HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-11-01 Town Council Minutes{: MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
1 NOVEMBER, 1977
0
The regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Vail, Colorado was convened
at 7:45 P.M. on Tuesday, November 1, 1977, in the Vail Municipal Building Council
Chambers.
Mayor John Dobson and the following,councilmembers were present:
Josef Staufer
Rodney Slifer
William Heimbach
Robert Ruder
William Wilto
John Donovan
Others present included:
Stanley F. Bernstein, Assistant Town Manager
Lawrence Rider, Town Attorney
ORDINANCE NO. 29, Series of 1977, rezoning a portion of Vail Run from RC to SDD5 was
introduced on first reading, having been continued from the October 18, 1977 meeting
of the Council. Councilman Heimbach moved�to continue the first reading of the
ordinance for 30 days, until the December 5, 1977 council meeting. Councilman
Donovan seconded the motion, all present voted in favor; and the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 27, Series of 1977, regarding short>term tax anticipation notes, was
introduced on second reading. Councilman Wilto moved to approve the ordinance on
second reading; Councilman Ruder seconded the motion; all present voted in favor
and the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 28, Series of 1977, amending and subdividing SDD4, Glen Lyon, was in-
troduced on second reading. There was no discussion and CounciTman o van moved - to
approve the ordinance on second reading; Councilman Slifer seconded the motion; all
present voted in favor and the motion carried.
ORDINANCE NO. 30, Series of 1977, amending Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code and re-
zoning certain parcels within the Town of Vail in accordance with Growth Management
recommendations, was introduced on first reading by Mayor Dobson. The Mayor then
introduced Town Attorney, Lawrence Rider who explained the legal aspects and the process
of the Ordinance. Allen Gerstenberger, Director of Community Development for the Town
of Vail, was then introduced. '-He outTinei the agenda for the following presentation
AWand explained the background which led to the development of the ordinance now under
consideration. He traced the history to the formation of the Town of Vail Goals
Committees and the results of their work, then followed by the staff working to collect
data and information with the help of Briscoe, Maphis and Lamont; a consulting firm from
Boulder, Colorado; along with assistance from Royston, Hanamoto, Beck & Abey; a con-
sulting firm from Mill Valley, California, for a period of two years. Then, working
with the Planning Commission and the subsequent formation of the Citizens Committee on
Growth Management, through bi-weekly meetings for a period of 6 months, reports were
submitted by subcommittees of the Citizens Committee to the Planning Commission, forming
the basis and serving as an impetus for the current plan. He then introduced Dick
Elias, Chairman of the Citizens Committee on Growth Management who outlined the details
of the process and results of the committee's work and added that he felt the committee
and its sub -committees represented a responsible cross-section of the valley wide interests.
He further stated that the committee was not a no -growth committee and that he believed
the recommendations made were "middle of the road" recommendations. He commended the
committee and the staff for their work.
Allen Gerstenberger then summarized the issues of the committee's report, stating that
the committee was striving for equity for all property owners and reminded the persons
present that the process is an ongoing one, designed to manage growth as opposed to
controlling growth. Town Attorney Larry Rider points out, for the record, that the full
report has been reviewed by the council and that copies have been made available to the
public.
Zoning Administrator, Diana Toughill, then defined the technical aspects of the
definitions contained in the report and gave a brief background of the process taken
to determine the recommendations which were being made . Ed Drager, Chairman of the Vail
Planning Commission was introduced. He outlined the process of the Planning Commission
and restated the approval of the Planning Commission for the Growth Management project.
Minutes/Regular Meeting
1 November, 1977
` Page Two
• He reinterated that the Planning Commission had recently passed Resolution #1 of
the Vail Planning Commission which incoorporates the report of the Citizen's
Committee on Growth Management. He pointed out that the vote of the Planning
Commission on the Resolution was unanimous for the recommendations which were
being presented here tonight. Resolution # 1 was presented to the council as
the official document representing the Planning Commissions recommendations.
Mayor Dobson then invited citizen comment. Mr. Bob Byrd, a member of the Citizen's
Committee pointed out that the plan was based on factors now known and asks that
the committee monitor the plan and review the situation on a yearly basis or he
fears that the plan might fail. He recommended that a review committee be
implemented as soon as possible.
Mr. -Bill .Luke _asked that the Town of Vail not approve the plan. He stated that he felt
that the plan was arbritrary; 'and cited several general objections to implementation
of the plan based on inequities.
Mr. Lou Parker, a member of the Citizen's Committee, reinterates that the sub -committee
on which he served has asked for a lower maximum population figure than the one which
appears in the report, and points out that the existing figure was unanimously approved
as a maximum recommended figure.
Councilman Heimbach stated that he has been concerned with Section # 2 of the Ordninance,
and asked Diana Toughill to clarify the Primary/Secondary Zoning classification. Ms.
Toughill then explained, using a valley -wide map, specitic�hat areas were to be zoned.
Councilman Heimbach again states concern over the apparent ability to tell anyone what
can be built on private land, and further states that he will vote against Section # 2
of the Ordinance. Mr. Ron Todd, a member of the Vail Planning Commission, clarifies
the intent of Section #2, stating that the zoning is based on per -cent of GRFA. Mr.
Dudley Abbott, a member of the Vail Planning Commission, responds in an attempt to
clarify the section in question by stating that one of the goals of the section is
to lower the frequency of large mirror -image duplexes. Councilman Heimbach stated that
he did not wish to belabor the point but that he still is opposed to the section.
✓ Mr. Bill Shephard, a homeowner on Forest Road, stated that he understands the problems
facing the Town of Vail, but that he was concerned over loan values, and feels that the
zoning had been arbritrary in that it did not include all areas of duplexes. He stated
that he felt that owners of existing buildings were being unduly penalized and requests
that a grandfather clause be incorporated into the ordinance for existing buildings in
an area to be down zoned.
Mayor Dobson expresses concerns also over some elements of the Ordinance. Ms. Toughill
and Mr. Todd made a brief explanation in an attempt to clarify the intent of the
ordinance and specifically Section #2. A brief discussion between members of the
council and the audience then took place concerning the question of replacement of any
buildings which might be destroyed and effects of the proposed new zoning on rebuilding.
Mr. Luke asked for comments in response to his earlier comments. A brief discussion
took place between council members and Mr. Luke relative to possible changes in
character in some neighborhoods as a result of the proposals in the ordinance and Mr.
Luke stated that he has great concern over what he perceives to be a different set of
rules for upcomming developments as opposed to those governing previous developments.
Councilman Staufer points out that rules do change. Mr. Luke further questions the Town's
right to zone use of land but not population. Councilman Slifer answers by pointing out
that courts and state statutes have upheld density controls. Town Attorney Larry Rider
stated that this ordinance and the process for its implementation are designed to
correct deficiencies in the original zoning ordinance and that compact neighborhoods
were a goal of the new regulations rather than having patchwork zoning.
At this point in the meeting, Ms. Toughill began a parcel by parcel explanation of the
proposed changes, beginning with The Racquet Club and continuing to the last parcel
listed in the Planning Commission memorandum of report which is attached and made a part
of these minutes.
Members of the audience speaking on behalf of property owners who were opposed to the
4,changes being discussed were:
Attorney Dick Hart spoke on behalf of the owners of Parcel 4, (Jackson, Cook & Zablinsky)
stating that the owners felt they were not being treated fairly in the progression of
zoning up the valley.
Attorney Jay Peterson spoke for the owners of Parcel # 6, Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato
.Minutes/Regular Meeting
1 November, 1977
Page Three
Patch and Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch; stating that the owners had suggested
a compromise. Roger Tilkemeier commended the owners for volunteering a down zoning
compromise and expressed a hope that Parcel C in Potato Patch could reamin open space.
He further stated that the covenants at this time call for Tract C to be recreation
space or open space. Diana Toughill and Larry Rider state that future plans do call
for that parcel to be dedicated to the Town of Vail.
Regarding Parcel # 9, Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition, Ms.
Toughill explained the proposed rezoning. Mayor Dobson asked for any further comments
from the owner, Mr. Bill Luke. Mr. Luke declined any further comment stating that he
does so on the advise of counsel.
Mr. Abe Shapiro spoke on behalf of his interest in the proposed zoning of Parcel # 10,
Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filing, stating that he has proposed a compromise
and explained the elements of his proposal, reminding the council that the planning
commission had recommended approval of the compromise.
e'Eusw PER Ron Lustick sopke on behalf of the owners of Parcel # 17, Lot 7, Block B,
Lionsridge Filing No. 1, stating his case for retaining the existing zoning and that
the owners of the lot feel that if Lot # 8 can retain the LDMF zoning, then Lot # 11
should be allowed to do so also.
iRegarding Parcel # 12, Ms. Toughill explained the zoning and the topography of the Lot
and read a letter of protest from the owners of Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition.
Regarding Parcels # 15 through 21, Ms. Toughill.explained that all parcels in this
group were to be changed from two-family residential to primary/secondary residential
district. She read letter of protest from Fred Lazarus (Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village
1st Filing); and a lettero agreement with proposed zoning from John Tyler, the
owner of a 3rd filing lot. She read a letter of protest from Col. Edward M. Brown,
Lot 9, Blk 5, Bighorn Subdivision 5th addition, requesting additional information and
objecting to the down zoning. Joanna Peterson was present to speak on behalf of the
owners of Lot 2, Vail Village 7th Filing (Crawford House) objecting to the proposed
downzoning and presented a request for possible consideration of variance since
the owners had wanted to build an additional building next door. Councilman Slifer
and Mayor Dobson agreed in stating that perhaps design or variances could solve the
the problem.
A brief discussion followed Mr. Shapiro's request for another clarification of the
meaning and purpose of the Primary/Secondary Zoning District. Mr. Lou Parker requests
that all of the llth filing be placed under the primary/secondary district. Following
some discussion, Councilmen Wilto and Slifer stated that the llth filing probably could
not be added to this proposal by the council. Mr. Parker disagreed.
Mr. William Sheppard, owner of Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing spoke on his own
behalf in oposition of the proposed zoning of his property.
Mayor Dobson questioned how far zoning could be used to accomplish other goals.
Councilman Donovan stated that these are selected parcels to be rezoned in an effort to
preserve developing neighborhoods. Councilman Staufer stated that protection of a
developing neighborhood can only be done by zoning. Mr. Shapiro asked for a clarification
of the use of the word "density". A brief discussion followed. Councilman Staufer
stated that basically the goal of this plan was to preserve the quality experience and
that it can only be preserved through restriction of zoning for densities. Lou Parker
questions the ratio of primary/secondary.district zoning to straight residential zoning.
Ms. Toughill explained that they were the same.
Town Attorney Larry Rider recommended to the council that the public hearing portion of
the meeting be closed and that the ordinance under discussion be taken section by section
and any changes to be made be done by motion of the council.
Councilman Heimbach moved to remove Section #2 from the ordinance. Mayor Dobson Seconded
the motion; Councilman Heimbach and Mayor Dobson voted in favor and all others present
C voted against the motion. The motion failed.
40'
Town Attorney Larry Rider explained that some elements of section #2 had been inadvert-
ently been ommitted from the copies of Ordinance #30 and he explained those additions.
Councilman Wilto moved to approve and include those sections left out. Councilman Staufer
seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Minutes/regular meeting
1 November, 1977
page four
Sections of the ordinance were explained briefly to the council by Larry Rider.
