and assigns, of the property serviced by the access shall be responsible formeeting lhe lerms and conditions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon the acitss even tnougndeposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department- stralt maintain in
u n i ncorporaled areas the hig hway drainage system, including those culverts under the access wh ictt are part or tlrat system _ ,withan the right-of-way. I
3. The issue date ot the permit is the date the Department representative signs the permit which is after the permittee hasreturned the permit signed and paid any required fees.
4. The Department may, when necessary for the im proved safety and operation of the roadway, rebuitd, modify, remove, orredesign the highway including any auxiliary lane.
5 Any driveway, whether constructed belore, on, or. after June 30, 1979, may be required by the Department, with writtenconcurrence of the appropriate local authority, to be reconstructed or relo;ated to contorm ro tne Access Code, either atthe property owner's expense it the reconstruction or relocation is necessitated by a change in the use ot the propertywhich results in a change in the type ot driveway operation; or at the expense of the Departirent il the ieconstruction orrelocalion is necessitated by change-s, in-ro.aq orlla^{jg g^on-djtr^o1^s.^T-hg 1-fqessity forlh€ ielocation or reconsrruction snattlr€ 4--'o'a . " trv referc'tap {., th'a 5a; kdatOS .-.,{ lOlfll In the ACCeSS COde.
l-
2
3
4
PERMIT NO. 389038
Contractor shall fo1low the applicable constructionspecif i.cationslatest nanual set for by the Departrnent of Highways ir the
*?:t+c!ig{'i rhe-prope:l*rili::_!f -lunted- by- the' c""=ti""[i;;-;i--thir-ail".i'ji,all expenses inLurred- for repair. Any darnage to anyarri ti nar tliahr,rrrr €^^:1:!:-- ^--^;; ' I , a-exist:Il:!_il? Hislyay faciliries ^snarr ue iepiiiEa piio, t"conElnutng other work.
Lo99r ordinance requires a construction perrnit from Town ofVail.
Driveway shalt.be constructed 24 feet wide with 15 footlaqli. surfacing_for arivewJy-ipproach is iteiiiiEa asfollows: r-2' of 6lass i grivei if,'2, e', ritisi-en-or cr_ass 6gravel in l, Gtt lifts. -
No drainase f!9! this site sharl enter onto the surface ofEne hrgheray. All existing drainage structures shalI beextended to accommodate i1t new ionstruction!and-safetystandards
3 AIso 3rr of HBp. in.2, l.S0il,lifts of grade E, EX, oreguivalgnt. The asphalt celneni in the HBp shalr be Ac 10.Approach and lanes stratt be constructed per pfin" dated2-25-89. No landscaping other than grass or approvedflowers shart be praled-in the- appioicrr-iight-iiiingtes.
Y??l ::r!1_:!i:l-"1 the approacn iir existiig-rinaicipinswrrJ- be reviehred_ang any ptants found to interfere with-thesafe opgration of the alpioacn sha1l be removed..Lanes shall be construct-ea,as per cororado oepiitnrent orIigh:?I:' rpg:lli"ftions, wiirr i.n" foltowins material pracedl:.,.:ln"l gracte: 12r ABC, Class 1i 5il ABC; Class 6; ind 3r,or HIil., Gradi.nq E or gx prace.in the following lifts: z - 6nliftsr 1 - 6nliftr z - L'.5'r lifts . shoulder; along thespeed change_ larres shall be 4 feet ana pJvJa. itre newpavement shall slope- on the sane plane is the pi-ientpavement surface. The entire roaiway shalr be'overraid with1.5rr of HBP. permanent highwav stiiirind-i"a-"ie"ing shalibe done by the gotorado Diiisian or hi96wit" -if,;-actual
cost of the work wilr be birled to the-periittee. The costwill not exceed an estimateA $zooo. e hfefsfnnroPRoI'Essro\IAL ENGTNEER must provide certffiT-that atrworK hras done meeting specification. CERTIFICATION Will besent to the cororado-oiiision of Hignw;EF6T-EJFavementdesign for construction nay ue rnoaiii"a'"pr"ffuitission of
1l_?ppl?yed-design. by ? professional engiireer. sucn designsnarr have a structurar Nurnber no ress ahan 3.36. writteiapproval of the nodified design is reguired beforeconstruction.
9
10
11
L2
L3
cornpaction of sub-grade, enbankments and backfirr sharl99nply with Section zor. rr of the Division ;f-Hi;hwaysStandard Specifications.Conpaction of Hot Bituninous pavernent
- (HBp) shall complywitb.section 401. r.7 of the division "r'iiigirr"yl-StanaaraSpecifications.ff frost is presen!.i" !lr" sub-grade, no surfacing naterialshall be ptaied until aII frost-is gone or removed-Sahr or score asohalt to assure a stiaight edge foi patching.The first 20 feat beyona-itrJ-crosest highway tane, i;;iiiei;;
:p::9_9h?nse lanes, _-halt slope down and awiy-ii-ir tnenrgnway at a 2t grade to ensure proper drainlqe control.Arr excavattons on Utility lines, culverts, o€.her trenchesor tunnels shall meet the-requir6nents of coloradoDepartment of Highlays, osHA; colorado rnaustriii-cornrnissionand the cotorado-oivision of 'r-ri"".-wrri"h;;;;-;iiii"".
The area around the new work shart ue wett-g.ihEd-t" drain,top- soiled, fertilized, ruulched and reseeded..work shall BEGrN AFTER 8:30 A.M. ana ait-tquipnent shatl beoff the roadway BEFORE 3:30 p.M. eacn a-y.
L4
15
PAGE NO. ].
., COLORADO DEP HIGHWAYS
No/M P/Side:
Jurisdiction:
OisUsection/Patrol: 30219
DOH Permit No.: 389036
Permit Fee: $ 75. 00
Dale of Transminal: 6 - 14 - 89
17oSF/ 17s.86/R
Tosn of Vail
STATE HIGHWAY ACCESS PERMIT
VNB. Building Corp.r.
108 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
ACCESS TO PROVIDE SERVICE TO:
Existing Vall Natlonal Bank
Vatl Valley Medical Center
OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS:
AND
west access and
177-space parking structure.
VaiI Valley Medical Center
181 West Meadorr Drive /1100Vail, CO 81657
is. hereby granted permis$ion to construct and use an accgss to ths stat6 highway at the location noted below.The access shall be constructed, maintained and used in accordance with ihe terms and conditions of this permit,including.the State Highway Access Code ancl tisted attachments. This permit may be revoked by the issuingauthority if at any time the permitted access and its use violate any of the terms and conaitions of this permit. The useof advance warning and construction signs, flashers, barricades Lnd flaggers are required at alltimes during accessconslruction within State.right-of-way in conformance with the MANUAL ON uilIFORM TRAFFIC coNTRoLDEVlcEs' Part vl. The issuing authoriti,.the Department and their duly appointed agents and employeeJshal be heldharmtessagainsr anyacrion torpersonariniuryorprofertvoi'nig"i;"1;i"A;tr;-";;;;i;;';;#isl;ft;,,ii;
LOCATION:
on the south slde of rnterstate 70 south Frontage Road, a distanceof 4541 feet east frorn Mlle post 175.
See Attached Sheet.
COUNTY APPROVAL
the appropriate local authority retains issuing authority.
Bv (x)Date
Upon the signing ot this permit the permiltee agrees to the termJino conoitions and referenced attachrenbi6iiiiiEi
Jl",li_il:1ll-?o":I191l9"_.l"l1bo completed in an expeditious and safe manner and shail be finished within 4s crays from
rl
I
MUNICIPALITY OR
Required only when
initiation. The permitted access. shall be completed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit prior tobeing used. The permlttee rhall noilfy AI Plerce
wlth the Golorado Deparlment ol Hlghwayr In 328-6385.-.....-.--'at leasl 48 houB prlor to commenclng conslrucllon wlthln the state Hlghway rlght-of-way.
The person
access and
as the permittee b€ the owner or legal ot the- property served by the
Permlttee 4+?44t
This permit is not valid until signed by a duty authorized representative of the state O€partment of Highways.
STATE OF COLORADO,OF HIGHWAYS
ROBERT ENGINEER
Bv (x)931s 6-?2-89 1ils
(Dale of issue)
Title
Required;
l. Di3tricl (Original)
2. APPlicant,--
3. Slall ROW
and all it's
Mak€ copies !s nec$sary tor;
LocalAulhority In3pector
MTCE Palrol Tratfic Engin€er
cHl
Pt6vio6 Edilions lrc Obaolato and will not bo usa
DOH Form 16
ei8
COPY OISTRIEUTIOl{t
Th.tollowangplragrapht.rapcrttnenluqnrroirn"a,"**,ii"yl"""rrcoo".rl""r"proytd.dtoryourconrrntcncrbu$'-.
do nol !llevirlo complirnca with .ll 3octlonr of lhe Acco$ Code. A copy ol lh. Strtc Hlghway Acccr! Codc lf ayrll.blclrom youl
locll l3sulng aulhotlty (loc.l goyornmont) or lho Slate Oepartmonl ol Hlghwryr (Doprrlmcnl). Whon lhlr parmll wm lr|uod, thrlsrulng rulhority made llr decldon bared In part on lntormstlon submltted by thc rppllcrnt, on thc.oc..r c.t gory uhlch la.
a3signed to lhe hlghway, what.lternallve acce33 to othe. publlc roadr and rlroel! h ryellsble, !nd tlfol, rnd derlgn ilendrrdr,
Chenge3In u3e or deslgn nol approvod by lhe permlt orlhel3rulng authorlty mry caule lhe revocallon orru!p.nllon ol the pcrmlL
I Appe.l.
1. Should the permittee or applicant chose lo obiect to any of the terms or conditions of the p€rmii placed therein by th6Oepartment, an appeal must be filed with the Colorado Highway Commission within 60 days ottransmittalof th€ permit forpermittee signature. The request for the hearing shall be liled in writing and submitt€d to th€ Colorado Highway
Commission, 4201 East Arkansas Avenue, Oenver, Colorad o 80222. Th€ requost shall include roasons for lhe appelt animay include recommendations by the p€rmittee or applicant that would be acceptabls to him.
2' The Department may consider any obiections and requested revisions at the request of the applicant or pormitt€e. It
agreement is reached, the Deparlment, with the approvalof the local issuing authorily (il applicabl€), may revisothe permit
accordingly, or issue a new permit, or r€quire the applicant to submit a new application for reconsiderati6n. Changei in ttreoriginal application, proposed design or access use will normally require submittal of a new application.
3. Regardless of any communications, mgelings, or negoiiations with the D€partment rggarding ,€vision3 and objections tothe permit' if the permittee or applicant wishes to appeal the Department's decision to the Commission, the appeal must bebrought to the Commission within 60 days ol transmittal ot the p€rmit.
4. Anyappeal bylheapplicant or p€rmitte€ of aclion bythe local issuing authority when il is the appropriate local authority(under subsection 2.4), shall be liled with the local authority and b€ consistent wilh the appeil'proceoures of the locilauthority.
5. lf the final action is not further appealed, the Department or local authority may record th6 decision with the County Clerkand Recorder.
ll Conrlruciion rtandards and requlroment3
1. The access must be under construction within one year ol the permit date. However, under certain conditions a one yoar
lime extension may be gtanted it requested in writing prior to permit €xpiration.
2. The applicant shall notify the office specified on the permit at least 48 hours prior to construction. A copy ot the permit shall
be available for review at the construction site. Inspections will be made during construction.
3. The access construction within highway righFof-way must be completed within 45 daF.
4. lt is the responsibility oiihe permittee to com plele the construction of the access according to ihe terms and conditions ofthe permit. It the permittee wishes to use the access prior to completion, arrangements must be approved by th6 issuingaulhority and Department and included on the permit. The Department or issuing authority miy order i nan to an!unauthorized use of the access. Reconslruction or improvements to the access may be required when the permitteg haafailed to meet required specitications of design or materials. lf any construction elemenl fails within two years due toimproper construclion or material specitications, the permittee is responsibl€ for all repairs.
5' In the event it becomes necessary to remove any right-of-way fence, the posts on either side of the access shall be securslybraced with an approveP€nd post belor€ th€ lenc€ is cut 1o prevent any slacking otthe r€maining fencs. Allpostr and wirCremoved are Departmefit property and shall be turned over to a representative of the D6partme;t.
6' A copy of the permit shall be available for review at the construction site. It necessary, minor changes and addifions shall b6ordered by the Department or local authority field inspector to meet unanticipated site conditio;s.
7. The access shallbe constructed and maintained in a mannerthat shallnot cause water to €nter onto the roadway, and shallnot interlefe with the drainage system in the right-of-way.
8. where necessary to remove, relocate, or repair a tralfic conlrol device or public or private utilities for th€ construction of apermittect access, the work shall be accomplished by the permittee without costto the Department or issuing authority, and
at the direclion of the Department or utility company. Any damageto thestate highway or other public rightJof-way beyondthat which is allowed in lhe permit shall be repaired immediately.
9. Adequate advance warning is required at alltimes during access construction, in contormance withthe Manualon UnilormTraffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. This may include the use ol signs, flashers, barricades and flaggers. Thisis also required by section 42-4-501,c.R.S. as amended. The issuing authority, the Department and th€ir duly-a-ppointedagents and employees shall be held harmless against any action tor personal injury or property damage sustained byreason of the exercise ol the permit.
lll Change! in ure and vlolationr
I . lf there are changes in the use of the access, the access permit-issuing authority must be notilied of the change. A change inproperty use which mak€s the existing access design or use in non-conformanc€ with tha Access Code oithe termJandconditions ol the permil, may require the reconstruction or relocation oltheaccess. Examples of changes in access useare;an increase in vehicular volume by 20 percent, or an increase by 20 percent ot a directionai characteris-tic such asa tettturn.The issuing authority witl review the original permit; it may decide it is adequat€ or request that you appiitora new permit.
2. All terms and conditions of the petmit are binding upon all assigns, successors-in-interest and heirs,
3. when a permitted driveway i3 constructed or us€d in violalion ofthe Access Code, th€ localgovernment or Oopanm€nt mayobtain a court order lo halt the violation. Such access permits may be r€voked by the issJing authority.
lV Furlher lnfo?matlon
1. when the permit holder wishes to make improvements to an existing legal access, he shall make his r€quest by f iling acompleted permit apptication form with the issuing authority. The issuing authority maytake action only oi the request torimprovement. Denial does not revoke the existing access.
2. The permitiee, his h€irs, successors-in-interest, and assig ns, of the prop€rty serviced by th€ access shall be rssponsible tormeeling the terms and condilions of the permit and the removal or clearance of snow or ice upon ttre acciss-Jvln tnougndeposited on the access in the course of Department snow removal operations. The Department shail mainrain inunincorporated areas the h ighway drainage system, including those culverts under the access which are part of that syslemwithin the right-of-way.
3. The issue date ot the permit is the date the Department representalive signs the permit which is after the permittee hasreturned the permit signed and paid any required fees.
4. The Deparlment may, when necessary for the improved satety and operation of the roadway, rebuild, modify, remove, orredesagn the highway including any auxiliary lane.
5. Any driveway, whether construct€d betore, on, oratterJune30, 1979, may be required by the Department, wilh writtenconcurrence ot lhe appropriate local authority, to be reconstructed or relocated lo contorm to tho Access Code, e ner atthe property owner's expense if lhe reconstruclion or relocation is necessitated by a change in the use ol the propertywhich results in a change in the type ol driveway operation; or at the expense of the Departirent if the recon"lir"tion o,relocalion is necessitaled by changes in road or traltic conditions. The necessity for the ielocation or reconstr;tion shallbe detefminou hv rFlF.anpo t.r thG ata.rdrrde rqt farth In ih€ Acaaar Cod..
PERIIIIT NO. 389036
1
2
Logql ordinance requires a construction perrnit from Tohrn ofVail.
Dri,ygway_shall-be constructed 40 feet wid.e with L5 footradii. surfacing_ for drivehray approach is iEq"ii.a a,folrows: 12'r of "+?9. L gravet in'i]-[;; ilri!l-6;=of ctass 6gravel in 1, 6n lifts. -
3 Also 3rr of HBp- in.2, l.5olr-lifts of grade E, Ex, orequivalent. The asphart 6eneni in the HBp shall be Ac Lo.Approach and lanes Srratr. tre cons€iucc-a- flr-piiis-aatea3-7-89 last revision 3-9-89. No randscaiGg-;tiier thanSTa:: or.approved fl_owers shalt be ptace& fi tfre-ipproachsi.ght-triangles. .Upon.conpletion "i ifre-"ppr"i"n-"ffexisting _laidscapin| will 6E-iE"i"wea ana-iii-pr-ants foundto interfere witl t6e saie "p"i"[i"n of the ipiioactr shallbe removed.
_!?n9" shall be constructed as per Colorado Department ofrlieh1?ys_ specificalioni, -wit[ i[e ;;ii;I;s"i5[!ii.r praced
I:",ji""I_srade:_i.2n 4Bc , cr.r--r; G,, ABc; cii"=-e i and 3,,or dnri, Gradlnq E or Ex_plgcg.in the folloiring lifts: 2 _ 61.lifts; 1 - 6,'tifl'i z - r-.s" riiCs snouraeii -rong tne
15teed change_Ian9s shall be 4 feet ana pivea.- i[" ""wpavement shall slope on the same plane is tfre pi.""rrtpavenent surface. -The entire roah*Ji-"tirr--te-6iErraid with1.5r' of HBP. permanent highway s{riiring-""a-rig"Ing shallbe done by the cororado piiisi6n-or irigfiways -if,e-actuar
.:??l :I-t!g_wo1r wi1l. be billed to trr--pefrittee. rhe costwill not exceed an estimat"a-Szooo. a hrqcisitREDW must.pr6vide certfEETiFthar atl
L0
11
L2
-
lrr-vy r\.s rvEl. LltI(;ctLIfJn f'naE allldork was done neeting speci-fication. cnnrrrrcairow wiir-uesenttotheCo1orado-piiisionofrrignware;Favernentdesign f or construction nay re -noai iiea' up6n:suu-:rn-ission ofan approved desiqn. by ? pro.fessional engiireer. sucfr aesignshalr have a str[ctuiar irumlei-no- 1"r" than 3.36. writtenapproval of the nodified design is requiiae ;;i;;"construction.
l-19 d-rgipage fron this site sharl enter onto rthe surface ofthe higlway. Alr existing drain-ge structur4J--irrirr ueextended to acconmodate ill new 6onstructiori ana safetystandards.Contractor shall follow the applicable constructiongPecif ications set for uv ttre-'oepartrnent of Highways in thelatest nanuat W;e"tri;;tli;;-;#Ffy:ti?Ir:_.Il'" -p:y+tl:l::_ll.T9qi"d by the construction or rhis drivewa| andarr expenses incurred for repair. Any danage to any:Il:!lng Hishway facil_itie" ;h;ii re i.epiii6a piior tocontinuing other work.conpaction of sub-grade, embankments and backfill sharlggnply with section 2o3.rr or the oiviJi";-;i-Hitnr.y,Standard Specif ications.Conpaction of Hot Bituminous pavement-(HBp) shall conplywith-section 4oL.L7 of the division or'nitfrway--StanaaraSpecifications.rf frost is present in the sub-grade, no surfacing nateriarshall be plaied until_ "if-fi"rt'i= gorr" or removed.sar't or score asphart to assure a stiaight-eage-rJi patching.The first 20 fear beyond in"-"r"..st tritnwit'r.;;; includins
-spegd change lanes, _snatt slope down and awiy froin tneligt'yly at-a 2r sr;qe.li-ensu-rJ propei -ar;i;as;-;;ntrol.
Arr excavations on Utility lines, culverts, ofher trenchesor tunnels shall neet the-requirenents of toloradoDepartment of Highyaysr osHA,- colorado rndustrial commissionand the colorado-oivision of 'uinEs-wrri"[;;;;-;ppii"r.
The area around the new work shalr ue weir-gritEd-to drain,top_ soiled, fertilized, mulched and. reseeded.Work shall BEGIN AFTER B:30 A.M, and all equiproent shall beoff the roadway BEFORE 3:30 p.M.'eacn a-y.
13
14
15
PAGE NO. 1
o
rtrfs AGREEIIENT is dated as of tiay 22, 1989 by and betweenvl'IB Building corp., a l{evada corporation (vNB) and Vail crinic,Ine. d/b/a VaiI valley Medical center (rlospital).
..:
' '
nnciiars
a. tlospital is engaged, in a tax-exempt borrowing tofinanee, in part, the cost of construction of a pirking structure(hereinafter rrParking Structurert) to be located generally at theeast end of Hospital's existing property and on an easenent to begranted to the Hospttal by Vail Holdtngs, a South Carolina generalpartnership. The legal description of the real property which issubject to the eaeenent and ls owned by vall Holdings ii referredto as the 'rVail Holdlngs ProperLyil and is described in Exhibit A.The property oqned by Hospital (the [Hospi_taI propertyrl) isdescri-bed in Exhibit B.
b. vNB wishes to purchase an exclusive, irrevocablelicense to use parking spaces in the parking structure, ssject tothe terns and conditions herein.
c. The parties wish to cooperate regarding the provisionof access to the Parking structure and the reconfiguration of theaccess to the vNB site from south Frontage Road, Vail, cororado.
llOW' TIIEREFORE' in consideratlon of the mutual covenants andpronises contained herein, the parties agree:
L. Constructlon of parklnq Structure. Except asprovided below, Hospital wi.Il construct, Et its expense, theParking structure, in substantial accordance with tha prans andspecifications which have been previously delivered to vllB.Nothing in this Agreement is intended to piovide vNB a right tooversee, approve, or veto any aspect of the construction of theParking structure, and wMc nay alter the plans and speci.ficationsas it deems necessary or proper.
2. Relocatlon of Access.
a
:..'"....,.:-!*.]:
:; j:
' -.'1
easternpublic access to a
c. VlfB will construct and pay for all work or other.coetE requJ.red to have the inprovements-shown wLthLn the croeelhatched lines on ExhibLt C ionior:m to Exhibtt C.'
b. VNB wlll move lts exlstlngpolnt generatly opposlte the easternnost poEt offlce
durLng
entrance.
the
4.
Er \'NB naybtddlng or negotiatlon exercise
stage of lts optl-on
Hospital I s
ae fo1lowe cconstructlon
b. The |tCoet of thE Adrlitional parking Spacesrr, forpurposes of this Agreenent, shall be based upon the cosC of "addingonrr-twelve parklng spaces to the cost of conJtructLon of HosptiaitsParkrng structure. The coEt of the Adclitlonal parking spacei-"[i[be the difference betrreen the contractorrs estLnate- td uuitd thelarl+nq striucture and the sane contractorrs estiuate to buird theParking stnrcture enlarged to include twelve rpaces for vl[B. suchestinates shatl includg the actual hard consdnrct,ron cosis, pi"=the propo-rtlon of buildlng pr:rmit fees due to the aaalltinarconstructl.on, the proportion -or tne architectrs fee attributabreto additlonat construction (7.5t of hard constructron cosisi-inathe irroportton of the contractorrs perfortnance and palment bondpreniun attrLbutable to the additlonai constructfon Jf -trr?opiion"a
parklng spaces, but shalt not include any cojts ior ventllatlon orsprlnklers for the parklng Structure.
its contractor
delIv ces by Hosp )
an amount equal toreIiJi-oi'""eari
of,
n
deliverl.ng to ttospltll an iirevoialle letier or creart-erawn ,ii;;a- natlonal -bank, ln favor of the ltorpititr- i;;; a8ount equar to
shall-be payable upon \tNBrs fairurl or refusar to pay the cost ofthe additional EDaces ult-h{n fhraa /.rr hrrar{raaaa .{a*r c^l 1^..r-- ..L^!!9 alairti-onal epa-i.as wlthl.n three (3) busine"" a"Pa te.l
After receivlng notice of tire exerclie of VNBf s
.o
Parking spases, !1oip"t_t-.*"-.s*q+]]-' be de.prned to havg
7. Use and Locatlon of parklnq Spaces.
o
optJ-on, Hospitar wl-lI construct the Addttlonar parking spaces butwirl not charge vNB more than the cost of the Additi5nai parking
spaces as defined above and presente'i to vNB prl"or to its exercis6of lts option. Fallure to exercise the optlon in strict accord,ancew_ith the provisJ.ons of the paragraph 4 Jhall result in a lapse of
VNB| s optlon under -!hls agreenent.
i5. PaEnent. Vt{B shall pay to Hospital the Cost of theAdditlonal Parking spacaa upon denind for payment by the llospitalafter completion of the Parking Structure (ttre - npay DaLeil) .Hospltal nay - denand paynent under thls paiagraph -upon tirecompletlon of !!" forlowing: a) conpletion or - tne - parkLngstructure; b) derivery to vNB of a varid certlfLcate of insuranc6coverage pursuant to paragraph 7t and c) delivery to vNB of a finatCertlficate of Occupancy for tlre earkiirg Struct-ure.
6. Grant of License. Upon completionStructure and full payment by VNB of the Cost of of the Parking
the
Facilities
however, to
llcense shallHospital anddeternine thetLeve-nise
e
be
e
by and between the Hospital and Colorado HealthAuthority. - Such license shall be perpetual , subject,all conditions set forth herein.
b. -Ttre parking spacee shall be used only for theparklng of autonolrlles, notolcliclee, Ilght tmcks or ians, andshall not be used for storage.oi for-the parklng of rarge tmcks,busee, lrmousines, boats, tralrers, recreitlonal vehlclSs, "r iniother oversized vehlcle.
c. VNB shalL be solely responsible for .the
designation or authorizatlon of all pers6ns iniluatng enproyeeJ,
o
tenants and custoraers of wB who may uae the parklng spaces. underno clrcunstances-shall suclr persons l,e consldlred iiviiees, expressor inplied, of the Hospital.
d. VNB shall" pay to Hospital , upon presentation ofa statement therefore, it.s pro rata shar:e of Hospital,rs costs ofcleaning and snow removal roi tne parklng structure. such pro ratashare shall be based upon tlre proportion of twelve parking spacesto the toE,al nunber of spaces in the parking struciure fion-tiue.to. tine- Hospitar shal1 pay arl otlrer costs of operation,maintenance, snow removal and util"itles for the parking siructure.llospital shalr maint,aln app::opriate property casualty and generalliability insurance .coverag:e on the -narking-Structure. Vl{B shallbe naned as an additional insured on such poricy or policies as j_tsinterest nay appear. vltB shall rnaintaln appropiiate property,casualty and general tiability insurance coverage with rlsplct toits property and operations.
e. If the parklng structure is destroyed for anyreason to such an extent as to not alrow the usE of the specificparking spaces licensed by urB as provided Ln thls Agriement,Ilospital sharl erect one of the followlng three options:
(i) llospital nay conmence rebuilding orrestoration of tbe use of t.he park.ing st,ructure and vl,lBrs sliacetwithin a reasonable tine after: the lols of usei or
(ff) Hospi.t.al may relocate vNBrs licenserlparking spaces to another rocat.ion within the parking structure;or to another locatlon on.any other Ilospital property located atl-81. west, Meadow Drive,- vail , cr:lorado vrhich is not iubject to aright of reverter, as describerl in paragraph lOi or
(fii) Hospital nay palr to \nIB an amount equal tothe pro rata unused portion of the Recapture period of the l-icense(as defined below in paragraph ro) tined the cost of the Additionalearklng spaces paid by vNB. upon paynent of such anount, vl{BrsLlcense shall te::minate and be -xtingtiisnea.
f. Hospltal nay voluntarily denolish or raze theParking structure. rn the event Hospitai chooses to do so, itshalI elect either the.option descri.bla in subparagraph 7(e) (ii)or subparagraph z(e) (tii) , above with respect -to fxgis riclriseirspaces
8. .
a. Vt{B shall pursue with alL dellberate speed theapproval of l-ts present proposed rezoning wtttr ,t1e Town of vail .upon signature of this Agreement by vr'lB, -ws shair promptly applyfor an access reperrnit and/or execute al1 other docuurLntg ne-esslryto secure the approvar of the st,ate Hlghway Department, the Towir
o
of Vail, or any other jurisdiction having authority over theredesign, relocation or construction of the access to SouthFrontage Road by the llosi:ital ft--on the parklng Structure asconternplated in Exhlbit c.
b. This Agreement shall be ntrll and voici if thecolorado state HJ-ghway Department or any other 'body withjurisdiction over the access repennit, fails to approve and toi-ssue an access repermit by August I, LgBg, vrithout furtherliablllty to either party.
9. Vail Holdlnqs.
a. If regulred by Vail Holdings, llNBts ll-cense shal1not extend to parking spaces located on the vail Holdings property.
This Agreenent and any license granted pursuant to this Agreenenl,are subject to and expressly conditioned upon the existence of avalid easenent to be granted by Vail lloldingrs to the Hospital toenable the Hospital to construct the parking Structure and accessranps, and Hospj-tal nakes no representations or lfarranties withrespect to the such easernent. Ilospital shall have no obligationto. perforrn any provision of this Agreement if the easenent frornValI Holdlngs is not granted by Sep{enber 1, 1,989.
b. Upon execution of this Agreement by the parties,vlfB r.rilr r.'el-ease the access reperroit application- descfibed inparagraph B (a) . If vail Holdings has not executed an agreementri!!. Hospital by June 10, 1989; which agreement reguit'es Vaillloldings to grant to Hospital an easement on the vail HoldingsProperty, 1 lB may withdraw l-ts accees repermJ-t appllcatlon.
10. Acknowledgenent of Reverter.
. a. Vl{B acknowledges that the real property uponwhich ltospital j.s ]ocated and upon which a portion of t]he parkinqstructure is to be located is suuJect to a lorfeiture or reverterclause contained in a deed fron vail Associates, rnc. to vailClinic, Inc., recorded Decenber 2, L977 in Book 263, page 243 inthe records of the clerk and Recorder of Eagle county, colorado.vNBrs llcense to parking spaces is subjeCt to suiti right ofreverter.
b. ff the real property upon which the parkingstructure is located reverts uacr to vail assocJ-ates, rnc. or itiassJ.gns durlng the Recapture period as deflned berow, then Hospitalsharr pay to vt{B an,amount eguat to the pro rata unused portion ofthe Recapture Period of the license tiues the coJt of theAddltlonal Parking Spaces paid by VISB.
c. For purposes of this paragraph a, theRecapture Periodrt shall be a period of trririy (rol years from thedate of flrst occupancy of the parking st-ructure. After the
o
expiratl.on of the Recapture Period, no amount sharl be payab].e byHospital ln the event of a ross or extinguishment of vNB-rs-rLcensiby reverter or otherwj.se ,as pr:ovider! above.
As an example, aesune (1) Cost of AdditlonalParklng Spaces equals $120,OOO; (2) Recapture period ls 30 years,and (3) due to rerocatlon of Hospltar, Ilospitarrs property rivertsto vail Assosiates 20 years afLer occupan-y or paixtng siructure.Hospital would pay to VNB $4O,oOO. $a/3O x gl2o,O0O = g4o,OOO.)
11 . @. If a pe.Jestrian bridge or walkwayconnecting the Hospitalrs parklng structure with VNBrs site i3required or imposed as a conclit,ion of any necessary approval ofHospitalrs parking structure or Vt{Bfs proposed rezoning by the Townof VaiI , Hospital agreea to pay the cost of such bridge oi wall'.way.
L2.. Vail 4ssoclates. Inc. IJaiver or Release. Hospitalwlll obtain from Vail Associat:es, rnc. a docunent, in recordable
fotm' -reasonably satisfactory to vNB, which waives, or rereases,i!: right of reverter only as to the easenent conveyed by VaiiClinic, Inc. to Vail professional Building croup, Ltd., dated2/L9/8L:, and described on Exhibit D, attached hereto andincorporated herein by reference.
13.MlscellaneouF.
a. This Agreement is bindlng upon the heirs,successors and assigne of the partles.
b. Tlne is of tlre essence of this Agreernent.
c. This AgreemenL shall be governed by the laws oftbe State of Colorado.
' cl. Any provlsion of thls Agreernent prohibited by thelawe of the state of colorado or the united statLs of A:nerida orheld to be invalid by a court of conpetent Jurlsdlctlon shatL beineffectlve onry to the extent or sucf, provlsion withoutlnvalldatlng the renaining provisions of this Aireenent.
e. This Agreement constitutes the conplete agreementof the parties hereto, and may not be changed or riodLfied exceptby another agreenent- ln writlng executed by both partles.f. . This Agreement or docunent signed by the partiesreflecting certain covenants herein or the litense -conteirplated
hereby nay be recorded in the offlce of the Eagle county cteitc anaRecorder.
9.. YNB aqlrees not to oppose any fubure expansion ofHospital . Ilospital agrees nor to opp-ose any future expansion of
VNB.
h. Any notice requirecl to be given hereund,er shallbe deened to have been given when mailed by certlfied nail , returnreceipt requested, postage prepaid, .,ddresied, as follow, or if handdelivered to the person(s) and addresses below:
If Hospltal:
If to WIR:
My cornnission expires :
!.1; i::.:;l::l:i e:;!i35 hnu3ry 3' l33C
vall valley.Medical CenterlSL West Meadow OrlveVail , coLorado 8:.657' Attn: Adrainistrator
VNB Buitding Corporatlonc/o Hanover Realty corporat,ion
650 South Cherry Streetsulte L025
Denver, Colorado 80222
orin to such other address or person(s) as the parties may designatewritlng.
/)wr'
STATE OF COTpRADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF Denver )
The foregoing was subscribed and sworn to before me bypaul w. Povters, vice President, vNB Building CorP.
vart clrNrc,
VAI].. VAIJ.EY
rl{c. d/b/a
}TEDTC]\L CENTER
7
:
co
Atteet:
(SEAL)
SIATE Ol COrroRADo
coulrry o" 4&.=-_ l ""'
-c#j"&'318:i'
My connLeeLon explresI
crlbed and swom to betora na byf,or{jglng was eubs
Notary rtbll
u3IN3o -lV0l03Fl ,l
rN3l4l3SV3 3UnJ.
lr,
@tr,o -otft'r-r |r,.BXBT
!sg:;
||||||ll€-'i6
?,,t-f(,o'"*,
{+,
t
l-
-1trtrl
io
I Itt:ur
Ir itlc
'tcr .r{
)lrt)9
(ouu
;ortq
oFfi.;:o;ql
3o6r-&
,oo.cOUrta
0att,
rar|.l !,oo
F{ i{
It
UI
-h
.'.qsi&jIg,q
: \r)
""rt&
ra.{
tlLr{
ltrtrl
a)o
) I't:ur
.l{i'c
'1 C
)9
'(OO,U
;c
9E
of
o';-ti{J
3i
61
!, I
I
*)t9r
rta
at,
o
r"l I
>r
lr
}J
rn(,
cnco
a
!,uco
!,
oF{
It
..'.q
cl (6l(rd| 1,1
t cr'i
Ila,
_crt>J
,|)€: .'{
lr)
rla1o
0s,c
/l )r
Olrvr 6)rlJNOirn o
rtaOoEG, ../
Ctr rcioc
lt}{
}l!tr(!lc
G'
UA
OlOlla{ |
oa
thtrO{
|r:.tt
\oo(
t'ro:clat
t')'
a0|tta(ol
r|(ttIJ
or{oE
U
rG
tc,. it
I
ta
, itr
rtD
) f'l
oJ.\r
rl
uo
or
r.Dutoa-..{ rn€o|!c
!<t |Jidt')
cng|cl.',< o>qr6.Q3
'.q.aJ I
o
'Flttlio(tEli.r (
rg'
lol\>.,;!I6r
.i oi/
I,sr: o.
u(O }rt.1 {
|ol,
or +,,
6g?6
,otg, rJ!oo;g9
tl
E {rlfr(9
Ot-gl\|
B-
,{OO ll,$a t+a
0A erFtO
,'i uN5
tt!
:.{ ii
3o
*go-
=>;;6
c
i!,AT
Ltj
-b tii !l.lt9.rqi I
i 3.
arl
uu'
|Jo
^o
llo
-YO
iruie
!l +'
Ioorog
3B
coout $a
o o'rTFI
ON
UEt|l6rrJi.<
m'l"|
orr(!su
t0j
Ar..o
tsao,t
or
tr' '.r ir-1
:!lI A'1il-l,q,}J
.Or,lo'
i'q,u€r.9
n 9l
.i e,4-c
dioJ+t
Jlrr
=or'O
61 rtl
vIF n|
ar igiro
'.i DlI>.O'{ c)
oottn+rat |ttocoov)
oo{J"cc#
EO!tJ
!6'
OD
OJ
o''o...=
adta.-6(6!
o\
Fl(
a
, a.,u,ciI o;
|iJ r
a r'Jo.l),
lo;F.
nl
{
.ld
abio
po
Orochwrr!o
ooEE
t|.oo
u*,
oono
to
'.{ {Jocoo
QF!c
$Lt|{[)|\lq,cl b..
E8
O,Fort
5uEa"E
lrc!Jr'0r.
rCitni
lF{'d ictr I
,),,1
!i.js,
J.o\,
t.YN
f.,6e
:' '.tto.-e3
I \,r5o
ottaa:i
or>E.{coct
oi?00lQN
ottE '.1rro
v,
9ob"54s
.8"
E'gc
a9l
q
!,(t!
!::.qn
E'r
!Ftc
a
7
0r'c-
Or(r.
(
>!
}.0!llr
3|
tO
c,s
,o&
Ita)
tta
orE
c
oi
s
ooE-r.Jtl
orsa)
o!nltr+,
.lct|.
Eo
Hs
:EEoi;'lgt
iiij
EEEoot'^ l!sHr
? of
+fl9cGlOr.rO3,!.\ r.a
Fi +'. [,,.rNE
6(\l l->or!l-'8Eo-.r(Y8cad''t.t.E
^?e9 lgst{ x(tL t- B
E rii
E e a.g
EXHIBIT A
t-
k
h
(t
t,
-..-i.... .... _..-. ._ -.,...,-.._-.--rr5
-.'-r'v-
EXHIBIT II C IT
3
r\-- - {'\. --
\
)IJr,\
-'' '/4 .tqt0
6
s-soory
".,1.
- -- -.- *-' 'it'Tntt *o*---_
JJ,I{"t{JI
l PlRl ol rIXr E, NIENDED xAP or SHEET I oF z oF vArL vrrJ.AGE.EEeoxD rrLrHc, A suDDrvrgro[ RSCORDED rrt TIIE oFFrcE oF iHEEIIGII eoIrNtY' colpRlDo, cIrRX
^ND
RECORDER, SAID PARI or rol eEETNC XORE PTRTICI'IARLY DSSCRIEED A5 FOIJ.OI{S:
BEGIHNIITC AT TUE flORTHEASTERI.Y CORNER OF S&TD I'! E, THENCEsoum 10 DEGREES 18 !{!NUTES 17 SECOHDS ?'EST 146.00 FEET, AISNGTttg EASTERLY LIHB OP SAID InT E; TllIiNCE, DEPARTfNG SA!D'
E.ASTERLY LIIIE, }TORITT 79 DEGREES {] ilIIN'TES 13 SECONDS WEsf
15.00 FEEI' THEHCE NORTTT 4 DEGREES 06 IITNUTES 35 SECONDS EAST
a6.27 FEEII THEI{CE NORTII 10 DEGP.Elis 18 I{IlruTES 47 SECONDS EAST100.00 FEE!, TO THE NORTnERLY LIIiE OF SAID LOT E, THENCE SOUTH79 DEGREES '1 HT}TUTES 13 SECOITDS f.\ST 2O.OO FEET, AI.ONG SAID
IIoRTIiERLY LINE TO THE POfllT or BECTIINING' i\s FlrRTttER DESCRIEEDIN EASEI.{ENI RECoRDED l('tRcH 13. 19n1 1o BOot( 3I9, AT PAGE 8gB.
EXI.IIBIT S
o
AGREEMENT
TRIS AGRAEMENT is made by and between vail Associates, fnc.,a Colorado corporatlo;r ("VA) and VNB Building Corp., a Nevadacorporatlon (uvtlo,tl and Vail CIlnic, Inc., d/b/a vail Valley..
Medical Center, arT€xas non-profit corporation and is dated as ofthe last date executed by the parties below.
i
PRET.}TBLES
1. By deed dated Novenber 23, Lg77 fron VaiL Assoclates,fnc. to Vail ClinJ.c, fnc., recorded Decenber 2, L977, in Book 263,
Page 243, ln the records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County,
CoJ.orado, vA retained a right gf forfeiture or reverter, aE tocertain real property conveyed by such deed to VaiI Clinic, Inc. i
and ':
2. By conveyance of easenent dated February 19, 1981.
recorded on March 13, 1.981 in Book 319, Page 888, Reception No.
2L6258 of the Clerk and F.ecorder of EagJ.e County, Vail Clinic, fnc.granted to Vail Professlonal Building Group, Ltd., a Colorado
Limited partnership, an easement to certain real property describedin such easenent as Parcel A; and
3. In order to prornote, facilitate
achievenent of the expansion of Vail Clinic,Valley Medical Center, VA wishes to resolve any
as to the assertion of any right of reverter with
..A, which eagenent is now owned by VNB.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of thecontained in this AgreernenL, the parties agree:
and expedite theInc., d/b/a Vail
doubts rernainlng
respect to Parcel
mutual covenants
1. \llf B agrees
a certain agreenent dated
to execute and perforrn all provisj.ons of
llay 22, 1989, by and between VNB and VaiICenter, wh
of
tage
the legal description of whlch
Road.
2.ls attached
As to Parcel A only,
h_ere!9 and. Lncorporated herein as Exhlbit A,to as Exhlbit B,
and a map
VA hereby
or
977ic,
e
Ytis
assfqn
,'.
-t
3. Thts document may be recorded at Vl,fBrs expense
rN WTTNESSJ{HFF8OF, the partj.es have executed thls Agreenentas of the date above.
vArL ASSOCIATES, INC.,a Colorado corlporation
By3
Title I
STATE OF COLORADO
couNry oF €?1/. i "='
/ef oing f^IaS bscrlbe sworn to
a
('ar o c-i n|. t
, 1989.
t19
before rne
to before me by
by4Jso
I'Iy connission expires :
(sEAL)
STATE OF COIFRADO
couNry oFq/apAJ-i t"'
The fo
s 6tt- day o
My conrnlssion expired
ing was subscribed and sworn
STATE OP COIPRADO
My connission expLres:
s subscribed and BT{'OTN
, 1989.
to before na by
couNrv oF IFJTIZ- i "
Efo
s
ffit;;;,---t
o
EXIIIBIT A
PARCEL E
A part of_.!gt E, Anended ttap of Sheet 1 of 2 of Vailvrrrage, second FIJ-ing, 'a subdlvlsio'n ;";a;e ln the "riic"-6Fthe Eagle County.,. Co].orado, Clerk ana necoiaer-, Jifa-pait-;idiE belng nore partlcularly described as eottows:'
-.49-v-i11rng at the northeasterry corner of said Lot E, thances 10o18t47n w 146.00 fgut, arong th"-easterry ltne of sala Lot;;thence,-,departing _sa.ld ^easterlf line, l,l -igtct,fir w 15.o0-i""t,thence N 4o06rr35rt 9 46.27 feetr- thence N rO"1Br [i" A fOO.OO i;a;!o lhe nortlrerly line of said Lot 8; thenee s 7go4lr13n E zo.o6feet, . along said norther.ry r.ine- .f,o the point or - uegin;G,containlng 2805 sguare f,eet-or 0.064 acres, niore or !.ess.
H3gs
-LJ it1=
E9 tdl e
"iI zri i
9S P
sg!a
EI
t9 -2
=ax>
fi;
o
;'sTR[cruRF ESSEME{j'
:'Ltr C l( |
Lll( SliE AO
..\ t:lLlhr(i
ct'13"w r7? !t'
rtf on,vt
_ IrPttrtlPlnt/t(a tRa:t
!rl'E
\,I LLA(:E
.rL'r l:lLlt{(:
POufrot or
tu,a ouac to rt -ttEuovEo -'-
?tCtL C€ ttn SuLotHG
--
\o
.tz
.J
J
t:J
t' 15 !
I
lr.
l,-.
i
i
)tnL
\i
hl
t\i
o l1r"--'ri
r{ /
IIQtlt{t\l\
,xt.l I
ontra '.' j
x tgc at' tt' f r,oo
t5
L---_.| 20I Utt!rtftr3tttL
I
t
I
i
s lc r8' .t"
trvutnlT
, zo'
Project Application
Date
Proiect Name:
Proiect Description:
Contact Person and Phone
Owner, Address and Phone:
Architect, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: Lot Block Filing , Zone
-
Com ments:
Design Review Board
Motion by:
Seconded by:
APPROVAL DISAPPROVAL
: ---------:; --I .:-
Summary:
own Stafl Approval
FZ .t/a./zAf' &,*-'
MINUTES
VAIL TOt,tN COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 16, 1989
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Counci'l was held on Tuesday, May 16, 1989, at
7:30 p.m. in the Counci'l Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor
John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem
Gail t,lahrlich-Lowenthal
Tom Steinberg
MEMBERS ABSENT: Eric Affe'ldt
Michael Cacioppo
Merv Lapin
T0VJN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first order of business was 0rdinance No. 9, Series of 1989, second reading, an
ordinance requesting a rezoning from High Density Mu'l tiple Family Zone District to
Commercial Service Center, with a special development district, to allow for
additional parking, loading, and an expansion of the Vail National Bank Buildjng.
The full title was read by Mayor Rose. Rick Pylman reviewed the changes made sincefirst reading:
1. VNB Parcel , used in the title and jn the third paragraph of the ordinance
was changed to VNB Building.2. Under Section 4,2., the landscape plan drawn by Dennis Anderson
Associates, Inc., was revjsed May 12, 1989.3. The entire paragraph under Section 8 was deleted and replaced with
"Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to
Section 18.40.100 of the Vail Munjcipal Code."
Rick then discussed the revised landscape plan. Sidney Schultz, representing the
Vail Natjonal Bank, explained the request and the problems which would be incurredif the Council denjed the ordinance. Mayor Rose gave addit'i onal informat'ion for Tom
Steinberg, who was absent at first reading. Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal noted she voted
against the ordinance at first reading and explained why, but she respected the
situation tonight and did not want to stop the project. She felt the project
inherited the prob'l em and did not create it, so she would vote for the ordinance.
There was then some discussion on alternatives. John Slevin made a motion to
approve the ordinance on second reading with the changes noted, and Gail Wahrlich-
Lowenthal seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 4-0.
The second item was Resolution No. 23, Series of 1989, creating the Town of Vail
Transportation and Parking Advisory Commjttee. Stan Eerryman stated the staff was
bringing this resolution to Council at Council's request. He gave brief background
informatjon on the Task Force's actjvitjes sjnce 1984, and commented the resolution
would formally create an Advisory Committee. He then listed some of'the names of
those pnesently on the Task Force (other than the Mayor and Town employees):
Two Council members - Merv Lapjn, John Slevin
Two Planning and Environmental Commission members - Sidney Schultz, Diana
Donovan
One person from Vajl Associates, Inc. - Joe Macy
One person from the Forest Service - Bil'l l,lood
One person from the Department of Highways - Rich Perske
One person fron Eagle County - Jim Fritze
Five citizens from the Town of Vail - George Knox, Dave Gorsuch, Rob Levine,
Lee HolIis, Dave Rimel
He then asked that they be ratified as the Advisory Committee members. There was
some discussion regarding the citizens, and it was decided to delete the words "from
the Town of Vail" for any future changes in members. A notion to approve the
nesolutjon with the wording change in H. was made by Tom Steinberg and seconded by
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal . A vote was taken and the motjon passed unanimously 4-0.
The next agenda item was the Robert Gunn request for a front setback variance and
modjfication of the 100-year Mill Creek floodplain (342 Mill Creek Circle). Mike
Mollica explained the applicant's two requests, then reviewed the cri teria used in
these requests. He stated staff recommended approval of the variance request
because it would create a hardship on the appficant if it was not granted. As far
as the floodplain modification, staff recommended approval with three conditions:
1. That a permit from the Army Corps of Engineers, either and Individual or a
Natjonwide Permit, be obtajned prior to the issuance of any building
permit for the ProPertY.2. That approval from the Federa'l Emergency Management Agency be secured
pri or to the issuance of any building permit for the property.
3. That a groundwater analysis be completed, as an addendum to the EIR, prior
to the issuance of any building penmit for the property. Said analysis
shall conclude that there will be no adverse affect on adjacent properties
regarding the issue of groundwater.
He then noted the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended unan'imous
approval of the stream rnodification and the front setback vari ance. Mike then
stated the 250 square foot request was tabled untjl the next PEC meeting at the
applicant's request. The PEC was opposed to the applicant's 250 request and was
about to motion for denial of the 250 request when the applicant requested tabling;
the PEC voted unanimously for tabling. He then read a letter from Mr. Higbie
opposing the stream modification and noted he had received letters earlier from two
others in favor of the stream modification. Mayor Rose comnented the Council called
this issue up to discuss and understand it more. Jim Morter of Morter Architects,
representing the applicant, felt the 250 square foot request could be put to rest
because nothing could be done until the.applicant went through the Design Review
Board. He stated the applicant would be within the allowed GRFA without requesting
the additional 250 square feet, but they did want the ability to go through the DRB.
