HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-12-05 Town Council Minutes0
` REVISED 01.02.95
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
December 5, 1995
7:30 P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, December 5, 1995, in
the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. the meeting was called to order at
7:35 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Bob Armour, Mayor
Sybill Navas, Mayor Pro-Tem
Peggy Osterfoss
Paul Johnston
Kevin Foley
Michael Jewett
Rob Ford
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Robert W. McLaurin, Town Manager
R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
First item on the agenda was Citizen Participation. Rick Sackbauer of the Vail Valley
Consolidated Water District congratulated new council members on their recent
appointments and presented a brief update on district projects which included: efforts to
consolidate the water district and sanitation district through an election process in May,
1996; progress on employee housing; Eagle Park Reservoir project and completion of
the interconnect. Mr. Sackbaur informed Council .members he would come in after first
of the year with a more detailed update and thanked Council for their participation.
The second item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of approval
of the Minutes for the meetings of November 7 and 21, 1995.
Mayor Armour read the Consent Agenda in full. Sybill moved to approve the Consent
Agenda with a second by Kevin. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1995, first reading of an
ordinance repealing and reenacting Chapter 18.39 (Ski Base/Recreation Zone District)
of the Vail Municipal Code and approving the Development Plan for the Golden Peak
Ski Base, 485 Vail Valley Drive/Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filing, and Tract B, Vail Village
7th Filing. Applicant Vail Associates, Inc., was represented by David Corbin. Mayor
Armour read the title in full. Town of Vail planners Jim Curnutte and Lauren Waterton
reviewed the application, plans for the redevelopment of the Golden Peak Ski Base,
and work sessions that had been held with the PEC and the Town Council regarding
the application. (For a complete analysis of the proposal, please refer to the November
27, 1995 staff memorandum to the PEC, distributed to the Council on November 28,
1995.) It was further explained that staff recommended approval of Ordinance No. 24,
Series of 1995, and conditional approval of the Development Plan. Jim Curnutte stated
the purpose of the ordinance was to amend the text of the Ski Base Recreation Zone
District. Sybill moved to approve Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1995 on first reading, and
the motion was seconded by Rob Ford. A vote was taken and approved unanimously,
7-0.
Discussion then centered around the proposed development plan and included: the
proposed new base lodge, the building of a 148-space parking structure, lift upgrades
and other on -site improvements, including a skier drop-off lot and a new children's
center parking lot. Council members reviewed a list of conditions attached to the
development plan from Community Development as modified by the PEC. Dave Corbin,
vac g e_c e,., R.J. , z/o3/qs
representing the applicant, explained that the parking structure would possibly be
phased in over a two year period. He stated parking issues were complicated and
suggested more detail on its operation be brought to the December 19 council evening
meeting for possible approval. Discussion continued regarding the proposed parking
structure and what would happen should Vail Associates not build it. Additional topics of
discussion included street scape improvements, cost sharing and maintenance of
proposed street scape improvements. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village
Homeowners Association, asked for clarification of who would be responsible for
maintenance of proposed new sidewalks. Diane Milligan, representing the Ramshorn
Condominium Association, commented on snow removal for the area. Tom Moorhead
informed Council that Public Works does not maintain sidewalks and that by ordinance
it is the responsibility of the individual property owners. Vail resident, Nancy Rondeau
asked questions and expressed her concerns. Council members agreed the
development plan would be subject to Council's approval at the time of the second
reading on Ordinance 25, Series of 1995.
The fourth item on the agenda was Resolution No.27, Series of 1995, a Resolution
setting the date for a Special Election for the purpose of electing a Council member to
complete the unexpired term of Margaret A. Osterfoss, term to expire November, 1997.
Paul Johnston moved to approve the resolution, with a second by Sybill Navas. A vote
was taken and approved unanimously, 7-0.
Item number five on the agenda was the appointment of Local Licensing Authority
Member, Dave Chapin, Gene Uselton, and Terry Walker were applicants for one
position created by the resignation of former chairman, Davey Wilson. Ballots were
distributed and Holly McCutcheon tallied the ballots. Sybill moved to appoint David
Chapin to fill the vacancy on the Local Licensing Authority, with a second from Mike
Jewitt. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0.
Sixth on the agenda was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission's
decision to deny the requested front setback variance proposed for the residence
currently under construction on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision/2832 C
Kinnikinnick Road. The appellant, Bob Borne, represented by Sally Brainerd of RKD
Design Inc., was appealing the Planning and Environmental Commission's denial of the
front setback variance request, pursuant to Section 18.62.070, of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code.
Town of Vail planner George Ruther reviewed the background of the appeal and the
November 27, 1995 PEC meeting and the Commission members vote of 3-2 (Armour
and Moffet Dissenting) to deny the proposed front setback variance request. George
explained the members voting in favor of the motion to deny, felt that the granting of the
variance would result in a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the Zoning Code.
Applicant, Bob Borne explained the had requested the setback due to a surveying error
and the error had caused a 3.5 foot encroachment into the front setback. Mr. Borne
respectfully requested the council's consideration to overturn the PEC decision. Vail
resident, Michael Arnet spoke in favor of Mr. Borne and cited human error. A motion
was made by Peggy Osterfoss to overturn the PEC's decision based on the fact that
the request did meet variance criteria and did not create a special privilege. Sybill
Navas seconded the motion, a vote was taken and passed unanimously, 7-0. PO
amended her motion to include the staff recommendation and was approved by all
council members.
Item No. 7. on the agenda was an appeal of a DRB decision to approve the
International Wing at the Lodge at Vail, located at 174 E. Gore Creek Drive. Town of
Vail Planner, Andy Knutdsen reviewed the history surrounding the project and
explained that on 11/1/95 the DRB voted 5-0 to approve the International Wing, and
• that three work sessions with the DRB preceded that decision. An exterior alteration
approval by the PEC was made on 10/10/83, and the PEC approval was based on the
V,J 9- Eel q i 2/05/45
criteria for exterior alterations as well as an agreement which the Town had executed
with the Lodge relating to accommodation units and conference area within the Village.
Attorney, Jay Peterson represented the applicant, Lodge Properties, Inc., explained he
was there to request the 1983 DRB decision be upheld. Mayor Armour requested Mr.
Peterson and other lawyers present speak after the presentation by the applicant.
Applicant, Lodge Properties, Inc., represented by Greg Christian, distributed the design
of the proposed International Wing, and presented the proposed change of 1983,
adding 19 rooms. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead explained that 1983 decisions were
still in effect. He further stated that any changes or modification to the original approved
application would have to be reviewed by the DRB. Ann Frick, on behalf of Lou Ann
Wells, adjacent property owner, that statutory procedures were not adhered to, and that
the 1983 agreement was illegal. Architect, Lynn Fritzlen, stated inappropriate procedure
was followed and that relying on a 83 planning approval was inappropriate after 12
years. Peggy Osterfoss asked what the time line was for approval. Tom Moorhead
informed her that in 1983 there was no time line set forth on exterior alterations, but
since that date there has been a two year time limit put into effect. Those opposed to
the approval of the International Wing who gave input included: Attorney, Art Abplanalp,
representing owners of Unit #527, Mr. & Mrs. Saltz, as well as three other units. Mr.
Abplanalp presented a map which he said depicted the proposed sight barriers of
certain private condominium owners and stated that Rick Rosen represented the
Cabinas, also adjacent property owners. Jim Lamont, representing the East Village
Homeowners Association, requested council members take into consideration a new
opportunity, and requested this project be withdrawn. Jay Peterson, representing the
applicant, Lodge properties, Inc. addressed concerns and answered questions. Mike
Arnett, Design Review Board Chairman, was on hand to answer questions, as was Jack
Zehren, architect for the project. Peggy moved to uphold the DRB approval of the
project with the stipulation that additional staff -approved modifications be made to the
plan to improve sight and sound barriers on the building's west side. Kevin Foley
seconded the motion, A vote was taken and passed, 6-1, Mike Jewitt voting in
opposition.
Item No. 8. On the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. Bob asked council
members to check their calendars in order to meet for a special work session on
Tuesday, February 13, and reminded them of the Town of Vail's Christmas party at the
Marriott on Friday night.
Mayor Armour informed those present of his concern regarding raising the speed limit
to 75 mph and asked that staff research the issue and any possible alternatives. Bob
McLaurin said he would discuss it with the new Police Chief.
Other topics of discussion included: the shortage of bus drivers and overcrowding; the
need for a voice mail system for council members.
There being no further business, a motion was made by Paul Johnston to adjourn, with
a second from Kevin Foley at approximately 11:10 P.M.
EST:
auy/i'l�
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
( Names of certain individuals who gave public input may be inaccurate)
Respe ully submitted,
ibj W. Armour, Mayor
vet Yr— CwAd F—y %.L 12/05/qs
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1995
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for a residence under
construction to encroach into the front setback located at 2850
Kinnickinnick/Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision.
Applicant: Am. Bros. Development Inc., represented by Bob Borne
Planner: George Luther
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUE,5T
The applicant, Bob Borne, representing Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc., is requesting a
front setback variance for a new single family residence currently under construction on Lot 6,
Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision. A Building Permit for the residence was issued on September
18, 1995, and construction has proceeded since that date.