Following the planning commission memo, each parcel proposed for down -zoning
was then considered and voted upon individually: No motion was necessary for parcel
Councilman Wilto moved that parcel #2 remain LDMF. Councilman Ruder seconded the motion;
all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Heimbach moved to approve the proposed changes in zoning for parcel #3.
Councilman Donovan seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion
carried.
Councilman Heimback moved to retain LDMF for parcel # 4; Councilman Staufer seconded;
all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wilto moved to approve the proposed rezoning for parcel #5; Councilman
Heimbach seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Heimbach moved to approve the compromise proposal that the owner's interest in
Tract:G be deeded to the Town.of Vail. ICouncilman Ruder seconded the motion;
Councilman Donovan voted against the motion; all others present voted in favor; and
the motion carried. Parcel # 6 was the parcel voted upon.
Councilman Ruder moved to approve the proposed rezoning of parcel #7. Councilman Wilto
seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wilto moved to retain the LDMF zoning for parcel # 8. Councilman Heimbach
seconded the motion ; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Ruder moved to rezone parcel #9 as proposed; Councilman Donovan seconded the
motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Heimbach moved to accept the compromise proposed for parcel # 10. Councilman
Wilto seconded the motion; Councilmen Staufer, Slifer, Wilto and Heimbach voted in
favor of the motion; Councilmen Donovan and Ruder voted against the motion; the motion
carried.
Councilman Wilto moved to leave parcel # 11 as LDMF. The motion was seconded by Councilman
Heimbach. Councilmen Staufer, Donovan, Heimbach and Wilto voted in favor of the motion;
Councilman Ruder voted against the motion; The motion carried.
Councilman Ruder moved to rezone parcel # 12 as recommended. Councilman Staufer
• seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wilto moved to rezone parcel # 13 as recommended; Councilman Ruder seconded
the motion; all present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Ruder moved to accpt the proposed rezoning of parcel #14. Councilman Heimbach
seconded the motion. All present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Slifer moved to accept the proposed zoning for parcels # 15 though 21. Council-
man Donovan seconded the motion. Councilman Heimbach voted against the motion. All others
present voted in favor and the motion carried.
Councilman Wilto moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 1977, with the amendments made__
by the Council, on first reading. Councilman Donovan seconded the motion. All present
votedn fd,vor, except Councilman Heimbach who again expressed his opposition of Section
#2 of the ordinance. The motion carried.
0!
i Resllution #20, Series of 1977 was introduced by Mayor Dobson. Councilman Wilto moved
to approve Resolution #20; Councilman Donovan seconded the motion; all present voted
in favor and the Resolution was approved ty the Council. Resolution #20 sets forth
the upcoming week as Water Conservation Week in Vail.
Mayor Dobson then turned the meeting to the presentations and other matters. Pepi
Gramshammer officially requested the withdrawal of a parking variance for 9 cars for the
Vail Athletic Club. It was so noted for the record.
Mayor John Dobson then requested a roll call vote for the appointment of two members to
Minutes/regular meeting
1 November, 1977
page five
serve on the Sign Review Committee of the Design Review Board. The applicants were:
OP Toni Berns; Fred Distelhorst; and Gail Strauch.
Fred Distelhorst and Toni Berns were elected to serve on the Sign Review Committee of
the Design Review Board.
Mayor Dobson then read the names of those persons to be appointed clerks and judges
for the upcoming Council election on November 22, 1977. All persons were appointed
to the positions. A listing of those persons is attached, and made a part hereto,
of these minutes.
Councilman Donovan moved to adjourn the meeting, there being no further business for
the Council to consider. Councilman Ruder seconded the motion; all present voted in
favor and the meeting was adjourned at 11:15 pm.
•
ATTEST:
LI
.: 1'QVEMBER 22, 1977
RZGULAR ELECTION
clerks and judges
JUDGES, PRECINCT # 12
LYNN LANGMAID
CINDY MOWRY
i TONI BERNS
CLERKS PRECINCT # 12
1
j DIANNE HAGEN
4
a CHRISTA ELIAS
JUDGES, PRECINCT # 13
KATHY ROSSI
DEBBIE SCOTT
NORMA I. FREY
CLERKS, PRECINCT # 13
DOROTHY BACHRACH
JACKI' PYKA
ALTERNATES
BARBARA LOKEN
JOANNE TILKEMEIER
GWEN OPPENHEIM
R
MEMORANDUM
• TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION/DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 1, 1977
RE: RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS AND DOWN ZONING.
The following is a summary of the Planning Commission meeting of September
29, 1977 and recommendations of the Commission to the Council.
Resolution No. 1 of the Vail Planning Commission was approved which adopted
Phase I of the Comprehensive Plan and by reference the maps and all documents
to which the maps refer, as well as recognizing the Report and Recommendations
of the Growth Management subcommittee.
. The Planning Commission then unanimously approved the Zoning Amendments
outlined in the attached memorandum.
Each parcel proposed for down -zoning was then considered individually:
1. Racquet Club (13 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: Reduction of units.
Maximum units current zoning - 390 units, County approval 360 units
Maximum units proposed - 247 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Maintain MDMF with 247 units
total maximum.
Walter Kirch proposed to the Planning Commission that they consider his
remaining undeveloped land and a proportional share of the land used for
recreational amenities at the proposed MDMF maximum of 18 units per acre
or a maximum of 247 units. This represents a 30% down -zoning for the balance
of the proposed project. All members were in favor with the exception of Mills.
2. Vail Investment Properties (6.4 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 76 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 57 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Craig Folson was present to object to reduction in density (letter attached).
The Planning Commission voted 5 for and Ron Todd opposed to the rezoning.
• 3.' Gore Ran II (7.971 acres, approximately 6 acres buildable)
',Proposediezoning: LDMF with 60 units maximum to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 60 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 54 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units
Page 2
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning.
0
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Bob Warner, representing the owners, notified me to inform the Planning
Commission that he has withdrawn his employee housing proposal and that they
could proceed with the down -zoning to RC. Planning Commission voted unanimously'
to rezone the parcel.
4. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsky (3.0 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 36 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 27 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 18 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Cass Zabinsky was present to protest the proposed rezoning. After a lengthy
discussion, all of the Planning Commission except Ed Drager voted to reduce the density
to RC. Mr. Zabinsky later requested that the Planning Commission reconsider their
vote in light of their decision on the Weisen parcel; the motion was defeated
Or unanimously.
5. Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Bigqhorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (.255 and .419 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 8 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 6 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 4 units
Planning Commission recommendatin - Retain LDMF
Erika McCall was present representing Vail East Lodging. She pointed out
that Vail East had already voluntarily down -zoned two of their parcels to
agricultural and would like to retain the possibility of developing five or six
units on the subject property. The Planning Commission voted to retain the LDMF
zoning with Sandy Mills opposing the motion.
6. Lot 6, Block 2, Vail/Potato Patch (3.91 acres)
Lot 34, Block 1, Vail/Potato Patch (.997 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: MDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot 6 - 117, Lot 34 - 29
Maximum units amended MDMF - Lot 6 - 70, Lot 34 - 17
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 6 - 23, Lot 34 - 5
Maximum units proposed compromise- Lot 6 - MDMF 0 units maximum.;
• Lot 34 - MDM� units maximum
Planning Commission recommendation - accept compromise
0
Page 3
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning.
Jay Peterson was present representing the owner, John Hall. He requested
the Planning Commission to retain the MDMF Zoning which permits .35 GRFA as
opposed to RC at .25 GRFA and limit the unit maximum to 30 units on Lot 6 and 8
units on Lot 34 to allow large luxury units. Peterson further proposed that Hall
would be willing to quit -claim to the Town of Vail his right to develop recreational
amenities and a tramway on Tract C (adjacent to Sandstone Tot Lot). White, Abbott,
Drager and Todd voted in favor of the compromise with Hanlon and Mills voting
against.
7. Belinda Ward Weisen (1.5 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 18 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 13 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 9 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Retain LDMF
Ms. Weisen was represented by Jay Peterson who requested the property remain
at LDMF since it is located between the Racquet Club and Timberfalls. Mills made
a motion for rezoning to RC which was seconded by Hanlon; Todd, Drager, and Abbott
• voted against; motion for rezoning failed.
8. Lot 7, Block A. Lionsridqe Filing No. l (1.234 acres)
Proposed rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 14 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 11 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 7 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Retain LDMF
Gary Flanders, representing the new owners, was present to protest the proposed
reduction in density and to request the property remain LDMF because of its location
directly adjacent to Homestake. Planning Commission voted unanimously to retain the
LDMF zoning.
9. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 1 - .800 acres,
Lot 2 .937 acres, Lot 3 - .732 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot l - 9 units, Lot 2 - 11 units, Lot 3 - 8 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot 1 - 7 units, Lot 2 - 8 units, Lot 3 - 6 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 1 - 4 units, Lot 2 - 5 units, Lot 3 - 4 uni
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
�+ Lot 1 is owned by Jakob who has submitted no written protest. Mr. Bill Luke
. who owns Lots 2 and 3 called in a protest at 6:00 P.M. the day of the meeting. Our
staff has since met with his attorney. Planning Commission voted unanimously to
down -zone all the lots to RC.
Page 4
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning
10. Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Village 13th Filinq_(2.891 acres, 2.43 acres buildable)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 34 less hazard = 29 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 26 less hazard = 21 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 17 less hazard = 14 units
Maximum units proposed compromise - LDMF/16 unit maximum
Planning Commission recommendation - accept compromise
Abe Shapiro, the owner of Lot 26, appeared before the Planning Commission to
present his proposed compromise, whidh is a 55% down -zoning. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend the compromise of retaining LDMF with a 16 unit
maximum.
11. Lot 7, Block B.Lionsridye Filing No. 1 (1.541 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 18 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 13 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning 9 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
• LRB submitted a site plan showing 18 units prior to the hearing which -was
disapproved due to lack of required drawings for zoning approval. On October 26,
another set of drawings was submitted for zoning approval. These contained
sufficient detail for preliminary zoning approval; however, these were disapproved
because GRFA was in excess of allowable and insufficient separation between buildings
was provided. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone from LDMF to RC.
12. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1 Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 3 - .442
acres, Lot 4 - .442 acres, Lt 5 - .497 acres, Lot 6 - .702 acres,
Lot 7 - .822 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot 3 - 5 units, Lot 4 = 5 units, Lot 5 - 5 units
Lot 6 - 8 units, Lot 7 - 9 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot 3 - 3 units, Lot 4 - 3 units, Lot 5 - 4 units
Lot 6 - 6 units, Lot 7 - 7 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 3 - 2 units, Lot 4 - 2 units,
Lot 5 - 2 units, Lot 6 - 4 units,
Lot 7 - 4 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Lots 3, 4 and 5 are owned by Everling from whom no protest was received. Dr.
Bruni, the owner of Lots 6 and 7 phoned in a protest after the Planning Commission
. hearing and has. now submitted a written protest to the Council (copy attached).
Planning Commission voted unanimously. on. all lots to rezone to RC.
0
Page 5
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
: Amendments and Down Zoning
• 13. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 1 - .526 acres,
Lot 2 - .430 acres, Lot 3 - .430 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot 1 - 6 units, Lot 2 - 5 units,
Lot 3 - 5 units,
Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot 1 - 4 units, Lot 2 - 3 units, Lot 3 - 3 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 1 - 3 units, Lot 2 - 2 units,
Lot 3 - 2 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Lots 1 and 2 are owned by Kidder and Lot 3 by Simpson neither of whom protested
the down -zoning. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the Lots from
LDMF to RC.