Council had some discussion on the 250 GRFA. Tom Steinberg stated he would only
agree to approval if the applicant agreed not to app1y. for the additional 250 square
feet before the five year limit. Jim Morter stated the applicant did not need the
250 square feet and was within the GRFA allowed. Larry Eskwith explained what the
250 ordinance would allow; there was more discussion. Jim Morter reviewed the
problems of building on the lot and how it came about. He remarked why it was a
hardship and showed how they would change the stream f1 ow; he then reviewed the
relocated creek and how it would be improved. Bill Ruzzo djscussed the technical
aspects of moving the creek. He stated they had turned in the report and analysis
to Mike Mollica this evening for the first and third conditions required by staff.
Regarding the second condition, FEMA approval , they were in the process of making
application at this time. They had rnet wjth the Region Director in Denver and had
submitted the required forms. Technically, the applicant was not encroaching into
the 100-year floodplain, but they will proceed for the map 1ine revision due to the
creek relocation. He asked Council to change the condition so as not to depend on
approval for a building permit. Mike Mollica agreed; they would change to an
occupancy permit instead of a building permit. There was some discussion of a
sedjment problem during construction, to which Mike Ruzzo responded. Jim Morter
commented Mrs. Gunn wanted it in the record that any trees damaged for a period of
up to three years after the construction (as a result of the construction) will be
replaced. A motion was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal to approve the request for a
front setback variance and modification of the 100-year floodplain because of
staff's findings that this will not grant a specia'l privilege and will not injure
the public's health; a1so, the variance is warranted because the strict
interpretation of the guide1 ines would produce a hardsh'i p for the applicant; a1so,
that approval be granted in accordance with the staff recommendations in their
memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Commission dated April 24, 1989, except
to modify condition no. 2 to change the wording from a building permit to an
occupancy permit. The motion was seconded by John Slevin. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 4-0. Tom Steinberg asked staff to bring back the 250
ordinance for evaluation. After some discussion, it was decided to review general
GRFA items at the next Council Work Session. Gajl suggested Council needed to do
site visits to identify what's right and wrong, and do it when all seven Council
members were here. Staff agreed this would be addressed sometime in June.
The fourth order of business was the Fritzlen and Pierce appeal of the Planning and
Environnental Commissjon decision to deny a sjde setback variance request (2998
-2-
South Frontage Road West).
now:
Mike Moll ica reviewed the chronological events up to
1. A variance request was approved by the PEC on January 23, 1989, to allow
this property to be cons'i dered for rezoning by the Town Council. The
approved variance was for a 6,620 square foot shortage in the minimum lot
size of the Primary/Secondary Residential zone distri ct.
2. The Town Counci1 approved a rezoning request, from RC to P/S on March 7,
1989. This rezoning has allowed for the addition of a secondary, rental
unit on the lot.
3. The PEC, on March 27, 1989, unanimously voted (7-0) to deny the
applicant's side setback variance request. The PEC found that the request
would be a grant of special privilege and that the applicant's stated
hardship was self-imposed.
M'i ke then reviewed the crjteria and findings staff used in consideration of this
request. Staff and the PEC had a problem determining the physical hardship and felt
approving the request would be a grant of special privilege. Staff recommended
denial , and the PEC voted unanimously 7-0 for denial . He then presented photographs
of the residence to Council. Willjam Pierce, the owner and applicant, exp'l ained
exactly where the stair would be located and its uses; he also discussed why the
other alternatives would not be as acceptable. There was some discussion on the
alternatives and why staff felt there was no physical hardship. John Slevin felt
this was a special situation not normally shared with others and therefore could be
approved on this basis. After some discussion, Mike Mollica stated no other areas
were real 1y affected, but the PEC very clear'ly felt there were other options. He
discussed what options the PEC felt were available, but the Council generally did
not agree with the PEC's decision. John Slevin made a motion to overturn the PEC's
denial decision regarding the side setback vari ance request with findings in Sect'i on
4 of the Community Development report, and more specifically, the exceptions/special
conditions that apply to this applicant. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimous'ly 4-0.
The next item was a Landmark Condominium sign variance request. Betsy Rosolack
remarked the Landmark was requesting a third sign (two are permitted) for a total of
24 square feet of signage (20 square feet are permjtted). She stated they wanted
the third sign for the east side; they have two a'l ready, and this third sign would
result jn a total of four extra square feet. She reviewed the criteria and findings
used by staff in studying this request, and noted staff supported the request for
the third sign and the 4.3 addition square feet. Betsy also commented the Design
Review Board recommended unanimous approval 5-0 for the variance request. Aften a
short discussion by Council, Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal made a motjon to approve the
sign variance request in accordance with the findings of the staff memorandum dated
May 16, 1989. John S'l evin seconded the motion. A vote was'taken and the motion
passed unanimously 4-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
There being no further business, the meet'ing was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.
Respectful 1y submi tted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
MINUTES
VAIU T0WN COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 2, 1989
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail
P.M., in the Council Chambers
Members Present:
Members Absent:
Town Officials Present:
Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 2, 1989, at 7:30
of the VaiI Municipa1 Bui1ding.
Kent Rose, Mayor
John Slevin, Mayor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Gai I Wahrl ich-Lowenthal
Michael Cacioppo
Merv Lapin
Tom Steinberg
Ron PhiIIips, Town Manager
Pam Brandrneyer, Town Clerk
The first order of business was approval of the minutes from the April 4th and 18th,
1989, meetings. Eric Affeldt moved to approve these minutes. John Slevjn seconded
that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
The second order of bus'i ness was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989, a fjrst reading,
an ordinance requesting a rezoning from High Density Multiple Fami'ly Zone District
to Commercial Service Center, with a special development district, to al'l ow for
additjonal parking, loading, and an expansion of the leil Nati !,.
Mayor Rose read the title in ful'l . Rick Pylman explained the reason for this zoning
request stating that the existing VaiI National Bank Building consjsts of a
three-story office building, with two levels of underground parking. The first
floor of the building is occupied by the Vail National Bank, wjth the two upper
floors leased to various professional offices. The site upon which the building
sjts js in the High Density Multiple Family Zone District, and at the time this
project was built'i n 1976, the office space was approved as a conditional use.
Later, office use was removed entirely as a use from the High Density Multiple
Fami1y Zone Distri ct. As a result, any addit'i onal office space would not be allowed
today. For this reason, the owners of thjs building wish to rezone the property to
Special Development District, with limited under'lying uses listed in the Commercjal
Service Center Zone District. The applicant is requesting to restri ct the permitted
uses to the folIowing:
1) Professional offices, business offices and studios
2) Banks and financial institutions3) Business and office services4) Travel and ticket agencies5) Additional offices, businesses or services determined to be similar to
permitted uses
Crjterja to be used in eva1 uating this proposal were those for a request for zone
change as well as the nine development standards, as set forth in the Special
Deve'l opment District Chapter of the Zoning Code. First to be considered was
evaluation of a zone change request from High Density Multiple Family Zone District
to Special Development District, with underlying commercia1 service center zoning'
1)
2)
3)
4)
Suitability of existing zoning.
Is the amendment presenting a convenient, workable relationship within land
uses consistent with municipal objectives?
Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community?
Criteria relating to the land use plan, i.e., the land use plan designates
this area as resort accommodatjons and services, but the land use plan does
not specifica] 1y designate this site as an office area. Staff be] ieves
that the office use does make sense due to the following:A. The property's proximity to the South Frontage Road and I-70; and
B. Other adjacent offices and public uses such as the hospital and
Mun'i ci pa1 Bu i 1di ng; andC. The fact that the office use already exists.
The second grouping of criteria relates to design standards or c1i teria in
evaluating SDD proposa'l s.
1) Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment,
neighborhood, and adjacent properties relative to architectural design,
scale, bu'l k, building height, buffer zones, identity, character, visua'l
integrity, and orientation.2) Uses, activity, and density that provide a compatible, efficient, and
workable relationship wjth surrounding uses and act'ivity'3) Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined jn Section
18.52.4) Conformity with the applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive P1an,
Town po l i ci es, and Urban Des ign p1ans.
5) Identification and mitigation of natural and or geologic hazards that
affect the property on whjch the Special Development District is proposed.
6) Site plan, building design and location, and open space provisions designed
to produce a functionai development responsive and sensitive to natural
features, vegetation and overalI aesthetic quality of the community.7) A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians on and off
site traffic circulation. Rick noted at this point that this area
specifjcal 1y was of Planning Commission concern in regard to a pedestri an
walkway between the bank and the hospital .8) Functjonal and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views, and function.9) Phasing Plan or Subdivision Plan that wil'l maintain a workable, functional ,
and efficient relatjonshjp throughout the development of this special
development district.
The Staff recommendation was for approval of this rezoning and Special Development
District, with the following conditions:
1) The owners receive a CD0H approval for their access permit request before a
building permit js released for the proposed bank expansion.2) That the uses a'l 'l owed under the Special Development District with the
underlying Commercial Service Center Zoning shall be limited to the
fo'l I owi ng:a. Professional offices, business offices and stud'iosb. Banks and financial institutionsc. Business and office servicesd. Travel agenciese. Additional offices, busjness or servjces deternined to be similar to
permitted uses. Retail uses are specifica1 1y not allowed on this
Property.3) Any landscaping that dies within one year of the transplanting sha11 be
repiaced wjth a similar size and type material by the owners of the bank.
In respect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three new trees having each a
diameter of 8" to 12" shal1 replace the existing trees. The height of the
new trees shall be a minimum of 25 feet. This later was amended by
Planning Commission to include the wording that any landscaping that dies
within a two year period of transplanting shall be replaced with a sjmjlar
size and type material by the owners of the bank.4) If the loading zone is relocated in the future, the new location shall be
approved by the PEC using the major amendment to an SDD review process.
Mr. Pylman summarized by saying that the staff felt it was appropriate to rezone
th'is property to a district that allowed for office use. He also stated that staff
believed the special development d'i strict zoning allows for flexibility and the
thorough review of any future development on this particular site. He fjnalized his
comments by commending the owners of the bank and the hospital for working together
to address both staff and PEC concerns.
At this point, several individuals from the audjence spoke on behalf of the
applicant. Sid Shultz, acting as architect, spoke to the pedestri an access and
landscaping; Paul Powers, working with the Vail National Bank Building, addressed
on-site parking; and Jay Peterson, an attorney representing the bank build'i ng,
addressed parking as it relates to the travel agency that has been included jn this
revised ordinance. Eri c Affeldt then moved to approve Ordinance No. 9, Seri es of
1989, on first reading, with a second from Mike Cacioppo. Gajl I'lahrlich-Lowenthal
stated she would vote against this ordinance due to her belief that parking was
inadequate. She also requested that the staff should really evaluate what is going
on with this particular building as it relates to the rest of the corynunity and
potent'i a1 renovations and requests of this sort that the staff and Council will be
seeing in the future. Eri c Affeldt, in regard to his motion, also strongly
suggested that DRB work with the Vail Va1 1ey Medical Center for the pedestrian
bridge between the two properties, those properties being the medical center and the
-?-
bank building. Mike Cac'i oppo a1 so stated strong feelings regarding the potential of
the loading zone in its present location and the difficulty that this would create.
John Slevin requested that staff revise its policy on office building parking, and
with this, a vote was taken and the motion passed, 4-1, with Gail l,lahr'l ich-Lowentha'l
voti ng aga'inst that mot ion .
Item 3 on the agenda was action on a proposed contract to vacate 66 square feet of
Forest Road rjght-of-way in exchange for $30,000.00 (Rnn Rynne, Charles Biederman).
Kent Rose supplied background in regard to this proposed contract stating that a new
proposition was to be presented to the Council. He described this new proposition
as follows:
That the $30,000.00 would be assessed for use or purchase of an easement and that
this easement would remain encumbered untiI such tjme that the property was
renovated or torn down. Jay Peterson, attorney for the applicant, further stated
that this should be viewed as a perpetual easement, subject to the terms Kent hadjust described. Clarifications were then made in regard to Resolution No. 17, and
pertaining to this easement. Those changes were as follows:
Resolution No. 17 changed to Number 22; and
The easement should be between the Town of Vajl and Forest Road Associates,
rather than Charles Biederman; and
A new survey, including the garage overhang, be completed and attached to
the easement.
To coincide with current Town of Vail Building Code, it was discussed that as far as
the garage being destroyed, this means more than 50% of that garage structure being
destroyed. Wjth these changes, John Slevjn moved to approve Resolution No. 22,
Series of 1989, and Kent Rose seconded thjs motjon. Gordon Erittan spoke at this
time to state as a citizen of the Town he felt the only equitable way for the
Council to handle this matter was to require the garage to be torn down. John
Slevin then amended his motion to jnclude the changes previously discussed, as well
as, changing the term "residential" on page 2 of the Resolution to "garage". A vote
was taken and the resolution passed 4-1, with Eric Affeldt voting against this
resol ut ion .
Backtracking to Item 3, Act'i on on Proposed Contract to Vacate 66 Square Feet of
Forest Road Right-of-Way in exchange for $30,000 (Ron Byrne and Charles Biederman),
no action rvas taken.
In regard to ltem 4, Ordinance No. 10, Series of 1989, first reading, an ordinance
vacat'ing that portion of the platted Forest Road right-of-way, Vail Village, first
filing, and setting forth detajls related thereto, John Slevin made a motion to deny
the ordinance, and this was seconded by Kent Rose. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unaninously 5-0.
The next items of business were Resolution Nos. 6,7,8,9, 10, tt, t2, 13, 14, 15,
16, 17, 18, 1.9,20, and 21, Series of 1989, designating the fo1 lowing as
depositories for the funds of the Town of Vail as permitted by the Charter of the
Town, its Ordinances and the statutes of the State of Colorado. They are as
fol I ows:
1)
2)
3)
Resolution No.6
Resolution No.7
Resolution No.8
Resolution No. 9
Resolution No. 10
Resolution No. 11
Resol uti on No. 12
Firststate Financial , 0r1ando, Florida
Sterl ing Bank, Burbank, Ca1 ifornia
Security Bank of Kansas City, Kansas City' Kansas
Farmers State Bank, Denton, Montana
Coral Coast Savings Bank, Boynton Beach, Flori da
Bank of Horton, Horton, Kansas
First Federal of the Carolinas, High Point, North
Carol i na
San Antonio Federal Savings Bank, San Antonio, Texas
Sterling Savings & Loan, Irvine, Cal ifornia
First Savings & Loan, Beverly Hills, California
Frankl in Bank, San Mateo, Cal ifornia
Security Savings & Loan, Chicago, Illinois
Hawthorne Savings & Loan, Hawthorne California
Midstate Savjngs & Loan Association, Baltimore,
Maryl and
Exeter Bank, Exeter, New Hampshire
F irst Nati onal Bank of G lens Fal I s, Gl ens Fal I s, New
York
Resolution No.
Resolution No.
Resol uti on No.
Resol uti on No.
Resol uti on No.
Resol ut'i on No.
Reso'l ut ion No.
13
14
19
16
77
18
19
Resolution N0.20
Resol uti on No. 21
-3-
GaiI }lahrlich-Lowenthal moved to approve these resolutions, with a second from John
Slevin. A vote was taken and the resolution passed 4-1, with Mike Cacioppo voting
against these resolutions because he was unfamiliar with Security Bank of Kansas
Ci ty.
Item 6 on the Agenda was Proclamatjon No. l declaring June, 1989, as Colorado
Recycling Month. Eric Affeldt moved to approve this proclamation with Mike Cacioppo
seconding that motion. A vote was taken and the motjon passed unanimously 5-0.
The next item of business was action to grant permission to the Vail Metropolitan
Recreation District for the construction of Vo'l Ieybal l Courts at the east end of the
Athletic Field on Vail Va'l 1ey Drive. After a brief discussion regarding the
positioning of these fields and some introductory remarks by Pat Dodson, John Slevin
moved to grant permission to the VMRD for this construction with the provision that
if parking problems occur, the VMRD Board address and cornect them. Eric Affeldt
seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 5-0.
Under Citizen Participation, there was none.
There be'ing no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:50 P.M.
Respectful ly submitted,
Kent R. Rose, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town C1 erk
Minutes taken by Pamela A. Brandmeyer
-4-
ftl\qz,,.lo'
ORDINANCE NO. 9
Series of 1989
AN ORDINANCE REZONING A PARCEIJ OF I,AND LEGALLY
DESCRTBED AS THE VNB BUILDING, ACCORDING TO A PI,AT TO
BE RECORDED WITH THE EAGLE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE FROI'{
HIGH DENSITY MULTIPLE FAI'fiLY TO COI{MERCIAL SERVICE CENTER
AND ESTABLTSHTNG SPECTAL DEVEIOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 23
FOR A PARCEI.,, OF I.AND LEGALLY DESCRTBED AS THE VNB BUILDING
ACCORDING TO A PI,AT TO BE RECORDED WITH THE EAGI,E COUNTY CLERK AND
AND RECORDERS OFFICE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL
MI'NICIPAL CODE AND SETTING TORTH DETATLS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes
special Development Districts within the Town in order to encouraqe
flexibility in the developnent of landi and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Developnent
District approval for certain parcels of property within the Town
known as a parcel of land IegaIIy described as the VNB parcel ,
according to a plat to be recorded with the Eagle county crerk and
Recorders office to be known as special Deveropurent District No. 23,
commonly referred to as the Vail National Bank Buil_ding; and
WHEREAS, application has further been made to rezone a parcel of
land legally described as the VNB Buildj_ng, according to a plat to be
recorded with the Eagle county clerk and Recorders office fron High
Density Murtiple Family to cornmercial service center in order to
allow for the range of uses and activities proposed for Special
Developrnent District No. 23t and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.L4O, the planning and
Environmental commission held a pubJ-ic hearing on the proposed zoning
arnendment and the proposed SDD, and has subrnitted its recommendation
to the Town Council; and
I{HEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been
sent to the appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required
by Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail .
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED By THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
oF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section l-.
The Town Council
amendment as set forth
finds that the procedures for a zoning
in Chapter 18.65 of the Municipal Code of the
-t -
v-e
Town of VaiI have been fully satisfied, and all other requirernents of
the Municipal Code of the Torlm relating to zoning amendrnents have
been fully satisfied.
Sectlon 2.
The Town Council hereby rezones the property rnore particularly
described in E><lribit A, attached hereto, frorn Higtr Density Multiple
Farnily to Comnercial Senrice Center.
Section 3.
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set forth for
Special Development Distrlcts in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code
of the Town of VaiI have been fully satisfied.
Section 4.
The Town Council finds that the developrnent plan for Special
Development District No. 23 meets each of the standards set forth in
Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail or
d,emonstrates that either one or rnore of theur is not applicable, or
that a practical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved. In accordance with Section 18.40.040, the developnent
plan for Special Developrnent District No. 23 is approved and Special
Development District No. 23 is hereby approved for the property
described in Exhibit A. The development plan is conprised of those
plans submitted by Sidney Schultz - Architect AIA, and consj-sts of
the fol.lowing docunents:
1. Architectural Plans designated as Sheet A1 through A5,
dated April 10, 1989
2. Landscape Plan drawn by Dennis Anderson Associates, Inc.,
dated April 10, 1989' revised May 12, 1989.
Section 5.
The development standards for special Developrnent District No.
23 are approved by the Town Council as part of the approved
developnent plan as follows:
A. Setbacks
setbacks shall be as indicated on the site plan set forth
in Section 4 of this ordinance.
-2-
e
B. Heiqht
Building heights shall be as indicated on the elevations
and roof plans set forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
C. Coverage
Site coverage shall be as indicated on the site plan set
forth in Section 4 of this Ordinance.
D. Landscapinq
The area of the site to be landscaped shall be as generally
indicated on the prelLrninary landscape plan set forth in Section 4 of
this Ordinance.
E. Parkinq
Parking dernands of this development shall be net in
accordance with the off street parking requirernents for specified
uses as stated in Section 18.52 of the vail Municipal Code.
Section 6.
for Special DevelopmentFollowing are conditions of approval
District No. 23:
/ L./ The owners receive a Colorado Department of Highways approval
fbr their access pennit request before a building penoit is released
for the proposed bank exgransion.
/ ?/. The uses allowed under Special Development District No. 23 withv_-the underlying Cornnercial Senrice Center zoning shall be linlted to:
A. ProfesEional offices, business offices, and studios.
B. Banks and financial institutions.
C. Business and office senrices.
D. Travel agencies.
E. Additional offices, businesses, or services determined to
be sinilar to pernitted uses.
Retail businesses are specifically not allowed as a use with
Special Development District No. 23.
(g/-- Any landscaping that dies within 2 years of the transplantingV
shatL by replaced with a similar size and type naterial by the owners
(e
-3-
It'I
of the bank. In
trees having each
existing trees.
feet.
(
respect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three new
a dianeter of 8 to L2 inches shall replace the
The height of the new trees shall be a urinimum of 25
-V Section 8.
Pfts
-
ad> If the loading zone is relocated in the future, the new location
Yshall be approved by the Planning and Environmental Cornrnission and
Town Council using the major anendnent to a Special Developnent
District review Process.
Amendnents to
pursuant to Section
Section 9.
the approved development plan nay be granted
18.40.100 of the Vail Municipal Code-
If any part, section, subsection, sentencer clause of phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, srrch decision
shall not affect the validity of the renaining portions of this
ordinancei and the Toun Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases by declared
invalid.
Section 10.
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and ltelfare
of the Town of VaiI and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 11.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provisions of
Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect
any right which has accrued, any duty irnposed, any violation that
occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as comnenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
-4-
.-(
(f{f,rlrnooucno, READ AND pAssED oN rrRsr READTNG THrs ?qd *:-t:,^f"-i
1;;; ";" a public hearins shall be beld on this ordinance on the 2nd
day of Mav ' Lggg at 7:30 p'm' in the Council
chambers of the Vail t'tunicipal Bullding' Vail' Colorado'
ordered publlshed ln full g6i5 2nd day of Mav ' 1989'
rlr'l)/t
INTRODUCED,READ AI.ID APPROVED ON SECOND RE'ADING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ln fulL
this JlL dav 9f Mav t 1989'
ATTEST,:;
i
li
Ir
ti
IJ
I
I
I
EEffieYer, Town
Kent R. Rose,
-2-
att=f(DJ.ocl- 5 ctqor>o'Tt-
',f-ottoo,+=ct ,f!,(c!
(D
-.D
(CI
5ar
39,r
(tro
-nci
o5o
cr
=
-E t- a)!,OrOat
-eo o-t
=oq,rat 9J (oE(D
5.A
'C
at
@E3oo
orr
5o
o,ot,rt
o5
ool.lg
5
v,
oo3
CT
5
5
tct
t-oFt
l\)
tl
l\)l\)
@so
+
-{-!,o
c+
I
tl
5(to
ur rrr{trf| o ctr o o.D I,r.D >< 5! -rc+U,:eo. (, @ErE o. t\t ro (, o0, o, |D . r.o ctr ro ct'l t\too= (, i|e rcF.D .-| (D It O. ur -r{utOlt{-lrJ'an o,5 .Dtt rl(l. t, {D{r OO1|,(DoE (,|5o'|cto(D
U'
r
=-to
=r
qt
=^No
=
=6)
IJ'E
=-5
F
= o Ero o o (D (, o a)U' H l\, lt. o0r=0, =xo=o0, or 5 lF
. nF' (D 1(D Er- -to l\) lT,(D < ooo,o(D i { loa rr = o o(.t o, - ,f cr o larlo Ft\t!, ('r Fo o lm5 IJX =(D J= vt lE'o -r| 3 x cro oO ci -h= (D. g ., O -rr. ctc = ctF . 5 r+ Cr J.O,(rf o ra-= d
' OO ciO-h (ooo-r.cit|,a+' u' 4'
5 J.Oo o5cio
J.{{FT' O 5 0 0J FO -t .'r 5g(/|aello ur @{t It eE F Ol (, Ot o, o. . (00 0r I\tocl5 rc !Q
= o .r ro ro Q o
a+ (, -r (t (JlO{|-llQ+ahQO .(D o!t!tctFClo, Oc, .l.l0, -ro o oi op o ttr9, o,. ao..Do
!,r! (, F l--,o o o 13- l(fJ) {r O larur|+ ct o.oeOQo.{t
.O{ror -r3 -lo o!'|9,- E5cf(D U'-f\) o,(tr +-@cLs
= -b5.+ t,|ct(, -tl\do.o5
(D
J.= ! o ot o Fr5 O ('l -r -l l\tE€@{r =t (, ('l (t ql5 D .| O1$ (t Olo - o Ea >Q NJ5-< O.t. (D . 0-J)U'OO . -lr(D5a
c?cr -rEoroo,oor-trcL-
5(o
o t\, rr t! la,Jct o o la./,O-lC)-bo|,c+ -h Oct()Aooo'n
(, OE It O 5 O )-r F.c+5. O -lr(D a g, Q -t I \.1 OCO O 5 J= -'c+ -t aS ul - clcto O. q,Cr-r- f\t Or {F C t, - l, = (+o, o J.o o@ ur (, 5 Jo @ @.(1 o, = {r }Q *O X 6) oJFCL|o O <+ q(1 F (r -r. ...o . o o Jo -fl @oo -h . \eo >J.= < . {t g, Ll o- -tr (,5 O O . r.!. (, .+ ('l'5 J (Jr={i It (D (D q, O9, -tl- O Cl - >eJ .+o-r o --,5- o,Oat. . -ir
F:...rl-s|to1(D -,. -r. oo cLo5-(D(D(+
N r\) F F l..r Nt lrnoosct d) 5 l><at g lFl{r + {r -ti t$ lat,r+rtdci -h { l-{dolFl
'l=or o lG,i=.
JOHN W. DUNN
PETER COSGFI FF
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALR JR.
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
, ]ERRI S. DIEM
Law OFFtcEs
Cosenrrp, DuNN & ABpLANALp
a PAF NERTXTP |IICLUD|I{O A pFOfC3ltO[^t CoFpAF ttor{
VArL NarroNAL BANK ButLotNG
SurrE 3oo
P O, Box aa99
VATL,CoLoRADo 8t658
TELEPHoN E: (3O 3, 476-75'52
TELEGOPf ER! (3O 31 476-4765
April 25, 1989
IN LZADVI LL:t
CoSGRTFF:, DUNN c BERRY
2 C'. tox tl
LEADVTLLE, COTORAOO eOaCl
(7r3t rraG-t3al
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage RoadVail, Colorado
Re:Vail Inn Inc
Gentlemen:
We represent Vail Inn, Inc. In connection withthat representation, I would appreciate your putting ourfirm, at the above address, and Bob Kenneyr P. O. Box 1835,Vail, Colorado 81658, on the mailing lisl for projects withrespect to which notice is reguired to be sent to Vail Inn,Inc.r the association of condominiun orirners at the DoubLeTree.
Thank you very much.
,;Yours very tru1y,
cosGRrFF, DUNNl*
JWD: kem
Dunn
THE PROFESgTONAL CORPORATTON tS OUNN A ABPLANALP, p,C. tN VAIL,
Planning and Environnental ConurissionApril 24, L989
STAFT PRESENT
Pylnan
MollicaMike
PRESENT
EiGifronovan
Peggy osterfossSid Schultz,fin Viele
Kathy Warren
ABSENTffiF-crist
Pan Hopkins
The neeting was
1.
called to order by the chairnan, Jirn Viele at 3:15.
Sid Schultz, architect for the bank, abstained on this application.
The staff presentation, given by Rick gzlnan, outlined the criteriafor the rezoning request, and gave the staff reconmendation of
approval with conditions 1 through 4 located in the staff memo,
rtetEed April 24, 1989.
Sid Schultz nade the presentation for the Vail National Bank.
Diana Donovan questioned sid schultz regarding property lLnes; the
extent of the planter area north of the bank; concern about travel
agencies generating hiqh volumes of traffici two year survival
requirements of all trees transplanted; and pedestrian access to the
adjacent property to the west.
Peg(ry Osterfoss stated her belief that the zoning would beappropriate, as the SDD would lirnit the allowable uses. She
requested it be spelled out that retail is not a pernitted use. She
questioned Sid regarding more landscaping on the site and agreed with
Diana concerning a pedestrian connection with the hospital parking
structure to the west.
Kathy warren questioned the Bank/Hospitat parking agreement forjoint-use spaces in the structure. She basically agreed with Peggy's
and Diana's comments. She stated that she would like to see theretaining wall, at the northwest corner of the property, be rebuilt.
Jin Viele agreed with the staff on the rezoning.
A motion was made by Peggy osterfoss for recomnendation to Councilfor approval of request with conditions 1 through 4 as per the staff
meno, but suggested the following changes in those conditions:
2.
#2 - Uses allowed: add - retail not_a pernitted use
#3 - Iandscaping: two year warranty
Peggy also suggested having the DRB consider a pedestrian linkagefron the bank to the hospital site (with lighting).
Kathy Warren seconded the notion.
The vote was 4-O-1; Sid Schultz abstaining.
to vacate a I
Va Villaqe 2nd Fil
Frontaqe Road.I National Bank Buil Co
Rick Plzlnan presented the Minor Subdivision request to vacate a lotline and gave the staff recornmendation for approval . PEC wlll takefinal action.
Kathy lilarren notLoned and Peggy Osterfoss seconded the notion for
approval .
The vote waE 4-O-1; sld Schultz abstaining.
est fo ck variance ch includes the
for Lot 10, B ock Va
Gunn
The staff presentation was made by I'tike Mollica. Mike described thesite plan and proposed anendnents to the house and creek. The najor
change in this proposal would be the relocation of the creekcorridor. The staff gave a recommendation for approval wlth
conditions.
The applicant's presentation was nade by Jin Morter.
George Caulkins, owner of Iot 6, stated his concern about the creekrelocation. He asked for some assurance that the relocation would
not damage his house.
Kathy Warren was concerned about the creek relocation and questioned
the 250 Equare foot reguest. Peggy Osterfoss noted the precedence offront setback variances in the neighborhood and did not support theadditional 25o sguare foot of GRFA. Sid Schultz found no problenwith either the front setback or the creek relocation. He aLso had
no problen with the 250 square foot request. Diana Donovan did not
support the 25O square foot request conbined with the varlance and
was concerned with noving the creek. Jin Viele supported the front
setback, creek relocation and 250 square foot requests.
Jin Morter then addressed some of the Connissioner's concerns.
Kathy warren notioned to allow encroachnent of the requested setback
variances as per the staff memo. The notion nas seconded by sid
t porti.on of I1 Creek as it b
Villace lst F
Schultz.
The vote was 5-O Ln favor.
Peggy OsterfoEs notioned for approval of the creek nodification asper the staff memo, including the staff's recommended threeconditions, and also recommended that the staff investigates FEMA'srole in the creek relocation. Kathy Warren seconded the motion.
The vote sag 5-O in favor.
3.
Kathy Warren moved to table the
next meeting, at request of theby sid.
The vote wag 5-O In favor.
Pat Dauphinais said he would regrade
reseed in the fall.
,tin viele agreed with the staff memo
spacerr landscaping should be left up
250 square foot proposal untLl theapplicant. The notion was seconded
this spring/sunner and woul.d
and also agreed that the rropen
to the DRB.
anendment final lat revisi
o f Parcel D
onsr
22 a:Da
The Staff presentation was nade by Rick Pylnan. Rick expLained the
evaluation criteria and gave the Staff recomrnendation for approval .
The applicant's presentation was nade by Peter Jamar. Peter stressedthe importance of the l.nclusion of Lot 25 into thls project. Hls
obJection is with the Staff's suggestion that rra more signlficantll
Iandscape plan be subnitted for the open space.
Debra Clements, representative for Solar Crest homeownere, stated
concerns regarding the proposed Lot 25 access fron Lions Ridge Loop.
She clairned that if Lions Ridge Loop was to be used as access to Lot25, Solar Crest homeowners would have no parking. Peter Jamar and
ilay Peterson responded to those concerns.
Debra Clements requested tabling of the proposed application so Solarcrest could do further legal research. The discussion regarding the
Solar Crest parking concerns continued at length.
Kathy Warren rras concerned about the rropen spacerr landscaping andalso about soiLs compactJ-on and site grading for the entire project.
Peggy osterfoss reconmended the conmon rropen spacen area have relief
from formal landscaping, but suggested natural grasses alone nay not
be enough. Diana Donovan reconmended that a tine tinit be placed on
conpletion of revegetation.
to
Kathy warren motioned for approval of the requests as per staff netno,
including a more significant landscape plan for the open space
parcel. Diana Donovan reconded tlre notion.
'lllro votc war 5-0 Ln favor.
DLana Dono\tan lotloned to table untll ne:rt neetlng on ltay 8, 1989.
llhc notion var seconded by Peggy Oeterfoss.llhe vote ra8 5-O Ln favor.
lllre ueeting sa. thcn adJourned.
To: Planning and Environnental Connission
FROM: Conununity Developnent Department
DATE: April 24t L9g9
SURTECT: Request for a Minor Subdivision to Vacate a Lot Line
between Lot 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, Vail ViIIage
2nd Filing and Tract D, VaiI Lionshead 2nd Filing.Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
r.THE REQUEST
The applicant is requestingto conbine Lot 2 rrith TractBuilding property. Lot 2 iss.f. The purpose of the lotIots so that the parking instraddLe two properties.
to vacate a lot line in order
D on the Vail National Bank
22,840 s.f. Tract D is 1-,430
vacation is to combine the twofront of the bank will not
IT. CRITERIA FOR APPROVAL
The criteria to evaluate a minor subdivision i-s outlined inthe purpose section of the Subdivision Regulations inSections L7.40.0L0 B:
rrTo these ends, these regulations are intended toprotect the environment, to ensure efficientcirculation, adequate improvements, sufficient open
space and, in general , to assist the orderly,efficient and integrated development of the Town ofVaiI. These regulations also provide for the proper
arrangement of streets and ensure proper distributionof population. The regulations also coordinate the
need for public services with governmental improvenentprostrams. Standards for design and construction of
inprovenents are hereby set forth to ensure adequate
and convenient traffic circulation, utilities,
emergency access, drainage, recreation and light andair. AIso intended is the inprovement of land records
and surveys, plans and plats and to safeguard theinterests of the public and subdivider and provide
consumer protection for the purchaseri and to regulateother natters as the Town of Vail Planning and
Environmental Comrnission and Town Council may deem
necessary in order to protect the best interests ofthe public.tr
The application complies with the purpose of theSubdivision Regulations.
lllre Connunity Developnent Department recomends approval ofthe reguest of the lot line vacatlon. By consolldatlng Lot2 and Tract D, the parking ls provided on one property
whlch Ls clearly necessary.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SURfECT:
Planning and Environnental Commission
Connunity Developrnent Department
April 24, L989
Request to Rezone LoE 2, A Resubdivision of Lot D,Vail Village 2nd Filing and Tract D, Vail/Lionshead2nd Filing from High Density Multiple Farnily toSpecial Development District with Underlying
Cornmercial Service Center Zone District to Allow forAdditional Parking and Loading and an Expansion of theVail National Bank Building, 108 South Frontage Road.Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation
REASON FOR THE REZONTNG REQUEST
The existing Vail National Bank Building consists of athree-story office building with two levels of undergroundparking. The first floor of the building is occupied bythe Vail National Bank with the two upper floors Leased tovarious professional offices. The site upon which thebuilding sits is in the High-Density Multiple Farnily zonedistrict. At the tine when the project was built in 1976,the office space was approved as a conditional use. Later,office use riras removed entirely fron the High-DensityIifultiple Fanily Zone District.
As a result, any addition of office space to the buildingwould not be allowed today. For this reason, the owners ofthe building wish to rezone the property to specialdevelopment district with lirnited underlying uses listed inthe Comrnercial Service Center Zone District. The appticantis requesting to restrict the perrnitted uses to:
1. Professional offices, business offices, and studios.2. Banks and financial institutions.3. Business and office services.4. Trave1 and ticket agencies.5. Additional offices, businesses, or services deterninedto be sinilar to perrnitted uses.
The combination of the special development district zoningwith the underlying zoning in Commercial Service Centerallows the applicant the opportunity to expand the bank andredesign parking/loading and landscaping for the project.This zoning approach is proposed due to the fact that theVail National Bank property does not easily conply with anyexisting zone district within the Town of Vail. eresentlll
I.
II.
the Town of VaiI Zoning Code does notthat is prinarily office. This lirnitplus the special development district
zoning designation that is conpatible
development on the property.
PROPOSED DEVEIOPMENT
have a zone districton the tlpe of useswill allow for awith the existing
A. Bank Expansion
The Vail National Bank proposes the following changesto the building. All of the expansions occur on thefirst floor of the building.
1.. Interior expansion of the bank: 658 s.f.2. Exterior expansion of the bank,northside of the building: 462 s.f.3. Conference space, southeast
corner of the building: 382 s.f.4. New entry vestibulez 238 s.f.5. Total sq[uare footage: 1,740 s.f.
* The existing building has a total office squarefootage of l-9,976 s.f . Of this total anount,approxinately 5,544 s.f. is for the bank. These
numbers do not include conmon corridors,
restrooms, stairs and the elevator.
The additions do not encroach any further into theexisting setbacks. The existing parking structurealready encroaches into the north/front and east/sidesetbacks. In respect to height, the additions do notincrease the existing maximun building height.
B. Parkinq,/L,oadinq,/Circulation
The Bank expansion requires additional parking. Fiveexisting short-tern bank parking spaces to the northof the building are currently entirely within thefront setback. In order to add parking in a way thatcoincides with the traffic circulation plan, th-existing ninety degree spaces will be restriped tosixty degree one-way parking. Two new parking spaceswill be added to the north of the building. Beciuseof the location of the existing building on the site,any additional parking off of the Frontage Road mustalso be within the front setback. The ColoradoDivision of Highways will not allow the applicants tolocate either loading or parking on public right-of-
lfay.
In addition, a new short-terrn loading zone will beIocated adjacent to the northwest corner of the bankproperty. The land for the loading area is actually
c.
ostned by the hospital . They have agreed to allow forloading in this area. Please see the attached letterfrom the Vail Valley Hedical Center documenting theirapproval of this plan.
Circulatj-on through this site will be changed so thatvehicles must enter from a ne\^r east entry and exit theproperty on the west side. Traffic flow will belimited to one riray movements heading east to west.The eastern access into the site has been relocated sothat it is aligned with the Town of Vail post
Office/Municipat euilding entrance. The redesign ofthe traffic circulation in front of the bank is perthe Frontage Road Improvement Plan that is alsoconnected to the Vail Valley Medical Center andDoubletree proposals. The Colorado Division of
Highways also requested that an acceleration lane beprovided in front of the bank property. This newacceleration lane is to be used by vehicles exitingthe hospital parking structure and. bank property sothat vehicles will have roorn to merge with South
Frontage Road traffic moving east.
Landscaping
Due to the relocation of the east entry access to thebank and two new parking spaces, a large portion ofthe existing landscaping on the northeast corner ofthe Vail National Bank property and Colorado Divisionof Highways right-of-hray will be removed. Inactuality, a rnajority of the current landscaping infront of the bank is on highway right-of-way.Approxinately 1,800 s.f. of planting is on VailNational Bank Building property.
To mitigate this loss of landscaping, the applicantproposes to transplant all of the existing trees andshrubs affected by the access and parking. Irfost ofthe landscaping (except three spruce trees) will bereplanted onto bank property. A nerd landscape rnedianis also proposed between the Frontage Road and theshort-term parking area on the north side of the bank.
The median is approxinately eight times the size ofthe existing rnedian. The median is also necessary toreinforce the new circulation pattern and neet the
CDOH requirements for separation between access points
along the Frontage Road. (Please see attached
Landscape Sumnary).
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATTNG THTS PROPOSAL
Several criteria are to be used to evaluate this request.First, the three criteria for a request for zone changewill be used. The second set of criteria will be the ninedevelopment standards as set forth in the Special
Development District chapter of the Zoning Code.
IV. EVALUATION OF ZONE CIIANGE REQUEST FROII! HIGH-DENSITY IIULTI-
FAMILY ZONE DISTRICT TO SPECIAL DEVEI,OPMENT DISTRICT I{ITH
UNDERLYING COIO{ERCIAL SERVTCE CENTER ZONING
A. Suitability of Existinq Zonincr
The purpose of the High-Density Multi-Family ZoneDistrict states:
Section L8.2O.010
"The High-Density Multiple rarnity District isintended to provide sites for multiple fanilydwellings. . .together with such public and semi-public facilities and lodges, private recreationfacilities and related visitor oriented uses asnay appropriately be located in the samedistrict. . .The High-Density Multiple FanilyDistrict is intended to ensure adequate light,air, open space, and other amenities comnensuratewith high denslty apartrnent, condominium, andlodge uses and to maintain the desirableresidential and resort qualities of the districtby establishing appropriate site developmentstandards. Certain non-residential uses arepennitted as conditional uses which relate to thenature of VaiI as a winter and sunmer recreation
and vacation connunity and where pernitted areintended to blend harmoniously with theresidential character of the district.r'
Due to the fact that the VaiI National Bank Buildingis exclusively an office use, it is evident that theexisting zoning is inadequate.
The Conmercial Service Center zoning purpose states inSection l-8.28.010 of the Zoning Code:
rrThe Conmercial Service Center District isintended to.provide sites for general shoppingand connercial facilities serving the town,together with limited nultiple-family dweli.ingand lodge uses as nay be appropriate without -
interfering with the basic conmercial functionsof the district. The cornmercial service center
district is intended to ensure adequate light,air, open space, and other amenities appropriateto permitted types of buildings and uses, and tomaintain a convenient shopping center environmentfor pennitted comrnercial uses.rl
Cornmercial Service Center Zoning with a linit on thepernitted uses to include only professional offj.ces,
business offices, banks, and business and officeservices in combination with the Special DevelopmentDistrict Zoning allow for a zoning designation that is
cornpatible with the existing project as well as theproposed expansion. The proposal meets the purpose ofSpecial Developrnent District which states:
Section 18.40.02O Purpose
ItThe purpose of the Special Developnent Districtis to encourage flexibility and creativity in the
developnent of land in order to promote j-ts mostappropriate usei to improve the design, character
and qualj-ty of the new development within thetowni to facilitate the adeguate and econornicalprovision of streets and utilitiesi to preservethe natural and scenic features of open spaceareasi and to further the overall goals as statedin the Vail Cornprehensive Plan. An inproved
development plan for a Special DevelopmentDistrict in conjunction with the properties
underlying zone district, shall establish the
reguirements for guiding development and uses ofproperty included in the Special DeveloprnentDistrict. rl
The differences between IIMDF and CSC are rnarginal dueto the fact that the bank property is alreadydeveloped. The differences that would affect future
development are:
csc HDMF
Density .40 .60
18 units/acre 25 units/acre
Site Coverage 17,L30 L2,526752 55*
Parking 5Ot covered 758 coveredparking parking
Landscaping 2OZ 3ot
Please see the attached zoning sunmary which compares
HDMF and CSC Zoning to the existing developrnent.
Staff supports the rezoning request as it is clearthat the existing zone district is inappropriate dueto the lack of any office use being listed in nigh-Density l.tulti-Farlily. We also beLieve that, although
CSC is not an exact zoning match for this project, the
CSC/SDD zoning provides for the best means to reviewdeveloprnent on this property.
B.Is the enti nvenientRelatiostent w
Staff believes that the office use for this site isappropriate. The surrounding parcels have thefollowing zoning:
Location
le
North:
West:
West:
East:
South:
Proiect
Town of Vail
Municipal Bldg.
Vail valley
Medical Center
Zoninq
Public Use District
Public Use District
Doubletree Hotel SDD
Scorpio Condos IIDUF
Skaal Haus HDI'{F
The office building is compatible with surroundinguses, particularly the adj-cent public use parceli.Impacts on the Scorpio and Skaal Haus projects due tothe bank addition should be mininal . Traffic thatexits by the Skaal Haus may actually decrease to sonedegree due to the new loading and circulation plan onthe Frontage Road side of the project.
The-applicant has also recognized that the presentproject does has problems with loading, parking andcirculation of traffic on and off the sile. fheproposal-addresses these concerns by redesigning thecirculation pattern, adding two additional parking
spaces as well as one loading space. Staff believesthat an office use for this site is appropriate andshould be recognized within the zoning for theproperty.
Does the Rezoninq Provide for the Gfowth of an
The Crossroads, project is the only other parcelwithin the Tonn that is zoned CSC. Atthough the nanyretail uses at Crossroads makes sense for thatproperty, staff believes it is necessary to exclude
c.
retail uses from the bank project. Traffic that couldbe generated by certain retail uses such asbars/restaurants, clothing stores, ski strops, etc.could have dramatic negative irnpacts on parking andtraffic. The owners wish to maintain the office usesin the buiJ.ding. Hotrever, in the future, if specificretail uses are desired, the request could be reviewedby anending ttre SDD. If a future request to changethe development plan occurs, the najor and minor
amendurent to the Special Development Districtprocesses will allow for a reasonable rneans to reviewsuch a request on the site.
Land Use PIan
The Land Use PIan designates this area as Resort.
Accommodations and Services. This area is describedas follows:
rrThis area includes activities aimed at
accommodating the overnight and short-ter.mvj.sitor to the area. Prinary uses includehotels, lodges, service stations, and parkingstructures (with densities up to 25 dwellingunits or 50 accommodation units per buildableacre). These areas are oriented toward vehicular
access fron I-7O, with other support comrnercial
and business services included. Also allowed inthis categoryr would be institutional uses andvarious municipat uses. rr
The Land Use PIan does not specifically designate thissite as an office area. However, the designation does. state that support conmercial is desirable. Staff
beLieves that the office use does make sense due to L)the property,s proximity to the South Frontage Roadand f-70; 2) other adjacent offices and public usessuch as the hospital and municipal building; and 3)the fact that the office use already exists.
V. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
D.
The followj-ng design criteria shall be usedprincipal criteria in evaluating the meritsSpecial Development District.
as theof a proposed
the Inmediates1tibilitv and Sensitivitv toEnvironment, Ne rhood and Adiacent rtiesRelative to Architectural Des ScaIe Bulki1dHeight, Buffer Zones, fdent CharacterVisual Inteqritv and Orientati6il.
The Bank expansion is compatible with the existingdesign of the VaiI National Bank Building. The
A.
proposed north
inpacts on the
facade should
nass and bulk
have no significantof the building.
B.Uses Act t Provide a
Eff ent and Workab e Relat
Uses and Activ
The existing office use has proved to be generally
compatible with the surrounding uses which are
condominiums and the VaiI Valley Medical Center. Theprimary impacts of this project on adjacent properties
have been on parking, traffic circulation, andloading. The proposed plan should rnitigate sorne ofthese existing problems.
Compliance with Parkinq and Loadinq Recruirements asOutlined in Section l-8.52.
c.
Below is a summary of existing and proposed parkingfor the project:
PARKING SI'MMARY
1. Existinq Parkinq
North side: 5
West side: 13
South side: 5Structurei 7O
93 spaces
Parkinq Required for Proposed Expansion
87 spaces
3.
Interior expansion of bankExterior expansion of bank
sQ. FT.
658
462
SPACES
3.3
2.3
Conference 38
TotaI L t5O2
4.Parking Proposed 95 spaces* 2 new spaces are added infront of the bank; parking is
angled to direct traffic floweast to west.
The project meets all of its parking requirements.
A nelr loading space is proposed on hospital property
adjacent to the northwest corner of the bank property.
Presently, there is no loading space in front of the
ta
'i
ces
Parkincr Re(5 spaces
D.
E.
F.
Vail National Bank Building. Instead, vehicles parkalong the South Frontage Road to service the building.The applicantrs new loading space will allow for off-site loading for the project.
Originally, the applicant had proposed a loading spaceon the northeast corner of the property. This loadingspace required extensive retainage as well as theremoval of several large trees. Atthough the proposedloading space is not a perfect solution, staffbelieves that it does provide for a safe andfunctional loading area. The loading will also bescreened by landscaping. The staff has tried tobalance the need to retain existing landscaping andthe loading needs of the project. We believe that theproposed loading space provides a reasonablesolution.
Conforrnitv,with the Applicable Elements of the Vail
Cgmprehensive Pl-an, Town Policies and Urban Desiqn
P1ans.
This site is addressed in the Land Use Plan and isdiscussed in the rezoning section of the memo.
Identification and Mitiqation of Natural and./orGeolgqic Hazards that Affect the Property on which theSpecial Development District is Proposed.
Not Applicable.
Site Plan, Buildinq desicrn and location, and open
space provisions desiqned to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to naturalfeatures. yeqetation and overall aesthetic qualitv ofthe community.