On October 19, 1995, the applicant submitted to staff an Improvement Location Certificate (ILC)
. for review and approval. Staff requires the review and approval of an ILC to insure that the
structure under construction complies with the relevant development standards prior to the
Town's Building Inspectors completing a framing inspection. When staff reviewed the ILC for Lot
6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision, it was determined that the northwest corner of the residence
was encroaching 3.5 feet into the front setback and also into the platted 20' pedestrian, utility and
drainage easement (see Attachment 1). Since encroachments into any required setback
require an approval from the Planning and Environmental Commission, the applicant is
seeking a front setback variance to allow for a 3.5' encroachment into the required 20' front
setback on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision.
if. BACKGROUND
Staff conditionally approved the ILC submitted on October 19, 1995. This allowed the contractor
to receive a framing inspection and continue work on that portion of the structure not in the front
setback or platted easement. A condition of approval required the contractor to submit a letter to
the Community Development Department acknowledging that should a front setback variance not
be approved by the PEC, nor should the encroachment into the platted easement be approved by
the Town of Vail Public Works Department and the utility companies, that portion of the structure
encroaching into the front setback and the platted easement shall be removed. This shall occur
regardless of additional expense incurred as a result of continued construction on the residence.
. any inconvenience to the contractor, or staff's previous approval of the ILC. A second condition
required that the contractor submit a variance application. The contractor has complied with
each of the conditions of approval.
According to the applicant, the 3.5' encroachment is a result of a surveying error. Several
months earlier, the contractor contacted Intermountain Engineering and requested a "property
line stake -out." (see Attachment 2) The reason for the "property line stake -out" was to allow the
contractor to place the foundation of the structure within the required setbacks. The surveyors
Pt\everyone\pec\mvaas\innabruck,n27
staked out the four corners of the lot as requested, but according to the applicant, did not place
any points along the front property line to indicate a radius along that line. With no such
information physically staked out on the ground indicating a radius, the contractor assumed a
• chord along the front property line and struck a straight line from property corner to property
corner. Therefore, the building foundation was located based upon an incorrect front property
line location. The amount of encroachment into the front setback and platted easement
corresponds with the difference in feet between the radius of the front property line and the
assumed chord line (3.5').
Ill. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested front setback
variance based on the following factors:
A. Consid ration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The impact of the requested front setback variance on the existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity, in the staffs opinion, will be
minimal. The front setback encroachment on Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows
Subdivision, is such that it would appear no other homes would be
effected. The nearest residence to the encroachment is to the north
across Kinnickinnick Road.
According to the approved siteflandscape plan, the building corner would
be 24.5 feet from the back of the curb line and 11 feet from the pedestrian
sidewalk. The landscape plan shows eight, two-inch caliper aspen trees in
the area immediately adjacent to the point of encroachment (see
Attachment 3). No spruce trees are proposed for Lot 6.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation Is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The degree to which the applicant is requesting relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of the front setback regulation is the
minimum necessary to allow the structure to remain as constructed. Many
of the older existing structures in the Vail Intermountain area are non-
conforming as they relate to setbacks. An example of such non -conformity
in the area of the Innsbruck Meadows Subdivision is the Camelot
• Townhomes. The Camelot Townhomes are non -conforming as they relate
to the front, sides and rear setbacks. Other examples of non -conforming
setbacks in the Vail Intermountain Subdivision are the Bellflower
Condominiums (Lot 7, Black 6, Vail Intermountain Subdivision), the
Westridge Condominiums (Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Subdivision),
and the Rush Condominiums (Lot 9, Block 8, Vail Intermountain
Subdivision).
f,\everyone\pec\Memos\Snnshr ck.n27
As the applicant has pointed out, and staff addressed earlier in the
memorandum, the 3.5 toot encroachment into the front setback is a result
of a surveying error. While staff understands how the error occurred, and
why the building is encroaching into the front setback, it is staff's opinion
• that the granting of the requested front setback variance may be a grant of
special privilege. It is staff's belief that if the applicant had requested the
variance prior to construction, rather than after, the structure was
completely framed, the requested variance would not be supported by staff
since it appears no physical hardship or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions exist on Lot 6.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
In the staff's opinion, the requested variance to allow the structure to
encroach 3.5 feet into the front setback will have minimal, if any, negative
impacts on the criteria described above. The structure will still be 24.5
feet from the back of the curb line. This distance should still allow for
adequate sunlight to reach Kinnickinnick Road. Thus, avoiding any icing
problems on the street due to shading. Additionally, the utility companies
have provided an encroachment agreement acknowledging their
acceptance of the building encroachment into the platted pedestrian, utility
and drainage easement (see Attachment 5).
B. The Plannina and Envirnnmental Commission shall make the followina findinaa
before arantino a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
the same district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other properties in the same district.
fi\everyone\pec\memos\innsbr ck.n2'/
s
•
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of this front setback variance request. Staff believes the
request does not meet the Criteria and Findings, listed in Section III of the memorandum,
in order to grant an approval of the variance.
Staff believes that the applicant has met Criteria and Findings Al, A3, B2, B3 a, b & c.
Staff does not believe, however, that the applicant has met Criteria and Findings A2, and
131. Staff is specifically concerned that the granting of approval of the requested variance
may result in the grant of a special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same zone district.
Should the PEC choose to grant an approval of the requested variance, the staff would
recommend that the approval carry with it the following conditions:
The applicant shall proceed through the proper procedure to vacate that portion of
the pedestrian, utility and drainage easement into which the building is
encroaching prior to receiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Unit #6.
The applicant shall revise the proposed landscape plan which illustrates eight two-
inch caliper aspen trees in the vicinity of the encroachment, and propose a
minimum of two additional eight -foot evergreens. It is the staff's opinion that the
two evergreens will help mitigate the additional 3.5 foot encroachment upon the
pedestrian sidewalk.
f:\everyone\pec\memos\.lnnsbruck.n27
KINNIKINNICK ROAD (50' R. 4' W )
t sr.r2f .� ZO, ,OVA Ip WT
ARR i tiw `1
TRACTA / 6' o`.1i"3 �ACRes
s, AN
f0' ACCESS A,yNENI , 4p•.:' q'!� , :`
UptITY EASEM
LOT
?rd
aid r� J` t
tar Ynu ma�sa,y,aY ca
arty � yd„Z }ray °Ay actkn mp3 far, tan
m�
Ih ad yro^.
r+'aMnt maarc..
rtan'ha
s'si[nnir
spits
Nbts at �
i —`
,xsa v
aan �a rNta
OpEN SPACE
yAT+ON - rezy� AW.
��tN F Q�'IW�
yIG� � R1tQt1MT
AS/W LORt✓ER �� PERPF t7Wt Oq 90A
LI�C � r'Scnte ras PraF°rrd t p d
NOTE aGntM
m o +';,ca�P' 8 A01 W 5H
fs
corny tha! tWpod is raY f �a ai0�u"Nw °ga ;gad
tra th* ffi°`i' ! er wMo�is• o mn aa�h r e n t^reatva !ne
of ^ ex K�tN.ti y D� °t th r aG r+. 4 0y, pxps�m�!
an N7s �c�t rs-, ° �a;; t, Mt +�.{Aer ""'L as noted
al ra• d Mtm7sef Da b no aP� d FarccL _ua,ntois
ru asd droop con y aas�t;Ua� d essn9 ar � snturo ar allot �Mt, e! roc ar �arC,
Fsllr!a --I9 � psrtn+ rs AmM Va7tfo4<a IC-tr Cdaxada
„r0n"ro�nta� rd7 Quyanw�vlsraa N Iorrt '�
y141 upclass,
Mn
15' SWAMEASENENT
VAtL tN�ENT N
D5�8p�5tAN
10PROW - 0, Lp�O�T 6
pR� MEADOWS
s car' tNNS@RUUE COUNTY t
w ara ass TAIL. EA
ws+ra
m soor °`Q`wn
inter -Mountain
AftEngmeeringLtd.
October 18, 1995
Mr. Bob Borne
P.D. Box 4205
Vail, CO 81658
Re: Lot 6 Innsbruck Meadows
Project No. 95-0173S
Dear Bob:
Several months ago you requested Inter -Mountain Engineering to stake out proposed Lot 6, Innsbruck
Meadows so your contractor could lay out a foundation for the proposed house. Per that request we did
stake out the four corners of the lot but did not lay out any points on the front lot line along the cur%,c.
When we did the Improvement Location Certificate we found that a small portion of the foundation
intruded into the required front yard setback by about the same distance as the radius of the curie or some
3.5 feet. What I believe happened is that since there were no curve points staked it appears the house was
laid out from the chord line between the property corners and not from the curve, which resulted in the
encroachment into the easement and setback.
If you have any further questions, please call me at 949-5072.
Sincerely,
Je ery Span I, P.E.
ATTACHMENT #2 •
77 Metcalf Road, #201 • Box 976 • Avon, Colorado 81620 • Phone: 970-949-5072 • From Denver Direct: 893-1531
1420 Vance Street • Lakewood, Colorado 80215 • Phone: 303.232-0158
Empl--swa�.d% I !
RAW DIN
•r
e
2
max,
E—
,,OF� GA S LA
7834.�'
1
1
INNSBRUCK MEADOWS HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 4365
VAIL , COLORADO 81658
303-476-5263
Oct 30, 1995
To whom it may concern;
This is to confirm that Innsbruck Meadows Homeowners Association has no
problem with the proposed Variance submitted by Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc.,
with regard to an encroachment of the Northwesterly corner of the home being built on Lot
6 , into the front yard pedestrian, utility and drainage easements.
ATTACHMENT #4
•
•
ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT
TIIS AGREEMENT, is trade and entered into this _,day of Q V , 1995
by9ti'NSt�CciclC Ii7�ilYri r ' and UUctkxZJzs_vc the a quasi -municipal corporation�f the
State of Colorado, hereinafter referred to as "District".