14. World Savings and Loan (6.733)
Proposed Rezoning: MDMF/with 97 unit maximum to LDMF
Maximum units current zoning - 97 units
Maximum units amended MDMF - 97 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 60 units
• Planning Commission recommendation - To LDMF
Walter Kirch, who has exercised an option on the subject property, indicated
• that the proposed rezoning appears to work with his plans for the parcel. The
. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the land from LDMF to RC.
Lots currently zoned for Two -Family Residential (duplex) are proposed for
rezoning to the new Zone District Primary/Secondary Residential. These are listed
below by neighborhood:
15. New Pulis Subdivision - Lots 1-21,.Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
These lots already have a covenant identical to the proposed rezoning.
16. Mill Creek Circle - Lots 1-19, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing.
A written protest was filed by Fred Lazarus III, who owns Lot 1.
17. Beaver Dam, Forest and Rockledge Road - Lots 1-41, Block 7, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Lots 1-6, Block 1; Lots 1-10, Block 2; Lots 1-6, Block 3; Lots 1-5, Block 4;
Vail Village 3rd Filing.
There were no protests from property owners in this neighborhood.
18. Lower Forest Road - Lots 1-15, Block 1; Lots 1-8, Block 2; Vail Village
6th Filing.
. A written protest was filed by William P. Sheppard, the owner of Lot 4, Block 1
on which is constructed a presently non -conforming duplex.
19. Golf Course Area - Lots 1-4, Block 4; Lots 1-6, Block 5; Lots 1-14, Block 6;
Lots 1-3, Block 7; Lots 1-4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing.
. Lots 1-10, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing -
No protests were received from this area.
Page 6
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
s Amendments and Down Zoning
n
l_J
20. Potato Patch - Lots 1-33, Block 1; Lots 2-5, Block 2; Lots 10-12,
a Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail/Potato Patch.
Lots 1-7, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing, a Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2,
Vail/Potato Patch.
Property owners did not object to proposed rezoning.
21. Bighorn - Lots 1-16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition.
Lots -6, Borwick Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition. Lots 1-8, Block 4; Lots 1-19, Block 5; Lots 1-4,
Block 6; Lots 1-20, Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition.
No protests were received from owners in Bighorn Second Addition. The
Borwick Subdivision was approved with covenants similar to the proposed
new Zone. One written protest was received from Colonel Browne who owns
Lot 9, Block 5, in the 5th Addition.
Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of each lot
enumerated in Items 15-21 from Two -Family Residential to Primary/Secondary
Residential.
Total density reduction as outlined
in Growth Management Subcommittee report -
Total density reduction as recommended
by the Planning Commission -
447 units
440 units
There is no "scientific" way of calculating the population reduction for the
Primary/Secondary rezoning, but we are confident that it will have a positive effect
due to the smaller size of the second allowable unit.
00-
is
RESOLUTION NO. 1,.1977
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING CERTAIN RAPS AND REPORTS AS
PHASE 1 OF THE TOWN OF VAIL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
JI
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission..has the duty and I
authority to adopt a Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Vail;
and, i.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has made a careful study '
i
of the present conditions and future growth of the Town, with
Y
t
due regard for its relation to the rest of the Gore Valley and
Eagle County; and,
d
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing was held before the Planning ?
Commission on September 29, 1977 after Public Notice thereof; z
and,
'•y
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the o
g pinion that
Phase l of the Comprehensive Plan should be adopted and would
12
so recommend to the Town Council:
NOW, THEREFORE, HE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
}
Section 1. Purpose. The Comprehensive Plan has been prepared
ey
with the general purpose to guide and direct a coordinated, adjusted
and harmonious development of the Town of Vail in accordance with
its present and -,future needs; to promote the health, safety, morals,
I
order,,,convenience, property, and general welfare of the residents,
including,.among other things, adequate provision for air and;
^"
water quality and safety from hazards such as fire, flood,
avalanche and landslide; to provide adequate water, recreational
opportunities, light and air; to promote healthful and convenient
M f
distribution of population; to promote good civic design and
"r
arrangement,_wise and efficient expenditures of public funds, and
the adequate provision of public utilities, service and other
i
public requirements.
Section 2. Approval of Repiirtrl The Planning Commission
•,
r
hereby receives and;.approves of the following studies and reports
+
relating to Phase 1 of the Town of Vail Comprehensive Pian:
f,
A. Flood Plain
1,
Gore Creek Flood Plain Information; Hydro-Traid,
Ltd.; June,1975.
2.
Gore Creek 500 Year, Recurrance Interval Flood
Plain; Hydro•-Traid, Ltd.; November; 1976.
B. Avalanche]
1.
B.A.C.'Avalanche Study; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro-
Triad, Ltd.; September, 1975.
2.
Vail Meadows Avalanche Dynamics Study; McDowell,
Scott & Cox, Inc.; June 10, 1976,
3.
Vail Meadows Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro -
Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977.
4.
"Vail Racquet Club Avalanche Defense; Arthur Mears,
McDowell, Scott & Cox, Inc.; September 17, 1976.
5.
Clubhouse Gulch Avalanche; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro-
.
Triad, Ltd.; April, 1977. .
S.
Avalanche Impact Parameters, Silver State Unit,
KAC Development; Ronald L. Halley, Hydro-Traid,
Ltd.; April, 1976.
7.
Evaluation of the Snow .valance Hazard'in the Valley
of Gore Creek, Eagle County; Colorado; Institute
of Arctic and AlpineResearch; 1973.
8.
Snow Avalanche Hazards of the Vail Area, Eagle County.,
Colorado; The Colorado Geological Survey; November 19,
1975.
9.
Snow Avalanche Hazard Study, Shapiro Property, Bighorn
i
Subdivision, Vail, Colorado; Mc!)owell, Smith &
Associates; July 22, 1975.
10.
Avalanche Dynamics and Defenses on the.Shapiro Property;
Vail, Colorado; Arthur ;.tears and McDowell, Smith
& Associates; January, 1976.
i
11.
Old Muddy and Path 5 Avalanche Study; Arthur Mears;
May, 1976.
12.
Timberfalls Avalanche, Vail, Colorado;,Whitney M.
i
Borland; July 27, 1973.
{
13.
An Avalanche Defense Work Study for the Timber Falls
Corporation; Hans Frutiger,; September 20, 1973.
14.
Avalanche and %fudflow Hazards on Tenth Filing and
Katsos Ranch Properties, Gore Creek Valley, Colorado;'
MSC. Inc.; September, 1974.
15.
Avalanche and Mudf'ow Defense Tenth Filing and Katsos
Ranch; McDowell, Smith & Associates and Arthur Mears;
February 10, 1975.
16.
Avalanche Dynamics of the -Bighorn Path, Vail,
Colorado, a Study to Determine the Avalanche Hazard
to Lot 16, Bighorn Subdivision; Arthur Mears; January,
1977. -.... .
C. Geologic- - Rapid }[ass Wasting
1.
Rapid blase Wasting Processes, Vail, -Colorado; Arthur
Mears; April, 1977. . --
2.
Appendix to Bedrock Geologic Map; Colorado Geologic
_Survey; October 23, 1975.
.D. Hillsides and Slope ---
1.
Performance Controls for Sensitive. Lands; American
Society of Planning Officials.
.Section 3. 'Phase 1. Comprehensive Maps. Tlie-Planning
Commission
hereby adopts the following maps and:'other descriptive'
material -as
Phase I:of the Town o:f Vail Comprehensive Plan:
A.. Comprehensive maps (East, Middle and West Sections) -,
1. Avalanche (East and Ifiddle Sections only)
2., Geologic - Rapid. Mass Wasting
3. Flood - 100 year
4. Slope Anaylsis
5. Vegetation/Wildlife
6. Environmental Constraints ('
7. Existing Land Use
S. Open Spade/Recreation
_
9. Transportation !
10. Utilities
11. Zoning (Previously adopted by Ordinance No. 8,
Series of 1973)
B. Growth Management Study
1. Report and Recommendations of Growth Management
Sub -Committee on Control Techniques; May 23, 1977. j
2. Growth Management for the Gore Valley; tl
January 31, 1977.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ON THE 29th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1977.
TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
=
Edmund H. Drager, Jr., Chairperson
— i
ATTEST: e
}�
Town Clerk
i
N
j
1
1
t
•
i
•
MEMO
TO: Terrell J. Minger/Town Council
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: 30 August 1977
RE: Summary of Zoning Amendments to Implement
Growth Management
The recommendations of the Citzens Growth Management
Committee have been translated into (1) amendments to the
Zoning Ordinance, and (2) downzoning of specific parcels.
This Memo summarizes the proposed amendments and
downzoning for your .preliminary review.
The Planning Commission has reviewed these recommend-
ations. A Public Hearing has been advertised for Thursday,
September 15.
A.-- GROWTH IIANAGEMENT ' ZONING AMENDMENTS:
1. Add to the definition of "Accommodation.units"
....the phrase, "Each accommodation unit shall be
counted as one-half (z) of a dwelling unit for
purposes of calculating allowable units per acre".
(Art. 1.600)
2. Create a "Two-family Primary/Secondary Residential"
Zone. (A copy of the proposed Zone is attached)
The. major paints will be:
a. One unit is a larger primary residence
and the second is a smaller "caretaker
apartment".
'b. Minimum lot or site area will be 15,000
square feet.
c. If the structure is a duplex, one of the
units shall not exceed one-third (1/3)
of the allowable gross residential
floor area (GRFA).
3. Two-famil residential.: Propose increasing minimum
lot area Trom 15,000 square feet to 1.7,500 square
feet. (Art. 3.501).
J:
A.
Page 2 1
Summary of Zoning Amendment to Implement ,
Growth•'Management August 30, 1977
1
4. Low -density Multiple Family: Propose reducing
density from present 12 dwelling units per
acre to 9 dwelling units per acre. (Art. 4.100).
5. Mediuin density Multiple Family: Propose reducing
density from present range of 15-30 dwelling
units per acre to maximum of 18 dwelling units
per acre. (Art. 5.100).
6. High density Multiple Familyf-Propose reducing
density from present range of 25-50 dwelling
units per acre to maximum of 25 dwelling units
per acre. (Art. 6.100). :
7. Public Accommodations: Add a maximum density of
25 dwelling units per acre. :P.A. Zone -now has
no maximum density except GRFA. (Art. 7.100).
8—Commercial Core 1 planning Commissions sub-
committee has deadline of September 25th for
-•=making-recommendations to. Council-.
9.- Commercial Core 2: Add•"Horizontal Zoning"
and sets a maximum density of 25 dwelling
units per acre. (Art. 9,100 and 9.-300).
10. Commercial Service Center: Sets the mximum
density.at 18•dwelling units per acre.' -.-CSC
Zone now has no maximum density. (Art. 10.605).
11. Special Development Districts-:-:-
a. ighorn Juntion (SDD3):_T17e current
�i. a_1owable density is_15.28 dwelling
UC. ti units�per.acre maximum which falls,
into' theePMF range. Proposal is to
i; reduce this ensity to the current
_ LDNIF..stab dard`of 12 dwelling units .
v� �' r' por.acre; all oth r comparable:..-
properties are also. eing downzoned
-approximately the sam ercentage'.