The proposed building expansion does not encroach anyfurther than the existing parking structure does intorequired setbacks. It is clear that there are impactson the landscaped areas on the northwest corner of theproperty. However, it should be emphasized that thernajority of the existing landscaping in this area ison CDOH right-of-way. The applicant has committed totransplanting the existing vegetation onto the VailNational Bank property. We believe that the proposalwill result in a project having a high aestheticquality.
A Circulation Svstem Desicrned for Both Vehicles andPedestrians On and Off-Site Traffic Circulation.
The improvements in front of the Vail(excluding the two additional parkingof a larger Frontage Road fmprovement
National Bank
spaces) are part
Plan that
G.
involves the Doubletree and hospital properties.
Regardless of whether or not two additional parking
spaces are added in front of the bank, the CDOH
requirernents call for the bank property to redesigntheir traffic circulation in order to have a trafficcirculation plan for the bank, hospital , andDoubletree properties that functions well.
Landscaping would need to be removed in front of theVaiI National Bank property to allow for the new
access drive and median. CDOH has specific
requirernents as to the amount of separation that isrequired between access points on the South FrontageRoad. The circulation plan ca1ls for vehicles toenter on the site only on the east end of the property
and exit out the west end. This traffic flow was
deemed to be the nost compatible circulation pattern.This traffic fl-ow pattern also has its problern.
However, it was decided that it was better to enter onthe east end of the site as opposed to having VailNational Bank visitors also enter on the west withvisitors to the hospital.
Staff does not have a letter from CDOH on the bankproject. However, Dave Leahy - TDA, Inc., trafficengineer, has subnitted the plan to Rich Perske to
keep hirn up to date on the project. Our understandingis that CDOH does not have any major concerns with theproposal .
It is evident that circulation for the VaiI National
Bank property as well- as hospital and Doubletreeproperties is not perfect. However, the engineers forthis circulation plan were forced to deal with theexisting circumstances on these sites. In general ,the staff believes that the circulation plan is a vast
improvement over the existing circulation at the VailNational Bank property.
H.Functional and Aesthetic Landsca ln ce inOrder to Preser1e NaturaRecreation. Vi.ews and Function.
A balance between landscaping as well as the need forparking and the nelr access drive is not easy toachieve on this site. The owners are willing totransplant every tree and shrub that will be affectedby the new access dr]ve and parking into a plantingarea on the Vail National- Bank property and Hospitalproperty adjacent to the loading area. The proposedplan allows for the retention of the landscaping whilestill meeting the reguirements for circulation,loading and parking. The staff believes that the
otrners have done
balance by:
1. Increasing
2LO square
everything possible to create this
the size of the rnedian planter fronfeet to Lt684 square feet.
2. Transplanting all of the affected trees and
shrubs onto Vail National Bank property inlocations which will enhance the north elevationof the building.
3. Connitting to transplant the three 35 to 40'
cottonwood trees lnto a planter approximately 2O'to the east of their existing location. It isdifficult to transplant trees of this size.
Holrever, the owners have also agreed to replacethe three cottonwood trees with three large
cottonwood trees having sinilar diameters of 8rlto L ft. if the original trees die. (Please seeletter from Dennis Anderson on transplanting
trees. )
Staff supports strongly the owners efforts to addressour original concerns about removing so muchlandscaping. The landscape plan is very positive andwill be a benefit to the project and surroundingproperties.
IN Plan or ubdivision Plan that will Maintain a
Workable Funct onal and Eff cient Relatout the develonment of this Spec al Develoct.
Construction will be phased as follows:
1. Bank interior and exterior construction
SPringr/Sumner 1989.
Landscaping and Parkingr/Circulation ImprovementsFall 1989.
This scheduling makes sense as it will be better to
transplant the trees this fall as opposed to this
sunmer.
VI. STAFF RECOI'{MENDATION
staff recommends approval of the rezoning and Special
Development District with the following conditions:
L. The owners receive a CDOH approval for their accesspennit request before a building permit is releasedfor the proposed bank expansion.
I.
2.
2. The uses allowed under the Special DevelopnentDistrict with the underlying Connercial Service Centerzoning shall be linited to:
a. Professional offices, business offices, andstudios.b. Banks and financial institutions.c. Business and office services.d. Travel and ticket agencies.e. Additional offices, businesses, or services
determined to be similar to perrnitted uses.
3. Any landscaping that dies within one year of thetransplanting shall be replaced with a sinilar sizeand type material by the ordners of the bank. Inrespect to the cottonwoods, if they die, three netttrees having each a diameter of Itr to l-2rr shallreplace the the existing trees. The height of the newtrees shal1 be a ninimum of 25 ft.
4. If the loadinq zone is relocated in the future, thenew location shall be approved by the pEC using themajor amendment to an SDD review process.
I{e feel that it is appropriate to rezone the property to adistrict that allows for office use. We also believi thatthe Special Developnent District zoning allows for theflexibility and the thorough review of any future
development on this site. We would like to commend theowner,s of the Bank and Hospital for working together toaddress the staff and PEC concerns.
LANDSCAPE SI,M}T,ARY
A. I,ANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY ONLY:
EXTSTING
S.F. I LandEqgpe Tvpe
* of Site
Landscaped
Planting 3,100 489
Total 6,399
PROPOSED
s. F.
2,949
I Landscape Type
* of Site
Landscaped
Planting 6s8
Sidew
TotaI
6,399 (Existing)
2 35
4r560 19t
- 4,55O (Proposed) : 2,34L s.f.. (net decrease)
B. I,ANDSCAPING ON \INB PROPERTY PLUS CDOH RTGHT-OF-I{AY
EXISTING
s. F.
5,286
I Landscape Sype
PlantingrDeck,/Sidewa1k 3,299
62*
38tTotal
PROPOSED
8, 585
s. r.
4 ,632
t Landscape Tvpe
Planting
Sidewalk 6L2TotaI6 r244
742
262
8,585 (Existing) - 6,24'4 (Proposed) : 2,34L s.f . (net decrease)
Apri1 21, 1989
Planning Commission
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage RoadVail, C0 81657
RE: Proposed Remodel of
Vail National Bank Building
Commi ss'i oners:
I ncl osi ng, I
review of the pt
Gt*no),'' rotar.",\9r-.
:.--'
you for your consideration of these issues in
sed expansion of the Vail National Bank Building.
As a consultant to the Scorpio Condominium Assocjation, I have briefly
reviewed the site plan for the proposed remodel/expansion of the Vail
Nationa'l Bank Building and offer the folloling comments:
* Trash Dumpster
The Bank Buiiding, Scorpio Condominiums and Alphorn Condominiums
currently share a trash dumpster, and have done so for a number ofyears. For most of that time the dumpster has been located on the
vlestern portion of the Scorpio property; its location providing an
unattractive feature for persons arriving at Scorpio Condominiums by
automobile. It seems that with a simple relocation of the fire
department connection and possibly a few other minor modifications, a
trash enclosure cou'ld be constructed at the southeast corner of the
Bank Building. Perhaps the representatives of the Bank have anothersolution. I'lithout resolution of this jssue, Scorpio Condominiums
cannot support any further building expansion.
* Mutual Drainage Problems
The Bank and Scorpio share an access easement between Alphorn and the
Skal Haus Condomniums. Scorpio has experienced drainage problems
with run-off from the Bank's property, particularly in the area near
the west parking gate. Scorpio vrould like to receive confirmation of
mutual effort toward resolution of th'is common problem.
* Pedestrian Access
Limited pedestrian access exists between the Bank and Scorpio at thistime. Scorpio would like assurance that modifications to grading
and,/or retaining wa1 ls do not jnhibit access through th'is easement.
thank
iliam Pierce,
Archi tect
Its i .P
O.U Jgq, LO+, '- bq L E t\' tL .!o t! o' O O. rF. 3trt L Lur +J v, . o . o o E(o rts tt cD r! lF . > E.F< 0,!\. . rf O!@ LLO)- O V, . u.-: IL(vt d ull+) Ul olt Jru (9 x .r ole be q- c .6 9^U'c, o'-q (Y) ar| @o o.Fo(!p s CL - |! 5 F{F tON .Y'- EtE .! O ()+rP - U'l i€ I PF EF <f o Od, f\ L .! O O ! qrF - Ur . sPFl F{ O <f O g1 AO Ul
rF.ooo .!OPo h Ptioq-()l aov\ o o o-c)l N i-{ (\t .E
El
J=' J!lt'Ltcto6FL,- ll+,. 15!Ora- . c,OU,.IFLo . o .Pv, >x =(\t iQ |e o L O(o lrt $,t o u |E Lro |<) lrlc) cl rF-@-€(\I s .J- [r| O qF{ O rO O r\ E.F
q)
LI.|!
P\lF ah.+Jlrl+)<f rF c5'o@t<f to.!(\t-Ut a,+rccL.!.Eo oF EF (l,(FO.
,-.ooo Eoo .P +tolrl o rF rFc
=lCfOO--l i-r d) (\l .U
oo.ult . od ctJ c')Vrt,ci otJ srO Q) .n- 6'(J C, -Cl '{t! CtEFi+Joo.c, o llooo+ortsrf-oo lrlIr)F UrPo o ot ctr u q, E +)>a >e EIJO L,
Nt io oar . . o |! L 16
C) (a t<) Fr CLE OrF Lco rr) O ttlQ u' F-L .! L q,<f C@ O rf O O-dFt\.F +
o<t
@^
sl(\l
tl
(\I
+'oJ
E)C
g
ll
Eou
oL
=C,(,o
go
+t
attu
I|6
q)g
.l-to
o
c)E'
=oo
6otJ +). dgu, cLo.JJan,oo $-o tl'rt(J cLo c3A O O'FrF I'F o o|/|Fe|4'vt o @ u oJbe B€ c4 E|J|JNt r.o (h ro cD . o a6 |!o (o dr (\r E cl4l@ (.,') . ct be u, +r.L .!. X(Dlr) o)@ O tO O lldr\l.t U,
.c(F
.,l iszlrrl O +,Fl r\ rF +r+r+r+)Vrl (\l lF lF lF la->rl - u1r<l <t ro o<toolrJl N r{ FIFINN
PQ|o)Lclt JO
O.F.F (l'tanut,(F
H3
o)
oqEr |! E)ri()g,oo!tJ>cLo.6r!(JJo.
c,
EDlo.x +tEladooorL-y!l!lJ
.A+jg+,O.Fo,J=V,
c,+,c! oO.F C.e Ul'+)o.+).TOOED rts
=t +, ort .! E.c !- U' tfl|!.r -O.P E . F{. +t c 5+, .rts o u} 5 . o E(F.u o. tr o)-O X E rF (JOl O =.E aDE XFI glrjl . (D U-Y (, |!(\lsl c,arrl o +, * !.6 ott r! E -t !ol F rF oo.t'oo >.r oo-l (\, o,tr Ll} o,I o LlrtsOl ^ u'r EC(,+)3Jc| E+Jctrdl <t ro |!oE(l,xq |!960o.l (\t U'(J o U, o o U} o-ct u =
&.
E
==an
(9z
zo
t\.1
>Z
=
co
J
=o
F
z.
J
=
.p
]Acq,o
PF
Olrr)
x6E
+J
E)
o-
I,ANDSCAPE ST'M!,IARY
A. I,ANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY ONLY:
EXISTING
S.F. * Landscape Tvpe
t of Site
Landscaped
Planting 3r1OO 488Deck/sidewalk 3,299 52tTotal 61399 26t
PROPOSED
S.F. ! Landscape Tvpe
t of Site
Iandscaped
Planting 2,948 65tDeck,/Sidewalk 1,6L2 35tTotal 4,560 19*
6,399 (Existing) - 4,560 (Proposed) = 2t34L s.f. (net decrease)
B. I,ANDSCAPING ON VNB PROPERTY PLUS CDOH RIGHT-OF-WAY
EXISTING
s.!. I Landscape Type
Planting 5,286 62*Deck,/Sidewalk 3,299 38*
Total
PROPOSED
8r585
s. F.
4,632
t Landscape Tvpe
Planting 74*
Deck/sidewalk 1,612 26*
TotaI 6,244
8,585 (Exlsting) - 6,244 (Proposed) = 2,34L s.f. (net decrease)
oo
voilvollev
medicolcenter
April 14, 1989
M
As
on
an
he
181 West Meadow Drive. Suite 100
Vail. Coloraclo 81657
i 303) 476-245.1
Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vai'l
75 S. Frontage Rd.Vail, C0 81657
Dear Kristan:
l,le have reviewed the vail llational Bank's proposed loading zone at the north-east corner of our proposed parking structure, as uLtaiteo by sidney
schul tz'. drawi ng
_
dated 7 Apri I 1989. - l.le have no objecti on to. tlii s pl an,provided- the Bank pays for the construction costs, ind that the plairnin!
staff-helps convince the PEc and DRB that this is a justifiable trade-off oiasphalt pavement for the landscaping we previously proposed for this loca-tion.
9 Point of clarification, the proposed loading zone is
Doubletree_ property, aithough it is within the parcel to
easement for the parking structure. I have talked wjth
says he has no objections to Sidney's plan.
/1s
cc: Ray McMahan
Sidney Schultz
Peter Jamar
actual ly si tuated
be designated as
Peter Jamar, and
Ray McMahan
Adminislrator
APPLICATION DATE:
DATE OF DRB IIEE1iNG:
';' ':"
19 t vo9
DRB APPLICATION
*****THIS APPLICATION I.'ILL NOT BE ACCEPTED UNTIL ALL INFORMATION IS SUBI4ITTED*****
I. PRE-APPLICATION MEETING:
A pre-app'lication meeting wlth a planning staff member is strongly suggested to
determine if any additional information is needed. No application will be accepted
un1ess it is complete (must inc'lude all items reguired by the zoning administrator).It is the applicant's respons'ibi'lity to make an appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements. Please note that a COMPLETE applica-
tion will streamline the approval process for your project by decreasing the numberof conditions of approva'l that the DRB may stipulate. ALL conditions of approval must
be resolved before a building permit is issued.
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Address
D. NAME OF
-lt t\Nat W.rqi^rd
B. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
Blockf&jJbof L^fP Filing
Zoning c{c
C. NME OF APPLICANT: I/AT NAA'T.II' SNUK
tob 3fratr*FA telephone h.nL7
--APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE: €A164 *,++TI'+Z
Address l4l E.lnWr, ? telephone 6.16?,
E. NAME OF
Si gnature
The fee wil'l be paid at the
$ o-$ 1o,ooo
$1o,oo1 -$ 5o,ooo
$50,001 -$ 150,000
$150,001 - $ .500,000
$500,001 - $1,000,000$ Over $1,000,000
IMPORTANT NOTICE REGARDING ALL SUBMISSIONS
1. In addition to meeting submittal requirements, the applicant must stake the siteto indicate property lines and building corners. Trees that will be removed
should also be marked. This work must be completed before the DRB visits the
site.
2. The review process for NE}J BUILDINGS will normally involve two separate meetings
of the Design Review Board, so p'lan on at least two meetings for their approval.
3. People who fail to appear before the Design Review Board at their scheduled
meeting and who have not asked for a postponement will be required to be
republ i shed.
ihbftier Qor'P .terephone l'nb?
time a building permit is requested.
FEE
Address
F. DRB FEE:
VALUATIO
$ 10.00
$ 2s.00
$ 50.00
$1oo.oo
$200.00
$300.00
TO THE DRB:
The following information is_required for submittal by the applicant to
Board before a final approval can be fiven:
A. EUILDING I'IATERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL
MME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
Fascia
Soffits
}lindows
lillndow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
Flashings .
Chimneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
LIST OF I'IATERIALS
ONAV '1,{tr
the Design Review
COLOR
Roof
Sl di n9
other uall Materials +[tJ<zo FAIJ? | ',. +
F.'v. 9+r lt+tt- rlkw 6aeF
B. LANDSCAPING: Name of Designer:
Phone:
PLANT I'IATERIALS: Botanical Name Size*WaEarAlb+PROPOSED TREES.ftwW\#?|,,,ffi'*.Tb" aqn
0- l5l
Quani ty
?,
a
EXISTING TREES TO
8E REI4OVEO
for conifers.
(over)
Common Name
*Indicate caliper for deciducious trees.Indicate height
" PLANT IIATERIALS:
(con't)
SHRUBS
Botanical Name Quanity Slze'
lhub0 PuJ,
.,+wtO 'tfrt6?tz b61 6 r.+v+ lffitxP. qr_
f3 S OfrU
+ toAvnvtu flN?
Type
GROUND COVERS ltNiJ Ukt/5
Square Footaqe
s00
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
C. OTHER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wa]1s, fences, swimmlng pools, etc.) please speclfy.
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environnental
Commission of the Town of Vail will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.050 of the rnunicipal code of the
Town of VaiI on April 24, 1989 at 3:00 PM in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
L. A request for an arnendment and final plat revisions to SDD
f22, Resubdivision of Lots L through 19, Block 2,
Lionsridge Filing 3 in order to incorporate and rezone a
portion of Parcel D, Lionsridge #2, fron Residential and
Prinary/Secondary to SDD *22, repLat lot lines and amend
the grading plan.
Applicant: Dauphinais-Mose1ey Construction
2. A request for exterior alteration in order to construct
addition at the Up The Creek Restaruant, core Creek
nuilding, Vail Village.
Applicant: Up The Creek Bar & Grill Inc.
3.A request for
relocation of
the property,
FiIing.
Applicant:
a front setback variance, which includes the
that portion of Mill Creek as it transects
for Lot LO, Block 1-, Vail Village 1st
Robert Gunn
4. A request for a rezoning from High Density Multiple Family
zone district to Couunercial Service District with a request
for a Special Development District to allow for additional
parking and loading and an expansion of the Vail National
Bank Building as well as a Minor Subdivision request to
vacate a lot line for the Vail National Bank Building
property on Lot 2, a Resubdivision of Lot D, VaiI Village
2nd Filing and Tract D, YaiL/Lionshead 2nd Filing, 108
South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corporation.
lDlre applJ.cations and information about the proposals are
avallable ln the zonlng adnlnlstrator,s office durLng offlce
houra for publlc lnepectLon.
TOI{I{ OF VAIIJ
COIIIINTITY DEVEIOPITENT DEPAR$ENT
Publl'ehed in the VaLl Trail on Aprll 7, 1989.
April 10, 1989
r.
PETITION FORI4 FOR A.}IEND}IENT TO THE
OR
R.EQUEST FORA CI{ANGE IN DTSTRICT
This procedure i,". i"i-i-I.-ii5"i"'::n:t5i3.:i:.T:"il::$":il:"1: .n" zonins ordinance
A. NAjqE oF pETrrroNER vail Nationat Bank Building
ADDRTSS 108 Soutir Frontage Rd.
B.
c.
D.
NAI'18 OF PETITIONER'S REPRESNUIETTVdidNCY SChUI-IZ
ADDRESS 141 _East Meadow Drive
rty VNB Building Corp.
366 Forest rg$
ADDRESS
LOCATION OF PROPOSAI
ADDRESS log sourh Frontage Road
of Lot DTract D
.\sloo. o0 . PATDXIL.U-
"I_!l: names of owners ofProperty, and their ,nJri'g
P}iONE 6-s063
PIiONE 6-7890
-..-.-.-
PEONE 6-s063
gi.li'l?g;"fr:gr--_qH ilingo,."""
A. A list. subjegt all property adjacent
addresses.to the
n..i.;.il"."
ZONTNG OR.DINANCE
BOLiNDARIES
(0vER)
' elition form for *t" zonins ord or n"qr..fr change i" b"li5:riz"*
II. Four (4) copies of the follorving infornation:
A' The petition sharr include a sruninary of-.!r? progosed revisionof the regularior",-o-- a_complet" arscripfigl 0i the proposea. chanses ii di"a;i;r ii"r,aa.il"-J"a-l-iip_ inaicatirs_tf,l. existinsfri n l"'?i? :"',1, : :.:: il.. .3: T.* :i" il.^:: jji:l : *'. sub ni t wri t t en a n d / o i
.Iff. Tirne Requirements
llie:i3::*, i::rl-iiii i":{;:i i.::r*i :,i"rn3":-.:- :: - :1" 2nd anc -d,hnateriar mu sr be ="urittla';;;;'";":i l-:?:_necessary a"comp.r,-o in ji's. - -FJr i "':',s th;;i;;i"f":! g. !ii'H"H$I"i1r"ffi , :: iil"f .:ri"d;".-. iil.'l:";l'$: ;:*'E;ffill;r:J;+l#ffiil11 ",,,". boun<iary chanie
srtv scHULTZ-ARCH t0
141 EAST MEADOW DRVE
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
303/a76-789O
Revised April 7, 1989
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The applicants wish to all-or.' the f o1l-owing pernitted
new SDD:
A. Professional offices, business offices, and
B. Banks and financial institutions:
C. Business and office services:
D. Travel and ticket agencies;E. Additional offices, businesses, or services
be similar to permitted uses in accordanceprovisions of Section 18.28.020 of the SCS
REQUEST FOR REZONING & SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTVAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
LoL 2, a resubdivision of Lot D, Vail Village Second Filing, andTract D, Vail/LionsHead, Second Filing
uses in thi-s
studios;
determined to
with the
chapter.
BACKGROUT{D
The existing building consists of a three story concrete and
st ee1 frane structure with two 1eve1s of underground parking .The first floor of the building is occupied by the Vail National
Bank with the two upper floors leased to various professional
offices. The site on which the building sits is in the HighDensity Mul-tip1e-Family zone district. At the time when theproject was built in 1976, office space was pernitted as a condi-tional use. Since that time office space in the HDMF zonedistrict hras removed as a conditional use. As a result anyaddition of office space to the building would not be allowedtoday. For this reason the owners of the buil-ding wish to rezone
the site to Conmercial Service Center (CSC) District. Since the
existing building does not strictly conform to some of the zoning
as far as height and setbacks, and since some of the pernitted
uses in CSC are perhaps not appropriate on this site, Staff feels
that a Special- Developurent District is warranted.
Allowed in CSCLot Size: hlb-O-Gffi min
2,806 sq
Existing
275 sq. ft.
. f t. l-eased
p1-us
from VVMC
Setbacks:
Height:
min. 20' front, side,
and rear
38t max. for
sloping roof
25t front, I4.7 r east,
25 .3' west, 29' rear
40r to first floor l-eve1nax. 57 t at SouthEast corner
MEMBEA, ,HE AMEA CAN IJSTITUIE OI ArcHITECTS
Density Contr o l- :not applicabl-e; no GRFA in existing buil-ding
Coveragez 752 max, 377.
Landscaping: 2O7. nin. 4.610 sq. ft. pl-anted
plus waLks and terraces
Parking & Loading z (7 /24/84 TOV stats)
87 spaces required, 89 spaces,
65 spaces nust be covered 70 spaces coveredExisting 0ffice Areas:First Floor-Bank 6,608 sq. ft. p1-us
640-corridor, 455-stairs &
elevator, 260-toil-ets
Second Floor-Office 6,894 sq. ft. plus
corridor, stairs, elevator, toi 1et s
Third FLoor-Office 6,952 sq. ft. plus
corridor , stairs , elevator , toilets
PROPOSEI' DBVELOPME}IT
The Vail National- Bank wishes to add to the first fl-oor 314 sq.
ft.. of additional public lobby/reception area and 358 sq. ft. of
new airl-ock and vestibul-e to the north side of the building plus
478 sq. ft. to the east side. These additions wil-1 not encroach
further into existing setbacks nor increase the existing building
height. The additions will- require additional parking spaces
which are created when the entry access fron the Frontage Road is
relocated to the east to align with the Town of Vail entrance
across the street. The relocation of the entry access to the
east wil-1 renove a large portion of the existing landscaping on
the northeast corner of the site. To mitigate this loss of
l"andscaping r 6 n€w Landscape buffer will be added between the
Frontage Road and the short-term parking. In actual-ity, a
majority of the current Landscaping is on Highway Right of Way;
onLy about 1,180 sq. ft. of p1-anting is on Vail National Bank
Building property north of the building. That amount wiLl be
increased when aLL of the existing trees on CD0H land are
transplanted to new planting areas north of the buil-ding.
REQUEST FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE
&
VARIANCE TO PARTIN FRONT SETBACK
The proposed east addition wilL encroach approxinately 2.75 feet
lnto the eide setback. The addition wiLl sit on top of the
exlsting parklng deck uhich currently encroaches 5.3 feet into
the setback, ot 2.55 feet further than this proposal.
The five exietiag short-tern bank parking spaces to the north of
the buiLding are currently entirely within the front setback.
Banking le a service lndustry and its custoners demand convenient
parktng. To ease parktng, the existing 90 degree spacea will be
restriped as 60 degree one-way parking. Two new parklng spacea
w111 be added to the north of the building. Because of the
location of the existing building structure on the site' any
additional parking off of the Frontage Road nust also be vlthin
the front eetback. The proposed relocation of the two acceeses
to the eite v111 have a positive effect on public safety and
traffic flons once the existing crossover turning pattern betrreen
this property and the Town of Vail j.s elininated. In adpltlon'
the new short tern parklng and designated loading zone oF the
property w111 help remove the parking vhich now occurs oF the-
shoulder of the Frontage Road. This proposal wilL have no effect
on 1lght and air, dlstrlbution of population, or utllttt'es.
It)-lrr
Dafe of
g"through
all information is submitted.
ADDRESS
B. NAME oF ApprrcA^r* s RE'RE'E Nr^rwE 9fr18'l *lr+Ul{Z
aoonnss l4l 6nbaanflD4 pHoNE/WEgL
C. AUTHORIZATION
SIGNATURE
ADDRESS PHONE
LOCATION
ADDRESS
OF PROPOSAL
FEE
A List
subject
APPIICATION FORM FOR SPECIAL DEVEI.OPI{ENT
DISTRICT DE]TETOPMENT PLA}I
I. This procedure is reguired for any project that wouldthe Special Development District Procedure.
The application will not
II. Four (4) coPies of the following information:
A. Detailed written/graphic description of proposal ..8. An environmental impact report shdlf.be submitted to the zoningadministrator in accordance with Chapter 18.56 hereof unless waivedby Section 18.56.030, exempt projects;
C. An open space and. recreational plan sufficient to meet the demandsgenerated by the deveJ-opment without undue burden on available
or proposed public facilities;
be accepted until
NknarrolA. NAIIE OF APPLICANT
D.
E.
F.
, \\,$(.,of the name of owners bf
$100.00 PAID
Property and their rniling
n,.,,.1('U{ 6 - }::'a - )...
tv,\\Dlb I
lr'\\ r
al1 property adjacent to the
a-ddres ses .
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
i-tqW
(0vER)
,,
.t,Application tlpecial Development oi"Q Development Plan"
D. Existing contours having contour j-ntervals of not rnore than five
feet if the average slope of the site is twenty percent or less,
or with contour intervals of not more than ten feet if the average
slope of the site is greater than twenty percent.
A proposed site plan, at a scale not snaller than one inch eguals'
fiity feet, showing the approximate locations and dimensions of
all buildings and structures, uses therein, and all principal site
development features, such as landscaped areas' recreational facili-
ties, pedestrian plazas and walkways, service entriesr driveways'
and off-street parking and loading areas with proposed contours
after grading and site develoPment;
A preliminary landscape p1an, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals fifty feet, showing existing landscape features to be retained
or removed, and showing proposed landscaping and landscaped site
development features, such as outdoor recreational facilities,
bicycle paths, trails, pedestrian plazas and walkwaysr lvater features,
and other elements;
Prelirninary building elevations, sections, and floor Plans' at
a scale not smaller than one-eighth equals one foot, in sufficient
detail to determine floor area, gross residential fl-oor areaf interiot
circulation, locations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed development.
III. Time Requirements
The--P1:tnning and Environmental Conuuilssion meets on the 2nd and 4th
Mondays of each month. An application with the necessary accompanying
material must be submitted four weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
N0TE: It is recorunended that before a special development, district application
is subnitted, a review and coment neeting should be set up with the
Department of Comnunity Developnent.
E.
F.
G.
APPLICATION FOR
MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEl.,(4 or fewer lots)
A.
B.
c.
D.
F.
NAME OF
MAILING
nppuciNr S4 Nnsflilou EaNk hlupt$E paouehatbs
NAME -oF AppLrcAN.s RE'RESENT o'''re €WWI %lW
MATLTNG noon*s l4l E tlkaarnr D( pnonzl.frgo
NAME
tvpe)
ADDRESS
OhJNER'S SIGNATU
MAILING ADDRESS
LocATroN oF pRoposAL (noonEss) lo
l
enone (.J-069
a r^<e/l*
E. FEE $100 PAID
G.
H.
I.
TP da
MATERIAL TO BE SUBMI"'O \OJ
The subdivider shall submit three (3) copies, two of which must bemylars, o! th9 proposal-follow'ing ttri requirements for a final piit asfound in section 17.16.130 of th; subdivi'sion Regulations. certain ofthese requirements may be waived by the zoning administrator and,/or thePlanning and Environmental commission if deteimined not applicabie to theproj ect.
An environmental -report may be required if so st.i pulated under chapter18.56 of the zoning code.
The Department of conmunity Development wi't 'l be responsible for seeingthat_the approved plat is promptly recorded w'ith thi Eagle county cleikand Recorder.
Include a list of all adjacent property owners (including those behindand across the street) with thejr majljnq addresses.
Bank
The Alphoin -don d-onffi-le s oc ia t i onc/o Hr. Ben Boutell
Vail National
ADJACENT PROPBRTY OUNERS
Poet Offlce Box 3648Vail., C0 81658
Scorpio Condoniniun Association4919 Hampden Lane
Betheeda, MD 20814
Skaal Hus Phase 1c/o llr. Ron Anderson
727 Pennsylvanla Ave.Holton, KS 66436
Skaal Hus ?hase 2
c/ o I'ft. Ross DavisPost Office Bor 190Vai1, C0 81658
Vail Va11ey Medical Center
181 West Meadow DriveVail, C0 81657
(Doubletree Hotel)Yail Holdinge, Inc.c/o J. Michael Holloway
AnerLcan Credit Services, Inc.201 E. Broad StreerRocheeter, l{Y L4604
Doubletree CondoninLum Assoc.c/o llr. Gene Petracca
602 Park Ave.llanhaseet, NY 1.0030
Tonn of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.Vail, C0 81657
$,
W
4q,-
\)
ot
l
:
i
:' /1jr eil (, !1tq
i, r\.- - tll r - J' , Y=-.-- -t ll -.1 t.: I CF4,+\ 't- Y (ry\ I.i ,
I
PU.^ *+t fl* u,rtt*q,f,. 1i
tr|;:;
li
lill
DENNIS ANDERSON ASSOCIATES. INC.
Landscape Architecture . Planning . Visual Communication
April 1, 1989
Sidney Schultz
SIDNEY SCHULTZ - ARCHITECT
141 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
re: Vail National Bank Building / Landscaping
Dear Sid:
This letter is in response to the feasibility of transplanting plant materials existing in
front of the Vail National Bank Building.
It is my opinion that all of the existing plant materials could and should be transplanted
to the locations shown on the Landscape Plan dated April 4, 1989. The exception to
this would be the three 12" caliper Cottenwoods which would have a questionable rate
of surviveability because of their size.
I usually recommended to transplant materials such as 3'to g" Aspen and 6'to 20'
Spruce whenever possible because it is generally 112 the cost to transplant the tree as
planting a new tree of the same size. The surviveability is greatly increased if the tree
is transplanted once from its existing location to its new location and not heeled in a
holding location.
I would recommend contacting a company e4cerienced with transplanting large plant
materials such as Rocky Mountain Tree Experts of Denver. They will provide their
recommendations and a cost estimate for the services.
Please don't hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,&zrroM
D'ennis Anderson A.S.L.A.
..'
Suite 310, Vail Natronal Bank Building
108 Soulh Fronlage Foad West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-6405
LIST OF MATER
NAME OF PROJECT:
LEGAL DESCRIPTI0N:-
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF P
oNAv
IAL
F
The following information is_required for submittal by the applicantBoard before a final approval can be fiven:
A. BUILDING MTERIALS: TYPE OF MATERIAL
to the Design Review
COLOR
Roof
Si di ng
0ther Wa'l'l Materials
Fasci a
Soffi ts
l,l'indows
l,lindow Trim
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
Fl ues
Fl ashi ngs ..
Ch i mn eys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
0the r
\
B. LANDSCAPING I Name of Designer:
phone:
PLANT MTERIALS: Botanical Name Common Name
EXISTING TREES TO
BE REMOVED
4-t " Aotpgp
Quani ty
L4
(?
Si ze*
0- til
for coni fers.
(over)
*lndjcate caliper for decjducjous trees,Indicate heiqht
" PLANT MTERIALS:
(con't)
SHRUBS
GROUND COVERS
Botani cal Name Common Name
ftrt1uL
txhetEw
lffiree
rnuaa flw
Quani tv Size
Tvpe
ftNil uktt
Square Footage
s0D
SEED
TYPE OF
IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
c. 0THER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wal1s, fences, swimming poo]s, etc.) please specify.
vtv
a
%ffi4Q*tnlqz pnone |a'lE9o
Appl lcation l{urber
Fee Paid
SIGN APPLICATION
of ProJect Arto$ail-
Name of Person Submi tti ng
Descriptlon of ProJect
The fo1lowing infonnation ls requlred forto the Design Revlew Board before a flnal
Slgn submlttal fee is $20.00.
submittal by the appllcant
approva'l can be glven.
A. Slsn llaterlur 9C
B. Descriptlon of Sign
C. Size of Slgn
| 1t-?,.8
D. Conments
l. Site Plan2. Drawlngs shofr:ii6-Ei'act Iocatton3. Photographs shoring proposed 'locEli6i
4. Actual slqn4. Actual slqn5. Colored-scalEiffifi!- - --5. Colored- scalE
t/,llrruJ
tr<+-s
\xa€
6. Photograph of slgn
Approved for DRB Submittal
Disapproved for DRB SubmittdT-
6A)}ar-
&93t^-tsFa't)
5o
Sign Adminlstrator
Sign Administrator
luwn
75 louth tronleg€ roed
Yrll, color.do 81657
(30:t) a76-70m ofllcc of communlty dcyclopmcnt
March 28, 1989
Mr. Sidney Schultz
1-4L E. Meadow DriveVail, CO 81658
RE: Vail National Bank BuildingVariance and Rezoning
Dear Sid:
The staff has reviewed your apprications for the vail NationalBank project. Below is a surmnlry of our conments and additionalinforrnation that is needed in orler to review the proposal:
COMMENTS
1. The staff prefers that the property be rezoned toCommerciaL service Center with a special deveLopmentdistrict- A special development district would be designedto allow for offices and banks as permitted uses. Theadditionat retail that is in cornrneicial service centerwould not be listed as allowable uses within the specialdevelopnent district. we are not comfortable with alrowinoall the retail under Cornmercial Service Center as a.pernitted use. This process also allows for flexibilityfor the location of parking and loading so variances woildnot be necessary.
2. The-triangular parcel of 1and that is also owned by VailNational Bank should be added to the large bank palcel .This should be accomplished by a vacation of a fot tine.This process is a minor subdivision and would be reviewedby the Planning Commission.
3. The staff does not support the design and location of theloading ?pace on the northeast corner of the property. Weare particularly concerned about the retainage that wouldbe necessary_on the property line to allow for this loadingspace. we also do not believe that the toading functions -
well. Trucks would either have to back up to the entry inorder to exit or back into the loading spice in the area ofthe entry.
4.I{e understand ttrat the owner wourd like to provide as muchshort-tern parking in front of the bank as iossible.Horrrever, the staff and planning and Environientalcommission have indicated that tandscaping in rront of thebank is very inportant. A batqnce beti.reefr pi"=--irrg a; -
uruch - landscaping as is possElE-afd in addrlssinq tneparking_and loading requirements is necessary. fi"rrysuggestions lrere nade by the planning cornrnis3ion and staffat the PEC arork session on March 27. These commentsincluded:
a. Utilize some of the spaces along the western portionof the property for short-term parking.
b.Look at providing a parallel loading space in front ofthe bank. This would allow you to ieep several of theevergreens and the tbree large cottonwoods adjacent tothe front of the bank.
fnvestigate participation in the hospital parkingstructure. perhaps the spaces could Ue stiiped {oallow for cornpact cars. This approach could possiblygain_several spaces. The possilirity of addiirg alevel of-parking below the proposed lrospital s€ructureshould also be analvzed.
Look at pulling the eastern curb of the entry to thewest. This nay allow you to maintain additi6nallandscaping.
e. Look at re-striping the existing bank parkingstructure and surface parking on ttre west to-see ifadditional spaces could be giined by allowing forconpact parking.
f. Develop a parking management plan which would addressthe Planning.Conunissionrs conlern about the apparentlac! of parling on site for the uses within the VailNational Bank Building.
Please look at locating several large planters on the topof-the parking deck. The pEc and stafi berieve that asp-ensand shrubs could be added in this area which would have apositive inpact on the appearance of the building.
Staff would l-ike to know if the Colorado Division ofHighways would allow you to relocate existing trees inhighway right-of-way. We understand that yori iniena to
lelocate--many of the trees that wilr be afiected by the newclrr-ve. However, we are uncertain whether of not cDoH witlreally allow you to do this.
d.
5.
6.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
l-. A cross-section showing the Frontage Road new rnedian/planter, parking area, and bank building.
2. A stamped survey indicating existing trees and grades onthe property.
3. A letter fron CDOH indicating their position on the newdirection for traffic flow in and out of the bank as wellas landscaping.
4. The owner's position on providing for any parking spaceswithin the hospital structure. This could be accomptisneathrough re-striping or perhaps building new spaces at alower level. Dan Feeney, project manager for the VailValley Medical Center, has indicated to staff that there isa willingness to work on this idea.
5. A revised site plan indicating loading and parking whichmaintains as much landscaping as possible. This site planshould also show the proposed Frontage Road improvenentsand ingress/egress points on Toqrn of Vail property. Atpresent, the site plan is difficult to use when trying torelate the project to the surrounding uses. Basically, theplan should indicate how the Vail National Bank proposalfits into the overall scheme for the Frontage noad lndsurrounding properties.
6. A landscape plan that indicates sizes and types of newmaterial as well as trees and shrubs that will be removedand/or relocated. Staff would also recommend that the
durnpster be screened. As mentioned before, staff isstrongly encouraging you to discuss your landscape planwith CDOH so that we may know if it is even feas;-Ufe.
7. A letter that gives you power of attorney to sign off forvail National Bank Building Corporation/8.B. Chester mustbe subnitted. Basically, the letter nust indicate that you
may sign off for Vail National Bank Building Corporation-and that E.B. Chester represents Vail National BankBuilding Corporation.
8. Please subrnit a revised application for Commercial ServiceCenter for rezoning and a special development district. Anew application for a vacation of the 1ot 1ine between thetwo bank parcels should also be submitted. The appropriateform is a minor subdivision application.
Please subnit the applications as soon as possible to allow forre-publishing. The remainder of the infonnation should besubmitted no later than March 3tst.
As staff stated in the neeting yesterday, we understand that theproject necessitates sone loss of landscaping to alloer for the
I
new.access and parking. However, we do believe that asatisfactory sorution may be reached which wirr benefit vailNationar Bank and the. coinnunity at rarge. we unaerstana tnit uyasking you to change the reque3t srign€ty you riii u" incr-asiniyour review tine on the project by an aadilional two to fourweeks. we believe that it 'rfilr b6 an inportant two weeks whichwill atlow for suitabre parking and loading, trafiic flow,landscaping, and an appropriat6 zone distrilt. w- rrop" you wilrconsider our comments and-work with the staff to deveiop-asolution to these issues. ff you have any further queslionsabout our conments, prease feei. free to contact me at 47g-zL3g.
Sincerely,L,l 0A-It!)Tan lfrtfKristan PritzSenior Planner
KP: kccc: l.lr. E.B. Chesterlrlr. A. Peter patten
srGv scHULTZ-ARCHTTO
14,1 EAST IVEADOW DR VE
VAIL, COLORADO 8165/
3A3/476-7890
Revised l(arct' 22, 1989
REQUEST FOR REZOIiING
VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
Lot 2, a resubdivision of Lot D
Tract D, Vail/LionsHead, Second
, Vail Village Second Filing, and
Filing
BACKGROUND
The existing building consists of a three story concrete and
steel frame structure with two leve1s of underground parking.
The first floor of the buil-ding is occupied by the Vail National
Bank with the two upper floors leased to various professional
offices. The site on which the building sits is in the High
Density Multiple-Family zone district. At the time when the
project was built in 1976, office space was permitted as a condi-
tional use. Since that time office space in the HDMF zone
district was removed as a conditional use. As a result any
addition of office space to the building would not be al-l'owed
today. For this reason the or,rners of the building wish to rezone
the site to Comnercial- Service Center (CSC) District.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Permitted Uses:
A. Professional- offices, business offices, and studios;
B. Banks and financial i n s t i t u t i o n s i . . .
Allowed in CSC
Lot Size: 20,000 sq. ft man.
side,
')t
2,806 sq
Existing
275 sq. ft. plus
. ft. leased from VVMC
front, L4.7 ' east,
3t west, 29t rearSetbacks:
Height r
min. 20' front
and rear
38 t max. for
sloping roof
25',
25.
Density ControL:
not applicable; no GRFA
Coverage z 757d max.
Landscaping: 2O7. ni-n,
paces requlreo,
Loading z (7 /24/84 T0V stats)
es must be covered
40' to first floor 1eve1-,
max. 57' at SouthEast corner
in existing building
11q
4,610 sq. ft. planted
p1-us walks and terraces
8
o
\ '-\s ) ,.r- ).
/ 8)l6paces,
L--n spaces covered
Par k
E
MEMBER. TI.]E AI\4ERICAN NSTITUTE OF ARCI.]ITECTS
--
Existing 0ffice Areas:
FirsL Floor-Bank 6,608 sq. ft. plus
640-corridor, 455-stairs &
elevator, 260-toilets
6,894 sq. ft. plus
corridor, stairs, elevator, toilets
6,952 sq. ft. plus
corridor , stairs, elevator, toilets
Second Floor-0ffice
Third Floor-0ffice
PROPOSED DEVELOPI.IENT
The Vail- National Bank wishes to add to the first floor 314 sq.
ft. of additional public lobby/reception area and 358 sq. ft of
new airl-ock and vestibul-e to the north side of the building p1-us
478 sq. ft. to the east side. These additions will not encroach
further into existj-ng setbacks nor increase the existing buildi-ng
height. The additions wil-1 require additional parking spaces
which are created when the entry access fron the Frontage Road is
relocated to the east to align with the Town of Vail entrance
across the street. The relocation of the entry access to the
east will- remove a 1"arge portion of the existing landscaping on
the northeast corner of the site. To mitigate this loss of
1-andscaping, a new landscape buffer will be added between the
Frontage Road and the short-term parking. In actuality, a
majority of the current landscaping is on Highway Right of Way;
only about 1,180 sq. ft. of planting is on Vail National Bank
Building property north of t.he building. That amount will be
increased when rnost of the existing trees on CD0H land are
transplanted to other areas around this or adjacent sites.
REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO PARK IN FRONT SETBACK
The five existing short-term bank parking spaces to the north of
the buil-ding are currently entirel-y within the front setback.
Banking is a service industry and its custoners demand convenient
parking . To ease parking, the existing 90 degree spaces wil-1 be
restriped as 60 degree one-way parking. Two new parking spaces
wil-1 be added to the north of the building. Because of the
location of the existing building structure on the site, any
additionaL parking off of the Frontage Road must also be within
the front setback. The proposed relocation of the two accesses
to the site will have a positive effect on public safety and
traffic f l-ows once the existing crossover turning pattern between
this property and the Town of Vail is eliminated. In addition,
the new short term parking and designated loading zone on the
property wil-1 reurove the parking which now takes place on the
shoulder of the Frontage Road. This proposal- will have no effect
on light and air , disLribution of population , or utilities.
C*rr. 11es,,
l{t!ruTEs
VAIL TO}IN COUNCIL MEETING
AUGUST 7, 1990
7:30 P.ltl.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOI{N OFFICIALS PRESENT:
A regular meetlng of the Vail Town7:30 p.m., ln the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
i,t
a
Council was held on Tuesday, August 7, 1990, atof the Vail Municipal Bujlding.
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor pro Tem
Lynn Frltzlen
Jlm Glbson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVlne
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town lrlanager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attonney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
There was no cltlzen partlcrpailon, the flrst ltem on the agenda.
Next was l public hearing on the 1990-91_par\ing policies, stan Berryman gave anintroductlon to the hearing.stattng the pinring"and'rninsportation ndi,iso.i-'-'corunittee had niet severa'l ilmes to-dlscuss recommendation! tor ilrese-piiiii.s.Arnold Ullevig then gave an. in-depth presentation reJiraing ttre propoieu'poiiii."and the reasoning for the changes'froir ttre iurrert piiiiiljE.. He then held aquestion and answer.session wj[h council_and ttre pubii..'-ir"uor Bradway felt thepolicies were discrimlnatory agatnsi virrage worr<!;; il those who had pald lnto theparklng fund for parklng gnacei in the vitiage rrintpori.i{on center. Josef Staufercommented that making employees (who get off-work ii'z:oo a.m.i-;;;i'in-Fiia pii.r.was unfair. TherE was some-discuss'ioi regarding ernpfovees-getiihg otf "t-iitl-'hours,.and why coupons worked we'l'l before-and s6me b.o-pi" r,it"d i6 get ria-oi-g,.r.l'luch discussion by the pubric and councit eniuea rd;;di;g';.os and cons. RobLevine made a motion to table the item and send it 6ic[ i6 irre-niuirotv-io*iite.for further revjew. Tom Steinberg seconded the motion. -Jim gtuson stated he wantedto pass the program $!! ttre following conditlons: iitt restrictlons Jn itr"-viitag"parking structure parking;_parking frie at Ford ianf; ana'oitrer modifications to bemade as the prognam.went a'long. He felt this was a itJp-in the right aireilion.Mayor Rose explalned why he falt it should go uiit to-ifie'lormlttei. n voie wastaken and the motlon.passed 5-2,-with Lynn Fritzlen and ulm etbson oppor.a.- nonPhillips asked Council to specifical]v narne the items they rett itre-ftuiioiv "-'
Connittee should review. Lynn Fritzlin felt the added Jiiess on employees [ecarseof the parkins and housrng iituafions was bad, ana irre pi"n-ioura-ilip"it-p;;uiaing
3 pass speclflcally targeted. to Vlllage employees. Rob'LeVine thoughl t[e-viiiigeTransportatlon Center could be shared-by a'fiisi-comJ,-tirit served'basls by aciessor price; include the coupons at a reas6nable rate; ana tir"re Ue one-pisi witfi-norestrictions for. $750,.that the person_could come inU so-"i'rre pteaiel.--mivor ho..remarked slnce the aud'lence felt'the blue parklng paisii wourU bromoiJ ro."-iars inthe Vtll.age than the coupons, he felt a coinbined-winaow-sticrer-anu'-ioupin-proil}"twas good and would work. He added he dtd not thtnk itrere-stroutd be ilt-aliffi;;"charges for the Village parking structure, and was not sure dlfrerenliit-raf"s oneverythlng ln the Vil'lage struiture was pioper. Jjm Gibson ttrougtri i Uiu!-piss'should have I'a number of tlnres used" and'nol-i'nuruer oi-Jiyt i; -FJggv oitIrFillcommented the audlence wanted to have the ability to ao wnii ttrevriiitea-ina-pirringwhere they wanted, and paylng more was not an isiue.
The third item was a Consent Agenda of the followlng items:
A. Approval of Minutes of Ju'ly 3 and 17, 1990 l4eetings
B. OrdiJr.anSe llo.-l9,..Serles of 199^-' lii,t#fi*iia'.rre:oeo(f)Fj;qriL5=m,"i;iiiifiHlqftlflJii8ieH:llfi;vl3ll{l}qfficontror for the prlmafy/sicondarj-'ioni"iat strt itr'(lript I caili - ro*n-oi' vir r I
c. 0rdinance No. 24, series of 1990, second reading, an ordlnance makingsupplemental approprlatlons from'the Town oi Viii generit iuna, iipilar
' proJects fuld,.Conmunltles for Drug-Free Eagle Va1 ley fund, special parkingassessment-fund, Vall marketlng fuid and thi reii esiate traniier-iai fund,of the 1990 budget and the finincial plan for the Town ot viii,-ioii.aao;and authorjzing the expend'ltures of siid appropriationt "s-i.i'f;;ih'herei n.
Ordinance No. 28, series of-1990, second reading,-an ordinance amending theplan document of the Town. of vaii employees. p.iiioli pi.,ii-lro ,eilinl" -"-
forth details in regard thereto.
Ordinance-No. 29, Series of.1990, second reading, an ordrnance amending theTown's Pollce and Fire-pension pian aoiument suSj"ii io-approvar uvsixtv-f ive. percent (65%) of the' Town i s
-pol
r ce-ini-ii"ir"n!"ini-i.liingforth details In regard thereto.
F' Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1990, second readlng, an ordlnance amending thetrust agreement pursuant to the fown of vaii emiiov;.;i-il;;i;n-pian; andsetting forth details ln regard thereto.