WHEREAS, Property Owner(s) is/aye presently the owner(&) of certain real
property described as I Nvta 5 et, C� /GiPe4s7�eJ5 S': ,(oL�iU�Sc�(� , located in
Eagle County, Colorado; and
WHEREAS, the District is presently in possession of an easement -Zd feet in
width, running through the aforementioned property, which easement is described on Exhibit A,
attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, Property Owner(s) desires to construct a permanent structure that will
encroach upon the described easement in an area approximately -?lz ' x g` said
encroachment being described on Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the easement is an active easement presently in use by the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises herein, the parties
hereby agree as follows:
1. The District shall permit the permanent structure to encroach upon the
aforementioned easement.
2. The Property Owner(s) shall indemnify the District from the costs of any
repairs to the District's utility lines which may occur as a result of the construction of the
permanent structure over and upon such easement.
3. The Property Owner(s) shall hold harmless the District from the cost of
repairing any damage to the structure, which damage may be caused by the installation of new
utility lines in this easement, or by a break in present and future utility lines of the District, or by
the repair of such break by the District or by other maintenance of the lines.
18 4. The Property Owner(s) shall indemnify the District from any increase in the
cost of construction of any new utility lines or in the cost of any repairs to the District's utility
lines, such increase, if any, due to the proximity of the permanent structure to the utility lines.
ATTACHMENT #5
5. This Agreement shall bind the successors and assigns of the Property Owner(s), and shall
be appurtenant to and deemed to run with and for the benefit of the aforementioned property in
Eagle County, Colorado until such time that the District abandons said easement. This Agreement
shall be recorded against said property in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
as of the day and year first above written..
PROPERTY OWNER(S)
By
r
By
Dennis Gelvin, General Manager
ATTEST:
By
Assistant Secretary
40
•
•
0
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this V"clay of ov tw,6r
1995, by 7�,_VVIAQ.
Notary Public'
My Commission expires: 4 2 A 5
STATE OF COLORADO )
) ss
COUNTY OF EAGLE )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this �+day of 1�3 e=�.lryar
1995, by Dennis Gelvin, as General Manager of the Arrowhead Metropolitan Sanitation
District.
My Commission expires:
No Pu is
IINNSBRUCK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
P.O. BOX 4205
VAIL , COLORADO 81657
303--476-5263
October 30, 1995
Background:
Innsbruck Meadows is a multi family project which is currently platted as one big
lot.
It is planned for a total of fourteen homes , nine of which are single family, four of which
are primary/secondary with the secondary unit being an EHU and the last being a
true primary/secondary and which is being built for the original seller of the land. Prior to
delivery of title to units, new plats will be created which show Improvement Locations and
the individual lots which are to be transferred to purchasers.
At this time no units have been transferred and all of the property is owned by
Innsbruck Meadows Development., Inc. 0
The variance that we are requesting is as follows: There are presently five homes
under construction. One of the homes, building six recently had an ILC issued which
showed a small encroachment of the Northwesterly corner of the building into the front
easement. This encroachment extends about 3.5 feet into the easement at the very corner
of the building and travels on a diagonal for eight feet where it crosses out of the easement.
Thus the encroachment is about fourteen square feet.
The error in the Southwesterly corner's location was occasioned by an omission on
the part of the projects surveyor who was directed to stake out the proposed lot and
easement so that a foundation could be installed on that lot. The surveyor through some
sort of omission staked out the four corners of the lot but omitted to stake out any
intermediate changes in direction of those lines. In this case the relation of the property
line to the curb ranged from eleven feet on one side to four feet on the other, thus making
the Northerly lot line a parabola or uneven curve and not the straight line he indicated by .
his placement of corner lot line stakes. He provided no intermediate points at all in that
line. We have included in this submission a letter from the surveyor indicating the
accuracy of this statement.
With no intermediate points to indicate something other than a straight lot line, the
ATTACHMENT #6
contractor struck a line from lot corner to lot corner and set the front corner of the home
on that chord. Since the home was not designed to follow the lot line , but rather move
away from it, only that Northwesterly corner intrudes into the easement by some 3.5 feet
and gradually decreases to zero encroachment in a length of eight feet. The variance
request therefore is to allow a triangular portion of the two story building, of
approximately fourteen square feet, to intrude into the easement as shown on the ILC.
We feel that the request meets the criteria necessary to qualify for such a variance in
that it is surrounded on three sides by other homes within its subdivision and only faces
Kinnikinick road on the Northerly side and therefore has no effect on other existing or
potential uses and structures in the area.
We feel that it would qualify, as a hardship as in its present state to take down a
seventeen hundred square foot home and garage would be an extreme solution to the
problem. We feel that since this error was occasioned by an omission by the surveyor for
the entire project and that the hardship was imposed upon us by a party employed to
prevent just such a happening and was not a willful or knowing act on our part, that the
hardship of knocking down the building or removing one of its outside walls would be an
. extreme punishment for another entity's error. In addition it should be noted that an
additional hardship would occur to the purchaser of the home who has plans to close on the
home in early December.
I would also like to refer to a similar case in which the Board reacted favorably to a
variance request caused by a surveyors error in laying out an incorrect elevation for a
building in East Vail and thereby caused that building to exceed the required height
restriction by two feet.
Additionally we believe that the encroachment is of a minor nature and the granting
the variance would have no effect on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
We also feel that the variance request is within the spirit of Vail's comprehensive
plan. It should be noted that since the building's garage door faces a Westerly interior
street, the side in question is actually a side yard and not a front yard. In most similar
single family subdivisions the side yard requirement would only be fifteen feet and
therefore the present condition would not be an encroachment.
I enclose the following:
1) Four copies of the ELC indicating the encroachment
2) Four copies of a letter from Inter Mountain Engineering indicating the facts of
this issue. 9
3) Four copies of the Architects statement regarding same.
4) Four copies of over all site plans, specific site plans as well as elevations and
floor plans.
S) Four copies of the variance application
6) The required fee for the application
Respectfully submitted,
Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc.
By: Robert Borne, Pres.
is
DRAFT
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 27, 1995
• Minutes
MEMBERS PRESENT: MEMBERS ABSENT:
STAFF PRESENT:
Bob Armour
Tom Moorhead
Greg Amsden
Mike Mollica
Greg Moffet
Jim Curnutte
Henry Pratt
Lauren Waterton
Jeff Bowen
Randy Stouder
Dalton Williams
George Ruther
Kevin Deighan (1 hour late)
Judy Rodriguez
Public Hearing 2:00 p.m.
The meeting was called to order by Bob Armour at 2:05
Kevin Deighan was not present.
Mike Mollica asked for a Commission discussion and vote on the VA temporary tent in
Lionshead.
Randy Stouder stated that the VA temporary tent is made of vinyl rather than canvas and felt the
PEC should review the change in fabric. He said there would also be rough log siding on the
lower portion of the tent. He asked the Commission to confirm that the material is appropriate.
He was looking for the Commission to decide on whether the term should be changed.
Bob Armour said we now have a new tent with different material.
Jack Hunn said the current tent was not portable, however, the fabric is of the same quality.
Dalton Williams had a problem with the rough wood siding and with the fabric. He stated that it
looked like an old beat up shed. Last year's canvas was OK. Dalton said to put back what was
approved, the size, construction etc.
Jack Hunn said the new location was approved.
Balton Williams said the approved tent was a roll up and this new system precludes that. VA is
modifying an approval. He is not in favor of approving this change.
Jack Hunn said the rough siding gave a western look character and was why it was chosen.
Randy Stouder also added that staff recommended the rough siding for a western look.
• Greg Moffet asked if the same material from last year was still available.
Jack Hunn suggested going with sample 3 rather than switch manufacturers. Jack Hunn
requested going through one year looking like it does. They did make a mistake by putting the
shiny side out, instead of the dull side. Sample 1 was last years fabric and sample two is this
years, with the exception that the shiny side mistakenly was put on the outside and can't be
turned inside out.
Dalton Williams said sample 3 is acceptable.
Greg Moffet moved that the tent fabric be submitted to the DRB, with a recommendation to
change to sample 3 and use the rough siding this year.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
The vote was 5-1, with Dalton Williams opposed, because the wood siding is not in the same
taste as the rest of Lionshead.
A request for a setback variance to allow for a residence under construction to encroach
into the front setback located at 2850 Kinnickinnick/Lot 6, Innsbruck Meadows
Subdivision.
Applicant: Am. Bros. Development Inc., represented by Bob Borne
Planner: George Ruther
Greg Amsden abstained from this item.
George Ruther gave an overview of the request and stated that in the staff's opinion, Criteria A2
and B1 had not been met and staff is recommending denial.
Bob Borne, the applicant, expressed embarrassment and gave an apology for this error. He
stated that he has been doing this type of work for 35 years and this is the first time a surveyor
has done something like this. Bob Borne mentioned that he has established a new procedure in
his company because of this error. He explained that his company would request a preliminary
ILC everytime a foundation was located near a setback line. He feels with this new procedure, a
mistake like this can be avoided in the future. This is a result of an error in the surveying
technique. The hardship of taking down the building is extreme and the punishment does not fit
the crime.
Bob Armour asked if the spacing between the buildings would be compromised.
Bob Borne said the lot lines are imaginary and it would not compromise anything.
George Ruther asked if the building was pushed back, would it not encroach into the required
building separation.
Bob Borne said no.
Henry Pratt recommended denial, because he thought there may be a grant of special privilege.
Dalton Williams recommended denial because of a special privilege. He stated that Bob Borne is
in the business and should not make mistakes like this.
Mike Mollica stated we are all human and mistakes happen.
Jeff Bowen had nothing to add.
Greg Moffet recommended granting a variance with conditions as listed in the memo.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November27,1995
Bob Armour noted that a letter that Bob Horne sent was now in the packet. Bob Armour said a
preliminary ILC adds another step in the already long process . He sees no harm in this building
being 3.5' in the setback and he is in favor of it.