�. ,; 7.
a
Page 3
Summary of Zoning Amendment.to Implement
Growth Management August 30, 1977
The following chart indicates allowable and
proposed new densities.within SDD3:
etxeY,t��Dsin vti .i'
prvteyar.t p!rrinD...t bf^ly•ay �'
lt:.p.r
kr.
i..jtrnD re,a• ax xt d n
Dio(pe...... -
'i Dae .er. la !a 14 13.0 ...
Out general recommendation has been o,-not reduce >
GRFA; however, we believe this SDD warrants another-3,00k as
the allowable GRFA in development area.B is .50 which is ,very
clos /to 11DMF. The GRFA for areas A & C is .35 which does not
po/s.7a particular problem. _
b. Vail Village Inh (SDD6) - The allowable
density 'is in she with proposed, reductions. .
7
c. The Mark (SDD7) - The allowable density
is approximly 5 units per acre-in�xcess
.of the proposed reduction. At 'time the.
f Mark was being c sidered, thb propos-ed
ratio for calculating Aa sity was 21
accommodation units,.-f'or each dwelling unit,.
f this has now bepiedu"eed to 2 which creates r r
the excess. is is on project which must
be consi red separately is it worth
allow' g approximately 21 excess units
to et a much need Town Convention facility
private expense?
B. PROPOSED DOWNZONING OF SPECIFIC PARCELS
A number -of parcels have been selected to be
downzoned. The following chart and map -locate the parcels
and give information about each:
'PARCELS
PROPOSED
TO BE REZONED
OSfiNBR`OF
AREA
CURRENT
UNITS
PROPOSED
MAXIMUM
HAZARD**
NET
LEGAL
ZONE
ZONE
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
1. Amen/Wolinsky
6.733
MD?JF w/97
97
LDMF
60
6
54,.
acres
units max.'
2. Gore Range
7.971
LDMF w[60
.60 :;
;:;RC,
47
9
38
units max:
3. J'ackson,Cook,
:.
Zabinsky
3.0
LDMF
36
'RC
18
3
1.5
4. Timberfalls
Voluntary
downzoni.ng
proposed
5. Vail. Investment
Properties
6.4
LDMF
76
RC..
38
0
38
6. Ward
1.5
LDMF
18
RC
9
2
7
7.*Racquet Club
13.0
MDMF
283
MDMF
234*
0
234*
(county
approval);
8. Lots 3,4,5,6, &
7, Blk 1, Bighorn
3rd 2.905 LDMF
32
RC
16
b
16
9. Lots 1,2,3, Blk
3, Bighorn 3rd 2.465 LDMF
28
Rc
14
1
13
10. Lots 1,2,3, Blk
7, Bighorn 3rd 1.386 LDMF
16
RC'
8
0
8
11. Lots 2,3,B1k 8
Bighorn 3rd .674 LDMF
8
RC
4
4
* 128 existing units, 45 units under construction = 173.or
approximately 13.3
units .per
acre which is in
excess of current LDMF standards. Negotiations
should be
undertaken
with the
owner to
voluntarily reduce
density as much as possible. Walter Kirch has
stated that
he would
be willing
to reduce
additional units
by 30e or from 110 approximately to 77 additional units which
would
total 250
units - our
suggestion is
that reduction be to 18 units per acre.
**"Hazard unidwased on new maximumnumber of
Der acre..
y
PARCELS
PROPOSED TO
BE REZONED
CONTINUED
OW',ER OR
AREA
CURRENT
UNITS
PROPOSED
MAXIMUM
HAZARD**
NEW
LEGAL
ZONE
ZONE
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
12.
Lot. B-7, Lions -
ridge 1st
1.541
LDMF
18
RC
9
9
13.
Lot A-7, Lions-
ridge.lst
1.234
MDMF
14
RC
7
3
4.
14.
Lot,6, Blk.2,,
Potato Patch
3.91
MDMF
60
_L.DMF__
35
0
35
15.
Lot 34, Blk. 1
Potato Patch
.997
MDMF
15
hbmF
9
0
9
/%'
Lni1 K 7-
�y
vuL�lV�tage l��ti�1�.wg
The following lots
are.proposed to be rezoned
two-family
residential
(duplex) to the
new primary/Secondary Zone.
-from
16. Vail Valley 3rd Filing - 21 lots new Pulis subdivision
17. Block 1, Lots 1-19, Vail Village lst Mill Creek Circle
18. Block 7, Lots 1-14, Vail Village 1st- Forest and Beaver Dam Road
19. Vail Village 3rd Filing - 36 lots
20. Vail Village 6th Filing - 23 lots - Lower Forest Road.
21. Vail Village 7th Filing - Blocks 4,5r,,6,7,& 8 - 31 lots- Golf Course
22. Vail Village 8th Filing - 10 lots -- Golf Course
23. Vail Potato Patch - 54 - all residential lots in Potato Patch
24. Bighorn 5th, Blocks 4-7 51 lots - East end of Bighorn
25. Bighorn 2nd - 16 lots -.West end of Bighorn adjoining Katsos
** 'Hazard based on new maximum. number of t'!ffits r acre.
MEMORANDUM
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: PLANNING COMMISSION/DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: NOVE11MER 1, 1977
RE: RECOMiMENDATIONS ON PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS AND DOWN ZONING.
The following is a summary of the Planning Commission meeting of September
29, 1977 and recommendations of the Commission to the Council.
Resolution No. 1 of the Vail Planning Commission was approved which adopted
Phase .I of the Comprehensive Plan and by reference the maps and all documents
to which the maps refer, as well as recognizing the Report and Recommendations
of the Growth Management subcommittee.
The Planning Commission then unanimously approved the Zoning. Amendments
outlined in the attached memorandum.
Each parcel proposed for down -zoning was then considered individually:
1. Racquet Club (13 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: Reduction of units.
Maximum units current zoning - 390 units, County approval 36.0 units
Maximum units proposed - 247 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Maintain MDMF with 247 units
total•maximum.
Walter Kirch proposed to the Planning Commission that they'consider his
remaining undeveloped land and a proportional share of the land used for
recreational amenities at the 'proposed MDMF maximum of 18 units per acre
or a maximum of 247 units. This represents a 30% down -zoning for'the balance
of the proposed project. All members were in favor with the exception of Mills.
2. Vail Inv.estment Properties (6.4 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning -• 76 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 57 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Craig Folsbn was present to object to reduction in density (letter attached).
The Planning Commission voted 5 for and Ron Todd opposed to the rezoning.
3. Gore Rang2,11 t7.971 acres, approximately 6 acres buildable)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF with 60'units maximum to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 60 units
Maximum units amended LDMF -•54 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 38 units
Page 2
Recommendations on proposed Zoning ?
Amendments and Down Zoning.
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Bob Warner, representing the owners, notified me to inform the Planning
Commission that he has withdrawn his.employee housing proposal and that they
could proceed with the dawn -zoning to RC. Planning Commission voted unanimously
to rezone the parcel.
4. Jackson, Cook, Zabinsk� (3.0 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LUM F to RG
Maximum units current zoning - 36 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 27 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 18 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Cass Zabinsky was present to protest the proposed rezoning. After a.lengthy
discussion, all of the Planning Commission except Ed Drager voted to reduce the density
to RC. Mr. Zabinsky later requested that the Planning Commission reconsider their
vote in light of their decision on the Weisen parcel.; the motion was defeated -
iunanimously.
5. Lots 2 and 3, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition•(.255 and .419 acres)
Proposed Rezoning:. LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 8 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 6 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 4 units
Planning Commission recommendatin - Retain LDMF
Erika McCall was present representing Vail East.Lodging. She pointed out
that -Vail East had already voluntarily down -zoned two of their parcels to
agricultural and would like to retain the possibility of developing five or six
units on the subject property. The Planning Commission voted to retain the LDMF
zoning with Sandy Mills opposing the motion.
6. Lot 6, Block 2, Vail%Potato Patch.(3.91 acres)
Lot 34, Block 1, Vail/Potato Patch (.997 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: MUMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot 6. -.117, Lot 34 - 29
Maximum units amended MDMF - Lot 6 - 70, Lot 34 - 17
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 6 - 23, Lot 34 - 5
Maximum units proposed compromise- Lot 6 - 0 MDMF// units maximum.;
OftLot 34 - HDI'l units maximum
Planning Commission recommendation - accept compromise
Page 3
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning.
Jay Peterson was present representingthe owner; John Hall. He requested
the Planning Commission to retain the MDMF Zoning which permits .35 GRFA as
.opposed to RC at .25 GRFA and limit the unit maximum to 30 units on Lot 6 and 8
units on Lot 34 to allow large luxury units. Peterson further proposed that Hall
would be willing to quit -claim to the Town of Vail his right to develop recreational
amenities and a tramti:ay on Tract C (adjacent to Sandstone Tot Lot). White, Abbott,
Drager and Todd voted in favor of the compromise with Hanlon and Mills voting
against.
7. Belinda Ward Weisen (1.5 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 18 units
Maximum !nits amended LDMF - 13 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 9 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Retain LDMF
Ms. Weisen was represented by Jay Peterson who requested the property remain
at LDMF since it is located between the Racquet Club and Timberfalls. Mills made
a motion for rezoning to RC which was seconded by Hanlon; Todd, Drager, and Abbott
voted against; motion for rezoning failed.
8. Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filinq No. 1 (1.234 acres) ,
Proposed rezoning: LDMF.to RC
Maximum units current zoning - 14 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 11 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 7 units'
Planning Commission recommendation - Retain LDMF
Gary F1'an,ders, representing the new owners, -was present to protest the proposed
reduction in density and to request the property remain LDMF because of its location
directly adjacent to Homestake. Planning Commission voted unanimously to retain the
LDMF zoning. -
9. Lots 1, 2, 3, Block 3, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition.(Lot 1 - .800 acres,
Lot 2 - .937 acres, Lot 3 - .732 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot l - 9 units, Lot 2 - 11 units, Lot 3 - 8 units
Maximum units amended LDI - Lot 1 - 7 units, Lot 2 - 8 units, Lot 3 - 6 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 1 - 4 units, Lot 2 - 5 units,.Lot 3 - 4 unit:
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to. RC
Lot 1 is owned by Jakob who has submitted no written protest. Mr. Bill Luke
who owns Lots 2 and 3 called in a protest at 6:00 P.M. the day of the meeting. Our
staff has since met with his attorney. Planning Commission voted unanimously to
down -zone all the lots to RC.
Page 4
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning
10. Lot 26, Block 2, Vail Villaq_}e�, 13th Filing (2.891 acres, 2.43 acres buildable)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF toIC
Maximum units current zoning - 34 less hazard - 29 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 26 less hazard = 21 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 17 less hazard = 14 units
Maximum units proposed compromise - LDMF/16 unit maximum
Planning Commission recommendation - accept compromise
Abe Shapiro, the owner of Lot 26, appeared before the Planning Commission to
present his proposed compromise, which is a 55% down -zoning. The Planning Commission
voted unanimously to recommend the compromise of retaining LDMF with a 16 unit
maximum.
11. Lot 7, Block B,Lionsridgqe Filing No. 1 (1.541 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDIP to RC.
Maximum units current zoning - 18 units
Maximum units amended LDMF - 13 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 9 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
.LRB submitted a site plan showing 18 units prior to the hearing which - was ,
disapproved due to lack of required drawings for zoning approval. On October 26,
another set of drawings was submitted for.zoning approval. These contained
sufficient detail for preliminary zoning approval; however, these were disapproved
because GRFA was in excess of allowable and insufficient separation between buildings
was provided. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone from LDMF to RC.
12. Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, Block 1, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 3 - .442
acres, Lot 4 - .442 acres, Lot 5 - .497 acres, Lot '6 - .702 acres,'
Lot 7 - .822 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot "3 - 5 units, Lot 4 - 5 units,.Lot 5 - 5 units,
Lot 6 8 units, Lot 7 9.units -44
Maximum units amended LDMF Lot 3 - 3 units, Lot 4 - 3 units, Lot`5 - 4 units
Lot 6 - 6 units, Lot 7 - 7 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 3 - 2 units, Lot 4 - 2 units,
Lot 5 - 2 units, Lot 6 - 4 units,
Lot 7 - 4 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Lots 3, 4 and 5 are owned by Everting from whom no protest was received. Dr.
►4 Bruni. the owner of Lots 6 and 7 phoned in a protest after the Planning Commission
h�ig and has. now submitted a written protest to the Council (copy attached).
Planning Commission voted unanimously on.all lots to rezone to RC.
...;, 1
Page 5
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning
• 13. Lots 1, 2 3, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition (Lot 1 - .526 acres,
Lot 2 - .430 acres, Lot 3 - .430 acres)
Proposed Rezoning: LDMF to RC
Maximum units current zoning - Lot 1 - 6 units, Lot 2 - 5 units,
Lot 3 -.5.units,
Maximum units amended LDMF - Lot I - 4 units, Lot 2 - 3 units, Lot 3.- 3 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - Lot 1 - 3 units, Lot 2 - `L units,
Lot 3 - 2 units
Planning Commission recommendation - Rezone to RC
Lots 1 and 2 are owned by Kidder and Lot 3 by Simpson neither of whom protested
the down -zoning. Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the Lots from
LDMF to RC.
14. World Savings and Loun (6.733).
Proposed Rezoning: MDMF/with 97 unit maximum to LDMF
Maximum units current zoning - 97 units
Maximum units amended'MDMF - 97 units
Maximum units proposed rezoning - 60 units
Planning Commission recommendation - To LDMF
Walter Kirch, who has exercised an option on.the subject property, indicated
that the proposed rezoning appears to work with his plans for the parcel. The
Planning Commission voted unanimously to rezone the land from LDMF to RC.
Lots currently zoned for Two -Family Residential (duplex) are proposed for
rezoning to the new zone District Primary/Secondary Residential. These are listed
below by neighborhood:
15. New Pulis Subdivision - Lots 1-21,.Vail Valley 3rd Filing.
These lots already have a covenant identical to the proposed rezoning.
16. Mill Creek Circle - Lots 1-1.9, block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing.
A written protest was filed -by Fred Lazarus III, who owns Lot 1.
17. Beaver Dam, Forest and Rockledge Road - Lots 1-41, Block 7, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Lots 1-6, Block 1; Lots 1-10, Block 2; Lots 1-6, Block 3; Lots 1-5, Block 4;
Vail Village 3rd Filing.
There were no pro.tests.from property owners in this neighborhood.
18. Lower Forest Road - Lots 1-15, Block 1; Lots 1-8, Block 2; Vail Village
6th Filing.
A written protest was filed by William P. Sheppard, the owner of Lot. 4, Block 1
on which is constructed a presently non -conforming duplex.
19. Golf Course Area - Lots 1-4, Block 4; Lots 1-6, Block 5; Lots 1-.14, Block 6;
Lots 1-3, Block 7; Lots 1-4, Block 8; Vail Village 7th Filing.
Lots 1-10,.Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing:
No protests were received from this area.
Page '6
Recommendations on proposed Zoning
Amendments and Down Zoning
20. Potato Patch - Lots 1-33, Block 1; Lots 2-5, Block 2; Lots 10-12,
a Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block 2; Vail/Potato Patch.
Lots 1-7, Vail/Potato Patch Second Filing, a Resubdivision of Lots l and 2,
Vail/Potato Patch.
Property owners did not object to proposed rezoning.
21. Bighorn - Lots 1-16, Bighorn Subdivision Second Addition.
Lots 1-6, Borwick Subdivision, a Resubdivision of Lot 14, Block 4, Bighorn
Subdivision 3rd Addition. Lots 1-8, Block 4; Lots 1-19, Block 5; Lots 1-4,
Block 6; Lots 1-20, Block 7; Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition.
No protests were received from owners in Bighorn Second Addition. The
Borwick Subdivision was approved with covenants similar to the proposed
new Zone. One written protest was received from Colonel Browne who owns
Lot 9, Block 5, in the 5th Addition.
Planning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning of each lot
enumerated in Items 15-21 from Two -Family Residential to Primary/Secondary
Residential..
Total density reduction as outlined
I in Growth Management Subcommittee report - 441 units
Total density reduction as recommended
by the Planning Commission- 440 units
There is no "scientific" way of calculating the population reduction for the
Primary/Secondary rezoning, but we are confident that it will have a positive effect
due to the smaller size of the second allowable unit.
C. CRAIG FOLSON
ATTORNEY AT LAW '
SUITE 7 BO5 -
22007 BRYAN TOWER
DALLA5. TEXAS 75205 -
TELEPHONE
September. 28, 1977
t2141 7ae-197-�s7a
Planning; Commission
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Vail Investment Properties.
6.4 acres - Bighorn
Zoned LDMF
Dear Planning Commission:
I partially own and legally represent all the owners of
_ 6.4 acres in the Bighorn area of Vail which is referred.
to as Vail Investment Properties. n
I 'strongly object to a reduction in densities concerning
this property from LDMF to RC for the following reasons:
1) Economic Hardship
This property was purchased in December, 1973, for
a purchase price of $20,$.,000. When prior ,annual
payments and obligations are added to the principal
balance owing on the property, the new cost in the
property becomes $295,347. With 77 units presently
permitted on this property, the per unit land cost
is present)y $3,837 for the investment to break
even. If the densities are reduced to RC (6.units
per acre) a total of 38 units would be permitted.
This means we must sell the property for $7,772
per unit to break even and not realize any profit.
My studies show the current market price per unit
for comparable land to be $5,000 per unit. If we
sold at $5,000 per unit, we would suffer a $99,792
loss. I would hope the Planning Commission would
consider this undue economic hardship and leave.
present densities in effect.
2) Paving and Road Special Assessment
The owners of the 6.4 acres are currently obligated
to pay the Town of Vail $19,847 as a special assess-
ment for paving and road improvements made in the
Bighorn area in 1976, This assessment was based on
zoning for 77 units and the Town of Vail should honor
the present 77 units just as we intend to honor the
$19,847 obligation. To do otherwise is neither equit-
•
able nor fair.
3)
Intent of Town Council
As a condition to annexation of the Bighorn area,
the Vail Town Council promised "not to cause economic
hardship on a property owner or developer, provided
that the public health, safety or welfare are not
jeopardized." To reduce the density on this property
is to clearly cause undue economic hardship as has
been shown previously.
4)
Failure to "Down -Zone" Equitably
Two (2) parcels in the Bighorn zoned MDMF and per-
mitting 264 units have not been included in the re-
quested down -zoning. Our 6.4 acres is less .than 100
yards from one of these developments. The failure
to down -zone all parcels goes against the intent to
be fair and equitable as the Town Council promised.
I submitted a proposed development plan to the Town
of Vail in January, 1974 and I agreed to reduce the
proposed 190 units -to 144 units. In November, 1974,
I again agreed to reduce the 144 units to the present
111 units.
In
conclusion, I strongly resent any subsequent reduction
in
the densities for this parcel of property. To do
otherwise is' to cause obvious economic hardship and to
go
against the intent of the Vail Town Council to be
fair and equitable. _...
Respectfully submitted,
C. Craig Folson _.
FREDERFCN S. OTTO
JAY K. PETERSON
JOHN M-BLISH
OTTO, PETERSON & BUSH
ATTORNEYS XT LAW
POST OFFICE Box 3149
VAIL, COLORADO 81687
September 29, 1977
r
VAIL PROFES510MAL BUILDING
(303) 476-0092
WARNER PROFESSIONAL BUILDING
f3C 3) 949-53eO
Diana Toughill
Zoning Administrator
Town of Vail
P.O. Box 100
Vail, Colorado
Dear Diana:
Pursuant to our conversation this week, I am formally notify-
ing the Town of Vail that Belinda Wiesen is contesting the
rezoning of her h acre parcel of land adjacent tc the
Racquet Club in Bighorn, Eagle. County, Colorado.
The reasons we're contesting the down -zoning are as follows:
i
1) The property is located in an area where
the unit density per acre is much greater
than your proposed rezoning of this property,
2) The owner of the property has relied on the
present zoning and will suffer monetary
damages due to this rezoning.
3) The property was zoned approximately two years
ago and circumstances have not changed in.such
A manner as to justify the down -•zoning.
We are not only contesting the down -zoning to residential
cluster, but also the reduc!ion of allowable units in the
Low Density Multiple Family Zone.
If you have any questions regarding our position, please
contact me at my office.
Sincerely yours,
OTTO, PETERSON & BLZSH
BY: L
Jay K. Peterson
JKP:pf
cc: Brent Manning
E
Dr. & Mrs, Aldo R. Bruni
550 Meadow Lane
Barrington, Illinois 60010
0 ctober 23, 1977
Town of Vail
'Department of Community Development
Lox 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mrs. Toughhill,
I am wrinting this letter, because I will not be able to attend
the public hearin; November 1, and 15, 1977 re�g,•a.rding the proposed
down -zoning of Bighorn Subdivision property.
The purpose for this letter is to protest strongly against this
proposed devaluation of this property, because I.firmly believe
this is very unfair and unjust.
I bought this property appr. 10 years ago through a legal contract
which assured me this was a commercial tract of land. I spent
a considerable amount of money and time with th4 sole purpose
of developing this property. About nine years ago I invested
18,000.-- with Mr. Krabaeher, an architect, in a set of cons.true-
tion plans for a 75 room lodge plus Restaurant. This unfortunately
did not materialize due to unexpected diffuculties. .At a later
date I contemplated a multiple unit complex of the Tyrolian style,
but because the structures were A -frame the project'and the permit
was denied by the Eagle County Development Cox, The structures,
according to them,did not fit the Vail architecture. This was
again a discouraging factor and I decided then to sell it, and
it was placed in the hands of local Realtors. The property however
did not sell because at that time it was undecided where 170 was
going to be. The problem of the highway yinal:y was solved: It did
not go through my property. How lucky was I........... The property
then went back in the hands of the realtors with a reduced price tag
to incourage buyers. However the trenching of the sewer line and
the mess left by the interstate together with the first downzoning
by Vail discouraged the possible one or two prospective buyers.
The property now has been in the hands of Realtors for over six
years and recently I even lowered further the price asking now,
for over two acres 6f land zoned for. 16 .Condominium Units, a
rediculous 9,,55,000.00. Even at that prize I had no reply so far.
Now if this property should be downzoned again, I will not be able
to get half the amount.
Pased on these facts I strongly protest against this new proposed
down zoning. You understnad it is not necessary the property I am
trying to protect, because fundamentally it will..not effect my
financial status, but it is the princible behind it I am defending.
I feel, as..a property owner, that my rights are considerably
viol :ate.d,:especially if* as American Citizens, we believe in the
Constitution of the U S A.
•
J
Dr. & Mrs Aldo R. $runi
550 Meadow Lane
Barrington, Illinois 60010
Eased on this just principele,let me ask you one question;
"Kow would any property owner in Vail _proper feel. if some-
one would impose them to rent out only half of their Motel -
or Condominium rooms in order td keep the population of VA U
Village as low as poss.iblel" Tam sure the answer would be
justly desastreous and rebellious. I can assure you my feelings
are the same regarding your new down -zoning proposition.