G' Resolutlon il9. l9r Serles of 1990, a resolutlon authorizlng certaln Town\. employees and offlcers to slgn ch6cls ariwing on an operating aiiount to be', :!:|!l bv the Town at the FtistBank of vait inu furttrir iu*ritiiiis certain'? employees of the Town to make deposits in said account.
' %,^iiii]il'ii*il, i3i,Tilit,i"lii3,.i ff:"ltl:tffi[.:?'l:lTn.ll."ltilt,il,.n, F::::ili-:rlrcers to sign a lease therefor, to termjnate the lease, to7 surrender.the box' return the keys, and release the Bank from any'liabiljtyin connection therewith.
l4erv Lapin made a motion to approve the consent Agenda as presented. Tom gqinberg
ffli:;lfl:ifi"Tilit;,*::: ffi:,1;"1til';:l:" ly"i;llill,:i ;:a iliilF:;''rrs;cl
D.
E.
$S!.$t..9llit119:^Hg,25,-series of 1ee0,b6E6frlfit{{,!ns-f:jn,.erdtnalce amendtng
:*:1"1.?.Y:19?T?n! Distrlct:ilol'f3;'the.vailrrltafionaTrsifiRrBiiirirncttind iliiiigrortn tne detaits ln_regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the full tit'le-of theordinance. lllke l4olllcaitated the only-change made sinie flrst reiding-wis underSection 4.E. A new paragraph had been idded.- t;rrt E.[*i$r then dlscussed vailAssociates' waiver of right of reverter clause wnic[ .lim eibson had questioned at!!:-IiI:! Ieadins.. Jav. peterson, representing itre-appji..inl, gave backsrouni-lnrormaElon regardtng-the parking situation, and did not feel the ordlnince's newparagraph 4.E. was fair. After iome discusiion uv couniii-and Jay, a motion-to-approve the ordinance on second reading.with the iddttional tingriie wai-riJe-uvlvlerv Lapln. A second came from Rob Le[ine. A vote was taken aia itre motiJn-pilsea5-2, with Tom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlen opposed,
iiiti,iitl!!ei6lir6ii'3.4l$ffi'll;,'3;,!illi",:'":'lfurii*tihtsffl*tnthrur..oEne oevelopment plan ln accordance wlth Chapter 18.40 of the Vail t'lunlclpal Coie;and-setting forth details. in.regard thereto' (714 we;t Lionstreio clrlie,-lit.-c, z,c, D, Block--2, vatl-Lionshead 3id Filins) (Appiid;i; u-ti corporatton'--riiserftlorcus and lrlarriott corporation). rne iutt'tilte wis reia'-uv miyor noie. Jim-Glbson made a motlon to table''thls lten unttt itre'3Jpl!ru"r-i'lri"irii;riiitrnc;:p"r r'
-lf:.!!11:lnt's"request.' Rob Levlne seconded ttri moiion.-'xrritin'iirti-Jiiiirh"a'what rezoning the applicant_was trylng to change to and why. A vote wii til,en anutne notton passed unanimously 7-0.
t{ext. was-p;dln4"]jll# z7-$gf6 s;:rof-,199p I f I rst read I n9, an ordi nance amend I nE
SlliB.::,t9:91,:I-.!: van r'tuntctpal codt'6y ure aaaiiioi'oi sillio;:i6.0,i':ijiil"tia*:Pub;l-and.amending Section 18.28.030 of the t'lun'lcipal Code to add:Brei'puU'iii'i-permltted use in the Cormerclal Service Center zoire dis[riit; amending Ct"pibt18.28.040 of the Vall Municlpal Code by the addition of Brew'pubs thal se'li beerwholesale and Brew Pubs which sell flfieen percent of thl manufactured beer or alefor.off-slte consumptlon as conditlonal usei to the comerilal Servlce iinter zon"dlstrlct; amending Chapter 18.28 of the Vall Municipal Code to provlde certalnrestrlctions ln the opgration of a Brew Pub; and se[iing iorth ietals in rtgardthereto. The full tit]e was read by mayor ioie. -nnav lnuuisen gave brlefbackground jnformation on. the requeit. He stated thrie itringes [o the code whlchhad to_happen regardlng thrs request for a brew prui ii it-lria to be defineaj z)council had to make a brew pub a use by right; ana-it-itiv ili i; siaie ii"iitii
-2-
--,'Iteps-for condltional use. After some discusslon, AndyCouncil.. Merv Lapln then made a motion to approve the-oseconded. Larry Eskwlth suggested combining'the two con
ordinance into only one. Menv then amended-hls motion tto combine both conditlonal uses .l nto one, and Jim amend
taken and the motjon passed unanlmously Z-0.
It
then answered questions of
rdinance, which Jim Gibsonditlona] uses shown in the
o approve the ordinance and
ed his second. A vote was
Seventh on_the agenda was aniip'peal-bflthe PEC; decislonlto approve requests for anexterlor. alteration. and landscape varlance ln -order to construct an additlon to theLancelot Restaurant at the Bell Touer Butldlngilocated at 201 Gore Creek Drive (partof rract A, Block 58, vail village 1st Filing) (Applicant: Hermann Staufer, '
Lancelot Restaurant). Kr'lstan Pritz gave baikgrou;i information on the exterioralteration request and explained why staff recommended approval wlth two conditions:
l. - The.appllcant must remove railings surrounding the patio from November l to
May 1 of each year.
.2: _The.app'llcant. must participate in a proJect involving the property ownersand the Town's Publlc $lorks Department ln an iffort to reso'lvI draliragi pr6blems
adjacent to the Be] 'l Tower Sutidlng. These drainage problems are a result of the
undirected drainage off of the buiidlng. Staff dois irot fee'l that the appllcant
shou'ld be required to provide the solutlon individually. However, staff ieels it isfair-to require him, as a property owner ln the building, to participate and pay forhis fair share as deemed by the building association. Any driinage improvemeirti
necessitated by the deck enclosure shal'l be addressed by the applicant-ln the Design
Review Board submitta'l and building permit p1ans.
Krlstan then revlewed the landscape varlance request and explalned the re.isoning forthe request. She stated the staff recommended approval of the variance, and
reviewed the Planning and Envlronmenta'l commisslon's vote for approval ;f 5-2.Kristan answered questions of Council. Peggy Osterfoss felt these were good ideasfor the area. Tom Steinberg commented there should be an agreement with-theapplicant that he pay a parking fee, and lf council amends the ordinance and
increases stated fees sometime during the next year, he would be lncreased as we'l l.
Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to uphold the PEC's decislon to approve an exterioradditlon to the Be1l Tower Building, finding that the granting of thls var'lance
wou'l d not constitute a grant of special privilege, and was substantiated by the Vai'lvillage Master P'lan which encourages a wide varlety of activities, events, andstreet'l lfe along pedestrian ways and plazas, and lncluding the conditions requiredln the staff memorandum dated JuIy 23, 1990. The motion was seconded by MervLapjn. A vote was taken aid the motion passed unanimously 7-0. Peggy Osterfoss
then made a motlon to uphold the PEC's decision to approve a varJance request to
reduce the landscaping to increase the Lancelot's deck. She stated the grantlng ofthis variance would not constitute a grant of speclal privilege, and was ln
compliance with the Vail Village Master Plan, and lncluding the conditlons that the
landscaping be added between the two build'lngs, and bench/possible boulder/Aspentree be added to the Gore Creek Promenade greenspace as mitlgation for the reductionof the landscaped area. Tom Stelnberg seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was an fdtCfil'foff Ong'ra$iiivll lof the proposed resi dence th Creek
luiiiF:fDrivg (Lot 4, Block 9, Vall Village l1th Flling) (0wner: ceoi6'trpF,Ca'ulkliSlfilr.)!t lShe'l'ly Mello gave background lnformatlon regarding the request. Ellot Goss,
an architect representing the Caulkins, presented the Councll with drawings of thebuildtng in question. Kristan and Shelly then answered questlons of Counci'l .
l{erner Kaplan presented to Council for their revlew photographs of resldences ln the
nelghborhood, statlng reasons why he was opposed to the bulldlng of the new home
next door. Harry Frampton, a neighbor, requested Councll overturn the DRB decislon
because he felt the Swiss style chalet ln a contemporary neighborhood was totally
out of p'lace, plus the house needed a garage. August Grassls and Byron Rose,
neighbors, supported lrlr. Frampton's statements. Pepl Gramshammer fe]t the house wasfine and shou1d be approved, that €veryone should have the rlght to build hls/her
own home. George Caulkins read aloud aletter he received fron Rod Slifer ln
support of the cha'let style as far as rea'l estate prlce was concerned. After much
dlscussion by Councll, staff, and the pub'lic, Merv Lapin made a rnotion to upho'ld the
DRB decislon wlth the condltions the shutters be done in a solld color, a
landscaplng plan be 'lncorporated on the open area, and a two car garage be put on
the property. Rob LeVine seconded the notlon. Ned Gwathmey stated how the DRB had
come to lts declsion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, w'lth Mayor Rose,
Tom Steinberg, and Lynn Fritz'len opposed. tilike Cacloppo gave reasons why he was
against the Council's decision.
-3-
I
At.this time, Councll declded to take the last two ltens out of order to expedltethe last item a member of the publlc was waitlng to address. Therefore, aclion onproposed 1ease between the TOV and the Eagle County School District for a playgroundat the Red Sandstone Elementary Schoo'l site at 551 Nonth Frontage Road was'nei[.
There was no discussion by council or the public, except to de] ite the staff
recommendation that the 'l ease be conditloned on the School District renewing the
Town's lease on the_el ementary school gyrn. Merv Lap'ln made a motion to appiove thelease agreement, which was seconded by Jim Gibson. A vote was taken anU Lhe motion i
passed unanimously 7-0.
Discussion regarding an appealiof a DRB declslonionithe;illlttemy€n;lrssldence whlchincluded a new detached garage and gondola bulldlng and'a'reviied''front"eritry (338
Rockledge Road; Lot-1, Block 1, vail valley 3rd Filing) (Applicant: Mr. wiiteiryer)
was next. ltllke ltlolllca remarked this item, which had-been iirproved by the DRB, [ad-
been. cal.led up .by the Council. He presented drawings of the'blans and a sca'l e'modelof the detached garage and house. Mike added it had been a unanimous decislon to
appnove the plans by the DR0. l'led Gwathmey, Chalrman of the DRB, gave additionallnformation-regarding the plans and DRB's ieasoning for the dec'iiion made. Johnl{ittemyer also added background lnformation. Ned ihen answered questions ofcouncil. Lynn Fritzlen made a motlon to uphold the DRB decision, which peggy
0sterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motlon passed 6-1, with Merv-Lipin
opposed.
There being no further buslness, this neetlng was adJourned at 12:15 a.m.
Respectful ly submitted,
ATTEST:
ilinutes taken by Bnenda Chesman
Respectful ly
Pamela A. BiandmeyeF, TofinTTerl
-4-
- '"; ''l tlo z&
"331s:':r*l;,3u hfnth
^oI
ORDINANCE
^*TENDING
SPECIAL DEVEIFPUENT DISTRIET NO. 23, W,THE VAIL NATIONAL BAI{K BUILDING' AND SETTING - a-.)FORTH TIIE DETAII,S IN REGARD TIIERETO. J A
\/ra'+'Ltt'
WHEREAS, chapter 18.40 of the Vall l,lunicipal Code authorizes \Sc''r,kty
Speclal Deve).opment Districts within the Town in order to
encourage flexibility in the developnent of land; and
I{IIEREAS, an application has been made to amend Special
Developnent District No. 23, conmonly referred to as The Vail
National Eank Building; and
VIIIEREAS, in accordance with section 18.66.140 the Planning
and Environmental Connission held a public hearlng on the
proposed anendments and has submitted a recornrnendation to approve
said amendnents to the Tonn council; and
rEEREIS, tbe Tosn Councl.l flndg that the VaLl Nattolal
EaDLrs requeat to provlde llulted (6 spao€sl ott-glte partlng ln
tbc adJacent Vall Yalloy l{eCLcal centerra parklng gtructure ls a
ualque and practlcal solutl,on, rbiah Lg oonsigtent ritb the
publlc lntaregt; aad
Tf,ERE.lS, tbie aolutlon lg a direct result of tbe
conprebengl.ve naster plannlng process for tbe tollovLng, adJacent
propertLee:
-vall lfatl.onal BaDlr Buildlng property
-vall velley tiedlaal cslter property
-Doubletrea lotel propcrty
lbrougb a Jolnt cffort to nagter plan tcaess, Parkl'ag, and other
gito dcvclopnent, a congolldated partlng struoture aad vchlcular
tlcceaa off of Soutb lrontage Road bat beea createll, thoreDy
reducl.ag vabl.cular traffic on r€st trleadov Drive.
NOW, THEREFOFE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCII, OF THA
TOr{N OF VAIL, COTOR,ADO, THAT:
Section 1.
The Town Council- finds that the procedures for a zoning anendnent
as set forth in Chapter 18.66 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vall have been fully satisfied, and all other reguirements of
the Municipal Code of the Town relating to zoning arnendnents have
been fully satisfied.
Section 2.
The Town Council finds that the procedures set forth for
amendments to special Developnent DiEtricts in chapter 18.40 of
the Municipal Code of the Tonn of Vail have been fully satisfied.
,I
Section 3.
Section 4 of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989 is hereby amended
with the addition of subparagraph 3 to read as follows:
The developnent plan is conprised of those plans subnitted
by sidney Schultz-Architect AIA, and consists of the
following documents:
3. Architectural Plans designated as Sheets A1 and A2,
dated Decernber 26, 1989.
Section 4.
Section 5, Paragraph E. of ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
E. Parking
Parking dernands of thLs development shall be net in
accordance with the off-street parking requirenents for
specified uses as stated in Section 18.52 of the vail.
Uunicipal Code. Six parking spaces requl-red by this
development shall be provided in the adjacent Vail
Valley Medical Center parking structure.
Section 5.
Section 5 of Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1989 is hereby anended by
the addition of subparagraphs 5-6 to read as follows:
5.The vail National Bank Building shall not occupy the
expanded premises as shown on architecturaL plans A-1
and A-2 unless Vail Valley Medical Center has received
a Temporary certificate of occupancy for the parking
structure.
Ttre Vail National Bank Building agrees that if for sone
unforseen reason the Vail vaLley ltedical Centerrs
parking structure is not conpleted, the newly
constructed deck enclosure shall only be allowed to be
used for common storage.
Section 6.
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of
this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such
decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions
of this Ordinancei and the Town Council hereby declares it would
have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses
or phrases be declared invalid.
6.
thall any addltlonal parklng
erpansl.ons or redeveloPnent,
provided on-site tt th€ VaiI
be regul.rsdl for future
saLd parking Bhall be
National Bart buildllg
I
e
/ section 7.
The Town Councll hereby finds, deternines and declares that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and inhabitants thereof.
Section 8.
The repeal or the repeal and reenactnent of any provisions of the
Vail Munlclpal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty inposed, any
violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any
prosecution comnenced, nor any other actlon or proceeding ae
comnenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or
repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby ehaLl
not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or
superseded unless exlrressly stated herein.
Section 9.
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof,
inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed to the extent only of
such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be conEtrued to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part
thereof, heretofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ AND PASSED ON FIRST READING THIS =h1- dAY Of
JuLv , 1990, and a publlc hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the 3rd day of Julv , L99O at 7s3O p.n.
in the Council Chambers of the Vail l,tunicipal Building, VaiI ,
colorado.
Ordered published in full this 3rd day of Julv , 1990.
Kent R. Rose, lfayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandneyer, Town Clerk
INBRODUCED, READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED this _ day of , x990.
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Tolrn clerk
Kent R. Rose, l,layor
MINUTES
VAIL TOUN COUNCIL MEETII{G
JULY 17, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regul ar
7:30 p.m.
meeting of the
, in the Council
Vail Town
Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOI{N OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Counc'll was held on Tuesday, July 17, 1990' at
of the Vail Municipa] Building.
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro-Tem
Lynn Fri tz'len
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Cl erk
The first item was a ten year emp'l oyment anniversary award to Linda Barca. Ron
Phi'l'lips gave brief backgiound information on Ljnda who is a Bus Driver with the
Pub'lic'Woiks/Transportation Departnrent. Skjp Gordon made some additional comments,
and Mayor Rose thanked Linda for her hard work and her years of service.
The next order of business was Citizen Participation. There being none, Counci'l
moved on to the third item of business.
Item three on the agenda was a Consent Agenda. Based on Council request, Mayor-Rose
stated a'll items wou'ld be handled separaiely. Item A was Ordinance l{o. 20, Series
of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending 0rdinance No. 10, Series-of 1990'
Specia'l-Development Dii[rict l'lo. 4, Section 16.46.100 C, Density Floor Area, Area C
Gien Lyon dup'lix'lots to provide f6r gross residential f'loor area to be ca'lcu'lated
per ttt6 requlrement of thl primary/seiondary zone district_Section 18.13.080 Density
bontro'l; and setting forth ietail! in regard thereto -(fqOlicant: 75% of Glen Lyon
subdiviiion properti owners). The tit'le was read in fu'|1 by Mayor Rose. Kristan
pritz and Sh;]]y Meilo made'a brief presentation. Jim Gibson stated concerns
t.giraing additional GRFA requests, with Shel'ly responding that this change was ln
tola1 coiformity with current zoning and'lot size. She'l'ly Me1'lo stated there had
Ueen no tpecifii reason for the 4,260 square foot restriction on GRFA in regards to
negotiatibn issue, and that the d6veloper had vo'l untarily agreed to thls provision
in-order to ensure the qua'l ity of the subdivision. Tom Steinberg moved to approve
this ord'inance on second reading, with a second coming from Merv Lapin. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimous'ly 7-0.
Item B under the Consent Agenda was 0rdinance No. 23, Series of 1990' second -ieiaing; in ordinance ameniing Section..18.26.04O of the Municipal Code to inc'lude as
"-ionAiiiJna] use "Te'levision-Statlons" ln the Comercial Core II zone district
inppiiii"i, vii'l/geaver Creek Televis'ion Network). Ih" full title was read bv
fialbr noie. l'like Mollica stated there had been one change on1y,-and that was toitii.tion I. Definition of TV Stations.u Bill Perkins, representing the appllcant,
stated he did have a question in regard to the term "satellite dish," and.further
questlons on the two ioot diameter iequirement and exemptions. Further discussion
prorpt"A a"]eting the verbiage for saiellite dishes from the end of Section I.
F.ss! O.t".foss ilso-requestEd c'larification of the production studio and what vlews
would be available to in'e pub'lic. Bil'l Perkins stated the publjc wou'ld be able to
view inside ttre proiuciion'equipment with seating provided within the studio,. and
another studio tor iiping iniervlews would be on-the walkway immediate'ly-to the
exterior of that studio ip".". Rob LeVine moved to pass Qrdinance No. 23 on second
reading, with a
""cJna "o.ing from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion
pariel-in"nimousty Z-0. Mik6 Cacioppg spoke agiinst the approval of this ordinance
i.aiiatins that hi naa a ierious prbblem'with lhe location of television studjos on
tne first-t'loor 'level , in that this has previously been reserved for restaurant. or
riiail ipace and shouid be the continued use in C6nmercial Core I and II, and that
if the Council were-io-apptoui itrls orainince, it would "smack of special privilege
and election payoffs."
I
1 {8,,Item C under the Consent Agenda was 0rdinance No. 25, Series oFrfgo/3af4a
reading, an ordinance amending SDD No. 23, Vail Natlonal Bank, PartW(1fl| Block
2, Vail Vi'l'lage 2nd Filing, 108 South Frontage Road }Jest (App'licant: -VaifNational
Bank Bul'lding Corp.). Mayor Rose read the title of the ordinance ln fu'l'1.- Mike
Mol'l ica lndicated numerous changes to the "l,lhereas" section at the beginning of the
ordinance had been included based on a request by Merv Lapin. These changes were to
acknowledge the singular and unique situation in which the Bank finds itself. Jim
Gibson had questions in regard to future use of this parking faci'ljty and the
right-of-reverter clause. Specifically, he asked whether the reverter clause had
been lifted, stating the reverter clause was of some issue because if in the future
the medical fac'i lity were not located on this site or if the structure were
destroyed and not to be rebuilt, Vail Associates cou'l d once again obtain exclusive
use of-this portion of land which wou'l d then negate any parking arrangement the Vall
I'lational Bank Bui'lding had with the Medica'l Center. Lamy Lichliter with Vai'l
Associates acknowledged the reverter c'lause situation and stated the clause had not
been lifted. However, the situation u,as one with which they had dea'lt. Fo1 lowing
discussion, Rob LeVine moved to approve Ordinance No. 25, with a second coming from
Kent Rose. At this point, Jay Peterson asked to tab1 e this ordinance in order to
c'l arify the reverter clause question. Rob LeVine withdrew his motion, and Kent Rose
his second. Peggy 0sterfoss then moved to tab'le this 0rdinance No. 25 to the August
7 meeting, with-i second coming from Jim Gibson. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 5-2, with Tom Steinbeng and Merv Lapin opposing.
The fourth item of business was 0rdinance No. 21, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance designating an underlying zone distrlct of high density multi-family to
Special Deve'lopment District No. 7, connonly referred to as the Marriott Mark
Rbsort; and setting forth details in regard thereto (714 West Lionshead Circle,
Lots 4, 7, C, D, Biock 2, Uai'l-Lionshead 3rd Filing) (App'licant: M-K Corporation'
;'1ark L6d9; C6ndominiums, and Mark Resort & Tennis Club). Mayor Rose read the-full
tit'le. Kristan Pritz presented a brief history relating to the applicatlon of HDI'IF
zoning to the Special bevelopment District. Because this item had been presented injts entirety at the June 19 evening meeting, Kristan focused on changes that had
occurred since that meeting. the GRfR had-been reduced to 58,800 square feet, which
was a reflection of 56 timesharing units at approximately 1,050 square feet per
unit. Ned Gwathmey, architect for the project, explained that a computer analysis
presented a refinement of the plan and had a'l tered the original_figures_and reduced
the total GRFA by approximately 8,400 square feet. Kristan explained the
consideration of'both the 0rdinance No. 21, as previously stated, as well as
Ordinance No. 22, relating to amending the SDD No. 7 to allow timeshare, cou'l d. be
discussed in the same arena, but she asked specifica'l ly that indlvidual votes be
taken on each of those ordinances. From research staff had put together' it
appeared the SDD actual'ly had two underlying zone districts. The eastern Lot 7 had
pubtic accormodation zoning. However, that-was in conflict with John Ryan,-who.had
prepared the original EIR in 1977 and-referenced Lot 7 as being zoned.HDMF in his
hIn. Lots 4 and-S, which are to the west of Lot 7, appeared to have been zoned
HDMF. Staff recommendation for using the HDMF zone district as an underlying zone
district to the SDD No. 7 was then presented. Kristan noted severa'l areas regarding
HDMF zoning that made this zoning appear appropriate and applicable to the ltlarriott
site. I'lerv Lapin then raised thi issue about the appropriateness of the HDMF
underlying zoning for al'l three 'lots at the Marriott site. A discussion ensued and
it was-pointed oit by the Town Attorney that the underlying zoning would affect the
uies spicifica1ly to-r tne SDD and that the Council should consider the criterja from
the Vail Land Usi P'lan and whether this was a furtherance of that Land Use P'lan. At
itris pojnt, Peter Jamar, Jay Peterson, Kaiser Morcus, Ned Gwathmey, lteff :J-acquard'
and Jbhn Sieeney were introduced, all'as representatives of the ltlarriott Mark
ippflciiion. p6ter Jamar respolied to sugglstions made by members of the Counci'l at
tiri.lune 19 meetlng and indicqpfJhat four revisions, comitments, and _ -c'farifications were Aens or6Qi;.rT* from the applicant dated July 10, 1990.
1. GRFA \ t-ft'.
The previous GRFA total propoYJffdi,,7l,z00 square feet, excluding 4,000
for the ten employet-unltt. Aftei" flrthei {uay-and ana'lysis of the floor plan' the
applicant proposei to reduce the total to eZ-,gO-O square feet. Both figures include
the 4,000 square feet for employee units.
?. Architectural features of existing hote'l exterior
Peter sald it had been suggested that in addition to their pt'evi.ous
comnitment to repaint the exterior-of ttre existing hotel , they would study
alterations of tire balconies in order to improve [tre Uuiidingis appearance. Feeling
this was an exce'l lent suggestion on the Counci'l 's part, the applicant-was
investigating various design solutions and agreed to include a new balcony deslgn 'ln
the project.
-2-
a
t
:
,3. Time sharing
Due to severa'l questions regarding the timeshare nature of the expansion,
the app'l icant had prepared an informationa'l memorandum addressing specific questions
and this was inc'luded in the Council packet.
4. Left turn 'lane
As a point of clarifjcation, the app'licant fu'l1y undenstood that if for
some reason the overal 1 funding strategy for Frontage Road improvements js not
estab'l ished prior to issuance of the applicant's certificate of occupancy, the
applicant may be responsible for 100% of the cost of the'left turn lane off the
Frontage Road to llest Lionshead Circle with a right of reimbursement for costs
exceeding their fair share at some future date should an overa'l I funding mechanism
be put into p1ace.
Kaiser Morcus stated that a $4.5 million upgrade had been p'lanned for the Marniottfacility, and this wou'ld jnclude a tota'l refurbishment of the interior as wel'l as
the exterior. As far as ma'intenance of the new buildjng, Kaiser explained there was
a reserve fund that had been estab] ished which represented ten percent of the tota'l
operating fund to upgrade and maintain the new faci] ity. At this point, Jay
Peterson reminded Counci'l that the applicant was estab'l ishing underlying zoning and
not changing it; that the original zoning had been placed back in 1973. Cindy
Jacobson presented corments negative to the granting to the approval of this
ordinance. Jim Lamont also spoke about the SOD specia'l 'laws and whether this was
being handled in a procedural'ly correct manner, he noted that with the two zoning
districts invo'lved in this property and the most restrictive use shou'ld app'ly. He
stated hjs concern about fractionalization of accommodation units and protecting the
bed base and convention business for the L'ionshead area, as we] I as the Town of
Vai'l . Kaiser Morcus reiterated h'i s desire to cater to convention business. Eric
Affeldt spoke in regard to clarification of the underlying zoning being HDMF, and
restated the actua'l locations of the parcels in question. Jim Gibson expressed his
concern with 0rdinance No. 22, the ordinance allowing timeshare development at the
Marriott, and stated the report received from the applicant seemed very subJective.
He felt that maintenance of privately owned properties was certainly more desirable
than the timeshare scenario. f,lerv Lapin then made a motion to approve 0rdinance No.
21, based on his scrutiny of the surrounding neighborhood and noting that the Vail
Spa across the street currently is zoned HDMF, Antlers CCII, and the Enzian CCII.
Tom Steinberg seconded this motion. Tom Steinberg then wjthdrew his second
explaining he be1 ieved the eastern 1ot, i.e., the actual Marriott physical faci'l jty'
was to remain public accommodation, and when he understood this was not so' withdrew
his second of that motion. Kent Rose then seconded Merv Lapin's motion to approve
0rdinance No. 21. Rob LeVine stated that even if the Council approved both
0rdinance Nos. 21 and 22 on this evening, if the app'l icant wanted to do something
outside the current SDD, he would have to come in again for a major amendment to the
SD0. Merv Lapin ca'l]ed the motion. A vote was taken and the motion failed 2-5,
with Rob LeVine and Kent Rose voting for approval of 0rdinance No. 21, and the
remaining five members of Counci'l voting against.
Based on this vote, Jay Peterson requested 0rdinance No. 22, Series of 1990' be
tabled to the next'regular meeting of the Vail Town Council, August 7' 1990. Peggy
0sterfoss moved to tab]e Ordinance No. 22 to the August 7 meeting, with a second
coming from Rob LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0-
Eric AtfelOt then requested a synopsis of the vote, with reasons from each of the
Councilmembers to explain their votes. Rob LeVine stated in order to protect_ the
Town of Vail zoning, the entire parcel , i.e., all lots, HltrlF seemed to make the most
sense and was a cl6iner SDD. There was a process already set up for further review
and change and he felt that the Town had explicit protection. Lynn Fritzlen.fe'lt it
was lmpoitant to estab'lish under'lying zoning, but felt that any increase in-bu1k and
mass sirould not be addressed on a singular basis. Tom Steinberg felt that having
split zoning on the property was inappropriate. Kent Rose felt much the same as Rob
LeVlne, staling that'thi HDMF already existed on this pqrcel, and he felt that.HDMF
for th6 westeri parcel was more appropriate and so should be acknowledged. as the
overall ioning.'Merv Lapin statei'ttrlt tre was against timeshare, a'lthough he.did
feel that HDt'lF was the abpropriate zoning for this particular parcel.. He stated he
was against tinresharing blcairse of the numerous foreclosure notices he sees for
tlmesflare oh,ners in Eag'le County. Peggy Osterfoss stated she voted against this
ordinance because she 6bjected io changing density independent of the approval of
the ordinance amending the SOD. Jim Gibson stated he was against the ordinance
because of the uncertiin qua'l ity of timeshare projects, and that HDMF would alIow
the timeshare use.
The time being 10:30 p.m., Mayor Rose called for a five minute break.
-3-
)I
I
The next item of business was 0rdinance No. 19, Serles of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance modifying Section 18.13.080(A) of the l'lunicipal Code of the TOV regarding
density contro'l for the prinary/secondary zone district (Applicant: Town of
Vai.'l). i4ayor Rose read the fu'l'l tit'le of the ondinance. Andy Knudtsen stated this
amending ordinance was to correct a typographica1 error. Mike Cacioppo asked
questions in negard to the affect this ordinance wou'ld have on his personal property
and was satisfied with the lnput from staff. Tom Steinberg made a motion to approve
Ordinance No. 19 on first reading. Lynn Fritz'len seconded that motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
l'lext was 0rdinance No. 24, Series of 1990, first neadlng, an ordJnance making
supplemental appropriations from the Town of Vail genera1 fund, capital proJects
fund, Conmunities for Drug-Free Eagle Val'ley fund, special parking assessment fund,
Vail marketing fund and the rea'l estate transfer tax fund, of the 1990 budget and
the financial plan for the Town of Vail, Colorado; and authorizing the expenditures
of said appropriations as set forth herein. Mayor Rose read the ful'l tit'l e. Merv
Lapin suggested he ord'inarily was not ln favor of supplenental appropriatlon
ordinances, but in this case, the majority of iterns were rollovers from 1989 and
passage was appropriate. Jim Gibson moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, with a
second coming from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 7-0.
The next item of business was Ordinance No. 28, Senies of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance amending the plan document of the Town of Vail employees' penslon plan;
and setting forth details in regard thereto. The fu]l tit]e was read by l4ayor
Rose. Charlie Wick stated that the next three items,0rdinance No.28,0rdinance
No. 29, and Ordinance No. 30 were nearly identical documents, that state law
requires separate documents fon police and fire as opposed to Town of Vail
employees' pension plan, and they must be reviewed independent'ly of each. Merv
Lapin moved to approve 0rdinance No. 28 on first reading. Lynn Fritzlen seconded
that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Qrdinance No. 29, Series of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending the Town's
Po1 ice and Fire pension plan document subject to approval by sixty-five percent
(55%) of the Town's Po1ice and Firemen; and setting forth details in regard thereto,
was next on the agenda. Mayor Rose read the title in ful'l . Char'l ie Hick stated
that an e'lection had been held on July 2 and 3, 1990 at the Vail Municipa'l Building
for the Town of Vail and the results were as follows. The Town of Vail has 15 sworn
fire personnel with 13 votes cast for amendment six; one vote against amendment six;
and one fire personne'l not voting; therefore, 93 percent voted for amendment six.
In regard to the po'l ice election, the Town of Vail has 27 sworn po1 ice personnel;2?
votes cast were for amendment six; none voted against anendment six; and five police
personne'l did not vote; therefore, 92 percent of the sworn police personne'l voted
for amendment sjx. In order to pass, 65 percent sworn personnel must vote on an
issue. Merv Lapin moved to approve 0rdjnance No. 29 on first reading, and Lynn
Fritzlen seconded that motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanlmous'ly
7-0.
Item ten on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 30, Series of 1990, first readlng' al
ordlnance amending the trust agreement pursuant to the Town of Vail employees'
pension p'lan; and-setting forth details in regard thereto. The full title was read
by ilayor'Rose. This amendment allowed VMRO to have a voting member on the Eoard of
Trustees for the Town of Vail Emp'l oyeesr Pension Plan. Merv Lapln moved to approve
this ordinance, and Lynn Fritzlen seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Item e'leven was an appeal of a Planning and Environmental Conmission declslon
regarding the PEC's denia'l of a request for a height variance for an additlon to
Coidominium Unit E-6, Lot P, Block 50, Val1 Vi'llage 1st Fi'ling (141_East t!"f9gl
Drive - Crossroads C6ndominiums) (App'llcant: Sid Schu'ltz for H. t{i'lllam Smtth).
Mike t'lo'l'lica requested that Couicii irphold or overturn the decision of the PEC. The
PEC at their June 25, 1990, public heaning had unanimously denied the requested
height variance, that vote being 6-0. Merv Lapin stated that he owned 50 percent
interest in Uni[ C-l of Crossroids, which disqualified him from voting on this
issue, so he stepped down from the hearing. Tom Steinberg divulged !ha! ltg had a 3
percent interest in a mortgage in a unit it Crossroads, but did not feel that was a
slgnificant conflict, so he opted to vote on the ltem. Jay Peterson stated he was
an attorney rep"esenfing the ipplicant, and Sid Schultz was the architect on beha'lf
of the appiicairt. Some discussion ensued in regard to whether other condominium
oh,ners hiit Ueen notified of this request for the use of their co] lective GRFA, and
Mer'le Sachnoff, who is secretary of the association, stated letters had been sent
out to 22 condominium owners wiitr ZO responding they were in favor of this addition
-4-
t
t and two voting against. Rod Sl'lfer spoke on beha'lf of the applicant, stating jt was
important to encourage upgrading of o'lder facilities within the Town of Vai'|. LynnFritzlen voiced her discontent with the procedures stating that she would prefer
hav'ing a po1 icy statement rather than treating this as a singular iten. l'like
t4ollica stated no additional parking requirement wou'l d be neiessary since the total
square feet of the unit, inc'l uding the addition, would noh, come to 1,695 squarefeet. Peggy 0stenfoss noted that this was not like other in-fil1 in the Village,
and was more an extension of an existing architectura'l e'lement. Peggy Osterfoss
moved to upho'l d the Planning Conmission's decision for denial of this.request, with
a second coming from Kent Rose. Her findings included that this would be a grant of
special privilege because the building itself is not a physical hardship. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
At this point, Susie Bruce, who was not represented by counsel , requested an
audience with the Tonrn Council to discuss the lease for space currently held by the
Town of Vai'l in the Village Inn project. Her questions related to the term of the'lease as we1 'l as the CPI or adJustment over time. Steve Barwickrs recommendation
was to compromise, with the market value adjustment after five years. He suggestedthat an appraiser shou'l d eva'luate the property. This would guarantee after a fiveyear period of time, the Town of Vail wou'ld be getting its equitable 'leaseho'ld space
amount. The Council unanimously agreed and gave djrection to staff to proceed with
signing of the lease with !4s. Bruce.
There being no further buslness, the meeting was adjourned at 11:45 p.m.
Respectfu'lly subnitted,
ATTEST;
Minutes taken by Pam Brandmeyer
,l.6nt a,ruuu*-,
Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
-5-
MINUTES
VAIL TO}IN COUNCIL IiIEETING
JULY 3, 1990
7:30 P.ltl.
A regu'l ar meeting of the Vai'l Town
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEIIBERS ABSENT:
TOI{N OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Wfr au-:1 5,,99;.,
Counci'l was held on Tuesday, July 3, 1990,
of the Vail I'lunicipal Building.
Kent Rose, lilayor
Tom Steinberg, lvlayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
l4erv Lapi n
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Gibson
Ron Phil'l ips, Town ltlanager
Larry Eskwith, Town AttorneY
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. James Johnson discussed the
present outlying bus schedu'le and reviewed a proposed new schedule he developed.
Mayor Rose stated Counci'l appreciated the time and effort Janes had spent on this
item, and it had been discussed at the t{ork Session that afternoon. He added that
the pnoposed schedu'le may not be feasib1 e because of the Town's budget, but staff
woul d'l ook into changes and be ready to discuss with Council next week.
Next was a Consent Agenda of the fo'l lowing items:
A. Approval of Minutes of the June 5 and 19, 1990 l4eetings
B. Ordinance No. 18, Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance amending
Section 18.12 of the Vail Munjcipal Code to provide for bed and breakfast
operations under certaln provlsions and circumstances and setting forth
detai'ls in regard thereto. (Applicant: Town of Vail)
C. Tab'l inq to Ju'ly 17 Evening Meetins of 0rdinance No, 21, Series of.1990,
ng an underlYlng zone district of
high density mu'l ti-fami'ly to Special Development District No. 7, conmonly
referred to as the Marriott Mark Resort; and setting forth details in
regard thereto.
D. Tab'l inq to Ju'ly 17 Evenins Meetins of 0rdinance I'lo. 22, Series of 1990,
Pecial DeveloPment District No' 7,
commonly refiired to as the Marriott Mark Resort, and the development_plan
in accoidance wlth Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Codel and setting
forth details 'ln regard thereto.
E. Tab'ling to Jul.v U Evgning M?elinq of an appea'l of a Plannilg and
rdinb'the PEC's denial-of a request
for a height var'lance for an addition to Condominium Unit E-6, Lot P, Block
5D, Vail 0tltage lst Fi'ling (141 East Meadow Drjve - Crossroads
Condominlums) (Applicant: Sid Schultz for H. lJilllam Smith)
F. Resolutlon No. 16, Series of 1990, a reso'l utlon authorlzing the acquisition
by the Town of Vail, Colorado (thi "Town") of certaln real property located
iir ttre Town from Robert l'1. Glake and Fern F. Glake ("Seller") for a
purchase price of $tog,ooo; such real property to be devoted to public-
purposes; authorizing ihe issuance by the Town of its promissory note in
the'amount of $87,200 payable in thrle annual insta'l'lments, and secured by
a deed of trusi uion the-subject real property; and prescribing other
details in connection with such acquisition and purchase.
G. Resolution No. 17, Series of 1990, a resolution authorizilg the acqulsltion
by the Town of Vai'|, Co'lonado (th6 "Torm") of certain real.property located
iir ttre Town from Diion Keyser and Luci'l 1e'Keyser ("Se1 1er") for a purchase
price of 9109,000; such rla'l property to be devoted to publig purposes;
iuthorizing the iisuance by the iown-of its promissory note in the amount
at
n r,
:
t of $87,200 payable in three annual insta'llments, and secured by a deed of
trust upon the subJect real property; and prescribing other detai'l s- in
connection with such acquisition and purchase.
Mayor Rose read the ful'l tit'les of a'l 'l ltems. After a short discusslon, I'lerv Lapin
maie a motion to approve the consent agenda as presented. Tom Steinberg seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Third on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 20, Series of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance anend'ing 0rdinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Special Deve'lopment District
l,lo. 4, Section 18.46.100 C, Density Floor Area, Area C G'len Lyon dup'lex lots to-
proviile for gross residentia'l floor area to be calcu'l ated per the requirement of the
primary/secondary zone district Section 18.13.080 Density Contro'l; and setting forth
detai'ls in regard thereto. (Applicant: 75% of Glen Lyon subdivision property
owners) The full title was read by lilayor Rose. Shel'ly Mello explained the
amendment and exactly what the changes would do. She reviewed the SDD criteria and
deve'lopment standards used ln evaluating the request, noting the Planning and
Environmenta'l Cormission approved the request by a vote of 4-1, with Diana Donovan
opposing. She'l'ly and Kristan Prjtz then answered questions of Council. 4ndy Norris
gave some background information to he'l p clean up some misunderstanding of reasons
ior the changes. Tom Steinberg then made a motion to approve the ordinance on first
reading, which Peggy 0stenfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously 6-0.
Next was 0rdinance No. 23, Senies of 1990, first reading, an ordinance amending
Section 18.26.040 of the Municipa'l Code of the Town of Vail to include as a
conditional use "Television Stations" in the Comnercia'l Core Il zone district and
setting forth the details ln regard thereto. (App'licant: Vai1/Beaver Creek
Televiiion Network) Mayor Rose read the ful1 title. tlike t'lol'lica gave background
informat'ion and reviewed the zoning criteria used in evaluating the request to add
"TV stations" as a first f'loor level , condjtiona'l use in the Commercia'l Core II zone
district. Mike noted staff recommended denial because the request was not
consistent with the review criteria and was inappropriate for first floor 'leve'l
space. He reviewed the Planning and Environmental Commission's vote of 4-2 for
dlnial, with Chuck Christ and Di'lton blil'liams opposing. Mike also referred to the
staff nemo dated July 3, 1990 showing PEC members' comments. Bill Perkins'
representing the Vai'l/Beaver Creek Tilevision Network, gave reasons why he fe'lt the
request fon conditiona'l use shou'ld be approved. After much more discuss'l on, Merv
Lapin made a motion to approve the ordinance on first reading. Seconding_the.motion
was Peggy 0sterfoss. Lynn Fritzlen suggested two additional items be included 'i n
the criliria for conditiona'l use: 1) i-studio or production room be visible from
the street, and 2) only cable casting with no broadcast antennas [gipg plrmitted.
Merv amended his rirotion to include the additional criteria. A vof l#.F.tffnfiU
the motion passed unanimously 6-0. I f L L t Ul- I
Fifth on the agenda was Qrdinance N0.25, Series of 1990, first readjng'_a!
ordinance amending Special Development Distrlct No. 23, the Vail Natlonal Bank
Building, and set[inb forth the detalls in regard thereto. (ApPlicant: .-Vai]
Nationai Bank Building Corp.) ltlayor Rose read the full title of the ordinance.
t{ike Mo]lica mentioned the Viit ttitional Bank had been before Council a few months
earlier to request an amendment to SDD No. 23. The request noh, ulas almost identica'l
in ttrat it ini1uOeA the enclosure of two thind floor decks. Mike gave brief
bickground information, noting the problems with the prior request, and-how-the
requ6st has changed. ie then-detaiied the SDD criteria used in the evaluation,
adding staff recormended approval of the request, with two conditions:
1. The Town of Vail wi] I not lssue a temporary certificate of occupancy to the
Vail National Bank (for the enclosure of the two ba'lconies), until.such time as the
Medica'l Center receives a temporary certificate of occupancy for the parking
structure.
Z. If for some unforeseen reason the Medica] Center's parking structure is not
compieted, the new'li ionstructed deck enc'losure sha'l'l on'ly be a'l'lowed to be used for
cormon st6rage. ThL owner shall be required to submit a written agreement
iAareising ifiis condition on the use of the space for the_Town Attorney's review'
and this itratt Ue recorded on the land recordi at the Eag'le County C1erk and
Recorder's 0ffice.
Mike reported the Planning and Environmental Cormission voted 6-0 for a
reiottmenAation of app"ouai. At this time, Rob LeVine made a motion to approve the
ordinance on first i"eading, with the conditions as recormended in the staff memo
dated June 25, 1990. Meni'Lapin seconded the motion. After some discussion, Tom
-2-
.t
Steinberg explained why he would have to voterepresenting the applicant, responded to Tom's
against the reguest. Jay Peterson,
concerns.
Respectful ly submitted,
There was discussion-by Council to add language in the "lfhereas', section to indjcatethis was a special circumstance to solve intricate parking problens. noU amenaeAhis motion to include the added language, and Merv imenael iils second. A ;;a;;",taken and the motion passed 4-2, with iom Steinberg and Lynn Fritzlin oppo.ins.'
Sixth on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 26, Series of 1990, an emergency. ordinance forthe purpose of allowing parklng as a temporary permitted'use in ai aria souttr oi tneVista Bahn termlnal from Vail Road to Chiir 1i,'and setting tortn aetiiti-in regarUthereto- The full title of the ordinance-was read by ttayoi Rose. non ptritttpi-
comtented the ordinance was written to a'l'levjate the-teniorary parking proUiefil anawas discussed with Vall Assoclates (owner of the property), t[e'Foreil ierviiei anasurrounding business o$,ners - all approved. non tneir reii6weO drawings of the'property where the proposed parking would take place. He added the PTanntnt andEnvironmental Cormission, at the Council t'lork Sission today, was informed ;f 1h;p'lan, and there were no objections voiced. There was some-discusslon itrit it-wourdbe a good idea to notify the property owners around Mill Creek Circle Uy tetier-ofthe plan. A motion to approve the oidinance as an emergency ordinance ias miae uyTom Steinberg and seconded by Peggy Osterfoss. A vote ias iaken and the rotionpassed unanimously 6-0.
There being no further business, this meeting was adjourned at 9:40 p.m.
ATTEST:
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
i'
7:30
7:35
Kristan Pritz
Kristan Pritz
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
1.
2.
VAIL TOI.IN COUNCIL
REGULAR IIEETING
TUESDAY, JULY 3, 1990
7:30 p.m.
EXPANDED AGENDA
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION
Consent Agenda
A. Approval of Minutes of the June 5 and 19, 1990 Meetings
B. 0rdinance No. 18, Series of 1990, second reading, an
ordinance amending Section 18.12 of the Vail Municipal
Code to provide for bed and breakfast operations under
certain provisions and circumstances and setting forth
details in regard thereto. (Applicant: Town of Vail)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny 0rdinance
@econdreading.
Eackground Rationale: In December of 1989, the Counci'l
ffi 31 to allow bed and breakfast
operations in the Town. The two family residentia'l (R)
zone district was inadvertent'ly omitted. This
amendment is to correct that omission. The PEC voted
5-0 to recormend the amendment.
Slcff Leclnlleldatio!.: Approve Ordinance No. 18, Series
@ading. The omission of the two
family residential zone district from 0rd'inance No. 31
was unintentional , and persons in this zone district
shou'l d be permitted to apply for a bed and breakfast
conditional use perm'i t to operate such businesses.
C. Tabling to Ju'ly 17 EveninE Meetins of 0rdinance No. 21,
Series of 1990, second reading, an ordinance
designating an underlying zone district of high density
multi-family to Specia1 0evelopment District No. 7,
commonly referred to as the Marriott Mark Resort; and
setting forth details in regard thereto.
D. Tablins to July 17 Evenins Meetins of 0rdinance N9. 22,
Series of 1990, first reading, an ord'l nance amending
Special Development District No. 7, conmonly referred
to as the Marriott Mark Resort, and the development
plan in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail
Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Background Rationa'l e: Jay Peterson has written affiquesting Ordinances No. 21 and 22
be tab'led unti'l the Ju'ly 17 Evening Meeting so he can
further prepare for a presentation.
E. Tablinq to Ju'ly 17 Eveninq Meetins of an appeal of a
Planning and Environmental Cormission decision
regarding the PEC's denia'l of a request for a height
variance for an addition to Condominium Unit E-6' Lot
P, Block 5D, Vai'l Village lst Fi'ling (141 East Meadow
Drive - Crossroads Condominiums) (Applicant: Sid
Schul tz for H. trli 'l I i am Smi th )
Background Rationale: Sid Schultz has written a letter
to Council requesting th'is appeal be tabled unti'l the
July 17 Evening Meeting.
,i
F.Larry Eskwith
Larry Eskwith
7:50
Kristan Pritz
She'l 'ly Mel I o
8:20
Mike Mollica
Resolution No. 16, Series of 1990, a resolution
authorizing the acquisition by the Town of the Vail das
Schone property owned by Robert ll. Glake and Fern F.
Glake for a purchase price of $109,000; such real
property to be devoted to public purposes; authorjzlng
the jssuance by the Town of its promissory note jn the
amount of $87,200 payable ln three annua1 installments,
and secured by a deed of trust upon the subject real
property
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Resolution
No. 16, Series of 1990.
Background Rationale: This resolution provides forma'l
approval of the purchase contract, the promissory note,
and deed of trust for the purchase of 2lots in the
VaiI das Schone subdivision.
Staff Eeqometde$q: Approve Resolution No. 16,ffi
Reso'l ution No. 17, Series of 1990, a resolutlon
authorizing the acquisition by the Town of the Vail das
Schone property owned by Dixon Keyser and Luc'i l'l e
Keyser for a purchase price of $109,000; such rea'l
property to be devoted to public purposes; authoriz'ing
the issuance by the Town of its promissory note in the
amount of $87,200 payable in three annual installments,
and secured by a deed of trust upon the subJect real
property
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Reso'l ution
No. 17, Series of 1990.
Eackground Rationale: This resolution provides formal
approval of the purchase contract, the promissory note,
and deed of trust for the purchase of 2lots in the
Vail das Schone subdivision.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No. 17,
Series of 1990.