0 Jeff Bowen made motion for denial.
Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
Dalton Williams asked if he missed something similar that had been previously been approved
during meetings in the past. Dalton said his concerns were that in his 6 years on the
Commission they made someone take a roof off for a similar situation.
Bob Armour reminded the Commissioners that there is a motion on the floor and discussion
should have been taken up in the worksession.
George Ruther mentioned the Musyl residence and the Michael Lauterbach residence on
Sandstone were similar situations where surveying errors caused buildings to be non-
conforming, however, the PEC had granted a variance.
Dalton Williams said that errors and omission insurance should cover this loss.
Bob Borne said with regard to the Musyl residence, the surveyor made a 2.5' error in height. The
Board granted this variance. He stated that the home (Unit 6, Innsbruck Meadows) is sold and
the owners want to move in. It cannot be moved.
• Bob Armour reminded Bob Borne that there is an appeals procedure after the PEG vote.
E
Dalton Williams asked the staff if there is any such thing as a penalty to the surveyor because of
this error.
George Ruther said he is not aware of any way for the Town to penalize the surveyor.
The vote was 3 in favor of denial and 2 opposed for denial.
Mike Mollica stated that Bob Borne had 10 days to appeal to Town Council regarding the PEC
vote of denial.
Planning and Environmental Commission
Minutes
November 27, 1995
INNSBRUCK MEADOWS DEVELOPMENT, INC.
P.O. BOX 4205
VAIL , COLORADO 81657
303-476-5263
Town of Vail
Town Council
Nov. 27, 1995
Re: Variance request
Innsbruck Building 6
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am writing this letter in support of the appeal to Council that I have requested be placed
on the Council agenda of Dec. 5, 1995. This appeal is based upon the rejection of a variance
request by the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of Vail, with regard to a
3.5 foot front yard setback encroachment.
• I would like to start by reciting the general facts.
Innsbruck Meadows is a multi family development in which I am involved and is located
on Kinnikinick Road in the Inter Mountain section of Vail. The project which has nineteen
dwelling units in fourteen buildings, provides four type 3 employee housing units, the first of
which is under construction and is sold to a full time Vail resident and employee. The project has
also provided , as part of its previous approval an underground storm sewer system, curb and
gutter along Kinnikinick road and a 20 foot pedestrian easement with a planned bicycle or
walking path along its entire length.
During the construction process of one of the early units in the project, the developer
requested of the project surveyor, a stake out of the lot lines of the above lot and more
importantly the boundary between the lot and the front yard/ pedestrian and utility easement
which has been previously discussed. The surveyor, by his own letter which accompanies this
request, acknowledges that he staked out only the corners of the property and did not place any
• intermediate stakes along that line even though the line was an arc and had three changes of
direction in that line. When the foundation contractor set the foundation he assumed the line in
question was straight, as indicated by the surveyor and he set the corner of the building on that
line and built the foundation accordingly and which resulted in an encroachment of a triangle with
a maximum depth of 3.5 feet reducing to zero in the length of 8 feet.
I respectfully submit that this error in the survey was inadvertent on his part and certainly
was not an intended act on the part of the developer. I firmly believe that a surveyor is an entity
. that one has the right to believe in and follow the guidelines that he sets. In this case he made an
error and most certainly, we as developers made the ultimate mistake as obviously the buck stops
with us.
I therefore offer the fact that we are ultimately wrong, but being human, sometimes make
mistakes . We therefore, due to the following reasons, respectfully request your consideration of
the following:
1) Our error was based upon the previous work of a professional who had been hired
specifically to locate where or where not the building corner had to be and we had to assume this
information provided was correct or why than should we hire such a professional.
2) We acknowledge that we erred but we ask who, other than us has been harmed by the
act.
3) We had no gain to obtain by placing the building into the setback and now stand to
suffer many thousands of dollars in damages if either we are unable to deliver the sold unit to its
purchaser ion a timely basis or we are required to reconstruct or tear down the building.
4) We offer to more than make up for the fourteen square feet of encroachment into the
pedestrian easement by increasing that easement by one hundred square feet at the intersections of
Kinnikinick and Bellflower and at the intersection of Kinnikinick and Basingale, where we believe
the space is far more useful. We also propose to add two eight foot Colorado Spruce trees to that
above mentioned comer to screen the encroachment. We have aslo secured the approval of
Upper Eagle Consolidated Utility system of the encroachment.
I believe that it is time to assess if the punishment of removal fits the crime, even if we
dismiss the fact that the error was caused by a professional that we are entitled to believe in. I ask
who is harmed ? I ask that this issue be assessed on a common sense approach. Is this project
which is and has been obviously good for all concerned , required to face a Iaw suit from a
purchaser who has contracted with us in good faith and to whom we will no longer be able to
• deliver what we are obliged to do? Does common sense dictate that a resident of Vail, who has
provided many good things in the Town of Vail, be severely penalized for an admitted error that
has no value to him and has no negative effects upon any part of the community?
I also respectfully submit that this issue has been addressed on at least three occasions
during the past year and in each case the Planning and Environmental Commission has granted the
request for such a variance due to a surveying error. I fully understand that precedent is not a
reason for approval of a new request such as this one is but in the hopes that you ladies and
• gentlemen of the Council do take these previous events into consideration I submit the following
similar variances that were granted and the similarities that make this request more
understandable.
A) A residence in East Vail... The applicant sought and obtained a two & one half foot
foot variance in the overall height of the building due to an error in a bench mark set by the
surveyor.
b) A project under construction on Sandstone Road received a change in building
envelope location and a utility easement vacation since the structure was built in the wrong
location due to a surveying error.
As you can see, each of the above events have a distinct similarity to what
happened in this case. All of the above were decided based upon an analysis of the cause, the lack
of damage to any other outside party and to the relationship of the admitted error to the
punishment. As previously stated , I fully understand that the ultimate responsibility lies within
• us but I respectfully submit that some mitigation which benefits the Town is more appropriate
than demolition or cutting of a corner of a virtually completed structure is more appropriate.
I greatly appreciate your consideration of the facts outlined herein.
Respectfully,
Innsbruck Meadows Development, Inc.
11
i
TOWN OF PAIL
75 South Frontage Road
iVail, Colorado 81657
970-479-2107/Fax 970-479-2157
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: R. Thomas Moorhead, Town Attorney
DATE: December 1, 1995
RE: Proposed Development for the International Wing
Office of the Town Attorney
On August 9, 1983 there was an agreement reached between Lodge Properties ("LPI") and the
Town of Vail (`Town") (Exhibit A). The agreement resolved a dispute concerning what development
. rights remained or how many additional dwelling units could be located on the property known as
the Lodge At Vail containing 2.090 acres. This agreement compromised and settled that dispute.
In summary it was agreed that the zoning ordinance for CCi would not prohibit LPI from building
thirty-four new accommodation units and one dwelling unit. Prior to such construction however LPI
would be required to obtain permission from the appropriate boards and commissions of the Town
and required to obtain all necessary permits. LPI agreed to construct expanded conference and
meeting room facilities at the time of building the expansion.
This agreement was discussed by Town Council on August 2, 1983 (Exhibit B). A transcript of that
discussion is attached which resulted in the passing of a unanimous motion authorizing the Town
Manager to execute the agreement (Exhibit C). There was no challenge raised by adjacent property
owners or any other objections raised to the agreement or the Town Council's authority to enter Into
the agreement. The record reflects a good faith, negotiated compromise entered into to resolve a
valid dispute.
In May, 1983 an application was made for an exterior alteration in the name of LPI. This matter was
scheduled for consideration by the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 10, 1983.
The Community Development Department prepared a memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission dated October 6, 1983 (Exhibit D).
• On October 10th the Planning and Environmental Commission denied the application based upon
the closeness of the LPI property to One Vail Place (Exhibit E). This decision was appealed. On
October 24, 1983 this matter returned to the Planning and Environmental Commission for
consideration after changes in the proposal were presented to Town Council. The changes
included proposing fourteen feet between the International Wing and One Vail Place. The Planning
and Environmental Commission voted to approve the exterior alteration pursuant to the staff
recommendation (Exhibit F).
�4M� RECYCLED PAPER
i
I1\ nc:uw:�:*tii•:r:'t' J�
' � 7'111:i n[3ltL•'I:AIL•`�T i:nlerccl Fut�� this ����1ay o!' 1�,dd�f•u.?� , 1F3F33
Icy rand hutwuen the Lodga Propertiog, Inc. ,.a Colorado Corporation,
{"Thv Cvrlpur4tion") and the Town of Vail, a Colorado Munkcip-al Corporation,
The Town").
I RECITALS
1. The Corporation is the owner of certain real property and improve-
ments located thereon which are collectively known as the Lodge at Vail
("The Lodge"). Being more particularly d.acribod on the attached Exhibit "A"
and containing 2.090 acres.
2. The Lodge is located within the Commercial Core I Zone District
of the Town of Vall.
3. A dispute has arisen between the. Corporation and the Town as'
to whether the zoning ordinances of the Town would allow the addition of
34 new aeconunodation units and one dwelling unit (collecti.vely relarred to
as "Units") to the Lodge.
4. The dispute relates to whether certain of the dwelling units
the Lodge Apartments Condominiums located on a. parcel of air space
vo the real property owned by the Lodge,•is attributable to -the land
owned by the Corporation itself.