I have been dealing with Vail since the very early birth of
the Village, infact When Vail was only an emb210 in the field
of skiing I invested substantially trusting in the success t)f
the organization, and I am. sure, Peter Seibert can verify to
this fact.
I am not here to ask or to tell how to run the Village"of Vail;
but if Vail is interested now in controlling the population
explosion, why didn't the civic leader,sof Vail. think of this
ibefore by stopping construction of sky s1traper-type buildings,
one shadowing the other as it happened in Vail proper and in
Lionshead; Now-A-ftsteadt they think of devaluating small
parcels of land which have not even started to rise from the
ground in order to control the population growth. I think
what I am saying has a lot of sense.
However if Vgil has intentions of :controlLing this preocuppking
population growth, let it happen on the village expenses only
and not at the expense of the outside property owners, r
In this case I am willing to sell my lots tD Vail at a fair
market price and then the Village can do all the controlling
she desires with my blessing, wishing her a prosperous future
as r47.e has had a glor&ous past. But if Vail should decline s
my offer to purchase the property, then please don't under -
zone it.
I sincerely and deeply appreciate your understanding and
cooperation, since I firmly believe it is a fair request
from my side.
Sincerely ours,
14
-Aldo R. Bruni M.D.
Hilde and C.`Bruni
E
MRS. LENNART RINGQUIST
177 COVE ROAD
OYSTER BAY, NEW YORK 11771
S,ptember 15th, 1977
Ms. Diana S. Toughill
Zoning Administrator
Town of Vail
Post Office Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Toughill,
Thank you for your letter of September 7th, containing
the proposed zoning changes that apply to my residence at 315.
Mill Creek Circle. I concur with the Committee's goal of re-
stricting the ultimate population and think that the proposed
regulations are fair.
In attempting to translate the development standards of
Section 3.500 to my present house and site dimensions, I find
that I do not have a copy of the regulations which set forth
the gross residence floor area (GRFA). Could you please send
me a copy of this regulation? I have, at various times, tried
to work out a remodeling of our house and have been stymied
by the changes in the zoning laws since the house was built
in 1962.
Our house was built before the road was located in its
present form. Do you have a map of Mill Creek Circle showing
the roads in their final location in relation to the houses or,
specifically, my house which is Lot 2, Block 1, First Filing?
I would appreciate any help you could give me and will pay
the cost of reproduction of the appropriate materials. As
you can see from the enclosed plot plan, the house was intend-
ed to be set well -back from the road. I think it now sits
with the front porch actually in the right of way. One last
question, who's answer I assume is obvious; most of the houses
in the proposed rezoned area of Lots 1 through 19, Block 1,
Vail•Village, First Filing are already in existence. Will
the new regulations, therefore, apply only to. any changed
use of these house sites rather than force a conformation on
the pre-existing structures?
Thank you for your help.
Sincerely, Helen Tweedy- Ringquist
HTR/rss
Encls.
,
q�i
i
1 Uf 11
B widi
box 100 office of the, town manager
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476.5613
September 19, 1977
Mrs. Helen Tweedy Ringquist
177 Cove Road
Oyster Bay, New York 11771
Re: Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village 1st Filing
Dear Mrs. Ringquist:
The rlaximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) proposed for the new
Zone is the same as that currently allowed. Rather than send you an
unreadable ordinance, the allowable GRFA is .25 x the lot area or 3,021
square feet of habitable area. The only new restriction is that if
two units are built, one unit may be no larger than one-third of the
maximum GRFA permitted on the site. All other regulations, such as setbacks,
are as stated in the packet you received.
I am enclosing a Xerox copy of the Mill Creek area which is a fairly
accurate representation of actual road location. Pre-existing structures
that do -not conform to the new regulations will not be forced into conformance,
but changes in use or structure must conform.
If you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMU Y DEVELOPMENT
Diana S. Toughill
Zoning Administrator
UST/di
Enclosure
LCT 26 VAIL 7ILLAGE 13 FILI"'G, VAIL
)hen I purchased this property it was zoned Lil+tF, having a
land area of 2.80 acres of 125,958,sq. ft. under LD-:F zoning
125,958 sq. ft. divided by the 3,5000 sq. ft. criteria allows
35.982 units. Under Mv.'' Boning based on GRFA there would be 43.06
units allowable. 'f•he existing zoning therefore allows35.98R units.
Approximately ::arch of 1977 we were advised by Diana Toughill
f
and Jim Lamount that•the town was in the process of developing a.
new zoning' ordinance which amoung other things would eliminate from,
the usable calculable land area, any land over 40;, grade. de immediately
started discussions with these people representing the Town and had many -
detailed meetings which concluded in Diana ordering Vail Associates
to produce a ,rap which would show the area left on this lot which .
was affected by -the 40,4, grade. During all of these discussions there
was not any indication whatsoever that this lot would have anything
but the existing LD..'.F zoning. After Diana received the map from Vail
Associates we had further meetings which determined that the usable
area exclusive of the 40% area was equal to 105,888 sq. ft. which
according to LDKF zoning would allow 29.16 units of 1095 sq. ft.
GRFA each.
As Diana Toughill and Jim Lamount knows, we agreed to start our
conceptual work and planning on the basis of 20 units, not 29 units
to be developed on Lot 26, each having a GRFA of approximately.1550
sq. ft., with a plan for 10 units to be started in the Spring of
1978 and the remaining 10 in Springy; of 1979. '++e kept in constant.. touch
with The Town of Vail as to the status of this new ordinance practically
L
on a weekly basis, so that there was no question that we would be
permitted to build the 20 units on this. lot. This already represented
a downzoninR of 44.4;4'.
On Sept. 2, 1977, after our usual contact,with Diana on the
_Z
zoning; ordinance status we were told for the -very first time that the
Council was considering changing this lot from LM& to RC zoning.
On the basis of RC rather than LA:.;F cve would have less GRFA ability
q
Page 2
cant.
LOT 26 VAIL VILLAGZ 13 Filinp, VAIL
;
(LINU permitting .30 as compared to RC permitting .25 GRYA),..and in
f
addition our zoninx would now- be reduced to 14.585 units from 20. units:
think thi.o is unfair and unreasonable from a GRFA reduction point e
of vieSV and from the number of units point o£.view. }
:e believe that under some circumstances the .Town is on the
right tract in, down zoning certain heavy density parcels and we
5
can understand it where parcels have exceptionally high unit numbers
and^r the Hj).'4' and ;-ilu.F zoning. ae don't think its fair or reasonable,
to zone LDi.r^ and RC zoning.to somethir6 less than the existing i
zoning, because its so low already.
Based on the work that we have done and in order to make the site
we have economically viable to enable us to build a prestigious type
of development that would-be a. compliment to Valli we must continue
our LMY zoning as it now exists. However, in order to try *and
cooperate with the goals of the Town we would agree to limit the.number
of units under LM*' to a maximum of 16. instead of 29 units or 20 G
units, which is 11 units more than would have existed under the RO
zoning.
avr�
'ie therefore request that theplannirg and ;.oning board recommend
to the.ci,ayor and Council that Lot 26, Vail Village, 13th Piling
remain zoned ULU but with a maximum density of 16 units permitted.
This will represent a 55.5i reduction in the.number of units from,
the present zoning. -e.believe at this rate this site is making more
than ita contribution Athe downzoning cause,
.4
�^- CERTIFIED LETTER
ERED LAZARUS III
September 14, 1977
Ms, Diana S. Toughill
Zoning Administrator
Town of Vail
Box 100
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Toughill:
In response to your letter concerning the rezoning of many of
the land parcels in Vail Village, I would like to hereby state
my objections to such an action.
I am the owner of 'Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village first filing. The
address of my house is 325 Mill Creek. Circle.
I don't think any of the owners in Block 1, because of the size of
their lots, can currently enlarge their dwellings appreciably.
However, the existing zoning might make the lots for the houses
they are on more salable at a later date than the new restricted
zoning. I don't believe.the change it the residential zoning, as it
would apply to Block 1, can have any appreciable affect on the
services provided by Vail Village, the ecology or the environment.
Therefore, I am against the proposed rezoning in this area; namely
my own specific lot: Lot 1, Block I, and the rest of Block 1.
jl
Sincerely,
•.
0
�id�C�� �Y UwiAf
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
Fred Lazarus III
444 Torrence
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
office of the town manager
September 19, 1977
Re: Proposed rezoning of Lot 1, Block 1,
Vail Village 1st Filing
Dear Mr. Lazarus:
Your letter is correct in assuming that most of the lots on Mill
Creek Circle are currently built to the maximum allowable size. The
reason this area is proposed for the rezoning is that ,the "Primary/Secondary.',',
district reflects the current condition on most lots. We are, in effect,
protecting the property owners from redevelopment with "mirror image"
duplexes. Given land values on gill Creek Court, it would not be out of
the question for an existing residence to be torn down or moved and a duplex
built,in its place.. I personally feel that the new zoning could enhance
property values.
If you have further questions or comments, please give me a call
or attend -the -public hearings before Planning Commission and Town Council.
Sincerely,
DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
X'"
Diana S. ToughiII
Zoning Administrator
DST/di
d
'JOHN X.. 1Y7.TR
. 4825 SOUTH FATTMA3 LANE
. { - LrMETON. COLORADO 50121
October 25, 1977
Dear :%'embers of the Vail Town Council,
We have received the letter to property owners from
the Zoning Administrator concerning proposed amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance, etc. We are particularly
Interested in the proposals to downzone specific parcels
of land.
We are especially in favor of downzoninp. the Beaver
Dam Rd. and sorest Rd, area where private homes have
generally been one -family residences. We feel it is
important to control the population .of the area because
the streets are narrow and parking is limited. Wo'
certainly do not want to widen the streets so we must
consider controlling the number -of cars which need to
use those streets.
The homes are usually occupied by th'e owners and their
families. We would like to keep that atmosphere. if
residences•can be kept small by zoning, perhaps we
will be able to maintain this quality. Unfortunately
some oversized structures are being built now. it
would be nice to prevent that happening in the future.
lie highly recommend that the Town Council take
affirmative action on these downzoning proposals.
Thank you,
MODEL STONE CO.
900 S. St. Paul Blvd.
Midwest City, Cklahoma 73130.
1-405-732-2249.
F
September 72, 1977
Dept:. :-murity 11eveiopment
Attn: S. Toughill s
P.O. 60.;
Vail, Coln!? X��rn:
57
To Whom It i•.Ily
I, William P. Sher:; � w-Ash to protest the down grading of Lot 4 BK l• '
of 6th filing of \;590-600-Forest Rd.. Vail, Colorado) as this
property has already Vex on it, and.any down ;radirg of zoning
would only cause con U!!- '*'n the title, and cogld destroy the loan
value of this property.
I do not disagree with vecar, -perty being down graded inhere this
down Grading does not create a.. 1`tship upon its owner.
1Mom P. Sheppard
So. St. Paul
st City, Okla. 73130
4.
Ns. Dlana S. Touahill
2oninx Adriristrator
Office of the town Manager
Vail, Colorado
Dear Ms. Toughillt
This is in response to your letter of September 7, 1977,
advising that my property, lot 9 block 5, 'Bighorn Subdivision
5th addition, has been designated by your committee for "down -
zoning," frog duplex to a new prinary/secondary residential
zoning; and that a hearing will be before the Vail Planning
Commission on September 29, 1977.