3. 0rdjnance No. 20, Series of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance amending 0rdinance No. 10, Series of 1990, Special
Development District No. 4, Sectjon 18.46.100 C, Density
F'l oor Area, Area C Glen Lyon duplex lots to provide for
gross residentia'l floor area to be calculated per the
requirement of the primary/secondary zone district Section
18.13.080 Density Control; and setting forth details in
regard thereto. (App'ljcant: 75% of Glen Lyon subdivision
property owners)
Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordinance No. 20,
Series of 1990, on first reading.
Background Rationale: The applicant is requesting a major
amendment to SDD No. 4, Cascade Village. The amendment
concerns the G'l en Lyon subdivision dup'l ex lots' method of
ca1 cul ati ng a1 'lowab'le GRFA. 0n June 11, 1990, the PEC
recormended approva'l of the request 4 to 1. Diana Donovan
voted against the amendment as she did not believe it was
appropriate to al'low the additional GRFA on the duplex lots.
Staff Reconmendation: Approve 0rdinance No. 20, Series offfi9.
4. 0rdinance No. 23, Series of 1990, first reading, an
ordinance amending Section 18.25.040 of the lvlunicipal Code
to include as a conditiona'l use "Te'l evision Stations" in the
Conmercial Core II zone distri ct (App'l icant: Vail/Beaver
Creek Television Network)
G.
-2-
{23'Action Requested of Council: Approve/deny Ordlnance No.
Senles of 1990, on flrst reading.
BackEround Ratlonale: The PEC, at their June 25, 1990
ffiencieo qeniai (oy a vote ot- 4-21 of
request.
9: 10
Ron Phllltps
9:30
Actlon Requested of Counci'l: Approve/deny 0rdlnance llo. 25,
Serles of 1990, on flrst readlng.
Backsround Ratlonale: The PEC revlewed thts request at
ffiublic hearlng and has unanlmously
recormended approval (the vote was 6-0).
Staff Reconmendatlon: Approve 0rdinance l{o. 25, Series of
1990, on first reading.
6. 0rdlnance No. 26, Series of 1990, an emergeney ordlnance
for the purpose of a'llowing parklng as a temporary permltted
use ln an area south of the Vista Bahn termlna] from Va'l l
Road to Chair 12, and setting forth details ln rcgard
thereto.
Action Requested of Councj'l: Approve/deny Ordlnance No. 26,ffireiiing.
BackEround Rationa'le: This emergency ordinance wl'l I a'l low
parklng as a temporary use from Chalr l east to Chair 12.
VA and the Holy Cross Ranger District have glven pre'llnlnary
approval and the detai'l s are being worked out. The
ondlnance wording wi'l'l be shared wlth the Councl1 and PEC
Staff Recormendation: Staff recomends denlal. Please seeffindum.
dur'lng the Joint work session Tuesday.
Staff Recomendation: Approve 0rdlnance No. 26, Ssries of
1990, on emergency reading.
AdJournment1.
-3-
t
Present
Chuck Criet
Diana Donovan
Ludwig KurzJln shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Willians
PIANNING A}{D ENVIRONI.TENTAL COI{I.IISSION
JttNE 25, 1990
StaffKristan Pritzl{ike llollicashelly uello
Andy Knudtsen
Penny Perry
Menbers Absent
Connie Knight
In the interest of tJ.ne, work sessions were held prior to thepublic hearing beglnnlng at 12:40 p.m.
A recruest for a work sessl-on on the Sonnenalp redevelopnent andproposed Special Develonrnent District at 20 Vail road, Part ofIpt L. Bl-ock 5-8, Vail Vlllage 1st Filina.fuIp Propertles, Inc.
Kristan Pritz explained that the reguest was for the
redevelopnent of the Sonnenalp property and a proposed Speclal
Developrnent District. She gave a brief sumtnary of the request
and reviewed the zoning analysis. She reviewed those itemsrelated to the project found within the Vail Village ltaster Planincluding sub-Area #1-3, enphasizing coals & Policies, andIllustrative Plans. She also provided corresponding prelininarystaff conments. Kristan then relayed connents nade by the Fire
Departnent and Public Works. This was a work session, so no
reconnendation was made.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that they
were before the board on a prelininary basis and siutply wanted
cornnents and suggestions so they could nove ahead with the design
process.
Irene tlestby, manager of the Talisrnan, explained that the olrners
had discussed the proposal , though not in depttr, regarding
coordinatlon with the sonnenalp on landscape and parking. As the
manaqter, she would encourage the board to nove faster. They do
have concerns with parklng, landscape and fire access.
Jay expLained that he had rnet with the president of the
association and the Sonnenatp had offered access through the
Sonnenal.p structure.
ttarllyn F1etcher, a Talisnan condoniniun o!ilner, felt the proposal
was very nlce looking. she was concerned about the Eetbacks and
Lngress/egress.
Kent Rose, speaklng for himself as a Council Menber, felt thatthe zoning analysle found wlthin the nemo waE well prepared. fnthe future, he would like to see a conparison of the SDD with the
VlllaEe llaster Plan as welL. He euggested to KrLstan to add thls
comparlson to the present chart. He stated that the additlonal
comparJ-son could help hin lean nore favorable toward the proJect.
As it sas currently depicted, the proJect looked too large.
Larry Eskwith explained that he would prefer that the Council
nernbers not particlpate in ttre PEC neeting. The councll is aquasi-Judlcial board and he felt their partlclpation could causelegal problems.
Diana aEked if they could speak in a general sense or at a
nininum ask questions, and Larry Baid tryea.rl
l{enr Lapin felt that page 2 of the meno waB the key. lirtren an sDDis proposed, there should be trade-offs. He wanted to know what
these trade-offs were. He felt that staff presented the trade-offs in respect to the Marriott proJect well. Regarding thellarriott project, he felt that too nuch tine was spent conparingthe original appllcation to the current proposal . llery agreedwith Iarry Eskwith, that the Councilrs conments should be llnitedat this point. The Council was in a quasi-Judicial role.
Kristan explained that the Planning Connission sinply wantedgeneral comnents and lssues that the councll felt needed to be
addressed.
Lynn Fritzlen asked if staff could restate the PurPose of
applying underlylng zoning and Kristan explained that tlrere werebasically two reasons. The first was to identify the uses
possible on the site and the Eecond was used to conpare the
proposal with the underlying zoning requirenents which PEC and
Council always request staff to do.
Jay Peterson addressed the trade-off issue. He stated that the
Sonnenalp building could neet the PA criteria, however, thebuildlng design would become a terrible bulky mass Ln the niddleof the lot. He also felt that the proposed use of 99t hotel
rooma was a trade-off. Also, the proposal sas not far over GRFA.
The current proposal was at 32 unitE per acre conpared to the 25units per acre called for under PA zoning.
Peggy osterfoss etated that lt would be helpful if all parties
concerned had a copy of the Vall Village Master Plan.
Jin Shearer felt Lt was extrenely inportant for the sonnenalp to
work vith the Tallsman regarding parking and landscaping. He was
concerned about the lJudwlg deck and its inpact on the creek area.
He also wanted to Eee the employee housing Lssue addressed. He
was very concerned about the height creating a crowded feeling on
l{eadow Drlve. He understood Jayrs couments regarding the bulk lnthe niddle of the lot, but felt that the mass could be pulled offof l{eador Drl.ve and a nore attractlve walk created. He felt the
approach sould create uore Lnterest for the retail area. iIIn
also felt a phasing plan was needed. Jln liked the increase in
lodglng units, underground parklng, and felt that the Faesslers
were good Danagera. He had Eone concern about the amount ofretail apace and density. He prefered the tower aB an
archLtectural feature as oppos-d to a trbul.ldingr provldlng llvlng
area in the tower.
Kathy t{arren asked lf the staff could total all the eq. f,ootage
calculatlons (GRFA, Accessory etc..) on the charts in the future.
Fron uhat Ehe could quickly calculate, the proposal was over PA
zoning by 25t. Kathy felt she could not eupport eetback
varl,ances for vail Road, Meadow Drive or the Stream and she feltthat the heights called for by the Master PIan should be adheredto. Though slightly under on site coverage and over on
Landscaping, the landscaped area is private and ehould be opened
up and nore inviting to the public. creek access Ls lnportant.
Kathy felt enptoyee housing was necessary and would like to see
it on site. The Talisnan parking should also be addressed. No
variances on parking should be glven. Lodge use is very good.
she lB looking for the public good in respect to the proJect.
Kathy felt that, because it was a hotel , she was not ag concerned
with units per acre as she was uith GRFA. She did not Eee nuch
in the way of benefits for the Town.
Jay, in response to the employee housing issue, stated that the
FaeEslers oin 24 units in solar Vail as well as soue unitg in
Bighorn.
Chuck Crist stated that he had alwayE wanted to see the slte
developed. He had concerns about the tower. He stated that he
was not as concerned with setbacks wlth the exception of Meadow
drive. The mass on Meadow Drl-ve needs to be broken up. The loEs
of landscaping is a problen. He also would llke to see enployee
housing incorporated into the proJect on site. He felt that the
Town Itould be losing green space and the stream would be blocked
fron the pubtic and he liked the amount of retail space proposed.
He liked the underground parking.
Dalton was very concerned wlth the setbacks as ttrey related to
the transfer of open Epace from publlc area€i to private areas-
The 20 foot setbaLf nust be naLntalned. The bem, per the Vail
Village l.taster Plan, should be kept. He felt that the building,
along-lrleadow Drive, should be stepped back in order to avoid a
trcanyontr affect. He did not feel he could approve the reguested
setbick variances. The parklng for the entire proJect including
Tallsman and Swiss House must be addressed'
Dalton continued by quotlng the vall Vlllage l{aster Plan sub-Area
*1-5 willow Bridge Road Wallflay aB etating:
trA decoratlve paver pedestrlan saltcway, Beparated frorn
the street and accented by a strong landscaped area to
encourage pedestrian clrculatlon along ueadow Drive.
Loss of parking will need to be relocated on eite.i
Dalton felt that the lngress/egress ehould be on the eagt side of
the Sonnenalp by Village Center (Swlss House) and the planter
along ueadow Drive must stay. Dalton also felt that the bullding
should be pulled back to buffer nolse from bus trafflc. He feltthat the gate should be noved east and felt that the naea and
bulk was not compatible wlth Eaet l{eadow Drlve. Dalton felt that
the 48 foot height requirement should be etrlctly adhered to, a
101 | tower was out of the questlon and the King Ludwig deck
should be stepped down towards the creek. The deck creates too
much of a wall. Dalton felt that the enployee houalng should be
on-site and that the proposal was taking open tpace and
landscaping away fron the public. The applicant should put inpublic spaces, like a stream walk. He conmended the FaesElersfor being excellent hotellers.
Ludwig complimented the Faesslere for nrnning a xclass
operation.n IJudwig Kurz felt the proposal needed a conprehensive
parking plan as well as an accesa study. He felt he could give
sone leeway with the height and mass, however, the building still
needed work. Ludnig felt that the wall$tay and loading area uere
Ln conflict and need a better interface. Jay stated that the
loading area was located by default. Ludwig also felt that theinternal open space was naxinized at the sacrifice of areas along
Meadow Dr. and Vail Road.
Diana stated that the proposal disregarded the ValI Village
Master Plan. She questioned whether parklng for conmerclal would
be accessible and reserrred for conmerclal . Jay saLd space would
be made available to cuEtoners. She felt that the building was
beautiful but would be nore appropriate on large acreage. Dianafelt that a streanwalk should be proposed and the parking
situation concerned her.
Jay explained that he felt the parklng regrulatlons pertal-ned to
snrattei hotel rooms. The proposed parking would work sinilar to
Crossroads and the gate would be relocated. Diana felt that the
IoadJ-ng needed to be either moved away from the creek or
improved. Parking for Swlss House and Talisnan needs to be
figured out. The role of the Talisnan also needs to be defined.
nnployee housing nust be addresEed - perhaps permanently restrict
what sonnenalp already has for employee units. she felt it was
Luportant to know what the Tallsmanrs intentiont were soon and
what would be done. Dl.ana also had concerns regardlng the
setbacks along Meadow Drive and Vall Road. She didnrt have a
problen with a varlance for an architectural statenent, however,the helght in general must be reduced. DLana was concernedwlrether an SDD was realy necessary. She questioned the benefltof the proJect to the pubIlc and stated rnore general publlc
inprovenents were needed.
Kathy Warren felt that the trash sltuation needed to be addressed
and that the appllcant needed to eoften the approach at thepedestrian level . She aleo felt that new employee houslng units
needed to be addreesed ln addltlon to thoee already owned. Shefelt the cornnercial equare footage also contributed to enployee
housing denand.
Jay felt tlrat an addltional enployee unit reguLrement would bepenalizing the applicant for having the foresight to purchase theunits. The appllcant purchased the Solar Crest units wlth theintention of conpleting the redevelopment currently proposed.
Ton Steinberg coqrnented that he felt the proposal was going lnthe correct directlon. He also agreed with Dlana that he sas not
sure an SDD would be needed.
A recmest for a work sessLon for an exterior alteration, a site
coveracre varlance. a heiqht variance. a landscape varlance and a
floodplain nodification for the Covered Brldqe Building, located
on Lot C and Lot D, and the southwesterlv 4 feet of l,ot B, all in
Block 5-8, Vail Villacre 1st Filinq. 227 Bridqe Street.
ltike Dtollica explained that the applicants were proposing a najor
redevelopnent of the Covered Bridge Buildlngt. The proposal
called for naJor nodlflcatlons to the front entrance of theexisting conrnercial spaces, the creatlon of lower level
connercial spaces, infill on the north and northwest sections of
the existing structure, the additlon of an elevator, and theaddition of two upper floors. The request involved 5 separateapplications, an exterior alteration request, a site coveragevariance request, a helght variance request, a landscape variance
request, and a floodplain nodification request. Mike reviewedthe applicable zoning considerations and gave prelininary staff
conments. Since this was a work session, no staff
reconnendations were made.
Kathy Warren aeked what the allowed GRFA rtas and l,like explainedthat the Euriley was not flnished and therefore calculations were
not made with regard to GRFA. Ned Gwathney, project architect'felt that they would be within what was allowed.
Ned explained the changes that were made since the staff memo waswritten. The only issue he felt that the PEC night be concerned
about was the height of the new roof line. The new proposal did'
however, elLninate the flat roof design. He explained that the
adjacent propertieB were bullt prior to the enactnent of the
he-ight reitrictione and noEt were above the height of the preeent
covered Brldge Bulldlng. Ned etated that the proposal would be
in line with the surroundl.ng proPerties, and that ttre deeign dld
not negatively affect adJacent properties. In fact the proposal
could enhance the adJacent propertles, for exanple, the new roof
would Bcreen rrPeplrs wall.rl
fon steinberg, sLtting in the audience, said he felt he vould
have no obJections to the height variance due to the fact that
the roof would screen PePirs wall.
Dalton Willians encouraged working with the pocket park and
extendlng the strean walk down to the end of.the property line,
lf at all possible, so that lt could be contlnued in the future.
Chuck Crist asked if they would be increasing connon space and
Ned answered [no.rr However, there would be no decrease in connon
space either. Chuck asked how the heignt related to the grade
found on Bridge Street and Ned answered that Bridge street iE 6l
higher than the grade used to calculate height. Ned also wanted
Chuck to bear in nind that the building was stepped back, hence
the highest point would be 5or off of the street.
Chuck explained that he liked the proposal. He would like to see
rnore flower boxes and perhaps a more Tyrolean look.
Ludwlg Kurz felt the project looked-good. He-guestioned whether
there was any oppositlon to the proJect and Mike explaJ.ned that
the proposal had not forrnally been published since this vas
sinply I work session. Mike explained that he did have one
Iettei at that time from Rod Sllfer in favor of the proposal .
Kathy warren asked, if they renoved the building-area by the
park, highlighted in yetlow on the plans, includ-ing.the rear
ltaii, ii ttri project would be in conpliance with Eite correrage.
She also stated that she was not confortable with the height
variance but lf the Town could end up with a nore usable public
park she could consider the height variance. She was not
Lonfortable with the site coverage variance. Kathy felt she
could not object to the exterior aLteration, it was a much needed
inprovement.
Xathy guestioned shether the pocket park was ldentified in the
vail-village ltaster Plan and Mike e:cplalned that lt was not
addressed. - Kathy was concerned about the Bridge Street acceEs to
the park and wanted to see rnore detail.
Jirn Shearer felt the proJect was good looklng. He llked the roof
lines and would like to see nore planter boxes. He stated that
the reason behind a variance is to lmprove the property. He
would tike to see inprovements to the streamsalk and to see all
evergreens saved or 4 put ln for the 2 taken out. He felt there
night be a problen slth the floodplain nodification. He sas
concerned with the elevator shaft and water seepage. tle had noproblen vith the helght. He sould rather have an attractlve roofllne. He waB eatisfled with the looks of the propoeal. He feltthe gtaff and board needed to look at the vl.ew corrldor. Hetlked the way the proposal tLered back frou the street nlth thehelght.
Diana Donovan felt lt would be wonderful to get a wallcray to core
Creek Plaza. She felt it would be nice to have Jogs, and bay
windoss on the north side of the building. She felt the accessto the park needed to be more entlclng. She was not sur€ aboutthe height. Trade-offE and other consideratlons such aE
screening Pepi's buitding would be a help. She would have a hardtlne supporting the proposal lf the evergreen treea uere renoved.
l{lke exptained that the Town Landacape Architect felt tbe treesuere.very healttry and would laet nany years.
Diana suggested the use of pavers rather than asphalt in front ofthe building.
Chuck Crist asked about the aluminum siding that was originally
proposed and Ned explained that the siding had been changed to
wood.
The Rrblic Hearlng was called to order at 3:10 p.n. by Dlana
Donovan, Chairperson. Connie Knight was abEent. In the lnterestof tlne, the board sklpped to Iten No. 4. The applicante for
ftems No. 2 & 3 were not present.
Item No. 4: A reouest for a condLtional use rennit for a
Shelly llello explained that Vail Associates was reguesting a
conditlonal use pernit for a sunner seasonal staging area at the
Golden Peak base area for the construction of the Far EastRestaurant. llhe area was located ln the Skl Base Recreation zonedistrict. fn this zone district, rrsunmer outdoor Storage for
l{ountain Eguipnentrr is an allowed conditional use. The propoeed
use would be for an office trailer, 12 enployee parking apaceEfor the summer of 1990 and 25 parking spaces for x991. A llnlted
auount of constrrrction rnaterLals would also be located at the
stagl-ng area. The construction tral-ler and the building
rnateriale would be removed by Novenber 15th of each year. Shelly
e4)lalned that staff wae concerned about parklng belng located onthe Elte and suggested the poasiblllty of located the parklng
uphlll on eounty land or an alternate area euch as the West DayI€t. The staff recornnendation ras for approval wLth sondltlons
aE found within the neno.
Joe l,lacy explained that the reguest was nade Ln order toconstruct a 5oo aeat restaurant at the Far East. He stated thatVail Associates had received at leagt 2 other condLtl,onal ueepernlts and had no complainte. They did not want to take parklng
away from the pr:bllc by parking thelr employeee ln public parkLngareas. The new Vlllage Parklng Stnrcture had created a parklnE
shortage.
Jack Hunn explained that part of the goal was to have vtelbllltyfor dellvery trucks. The other reason sas to have a collectingplace for enployees Ln order to linlt the nunber of vetricles onthe nountain. The applicant had orlglnally looked at ueing the
l{est Day Lot. However, when the Town of Vail decided to go forthwlth the parking structure expansion, it was felt that thie lot
would be needed for public parking.
Joe Macy clarLfled that the staging area was actually downhill ofthe punphouse. Kristan Prltz noted that the proposal had statedspecifically that the staglng would be uphill.
Ludwig Kurz aaked lf any of the area uould be fenced or screened
and Jack Hunn explained that the storage area would not be
screened.
Ludwig saw no problems with having both the storage area andparking on the slte. He understood the hardshlp of staging fron
two areas.
Diana Donovan asked why VaiI AEsociateE did not slsh to use the
Eag1e county area uphill since it was already graveled and
graded.
Da1ton l{illians had no problen with delivery and staging but
wanted the parking hidden. He alEo wanted to know why the staff
conditions of approval lncluded revegetating after the firEtyear. He felt it would be a waste of time and noney, for the
area would be used for skiing in the winter and reused for
staging the next year. He felt lt would be suff,Lcl.ent to
revegetate in the fall of 1991.
ilin Shearer asked why the reguest sas for 12 cara Ln 1990 and 25ln 1991 and Joe l.tacy explained that the flnlsh construction whlch
would be done in the second year reguired more enployees. Jin
conmented that the biggest problern would be how the eite vould
look fron T-7o.
Diana Donovan fel.t that lf the area was screened Ehe could
eupport ttre parkLng of 1.2 vehlcles. she was still unsure about
25 vehicleE. DLana also felt that the [dust preventionn
statenent ehould state fron the iVista-Bahntr. She comented that
she would rather see approval for the staglng site cone throughthe Val.l board than to deny the reguest and be propoeed to Eagle
County and have no control.
seconded bv Chuck CriEt.
ConditLons:
1. Itrat the etaqinq elte be used for construction fron
June 1. 1990-Noverober 15. 1990 and the end of the skl
seaaon to Noveriber 15. 1991; and
2. All areas l-mpacted bv the construction staqinq have
etraw laid at the bv Novenber 30, 1990 and be
conpletely reveqetated bv Novenber 30. 1991t and
3. No more than 12 vehicles at anv one tine, screened In
road.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
ften No. 5:A recruest for a sl.de and front setback variance in
order to construct a oaraoe on Lot 7. Block 3,
Shelly litello orplained that the request was for a garage andentry addltion to the north and west sides of the existingresidence. The proposed garage had a total area of 526 sg. ft.
and would encroach a maxirnurn of 3 ft. into the 15 foot 81de
setback reguirement and 2 ft. into the 20 foot front setback
regulrement. ltith the exceptlon of the reguested variance, all
other development standards would be net. The staff
reconnendation was for approval of the request wlttr the conditl-onthat the easternmost 1or of the existing paved parking area be
renoved and landscaped. The variance would not be a grant of
epeclal privilege and dld not lnpact adJacent properties in a
nanner approved bv staff Ln 1990 and no rnore than 5
vehicles at anv 1 tLme be parked on site in 1991; and
A 30r setback be naintained from MiII Creek; and4.
5.
negatlve Danner. The etaff felt that the addition of enclosedparklng would improve the general appearance of the neighborhood.
Galen stated that he had elgnlficantly reduced the garage per theboardts request at the last ueeting. They were sinply askl.ng to
keep the asphalt. The propoaal dld add a signlficant anount oflandscaplng. llhey wlshed to leave the asphalt as a place for the
kl.ds to play. Galen aleo asked to have a llttle leeway wlth thesetback (inches) ln order to avold havlng extensive suwey uork.
Kathy llarren asked why the additional 1Or of asphalt ras needed
and Mrs. Iestwuide explalned that without the additional asphalt
they would have no guest parklng. Guests would not rrant to parkin front of the garagte, therefore blocking the garage.
Jin Shearer questloned the landecaplng as it was portrayed on theplan. He felt if the 10r area was left, lt would look strange.llrs. Testwuide e:<plained the exLsting rock sall which franed theportion being spoken of and how the landscape features were
planned around the asphalt.
Kathy warren stated that ehe understood the staffrs concerns.
However, she could also slmpathlze with Mrs. Testwuiders
concerns.
Chuck Crist, Dalton Willlarns, and Ludwig Kurz had no concerns.
Diana Donovan suggested the appllcant reduce the asphalt on the
west side of the driveway.
A motion to approve the requested 3r slde setback and 2r
front setback variances with conditlon as follows was nade
1--topoqraphy, C-2 and C-3.
Conditions:
VOTES 6-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 6: A recruest for a front setback variance and a creek
setback variance for Iot 6, Vail Villaqe Ytest,
Fitl-ns No. 2, 1755 West Gore Creek Drive.Anplicant: Dan and Karen Forey
l{ike uotlica explained that the applicants were requestl.ng
variances fron the front setback and the stream setback. They
were proposing a maJor renodel of the existing two-famlly hone
llhe Desiqn Revlew Board be asked to look at elinLnating
asphalt on the West side of the drivewav and
landscapLng.
1.
10
0
which included an attached tro-car garage yith a secondary,rental unit located above the garage whlch ls required to bereetricted per the Tosn's zoning code. ltike also explained thatthe lot ras Beverely constralned by the linltations of the
setbac*E and the renaining bulldable area waa llnited. The lotvas also conetrained by the exletlng topography; the averageslope beneath the parklng area and the proposed garage sLte was
approxirnatety 31t. The slope dld atloy the owners to construct agarage ln the front.eetback wlthout a variance. The varl.anse was
reguired due to the-proposed secondary unit located above thegarage. Tbe Etaff iecontrlendation was for approval . Staff
bell,eved the lot to be encunbered with a physlcal hardshlp andbelleved the sitlng of the garage had been deeigned in the mostsensl.tive nanner possible.
John Perkins, representing the appl.lcant, explalned that the hone
was purchased with the lntent of remodellng. The plan uas toconvert the duplex Lnto one unit and add the garage and caretakerunit. He felt the key points were that the applicant sas
proposing to upgrade a property and add a rnuch needed enployeeunit.
Kathy Warren felt that the parking asphalt should be decreased to
4Or coupared to the proposed sOt width.
Chuck Crist cornmented that he liked tbe plan as presented.
Ludwig Kurz aleo llked the proposal .
Jl"u Shearer agreed wlth Kathy that the driveway could be
decreased in width and John Perkins felt he could adJust the
width but felt 4Or may be too srna}l.
Jin connented that it was part of the job as a Planning
Conmissioner to encourage upgradlng, enployee housing and coveredparking. He could not see any negative irnpacts and therefore
could support the proposal..
Diana Donovan concurred wlth the board. In general , she feltthat the PEc was beglnning to be too easy with lotE that tradphysical constralnts. The zonlng regulations were wrltten to
address the matters and should be adhered to.
A motion to approve the recnrests per the staff nemo, with
the conditlon that the DRB review the width of the drivewayto maintaln as close to a 40r as possible. was nade bv Jin
Shearer and seconded bv Kathv Warren.
W
11
Iten No. 7:
Road.Anpllcant: Town of Vail Police Departrnent
Andy Knudtsen explained that the Pollce Departnent proposed tobuild a tower for a new antenna and Dicrouav€ dieh ae part of an
Lmprovenent to the Energency Serrtices Conlnunication Systen. The
tower would be 40 feet tall wlth a 10 foot antenna on top for atotal of 50 feet in height. The staff felt that the propoaal
would have mininal negative lnpactE and that the overall proJect
would improve the character of the area. The staff
reconmendatl.on was for approval vith condltlons as etated ln the
meno.
Kathy glarren felt that the nechanical equiprnent referred to lntbe reconmended conditions of approval was already supposed to
have been renoved. Ken Hughy agreed and apologlzed that Lt had
not already been done. He assured Xathy that it would be done.
Dalton Willians was concerned about the proposed height of the
tower and Ken e:<plained that he had looked lnto alternativesi
however, cost and the lack of cooperation fron the U.S. lfest
building attributed to the proposed location.
Ken coDnented that the long range plans were to relocate thepolice station and hopefully the move would include novlng all
the equipnent.
Kristan wanted the board to understand that the reagon staff vas
reconmending approval of the reguest was because the bullding was
Iocated in the Public Use district, not because the applicant sas
the Town of Vail.
Ludsig stated that he had concerns, however, in flght of the
safety issues he felt he could support the proJect.
Jim Shearer asked if there would be any guide wires and Ken
responded rrns.rr Jin then asked what the chances were of the
Police Departnent adding other dishes in the future and Ken
explained that there itere no plans for additions l-n the nearfuture. Jin pointed out that the paint color was an inportant
issue for the Design Revlew Board to consider.
Kathy Warren had no conments.
Diana felt that the big trees salvaged fron the parklng structure
renovation would be too big and would attract attention rather
than dlvert attention to the tower. She would prefer to see
aspens but fett it was a rnatter better left for the Design Review
Board to review.
L2
o
A notlon to aplrrove the condLtional use oerml-t per the etaff
neno and staff conditLohs as follows was made by Ludwicr Kurz
and eeconded by JLn Shearer.
CondLtlons:
1. Renove unnecessar? nechanical eguinment on the roof;
lnc
2.
3.
4.
Reoalr the danaoed fence on the northern nroperty line;
and
Buffer the tower bv plantinq 3-5 trees; and
VOTE: 5-O IN FAVOR
ften No. 8: A recruest for a slde vard setback variance at 4247
colunbine Drlve. Unit #20, Biqhorn Terrace.Anplicant: John Nllsson
Shelly t{ello explained that the applicant was requesting a'variance from the 20 ft. sl.de and rear setback requLrenent to
allow for the construction of a 101.25 sq. ft. addltlon on the
north side of the building. The variance regueEt nas for an 11ft. encroachment into the 20 ft. rear setback and a 15 ft.
encroachnent into the 20 ft. side yard setback. Bighorn Terraceis a nonconforming subdivision becauEe it was annexed into the
Toun and zoned MDMF after lt was established. The inposed
setbacks greatly linit the locations of possible additions which
would not requlre setback variances. The staff recournendation
was for denl-al of the request. Staff acknowledged that otherproperties in the Bigtrorn Terrace subdivision had received
setback variances and therefore the variance reguest was not agrant of specl-al privilege and that although there ltere
exceptions or extraordinary conditions applicable to the lot
which did not generally apply to their properties in the same
zone diEtrlct, a minLmum setback should be naintained in orderto guarantee a nLnimum dietance between buildings to Lnsurepubllc treatth , safety, and welfare as well as the fair treatmentof all property owners wlthin Blghorn Terrace. If the PEc were
to approve the variance requ€st, staff 3gs6nnended the applicant
be required to underground the electrical setrrice from the
senrrice po1e.
the Design Review Board approval .
13
John Nileson explaLned that he needed the space to nake tlre home
nore habltable. He felt the odlstance between buildl.ngsi rule
was unfair 6lnce there were nany homes much closer together. Hefelt the additlon would improve the area by riddlng the Junk onhis porch.
Ludwig Kurz didnrt feel the addltlon Lupacted neighboringpropertles ln a negative way. He could not see denylng the
requeet wlth the anendment of the code still outstandlng.
Dalton Wllllarns was also concerned about denylnE the reguestvithout fomal pollcies being Ln force. He asked where the pole
and lines were. lle felt it was unreasonable to ask the applicantto underground the slres when lt had not been asked Ln the past.
Kristan and Shelly enphaslzed that when a variance Ls Eranted,nany tfunes there is a trade-off. In thiE case, the
undergroundlng of vires rnust begin sonewhere.
Dalton waE not in favor of requiring the applicant to underground
the wlres. He felt he could support a conditl-on that required
the appllcant to underground the wires at the tlme that 50t ofthe residents whose lines were located on the sane Pole
undergrounded their wires.
Chuck crist had no problen supporting the variance requests. He
was not in favor of requiring the applicant to underground thewires. He would rather see increased landscaping.
Kathy lfarren clarified that the addltlon would be where theexisting deck was located. Because the deck was already there,
she would be comfortable with the additlon. She would also ll-keto see the undergrounding of utilities.
Jln Shearer asked how close the house was to the west and Shel1y
explained that the distance traE 17 I staggered but the deck
enclosure would not increase the dlEtance. Jim shared Daltonrs
feeling regarding tlre undergrounding of utilities though he did
agree that the Town should get sone tlpe of trade-off ln returnfor a variance.
Diana agreed wlth Kathy lfarren in that the utilitles needed to be
undergrounded.
John Nilsson felt Lt was unfair to require hin to underground theutilities until done by all. He explained that, within the last
6 rnonthE, there was a conrrlttee fotmed to try and have the llnes
undergrounded. The connittee was unsuccessful . Durl.ng hlsactivity on the coromLttee, the lnfotmation he received waecontrary. He understood one line at a time could not be
L4
ao
undergrounded. It would have to be a nass proJect. He stated he
would be happy to get blds on the cost, reopen conversatlon wlththe association regardlng the undergrounding of the utilLties,
and be willlng to spend up to $COO.OO to underground theindivldual utility llnes to hie unlt.
A notLon to approve the requeEted setback varl.ancee wlth
conditLons aE follows per fl-ndl-nqs A. B, C-l . and C-3 was.
nade bv Chuck Crist and eeconded bv Jim Shearer.
ConditLons:
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 9: A request for an amendroent to SDD No. 23. Vlal
!.tike uollica ocplalned that the application involved two
elements, an amendnent to the approved developrnent plan to allowfor the enclosure of two decks on the third floor of the
structure and an Fnendment to the parking standards of SDD No. 23in order to provLde parking for this proposed addltion within the
parking structure at the Vail Valley Medical Center. The
proposal constitutes a uaJor anendment to an existing sDD. The
Planning Connissions actlon is advlsory, and final decieions are
nade by the Town Councll. The staff was supportive of the Vail
NatLonal Bankrs request. Staff was corufortable wlth the tlningof the request and the Modlflcation Agreenent and Irrevocable
r,etter of credit. staff felt that the Joint-use parking
arrangement was very reasonable. The staff recommendation
carried conditions as found withln the memo.
Jay Peteraon, representing the applicant, explained that the
applicant had waited for the Medlcal Center to get approval for
the addltionat Bpaces and begln constructlon before they returnedto the PEC. He felt the tining was now right.
o
The anolLcant obtaLn 3 bl-ds and aqrees to undergroundutilitieE Lf the cost of undergrounding sas S4oo.oo or
less.
If the cost is over S4OO.OO, the applicant agrees to
underqround the utilities when the rest of the
association does.
The applicant aqrees to head a cornmittee for BuildingsA. B. and C Ln order to aporoach Holv CroEs Electric
and the Town to address the undercrroundinq of theutilities for the prolect as a whole.
1.
2.
3.
15
oo oo
Kathy lfarren agreed the tlning was rlght and illn Shearer agreed.
Dalton Wlllians questloned, slnce the applicant waE purchasl.ng
extra apacea, lf the board could require then to delete a apacethat he felt tras unsafe located on the front lot. DLscusslon
centered around the issue and lt was decided that the board dld
not have the authority to reguire the renoval of the space.
A motion to aonrove the recnrests per staff neno and
Conditions:
If for some unforeseen reaEon the lledical Centerrsparkincr structure is not conPleted, the nevlv
constructed deck enclosure shall only be allowed to be
used for comnon storage. The owner sha1l be recruiredto subnit a written agreenent addressincr thls condl-tion
Ea<rle Countv Clerk and Recorderrs office.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Iten No. 10:
1.
2.
Mike Dtollica explained that the applicant waE requesting to amend
Section L8.26.040 of the Sown of Vail Zoning Code ln order to addtrTelevision StatLons'r as a first floor level , conditional use in
the Comrnercial core II zone district. The current zoning code
did not speciflcally address television stations, honever the
position ot tne plannlng staff had been that televlElon etations
fall under the category of professional offlceE. Profeseional
officeE are currently not allowed as petnitted or conditional
uses on flrst floor or Etreet level . The Etaff reconmended
denl-al of the applicantrs request to nodify the Tosnrs Zonlng
Code. staff did not support the proposed change in the zoning
the MedLcal Center receives a Tenporarv Certifl.cate of
16
i: ..lo
code aE they felt that the appllcantrs request nas not consl.stentwlth the purpose sectl.on of the Cornnerclal Core II zone dlstrlct.
Although gtaff belLeved that televislon etatLons should beallowable usee Ln Connerclal Core II at basenent or second floorlevels, staff strongly felt that the proposed use on the flrstfloor was inapproprlate.
Blll Perklns, Presldant of Vail,/Beaver Creek T.V., disagreed siththe staffre aasumptlon that a Televislon Station ehould fall intothe sane category ae a profesel.onal offlce. Firet, a televieionstatlon needed hlgh celllngs. The nature of the buelnese sas tocater to and attract the gruests of the valley. An open frontagels also very Lrnportant. He etated that the Derchanta Ln the area
were very eupportive. Bill elaborated that the area they were
consldering was an area that had been unsuccessful for retail usein the past.
Chuck stated that due to the nature of Vail and this proposed
T.V. station, he would tend to eupport the proposal . However, he
sas afraid oi creatlng a precedenl- for othel pioresslonaloffices.
Kathy Warren aeked staff how the proposal would be handled slnceT.V. stations were not directly dealt with in the code and
I(rl.stan explalned that the staff nade the assumption T.v.
Statl.ons would fall lnto the same category as professional
offices due to Einilar uses and lnpacts. Kathy felt she could
not support the proposal .
illn Shearer felt he could be supportlve of anything that wouldbuild clientele ln the ar€a but dldn't feel a T.V. Statlon wouldbring sales tax revenue to the Town.
Bill Perkins stated that he understood the boardrB concerns.
However, he needed a tenporary solutlon until the sunblrd wasrebullt. He asked if the board sould be supportive if he could
nake the station first floor without frontage on the naII. It
would be difficult for hin to operate but felt it could be
nanaged.
Kristan felt that it would still be considered first floor level
even without the frontage on the nall.
Diana cornnented that lt waE not approprlate to change zonlng for
a sl.ngle appllcant.
Ludwig Kurz felt that the board was hung up on the definltion ofstreet level and stated that the proposed site was, without a
doubt, firet floor and a T.V. Statlon should be considered a
professional offlce. He felt the board could not afford to set a
precedent.
Oo
t7
oo oo
Da1ton tfillians comented that he had the chance ln the past to
operate a T.V. Statlon. He felt ttre board wae uLssLng the poLnt
of trafflc. If done correctly, a T.V. Station could LncreaEe
sales tax ln exceas of what could be generated by a retall atore
located ln the aane space. He felt thLs sae the exact klnd ofconditional use that should be pernltted
Chuck Crlst asked etaff lf a petnanent condltion could be put on
a condltional uge and Dlana stated an example fron pg 346 of the
code, Barber and Beauty Shops, whLch stated the use vould be
allosed as long ae there was no exterlor frontage.
Dl.scussion tlren centered around the posslbtfity of addl.ng T.v.
Statlons under the eaue conditLons as the Beauty ShopE and
shether it would be feasible for the applicant.
Krlstan ccinnented that lf the use was allowed under the Beauty
shop conditLons, the space would be taken away frorn other vl.ableretall shops.
A motion to denv the recruest to amend the zoning code per
the staff neno was nade bv Kathy Warren and Eeconded by
Ludwiq Kurz.
It was requested by the board that the vote be passed on to the
Town council wlth coroments fron the board as follows:
Chuck Crist - questions wlrether the proposed uee wlll really
draw pedestrians to the area. However, he feelsthat due to the general resort nature of the Townof Vail and the proposed T.V. station he tends to
support the request.
- questions whether a conditional use pemit
process would be nore appropriate lf the proposal
had absolutely no frontage on a pedestrian nall orstreet.
-.generally fett tha!_the proposed use uas a
viabte use on first floor in CCII.
Kattry warren - generally not confortable with the reguest.
- ehe believes that the requested use would bebetter suited to a basenent or Eecond floor level
and suggested that the appllcant pursue an
anendment to the zoning code regardlng Section
L8.24.030(c-6) regarding petmltted usea on firstfloor or street tevel within a structure, subJectto the Lesuance of a conditl-onal use pemLt, ghele
18
lo oo
Jin Shearer - IE In favor of building up the connerclal areasin LLonshead, but belleves that linited sales tax
would be generated by this proposal .
- believes that an upper floor location would be
more appropriate and feelE that an upper floor
would provide a better backdrop of the Ekl. areafor the T.V. Btudio.
- believes that the proposed use does have
uarketable value for the Town of Vail but feelsthat we must guard against setting a precedentwlth this proposed use.
- altrees with Kathy Warren regarding Sectlon
L8.24.030(C-6) and stressed the need to protect
against setting a precedent and feels that he wasvoting strictly as a Planning ConmLsslon nenber
and not with his emotions.
Diana Donovan -believes that once this use is listed as aconditional use it would be very difficult to denya reguest for such a conditional use.
- agrees with Kathy warren and Chuck Crist
regarding Section L8.24.030 (C-6) .
Ludwig Kurz - agrees with the staff that we cannot afford toset a precedent with the proposed change and lsnot in favor of the request.
Dalton Willlans- believes that thls proposed use would produce
very heavy pedestrlan traffic in Llonshead, whictr
sould generate sales and sales tax.
- beLieves that this is exactly what the Town ofVaiI wants.
-believes that people will show up for this
proposed use. Feels that this is a lrdynanitetr
idea.
-believes that this is a proper conditional use.
VOTE: 4-2 WTTA DALTON WILLUIMS AND CHUCK CRIST OPPOSED TO
THE DENIAL
19
Iten No. 11:
This iten was
ftem No. 12:
oo oa
East Gore Creek DrLve.Appllcant: Kevln Clair/Chuck Rosencrul-st
wl-thdrawn, no actl.on vas taken.
SchedulLnq for exterlor alterations ln ComrercLal
A.
Bridqe Street.Applicant: Hillis of Snowrnass. fnc. and
Bruce Ann & Associates.
Mike t{ollica explained that the request was to schedule a reviewperiod. Staff recornnended a 9O day review period for the Covered
Bridge Building and a 60 day review period for the llontaneros.
A.notion to Eet the review periods as reconnended by staff
was made bv Kathv warreil and seconded bv,fin Shearer.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Iten No. 13:
Item No. 14:
805 Potato Patch Drive.Applicant: Patsv and Pedro Cerisola
A resuest for an exterior alteration and a
landscape variance in order to constnrct an
Applicant: Hermann Staufer - Iancelot Reetaurant
A notlon to table ften No.s 13 and 14 to July 9. 1990 ras
nade bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Dalton Willlans.
vofE: 6-0 fN FAVOR
B.
Applicant: Montaneros Condo. Assoc.
20
lo oo
Item No. 1: Aoproval of ninutes fron June 4. 1990 and June 11.
1990 ne€tinoe.
A notion to arorove the ninutes from the June 4. 199o
ninutes as written was nade by Jim Shearer and seconded by
Ludwiq Kurz.
VOTE: 6-0 rN FAVoR
Chuck Crist stated that on page 13 of the 6/LL/9o ninutee thevote should be adJusted to ehow that he had abstained.
Kathy warren also had changes to be nade on th,e 6/lL/90 ninutes
and asked lf she could make then later and have the minutes
resubroitted for approval at the next neeting.
Item No. 2:A recruest for a conditional use pernit to allowfor a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and 1^/2 of 5,
Btock 5. vail Villaqe seventh Filino. 1119 E.
Ptarniqan Road.Aoolicant: Itlonie S. Beal.
There were no public conments and the applicant was not present
A motion to approve the recruest ner the staff rnerno was made
bv Dalton Williarns and seconded by Chuck Crist.
VOTE: 6-0 IN FAVOR
Item No. 3:
Applicant: John and Paula Canning
There rf,ere no public cornments and the applicant was not present
A notion to anprove the request ner the staff rnemo was made
by Chuck Crist and seconded bv Ludwig Kurz.
VOTE: 5-O IN FAVOR
llhe neeting rfas adJourned at approxinately 7:OO p.n.
A recruest for a conditionaL use pennit to al.lowfor a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bidhorn
Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle.
2L
1,".s3/s7/es s7a 2C Js; J:? 3S72 OtsHPc
TJ(HIBIT B
(Dlagram of Shor'lng System)
'l
tl
,jr'i1fis1:
I
e xr:-Tf{.
tlAf.C' r
1ffir..+-rlitl tt
/
Ulv{ ff fwrnro
kttffitna- uffi.
VrB Wrg, zt(&X6,
l:t:=*_
L,Sf
I
I
I
I
o& ?e afturwr7l
2a FeT Krco
EatsnrV OWr
frwxE:
mfl
t---
I
I
L - --
l
rlrril
LJ
-t!
/
I
I
l/
I
lltY.,,L , . _/__-
--rra--r--i
4*i
I i']]iI lt tl;t tIi'rrqa...*] I F^,e
-rE_-.!l''l
LOltEli.0vr.
EEeEL,nCL
JI
F
:TO:
FROM:
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Comrnission
Conmunity Developnent Department
June 25, 1990
A request for an anendnent
Bank, Part of Lot D, Block
lOB S. Frontage Road WeEt.Applicant: Vail National
to sDD No. 23, Vail National2, Vail Vlllage 2nd Filinq,
Bank Building Corp.
r. DESCRTPTTON OF PROPOSED REOUEST
The current application before the Planning Commission
involves two elenents:
1. An amendnent to the approved developnent plan to allowfor the enclosure of two decks on the third floor ofthe structure. This will add 11276 square feet ofoffice space to the building, resulting in a total
amount ot 23,205 square feet. This request ls similarto the plan reviewed by the Planning and Environmental
Conmission in February of 1990.
2. An amendnent to the parking standards of sDD No. 23 in
order to provide parking for this proposed additionwithin the parking structure at the vail Valley MedicalCenter. If approved, this office expansion would be
conpleted at approxiurately the same tine as the
hospitalrs parking structure. The applicants have
agreed that no occupancy of the new office apace would
occur prior to Vail National Bankrs use of its parking
spaces Located in the Medical Centerrs parkingstructure. The anticipated completion date of the
Medical center's parking structure is Decenbet 20,
1990.
The arnount of required parking for the proposed
addition is six spaces. The VaiI National Bank is
purchasing 8 spaces, and has optioned 4 additional
spaces, in the Medical Centerrs parking structure. The
Medical Center has a surplus of L2 parking spaces.
II. BACKGROUND AND HTSTORY
1. This property was rezoned to a special DevelopmentDistrict in May of 1989. This rezoning pernitted an
addition to the existing building of approxinately
1,800 square feet, which has been completed. AtI
parking was provided on-site.
a
I -i'
:
2. In Septenber of 1989, a ninor amendment to the SDD was
approved to allow for an addition of 218 sguare feet to
the third floor. This space is to be created by
converting an existing connon corridor into officespace. This new office space will generate the need,for one additional parking Epace and the vail National
Bank proposes to relocate an existing condensing unit,
on the southeast corner of the site, and convert the
space into a parking stall. To date, this construction
has not been done.
3. February 26, L99O--A request was presented to the PECto expand office space by enclosing two third floor
decks, as with the current proposal . However, the
applicant wlshed to utilize the office 6pace before the
parking was available ln the Medical Centerrs parking
structure. An option to lease parking spaces fron the
Hotiday rnn was proposed as an interin parking
solution. By a vote of 4-2-L the PEC recommended
approval of the request with conditions as follows:
a. 5 parking spaces be designated, rather than 4.
b. The Town Attorney shall review the purchase or
lease agreement between the Vail National Bank and
the Vail ValleY Dtedical Center.
4. March 20, 1990--The Council voted 5-1 to deny ordinance
No. 9, Series of 1990 on first reading. The Councilrs
concerns were limited to the tining of the constructionat the bank before the parking spaces would be
avai.lable at the Medical Center.
5. April 9, 1990--The PEC' by a unanimous vote of 7-O,
approved a Conditional Use Pernit to add two new half
Ievels of parking and a Learning Lab to the Vail valley
Medical centerrs parking structure. This approval
provided a surplus of L2 parking spaces at the Medical
Center.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
This proposal constitutes a major anendnent to the existing
sDD. In this case, the Planning Connissionrs action is
advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council.
The criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the
nine design crJ.teria of the SDD section of the zoning code.
These design criterla address a variety of lssues, including
design cornpatibitity, uses, parking, compliance with the
Vail Cornprehensive Plan' site planning, etc. As with all
sDDrs, the specific developnent standards on this property
are establiebed by the approved development plan and the
ordinance approved by the Council. It is the burden of theapplicant to demonstrate that their proposed developmentplan conplles with each of the nine design criteria, or
denonstrate that they are not applicable, or that apractical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved.
IV. SPECIAL DEVEIOPUENI DISITRIC! CRITERTA
A. Desiqn conoatibility and sensltivitv to the innediate
heiqht. buffer zones. identitv. character. visual
Lntecrrity and orientatLon.
The staff believes this proposed addition of Lt276 sq.ft. of office space to be consistent with all of the
above narned criteria. The design is cornpatible nlththe existing structure, the scale and bulk of thebuilding is not appreciably lncreased, and the visualintegrity of the existing structure wiII be naintalned.
UEes. activity and densitv which provide a compatible,efficient and workable relationship with surrounding
uses and activitv.
The proposed office use of this new space will be
consistent with the existing office uEes in thestructure, and we believe the request to enclose the
two decks and convert then to office space will have no
irnpact on surrounding uses and activities.
fn the event that the parking structure is not
conpleted for sone unusual reason, the space could be
used for conmon storage instead of a use that has a
parking demand. Staff prefere this alternative to
requiring a letter of credit to remove the space.
Conpliance with parking and loadincr recruirements as
outlined in Chaoter 18.52.
B.
c.
This criteria referencea the parking section of the
zoning code as a basis for evaluatinq developnentproposals. The parking section of the code states that
aII required parking should be located on-site. The
Town Council can grant exceptlons and all.ow off site
parking if certain criteria are met. In addition, it
should be understood that the design criteria can be
waived if rra practical solution consistent wlth thepublic interest has been achieved.n
l
D.