5. The parties now wish to compromise and settle all diiSerences which
remain be'1:ween them,
II AGREEMENT
NOW THERE FORE, the parties agree as Sollows:
1. b e parties agree that the,donsity control section of thc.•zoning
,rd'inance for Commercial Core I shall not prohibit the bodge from bvild5n,.
he Units.•
2. Beforc the Lodge shall proceed with the 1_04etruction of the Unit:
t shall be required to comply with all' the appropriate ordinances of the
awn and obtain permission from the approprinte boards and oommissions or
)e Town and further obtain all required and necessary permits.
hould the Lodge go forward wit•li'the construction of the Units it
fall be further required to construct expanded co'nfarence_ and meeting room
ilities In the Lodge so that when such expansion is complete the Lodgo
Xxhibit A
..•urao SAM) UInt:L.i111', 1•liuln KlPILL; : wit 1 a:11 1 et ut� 7.0:.e:1
000 Pt:c:l. in si.v.c, morc..? or lcn.m of which cane roam shall. ,cmll.nin at lam;L
6,000 sweuru .Sett more or less.
4. The corporation shall not institute any legal actinn against the
Tnwn ccnccrning any of the disputed issues tact forth heron._ Tale Lodge by
entoring into this Algreement does not walve its rights t:d requoGt an additiona:
six accommodation units nor does the Town waive its ;-ight to oppose such
regtaost. •
IN, WITNESS WHERROr, the parties have signed thin Agreement this
day of
THE LODGE PnOVERTInS , INC.
Edmu Drager, Jr.
V,iaieaident.
TOWN OTC' PAIL
A, Colorudo Manioipal Corporation
by �'
Ric a l ,Cap an, Znwn
-Manager
L]
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
mFIESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983
30 P.M.
iOn Tuesday, August 2, 1983, a regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was
held in the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Herman Staufer
Paul Johnston
Chuck Anderson*
Bill Wilto, Mayor Pro-Tem
Rod Slifer, Mayor
Ron Todd
Gail Wahrlicb*
ABSENT: None
OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Caplan, Town Manager*
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
* (arrived late)
The first item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #27, Series of
1983, an ordinance making it illegal to obtain control over any stolen thing
of Value. Larry Eskwith stated that this Ordinance makes it illegal to
knowingly retain stolen property. Paul Johnston made a motion to approve
Ordinance #27 and Ron Todd seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously
and the ordinance was ordered published in.full.
• The next item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #28, Series of
1993, an ordinance amending chapter 10.080 impoundment of vehicles.
Larry Eskwith stated that the words "by auction" have been stricken from this
Ordinance, which allows the Town to enter into a contract with an organiza-
tion who will salvage the cars and the Town will not first have to offer the
cars at an auction. Herman Staufer made a motion to approve Ordinance #28 and
Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously and
the ordinance was ordered published in full.
The next item of the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance #29, Series of
1983, an ordinance repealing sections 17.26,060 (C) 4 and 17.26.060 (C) 5,
lating to condominium conversion projects independently metering utilities.
rry Eskwith stated this ordinance eliminates the need for individual
metering when units are converted into condominiums. Ron Todd made a motion
to approve Ordinance #.29 and Chuck Anderson seconded the motion. The
motion passed unanimously and the ordinance was ordered published in full.
There was no citizen participation.
The next item on the agenda was continued discussion of proposed speed dip
on West Gore Creek Drive. All Weis presented the Council with additional
signatures supporting the speed dips. Ellen Knox stated she was in favor
of the bumps, but that they should be marked clearly. Larry'Lichliter also
stated he was in favor of speed bumps. Stan Berryman presented to the.
Council his views against the speed bumps. 1(e stated they would be
a drainage problem, damage the heavy equipment, would increase the Town's
liability and would be expensive to install. After discussion Bill
Wilto made a motion to install three speed dips on West Gore Creek Drive.
Ron Todd amended the motion to install "at least three" speed dips on West
Gore Creek Drive. Herman Staufer Seconded the motion. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously.
Exhibit B
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
TUESDAY, AUGUST 2, 1983
7:30 P.M.
...e next item on the agenda was the appeal of Vail Associates Snowmaking Projec!
Petter Patten presented the proposal to the Council. Re stated this is an
application for a Conditional Use Permit which had been -called up by the
Council due to concerns over minimum stream flow. There has been discussion
with Vail Associates, the Forest Service and the planning Staff, The
Forest Service and Planning staff statistics showed that minimum streem flow
would be protected. The Planning Department recommended approval with these
conditions. A) Meter Gold Peak, LionsHead and New Facility, B) Review the
data at the end of 1 year to assure VA is not exceeding to water use causing
the stream flow to go below minimum. After much discussion Ron Todd made
a motion for approval of a temporary conditional use permit of Vail Associates
Snowmaking pump house for the Phase I portion of the work. This approval
should be for a 1 year period at the end of which time we will review the
facts and with the stipulation VA install meters. The snowmaking should be
monitored close, and with the conditional direction that the
communication that is currently going on between the TOV and VA and the
Forest Service continue so that we can have some sort of ongoing idea what
impact snowmaking is occurring on the creek. Seconded by Chuck Anderson.
Bob Parker stated that he could not live with this motion as stated. VA
is investing too much money to risk having the permit removed for whatever
•'mason in one year. It was agreed that Larry Eskwith would get together
th Vail Associates (Bob Parker) to draft a document which reflects Ron
Todd's motion. Ron Todd restated his motion to read: Appoval of a conditional
use permit for Vail Associates snowmaking pump house conditional upon an
annual review as relates to minimum stream flow for Gore Creek to be reviewed
by Town of Vail, Forest Service, Vail Associates and the Water District,
That VA will install a meter to monitor flows and again on the condition that
there be ongoing dialogue between the Town, Forest Service, Vail Associates
and the Water District. Chuck Aderson seconded the motion. The motion
was passed unanimously.
The next item on the agenda was approval of an agreement relating to the
Lodge at Vail air rights. Larry Eskwith presented the matter to the Council.
A motion was made by Bill Wilto for the Town Manager to execute this agreement,
Second by Ron Todd, A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
The next item was approval of vacation of drainage easement of Lot 16, Glenlyon
subdivision. Petter Patten gave the report to the Council and expressed
his approval. This is just a formality to abandon this drainage easement.
Bill Wilto made a motion to approve the vacation of drainage easement of Lot
16, Glenlyon sibdivision. Seconded by Herman Staufer. Chuck Anderson
stained from giving his vote due to the fact he had a conflict of interest.
Motion approved.
Under Town Manager Report, Mr. Caplan asked the Council whether the following
Tuesdays work session should be cancelled due to the Jerry Ford Golf
Tournament. The Council agreed unanimously not to meet.
There was no Town Attorney Report.
As there was no further business the meeting was.adjourned at 9:00 P.M.
ATTEST:
1�. .L
Pamela A. randmeyer Town Clerk
Respec ly submitted,
Rodney '.�Sli 4'yo
The next item is approval of an'agreement relating to the Lodge at
Vail air rights. Mr. Bskwith.
Thanks Mr. Mayor. To give some background on this issue the Lodge
at Vail came in pursuant to the urban design guidelines and applied
for some redevelopment of the Lodge itself, and that redevelopment
was to include 34 additional units, almost of all of them except
.one accommodation units under one dwelling. The staff reviewed the
request and denied the request on the basis that the zoning,
particularly the density section of the Commercial Core One Zone
District .prohibited the addition of those new units. I then was
informed by Jim Bailey of the law firm of Cawkins, Kramer and
Grimshaw (firm name?) who represents the Lodge as well as Jay
Peterson who also represents the Lodge, that in fact something
unusual happened in 1972 which'to them indicated that the densities
hadn't been built out at the Lodge. This occurred prior to the
time we had our zoning ordinances in place and what happened is
that the owners of the property on which the Lodge is built deeded
some property to the Lodge and they also deeded by meets and bounds
a parcel of air rights over the Lodge to the Lodge Apartment
Condominiums. The Lodge Apartment Condominiums built in that air
parcel and their claim to me was that the units which were built in
that air parcel could not be attributed to the Lodge itself because
it was a separate parcel under different ownership. They provided
me with brief, cited a lot of law. I then proceeded to research
the law myself in some detail, including talking to the National
Institute of Municipal Law Offices, the Colorado Municipal League
and a woman who lectures on air rights, the name of Geraca
Goldhammer(?) from Hyland Park. My feeling after discussing the
issue with all those people and researching it myself is that while
I didn't think Mr. Bailey and Mr. Peterson were entirely correct in
their assumption, I felt it was a legally debatable and arguable
dispute and of course I brought that up to the Town's attention and.
we've discussed it in some detail. The Council asked me to draft
a possible settlement agreement for consideration tonight which
would provide that in order to.forego the necessity of.a law suit
with the Lodge at Vail, that we would accede to their being allowed
to build those certain accommodation units and dwelling units so
long as they did certain things for the Town. One of the chief
things they would do for the Town if this agreement were entered
into, is as a part of the redevelopment, build and refurbish
convention space in the Lodge and that convention space would
provide for at least 7,400 sq. ft. in total and that 6,000 sq. ft.
would have to be contained within one room, so it would have one
large convention room in the Lodge which would handle that 6,000
sq. ft. Both parties agreed to forego a law suit. The Lodge
• agreed to comply with all the zoning requirements of that zone
district as well as all the requirements of the submittal under the
Urban Design Guidelines. 1 think its important to note for the
Town Council that if the Council enters into this .agreement and
compromises this issue, it means that the Lodge would have a site
containing 2.090 acres and that site would allow additional units
than the units they are proposing to build now. They would be
entitled to six additional units. The Town by entering into this
Exhibit C
1
agreement, pursuant to the agreement does not waive its right to
contest those additional units, nor does the Lodge waive its right
to come in at a future date to ask for those units. I've been
assured informally by representatives of the Lodge that they have
no intention of building those units but I think its important for
the Town Council to know that they are not precluded from doing
that by this agreement. I'd be glad to answer any questions from
the Council or from the members of the audience.