As a member of the armed forces stationed out of state, I
feel disadvantaged in that your September 7 letter (received
September 12) is the first inkling we have had -that a re -zoning
study was in progress. Also because of my militaryduty, the
short notice of an imrenent nearing denies me the opportunity
to be present at the September 29 hearing to object to the
taking from us of a very valuable property asset. Adcordingly
I am asking for the following.
1, A list containing the names and addresses of the
members of the town council, the town planning
corxission, and the committee members who conducted
the zoning study.
2.. A copy of the "in depth study" presented by the
committee.
3. Was any analysis rade of property ownership by any
and all of the persons of the councils/commissions/
committees (listed in 1 above) to determine If the
proposed rezonings result in property.zoning
advantages thereto?
4. Since the committee met many times over the past eight
months, was any coordination made between the tax.
assessor/collector's office to plan apportionment be-
tween assessments for road.paving commensurate with
the proposed rezoning_, plan? I recently paid over 41,000
for a paving assessment against my lot eased on full.
duplex zoning.. To assess on a basis of one zoning -
,
when it
is fully planned to
change it soon is, in
today's
jar?on, a rip-off!
In closing,
we wish to protest -the
proposed rezoning of
our property and
need the above information
to adequately
assess the ciYcurstances under whi-ch
the September 29, 1977
hearing is.to be
conducted.
box 100 office of the town manager
vaH, colorado 816V
1303) 476-561.3 September 19, 1477
Col. Edward M. Browne
14664 Lake Trails Ct.
Chesterfield, Mo 63017
Re: Proposed down -zoning of Lot 4,
Block 5, Bighorn Subdivision, 5th
Addition
Dear Col. Browne:
1n answer to your letter of September 13, the information you
requested in items i and 2 of your letter are enclosed. An analysis
of properties held by Council, Planning Commission or committee members
indicated that five Town Council members own property proposed for down -
zoning and four members of the committee were also affected. No one on
any Commission, Committee or any other person, benefited from the proposal.
The Tosco Council has agreed to re-evaluate.the street assessments.
in light of the proposed down -zoning, which should be done as soon as
all public hearings have been held. I strongly differ with your opinion
that we planned the rezoning when we were assessing for the street paving --
this is not a fact! The Town has no intention of "ripping -off" anyone.
There will be further hearings held before the. Town.Council:.on
November.l and 15 at 7:36 P.M. Since you indicate you can't be present
for the hearings I will forward your letter to Planning Cor<:mission.
If you have any further questions please call me at the above number.
Sincerely,
DEPAWIFNT OF
COMmu"141•Y DEVELOPMENT
iana S. Toughill
Zoning Administrator
DST/di
..f
COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING
ZONING AMENDMENTS AND REZONING:.
PRESENTATION AGENDA
Introduction
1.
Overview (Agenda)
Allen.
2.
Legal aspects
Rider
Planning
Process
1.
Goals, Growth Management 8 Citizens
Allen
2.
Citizens Committee Recommendations
Elias
Recommendations
1.
Amendments to Zoning Ordinance
a. Staff Presentation
Diana
b. Planning Commission Report.
Drager
C. Citizen Response
'd. Council Discussion
2.
Rezoning of Specific Parcels
a. Staff Presentation
Diana
b. Planning Commission Report -
--Drager
c. Citizen Response (by Neighborhood).
(1) Oral Presentations
(2) Correspondence
d. Council Action
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
OF
GR0WTH MANAGEMENT SUB-COMMITTHE
ON CONTROL TECHNIQUES
MAY 23, 1977
r
Sub -Committee Members:
a
Bob Byrd, Chairman
Dick Gustafson
Jim Morter
i
j
0
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
i
The sub -committee and planning staff have held many meetings to
review existing land use and zoning. A site -by -site analysis of both
platted and unplatted land has been .conducted 'and all major proposed
or partially completed projects have been reviewed. All base data
has been reconciled and brought up to date and is now current through
May 1,.1977.
The sub -committee was charged with making recommendations in two
related areas: first to make recommendations on control techniques
i to achieve the desired population level; and secondly to determine if
j the rate of growth should be controlled.
1
j After a great deal of study and discuss:k
ion, the com.ittee feels
strongly that -the rate of growth should not be mechanically controlled
beyond the existing controls.
The Committee reached several general conclusions'ear.ly in the
1
review p.ocess. These guildelines then led to more specific policy
recommendations:
1. The base data must be reconciled and updated before conclu-
sions based on the data could be reached.'
2. Reasonable controls attempting to limit peak population to 23,200
would be very difficult to achieve and implement; therefore,
1 the recommendations were divided into two categories:
1
i
a. Techniques which appear to be equitable and possible
to implement based on existing conditions (Option A)
b. Additional tectniques'that could to used to approacq the
23,200 population (Option B). However, the 23,200
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Page 2
REPORT
T AND RECOMMENDATIONS
_
PAGE 3
population level proved to be IMPOSSIBLE to achieve even using
techniques which the sub -committee considered inequitable
and unachievable.
TABLE 1
Data Base (as
of May 1, 1977 (without Annexation)
3. The most logical approach to arrive at future peak potential
Population is to build up from the existing population base
EXISTING
UNITS
POSSIBLE
ADDITIONAL
UNITS
HAZARD
UNITS
REMOVED
NET
UNITS
through an area by area analysis.
4. All Sub -Committee and general committee recommendations
should be reviewed by Town staff to identify legal impacts
and to insure consistency with overall Town goals and
objectives. Recommendations should be bxoadUased policy
EAST VAIL
MID VAIL
WEST VAIL
TOTAL
572
3,070
826
4,468
1,231
1,911
2,319.
5,46I
144
147
676
967
1,087
1,764
1,643
4,494.
guidelines for consideration and refinement by the general
committee, the Planning Commission, and the Town Council.
The ollowing is,a summary of the updated base data. Since the
Citizen's Committee began meeting, several projects have been
submitted at much lower density than possible under existing zoning,
TABLE 2
Data Base (as
of May 1, 1977)
(with Annexation)
and major parcels of land have been downzoned at the request of the
owners. The changes have substantial) reduced the
y potential population.
Two sets of base data will be used throughout this report. One
will treat West Vail as County land; the Eagle County Subdivision
Regulations and Zoning Ordinance were used as the basis in the.com-
pilation of this data. A second set of base data will presume the
r
�
EAST VAIL
MID VAIL
WEST VAIL
EXISTING
UNITS
572
3,070
826
POSSIBLE
ADDITIONAL
U"ZITS
1,231
1,911
1,982
HAZARD
UNITS
REMOVED
144
147
687
NET
UNITS
1,087
1,764
1,295
annexation of West Vail. These numbers were derived from a preliminary
i
TOTAL
4,468
5,124
978
4,146
Zoning map developed by the staff in March at the request of the
? (Pest Vail Association.
(See Appendix A for a further breakdown of numbers for each
. subdivision.)
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 4
In the remaining part of the report, there will be two options
discussed: Option A and Option B. In both options, units were converted
i
into population by using an average occupancy of 4.4 people per unit.
This number was arrived at by dividing the existing units as of March 1
1, 1976, (when the original data base was put together) into the estimate
of the current population at that time (18,641/4,249=4.4). It should
I
also be noted that accomodation units (without kitchens) have been 4
converted into dwelling units by counting each accomodation unit as half
of a dwelling unit.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 5
OPTION A
The goal in this option was not to achieve a specific population
level, but to set equitable and reasonable policies -- and then deter-
mine what the population would be as a result of the policies.
This option was developed by; .
(1) reviewing all neighborhoods individually;
(2) reviewing all zoning categories; and
(3) selecting policies that the sub -committee considered
achievable and reasonably equitable given present
circumstances.
The numbers used in the report are conservative because:
(1) they assume every parcel will be.developed;
(2) that every parcel will be developed to the maxima.;.; and.
(3) it does not recognize the reduction achieved by primary/
secondary or single-family residential rezoning.
VAIL VILLAGE - LIOsNTSHEAD AREA
This area is almost totally developed. Any future development
or redevelopment should be limited to residential densities no greater
than those which presently exist on developed parcels.
EXCEPTION: Willow Circle is presently zoned "High Density
Multiple Family" (HDMF), but only about half the lots are
developed.as high density. The remaining four lots have duplexes
on them. The present zoning should remain because to reduce
deIsies on these few lots could constitute ill16spot zoning.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 6
Zoning similar to CC1 Horizontal Zoning should be
investigated for the other higher density zones in an attempt
to maintain the mix of residential, business and retail
uses and to allow some expansion of commercial uses.
Caretaker or manager units should be allowed in
commercial projects in order to provide additional long-term
dwelling units for employees.
Special Development Districts
major projects zoned with Special Development
District (SDD) zoning should,be allowed to proceed within
reasonable time limits. (They are generally at a much lower
density than the previous zone district would have allowed.)
If building permits have not been sought within three years
of initial approval, the SDD should be reviewed to discern
if the densities and proposed uses are still appropriate.
Duplex Residential areas
All platted residential lots should be evaluated for
potential rezoning to one of three categories based.on the
character of thie existing neighborhood:
1. Single Family Residential
2. Duplex with primary and secondary unit limitation
3. Duplex with equal size units.
Unplatted residential areas proposed for subdivision
should be limited to single-family or primary/secondary
duplex zoning.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 7
BIGHORN/EAST VAIL AREA
Undeveloped property currently zoned Medium Density Multiple
Family should be considered for rezoning to Low Density Multiple Family.
Undeveloped property currently zoned Low Density Multiple Family
should be considered for rezoning to Residential Cluster.
Multi -building projects currently under construction should be reviewed
to determine if densities are appropriate given the growth management
philosophy of the community.
Accommodation units should be eliminated as a permitted use in
the Bighorn Junction SDD.
LIONSRIDGE/SANDSTONE/POTATO PATCH AREA
Multi -family zoning which is in conflict with existing land use
i patterns should be reviewed and densities reduced in accord with the
character of the neighborhood.
Multiple building projects partially completed should be reviewed to
assign appropriate densities based on economic viability.
WEST VAIL
Commercial uses should be contained within 'the existing commercially
developed shopping center area.
Accommodation units should be discouraged in this area throu-h zoning.
We should encourage strict enforcement of County Zoning and Subdivision
Regulations in the event West Vail is not annexed to the Town.
We should encourage Eagle County to review previously granted
exemptions and subdivision approvals to bring them into closer compliance
with currrent zoning should West Vail remain in the County.
.i
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE g .
Since this area is primarily year-round residential usage, planning
and future development should reflect the. Community's housing goals.
Policies should be established which minimize the negative visual
impact of large buildings in exposed, highly visable areas.
GENERAL ZONING POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
Specific parcels should be identified on which higher density
projects could be developed if they meet community goals for housing.
Land Acquisition.of approximately $7,800,000 at current market
values for open space,; recreational needs and for encouragement of economic
diversification should be considered a very important part of the Growth
Management process.
Diversification of our limited economic base should be encouraged.
Some parcels which have been identified for possible acquisition could
be used to attract such diversifying industries as a technological
center, electronic manufacturing, learning center, etc. and the cost of the
parcels could be retired through industrial revenue. bonds, thus reducing
the tax burden on tho general public. Diversification may necessitate
either new zone districts or additional special development districts. The
goal of_open space as well as diversification could be achieved through
imaginative design and strong control.