There is a specific process outlined in the code for
leasing parking spaces. This proposal ls consistentwith this process, and because this property is an sDD,the proponent can establish its own standards forparking. This means that the appllcants are withintheir rights to reguest approval of the parking
solution as proposed. The staff is supportive of the
request to locate sl.x spaces within the litedical
Centerrs parking structure. This appears to be a
workable situation considering the close proxfunity of
these two sites and the relatively snall nunber of
parking spaces involved.
The Medical Centerts parking structure is currently
under constructLon and according to Dan Feeney, project
nanager for the parking structure, the construction is
currently on schedule for a Decenber 20, L99O
cornpletion. According to Mr. Feeney, this date could
move up to the end of November if the weather
cooperates.
Attached is a Modification Agreeraent, as well as an
Irrevocable L,etter of Credit fron Vail National Bank,
which indicates the exercise of the Bankrs option to
purchase parking spaces in the Medical Centerrs parking
structure. Although the Bank's additional parking
reguirement is 6 parking spaces, the Bank j.s purchasing
8 spaces and has optioned 4 additional spaces in the
Medical. Centerrs parking structure.
In addition, ne believe it is positive that the bank
purchases two additional spaces beyond what is reguLred
by the Town of Vail parking code. The proJect seems to
generate an usually high parking demand even though
technicatly the project neets the code.
conforrnity with applicable eleurents of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan. Town policies and Urban Desiqn
Plans.
The staff believes that the proposal is in confortnance
with the existing Town of Vail Iand Use Plan and we
believe the following sections of the Land Use Plan to
be applicabl.e to this ProPosal:
1. 1:Vail should continue to grow Ln a controlled
environment, naintaining a balance between
residential , conmercial and recreational usesto Eerve both the visitor and the permanent
resident.
(
Site plan, buildinq desLqn and locatl.on and open space
provl-sl-ons designed to produce a functional developnent
responsive and sensitive to natural features,
F.
1.3: The quality of developrnent should rnaintained
and upgraded whenever possible.
1.12: Vail should accommodate noEt of theadditional growth in exlstLng developed areas(inflll areas).
E. Identification and nitiqation of natural and/or
creoloqic hazards that affect the propertv on which thespecial development district is proposed.
There are no natural and,/or geologic hazards thataffect the Vail National Bank property.
vecretation and overall aesthetic crualitv of the
communitv.
This proposal constitutes no change to the existingbuilding design, site plan, and open space provisions.
c. A circulation svstem desiqned for both vehicles andpedetrians addressing on and off-site trafficcirculation.
Not applicable.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in
order to optimize and preserve natural features.recreation, views and functions.
Not appticable.
f. Phasinq plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relationship
throuqhout the development of the special. developmentdistrict.
Not applicable.
v.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is supportive of the Vail National Bank's requestfor an anendnent to sDD No. 23. we are now comfortable with
the tining of the request and the l{odl-flcatLon Agreenent and
Irrevocable Letter of Credit. we feel that the Joint-useparking arrangement is very reasonable, given the closeproxinity of the neighboring parking structure and the factthat thls area has been planned in a manner that integrates
the Doubletree, Hospital and Eank sites. The Doubletree has
also received approval to locate parking in the hospital
structure.
The staff reconmendation for approval carries the following
conditions:
- The Town of vail uill not issue a Tenporary Certificateof Occupancy to the VaiI NatLonal Bank (for the
enclosure of the two balconies), until such tine as the
Medical Center receives a Tenporary Certlficate of
occupancy for the parking structure.
- If for some unforeseen reason the Medical Centerrs
parking structure is not conpleted, the newly
constructed deck enclosure shall only be allowed to be
used for comnon storage. The owner shall be reguiredto subrnl.t a written agreement addressing this condition
on the use of the space for the Town AttorneyrE review
and this Ehall be recorded, on the land records, at the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorderrs Office.
5
ll.
VAIL NATIONAL BANK
IRREVOCABLE LETTER OT
of Credit
CREDIT
May 9, 1990Irrevocable Letter
Nurnber : L04
Vail CIinic, fnc.
181 West Meadohr DriveVail, Colorado 8L657
Gentlemen:
We hereby open our Irrevocable Letter of Credit in your favoravailable by draft or drafts at sight drawn on VaiI National Bank
and any sum or surns not exceeding in total the sum of Ninety Three
Thousand Seven Hundred Forty Four and noll-O0.
This Letter of Credit is for the account of VNB Building
Corporation.
This Letter of Credit may be drawn upon by VaiI Clinie, Inc. ifVaiI Clinic, Inc. has provided VNB Building Corporation with thefollowing:
A. Evidence that its parking structure is conpleted.
B. Delivery of a valid certifj-cate of insurance covering suchparking structure
C. A final Certificate of Occupancy for the parking
structure.
Upon receipt of the a !s, VNB euilding Corporationrnc. withinfail,ed to pay the sum of o the vail clinic,three ( 3 ) business days of -fece:ip of the documents.
The draft drawn on VaiI National Bank sight shall be endorsed onthe reverse side of this Letter of Credit and bear upon its faceilDrawrr under Letter of Credit Number 1O4, dated l,tay 9, 1990, ofvail National Bank-!r Partial drawings are not perrnitted.
This Letter of Credit shall expire on May 9, L99i-.
\/.li|N.rtilrrra||}.rrrL|}ui|.|irrgl0ttSr,lrt|l|:rrrrrt.r6c|lrlttlW.|1L).Ullx2o3t]V.ri|,Ctt
o
Irrevocable Letter of Credit #L04Vail clinic, Inc.
May 9, I99O
Page 2
Vail Nationar Bank agrees with the drawers, endorsers and bonafideholders of draft drawn and negotiated in compriance with the ternsof this Letter of credit that such draft wirr be duly honored upondue presentation at the counter of this Bank.
Vair National Bank represents and warrants to Vait crinic, rnc.that it has the fulr authority and power to issue this Letter ofcredit to Vail clinic, rnc., in the total anount and for the periodof tirne stated herein; said authority being pursuant to the lawsof the United States, or the state or territory which governs theestablishment and regulation of Vail National Bank, and VaitNational Bank's charter, by-Iaws, and other applicable rules andregulations adopted pursuant thereto. Should it be necessary forVail CIinic, Inc. to file suit in an effort to enforce thisIrrevocable Letter of Credit, Vail National Bank hereby waives aII
venue rights and submits to the jurisdiction of the District Courtin and for the County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
AII drafts hereunder shalI
above.
Sincerely,
VAIL NATIONAL BANK
be honored during the tern as set forth
i,!- ].- g _ :J Lt T.I E I:
05/11ii.9 0 {iZ, I I
"= : ti = f:' Fr t-t L F r;' r.t t::- fi' '=;o r:: t..l E g'2
I Stl: 51a ,tta r 5 fl H FC !lI
3H3e
rnqB Buj,tding
:inc., d/b/a
{rtltcepitslr;
i{oDrr:celXo:t i"cR5&,:cm
!loDf!Iq{T:C$ aG-a..iE€t:T ia enterer
corp. r .r ]i*r,r,d,n * i j-ntc by nnd betueel
crrporatl.cn (rr';lisil) r anqi vall ctlnJ.c,Va11 Vallay .yEdical centei, a ?elras cort)oratlon
FEC??4Sg
Hoapital. and vlig ente:eC Jn{:c a co::ttaet Ceted, as ol }tay 22,'gag (the '4o"oenanLni reietl.rg to the !ioep1_._el.rs consl:j'":ctlcn ofa Parkrng g:ructuf. on 1ts prope:.r::, ln vail . c6: .^r-'e^;;;;.""':::;:,ffi(12) narkJt.ft a---,
-
rslatlng to VSgrs exe:c1se c! the Op.tlon.
rn considerat3oD cf the fcregcing anc r-ng nutua! ec?enqntsand pronls*E contalned he=e.n, the psrt'€s 3€iree io the forl'.fr.ngnodLf,lcatjone to sactj.oh 4 of t5d rlEreenent:
A, :;,ll3 ,e cpa:.c:l iD pr:rci:estLr.reveeabira.r.j.ca:rqa..-.\ . . '''ti;;'l'as8 an exeluslva,rJlsa tc uEt ,tiv.eLve {!z) parJ.llng cpr:es ie thePerk.i::qi .:':r,:x:::r" (,,:h. i.C.iti_:3111 ?er*in; Speces,,r nay beex.srcl,ged ln tir,o staget: tle f:s3': fcr s:.ghf, (3) sbaces ai:C +_heEecond for fcu: i4) slraces.
t.i E :fr i::;1r:r Ff!uL F f--1 lr E F: ::;o t:: i-{ E!s3=
@5th?t21 971 17
q.
sheli be g1:.,7i.e
Spaceg.
;.
I 3it; s?: 5l1i3 ,i 5 g H FD
The Cogt, of the A<ldl-uLcnal
Per Fpacar a total of g:.40,615
parklng gpacos
fo: twelve (X2)
:C. vNg las no:lfled l{cepi-tat rhae tt lntends to
ffi;::"J;t"
ctr;a cr :+;a opticn ro p'J:c::ase -uha excl.rar.vs,rana€ eo ':se e:.ght {8} payjrlng apr.cea in ths parklnc"st'ructure. tr*g nay exerclse ihi.e ...-_*= ::""-" ':'n Ens Pail(1t ,thls f:tst eta
:: ":J:".=:::::e nat'onal' !*nk' r'n 3e"'c= c: t:-:3 l{oe;:Ltal , i-n an aaornt egual te99?t744 cnd 6::bjaot .,o al.i cio tle ie:-:.s and conij.tlons for thelettar cf c:edit staied in sactlt :n 4 (e) cf the Ag:serlsnt,. XalLureto doll''er tc t5e ilcE-oitar the e:tec,:tad i.ro,tr.flca.tie:.: A€rreanent onor befora:'!ay ?' 1g9c E::d.';;xe &f"rer.ent,.onac:.e:t*3 0f cred.i.t on orbafore iiay g, i890 sl:ail :Eeul_t l_n the.arnLnat:_on cf ll(Bre opt.lonto purc!:ago en exclugr-'rs, lSrevocebrs ilcs::sg to .ny oi ihg trerve(:.2) parl{l.nE spasea.
D. riro, arc cn:.y if, _v-NB exgrci.=as L<:s optlon toFUfchasa tliE first sight (s) of 'che Addlti.orei.:rrk,nq spacespursucnt tc Fasegr.'Dh C cf this ;,.:cdi-'Lcat.10n -r-gr:enei:t, -r'1i3 nayexercj.se it.e Cpt.i.cn 1a purc):ese e:: exc.11g1.,..g, 1lrevocal:is f .t censeec ugs the renaln-tng fc,;r ia) ;\i'jlt:crel Fer-:<J.::g s:-receg ai a ccstof $cg '872t by isilve:1ng r-e iiospltei, l-:jtl:lrr ten i:3) buslneesdaya fclioeri::g: t;.\o dnte cn iih:cj:
the Laeu.ance c: " -";-^:"]-
*',* i:'J3-,'::al gir-ea noiLce to fi{3 o!teti)9le:i, ctr:t-fl:a.;e of f;c3:lhanei, fcr Lha use of
-. --_. - :l 1,1
:-4.
F l-r t-l L-I-r Lr t.t t:. r:: ::.
o
tha parl<lng Sbructula,tha fc.t lowing;
t. $irltten ].,otic€ cf t::s ezerci.sa of theEecond, et:gs of tjra O;rtJ-cn, end
li,. An Lrrsvorabls Letr.sr ot c:edit drawnupon a netlcnal bank' rn f,ar,'or':f tha Hcspltai,
'n an emcunt €quar.to g*c,B?Z and subjsct tc aLi:erxs and ccr,:Ci.ti.one for the ietterof credj"t sE se: jcr|_h j-n Sectlon 4(c) cf th* Agraenent.
Fn'll';re tc ..:xerci.se the aeccr:d, stage of tha opt,Lon lnsr-rlo+- acccrdance rj.tb the plcvlcj.*rs ,_:f +*hls iai:egre.ph D ehallrssuit L::'chE expiraf;ro:r c3 y:{:'a opf,i.on to pu:chasa an sxcfusiv€,
lr:evocgbLe Llcanee f;c tha ra:nai.nlng fcur (4) p:r.klnq spacos.
F the ccs! of additi.r:;:aI llu,:Jri.:g spscos iscgl.cuic,tad bageC L.,pon e ccnstr,:;!j:n Ft+cess fc:,ihs parklng
structurs uti11zlng a 'ti'a-bach'f shorh; syste:r 30 retain theexcevatj-on acjacent tc Els?E prcporty (tbE *propsrtyt, aa ls
descrlbed, 1n the attac}tsC Exhibr! A). ?he shoring systen ccneletgof eteel plroe d:iven .,'erg1calr-y into the grounc, ic bs r.ocated onthe tiaeprtal'e prci:erf,y, but gr.:ppcr.;ed by a se-rlas of eteei rcds
and anchorg le+-erriijr drrrrEc ;n tha earth, ths cr.e-r pcr::cn uhlchw1l'l erctend un{er tha p:cpari?, ?s sho,,rn 1n tle attaci:od Exhlblt B,1"llB he36b.y glves . !g csnse:rt foi- ii:spicel. to ltstej.i the
!.i E Ir
.i ;:. - ':, tfl l.l E L.+::1L l-:. 1__r t_ I L rr. r.:r l..f ?: f. :.:r:. ':' f-{ -f:
syste:i c;: th,c Frcperti, anci to loava the eLael
piacs after ths Hcspj.i:*i,s parking gtruct're
is ccnpLoted, er:bject t,o the fcllolrlng tetzne
underground shcrj::g
rsde ahd anchors -ln
c,onstructlon project
and requlrenentel
(.1)If ln *-ha f..::ure i!:e t1+_L.acit aygtsn,cr &ny FEr: og lt, nged.s tc bs ra*c';ei to arr.c..,: f..:I-tler d,:vel.opnent
of the Fropert'1r cr !o cs=;r'y w3.th prics ee,5e:n€ntg on t::" Frcp€rty,
HospLt&t wlil be reepcrs:bls fcr an]- ccs:c raqr:,Lred, fsr anc
sperc'Slcally :eiate{ to lhe goncv*l ci ths tie-bocr,.t'. aoceugs Df
thg lnccnrenr'enca to the uee of tbs prcperiy aner, -.-he ccgts rnvolvod
ln thc rgaovar c!';5e steer rscs a:id anchose, i!:-s e3re'd:llct the
removaL of ani. pe:.,i: *!, th:s tla-ts:cli sizeten wili bo dgne 1n
conJtnctl.n 'i;1ib. llturs er:cs..ra..::r.cn i: n-ra 9re?cv?:, either 30r vNSf sfurttrsr davaiep:renf, cf the pt:.;rergy cr f cr rr,ork on other
undorgrorrnc f,ecL!.iEles. .vx3 lrlll q:i.,,.e Hcspltal. hsE, Jes,s than
thirty (30) dayar written rot j.ca cf ar.llf 3.rlc_rJr:eaant f,or such
rsno'ral .
(1f) HoepLtal agr€es tc hoLd VNB ha:mtEs6
and !':ldorru:1fy i.t fc" eny den:ge to e:rj-str.ng unierg:o,ind fac{rrtleg
on *'!:o FrcpartT, hciuding bu+- not ir-iriltecl to r:ebi-.!-nr end, pLpsa f,or
any undorground uti'ri-tics, :aa:itJ.n? frcn lhe :::stelr.atr.cn cf the
stee! ;oC.s and anch"rs on !l:s pr:ps33i,.
6 . Fhsr F,-'\rr r ,i_.E, l_.__.-alois oj --.\is l,iu_d1flcullcn Agroanant
irl
,frl ii 'r' * :l =--?rJ t..t E rl !-:r : l. = f- fi t_l L l:r r:r:,.t :i Fl:=t::o r: l.l F
ehall ba deerned to aaend thsp6cj,frca]11:- or .*^_^:::"'
Ens .lgreo::rent onr
ef,fociuat" th" :
expreosiy etated hgreln and
to ths axtsnt
;;eclf,lc tenns of thl. *^:::. """ a's nac.E'ary to
o';her terfis end candr.ti.ons of
thls ecciilcatlon Agreeil.ht. A1r
pro,,rlalons af sec:r""-l--l_-
or the agreeilen:, hcludlng those
the tanng o, a.r,r"tlea
4' not spaclflcall.y :nod..lt'j
and effecr.
r xocirlc'rrlcn rigre*nenb shail ";;1; ,::..r:":l
$, Hrnrs
.rlod { * cat r on agr "Eesr,,"ff la "
the .uartlas hr
datag 8e.,.. rorrh ;::".:."""**u
thla
\It{B BUrLDive coRp.,
A l{evada ccrporatioe
AT3EST..
ittf.
I
-- :J }f l..r E l'
'3 rJ l.t rf t{
srATS 03 cotox.\Do
"l=FAj_ti_
-: ::-- F' {l 'r.l t:: :. '-.
l> r-! ;': a ;'::...- f cr.rr
r:: L: l.l E:-.f,-i
|qgF.-
tt
) aa.
COLT:ITY OF
Fho loregolng {661:3:0n*
o:tbta 6ay
of vNB Aulldlng Corp.
Hy connlael.cn expl;rs 08-06-90
'lAI3 Cr.I!{IC,
?eilr \TAZaEEE
:*as Exbserlbed and s'ws:r to bofa:re
--t l99g-,
&E l/ice President
7rh
arr 1 ' l-!
ae
by
i'la:rold'!{. ;.icanca
6
DENVER
:{otary
nlc. dr^va
3[BDIfSIJ sel[E]tR,
I
ta:o 1"+ FFlTJL FT|:}UIEteS t:o/ l li'r'--.:l .-S-f:rg HED
STTFE Or COIORADO
r'fy cohnlEalon explrea
(8EAr.l
r= l.J E EA
ATTEST:
Secretary
) gg.
counry ar/<,g/: -l
Bhe foraEolng docurnent uae subecrLbed and Eworn to bef,orethte fl* day or trlA* _nh.-- U-Lssga,?.Ko""*,
me
by
. (A;t ,*Z ryt</;".e C<**tr
eg
?AXIJ CLrt\IC,
vttrJ vllias
IXe. d/br/a
HSDTCAI.I CBNggR
lfotary
r -'t. ,
r_ r_. , r i:o F_. _ r-:r .]
,)5 t O7 t'1t1 st, t t,( H PC t8
(sEAL)
r' i ':r - 'fi ,;t !..t E .$:::1.iI
\11/q7/ 9C, 0ir ti S -l::: S: i J i-i ?:! & u i.t
E;fi{iEIA A
LCf 2, A IRESUBS:'/:SISI{ 03 ii)T D, ,,rA.i! irIT,iAcE
F:L::ic .1.,\I TF.ACT D, \'AiL / L,'-Cl{sFti.LD, s5ccliD
?O'{li CF '.,rAIlr EAcr.E C'-.,j:i3y, CC:,C:IADO
.''1
{,
sEc0$D
3'IiiNG
ffiffi#bd#
t
Wsr|.-r-ffiff0MAY29byrl
SENT VIA FA:< ro t-eZg-Onff
I'Iay 23, l99O
Mr. Jay K. petersonOtto, peterson & post
_109-s. Frontage Road W.vatJ_, co 81658
Dear Jayi
PLease proceed to schedule us wrth. appropriate Town of vailauthorities so that ,"-c*n olt"in-; UurfefnE-pernit by,fu1y 1, l99O/ for the scuthrLst aec* e:rpi;;;;:,
Attached is a copy of the i,fcciification Agreenent. pleasecontact Lisa Dillon to obt.ain a -o-p.y of the Letter of creditfron vNB Buildins corp. to vaii ifi.l]ic, -i;:---:-
Cal1 rne if you have any questions,
ere1y,
I
O PUBLTc NorrcE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environnental
Counission of the Town of VaiI will hold a public hearing in
accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the municipal code of the
Town of Vail on June 25, 1990 at 2:OO p.n. in the Town of VaiI
llunicipal Building. Consideration of:
1. A request for an exterior alteration and a landscape
variance in order to construct an addition to the BeII Tower
Building at 201 Gore Creek Drive, Part of Tract A, Block 58Vail Village lst FiIing.Applicant: Hermann staufer - Lancelot Restaurant
2. A reguest for a conditional use permit toallow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lots 6 and L/2 of 5, Block5, Vail village Seventh Filing, 1119 E. Ptanoigan Road.Applicant: Monie S. Beal
3. A request for a conditional use pennit toallow for a Bed and Breakfast at Lot 8, Block 3, Bighorn
Subdivision, 5th Addition, 5198 Gore Circle.Applicant: John and Paula Canning
4. A request for a conditional use perrnit for a constructionstaging area, located just uphill of the Golden Peak
snownaking purnphouse, Tract 8, Vail Village 7th Filing.Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
5. Prelirninary review for an exterior alteration in Comnercial
Core I, for the following property (60 to 90 day studyperiod):
Covered Bridge Building - Lot C and Lot D, and the
southwesterty 4 feet of Lot B, aII in Block 5-B' VaiIVillage lst Filing, 227 Bridge Street.Applicant: Hillis of Snowuass, Inc.
6. A request for a variance fron the wall height requirenent on
Lct- 29, Block 1, VaiI Potato Patcht 805 Potato Patch Drive.Applicant: Patsy and Pedro Cerisola
7. A request for an amendment to the Townrs zoning code to addrrTelevision Stationrr as a conditional use in the Conmercial
Core II zone district, Section 18.26.O1OApplicant: Vailr/Beaver Creek Televisj.on Netsork.
8. A reguest for a conditional use perrnit for a deck expansionat the Sweet Basil restaurant, located on Tract A' Block 58'Vail Village 1st Filing, 193 East Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Kevin claire,/chuclc Rosenqutst
/ha.rtaal ctfQal (ri.r.t^r,,) c.t^ %/,
X 9. A request for an arnendrnent
Bank, Part of Lot D, Block
S. Frontage Road West.
Appll.cant! vail National Bank Building corp.
10. A request for a side yard setback variance at
Drive, Unit #20' Bighorn Terrace.
Appticant: John Nilsson
11. A request for a front setback varj-ance and a
variance for Lot 6, vail Village l{est, Filing
West Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Dan and Karen Forey
oto sDD No. 23,- VaiI National2, Vail Village 2nd Filing, 108
4247 Colunbine
creek setback
No. 2, L755
L2. A request for a conditional use permit and a height variancein order to construct an antenna at the vail Municipal
building, 75 South Frontage Road.Applicant: Town of Vail Police Departnent
13. A request for a major subdivision, a request to approve the
preliminary plan, a request for a variance to the maxinum
height for retaining walls, and a request for a variance to
the naxirnun percent grade for a road, on a parcel cornnonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an approxinate 40 acre parcel
located north and east of ttre Main Vail I-70 interchange and
east of the SPraddle Creek liverY.Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
L4. A request for a work session on the Sonnenalp renodel and
proposed Special Development District at 20 Vail Road, Partof f,ot L, Block 5-8, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties, Inc.
The applications and inforrnation about the proposals are
available for public inspection in the Conmunity Developnent
Department office.
Town of Vail
Community Developrnent Department
Published in the Vail Trail on June I' L990.
s C\ rv scHULrz-ARCH rlkT,,r.:
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7890
Vail National Bank
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
The Alphorn Condoniniun Associatlonc/o |lr. Ben Boutell
Post 0ffice Box 3648Vai1, C0 81658
Scorpio Condoniniun Associatlon
4919 Hanpden Lane
Bethesda, MD 20814
Skaal Hus Phase 1c/o Mr. Ron Anderson
727 Peansy lvania Ave.
IIoLton, KS 66436
Skaal Hus Phase 2
c/o l4r. Ross Davis
Post Office Box 190
Vai1, C0 81658
Yail Valley Medical Center
181 Uest Meadow Drive
Vail , CO 81.657
(DoubLetree IIotel )Yail Holdings, Inc.c/o J. Michael llolloway
Anerican Credit Services, Inc.
201 E. Broad Street
Rochester, NY 14604
Doubletree Condoniniun Assoc.c/o Mr. Gene Petracca
602 Park Ave.
Manhasset, NY 10030
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.VaiL, C0 81657
tvfMEER. Il€ AM8?ICAN INSIIIJIE OF Af€HftCTS
i,
A.
c.
D.
SDMAY2!i'Jir0
APPLICATION FOR A!.TENDMENT TO
SPECIAL DEVEIOPMENT DISTRICT DEVEI.,OPMENT PI,AN
FOR VATL NATIONAL BANK
NA},IE OF APPI.,ICANT: VNB BUILDING CORP.
ADDRESS: c/o Hanover Rea1ty
550 S. Cherry Street, Suite 1025
Denver, CO 80222
PHONE: 320-5800
B. NAUE OF APPLICANTTS REPRESENTATIVE: JAY K. PETERSON
ADDRESS: Suite 307, Vail National Bank Building
108 S. Frontage Road Wes
PHONE:
vail, co 81657
476-0092
ADDRESS:Suite 307, vail Nati
Log S. Frontage RoadVail , CO 81557
47 6-0092
Iding
PHONE:
IOCATION OF PROPOSAL: 1.08 South Frontage Road WestVail, Colorado 8L657
Part of Lot D, Block 2, VaiI Village 2nd Filing
Speci.al Development District #23
1. A llst of the namea of all the adjacent property owners and theirnailing addresses is attached.
The purpose of this application is to enclose the two balconies
located on the third story of the vail National Bank Auilding
pursuant to plans and epecifications subnitted with the prior
application by Sydney Schultz. No changes have been made to
those plans.
The tining, however, of construction has been nodified to reflectthe anticlpated completion date of the liledicalstructure. lhis proJect would conmence in the
Center parkingIater parts ofof November. The
4.
July with conpletion anticipated for the niddleanticipated completion date of the Vail Valley
Parklng Structure is Novenber 15, 1990.
Along with this application, application is also being nade forJoint Use Parking purBuant to Section ta.52.O6o of the Town ofvail zoning Code. The parking arrangement is the same as
outllned in the previous appllcation by Sydney Schultz on filenith the Town of Vail. A ilodification Agreement is attached
along with with Irrevocable Letter of Credit fron VaLl National
Bank showing the exercise of the option to purclrase parking
pl-aces in the Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Structure.
No tenporary parking variance is reguested nor are any changes
belng subrnitted different from the prevLous appllcation by sydney
Schultz.
5.
sr ilrv scHULz-ARCH rfrT,,.
April 30, 1990
Ms. Kristan Pritz
0ffice of Community
Town of Vail-
75 S. Frontage Road
Vai1, C0 81657
Developnent
West
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL, coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7890
IIn\ \l\n
\ rri}/u'
I
\
't)
RE:ing-Pedestrian Acc es s
Dear Kristan:
Attached is a slte plan showing how we are proposi-ng to nodify
the l-andscaped bern in front of the Vail National Bank Buildlng
to provide safer pedestrian access across the Frontage Road.
We wouLd appreciate your reviewing this proposal with the
appropriate depart,nents as soon as possible since landscaping is
currentl-y being done in that area and we woul-d like to coordinate
any changes with that i{ork.
Sidney
cc : Pau l- Power s
E.B. Chester
George Shaeffer
.CDD)\
h-laQ-
ail NationaL Bank Buil
MEMBE?, THE AMERICANI NSNUE OF AI?CHITECTS
MI NUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 20, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the VaiI Town
7:30 p.m., in the Councjl Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Merv Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
None
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskw'i th, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town C'l erk
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TO}IN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
The first item was the County Recreation and Affordable Housing Electionpresentatjon. Don Welch introduced members of the Task Force who were present. He
explained the hjstory of the County's plans for recreation and affordable housing
and brought the public up-to-date. Peter Jamar gave a sl ide presentation of
prospective p1ans. Kevin Lindahl reviewed the planned capital costs for Phase I of
the recreation area, and once it becomes ful1y operational , the annual proceeds and
costs. Jim Stovall gave closing remarks giving an overview of the tentative p1ans.
He then urged the publ'i c to get out and vote Apri 1 10. Don Welch then held a
quest i on,/answer session for the public.
Item two was a public hearing regarding the proposed Tennenbaum land exchange.
Mayor Rose gave brief background information on the proposed land exchange. He then
gave a sumnation of past Council philosophies and decis'i ons regarding open space,
real estate transfer tax, and the punsuit of land acquisitions to keep open space,
Counci'l 's concern now over a precedent that will be set, and that Council did not
want to see local fand degradation to preserve other lands. Andy !'liessner,
representing the Tennenbaums, discussed amendments to the proposed Ieg'i slation to
appease the Town of Vail, noting the basis of the request was that the loss of one
acre would not do the Town any harm. He then addressed some issues brought up at
the Special CounciI Work Session meeting last Thursday, and answered numerous
questjons of the public. Afterwards, pro/con statements from the public were made.
Emmet Mossman, who ljves at 166 Forest Road, was against the exchange. Kirk Kepsel ,
of Lakewood and representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, felt the land
trade would be outstanding for Colorado. He felt the 2,100 acres were all
ecological1y significant land in the state, and the one acre was not. Arthur Gould,
a licensed engineer and part-time resident of Vai1, and representing the homeowners
on Rockledge Road, was very much against the trade. Woody Beardsley of Denver,
representing the Colorado Division of the hlilderness Society, endorsed the land
swap, but would help if Vail residents could raise enough money to purchase the
lands; then the Society would drop their support of the land trade. Moni Beal felt
this trade must be stopped now, because others would be coming up in the future if
this did go through. Hermann Staufer was against the trade, and felt residents had
worked hard for Va'i I and want to keep it the crown jewel of the ski industry. Diana
},lilliamson opposed the trade stating neighbors may have problems if it happened.
Lee Baker, from Denver and on the Board of the Colorado Mountain C1ub, congratulated
the Council on their commitment to open space, and stated the pos'i tion of the Club
on this issue was that it was a good deal for the people of Colorado; it may not be
for Vail, but it was for the State. He also felt it was too good a deal to turn
down and too good a deal for Vail to stop. Lew Meskiman, a Vail resident, fe1 t the
trade was not in the best interest of the town. He suggested the Town look into
extending town limits over the Forest Service land and designate this overlapped
area as open space; this would provide a double block for any land transfers. He
noted that Minturn does this. Joe Staufer was concerned that this transfer wou'l d
establish a precedent and urged the Council to fight it. Dorothy Coleman,
representing the Colorado Environmental Coalition, stated she understood why Vail
was against the trade, but felt the other lands were worth saving; also, she felt
the ski area may expand over the one acre eventua'l 1y. Diana Donovan was very much
Council was held on Tuesday, March 20, 1990, at
of the Vai'l Municipal Building.
against the proposed trade. At this time, Councilmembers gave their cormentsregarding the proposed land trade. Jim Gibson was very disappointed with the
environmental groups; he felt they saw only one thing - 2,100 acres of what they
wanted. He felt this was an extremely dangerous precedent which would affect Vail
very adversely. He also remarked if it could be done here, then it could be done
anywhere in the country. Peggy 0sterfoss commented it was interesting to see thepolarization of the vail group and environmental groups, and felt we should beworking together for a net increase in public 1ands, not exchanges. She also notedthe problem she had with this exchange was that it involved subjective judgement -
what's good for whom? Merv Lapin was very much opposed to all land trades that
involve Forest Service lands for private lands. He encouraged the public to contact
our Colorado delegates and let them know immediately that we are against thistrade. Mayor Rose was against the trade because he did not want to lose our open
space to acquire some elsewhere; the land was important here. Tom Steinberg, who
was completely against the trade, pleaded wjth Mr. Tennenbaum to total 1y withdrawhis request. He felt this was jn the best interest of the community and the
Tennenbaums. Lynn Frjtzlen first thanked everyone for coming to express their
opinions, the commented she was against this trade because it was a local land use
decision being decided on a national level with no local input. Robert LeVine was
worried about this trade setting a precedence, and felt that each time after this
would be easjer and easier until the system fell apart. Ron Phillips stated a
summary of Council's comments would be jn a wrjtten form sometime tomorrow for thepublic. Jim Gibson asked that a list of the Colorado delegation's addresses and
phone numbers be jncluded for the public. Tom Steinberg then made a motjon
authorizing the Town Manager to make a summary of Council's attitude and draft aletter to the Colorado delegation opposing the land trade as presented for reasons
stated, and to have this letter sent to each member of the delegation, and also makethis information available to the public, along with the delegations' addresses and
phone numbers. Merv Lap'i n seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0.
Due to the lateness of the hour, Council decided to move agenda items around to
accormodate those members of the public involved in agenda items who were stilI
present.
The next item discussed was Ordinance No. 9, Series of 1990, first reading, a
request to amend Special Development District No. 23, the Vail National BankBuilding. Mayor Rose read the full title. Tom Braun stated no changes had been
made to the ordinance and staff had done no additional work on it with Jay
Petenson. He remarked staff had no other comments and would be interested to hear
the Bank's presentation. Paul Powers of the Vail National Bank Building reviewed
the request, gave some background information, and answered questions of Council.
Peggy 0sterfoss noted the Council had problems with two issues basically: 1) the
timing of the construction before the parking spaces were available, and 2) adequateparking. Lynn Fritzlen stated it was difficult to vacate the space if the
conditions were not met, and the enforcement would prove to be ovenwhelming tostaff. Ton Braun added that staff could not support the request as it stands. Tom
Slgj_&gIS
'!qCe
a__Eotion to deny the ordjnance, which was seconded by Lynn Fritzlen.
ADiana Donovan did not understand why the Council was against this request. After
some discussion by Council, Byron Rose, one of the owners of the Bank building,
addressed the tirning issue as far as Land Title and the VNB Building were
concerned. Peggy 0sterfoss responded to Diana's concerns, and added she would vote
against the ordinance. Robert LeVine suggested the Town issue a building permit at
the time the parking structure was begun, but no occupancy permit unti'l the parking
structure was complete. After much discussion by Counci|, GaiI Wahr'l ich-Lowenthal
responded to Council's timing concerns, asked questions of CounciI and staff, and
gave reasons why the request should be approved. A vote was then taken and the
motion passed 6-1,, with Mayor Rose opposing, so 0rdinance No. 9 was denied.
The next order of business was 0rdinance No. 10, Series of 1990, first reading,
amending special Development District #4, Cascade Village Area b, Glen Lyon Oificesite to provide for changes to parking provisions, micro-brewery building and east
bu'i 1ding. The full title of the ordjnance was read by Mayor Rose. Kristan Pritz
gave a brief description of the request noting staff recommended approval and the
Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval . There was then some
discussjon regarding parking. Jjm Gibson made a motion to approve the ordinance,
and Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously
7-0.
The fifth item was Resolution No. 7, Series of 1990, authorizing the Town Manager to
act on behalf of the Town of Vajl jn negotiating and entering into a lease
termination agreement with the U.S. Postal Service. There was no discussion by the
-?-
public or Council. Menv Lapin made a motion to approve, which Robert LeVine
seconded. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
Next was 0rdinance No. 11, Series of 1990, first reading, rezoning Lots 3, 4, and 5,
Vail Val'l ey 3rd Filing, a part of Sunburst replat from Primary/Secondary Residentialto Special Development District. Tom Braun stated the app'l icant was requesting the
ordinance be tabled and the application be remanded to the Planning Commission.
There was no other discussion. Merv Lapin made a motion to table the item and
remand the appljcation back to the Plannjng Corrnission. The motion was seconded by
Robert LeVine. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously 7-0.
0rdinance No.7, Serjes of 1990, second reading, increasing future Council
compensation, was discussed next. Mayor Rose read the full tjtle of the ordinance.
Lynn Fritzlen made a motion'to approve, with a second by Tom Ste'i nberg. Jim Gibson
was opposed to the ordinance because he felt it wou'l d not get younger peop'l e to runfor Council. A1 so, he felt Council would be open to considerab'le criticism sine
Planning Commission and Design Review Board members received no compensation. After
some discussion regarding this, Djana Donovan comnented she felt an across the board
increase for Councilmembers was alri ght, but not for attending meetings. A vote was
then taken and the motion failed 3-4, with Robert LeVine, Peggy Osterfoss, Merv
Lapjn, and Jim Gibson opposed, so Ordjnance No. 7 was denied.
The next order of business was 0rdinance No. 12, Series of 1990, first reading,
amending the Town's sales tax code. The full title was read by Mayor Rose. There
was no discussion by Council or the publjc. Merv Lapin made a motjon to approve,
which Peggy Osterfoss seconded. A vote was taken and the notion passed unanimously
7-0.
The Jackalope Cafe & Cantina sign variance was next. Due to the absence of the
applicant, Merv Lapin made a motion to table this item to the next Evening Meeting
April 3. Peggy Osterfoss seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimous'ly 7-0.
The tenth item on the agenda was appointment of a Design Review Board member.
Applicants for the opening were Carolyn Edrington, Don Ga1 gan, George King, and
George Lamb. Councjl voted by secret bal'l ot for one member. There was a majority
vote for George Lamb. Merv Lapin then made a motion to appoint George Lamb for a
two year term on the DRB, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the
motjon passed unanimously 7-0.
There was no Citizen Participation.
There being no further public business, the meeting vyas adjourned at 12:15 a.m.
Respectful ly submi tted,
ATTEST:
Rose,
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
-3-
MI NUTES
VAIL TO}{N COUNCIL MEETING
MARCH 6, 1990
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town
7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
CounciI was held on Tuesday, March 6, 1990,
of the Vail Municipal Buildjng.
Kent Rose, Mayor
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Robert LeVine
Peggy 0sterfoss
Merv Lapin
Ron Phillips, Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
at
The meeting began with the approval of minutes of the February 6 and 20, 1990
meetings. There was no discussion by Council or the public. Jim Gibson made a
motion to approve the minutes as presented, which Tom Steinberg seconded. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously 6-0.
Next on the agenda was 0rdinance No. 7, Series of 1990, first reading, increasing
the compensation for future Mayors and Councilmembers. The full title was nead by
Mayor Rose. Larry Eskwith stated this ordinance tvas wri tten to the Council's
specifications. Jim Gibson corrmented he had problems with the ordinance and felt
the Town needed a broader spectrum of people seeking seats on the Counci1, but this
was the wrong premise. He did not believe the ordinance wou'ld do what it was
intended to do, and urged the Counci'l to not pass it. Lynn Fritz'l en remarked this
item was extensively discussed at a Work Session in which all Councjlmembers
participated, and she felt it would help with daycare costs, filling in for a work
pos'i tion during meetings, etc., and this might help get a diversity of applicants
for Council. Mayor Rose stated Councjlmembers djd spend a lot of time in meetings,
reading, on phone ca1 1s, etc., and he felt those who dedicate thejr time should be
compensated somehow and this would help. He continued with he had no problem with
increasing the compensation. Peggy 0sterfoss agreed with Mayor Rose, adding that
she preferred a flat rate change instead of the meeting rate, and felt the amount
should just be doubled what it is presently. Tom Steinberg stated the present
amount was the oniginal amount set, and fe1 t the amount should be brought up to an
acceptable leve'l , such as $500, r{hich would help poorer people run for office.
After much more discussion by Council, Lynn Fritzlen made a motion to approve the
ordinance as presented, which was seconded by Tom Steinberg. Peggy Osterfoss noted
she preferred a flat rate increase, but would support the ordinance because it wasvalid. A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-2, w'i th Robert LeVine and Jim
Gibson opposing.
Item three was 0rdinance No.
Special Development District 9, Series of
No. 23, ttitle was read by Mayor Rose. Tom Br
VaiI Natjonal Bank bui1d'ing.
staff had no problems with the
this proposal and the tining.
SDD change request, he stated
wene a number of problems with
basic problems were:
ond inance amendi ng. The ful I
addition to the
concept, but there
He stated the five
1. At the present time, the parking structure approved for the Medical Center
is designed to meet the needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel . The structure
is not designed with excess capacity. Approval would have to be obtained from the
Town to modify the development plan adding more parking to this site. This approval
has not been obtained.
?. The parking is not in place at this tine. The staff has serious concerns
about approving this proposal dependent upon parking that is not in existence
today.
3. The development of the parking structure is total ly dependent upon the
performance of an adjacent property owner. The Bank has no control over the
completion of these spaces. It would not be responsible to grant a development
approval to one property owner, who then must rely on the performance of an adjacentproperty owner in order to satisfy their parking comm.i tments.
4. It has not been established that the Holiday Inn has an excess number of
spaces to lease to the Bank. With the deve'l opment of the structure out of the
Bank's contro'l , the Holiday Inn solutjon must be considered a permanent one in the
event the comp'letion of the Medical Center parking structure is delayed. While it
may be unlikely that problems will develop with completing the structure, it is not
the Town's responsibility to speculate, or accept the risk that everything w'i 1l go
smoothl y.
The worst case situation is such that the Bank must rely on alternativelocations for the parking, and the obvious question becomes whether the Holiday Inn
has the ability to provide this parking. No documentation of the utilization of the
Holiday Inn's lot has been submjtted as a part of this application.
5. The approval of thjs proposal could serve to establ'i sh a dangerous
precedent for future development proposals. Simply stated, the applicant is askingfor approval of a development that is dependent upon the performance of an adjacent
owner in order to satisfy the parking requirements. From the standpoint of the Town
and the community at 1arge, there is little or nothing to gain by granting this
approval now. t,|hile an approval for the application will allow them a more
convenient construction schedule, the Town will be accepting the risk that the
parking structure at the Medical Center may or may not be completed in a t'imely
manner,
Tom stated the Planning and Environmental Commission recommended approval by a 4-2vote. After some comments by Counci'l , Jay Peterson, representing the Vail National
Bank Corporation, gave some background information on this SDD and what the plans
are now. He addressed Tom Braun's concerns, and reviewed the PEC's eight conditionsfor approval . He felt these addressed almost all of the concerns. Jay then
responded to Tom Steinberg's problems with the request. After much discussion,
Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to approve the ordinance with the eight conditions
required by the.PEC, plus two additional . The ejght were:
1. The VaiI Va11ey Medical Center (VVMC) submit an application for
modification to jts conditional use permit allowing an additional two half levels of
park ing .
2. The VVMC submit plans showing such two half levels of parking.
3. The Vail National Bank building exercise its option to purchase or use in
perpetuity the number of spaces from VVMB necessary to conform to zoning for its
addition.
4. The VVMC receive a1 | approvals from the Town of Vail necessary to receive a
building permit to construct such additional levels of parking and the VVMC applyfor and receive such buildjng permit.
5. The Vail National Bank building shal 1 not occupy the expanded premises
unless VVMC has commenced construction and has continued construction on its parking
structure.
6. The Vail National Bank building agrees to move out of the expanded premisesif they cannot occupy the parking spaces at VVMC on or before December 1, 1990.
7. The Vail National Bank building provide a letter from Holiday Inn or a
suitable substitute a1 lowing the use of four parking spaces from the date of
occupancy of the expanded premises to December 1, 1990.
L The above conditions be satisfied prior to the issuance of a bui'ldingpernit to Vail Nationa'l Bank building.
The additional two were:
1, A temporary
parking structure by
2. If the Vail
January 1, 1991, the
occupancy permit be issued contingent upon completion of the
December 1, 1990.
National Bank building is unable to occupy the structure by
enclosed areas would be removed and returned to open decks.
-2-
Robert LeVine seconded the motion. Much more discussion ensued by the Council, Jay
Peterson, and staff. An idea of adding to the motion the requirement of a letter of
cnedit to be issued to the Town of Vail so the Town cou'l d remove the enclosed decksif need be was mentioned. Larry Eskwith requested they leave the motion as is, so
he could work on the rewording for second reading. At this time, Jay Peterson
nequested the motion be withdnawn and the jtem tabled until the next Evening
Meeting. Peggy Osterfoss withdrew the motion, and Robert LeVine withdrew the
second. Peggy Osterfoss then made a notion to tab'l e the ordinance until the next
Evening Meeting, which Robert LeVine seconded. It was felt this would allow Jay and
Larry time to work out some rewording. Tom Steinberg made a motion to proceed with
the ordinance on first reading. There was no second, so the motion died. A vote
was taken and Peggy's motion passed 5-1, with Tom Steinberg oppos'i ng. Tom Steinberg
then made a motjon to deny the ordinance. There was no second, so the motion died.
The fourth agenda item was appointment of a Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board
Member. Bill Bishop, the single applicant, has served on the Board since March of
1988. Peggy Osterfoss made a motion to reappo'int Bil1 Bishop to a two year term on
the Local Liquor Licensing Authority Board. The motion was seconded by Robert
LeVine. Lynn Fritzlen stated she was abstaining from the vote due to a financial
relationship she has with Bill Bishop at thjs tjme. A vote was taken and the motion
passed 5-0, with Lynn Fritzlen abstaining.
Under Citizen Participation, Kristan Pritz stated they needed Design Review Board
applicants. She asked Counci'lmembers that if they knew of anyone, to pl ease1et her
know and she would personal ly contact them. She added that at this time, there was
only one applicant.
Mayor Rose cormented that to move Citizen Participation up to the front of the
agenda, an ondinance was needed. He said that if everyone was agreeable, he would
also like to set up guide'l ines, time tables for speakers, and he wou'l d suggest
Council look at it and try it. Lynn Fritzlen felt it was appropriate. Larry
Eskw'i th stated he and Ron Phil|ips had looked at this item in the Code today, and
they would have some suggest'ions to the Councjl in the very near future.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 9:03 p.m.
Respectful ly submi tted,
ATTEST:
Minutes taken by Brenda Chesman
Ur,J
Town Clerk
-3-
TO:
FROM!
DATE:
RE:
Planning and Environmental Courmissj-on
Corrmunity DeveloPment Department
February 26, L99O
A request for an amendnent to Special Development
Dist;ict 23 to al1ow for an office expansion, to the
Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road
West.Applicant: Vail National Bank Bldg. Corp.
The following infomation is in response to Ptanning Commission.
questions foilowing ttre February 13 review of proposed amendments
to the vail National Bank Bldg. SDD:
1. Proposed conditions of approval. The attached
memorandum to ion BraunFrorn Jay Peterson outlines the
ipplicants suggested conditions of approval for this
application.
2. The Vail Valley Medial Center perkinq structure'
@ for a conditional use pennit to
iirlrease the size of the Medical Centers's approved
parkingstructure.Thisapplicationwillbereviewed
Ly the-Planning Cornrnission of March 26t 1990'
3.TheBankBuilding/wMCaqreenent.Attachedyouwill'
@lnent between the hosPital and
the bank luilaing peitaining to the purcftase and use
parking sPaces witirin the hospital's new parking
structure
4. Parkinq requirements. After consultation with Larry
ffiinion that the Parking
iequirerirents imposed on the bank building nust be based
ontheparking-standardsoutlinesinthezoningcode.
The SDD criteiia pertaining to parking specifically.
references the pahing standards. This implies- that
the standards eitabtiin tne maximun parking to be
required with a develoPnent.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staffrs position regarding this proposal has_ rernained
"ii"ti"g.a. iVnife in coicept,-tt9 stlft-agrees that parkinq in
ifre froipital structure can provide a workable solution to neet
aii; ;;"iats parking denand- Hol{tever, it is inappropriate to
iuttrorize ahaitional development approvals to adjacent property
"wn"ri without the trospitalTs parking structure being in p1ace.
FREOERICX 3. OrrO
JAY X. PEIERSON
wr LLlAl, J. PO3i
WENDELL I. PORTERFIELO, JR.
Orro, Pnrnnsor & Post
ATIOENETS AT LA'W
POST OFFTCE BOX 3ra9
I'AIL, GOLi,ADO 61564-3149
vatL NAT|ONIL !41{l( lul|-olN6
(r03).7C-OO92
FAX LIN E
(303).7e-o407
I.{EI.{ORANDI'M
TO: TOI{ BRAUN
FROM: JAY K. PETERSON
DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1990
RE: VAIL NATTONAL BANK BUILDING
Approval to be subject to the following conditions:
1. That VaiI Valley Medical Center (VVI{C) subnit an application.for
nodification to its Conditional Use Permit allowing an additional
two half levels of parking.
2. fhat V\/}tC submit plans showing such two half levels of parking.
3. That Vail National Bank Building exercise its option to purchase
or use in perpetuity the nunber of spaces fron VWIC necessary to
conform to zoning for its addition.
4. That v\/UC receive a1I approvals from the Town of Vail necessary
to receive a building permit to construct such additional levels
of parking and that Wt'lc apply for and receive such building
permit.
5. That vail National Bank Building shall not occupy the expanded
premises unless WMC has comrnenced construction and has continued
construction on its parking structure.
6. That Vail National Bank Building agrees to rnove out of the
expanded prenises if they cannot occupy the parking spaces at
V\/}IC on or before Decenber 1, 1990.