Larry is this a unique situation as far as this subdivision by air ..
rights within our community?
Larry: The exact situation at the Lodge Inn to the best of my
knowledge and its based on research because I went over to Land
Title and started pulling condominium declarations like crazy, the
only condominium association that I know of that's positioning a
solid block parcel over a lodge that's under separate ownership but
connected to that Lodge is the Lodge at Vail, before zoning, before
zoning, that's right that occurred before zoning. But I think to
that this whole theory necessitates and has necessitated a review
on my part of our density control section because I think when the
Colorado statute relating to air rights, and that's what their
theory, the Lodge's theory is based on, a statute in the State of
Colorado. It state that air can be conveyed in parcels, that a
parcel of air rights is entitled to all the same considerations as
any other parcel of real estate. When you read that statute in
conjunction with our ordinance it raises some not so palatable
possibilities that I think need to be addressed and I'm in the
process of addressing that now and hope to have an amended
ordinance for your consideration at your next meeting, hopefully or
the meeting thereafter. As soon as possible because I think it has
to be considered.
Any questions from the Council?
Any questions from the floor, from Jay?
(could not hear short response)
If there are no discussion or any comments I think all it would
take is a motion authorizing the Town Manager to execute this
agreement, if there are no changes or other questions.
Motion by Bill Wilto, second by Ron I ?
Any further discussion? If not, all in favor vote saying aye.
Aye.
Opposed?
Unanimous.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 6, 1983
SUBJECT:
Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration and
modification for the Lodge at Vail containing lodge rooms, retail space, conference
space and a deluxe dwelling suite. The proposal includes modifications to the
"Lodge Plaza" adjacent to Founders' Plaza and to the parking lot on the west
side and additional storage space on the parking lot level on the north side
of the Lodge South building. Applicants: Lodge at Vail and the Lodge South
Condominium Association
REQUEST:
The request is to add 34 new luxury accommodation units and one luxury dwelling
unit containing approximately 30,000 square feet along with new plaza level
commercial space containing approximately 3,600 square feet, additional conference
space, and a ski storage room to the Lodge at Vail. In addition, new storage
space for the condominiums is being proposed for the Lodge South building.
Other modifications are a new gate house on the west, reversing the auto circu-
lation into the parking lot, and a new entry court. Over on the mountain side,
the parking lot would be expanded and new stairs added for skiers to get to
the ski lift chairs. The east plaza would be redesigned to complement Founder's
Plaza. At the Lodge Plaza there would be a temporary canvas pavillion removable
during the winter. The new Internationalwing would contain additional conference
space, lodge rooms, one luxury dwelling unit and commercial space on the plaza
level.
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 7983, the two restaurant expansions were approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission. Approved were a 730 square foot expansion to
the Salt Lick restaurant to be renamed the Wildflower and a 375 foot expansion
to the Arlberg restaurant to be renamed the Cipriani restaurant.
CONFORMANCE WITH PURPOSE OF COMMERCIAL CORE I DISTRICT
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture of
lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Exhibit D
Page 2 10/6/B3 Lodpr ` Vail
and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended
to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements
of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish
the village. - - 0
The Community Development Department considers that the proposal is in conformance
with the purpose of the zone district. The Lodge at Vail is the anchor for
Vail Village and needs to be upgraded to insure the quality of Vail Village
and the community. Without a strong heart, the Village will suffer. The
Community Development Department feels that the long and short term success
of Vail Village is partially based on a quality Lodge at Vail.
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
#22 Pocket park. Screen fence to close off all-eyway (gate required) and continue
streetscape. Pocket park with benches, planters; snow storage in winter.
Service vehicle zone optional.
The proposal contains an improved area of landscpping and walk between the
Lazier Arcade building and the Lodge at -Vail. Closing off the area is not
possible because it is a fire lane.
#14 Village Plaza. Feature area paving treatment, central focal point visible
from Gore Creek Drive. Major land form/planting in N.W. for quiet corner, 0
with evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall street stairs,
with mid -level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade shops.
This proposal actually expands the Founders' Plaza area and makes this into
an exciting space within Vail Village.
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE. NEW INTERNATIONAL WING
Pedestrianization:
By havingnew commercial'shops at the new plaza level, the potential for pedes-
trianization has increased by the proposal.
Vehicle Penetration:
There will be no change by this proposal.
Streetscape Framework:
As noted in the application, there is no direct frontage by the proposal on
a public street. The proposed shops and plaza do add to the pedestrian experienc
in Vail Village.
Street Enclosure:
The proposed International wing would have generally two heights, one fourth
the width of the enclosed space it faces and one sixth the width of the enclosed
space it faces.
Street Edqe:
The irregular facades proposed for the shops and restaurants meet this element
• of the design considerations.
Buildinq height:
The proposed height of the new International wing from the new plaza ranges from
24 feet to 33 feet. At the pedestrian plaza level the proposal meets the intent
of the height section of the Design Considerations. From the south side, the height
would be 35 feet and 43 feet. The Community Development Department feels that the
heights proposed meet the intent of the Design Considerations and provide for the
mix in building heights as perceived in Vail Village.
Views: There are no designated view corridors in the area of the proposal.
Service and Delivery: This will not change by the new addition proposed.
Sun/Shade Considerations:
There would be no sun/shade impact on Town of Vail public space (the Founders' Plaza)
as shown on the sun/shade study.
One concern of the staff is the amount of space between One Vail Place and the Inter-
national wing on the third floor. The staff considers that the top floor be shifted
five or six feet to the west to open the space between buildings.
For the proposed storage at the Lodge South, the Community Development Department
feels that there are no negative impacts.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Parking:
At the time of a building permit, the. applicable parking fees for each type of use
will be required.
Architectural and Landscape Considerations:
The proposal complies with the intent of the Design Considerations. Detailed design
issues will be more specifically discussed at the Design Review Board meeting.
Fire Department Considerations:
A new fire hydrant will be necessary along the south side near the new International
wing because of the new residential and commercial space.
is
RECOMMENDATION: '
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the Lodge at -Vail
request for 34 new lodge rooms, a luxury dwelling unit, new commercial space
and new storage space. In addition, we consider the site improvement very positive
for the Lodge at Vail and Vail Village. As noted previously -in the memorandum, •
the Lodge at Vail is the anchor for Vail Village. The.Community Development
Department feels the upgrading and expansion is positive for Vail -Village
and the community.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSON ACTION ON OCTOBER 10, 1983
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception
of the Lodge South proposal with the main reason being the closeness of the
Lodge property to One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.
• PEC -2- 10/' °S
He added that he had told the applicant that the board would act on the proposal
today, and had recommended denial with the suggestion that the applicant apply
again in November. Donovan moved and Piper seconded to deny the application for
lack of information. The vote was 5-0 in favor of denial.
3. A regnest for an exterior alteration to t e Vii_lace Center oro'ect at 122
East Meadow Drive to add a""new retail addition on the east en�, to revise
the entrance to Tovmaker's Trail, to construct additions to the retail shoos,
and to construct a new sidewalk along the north side of the project.,
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
Corcoran read a letter from the applicant asking to table this item until 10/24.
Viele moved and Piper seconded to table until the meeting of October 24. Vote was 5-0.
4. A request for a conditional use Tower
in Commercial Core II in order to construct
commercial storage units in the lower level of the Concert.Hall Plaza.
Applicant: Eagle Valley Investments, Inc.
The applicant asked to table until October 24." Donovan moved and Corcoran seconded
to table the item until October 24. The vote was 5-0 in favor of tablino.
5. A request for an exterior alteration for the Lo e at Vail to add a ew wing
to the hotel between One Vail Place and the L qe containing lodge robms, retail
space, conference space and a deluxe suite. he proposal includes modifications
to the "Lodge Plaza' adjacent to Founders' P aza an to te parking /lot on the
west side and additional storage space on the.street levelon the north side
of the Lodge South building. Applicant: Lodge at Vail and Lod South Condo
Association.
Dick Ryan reviewed the memo. Jay Peterson,, representing the applicant, showed a
model and asked if the PEC could vote first on just the storage for the Lodge South.
Alan Tafoya, representing Ruoff Partnerships, the architect, showed where the storage
in the parking area of Lodge South would go. He added that there would be 16 lockers,
which would be minimized with doors facing into the garage. The garage would be
kept an open ventilated garage. Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the storage
lockers. The vote was 5-0.
Jay then discussed the model and its different aspects: the new entry and rearranged
parking lot, ski storage and employee cafeteria, and the new International suite.
Viele asked what would happen to the 2 spruce trees next to the entrance when the
parking lot was rearranged, and Peterson responded that they would attempt to move
the trees to another location. Concern was expressed about the closeness of the
International wing to One Vail Place. Peterson said that One Vail'Place overhung
its property line. He added that the architects had considered moving the top story
of the International wing to the west, and were dissatisifed with the appearance.
Viele asked if there were technical problems with the buildings so close together,
and Peterson said that they would have to use special glass
Trout said that he had difficulty with having only two feet between the buildings.
He suggested taking space from the other end, of the wing and move the whole building.