The "Medium Density Multiple -Family" zone district should be limited
to a maximum of 18 units per acre rather than the existing range of 15 to 30
units per acre.
The "Ifigh Density Multiple Family" zone district should be limited to
a maximum of 25 units per acre rather than the existing range of 25 to 30
units per acre.
The "Public Accommodations" district, "Commercia Core I" and "Commercial
Core 2"•uld be assigned a maximum number of units acre. At present,
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 8
the only limit assigned to these zoning districts is a maximum
gross residential floor area (GRP'A).
The maximum number of accommodation units allowed in CCI, CC2,
PA, and RDMF zones should be defined allowing two accommodation units
in exchange for each dwelling unit.
Razard zoning should be actively pursued and approvals sought
as quickly as Possible.
A comprehensive growth monitoring plan must be designed and
implemented as soon as possible. The monitoring process will further
verify the base data used to make these recommendations, and allow
zoning and planning adjustments to be made to reflect policy changes
and changes in the development and use patterns in the Gore Valley.
some of the items to be monitored include: the use patterns of wits
(long-term or short-term), the average occupancy for each type of
unit. To assist in the collection of accurate information, the
sub -committee would encourage that a census be taken sometime this
summer.
The sub -committee recommends that a group be appointed to assist
in the preparation of the growth monitoring program.
As previously stated, the sub -committee does not recommend control
of the growth rate. There are a number of reasons the sub-cor-mittee
reached this decision:
1. That the ma-rket (supply and demand) would regulate how many -
units are constructed.
2. If an artificial number of units allowed per year were set,
a very complicated permit system would be required to allocate
the units.
more units
3. Astype of system could create a situation w
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
REPORT AND RECUMENDATION3
PAGE it
Page 10
OPTION A
4. That the historical growth rate (average) is
an acceptable
UNITS
one. Only one year produced more units than
the market
WITHOUT
ANNEXATION
WITH
ANNEXATION
could absorb in a reasonable time, and this was
partially
A.
Existing Population
4,463
4,468
due to a general recession about the time the
units were
B.
Provable Constructionl
ready to be placed on the market.
summer 1977
257
257
A valley-wideC.
landscaping plan should be adopted
as a guideline
Proposed,Projectsl
450
450
for evaluating future development
p proposals,
�.
D.
Net New Development2
1.) East ?Tail
855
855 .•
2.} Mid Vail
1,153
1,153
3.) West Vail
1,587
1,239
Net Total
8,770
8,422
Land Acquisition
(569)
(914)
TOTAL"
8,201
7,508
PEOPLE
:4ITHOGT WITS
ANNEXATION ANNEXATION .
19,659 19,659
1,131 1,131
1,980 1,980
3,762
3,762
5,073
5,073
6,983
5,452
38,588
37,057
(2,504)
(4,022)
36,084
33,035
1 (see Appendix B for a list of probable construction for this summer
and proposed projects. Proposed projects are those multi -building
projects that are being constructed under SDD zoning or have had plans
submitted.)
2 (see Appendix C for further breakdown of the numbers in the "Net New
Development" column).
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
PAGE 12
OPTION B
The intent of Option B was to try to reach the 23,200 population
figure. The sub -committee did not feel this was feasible. By just
adding the probable construction for this summer and the proposed
projects to the existing 'population, a population of 22,770 is reached.
To set the maximum at 23,200 would only allow for 100 additional units
in the entire Gore Valley (after excluding the probable construction
for this summer and the proposed projects).
In Option B, the sub -committee has taken what it considered to
be drastic steps to try to get as close to the 23,200 figure as possible.
These steps include allowing only a single family residence on all
undeveloped platted residential lots and allowing four units per
acre en all buildable unplatted undeveloped areas.
To illustrate the impossibility of achieving the 23,200 population
level, the sub -committee assumed that every undeveloped multi -family
parcel with no development plans was to be acquired by the Town. This
demonstrated that 425 residential lots would also have to be purchased
to reach the 23,200. The cost of the additional acquisition of unplatted
land would be $4,000,000 and approximately $15,000,000 to acquire
the residential lots. These acquisitions would raise overall land
purchases to a total of $26,800,000. The sub -committee, however, wants
it to be clearly understood that it does not in any way believe that
such drastic action as outlined in Option B is possible to achieve.
Option B was primarily an attempt to reach the population level dictated by
the committee.
REPORT AND RECOMMEN➢ATIONS
PAGE 13
OPTION B
UNITS
PEOPLE
WITHOUT,
ANNEXATION
WITH
ANNEXATION
WITHOUT
ANNEXATIONANNESATIOti
WITH
Existing Population
4,468
4,468
19,659
19,659
Probable Construction
257
257
1,131
1,131
summer 1977
Net Total
4,725
4,725
20,790
20,790
1. All undeveloped
524
524
2,306
2,306
platted Residential
add'l
(add'l
Lots to single Family
units)
units)
2. All Buildable Un-
908
908
3,995
3,995
platted Areas at 4
(add'l
units)
(add'l
units)
units per acre
3. Proposed Projects
450
450
2,980
1,950
Net Total
6,607
6,607
29,071
29,071
Land Acquisition *
( 716)
(908)
(3,15u)
(3,995)
TOTAL
5,891
5,699
25,921
25,076
Land Acquisition**
(425)
(425)
(1,870)
(1,870)
Residential Lots .
* Option A
** Option B additional
acquisitions
7
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
APPENDIX
E
Appendix A - Existing zoning
1, East Vail
2. Mid Vail
3. West Vail without annexation
4. West Vail with annexation
Appendix B -- Probable construction in 1977 and proposed projects
Appendix C - Net New Development Possible
0
APPENDIX A
EAST VAIL (existing zoning)
EXISTING
POSSIBLE
HAZARD
NET
UNITS
ADDITIONAL
UNITS
ITNITS
UNITS
REMOVED
BIGHORN
53
38
2
26
BIGHORN 1st
5
21
0
21
BIGHORN 2nd
8
24
4
20
BIGHORN 3rd
116
143
3
140
BIGHORN 4th
18
20
0
20
BIGHORN 5th
54
97
8
89
BIGHORN ESTATES
15
10
0
10
GORE CREEK
38
32
5
27
VAIL MEADOWS #1
17
52
6
46
VAIL MEADOWS #2
0
0
0
0
IiEATHER
31
4
0
4
GORE CREEK MEADOWS
22
0
0
0
UNPLATTED
195
790
116
674
TOTAL
572
1,231
144
1,087
0 40
APPENDIX A
MID VAIL (existing Zoning)
EXISTING
POSSIBLE
IIAZARD
NET
UNITS
ADDITIONAL
UNITS
UNITS
UNITS
REMOVED
VAIL VILLAGE 1st
827
172
16
156
VAIL VILLAGE 2nd
187
7
0
7
VAIL VILLAGE 3rd
32
23
0
23
VAIL VILLAGE 4th
14
0
0
0.
VAIL VILLAGE 5th
283
10
0
10
VAIL VILLAGE 6th
17
23
0
23
VAIL VILLAGE 7th
210•
60
4
56
VAIL VILLAGE Sth
6
12
0
12
VAIL VILLAGE 9th
19
5
0
5
VAIL VILLAGE loth
2
14
4
10
VAIL VILLAGE Ilth
12
38
0
-38
VAIL VILLAGE 12th
24
34
9
25
VAIL VILLAGE 13th
70
118
4
114
VAIL VALLEY 1st
32
20
0
20
VAIL LIONSHEAD #1
376
0
0
0
VAIL LIONSHEAD #2
107
12
0
12
VAIL LIONSHEAD #3
367
182
0
182
POTATO PATCH
5
252
8
244
LIONSRIDGE #1
319
268
12
256
SANDSTONE 70
86
0
0
0
UNPLATTED -
75.
661.
90
571
TOTAL
3,070
1,911
i 147
1,764
APPENDIX A
WEST VAIL (without annexation)
(existing County Zoning)
EXISTING
ADSSIB
UNITSLE D
NET
UNITS
UNITS
DDITIONAL
-UNITS
REMOVED
46
605
262
343
LIONSRIDGE II
,
1
10
0
10
CLIFFSIDE
BUFFER CREEK
80
52
0•
52
25
35
0
35
MATTERHORN
VAIL VILLAGE ?TEST #1
56
30
0
30
VAIL VILLAGE NEST #2
71
30
0
30
VAIL VILLAGE NEST 113
p
89
0
89
VAIL DAS SCHONE #1
145
247
0
247
VAIL DAS SCHONE #2
43
41
0
,
41
30
68•
14
54
VAIL RIDGE
VAIL HEIGHTS
78
22
14
8
VAIL INTERISOUNTAIN
160
2G5
81
124
91
885'
305
580
UNPLATTED
TOTAL
826
21319
676
1,643
0 •
EXISTING
POSSIBLE
HAZARD
NET
—•---••.—� .......... .,a uv �...v as ,.a{Aa �WII[lIC
RACQUET CLUB
L'�
45
-
units
UNITS
ADDITIONAL
UNITS
UNITS
NORTHWOOD3
33
units
UNITS
REMOVED
LIONSRIDGE II
46
446
216
230
COTTONWOOD
7
units
CLIFFSIDE
1
5
0
5
TnMERFALLS
12
units
BUFFER CREEK
80
48
3
45
LODGE AT LIONSHEAD
12
units
LSATTERHORN
25
42
2
40
SUN VAIL
30
units
VAIL VILLAGE WEST #1
56
53
16
37
VAIL ATHLETIC CLUB
12
'
units
VAIL VILLAGE WEST #2
71
47
13
34
BUFFER CREEK COlMO. (WEST
VAIL)
8
units
VAIL VILLAGE WEST #3
0
56
17
39
EIGER CHALETS (WEST VAIL)
8
units
VAIL DAS SCHONE #1
145
219
4
215
SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX
( VAIL)
50
units
VAIL DAS SCHONE #2
43
45
2
43
SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX
(WEST VAIL)
40
units.
VAIL RIDGE
30
71
13
58
VAIL .HEIGHTS
78
26
17
9.
TOTAL
257
units
VAIL INTERMOUNTAIN
160
227
110
107
Proposed Projects:
UNPLATTED
91
697
274
433
NORTRI400DS
8
units
TOTAL
826
1,982
687
1,295
THE MARK
125
units
VVI
100
units
THE SPA
57
units
SUNBURST/PULIS
•
100
units
SITE 9 (LAZIER)
60
units
TOTAL
450
units
APPENDIX C
NET NEW DEVELOPMENT (without annexation
of {lest Vail)
EAST VAIL
MID VAIL
HEST VAIL
POTENTIAL 1,231 units
1,911 units
2,319 units .
HAZARD UNITS REMOVED (144)
(147)
(676)
PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION
THIS SUMMER ( 82)
(119)
( 56)
PROPOSED PROJECTS ( 0)
(450)
(, O)
POSSIBLE REDUCTION
BY OPTION A (150)
( 42)
( 0)
NET 855
1,153
1,587
NET NEW DEVELOPMENT (with annexation
of Nest Vail)
t '
EAST VAIL
MID VAIL
WEST VAIL
POTENTIAL 1,231 units •1,911
units
1,982 units
HAZARD UNITS REMOVED (144)
(247)
(687)
PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION
THIS SUMMER { 82)
(119)
( 56)
PROPOSED PROJECTS { 0)
(450)
( 0)
REDUCTION BY OPTION A (150)
( 42)
( 0)
NET 855
1,153
1,239