7. That vait National Bank Building provide a letter fron Holiday
Inn or a suitable substitute allowing the use of four parking
spaces frorn the date of occupancy of the expanded prenises to
December 1, 1990.
g. That the above conditions be satisfied prior to the issuance of a
building perrnit to Vail National aank Building.
lllfs AcREElt[Nf ls dated as of llay 22, 1989 by and between
Vl{B Buildinq Corp., a Nevada corporatj.on (VNB) and Vall Cllnic,Inc. d/b/a Vail Valley Medical center (Hospital)
RECTTAI^S
a. Hospital ls engaged, ln a tax-exenpt borrowing tofinance, in part, the cost of construction of a parking structure(hereinafter 'rParking Structurerr) to be located generally at the
easE, end of Hospitalrs existing property and on an easement to begranted to the Hospital by VaiJ. Holdings, a South Carolina generalpartnershlp. The legal descriptlon of the real property which issubject to the easenent and is owned by Vail lloldings is referredto as the rrVall Holdings Property" and is described ln Exlribit A.The property owne_d by Hospltal (the rHospital property'r) isdescribed ln Exlriblt 8.
b. \ruB wlshes to purchase an exclusive, lrrevocablelicense to use parklng spacesi in the parking structure, subject tothe tenns and conditlons herein.
c. The parties wish to cooperate regarding the provisionof accesg to the Parking Structure and the reconfiguration of theaccess to the VlfB site fron South Frontage Road, Vail , Colorado.
NOlf, IEEREFORE, in consideratLon of the mutual covenants andpronises contained hereln, the parties agree:
1. Constmctlon of parklno Structure. Except asprovlded below, Hospital will construct, irt its expense, theParking Structure,. in substantlal accrrrdance wlth the- plans andspecificatlons whiclr have been previously delivered - to VNB.Nothing ln this Agreenent is intended to piovide VtfB a right tooversee, approve, or veto any aspecL of tlre constructlon of theParking Structure, and VI/MC nay alLer the plans and specificatlonsas it deeos necessary or proper.
AGRSEUEIII
2. Relocatlon of Aeeess.
a.vNB will relocate, deslgn and build thetresternmost access !o its present site (the ttVl-IB propertyr) fromsouth Frontage Road as shown on Exhlbit c attached hereto andLncorporated herein by this reference, but wlll only be obligatedto pay for any such deslgn and construction wlthin the cioss-hatched lines on Exhibit C. The parties agree that a purpose ofthe design anci reconfiguration of vl{B's westernmost aciest is tofacilltate access to the Parking Structure and the Hospitalproperty fron South Frontage Road.
b. VlfB w111 rnove its existlng eaEtern access to apolnt generally opposlte the easternmost- public post officeentrance.
c. VNB !1111 constnrct and pay for all work or othercosts required to have the luprovement,s shown within the croEs-hatched lines on Exhiblt C conforo to Exhibit C.
3. Option. Hospital hereby grants to VNB an option topurchase an excluElve, Lrrevocable Ilcense to use tuelve (X2)parking spaces ('rthe Addltionat parklng Spacesrr) to be located lnthe Parking Structure on the terms specified herein.
4. Exerclse. of Ootlon.
a. VNB nay exerclee lts optlon aE follons: durlngthe blddlng or negotiatlon stage of Hospitalrs construct,lon of theParklng Structure, Hospital, through Lts general contractor, wlllprovide to VNB ln wrltlng lts statement of the Cost of theAdditlonal Parklng spaces. yflthln seven (71 busLness days after
such notice, Vl{B shall notlfy Hospital if it wish€s to exercise itsoptlon.
b. The rrCost of the Additional Parklng spncestr, forpurposes of thls Agreenent, shall be baEed upon the cost of 'raddingontr tuelve parking spaces to t:he cost of constructlon of llospitalrsParking Structure. The Cost, of the Additlonal parklnqt Spaces shallbe the dlfference between the contractor's estimate to build theParking structure and the same contractorrs estinrate to build thenartling Stmcture enlarged to include twelve spaces for VtfB. Suchestinates sharr include the actual hard constructlon costs, prusthe proportion of buildlng permit fees due to the additionalconstructlon, the proportion of the archit,ectrs fee attributableto addltlonar constructlon (7.5t of hard constructlon costs) andthe proportion of the contractorrs perfortnance and palznent bondpremium attrlbutable to the adctitlonat construction of-thL optionedparking spacea, but shall not incrude any cost6 for ventLlation orsprlnklers for the Parklng Structure.
c. r/NB will exerclse its optlon by (i) cleliverlngto Hosprtal wrltten notice tbereof within seven (z) business dayifollowing tlre presentation of the statement of the cost of theAdditional Parklng.spaces by ttospital as provided above, and (ti)dell.verLng to Hospltar an irrevocable letler of credlt itrawn ripoira natlonal bank, in favor of the Hospital, in an anount egual-tothe cost of the Addltlonal parklng spaces. The letter of-creditshall _be payable upon vl{Brs failure or refusal to pay the cost ofthe additional Epaces withln three (3) buslness dayl followlng thexPay DateI, as defined J.n paragraph 5, below. \/l{B,s exerciJe ofits option shall constltute a blndlng and irrevoeable connitnentto pay the cost of the Additional parklng spaces as provJ.ded inthis Agreenent. After receivLng notlce of tne exerclSe of vl{Brs
2
optlon, Hoepital wlll construct the Addltional ParkJ.ng Spaces btrt:will not charge VNB nore than the Cost of the Additional Parking
Spaces as defined above and presente(l to VNB prior to its exerciseof its optlon. FaLlure to exercise the option in etrict accordancewith Lhe provl.elons of, the paragraph 4 shall result ln a lapse ofVl{Brs option under thls Agreenent.
5. Pavment. VlfB Ehall pay to Hospltal the Cost of theAdditl-onal Parking Spaces upon denand for palnnent by the Hospitalafter conpletion of the Parking Structure (the nPay Daterr).Hospital Day denand palment under thls paragraph upon theconpletion of the following: a) completion of the Parklngstnrcturet b) delivery to VNB of a valid certlflcate of insurance
coverage pursuant to paragraph 7; and c) delivery to VtlB of a finalCertificate of Occupancy for the Parking Stmcture.
6. Grant of Llcense. Upon cornpletlon of the ParkingStructure and full palmrent by VNB of the cost of the AdditionalParking Spaces, Hospital shall be deemed to have granted to VNB arrexclusive, Irrevocable license to use the twelve additlonal spacesdescribed herein which license shall be a permitted encurnbrance tothe lien created by the Mortgage and Loan Agreenent of June 1, 19B9by and between the llospital and Colorado Health FacilitiesAuthority. Such license shall be perpetual , subJect, however, toall condltions set forth herein.
7. Use arrd Locatlon of Parklns SDaees.
a. The parking spaces subJect to vNBts llcense shallbe located Ln Euch part of the Parkingr Structure as Hospital and
\I}fB mutually agree. Hospital and VNB shall jolntly determine theLocatlon of the spaces at or prior to the tlne of VNBts exerciseof its option in paragraph 4. If the parties are unable to agreeon the precise location of the parking spaces, and VNB hasexercised lts option, VNB shall be assigned and it shall beIicensed to use twelve spaces which are closest to the existfu:r1 \DIDparking spaces on the VNB property at the southeast corner of thcParklng Strrrcture and located on parking deck hal.f level 4. -The
parklng spaces eo located and subJect to VNBrs license shall beldentifl.ed by-slgns. \lNB shall place and pay all coets of stripingand parklng_ J.dentlfLsatlon signage for its twelve spaces. -Ttta
quantLty, eLze, color, desl.gn and placement of such signage shallbe subJect to the prior approval of the Hospital .
b. The parklnql spaces shall be used only for theparklng of automoblles, notorcycles, Ilght trucks or vans, andshall not be used for storage or for the parklng of large tlrrcks,buges, lluousl,nes, boats, trailere, recreational vehlcles, or anyother overslzed vehlcle.
c. \NB sball be solely responslble for thedesignatlon or autborizatlon of all persons including enployees,
tenants and customers of, vNB who nay uBe ilre parking spaces. underno clrcunetances shall such persons l'e consldlred irivitees, expressor inplied, of the Hospital.
d. VNB Ehall pay to Hospital , upon presentatlon ofa statenent therefore, lts pro rata Ehare of Hospltal.rs coets ofcleaning and snow rernoval for the larklng structurl. such pro ratashare shall be based upon ilre proportlon of twelve parklng apacesto the total nunber of Epaces in the parking struciure fiorn- tlureto. tlme. Hospltal shall pay all other costs of operation,rnaintenance, Bnow removal ana utltltleg for the parking stnrcture.lloepital shalr maintaln approprlate property casualty-and generarllabirlty insuranca coverage on the earxlng-structur!. vltB shall
be naned as an additlonal insured on such poficy or pollcles as itsinterest nay appear. VttB ehall naintafn approprlate property,casualty and general liabillty insurance coverage with respect toits property and operatlons.
e. If the parking structtrre is destroyed for anyreason to such an extent as to rrot arlow the use of the specifi-parking spaces licensed by vltB aE provJ.ded in this Agrbenent,llospital shall elect one of, the follo-wlng threa optlons:-
(f) tlospltal nlay commence rebuildlng orrestoratl.on of the use of the parklng strrrcture and vl{gts spaceswlthin a reasonabLe tlme aft,cr the loss of usei or
(11) tlosplEal nay relocate \NBrs licenserlparking splces-to another lceotLon wi[hln the parklng Slructure;or to another locatlon on.any other ltospltar property located at181 l{est Meadow Drivo, VaIl , Colorado which is not iubJect to arlght of reverter, as descrlbed in paragraph 1Oi or
(tlj) HospiEal nay pay to Vt'tB an amount equal totbe pro,rata unused portlon of the Recapture Feriod of the Iicense(as deflned below in paragraph 10) tlmes the cost of the AdditionalParklng Spaces paid by VtfB. Upon payment of such anount, VlfBrs
l-Lcense Ehall terminate and be extlnguisnea.
f. Hospital :nay voluntarily demolistr or raze theParking SEructure. fn the event llospltal chooses to do so, itshall elect either the-optlon describea in subparagraph Z(e)(j.i)or subparagraph z(e) (lli), ahove wlth respect -to fiNgis ficlriseifspaceg.
8. Vl{Bts Rezonino and Access Reperrnlt.
a. VltB shall pursue with all deliberate epeed theapproval 0f its present propoeed rezonlng wlth the rown Lf vail.upon signature of this Agreenent by vNB, VHe shatl prornptly applyfor an access repermit_andloy execute arl other docunentgne-es-iryto secure the approvaL of the state Hlghway Departnent, the Towir
of Vall , or any other Jurisdiction having authority over theredesign, relocation or constnrction of the access to South
Frontage Road by the Hospital fr 'n the Parking Stmcture as
contenplated in Exhibit C.
b. This Agreernent shatl be null and voLd if theColorado state HJ.ghvay Departloent or any other 'body wittrjurlsdiction over the access repermlt, fails to approve and toissue an access repernit by August I, 1989, without furtherllabllity to either party.
9. vaLl Hotdlnos.
a. f f requlred by vall Holdl.ngs, vl{Brs ll'cense shall
not extend to parking spaceE located on the vail lloldings Property.
Thl-s Agreenent and any lJ.cense granted pursrrant to thls Agreenent'
are subject to and expressly condltloned upon the exlstence of avalld eaEenent to be granted by Valt ttoldings to the Hospital to
enable the Hoepital to constr:uct the Parking Structure and access
ranps, and Hoepital nakes no repreaentatic,ns or warrantles with
respect to the such easenent. llospital shall have no obligationto perfor:n any provision of this Agreenent if the easenent fromvail Holdlngs is not granted by Septeuber 1, 1989.
b. Upon execution of thls Agreement by the parLies,
Vt[B w111 release the access rcpemit applicatlon described in
paragraph 8(a). If Vall Holdings has not executed an agreementwith Hospltal by June 10, 1989, whlch agreement requlres vail
Holdings to grant to Hospital an easement on the Vail HoldlngsProperty, vNE tlay withdraw ltE accees repernlt appllcatlon.
10. Acknowledcrenrent of Reverter.
a. vNB acknowledges that the real property upon
which llospltaL Ls located and upon whictr a portion of the ParkingStructure ls to be located Is subJect to a forfej.ture or reverterclause contained in a deed frou VaIl Associates, Inc. to vallClinic, Inc., recorded December 2, 1977 in Book 263, Page 243 inthe records of the Clerk and Recorder of Eagle County, Colorado.Vt{Brs lLcense to parking spaces ls subject to such right of
reverter.
b. ff the real property upon whlch the Parklng
Strucbure is located reverts back to Va1l AssocJ.ates, Inc. or its
assigns durlng the Recapture Feriod as defined below, then Hospitalshall pay to VtfB an arnount equal to the pro rata unused portion ofthe Recapture Period of the llcense tirnes the Cost of theAdditionat Parking Spaces paid by \lltB.
c. For purposes of this paraqraph a, Lhe
Recapture Periodrr shalt be a period of ttrlrty (30) years fron thedate of first occupancy of the Parking Stnrcture. After tlre
explratlon of the Recapture Perlod, lro amount shall be payable byHospital ln the event of a loss or extlnguishnent of VlfBts l.tcenstrby reverter or othemlse as provide,' above.
As an example, aEsune (1) Cost of AdditionalParklng Spaces equala $120,000, (2) Recapture Period ls 30 yearsi
and (3) due to relocatlon of Hospltal , Hospitalrs property revertsto ValI Associates 20 years after occupancy of Parking Structure.Hospltal would pay to vNB s4orOoO. (Lo/3o x s120r000 = 94O,OOO.)
11. Pedestrian Access. If a pedestrian brldge or walkwayconnecting the Hospitalrs parklng structure wlth Vt{B's slte isrequlred or imposed aE a condiLion of any neceasary approval ofHospltal's parking stntcture or VNBrs proposed rezoning by the Townof Val.I, Hospital agrees to pay the cost of such bridge or walLway.
12. Yall Assoclates, fnc. Walver or Releas€. Hospitalwill obtaln fron Vall Associates, fnc. a docunent, in recordableform, reasonably Eatisfactory to VNB, which waives, or releases,its right of reverter only as to the easenent conveyed by VailClinic, Inc. to Vall Professional Building croup, Ltd., dated2/L9/8L, and described on Exhlblt D, attached hareto andincor2oratEd herein by reference.
13. Mlscellaneous.
a. This Agreenent is binding upon the heirs,
successorg and aselgns of the partles.
b. Tlne is of the essence of this Agreement.
c. Thls Agreenent shalt be governed by the Laws ofthe State of Colorado.
d. Any provision of thls Agreenent prohibited by thelaws of the State of Colorado or the United States of Anerica orheld to be Lnvalid by a court of conpetent Jurlsdlction shall beineffective only to the extent of such provislon withoutlnvalldating the renaining provielons of thls Agreement.
e. This Agreement constitutes the conplete agreenentof the parties hereto, and may not be changed or nodlfied exceptby another agreement ln wrltlng executed by both parties.f. Thls Agreenent or docunent signed by the partlesreflecting certain covenants herein or the llcense contenrplated
hereby nay be recorded ln the offlce of the Eagle county Clerk and
Recorder.
9t. VNB agreelr not to opposre any fubure expanslon ofHospital. Hospital agrees not to oppose any future expansion of
VNB.
h. Any notlce requJ.rer.l to be given hereunder shall
be deened to have beetr given when nail-ed by certlfied mail, returnreceipt requested, postage prepaid, Cdressed as folIow, or if handdelivered to the person(s) and addrr..sses below:
If Hospltal:Vail valley Medical center
181 I'lest Meadow Drlte
Vail , Colorado 81657Attns Adninistrator
VllB Bullding Corporatlon
c,/o Hanover Realty Corporation
650 South Cherry Street
Sulte 1025
Denver, Colorado 80222
If to VNB:
lly conmission expires :
!i; i:.-.::::l::l:r e::;!t35 hnmry 3' lSlC
(SEAL)
or to such other address or person(s) as the parties may dr-rsignatcIn writing.
STATE OF COIORADO )) ss.
COUNTY OF Denver )
The foregolng was subscribed and slrorn to before rne by..paul W. Powers, Vice President, VNB Building Corp'
@
Attest:
Notary Pulrlic
VATL CIJNIC,
V'|IL VITIJAY
TNc. it/b/a
UEDIC.AL CENTER
Pnrldcnt
Board ot
Attcstr
Kooncc
Dlrsctors
The f tng was eubecrlbed and svorn to before ue by
ay
l.ty connisai.on explres :
.ti'I
:.1..'.'
i'. '1" ';
(sErL)
,t
tt
coloRtDo
u3lN33 -lVC l03m ,'
IN3l^l3SV3 3unj
tt,Itllll i
FG|@t3F
*r
,,r€
/,I
!EE:RIIg"36",'i ,Eci
d. *f 9l - .:i'' ^ ,;
11llt11#
.ig?:!i['f.,
illliilll
Hi!ttiflit
i:l;i;!;;
ilIsiBsBi
iil:gti;i-li;lg;;i
g:iB eas s:
E!!B d:e:r3
FEEH!3$dl
Ei
o8
3orE9U
!r
!q
iE',i;l
l.:3ooge,
? of,
*sH6"t56 -\9.< ra O.dNrO6Ga L.5C'
,tE
rtg
l=i.?.s'?u
E ! gs
A I€Lr.Xe o?:tt tI8
: e$i
E e sE
,t
t,I
rto
/ L- -.-
l, l{L, =
P.lbr-o'j
Uc:
is.r{ |.
Ei
oQIy
-s
qq.,
i!|
t'
..t
^v.4
II..
I
t.('
I
I
t
UJt,o
tno -olfl'a |ft'uXqt
!sE;
||||llll<,.f 6
EXHIBIT A
I.EGIL DESERjIPITO!|
All of lot E and Iot F, hended Hap of Shaet 1 er 2of VAIL VIIJAGE, SEeoND SIIJNG, accordlng to the naptlreraof rscorded ln the offLce of Eagle Ceunty,Coloardo, Clcrk and Recorder
Hxl.flBlT El
\
\\'\\'
-\ \L\.- -o
\.'--.
\I
IIt.J l,\ ..'
t'
{
EXHIBIT I' E II
.-.ss-
J
rtox4lt
,t..r -)
.{all
-l,l't{ rblJ
OK
PIAT{NING AND ENVIRONI.IENTAL COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 26, 1990
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig KurzJin Shearer
Kathy lilarren
Dalton Willians
StaffKristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Tom Braunshelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
The PLanning and Environmental Connission rneeting was called toorder at 3:00 p.n. by Diana Donovan, Chairperson.
ftem No. 1: Approval of minutes for Februarv 12, 1990 meetinq.
Motion for annroval of minutes with corrections was nade by
Jim Shearer and seconded bv Dalton Williams.
VOTE3 7-0INFAVOR.
Item No. 2: A recruest for variances from the side and rear
setbacks to allow for the expansion of an existinc
horne on Lot 5. Block E, VaiI das Schone Filino No.
1.Applicant: Tom and Nancv Ricci
Mike Mollica explained that this was a request for a variance for
the east side setback only. This was discussed on the site.
Motion for annroval per the staff memo was made by Kathv
Warren and seconded bv Connie Kniqht.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR.
Iten No. 3: A recruest for a side setback variance for L,ot 6.
Block 2, Vail Villacre Sixth Filincr.Applicant: Clinton G. Ames. Jr.
APPLICANT WAS NOT PRESENT TABLED WTTHOUT VOTE
ftem No. 4: A recruest for a side setback variance, for a
crarage and storacre room for a new residence, on
Lot 15. Block 1, VaiI Potato Patch.
Applicant: Bruce Kasson
Shelly Mello explained that a residence had not yet been
constructed on the site and that a hardship could not be found
since the storage could be built elsewhere.
Tom BrLne", .t"n0"ct for the proje"t, =t"tthat the appticant
wanted to take advantage of this steep site and rnake a garagewith one Bpace for vehicles that were not used very much. Hestated that this was not storage but actually a three car garage
and showed a model. Ile said that the third car would be mostlyin storage and the variance that was being requested would be
underground.
Kathy askedrrrWhy not just shift the home 7 feet to the left?rr andBriner claimed that more trees would be lost this way.
Diana said she felt the only way she could sympathize with the
request was if the footprint of a home were narked on the plat
showing which trees would be lost.
Dalton felt that he could not see any hardship on an unbul.lt lot.
l,lr. Briner said that not everytlring was black and rhite. He felt
they were not doing anything disastrous and that if more trees
would be saved, he felt the Planning corunissLon would support it.
Connie said that she didnrt have any problem with the property
variance as it was underground, but that at a later tine the
owner may nant to add to the top of it.
Motion for denial per the staff meno was nade bv DaltonWilliams and seconded by Jim Shearer.
VOTEs 7-OTODENY
Itern No. 6: A reauest for an anendnent to Special llevelopment
JLn Shearer removed hinself fron the Board due to a confllct ofinterest on this item.
Tom Braun extrllained that at the last meetl-ng the Planning
Connission had asked to have rnore information. one of the things
they had wondered about was whether or not the Tortn could ask the
Bank to have nore parking than rtas actually reguired. Larry
Eskwl-th stated that the parking for the bank was consistent withthe parking code and that we could not ask for nore.
The staff was still uncomfortable with the proposal according to
Tom. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that the
bank had between March 15 and uarch 20 to exerclse their option.
He repeated that he felt the condl.tions asked for put then in tbe
sane position as the hospital . ff the hospital parking was not
started they canrt occupy their neit space. He felt the sane
should be applied to the bank. He added that by the tine of a
TCo for the bank in July the parking structure would be under
way.
Kristan stated that a Tco for the hospital addition would not be
released until they have obtained a building permit for their
parking structure.
office exnansion, to the Vail Natlonal Bank
Chuck asked whether or not the Highway departnent had okayed the
new proposal . Kristan replied that they had no problen with it.
Connie stated that she was uncomfortable with the tfuning that theparking needs to be in place.
Kathy said she felt that the qart was before the horse and thatthe application should come back after the parking proposal ls lnpIace.
Motion for denial was nade bv Connie Knicrht and seconded bv
Kathv l{arren.
Discussion continued before voting. Diana asked if the bank
would connit to 12 eipaces. Jay filt this was unfair to requireparking beyond what was required by the zoning code.
Diana asked about the access fron the bank to the parkingstructure and Kristan replied that the access is from the frontof the structure down to the bank but there is no bridge. Kathy
foresaw great problems.
Dalton asked whether there would be a connection between the two
underground parking lots between the bank and the hospital . Jayreplied that if they were connected, they would lose spaces inthe hospital parking lot.
VOTE: 2 - 4 - 1 KATHY AND CONNTE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL
Dlotion for approval of a recornrnendation to the Town Council
rcer the proposed modified conditions was made bv Chuck Crist
and seconded by Ludr.ricr Kurz.
Conditions:1. As proposed bv the vail National Bank in
the memo dated February 22. 1990 from Jay
Peterson to Tom Braun.2. The Town Attornev shall review thepurchase or lease aqreernent between the VaiI
National Bank and the vail vallev uedical
Center.3. Five spaces rather than 4 spaces be
purchased.
VOTE: 4 . 2 - 1 WITH JI},! SHEARER ABSTAINING.
Iten No. 5:An amendment to Special Develonment District 4.
Cascade Villaqe. to anend Area D. Glen Lyon Office
Buildincr at 1OOO S. Frontaoe Road t{., Lot 54, Glen
Lvon Subdivision.
Anpticant: GIen Lyon Office Buildincr - A Colorado
Partnership.
Kristan Prltz described the proposal including a request to notbuild the parking structure during Phases I and II. Phase I
would include an office expanslon. The lot is narrow andexisting trees dictate where the parking lot would have to belocated. she referred the board to the TDA parking analysis.
Slre showed which trees would be lost or noved.
Kathy asked if there would be valet parking during peak tines.
Kristan replied that there would be.
Kristan explained that the staff was recomnending approval withthe conditions on the previous memo plus the conditions on this
neno.
Kay Saulsbury from Colorado l{ountain College explained that C}lC
has a parking strortage which seens to increase. She felt thatthe present parking does neet the Town of Vail standards but thatit is still not enough. Diana said that unfortunately it does
neet the Town of Vail standards and that there is nothing they
can do to increase it.
chuck asked if the parking structure would be constructed with
Phase III and Kristan replied that it would.
Dalton felt that there should be a condition that if the Bres Pubis opened during the day on weekdays the parking structure would
be constructed. Kristan stated that was already part of the
phasing plan.
Kathy asked Andy if he would go along with the conditions and
Andy replied that he would. Diana wondered how the Rrb could beprevented frorn opening for lunch during the week without a
parklng structure in place. Andy said he could not open during
the day and weekdays because the tenants of the office building
had been pronised parking and he would be cited by the Town of
VaiI.
Andy Norris agreed that parking per the Tov requirements would be
provided on site for the east building no natter what. He agreed
he would bave to decrease office square footage or add
underground parking to neet the reguirement.
l{otion for apnroval was made bv Kathy lilarren for
recomrnendation to the Town Council per the staff nemos with
two added recommendations to the list of 8 as follows:
10.
The rnotion was seconded bv Chuck Crist.
VOTE: 7-0INFAVOR
The Beer Hall would not be open durino the week davs.If the Beer HaIl l-s opened for weekdav use, the parkinq
structure must be constructed.
EmDlovee units would be restricted pernanentlv.
9.
Iten No. 7 A recruest for a conditional use oernLt to nodifyan outdoor dinincr deck, an amendnent torestrlctions reoardLnq ttro emplovee units, and arequest for an exterior alteration, a heishtvariance and a landscape variance in order toconstruct an addition to the Bell Tower BuLldl.nqat 201 core Creek Drive.Applicant: Clark Willingham./Bell TowerAssociates. Ltd.
Chuck Crist left for a short while.
Tom Braun stated that there were four separate requestE. Anexterior alteration to add enclosed floor area, a heightvariance, a variance to reduce landscaping and a conditional usepernlt to establish an outdoor dining patio on the second floorof the bullding. Tom showed elevations and site plane.
Tom first explaLned the request for an exterior alteration. It
was for three things: the addition of a dormer on the fourthfloor of the building along core Creek Drive, the addition of afifth floor and expansion of the fourth floor on the north sideof the building and a 270 aquare foot ground floor retail
expansion adjacent to the core Creek Promenade with therelocation of an existing dining deck to a roof top dining deck
above the proposed expansion. The residential addition would add
one dwelling unit to the property and a total of 21278 squarefeet of GRFA. Tom reviewed the Vail Village DesignConsiderations with respect to the exterior alteration. Thepedestrianization and vehicular penetration are not affected bythe proposal . With regard to streetEcape framework, the proposedretall infill along Gore Creek Pronenade will provide an activitygenerator to give street life and visual interest. Ton statedthat the dining deckrs location would have little success inproviding such activity. With regard to street enclosure, the
dormer proposed for the south side of the building would not
change the street enclosure along Gore Creek Driveappreciatively. The one store retail expansion along the
Promenade would establish a more desirable rrhuman scalen on this
Eide of the building but any perceived reduction in mass on this
sLde of the building is negated by the introduction of a fourth
and flfth floor.
Street Edge: slightly irregular facade lines, buiLdlng Jogs, and
Iandscaped areas create life and visual interest for thepedestrian. The proposed retail. e:rpansion is consistent wlththis criteria. Ehe addition is slightly recessed from
inprovementE of the Gore creek Pl.aza building. Any certain
rhythn has been establlshed along the entire length of the
Pronenade.
Building height: Height variance is required to allow additionsto the upper floor on the north side of the bullding. Theexisting building is non-confotming with respect to allowable
building heights. The propoeed addition would increase the
degree of non-conformity. Ton felt that one must consider theinplications of this proposal as it relates to future developnentapplications. If approved, the proposal would introduce a fifthfloor elenent along the Gore Creek side of the bullding and an
addition of this nagnitude is inconsistent sith the Urban Design
Guide Plan as well as the height plan outlined in the recently
adopted vait Village naster Plan. Eom then discussed views andfocal points and then discussed service and delivery.
Sun/Shade issue: Tom stated that the Design Guidelines say trAll
ney or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the
sunmer and fall shadow pattern on adjacent properties or thepublic right-of-wayr'. Ton said that the proposal would increase
shade along the Pronenade, the shadow pattern at 12:Oo noon on
uarclr 21 and September 23 would be 4 L/2 feet in width. Thlsinpact is both unnecessary and unacceptable to the staff. Tomrs
next concern sras the architecture,/landscape considerations. lle
stated that it was irnportant to address this considerationpertaining to roofs. Staff felt that the flat roof was out of
character with the Village and the manner in which lt was
proposed displays Iittle to no relationship to existing roof
forms on the building. The staff reconnendation is for denial of
the requested exterior alteration. The staff feels that while
the proposed additions may benefit the owner and the tenants itwill do little to benefit the overall fabric of the Village. The
ViIIage is based on a very delicate balance between the built
environnent, open spaces and space between the buildings and itis felt that this building has reached its optimum level of
development.
Craig snowdon, an architect representing the applicant, statedthat the dining patio has been reduced to a little hole. The sun
on the deck would be increased by raising it to the second floor
level . Those on the deck would also have a better view of both
core Creek Promenade and the Childrenrs Plaza. Craig felt that
the first floor retail space was a definite plus. He stated that
people do not look up when they are close to a building. He
stated that the fiftb floor would not be viewed at all. The
closest view would be fron Bridge Street. Regarding the height
along Gore Creek Drive, the height conplies with the Urban Design
Considerations for the Village. Craig also said that the Gore
creek Plaza building had set a precedence' therefore the Bell
Tohrer building would not be increasing the situation.
Regarding Service and Delivery, Craig said that there were 230feet from delivery point at WiIIow Bridge loading area which vas
comparable to the one Vail Place Building and the Hong Kong CafeBuitding. I{ith regard to Sun/Shade, the 5th floor does not
increase the shade. The 4th floor roof does affect the
Sun/Shade. With regard to the architecture, steeper roofs could
have been designed but would have made it nuch more of a heightproblem. With regard to restricting the two enployee units
pernanently, Craig asked if this had been done any other place in
the village. He felt that lt Eeerned extrerne. Regarding
landscape reduction, Craig felt that there was more to
landscaping than dirt. He stated that the owner regrularly
Lnvests $5,000 per year on landscaping for such things aE sindowboxes, flower baskets, Christnas lights etc.. Cralg fett thatthe eection of landscaping belng used was not highly vlsible. Healso infor:med the board that presently the owner of the BelI
Tower owns part of the property that the publlc stairs are on.
He also pointed out that ellnlnating the patio at grade will
lncrease the Pronenade area by 100 to 125 feet. He felt thatreplacing the landscaping with stalnray had very little J.npact onthe vlew. Ilerman Staufer, who ownE the restaurant, felt that the
landscaping was a trade-off for stal.rrrays that work the eame as apatlo.
Rod Slifer, who owns the unit on the top floor of the bulldlng tothe west of the Gore Creek Plaza building, said his concern waswith the top floor addition on the north side of the bulldJ.ng.His view has already been inpacted by a vent on the roof of theBell Tower Building, and if the addition nas approved, his vlewof the core Range would be totally blocked. He reguested thatthe current design be moved back 10 feet which would allow hLn
enough view to satisfy hinr.
Cral.g replied that the addition would infringe on Rod SII-ferrsviev but that it would not totally block it. Rod disagreed.
Pepi Granshammer then spoke from the audience. He was concerned
about the height and the nunber of variances. lle Eald that lfthe buildings keep on increasing in size, it would destroy the
Torrn.
Kristan explained the height linitations to hirn and pointed outto hin that the staff nas recommendlng denial of this proJect.
Kathy wondered whether or not a slte coverage variance waEreguired. Tom explained that patlos and dining decks count as
sLte coverage ln ccl so that the dlscrepancy was not gettinggreater. Kristan added that the staff had Looked at this veryclosely. Kathy agreed with the staff on this proposal and didnot feel tbat this rras an appropriate expansion in an approprlateplace. She said that perhaps the core creek Plaza did set a
precedence, but she didnrt see why the Town rnust contlnue sith
another sinilar e:<pansion. Kathy said that fron the Uay Palace
the visibifity fron the 4th and 5th ftoors was apparent. She dld
not feel that the roof structure was appropriate and was
concerned about the design of the retail deck.
Jln had no problern with the retail addition, but be did have a
problen vith the upper rrskyscapefi. Connie agreed with Pepl that
lf the Town kept growing it would dle. Regarding enployee
housing she felt that it could be kept at 15 years.
Craig Snowdon said that he was willing to replace the units priorto the issuance of a building permit sonewhere else in VaiI wLth
a deed restriction. This would have to be reviesed by the staff.
Connie asked Hernan how the waitresses would get to the deck.
Ludwig did not feel that growth would kill Vail, but that Vaildid need checks and balances. He stated that lf there was a
precedence set, one did not have to perpetuate this. LudwLg alsofelt that the Bell Tolter Building was an attractive one at
present and that the addition night destroy the quality.
Dalton also discussed the Gore Creek Plaza Building roofaddition. He felt that it was l.II advlsed and that now that Lt
iE constructed he felt that we should not repeat this error.
Dalton felt that tbe angle of the addition could be changed sothat lt woul-d not affect the view through the staimay.
Diana felt that the existing nassJ.ng t as approprJ"ate, that it wasthe end of a row of buildings and a very pretty buildlng. Her
concerns were that one more unit would increase vehiculartraffic, that the enrployee units nust be pernanent, and that the
second floor railing blocked views. She had no problen with theretail infill, and Diana asked for clarification on site
coverage. Ton replied that the site coverage was non-conformlngat present and wasnrt changing. Diana felt that when one aEksfor this nurnber of variances, the proposal could be inproved.
Craig snowdon asked to table the iten.
Motion for tabling was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv
Connie Knioht.
VOTE: 6-OINFAVOR.
Iten No. 8: A request to arnend a Snecial DeveLopnent Districtfor the Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, VailVillaoe Fifth filinq at 365 Gore Creek Drive.Applicant: Garden of the Gods, !1rs. A.G. Hill
Fanilv.
Connie xnight removed herself fron the board due to a conflict of
interest.
Krlstan explained changes since the last review. She said the
applicant had rotated the building slightly to decrease the
encroachment to the east.
Pan Hopkins, the architect on the proJect, said that because of
the cornrron easement for the swinning pool and the recreation
anenities, the building was pushed as far west as possible. She
shoved this on a site Plan.
Bill Hannon, a resident of the VorLaufer, vas concerned thatthere would be a decrease in hotel rooDs, he felt that hotel
rooms were inportant and disagreed wlth the wording of keysversus lock-off roons. He said this iE a sinilar situatlon tothe Ramshorn when it converted fron a hotel to condonLnLuns. Ite
rras also concerned about the flat roof.
Greg Stutz, representing the Vorlaufer condoninium owners andUr. and !trs. Chand,ler and l.tr. and Urs. carol , said he felt that
he wanted nore time to analyze the reguest or else have the roof
moved 1O feet lower. He said he had not had sufficlent tlne tosit down and talk with ttre architect. Since the bulldLng is notto go up tllt 1991, he would lLke nore tine to look at it. l,ir.
Chandler said he bought his Vorlaufer unit 21 years ago and has
been able to watch the torchlight parades. ltr. Carol sald the
same thing.
Don Hare, representing the Garden of the Gods, said that he had
two or three rneetings with Mr. Carol . The plan had been reworked
and they had done as much as they felt they could do Ln stayingwithln the setback restrictions that exist on the building now.
Dan Eaid that they would like to go ahead with the plan. Theyfeel that tbey have stayed back as far as they can.
Mr. Stutz asked that lf Special Developnent District had e:rpired,
how could this be an anendrnent to the sDD. Kristan replled thatthe sane process was used. He explained that he felt it should
be advertised as a nen Special Development District.
Chuck Crist returned at this tirne.
Diana asked if lt was legal. to proceed. Larry responded he feltthat lt was legal to proceed. This was strictly advisory and
would go to the Town Council. More discussion followed
concerning whether this was an amendment or a new Special
Development District. Kathy stated that if this was a new
Special Developnent District she would change her approach to theproblem. She felt that what was being done to the property wagto the neighborsr benefit. She also felt that the setback
variance could have been done within the present zoning.
Ludwig felt that the developers had worked with restraint andsensltlvity in light of what could have been done. He wonderedif extra tine rnight be appropriate and that they would have a
chance to look at the proposal again. He stated that he had an
opportunity to look at the view fron the Vorlaufer and tlrat there
was no question that the views were impeded. However, he feltthat the developers were using sensitivity in moving the
building.
Diana felt that the Garden of the Gods sas doing a good Job with
the proposal . She stated that lf the Garden of the Gods were
constructed up to their setbacks, it would be a wall toward theVorlaufer. She said according to the gruidelines the board would
have no reason to say no to the proposal. She added ttrat there
were no private views in Vail. She wondered l-f an sDD uas
necessary for this project. Kristan replied that the staff
tooked at it as a brand new project when they were told that the
building would be torn down. The first guestion they asked was
why have a Special Development DiEtrict.
Kathy asked if a SDD nas leaving options wide open. She also
wondEred why it was necessary. Larry Eslnrith replied that the
Town nas getting benefits with a SDD. This way the etaff has theabillty to supervise the architectural design and that a conplete
development plan had to be reviewed by the staff so that there
rras nore control with the SDD.
The applicant asked to table to Uarc}r 26.
The rnotion for tablinq to March 26 was made bv Kathy l{arren
and seconded bv Jim Shearer
voTE: 5 - o - 2 with Chuck Crist and Connie Knight abstaining.
Item No. 9:A work session to discuss an exterior alteration,
a strearn setback variance. a site coverage
variance, a conditional use for a deck enclosure
and a new outdoor patio and an amendment to the
view Corridor for the Red Lion Buildino. (304
Item No. 10:a work session for Special Development Distrl-ct
22, Lot 1- 19, Block 2' Lionsridcre. Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Pat Dauphinais
A work session - no minutes taken.
Bridqe St. )
Applicant: Frankie Tang and Landnark Properties
A work session - no rninutes taken.
TO:
FROM:
DATE;
RE:
Planning and Environmental Comrnission
Cornmunity Developroent Department
February 26, 1990
A request for an amendment to Special Development
oistiict 23 to all.ow for an office expansion, to the
Viff fatfonal Bank Bullding at 108 South Frontagc Road
I{est.Applicant: Vail National Bank Bldg. Corp'
3.be Bank Buildin aqreenent. Attached You wilI
The following inforrration is in response to Planning Connission.
questions foilowing the February 13 review of proposed amendnents
to the vail National Bank Bldg. SDD:
1. Pronosed conditions of apnroval' The attached
memorandum to Tom Braun fron Jay Peterson outlines the-pfricants suggested conditions of approval. for this
application.
2. Ttre Vail Valley Mediat Center pqrBinq-structuret
@l conditional use Permit to
i-nirease the size of the Medical centersrs approved
parking structure. Thig application-will be reviewed
Ly the-Planning Commission of March 26, 1990'
between the hosPital and
itre uanr Liriraing peitaining to the purchase- and use
parking spaces within the hospital's new Parxrng
structure.
4. Parking requirenents. After consultation with Larry
ssxrritttffihis opinion that the parking
i"g,.ir";o"nis iu,posed- on the bank building urust be based
on the piiri"s itandards outlines in the zoning 99de'
The sDD'triteiia pertaining to parking specifically
referencei-tnl pa'rXing staidardi. This inplies that
the standards eitabli;h the maximum parking to be
required with a develoProent'
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's position regarding this ploposal has- remained
"'ri"n."S"d.- frnif"-in coicept, -ttr9 stitf- agtrees that^parking in
ine noipital structure can piovide a workabLe sol'ution to neet
iii; ;;#;s-tar*in9 dernand. However, it is inappropriate to
"iiinoii". "'aaitioial developnent approvals to adjacent.property
o*".r" without the hospital-rs park-ing structure being in place.
o
Orro, Pnrnnsor.r & Posr
ATTORNEYS AT L/\.lv
POST O FF ICE BOX 3149
vArL, GoroE-eDo €1664- 3149
VAI! NATIONAL IIAXK SUILDINO
(3O3).7C'OO92
FAX LIN E
(303) '79-o'c7
FREDERICX S, OIIO
JAY IT. PEIE R 30N
wtLLrAl'l J. POs'l
VTENDELL I. POFIiCRFIELOT JR.
MEMORANDT'M
TO: TOI{ BRAUN
FROM: JAY K. PETERSON
DATE: rEBRUARY 22, 1990
RE: VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
Approval to be subject to the folJ-owing conditions:
1. That Vail VaIIey Medical Center (WMC) subrnit an.application.for
rnoOification to'its Conditional Use Permit allowing an additional
two half levels of Parking.
2. That \ tMC subnit plans showing such two half levels of parking.
3. That Vail National Bank Building exercise its optlon to purchase
oi .t=" in perpetuity the nurnber. of spaces fron wt{c necessary to
conform to- zoning for its addition'
4. That VVIIC receive all approvals from the Town of VaiI necessary
io receive a building pLrmit to construct such additional levels
oi parXing and that ffilC apply for and receive such building
permit.
5. That vail National Bank Building shall not 99cupy the expanded
premises unless VWIC has cornmenied construction and has continued
Lonstruction on its parking structure'
6. That vail National Bank Building agrees t9 move out of the
-xpanded prernises if they cannot occupy the parking spaces at
WltC on or before December 1, 1990'
7. That vail National Bank Building provigg " letter fronr Hollday
Inn or . r"iiiuie substitute allowing the use of four parking-!.""r from the date of occupancy of the expanded premises to
Decenber 1, 1990.
8. That the above conditions be satisfied pTlgT to the issuance of a
fnifaitte permit to Vail National Bank Building'
I.
TO: Planning and Environrnental Conmission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February L2, L99O
RE: A Request for an Amendment to SDD #23 (The VaiI National
Bank Euilding).
Applicant: VaiL National Bank Corporation
DESCRTPTION OF PROPOSED REOI'EST
This property was rezoned to a Special Developrnent Districtin May of 1989. This rezoning permitted an addition to the
existing building of approxinately 1r800 square feet, which
has been conpleted. In September of 1989, a minor amendroentto the SDD was approved to a1low for an addition of 2t3
square feet to the third fLoor. This space is to be created
by converting an existing connon corridor into office space.
To date, this construction has not been done.
The application before the Planning Cornruission involves two
elements:
1. An amend.ment to the approved developrnent plan to
allow for the enclosure of two decks on tbe thirdfloor of the structure. This will add L,276 squarefeet of office space to the building, resulting in
a total amount of 231205 square feet.
2. An anendment to the parking standards of SDD #23in order to provde parking for this addition within
the parking structure at the VaiI Va11ey MedicaLCenter. ff approved, this office expansion would
be conpleted sorne four to six rnonths prior to the
cornpletion of the Hospital's parking structure.
During this period, the applicant has proposed an
interim solution of leasing spaces fron the Holiday
Inn.The :mount of recruired for the
roposed addition See a
e VVMC.letters fron the Ho day Inn and
II.REVTEW CRITERTA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
This proposal constitutes a major amendrnent to the existing
SDD. In this case, the Planning Comnissionrs action is
advisory, and final decisions are made by the Town Council.
The criteria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the
nine design criteria of the SDD section of the zoning code.
These design criteria address a variety of issues, including
design cornpatibility, uses, parking, cornpliance with the
rrr.
Vail Conprehensive Plan, site planningT, etc. As with all
sDDrs, the specific developnent standards on this property
are establ-ished by the approved developnent plan and the
ordinance approved by the Council. It is the burden of theapplicant to dernonstrate that their proposed developrnentplan complies with each of the nine design criteria, or
denonstrate that they are not applicabler or that apractical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved.
STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
This project nust be reviewed as a who1e, however, it is
worthwhile to consider the two major elenents separately.
The proposed addition of I,276 square feet of office space
is consistent with each of the relevant design criteria.
The design is corupatible with the existing structure, the
scale and bulk of the building is not appreciably increased,
uses are consistent with existing uses, and site planning
and landscaping are unchanged. This addition constitutes
a very minor change to the existing developrnent on the lot.
However, the parking solution proposed is not acceptable to
the staff. our difficulty with this proposal is based on
Design Criteria C., which states:
18.4O.080 C. Compliance with parking and loading
reguirernent as outlined in Chapter L8.52.
This criteria references the parking section of the zoning
code as a basis for evaluatingr development proposals. The
parking section of the code states that all required parking
should be located on-site. The Town Council can grant
exceptions and al1ow off site parking if certain criteria
are met. In addition, it should be understood that the
design criteri-a can be waived if rra practical soLution
consistent with the public interest has been achievedrr.
There is a specific process outlined in the code for leasing
parking spaces. This proposal is inconsistent with thisprocess. However, because this property is an SDD, the
proponent can establish its own standards for parking.
This neans that the applicant is within its rights to
request approval of the parking solution as proposed. The
staff is conceptually anenable to the bank locating five
spaces within the Medical center's parking structure. This
appears to be a workable situation considering the proxiroity
of these two sites and the relatively smalL number of
parking spaces involved. However, as ProPosed, the parking
solution is not a practical one, and it is not consistent
with the intent of the parking regulations. The followingt
reasons outline the staffrs prinary concern with tttis
nroposal:
1.At the present tine, the parking structure approvedfor the Medical Center is designed to meet the
needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel . Thestructure is not designed with excess capacity.
Approval would have to be obtained from the Townto nrodify the development plan add more parking tothis site. This approval has not been obtained.
The parking is not in place at this time. Thestaff has serious concerns about approving thisproposal dependent upon parking that is not inexistence today.
The developrnent of the parking structure is totally
dependent upon the performance of an adjacentproperty owner. The Bank has no control over theconpletion of these spaces. It is irresponsibleto grant a development approval to one property
owner, who tben roust rely on the perfomance of an
adjacent property osrner in order to satisfy theirparking cornrnitments.
It has not been established that the Holiday Innhas an excess nurnber of spaces to lease to theBank. With the developnent of the structure outof the Bankrs control , the Holiday Inn solution
must be considered a permanent one in the eventthe cornpletion of the Medical Center parking
structure is delayed. while it nay be unlikelythat problems will develop with cornpleting thestructure, it is not the Townrs responsibility to
speculate, or accept the risk that everything willgo srnoothly.
The worst case situation is such that the Bank mustrely on alternative locations for the parking, andthe obvious questj.on becomes whether the HolidayInn has the ability to provide this parking. No
docurnentation of the utilization of the HolidayInnrs lot has been submitted as a part of this
appl.ication.
The approval of this proposal could serve toestablish a dangerous precedent for future
developnent proposals. Siurply stated, theapplicant is asking for approval of a developnentthat is dependent upon the perfornance of an
adjacent owner in order to satisfy the parking
requirements. Fron the standpoint of the Town andthe comnunity at large, there is little or nothingto gain by granting this approval now. While an
approval for the applicant will a1low them a nore
convenient construction schedule, the Town will be
accepting the risk that the parking structure at
the Medical Center nay or may not be cornpleted in
a tirnely nanner.
2.
3.
4.
5.
IV.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Staff cannot support this application at this tirne.In concept, it appears reasonable for five of the Banktsparking spaces to be provided in the Centerrs structure.
However, it is fundamentally bad planning to approve thisapplication without the parking in place. The appropriatetine to review this proposal is after the Medical Centerrsparking structure has been completed.
The staff position on this application raises the question
of how this proposal differs from approvals received by theHospital over this past year. As the Planning Connission
rnay recall, the Hospital received approval to construct anaddition to its building prior to the construction of theparking structure.
There are a number of differences that distingruish thisproposal from ttre hospital project. First and foremost, theconstruction of the Hospital parking is under the controLof the Hospital . We are dealing with one project and oneowner. With this proposal , the Bank has no authority orcontrol over the cornpletion of the parking. Secondly, torequire simultaneous construction of the parking structure
and the hospital addition would have caused severe irnpacts
on the Doubletree Hotel during the winter season. Thirdly,the development of both facilities would have compounded
difficulties of staging construction and elirninated even
more available on-site parking during the constructionperiod. Finally, the Hospital has completed the relocationof utilities to allow for the construction of the structurethis spring. while this point could be used to argue that
the Hospital is totally comrnitted to the cornpletion of thestructure, it nust be reiterated that the Hospital is theparty responsible for this project. The Bank has no control
over the conpletion of the parking.
once construction of the parking structure begins, the riskto the Town that the project will not be completed nay infact be quite low. Nonetheless, the staff can see no reason
why the Town should accept any risk to accornmodate this
development plan. There is nothing to gain by approving
this project now and hoping that everything works out. In
addition, this entire proposal assunes the Hospitalrs
proposal to enlarge the approved design is acceptable. TheStaff and Planning Commission are not in a position to nake
this assurnption at this tirne. The Colorado Division of
Highways will also have to approve changes to existing
designs.
The opportunity to provide parking off-site is not a right,
but rather should be seen as a privilege. Until the parking
is in place, it is irresponsible to consider approval of
this reguest.
f\n n 1
_-l^h,I^A +- z lzQ
To: Planning and Environnental Conmission
FROM: Department of Conrnunity Developrnent
DATE: FebruarY 12' 1990
RE: A Request for an Amendment to SDD #23 (The Vail National
Bank Building).