He approved the rest of the proposal. .Martha Fritzlen, a resident of One Vail Place
stated that everyone who lived in CCI was concerned about narrow alleyways and all
of their problems. Donovan stated that she felt that the building had been designed
Exhibit E
PEC -3- 1. 483
r
to conform to the Urban Design Plan, but that not everyone felt that the Urban Design
Guide Plan was good, and that the building was being designed with the UDGP in mind,
whether or not it worked. She added that it appeared that the commercial section
was drawing people to a dead end. Donovan .felt that in the summer the plaza would
be a lively place, but not in winter. She was concerned about the heights and conf
about how they were figured. Peterson said that on the plaza side, 6E' of the roo f
were below 35 feet, in the back, the roof was 48 feet at the highest point. He felt
that if the guidelines were specific, they would need a variance.
More discussion followed concerning the height of the east end of the International
wing. Donovan pointed out that the proposal should deal with the whole complex, not
just with 6 rooms (regarding the closeness of the building to One Vail Place).
Piper liked the new entry, but felt that flowers in the middle of the parking lot
would not be visible when cars were parked there. .He agreed with Donovan concerning
the closeness of the building to One Vail Place, and wondered why the roof garden
had to be a certain size.
Ron Grant, representing Warren Platner, architect, stated that he and his coworkers
had worked with a large model and had tried the top floor of the new wing in several
different places, but that they were dissatisfied with any but the location shown.
Piper said that he would like to see other solutions. Peterson showed elevations
with the high roof six feet west. Viele liked the entrance, but felt that it was
unfortunate that the landscaping were to be changed so that the cars had become
more visible. He agreed with Donovan regarding softening of the plaza, and felt
that he could not go along with a two foot alleyway. Corcoran agreed with the concerns
expressed, except that he did not have any problem with the feeling of the dead end
in the plaza.
Patten pointed out that One Vail Place had built to and over their property line
with an agreement with the Lodge. Martha Fritzlen said that when the Schoeb r building
was built, they did the same with the west side. The Gore Creek Plaza buildir�f
was completely blocked on the west side. �6
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to deny the application with the exception of the
Lodge South proposal with the main reason the closeness of the new wing addition to
One Vail Place. The vote to deny was 5-0.
Jim Morgan arrived.
6. Request for a setback variance in a Primary/Secondary zone district to �onsYuct
a pparaye with a deck on top at Lot 4, block 3, Intermountain. Applican Iza-
beth J. Kuehn
Jim Sayre showed plans and elevations and explained that the staff recommended approval
because there would be no detrimental effect on the adjoining properties, there
was a physical hardship, and there were•other variances granted for the construction
of garages in west Vail. Kuehn, the applicant, explained that to place the garage •
elsewhere would also change -the appearance of the house.
Viele moved and Piper seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. Vote was 6-.0.
Donovan felt the commercial space request was excessive, that the commercial space
should be an accessory to the lodging.
Morgan asked Eskwith whether or not he felt the applicant was asking for a -change
in the substance, and Eskwith replied that he was questioning the same thing. He
stated that the Town had the inherent power to change the SOD but was not obligated
to.
Patten stated that this was more of a rezoning with the reshaping of the SOD, and
that it would be a recommendation to the Town Council who would have to pass an
ordinance. Morgan liked the mall, but found the magnitude personally offensive.
Piper felt that this was a major change to the original SOD because of the addition
of the Amoco site and the request for additional GRFA. He felt that there was
a strong impact on Vail Road. He felt the view corridor was a personal opinion,
and also felt that on approaching the 4-way one observed the immediate area or
the area nearby. He felt that the landscaped corner was good, and had no problem
with the parking spaces proposed, and wanted to see the conditional uses remain
as is.
Ryan stated that the. staff did their best to listen to the old tapes and to get
information from them. He felt that there were several positive aspects of the
proposal, but was basically concerned with the magnitude. The staff felt that
the Amoco site should be rezoned to PA and there should be an amendment to the
SDD, specifically for phases IV & V, that they were not just minor changes.
The staff did not recommend changing to permitted uses the conditional uses .listed,
they did recommend deleting the section concerning distance between buildings,
as this had been eliminated from all other SOD's, did not recommend item D, using
16 average height, did not recommend item E, changing the GRFA and allowing additional
floor area for commercial type use, but needed to know which rules would apply.
Ryan said the staff approved the amount of parking.
Piper suggested there be a vote on the proposal with the exception of the allowance
of changing conditional uses to permitted uses.
Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request based on the magnitude and
scale. The vote was in favor of denial - 1 (Trout) against denial, with Pierce
abstaining..
3. A reouest for an exterior alteration for the Lodqe at Vail to add a new
wing to the hotel between One Vail Place and the Lodqe. The pro osal
includes modifications to the "Lodqe Plaza" adjacent to the Foun�ers' Plaza
and to the_parkinq lot on the west side.
Dick Ryan stated that when the Lodge at Vail went to the Town Council they were
asked to return to PEC with their changes. Jay Peterson said that the applicant
was now proposing 14 feet between the International Wing and One Vail Place, by
taking 5 inches out of each room. He listed distances between buildings in Vail
and stated that "this is not an entrance to anything." Patten disagreed, saying
that it was a major walkway. After more discussion, Donovan moved and Morgan seconded
to approve per staff recommendation. The vote was 4 in favor with Rapson and Trout
f abstaining.
Exhibit F
JAcobs
ChASE
FR1ck
K[EINkopf
November 9, 1995
& YIA FACSIMILE and US MAIL
KEUEy Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
tl_C Vail, Colorado 81657
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
RECEIVED ROV 13 MW
Re: Appeal Lodge at Vail, Proposed International Wing
Gentlemen:
ANN B. FRick
8924422
On behalf of our client, Luanne C. Wells, an adjacent property owner, we
• hereby appeal to the Vail Town Council.the November 1, 1995 decision of the Town .
of Vail Design Review Board regarding the Lodge at Vail, International Wing. On
behalf of Ms. Wells, we object to the Design Review Board's decision based upon
the proposed development's nonconformance with standard procedures and
requirements of the Vail Village urban design guidelines, applicable design review
objectives and prior conditions of approval. On behalf of Ms. Wells, we also object
to the proposed development on the basis that it violates well -established zoning
rules, regulations, laws and policies.
Ms. Wells is a property owner at One Vail Place and is adversely affected by
this pro; used development_
INdEPENdENCE PLAZA
1050 171h Sr.
SUITE 1500
• DENVErt, CO 80265
303.685.4800
FAx 303.685,4869 ABF/kb
ICFKK-1741.1
Very truly yours,
JACOBS CHASE FRICK KLEINKOPF
& KELLEY LLC
Ann B. Frick
-10 0-
ENTERTAINMENT
November 7, 1995
Mayor Osterfoss and Town Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
FAX: (970) 479-2157
.RECEIVED NOV 13 f.
RE: Appeal Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed.
Dear Tom:
As an adjacent property owner, I hereby appeal to the Vail Town Council the November 1,
1995, decision of the Town of Vail Design Review Board regarding the Lodge at Vail,
International Wing. I wish the Town Council to overturn the DRB decision based upon the
proposal's non-conformance with standard procedures and requirements of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guidelines, applicable design review objectives and prior conditions of approval. I
am the owner of Units 523 and 525 in the Lodge at Vail and am adversely affected by the
proposal.
Sin'erel
Sybil . Robson
345 North Maple Drive
Suite 208
Beverly Hills, CA 90210
(310) 246-4688
345 NORTH MAPLE DRIVE
S U I T E2 0 8
HVIRIY HMS, CA 40210
TR: 13101 246,4688
FAX;: (3101 247-8882
•
•
0
�tanl¢� �. �l�ttmtttt
tlt �jiEtFl �hEtttca _
�cbx �usR.�$.�.IItD122
•
FAX (970) 479-2452
October 17, 1995
Ms. Susan Connelly
Community Development Director
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Ms. Connelly:
re: International Wing at The Lodge at Vail
I am the owner of Condominium 363-365 at the Lodge. My wife
Sydney, our four sons, and I spend a good deal of time throughout the year
enjoying the wonders of Vail. We have an unencumbered view of the Village
and mountain from our unit which is on the upper southeast corner of the
Lodge looking past Wildflower and over what is currently the International
Wing (Xerox picture enclosed),
Although I am a director of The Lodge Condominium Owners
Association, I am writing solely in my individual capacity as a unit owner. As
you know, the Association is a member of the East Village Homeowners
Association, and EVHA has already expressed many concerns which I share.
Although it is in the interest of Lodge Properties to increase their profitability
by creating additional facilities, the location, design and scale of these facilities r
should be planned with consideration for all affected parties and the citizenry
as a whole.
r
A '
Ms. Susan Connelly
Town of Vail
Page 2
With this perspective in mind, I would hope that the DRB will look at
the proposed design in conformance with its own performance requirements
with respect to scale, roof design, the requirements that commercial use be
limited to plaza levels, underground parking to be located at the site, required
passage ways between adjacent structures, etc.
To the extent possible, views over, and privacy of, existing residential
units should not be diminished. It would appear that the upper most floor
exceeds the height requirement, and the Penthouse unit itself is a luxury that
serves largely to meet the hubris of the owner. It should be removed in order
to reduce the building height.
I have been impressed with the continued efforts of the DRB and the
Town Council to encourage enlightened development in the town, and I submit
these comments with the hope that they will be of assistance to you in the
course of your consideration of the proposed International Wing.
Very truly yours,
Stanley S. Shuman
f
enclosure
i
eE"iVEU_1jQV i u
ofnalro fo. *#tiwnn
I11 Tiftlf Abrmw X C :
,Ntiv lark, X. It. ID1122 w 4l • 4 5
O lq: 444-L-"
FAX (970) 479-US7
November 7, 1995
Mayor Osterfoss & Town Council
Attn: Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Sir:
• re: Appeal Lodge at Vail, International Wing, as proposed.