Applicant: Vail National Bank Coryoration
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REOUEST
This property was rezoned to a special D_eveloplngn! District
in Ma-y oi fg6S. This rezoning pbrnitted an addition to the
existing building of approximlt-efy 1,800 square feet, which
has been conpletdd. In September of 1989, a minor amendrnent
to the sDD'was approved -to allow for an addition of 2l-3
square feet to tneinira floor. This.space is to be created
by- converting an existing conmon corridor into office space.
T6 date, this construction tras not been done'
The application before the Planning Comrnission involves two
elements:
II.
1. An amendrnent to the approved development plan to
allow for the enclosuie of two decks-Jre third
: : :i'"?' *?? ;' A:'"Yi ; .1'T i,I''''.'# silff'ru" I ;
a total anount of 23,205 sguare feet'
2. An amendment to the parking standards of SDD #23
in order to provde par:king fbr this addition within
lne parring- structlre aC the vail valley Medical
Center. If apProved, this office expansion. would
be cornpleted i-orne four to six' months prior to the
cornpleiion of the Hospitalrs parking structure'
ouiing this period, the.applicant has proposed an
interirn soluiion of leasing spaces frorn the Holiday
Inn. The amount of req\ired parking fo.r the
proposed addition i{6y,P=paces' See attached
ietiers from the notitily fnn and the Wlttc'
This proposal constitutes a rnajor amendment to the existing
ioo. ' ri tnis .J"", the plarining corilnission,s action is
ua"i"ow, ana finat 'decisions are nade by the Town-council'
ite crit6ria to be used in evaluating this proposal are the
nine-aes:.gn criteria of the sDD section of the zoning cg+e'
il;;" e;;ifn criteria address a variety of issues, incfuding
a;;fd-"t"ipatibility' uses, parking, compliance with the
III.
vail comprehensive PIan, site planning, etc- , As with all
SDDrs, the specific developnent standards on this property
are established by the approved developnent plan and the
ordinance approved by the Council . It is the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate that their proposed developnent
piin conpties with each of the nine design criteria, or
dernonstrite that they are not applicable' or that apractical solution consistent with the public interest has
been achieved.
STAFF RESPONSE TO PROPOSED DEVEIPPI'TENT
This proJect must be reviewed as a whole, however, it is
rrorthr,rhile to consider the two major elements separately.
The proposed addition of L,276 sguare feet of office space
is ctnsfstent with each of the relevant design criteria.
The design is compatible witb the existlng- structure, the
scale and bulk of the building is not appreciably lncreased,
uses are consistent with existing uses, and site planning
and landscaping are unchanged. This addition constitutes
a very minor change to the existing development on the lot.
However, the parking solution Proposed is not acceptable to
the staff. Our difficulty with this proposal is based on
Design Criteria C., which states:
18.40.080 c.Conrptiance with parking and loading
requirernent as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
This criteria references the parking section of the zoning
code as a basis for evaluating development proposals. The
parking section of the code states that all reguired parking-shoul-d- be located on-site. The Town Council can grant
exceptions and allow off site parking if ceftai-n criteria
are net. In addition, it should be understood that the
design criteria can be waived if rta practical. solution
consistent with the public interest has been acbievedrr.
There is a specific process outlined in the code for. Ieasing
parking spa-es. This proposal- is inconsLstent with this
iroces!. Holdever, because ttris property ^is an -sDD' the
iroponent can establish its own standards for park-ing.
irtii means that the applicant is within its rights to
reguest approval of the parking solution as proposed. The
stiff is -Conceptually arnenable to the bank locatinq five
spaces within the Medlcal Centerrs parki-ng.structure. This
aipears to be a workable situation considering the proximity
oi- these two Eites and the relatively snall number of
parking spaces involved. However, as proPosed, the parking
Solution 1s not a practical one, and it is not consistent
with tlre intent of the parking regulations. The following
reasons outline the staffrs prinary concern with this
proposal:
1.
2.
a
At the present time, the parking structure approved
for the tledical center is designed to neet the
needs of the Center and the Doubletree Hotel . The
Etructure is not designed ltith excess capaciW.
to-rnodify the devefopment plan add more parking-to
this sitL. This approval has not been obtained.
is not in place at thiS time. The
conAEns about aPProving this
upon parking that is not inproposal dependent
existence today.
3.The development of the sent upon the rformance of
conrpletion of these spaces. It
to grant a development aPProval
olrner, who then must reIY on the
adjacent property ohrner in order
parking comrnitments.
conisto
s ta11anaover the
irresponsible
one property
performance of an
to satisfy their
4. It has not been establi,shed that the Holiday I
has an excess nu ructure out
6Ftne Bankrs control , tfre Holiday Inn solution
5.
@tre Medicar center P?rkingstructurl is delayed. while it may be unlikely
that problerns wif f develop with compl.eti-ng tl'
structlure, it is not the Townrs resPonsibility.to
speculate, or accept the risk that everything wilI
applicint is isking for approval of a developnent
tfrlt is dependenL uPon the performance of an
adjacent owiter in order to sa.tisfy^ .ttre -parking
go smoothly.
The worst case situation is such that the Bank must
rely on alternative locations for the parking-'.?td
the obvious guestion becomes wbether the Holiday
Inn has the JbiLity to provide this parking. . No
documentation of ttre utifization of the Holiday
Innrs lot has been submitted as a part of this
appl ication.
The approval of this proposal could serve to
establ-ilh a dangerous preceden'!--- :!gr future
development pioPosals.
rnust be considered one in the event
refuirenents. From the standpoint. of the Town- and
the conmuni.ty at large, there lit !hinS
to qain ant aDprov . While an
approv or €he applicant w allow then a rnore
convenient construction schedule t the Town will be
ncr st-ructure at
the Medical Center mav or mav no
acceptinq th
a Elmery manner.
There are a nunber of differences distinguish this
proposal tronThe E6$ital project.forenost, the
Lonitruction of the Hospital parking@
/O-a\..1^0,^^ r^\l .or tne H=o,??itlr.. we ale__gealine J_i_ll ,-":: 3:"j:::^:19.."::8ffiil---wErr-this proposal, the Bank has no authority
IV. STAFF RECO!.TMENDATION
The Staff cannot support this application at this tirne.
In concept, it appears reasonable for five of the Bankrs
parking -paces to be provided in the centerrs structure.
However, it is fundamentally bad planning to approve this
application without the parking in place. The appropriate
tiine to review this proposal is after the Medical Centerts
parking structure has been completed-
The staff position on this application raises the guestion
of how thii proposal differs fron approvals received fy ltteHospital over €nis past year. As the Planning Corunission
may recall, the ttospital received approval to construct an
adlition to its building prior to the construction of the
parking structure.
;ffier.-witn this proposar, the Bank has no authority or
control over the conpletion of _the Parkitg. Cg39.Dr to
'a.rrri ra eirrrrrltenaolrs construction of the park stEucture
rk_ing during the constructionital has comPleted the relocation-or utififfgE-6-allow for the construction of the structure
J"9-JB d{$\' +'|'{".nd th" hospital addition would have caused gevere imp?ctsrequire simultaneous construction of the parklng structure
ile aeve f oFm6ffiE--Eottr f ac i I it i es woul- d have compotrncf€d
r\,^0\1*k,1 difficulties of -staqing conFFruction. and. -elirninated gven
EOlrg
-of utifft*eG-6-allow for the construction of the structure
ft,rk F^\ \*
0^" - --[f
4^^-t\ er^\ (.
TFffiil While this point could be used to argue that
the Holpitit is totally conrnitted to the completion of the
structu-re, it rnust be reiterated that the Hospital is the
party responsible for this project. The Bank has no control-over-the cornpletion of the parking.
once construction of the parking structure beqins, the risk
to the Town that the project will not be cornpleted may in
fact be quite low. Nonetheless, the staff can see no reason
why the Town should accePt any-risk to acconmodate this
deielopment Plan. There is nothing to -gain by approving
this project now and hoping that- everything works out. In
additionl this entire proposal assunes the Hospital-rs
proposaL to enlarge the approved design is acceptable. The-stait and Planning Cornrnission are not in a position to make
this assumption at this tine. The Colorado Division of
Highways wltf also have to approve changes to existing
designs.
The opportunity to provide parking.off-site is not a right'
nut riitrer shoula be seen as a privilege. Until the parking
is in place, it is irresponsible to consider approval of
this reguest.
O*nuur, 16, t99o
I,This
wil l
A.
procedure is required
not be accepted until
NAME OF APPLICANT
Appl i cati on Date
PIC I'IItTING DATE
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
for any project requesting a variance.all inforntation is subrnitted.
VNB Building Corp.
The appl ication
3033 East 1st Ave.ADDRISS
Denver, CO 80206 388-4331
PHONE
B.NAME OF
ADDRESS
APPLICI . I' S REPRESTNTATIVE Sidney Schultz
141 East }leadow Drive
Vail , C0 81657 476-7890
PHONE
c.NAI4E
Siqna
ADDRESS
VNB Building Corp.
3033 t lst Ave
Denver, C0 80206 PHoNE 388-4331
D.LOCATION OF PIiOPOSAL
ADDRESS 108 S. Frontage Rd.
LEGAL DESCRITTION LOT BLOCK FILING VNB Parcel
E. FEE $100 PAI D cK#FROM
THE FEE I'IUSI I]t PAID BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT l,lILL ACCEPT
YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. A list of the names of owners of all property adjacent to the subject property
INCLUDING PR0PERTY BEHiND AND ACROSS STREETS, and their mailing addresies.
TI]E APPLICANT |,JILL BE RISPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
II. A PRE-APPLICATION CONTERENCE I^IITH A PLANNING SIAFF MEMBTR IS STI?ONGLY SUGGESTED
TO ]DETERMINE IF ANY ADDITIONAI. INFORMATION IS NEIDED. NO APPLICATIOI,I I,IILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS IT IS COMPLETE (MUST INCLUDE ALI. ITIMS RTQUIRED BY TliE ZONING
ADMINISTRATOR). IT IS THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MKE AN APPOINTMENT
I.IITH THE STAFF TO FIND OUT ABOUT ADDITIONAL SUI]I4iTTAL REQUIREMENTS.
PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPLETE APPLICATION r.llLL STRIAI,ILINE THE APPROVAL PROCESS FOR
YOUR PROJECT gV OECREASING_THE NUMBER OF cONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING
AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MAY STIPULATE. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE
COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED. i
III. FOUR (4) COPIES 0F THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBI4ITTED:
A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT 0F TlrE PRECTSE NnrUnr 0F THE VARTANCE REQUESTED AND THE
REGULATION INVOLVID. TIIE STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
l. The rcl,rtionship of the requestecl variance to'other existing or potentja'l
uses arrd structures in the vicinity.
2. The degrer: to which relief frl6 11lu strict or literal interpretntion and
enforc':t;,ettL of a specified regulat.ion is necessary to achjeve colnpatibilitf
and un j l'orrnity of treatulent anrong sit.es in the vicinjty or to attain l,he
objectives of this til"le without grant of s1re6i3l privilege.
OYTR
Vari ance O-r-
3. The effect of the variance on light and air' distribution of_population'
iriniportrtion, traffic facilities, utilities' and public safety.
B. A topographic and/or iurprovement survey at a sca'le of at least lrr - 20r stamped
by a'Colorado licensed surveyor including_locations of all.existing.improve-
m"ents, jnclrrding grades and elevations. 0ther elements which must be sirown
are pirking anrl loading areas,'ingress attd egress''landscpped areas and
uti'l ity and drainage features.
C. A site p't an at a scale of at least l" = 20' showing existing and proposed
bui I di ngs.
D. A'll preliminary building elevations anl,floor plans_sufficient to indicate
tr'. li*eniion5-, general-appearancg, scale and use of al'l bui'ldings and spaces
existing and ProPosed on the site.
E. A preliminary tjt]e report to verify ownership and easements
F. If the proposal is located in a multi-family development which has a homeowners'
association, then written approval from Lhe association in support of the
projebt must be received by a duly authorized agent for sald association.
G. Any additional materjal necessary for the revietr of the app'lication as
determined by the zoning administrator..
* For inte'rior modifications' an improvement survdy and slte plan may be
waived by the zoning admlnistrator.
IV.Time Requirments
The Plannjng and Environmental Cormission meets
of each renln. A complete appf ication form and
(as described above) must be submitted a minimum
ifC puUlic hearing. No incomplete applications
administrator) will be acceliLed by the planning
nated submittal date.
on the 2nd and 4th ilondaysall accompanying material
of 4 weeks prior to the date of
(as determined by the zoning
staff before or after the desig-
tltr
,
PI,ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February L2, L99O
Minutes
Present Staff
chuck Crist Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Mike Mol-lica
Connie Knight Shelly Mello
Ludwig Kurz Tom Braun
Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack
Kathy warren
Da1ton WiIIiarns
The Planning and Environmental conmission neeting began at
approxirnately 3:oo p.m. following Site Visits which started at
l-2:oo p.n. The neeting nas called to order by the vice-
chairperson, Diana Donovan.
Iten No. 1-: Apnointment of PEC chairperson and
vice-chairperson.
Kathy Warren rnoved to appoint Diana Donovan as chairperson.
Chuck Crist seconded the notion.
VOTE; 5-OINFAVOR.
Jim Shearer moved to appoint Chuck Crist as vice-
chairperson.
VOTE: 6-OINFAVOR.
Item no. 2: A request for an anendnent to SpecLal DevelonmentDistrict 23 and a parkinq variance to allow for an
office expansion. to the Vaif National Bank
Building. LO8 S. Frontage Road a resubdivision of
Jim Shearer excused hinself from this iten due to conflict of
interest.
Tom Braun reminded the Board that this ltas a recomnendation to
the Town Council. He explained the proposal by stating that
there were two parts to it. one was an amendment to the approved
plan to allow for the enclosure of two decks on the third floor
of the structure and the second part was a reguest for an
amendment to the parking standards to allow parking for the
addition within the parking structure at the vail Valley Medical
Center. Tom reviewed the criteria for major amendments to SDDrs
and then listed several concerns of the staff. He stated that
the staff reconnended denial of the request.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained the origlnat
reguests from the hospital and from the Doubletree regardingparking and the proposed hospital parking structure. Jay pointed
out that ttre Doubletree had arnended their SDD even though theparking structure was not started and no condition nas placed on
the Doubletree at that tine. Jay stated that the hospital has
agreed to add tuvto L/2 levels, 35 inmediately for parking and 35at the present would be used for other tbings to naxinize thespace. He said that the past two approvals were not conditional
upon the parking agreement.
He suggested to the Planning Connlssj.on that they could approvethe request wittr conditions concerning the start of constructionof the Hospital parking structure. tay said the Vail National
Bank wanted to start construction May first. They would be donein July or August. The conditions could state that the parking
structure must be started by August 1 so the Planning Comnission
would know whether or not there would indeed be parking
available.
Jay explained that they do have a tenPorary tining problen prior
to the cornpletion of the parking structure. He explained that if
one assumed the Hospital did not buil-d their parking structure
the lown could revoke the temporary C.O. and he would sign aletter regarding that.
Torn pointed out that the approved parking structure does not have
excess parking spaces but only meets the demand of the Doubl.etree
and the hospital . The proposed additional parking spaces have
not yet been approved.
Kristan Pritz added that at best, there night be one excess
parking spot. She also added that, although the town issupportive of adding the two 1rl2 levels, the Highway Department
would need to be contacted for approval of the additional parking
spaces because they would contribute to additional traffic. She
continued to explain that the issue is adjacent property owners
wanting additional deveJ-opnent without the parking in place.
Connie xnight stated that she felt the present Vail Natlonal Bank
parking was atrocious and would reconnend denial .
Kathy Warren stated that until sonething concrete was in place
with ttre hospital parking structure, she felt that the Bank
should provide some tenporary parking. A1so, that the existing
parking should be addressed because, at present, it is already a
problen.
Jay stated that the Bank did neet parking requirenents non.
Chuck asked if the Bank wanted to purchase additional parking
spaces that were going to be constructed but were not yet
approved. When he was told that was correct, he wondered what
would happen if the structure was not constructed. Jay statedthat the vaj.l National Bank would trave to exerclse their optionfor the additlonal spaces that they were renting before receiving
a building pernit. Chuck felt that with that restriction, he
would vote for the request.
Dalton stated that he had wanted to lease a space in the Vail
National Bank for his business but he could not get parking alongwith it. He asked if they could request a parking study to see
exactly what the needs really were at the Vail National BankBuilding. Dalton wondered if they were too prernature in tryingto vote on the project. Perhaps the hospital could corne in with
the proposal for the additional parkJ.ng first.
Kristan felt that they were premature but that it was an issuefor the Planning Cornmission to decide.
Ludwig added to Daltonrs renarks. He felt that he wouLd have to
say no to the proposal at the moment. Ludwig asked what the tine
table was for construction.
Jay said that it would be okay to table the issue for 2 weeks.
He added that he felt it was unfair of the Planning Commission to
make the Bank provide rnore parking than is really reguired.
Diana asked that if there were more spaces needed than wereoriginally reguired, if it were possible to still reguire nore'
Kristan said she would discuss it with Larry.
Tom explained that Larryts feeling is that if they are complying
with the code, he was reluctant to say whether or not they could
ask for more parking.
Kristan remarked that if the bank was planninq to lease parking
spaces on a permanent basis it nay alleviate concerns for the
future.
Diana had the same concerns as the other planners and said that
the Planning Cornrnission could deny the request, table it or they
could approve it with conditions.
Jay stated ttrat with conditions the Town would have absolute
protection that the spaces will exist by the end of the fall and1t would be easily enforced. Ton stated that this was not easily
enforced.
Jay pointed out that the conditions would work, that the Vail
nalionat Bank would not be able to take out a building perrnit
until the construction of the parking structure began and they
could get a TCo lthen the parking structure was substantially
completed.
Kristan stated that the board needed to realize the wishes of,
and the number of entities involved. She was concerned about
getting a Tco before conpletion of the parking structure. She
iaaea that the Bank is not under constraints that were imposed on
the Hospital . Unusual circunstances Itere put on the Hospital
because of the staging and she wanted the board to keep in urind
that the action on the bank proposal was a real Precedent and
needed to be looked at very carefully. Jay said he felt that the
vail National Bank was in the sarne position as the hospital .
Dalton asked if there rtas a contract between the Bank and the
Hospital. Kristan answered that it was not officially approved
yet.
Diana suggested tabling for two weeks and Jay agreed. Tom asked
Jay to put the conditions that he had suggested in writing.
The notion was made bv Dalton Willians and seconded bv,Chuck
crist to table the rnatter for two weeks with the gonCition that
iiv would draft and submit conditions to Kristan within one week.
VOTE:5 - 0 - 1 (wl-th Jln Shearer abstaining)
ften No. 3: A recruest for an exterigr alteration to thevailqlo Lodge on a portion of Lot 1. Block 2, Vail
Lionshead Third Filinq.Applicant: Craio Holzfaster
Tom Braun described the request as a nodest one. That the
Vailglo wanted to add two entries plus a porte cochere. They
also want to put up a gate and do additional Landscaping on the
west side. rour reviewed criteria and said that it would be as
outlined in CCII zone distrlct and the Vail Lionshead Urban
Design Guide Plan in addition to standard zoning considerations
such as set backs, site coveraqter parking etc. However, since
the Lionshead Plan focuses prinarily on the pedestrianized nalf
area of Lionshead and the Vailglo Lodge is located outside the
nain pedestrianized area of Lionshead, most of the review
criteiia were not directly relevant to the vai191o proposal .
There were no sub areas directly affecting the property. As far
as cornpliance with the Urban Design Considerations for Lionshead,
the relevant issues were massing, roofs, facade-walls, structure
and accent elenents. The proPosal seened to be in compliance
with these elements. Ton pointed out that the proposal is also
consistent with zoning considerations in the ccII zone district.
The staff reconnendation was for approval . However, in
evaluating this site the staff felt that landscaping improvements
are needed on the bern on the Frontage Road. Landscaping in that
area would screen the parking lot and in conjunction with
irnprovernents that would be made to L'Ostello, it would greatJ-y
inprove the streetscape in this area.
The staff recornmended approvat srith the condition that the
proposed landscape plan be revised to include inprovements to the
berm between the parking lot and the south Frontage Road.
This revision is to be nade prior to the Design Review Board
Review of the proposal .
Kirk Aker, Architect on the project, stated that landscaping on
the back berm provided very littLe advantage for users of
Vai191o.
Jirn Shearer stated that he would like to see the entire Frontage
Road landscaped. He also added that he wanted to see the
dumpster on the Southwest corner incorporated in the landscaping
p1an.
Kirk said he would like to discuss these landscape issues with
his client.
Kathy felt that an enclosure or screen for the dunpster should bepart of ttre conditions to the Design Review Board.
Chuck Crist agreed with the need for landscaping on the Frontage
Road and the screening on the dumpster. He said that he was
unhappy about the fact that the tops of the pine trees were sawed
off to allow the sign on the waII of the VailgLo to be viewed.
Dalton felt that the benn needs to be high and there needs to be
better landscaping, because on the Interstate one can see the
parked cars.
Diana stated that with all the signs on the vailglo the bern can
be built up a bit.
Connie mentioned that the proposal did look nice to her.
The motion was rnade bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Chuck
Crist to table the item.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 43 A recruest for a ninor subdivision and zone changefor Lots 4 & 5, Block 2. Bighorn First
Addition.Annlicant: Sable/Luplne
Partners. Ltd.
Mike Mollica explained the proposal. He rerninded the board that
they had had a work session on this iten two weeks prior. He
explained that tbere were two parts to the request; a zone
change and a minor subdivision.
The request for the minor subdivision would create four singlefanily lots from two duplex lots and the zone change was forsingle fanily zoning.
Mike reviewed existing zoning and the criteria to evaluate a
zone change. One item was the suitabiLity of the proposed
rezoning. The staff felt that the proposed rezoning would be
consistent with the Townrs objectives and would not increase
overall density.
Mike strowed a map which indicated large areas of snow and debrisflow, red hazard and blue hazard avalanche zones within the
boundaries of the two lots. He explained tbat the applicant was
proposing to nitigate the hazards either by constructing large
berms or direct nitigation which is structuraL strengthening of
the buildings. He said the applicant wanted to keep open the
options of which type of nitigation to use, and would prefer to
have the individual lot oltners decide the nethod for thenselves.
Mike continued to explain that the staff felt very strongly that
the proposed berning nethod of nitigation was unacceptable. It
was felt that vehicular access into the woods to construct the
berm would create additional scaring. Another concern of thestaff was the four driveway cuts Proposed and the staff
recomrnended a maximurn of two driveway cuts.
The second criteria was whether or not the amendment presented a
convenient, workable relationship within land uses consistent
with the rnunicipal objectives. Mike stated that the staff feltthat single farnily residential zoning was consistent with
adjacent land uses and was compatible with the neighborhood.
The staff was in favor of the proposed staggered setbacks along
Lupine Drive. However, one concern of the staff was the
applicantsr reguest for GRFA. The existing allowable GRFA isL,zg1 square feet. The applicant is asking for 14,390 square
feet. The staff rtas not in favor of that increase.
The third criteria was wbether the rezoning provides for the
growth of an orderly, viabte coronunity. The staff believed thatthe rezoning would provide for the growth of an orderly and
viabLe cornnunity.
o
The staff recommendation was for approval of both the requests
with the following conditions of approval:
1. That the Tow.n councit approve the zone change
request before the Planning Cornrnission chairperson
signs the p1at.
That the plat inctude a restriction whichprohibits the use of berning as a nethod of hazard
roitigation.
That the plat include a restriction which linits
the total allowable GRFA to L3 '295 sqluare feet.
4. That the plat include a restriction liniting the
nunber of drivenay cuts to a maximum of two.
Michael Perkins, archltect for the project, stated that the
applicant would prefer to be allowed some flexibility in tlre
sotutions for rnitigation of the hazards. He passed out a draft
restrictive covenant proposed to be used for hazard nitigation.
It stated that the use of berms as the sole or prirnary method of
rnitigation of natural hazards be prohibited and that the use of
bermi, retaining walls or other uritigation devices less than 6
feet in height rnay be used in conjunction with direct rnltigation
of the structure. He continued to explain that the reason they
were asking for extra GRFA is that it would cost more to do
direct rnitigation. This, according to Perkins, would off-set
their cost.
Marty Abel, property orrrner, said that his engineer confirned that
each dwelling unit would cost about 24 thousand doLlars to do the
direct rnitigation and that that was how they arrived at the
additional sguare footage for each unit--270 more square feet per
unit.
In regard to driveway cuts Michael Perkins felt that with four
cuts it would be 50t less traffic as opposed to two cuts and he
felt that if they were neeting the single fanily restrictions
they should have single farnily allowance of one driveway per
unit, He said sharing a driveway is part of what makes a duplex
not as pleasant as a single fanily house.
Marty AbeI said he would agree to covenants that restrict I arge
berni. However, he felt the best way for nitigation Itas site
specific, not necessarily direct rnitigation. He felt the wording
on ttre restriction should satisfy each requirement for
construction and felt that excluding all berming stas unfair. He
felt that the covenants could say that berning would not be used
as the prirnary nitigation method.
2.
3.
Kathy asked hin that if he did not want to go along with any of
the ;taff recornroended conditions. l'larty that they would go along
with iterns #2 and #3 but not *4. Kathy ltas not very comfortable
with the statenent that said that they could only do a certain
type of nitigation and asked lt(ristan if it would be. appropriate
eoi tne applicant to come back to the Planning Connission if
berrning is-proposed. Kristan answered that the condition was
related to the subdivision request and therefore must be deaLt
with now.
Kathy felt that the correct way to do this was to corne back with
a design and discuss rnitigation.
Marty felt that the prlnary method should be direct mitigati-on
but felt it nas unfair to restrict berns cornpletely.
Kathy was not comfortable aLLowing additional GRFA. Regarding
the drive cuts, she had no problen having four driveritays.
Dalton felt that the applicant could be perrnitted additional GRFA
since it would be allowed under single fanrily zoning, which is
what they were requesting. Da1ton also preferred the sentence
that altowed retainlng walls or berms less than 6 feet in height
to be used in conjunction with direct nitigation.
Connie asked if wlth hazard rnitigation I as a concern of the
Planning Conmission. Kristan answered that the Planning
Conmission needed to consider any concerns that were part of a
proposal . Connie was in favor of two driveway cuts, did not
ilant an increase in GRFA and felt that the nitigation should
probably be in the structure itself. She also felt that there
Lhou1d be some warning of the hazard on the plat.
Jirn had no probleur with four driveway cuts. He spoke of the
reconfiguralion of the lot lines and felt that this type of thing
should be discouraged. He wanted the GRFA to stay the same as
that which was originally on the lots. With regard to
rnitigation, he felt that if they need both types of nitigation
then both types of nitigation should be permitted.
Diana stated that developers' financial concerns cannot be a
consideration of the Planning Connission. she felt that four
driveways were better than two and that the GRFA should stay the
same. She stated that the Planning Comnission has not previously
given additionat GRFA when changing.zoning. She suggested
fossibly adding a conditlon that said trees over six inch caliper
cannot be removed. She ltanted the setbacks shown on the plat and
covenants for aII four lots.
Chuck asked if the total square footage restriction would be
placed on all the lots. Mike answered that this would be part of
with the covenants.
A motion was made bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Dalton
Williams to reconrnend approvaL of a minor subdivision to the
Town Councit based on the staff rneno with the following
conditions:
L. That the Tor^/n council approve the zone change reguest
before the PEC chairperson signs the plat.
2. The the following restrictive covenant be placed on the
subdivision: rrThe primary rnitigtation of natural
hazards on tlre property shall be through directnitigation of the structure, and the use of berms as
the sole or prirnary nethod of tuitigation shall beprohibited. Berns, retaining walls or other nitigation
devices less than sl-x feet in height may be used in
conjunction with such direct nitigation.rl
3. That the following restrictive covenant be placed on
the subdivision: rrThe total allowable GRFA for the
subdivision shall be as follows; Lot I = 3'300 square
feet, Lot 2 = 31300 square feet, Lot 3 = 3'300 squarefeet and Lot 4 = 3,395 square feet. The total GRFA
shall be 13,295 sguare feet.rl
4. The front, staggered setbacks shall be indicated on the
Plat.Lot 1 = 4O foot front setbackLot 2 = 20 foot front setbackLot 3 = 30 foot front setbackLot 4 = 50 foot front setback
VOTE:5 - 2 with Connie and Chuck votinq aqainst
A notion was If,ade bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Ludwiq Kurz to
12. t990.
VOTE: 7-OINFAVOR
Itern No. 5: A request to amend a special Develonment District
for the Garden of the Gods on Lot K. Block 5, Vail
Familv
Connie removed herself from tbe discussion of the Garden of the
Gods stating a conflict of interest.
village Fifth Filincr at 365 Gore creek Drive.
Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. HilI
Kristan Prttz presented the proposal to the Board. She started
out by saying that the applicant had decided to have only a
worksession.
Mr. Don Hare, representing l{rs. HiIl' discussed the proposal . He
concurred with the staff and reasons for the proposal.. He said
the owner will tear down the building and build a new one.
Regarding the concerns of the Vorlaufer residence, he said he met
wiin tnern and considered rotation of the building but will still
need to amend the SDD.
Art Carol , a resident of the Vorlaufer, asked when this would be
proposed to come back. Kristan answered that this would be on
tne- Zsttr of February, but that she felt it would be helpful to
hear his concerns today. The nain concern is the effect on the
view of the nountain and he questioned whether there vJas sone way
that this could be lessened. There followed a long discussion of
views, amount of encroachnent and View Corridors.
Iten No. 6:A request for an exterior alteration for
Condoniniunr Unit #3 in the Gore Creek Plaza
Buildinq at 193 East Gore Creek Drive. Block 58.
vail Village First Filinq.
Mike Mollica presented tbis proposal . He had a letter of
approval from the Condoniniurn Association.
The owner of condominium #1, next to the condorniniurn that was
proposing changes objected to the location of a balcony. She had
Lwo-concerns. The first was sharing the balcony and the second
was the fireplace venting. This was discussed and it was decided
to eliminate the balcony, and the fireplace would be vented to
the east, three feet above unit #1ts operable windows.
Iten No. 7:
shelly Mello
itern for two
applicant requested to table this
10
The motion was rnade bv Kathv Warren and seconded bv Chuck Crist
for aprcroval with conditions.
Conditions:
2.
1.The Balcony be removed from the conrmon
wal1.
The fireplace be vented to the East
about three feet above the window per
the staff nemo.
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
A reouest for a side setback Vafiance for Lot 6'
bloc[ 2. vail villaae sixth Filinq.
Anpl.icant: Clinton G. Ames. Jr.
explained that the
hreeks,
The motion ltas made bv Kathy Warren and seconded bv Jim Shearer
to table this iten untif February 26---l-990--
VOTE:7-OINFAVOR
Iten No. 8: A recruest for a height varLance to construct a new
residence on Lot 3, Block 2- vail Potato Patcht
Alpine Townhonres IV.Appll-cant: Michael Lauterbach
The request is for a height variances ranging fron two to nine
feet. Tom Braun presented this request and showed site plans and
surveys. ae exptlined that the proJect would involve altering
existing grades by filling in Ion points throughout the lot. An
existin! 6asenent- is also-referencEd as a hardship affecting site
planning. Tour pointed out that the history on the lot ltas
relevant.
Sonetine in 1.976 excavation was begun for a residence. The
excavation dramatically altered the grade and then this past
sunmer the applicant began fllling the lot without approval fron
the Town. rle factors were retevint in deternining what is the
existing grade of the Iot. Tom also added that considering the.
grade oi tne lot after the 1975 excavation would inpose an unfair
trardship on ttre applicant because of the hole that had been
created on the Lot.
Two surveys stere subrnitted, one showing essentially existing
conditj-ons and one showing tbe condltions of the lot prior to
excavation in 1g26. the staff deteruined that the nost
reasonable survey to use was the one that was done prior to
excavation in tg'O. This approach is al-so consistent with other
decisions nade by staff concerning lots that have been disturbed.
Tom continued to discuss criteria and findl-ngs. The staff felt
that granting the request would be a grant of special privilege.
The staff recommendation was for denial . The staff could see no
legitirnate physical hardship to allow for the variance. The
stiff teft tnlt the proposed design showed tittte consideration
to the grade of the ProPertY.
Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, took exception to the staff memo.
He felt that he could Lonforrn to the required regulated height if
there were not a gas tine in the easement. Ite felt that he could
drop the house nine feet into the hole, compensate by-allowing-a
fou-r to six foot height variance or fill the lot conpletely and
start fron scratch. -He then pointed out that the Lionsridge
subdivision had filled a whole ravine. He felt that the Potato
Patch subdivision would be best served lf the house were built to
the highest and best use for this site. He stated that without
fillin! the lot, there would be no views of the Eki nountain.
11
cary Bossovt, a property owner who lives two lots alray, agreed
Irith both Mike and the staff in that you could fill and build but
he said 1o feet over the helght restriction rtas excessive.
Kristan explained that in construction, the existing grade must
be used and persons were not given pemission to dunp dirt and
tben build on the Lot later on.
Chuck asked how the Lionsridge subdivision obtained approval and
Kristan said that the planning Conmission had given approval for
a totat site plan.
cary Bossow stated that uraybe the lot was not designed-to have a
view of Vail Mountain. Ludwig Kurz then stated that with really
creative plans you could inprove the sLtuation without reguiring
a variance. Lauterbach said that he felt that Ludwig was
suggesting that be point the house down the valley but that was
not what he wanted to do.
connie asked if it was permissable to fill lots and Diana
explained that they could fill then but ttrey still must use the
original grade in considering hetght restrictions.
Mike added that the ridge was artificially high and that was a
hardship and that the easenent was as big a problen as the lowpoint on ttre lot. Diana said she could not find a reason for the
variance, and that the lack of a view is not a hardship. Mike
asked about the easement. Kathy asked if the easements were on
the lot when it was purchased and llike stated that they were.
Diana wondered if the Planning Cornrnission didnrt often give
variances for easements. Tour pointed out that there was still
plenty of land to build on.
At this polnt the board discussed other ways and places that the
horne could be built.
The motion was rnade bv Kathy Warren and seconded by Lgdwiq Kurz
ior Denial based on the fact that there was no hardship proven
and per the staff rnemo.
Jim stated that he felt that the hone needed to be redesigned.
Diana said she was not convinced a variance itas needed.
Bossow asked what kind of hardshlp Iauterbach could possibly
have.
Diana expressed a need to look at the lot again.
Mike asked how the Ll.onshead subdivision had gotten an approval
and Kristan explained that ttrey went before the Planning
cornmission requesting a fill and grading petmit.
Mike Laterbach said he would like to table for two weeks and
present a grading plan.
L2
Ludwicr withdrew his second.
Torn reminded Mike that if the lot were regraded, the engineer
woul-d need to look at the whole project and the other lots
affected. Mike said he thought he could come back with a
revised grading plan and asked to table.
Diana asked Kristan if you could Look at all the lots that had
been filled. Diana stated that the Planning Conmission had
allowed gullies on lots to detemine whether units could be
separated. Dalton said if the ridge were artificially raised
that that seemed to be a factor.
The motion was made bv Chuck Crist and seconded by Jim Shearer to
table for two weeks.
VOTE:6 - 1 with Kathy votino aqainst tabling.
Tten No. 9: Discussion of revisions to Zonina Code' Sign Code
and Design Review Guidelines.
Torn explained to the board that there rtas a need to revise
existing development regulations, that over tine a number ofsnall and relatlvely isotated issues and problens with the codes
had arisen. He asked that the Planning Board take a
cornprehensive look at the regulations.
He stated that he was interested in the big picture PercePtion of
existing guidelines, for example do the codes only need
refinements or are they in need of a urajor overhaul? Can the
relationship between DRB, PEc, and council be improved with
regard to the developroent review process? Is the existing review
process cumbersome and slow, not thorougb enough or adequate.
Torn wanted to know what the problems were and wanted input for
the RFP.
Diana felt that it
code and that she
an outsider. She
was not a good thing to rewrite the zoning
also felt that it was not a good thing to hire
sinply felt it needed to be tightened up.
Tom explained that it was extrenely valuable to bring in fresh
eyes to look at the zoning code.
Kristan explained that when they did choose a consultant the
staff and Board would have input. They wanted to work with the
Board and Council but felt that a fresh look was important.
Diana felt that there were very few minor problems. Chuck tended
to agree with Diana, he was very opposed to hiring an outside
consultant.
L3
Jirn felt that we did not need major involvement of an attorney to
oversee the project.
Dalton did not feel that an outside consultant was necessary.
He said that the consultant would be paid to study rules that the
staff was already faniliar with. Diana stated that everyone that
works with the code knows the problems already.
Kristan explained that the staff wasnrt advising a total overhaulof the zoning code, but that she has seen the use of many loop-
hol-es and she felt the need for consultant assistance was
inportant, especially given the existing staff level in planning.
Dal.ton wondered if you could get an outside advisors in certain
areas without hiring a consultant.
Diana expressed that fact that usually ideas seemed to corne frorn
the community during the public hearings.
Kristan said that there would need to be some tlpe of consulting
tearn and that the staff was not in the position to work on this
because of their work load. Kathy felt that this was not an easyproject, that there were broad range issues to consider and that
the County regulations and those of the Town should fit together
better.
Kristan said that it sounded as though the PEC wanted a lead
person with consultants as needed. But she reminded then that
they would need an Attorney for rewriting the code. Jim statedthat he would like to see clearer lines between the Planning
Commission and the Design Review Board. Tom agreed that total
revision was not necessary.
Kathy tiked Chuck's idea of having localsr input, but felt there
were nany locals that were self serving.
The discussion ended.
14
SIDIO SCHULZ-ARCH ITEC,*.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7890
February 7, 1990
Ms. Kristan PrLtz
Town of Vail
0ffice of Conmunity DeveloPment
Vail., Colorado 81657
re: Vail National Bank Building-tenporary parking variance
Dear Kristan'
Thls letter is to fol1ow-up ny application for a tenporary
parklng variance for the proposed deck enclosures at the vall
National Bank Buildlng.
Between the tine our construction is completed and Pernanent
parking is provided at the new hospital structure, we proPose to
irovidJ park,lng on the Holiday Inn site. The Holiday Inn ie
roittrtn tirree-hundred feet of the Vail National Bank Building
property. As the attached letter from Charles Pereira confirms,
this parking nay be on a J.ong-tern basis.
If you have any further questione regarding this natter pleaee
glve ne a ca -1.
CJ,,,,L-
chultz
cc: Paul Power s
Jay Peter sonGail Lowenthal
Sidney
MEi/8ER THE AVIERICAN INSIIME OF ANCHM€TS
PUBLIC NOTTCE
that the Planning and Environrnental
of Vail will hold a public hearing in
18.56.060 of the rnunicipal code of the
dWT,TH,' llM
Torm of Vail t 3:00 p.n. in the Town of Vail
of:Municipal Building. Consideration
1. A request for a minor subdivision and zone change for Lots 4
& 5, Block 2, Bighorn lst Addition.
Applicant: Sabler/Lupine Partners, Ltd.
A reguest for an exterior alteration
Exchange in the Wall Street BuiJ-ding
viJ-lage First Filing.
Applicant: American Ski Exchange
A reguest for an exterior alteration for Condorniniun Unit #3
in the core Creek Plaza Building at 193 East Gore Creek
Drive, Blocl< 58, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Michael Sanner/Piero Rivolta
4. A request to rezone a Specia} Developrnent District for the
Garden of the Gods on Lot K, Block 5, Vail Village Fifth
Filing at 365 Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Garden of the Gods, Mrs. A.G. Hill Fanily
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
Comrnission of the Town
accordance with Section
2.
3.
for the Anerican Ski
on Block 5C, Vail
5. An anendment to Special Developnent District 4' cascade
Village, to arnend Area D, Glen Lyon office Building at L000
South Frontage Road West, Lot 54, GIen Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Bldg. - A Colorado Partnership
5. A request for a beight variance for Lot 3, Block 2, Vail
Potato Patch; AlPine Townhomes fV.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
7. A request for an exterior alteration for a portion of Lot L,
Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third filing; VaiJ.glo Lodge.
Applicant; Craig Holzfaster
.
A request for an arnendment to Special Development District 23
and a parking variance to a1low for an office expansion, for
the Vail National Bank Building at 108 South Frontage Road
I{est, a resubdivision of part of Lot D, Block 2, VaiI Village
Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail National Bank Building Corp.
A request for a side setback variance for Vail village Sixth
Filing, Lot 6, Block 2.
Applicant: Clinton G. Ames, Jr.
9.
o
RES OLU TION
I
i
I
I
i
I
I
I
By the Director of VNB Building Corp.:
BE IT RESOLVED that Sidney Schultz
retained as Agent for VNB Building
the purpose of nraking applications
Town of Vail for the re-zoning and
of its Vail National Bank Building
associated property.
is hereby
Corp. for
to the
renovation
and
E. B. Chester
Vatl !{atlonal Bank
ADJACENT PROPERTY OT'ilBRS
@ssoclationc/o llr. Ben Boutell
Poet 0fflce Box 3648Vatl, C0 81658
Scorplo Condoninlun Aseocintion
4919 Hanpden tane
Betheeda, llD 20814
SkaaL Hue Phase I
c/o llt. Ron Andereon
727 PennaylvanLa Ave.
Holton, KS 66436
Skaal Hus Phaee 2
c/o llr. Rose llavle
Poat 0ffice Box 190Yal1, C0 81658
Vatl Val1ey Medtcal Center
181 l{est Meador Drlve
Vai1, C0 81657
(Doubletree Hotel )Val1 Holdlnga, Inc.
clo J. Mlchael Holloway'American Credlt Services, Inc.
201 E. Broad Street
Roclrester , NT L46O4
Doubletree Condonlnlun Aesoc.c/o'Hr. Gene Petracca
602 Park Ave.
ilanhaeeet , lll 10030
Tovn of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.Vall, C0 8f657
\
'it"tiil36 gn,n-. -:. \, ,r
-rc{r6teh: y:aii,
February 8, 1990
Sidney Schultz-Architect, Inc.
141. Eaet lteadov Drlve
Vail' CO 81657
Dear Mr. SchuLtz:
For your inforrnatlon, ln the sunmer our parklng lot ls
nevet full becauge we have a lot of bus Eours, and eaclt
takea care of 24 roorns. So, wlth two buses ' 402 o[ our
capaclty for rooms ls al"ready fllled, leavlng the free
8Pace8.
Ae per our J4gs{sation regardLng parklng' we will Lre glad
to leaae the(g;fparklng spaces that you need.
really
b urg
parklng
is crowded is on tlre 4Eh
have a Lot of indivlduals'
entire guluner.
in
iq
s j.i
l\
IN
only.tirne
uly yeehgnthaf le tn
{,\,/",
ffu
The
ofJ
but
tha sunmer that lt
ac whLch tlme we do
two days durlng the
CP:as
sr trv SCHULIZ-ARCH rlcT,n.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL coLoRAo81657
3O3/476-78n
February 7, 1990
Hs. Kristan .Pr1tz
Tovn of YEll
Office of ConnunitY DeveloPnent
Va11, Colorailo 81657
re: Val1 lfatlonal Bank BuildinS-teaPorary parklng variance
Dear Kristan,
This letter is to follow-up ny application for a tenporary
parking varlance for the piopbseA- deck enclosures at the Val1
National Bank Building.
Betveen the tine our construction is conpleted and Pernanent
parking 1s provided at the new hospitaL structure' rre propose to
;;;;id; p"tking on the Holidav Inn site. The Holldav Inn ts
i1tt in tirree-hindred feet of ihe Vail National Bank Building
pi"p"ity. As the attached letter from Charles Pereira confirns,
thi.l park:.ng nay be on a long-tern basis.
If you have any further questions regarding this natter please
give ne a calI.
CJ,r,L-
chultz
Paul Powers
Jay PetersonGail Lowenthal
N,t€tvts?. IHE Alvl€RCAr! lt\sllME oF AtlcH[ECIS
Sidney
tt"{dli r;Tnfui
Jaauary 31, 1990
Sldney Schultz-Archltect, IDc.
l4l East lteadow Drlve
Val1, C0 81557
Dear llr. Schultz:
By your letter, 1t appears to Ee that you need parking
spaces oD a contract basLs so that you can always count
theo as part of your bulldlng, not Just a teoPorary tbiag.
Under those condltlons, it lrould bave to be a lease oo a
year round basis. You would be responslble for puttlng up
ihe signs showing it as Vail National Bank Buildlng:euployeest
parklng.
Also, 1f we declde to add rooDs to our Property, we would
have to go underground at least tvo levels. lhat would glve
us parklng for a^t least the 102 spaces re nos bold- By
havlug two leveii, ve should be able to get 150 or 160 spacee
so that re could'st11l hold the sPaces you arE requestl:rg.
for thls sould be $800 a year P€r
--2
t3 Vat Foad o Vail. Cotorado 81657 . Phono V.rl 303476'563 | . C.nvor 573.$06
OrE rrl Otts D' O\8 ljr.3nrrr|. ItE lrg. fE na l tn ]€UOAY tili6. ltle
:iI t'uaglfe thai the
+.;
DNrv SCH utz-nncJEcT,*.
February 7,
,, '. -n'
lts. f,rlitan .Prltz
Torn of .Vall
r990
Off tce of Couuunlty Developucnt ,.-
Val1, Colorado 8.1657_., .. -:..
re: Vall llatlonal Bank Bulldl.ag-tcnporary parkhg varliilce
Dear Xrlstan,
Tbis letter ls to follon-ug uy appllcatl.on for a teaporaryparklng varLance for the .propoaed deck eoclosureE at the Vailllational Bank Bul1dlog.
Betveen the tlne our constructlon 1s conpleted and peraanent
parklng 1s provided at the oew hospital structure, ue propoEe toprovlde parklng on the Hollday Inn site. The llollday Inn ts
t lthin three-hundred feet of the Vail National Baok Bulldingproperty. As the attached letter fron Charles Pereira confifns,thls parklng Day be on a loag-tern basis
If you have any further questlons regarding thls aatter pleaseglve ue a ca1l.
1r,L-
chultz
cc: Paul Povers
Jay Peterson
Gal1 LowenthEl
Ir/€168?. ll€ Ar€llOrr{ r.EllltlfE S AIICHIEC.S
Slduei
I
January 30, 1990
Mr. Sidney Schultz
141 East Meadow DriveVaiI, Colorado 81657
RE: Vail National Bank Building SDD Anendment & Parking
Variance.
Dear Sidney,
f am writing this letter to confirm the discussion I hadwith you as will as ;fay Peterson that it appears that the staffwill not be able to support your present reguest for an SDD
amendment to VaiI National Bank and parking variance to allowfor the expansion of the Land Title offices. The issue is thesolution for parking. I have discused this concern with LarryEskwith. He and I both agree that it is inappropriate to
approve your two reguest as you are relying on another property
owner to rneet your parking requirements. If you can think ofanother solution for your parking, the staff would be happy to
review your proposal. If you have any further guestions please
feel free to cal-l ne 479-21-38.
Sincerely,
Kristan PritzActing Director
cc/Jay Peterson
I
srDSY scHULTZ-ARcH rEG,*.
141 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
vArL coLoRAo 81657
303/476-7890
January L6, 1990
APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY PARKING VARIANCE
VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
VI{B PARCEL
The deck enclosures, described in the attached request for
anendnent to the Special DeveLopment District, will requlre slx
additional parking spaces. Since the proposed constructlon is
scheduled to be completed in the summer of 1990, and the parking
for the Vail- National Bank at the l.ledica1 Center parking struc-
ture wil-l not be cotnpleted until November of 1990, the Tonn
requires a parking variance.
At thie tine VNB Building Corp. is discussing the possibility of
leasing parking for the surnner of 1.990 with the Holiday Inn and
the Doubletree until VNB's parking is conpleted on the Me'dical
Center site.
MEMSER, IHE AMERICAN INSIInJIE OF ARCHMCIS
voilvolley
medicolcenter
''181 Wesl Meadow Drive, Suite 100
Vail. Colorado 81657
(303) 476-24s1
Ray McMahan
Administrator
12 January 1990
Kristen Pritz
Senior Planner
Town of Vail - Cormunity Development
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristen:
The owners of the Vail National Bank Building (VNB Building Corporation)
have a written option to purchase an exc'l usive, irrevocable licenseto use as many as twelve parking spaces in the hospital's proposed
parking structure. Shortly after working drawings are completed next
month, the hospital wi I I provide the VNB with an estimate of
construction costs. The VNB will then have seven (7) business days
to exercise its option.
The parking structure presently approved by the PEC has only enough
spaces to serve the hospital's current needs. Needless to say, the
VNB 's opti on 'i s conti gent upon the hospi ta1 securi ng the approval s
needed to construct an additional level of below-grade structure.
DF/bh
cc: Ray Mcl{ahan
cerel
\-ass\.
s-
z.o
l-
{
lrJJtd
'T-J-FE.oz.
o
o
o
o