As an adjacent property owner, I hereby appeal to the Vail Town
Council the November 1st, 1995 decision of the Town of Vail Design Review
Board regarding the Lodge at Vail, International Wing. I wish the Town
Council to overturn the DRB decision based upon the proposal's non-
conformance with standard procedures and requirements of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guidelines, applicable design review objectives and prior
conditions of approval. I am owner of Unit 363/365 in the Lodge at Vail and
am adversely affected by the proposal as set forth in my letter of October 17th,
1995, copy enclosed.
I very much appreciate your consideration.
Very truly yours, /
enclosure
A- 0- s rrt,q V-A.P U
0 17e 0,&e Q to S 12, S, 5,3
Chapter 18.39
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE/RECREATION DISTRICT
Sections:
18.39.010
Purpose.
18.39.030
Permitted Uses.
18.39.050
Conditional uses.
18.39.070
'75
Accessory uses.
P1fahibi a
��-�-rrn�ir�rcca-c5cs
18,39.080
Location of business activity.
18.39.090
Development plan required.
18.39.110
Development plan - Contents.
18,39.120
Design Development Standards / Criteria for evaluation.
18.39.130
Lot area.
18.39.150
Setbacks.
18.39.170
Height.
18.39.180
Density control.
18.39.190
Site coverage.
18.39.210
Landscaping and site development.
18.39.230
Parking.
• 18.39.010 Purpose,
The Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District is intended to provide for the base
facilities necessary to operate the ski mountain and to allow multi -family residential dwellings as
a secondary use if certain criteria are met. In addition, summer recreational uses and facilities
are encouraged to achieve multi -seasonal use of some of the facilities and provide for efficient
use of the facilities. (Ord.38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39.030 Permitted uses.
A. The following uses shall be permitted within the main base lodge building in the Golden
Peak Ski Base/Recreation District:
1.
Ski lockers/employee locker rooms.
2.
Ski school and ski patrol facilities.
3.
Lift ticket sales.
4.
Tennis pro shop.
5.
Ski repair, rental, sales and accessories.
6.
Restaurant/bar/snack barlcandy sales.
7.
Summer seasonal Tevron of Vaal recreational, cultural and educational programs
and offices.
8.
Meeting rooms for owner use and community -oriented organizations.
9.
Injury prevention and rehabilitation facilities for owners' use.
10.
Basket rental
11.
Special community events.
8. Retail and meeting room space limitation.
1. Retail sales space, whether , in the first two
floers shall be limited to a maximum of fifteen percent of the non-residential gross
sgfuare footage of the main base lodge building. Under Section 18.39.030, retail
shill be defined as tennis pro shop, candy sales, ski repair/rental sales, arrd
accessories and clothing, and basket rental, ski lockers and storage for the
public.
2. Meeting rooms shall be limited to a maximum of five ten percent of the non-
residential gross square footage of the main building.
C. Multi-fami,Ry dwelling units within the main base lodge building if the following
requirements are met:
1. The dwelling units shall be a secondary use within the main base lodge building if
they meet the following criteria:
a- No residential use on ground level.
b•_ Visual impacts such as surface parking for the dwelling units shall bd
minimized by providing at least forty percent of the required parking within
the main base lodge building or in an attached parking structure.
c. The maximum gross residential floor area (GRFA) devoted to dwelling units
shall not exceed thirty percent of the total gross square footage of
the main structure base lodge building.
2. Before acting on multi -family dwelling units, the Planning and Environmental
Commission shall consider the following factors in regard thereto:.
a- Relationship and impacts of the use on development objectives of •
the town.
bx Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks, and recreational facilities, and other public
facilities and public facilities needs.
m Effect upon traffic, with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the streets and parking area.
d` Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
3. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the findings set forth in
Section 18.60.060 B before permitting multi -family units within the main base
lodge building.
D. Permitted, uses within the seeendef Children's Ski School building:
1. Year-round child care and children's ski school and appurtenant recreational
facilities and programs.
2. Children's ski school services and programs.
3. Community events and programs.
4. Summer recreational, cultural and educational programs. •
E. The following uses shall be permitted outside the main building base lodge and
Children's Ski School buildings as shown on the approved development plan:
1. Ski trails, slopes and lifts;
2.
Snowmaking facilities;
3.
Bus and skier dropoff;
4.
Siurface parking lot;
•
5.
Ski racing facilities;
6.
PUblic parks, tennis and volleyball courts, and playing fields, playgrounds;
7.
Wlater-treatment and storage facilities buildings;
8.
Aibuntain storage buildings;
9.
SM school activities;
10.
Special community events;
11,
Food and beverage service;
12.
Indoor and outdoor ski storage.
(Ord.28 (11988) § 1: Ord. 6 (1988) § 1: Ord. 38 (1988) § 1.
18.39.050
Conditional uses.
A. The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak Ski
Base/Recreation District, subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in
accordance
with the provisions of Chapter 18,60:
1.
Recreation room/minor arcade.
2.
Addition or expansion of storage buildings for mountain equipment.
3.
Summer outdoor storage for mountain equipment.
4.
Redevelopment of water storage extraction and treatment facilities.
5.
Redevelopment of ski racing facilities.
6.
Redevelopment of public parks, playgrounds.
7.
Summer seasonal community offices and programs.
8.
Additions or expansions of public or private parking structures or spaces.
9.
beyond the approved development plan.
Seasonal structures to accommodate athletic, cultural, or educational activities.
10.
Redevelopment of ski lifts and tows.
11,
Food and beverage cart vending.
12.
Bed and breakfast as further regulated by Section 18.58.310.
13,
Type III EHU as defined in Section 18.57.060;
14.
Type IV EHU as defined in Section 18.57.070.
15.
Public, private or quasi -public clubs.
D. The
zoning adminish-1 011 —4.—
all
The-repori a(nmll azauas the foli@tlVii't�ttert�
Adverse
&. effects which cannoi be avoided if the proposal is h..Oernented.
lbMiligatiort measures to minimize the impact.
proposal
e. Possible alternatives to the proposed action:
d. Relation rn193-bEiwccn larm and long terrn uses of the eftvir�.
Irreversible environniental liform Implementation
ehariges resulting
of the _
fiord-8(1/0OC)
4/\7) $ 1.)
18.39.070 Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
District:
A. Accessory uses customarily incidental to permitted and conditional uses and •
necessary for the operation thereof.
B. Home occupations, subject to the issuance of a home occupation permit in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190. (Ord.
38 (1983) § 1.)
4&49-.o7L f'rah:..:.t.mr� d Uses,
a r tht t. in 0 a Ltiefl 18.89.086:
✓ltjt a .. s ;thar than as peffnitted in Sections
18 nn 030 1 e nn 050 1 n nn n
0. D f tht i i, ;l 3truetufe.
�ls of
vG�IVVn e berms.
9. Opcoialty feed establishments.
18.39.080 Location of business activity.
A. All offices and retail sales conducted in the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation
District shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building except for
approved special events and food and beverage vending.
(Ord. 21 (1986) § 2: Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39.090 Development plan required.
A. To ensure the unified development, the protection of the natural environment, the
compatibility with the surrounding area and to assure that development in the
Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District will meet the intent of the district, a
development plan shall be required.
B. The proposed development plan shall be in accordance with Section 18.39.110
and shall be submitted by the developer to the zoning administrator, who shall
refer it to the Planning and Environmental Commission, which shall consider the
plan at a regularly scheduled meeting. A report of the Planning and
Environmental Commission stating its findings and recommendations shall be
transmitted to the town council for approval in accordance with the applicable
provisions of Section 18.66,060 of the Municipal Code.
C. The approved development plan shall be used as the principal guide for all
development within the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District.
D. Amendments to the approved development plan which do not-eha*ge-fts
srbstanee alter the basic intent and character of the approved development
plan may be approved by the zoning administrator or by the Planning and •
Environmental Commission at a regularly scheduled public hearing in accordance
with the provisions of Section 18.66.060.
E. Eeeh- phase -of-tt3e approved The development plan and any subsequent
amendments thereto shall require the approval of the design review board in
accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 18.54 of the Municipal Code
prior to the commencement of site preparation.
(Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39.110 Development Plan - Contents
The following development plan shall include,I iG i / EiY%2d to thefo owiftg:
A. Adelfessing fr,LjV_n tkz tnviffefrn►eftt�
i An open space and recreation plan stiMQ1col, tr, meet the demands
gene ". -Y elop��out undue burden en available of
tand Hide afea3.
3. A detailed view analysig frorn fhe north, east and t 1i \` l p9co c 3ed
aita Semonstration of
the ri ie',4) 1 V V.a.
B. Other inferniation Fequired for the development plan!
1. E.; fing an' proposedsite develepment-,
bra W.-Ni five feet:
A proposed site plan, amt as scale not h! Nis iaeh equals fifty
Showing the appffiex�:—tafee t:J;%" uaaN:lfrtenaion. df all L.it,'if}gs-tmd
as 'an scapedG, 1J/ ,Gil'iReilities, pedestfian plazas and
a.1.
efeas.
a. A preliminafy landscape plan, SGGi tri-allef than one inch equal
fifty feet, showing existing c fa�t►;,v U be retainedor ed
i GtltL, tQIIG,
pedestrian plazas and wallmays�water fleattres, and other elements.
4. Pfelifninary building elevations,
, lur', d.0 L: -ia
smal ef thaR one eighth inch equals one feet, in sufficient det
determine floor area, gross residential floor area, interier cifetilating,
lacW*ons of uses within buildings, and ihe general scale .t GNjaai\xn:^e
ai the proposed development.
along rrij;, aV.alcpmantg.ana ior the Gm
(9rd. 8 (1000, I t .)
The following irtformation and materials shall be submitted with an application for a
proposed development plan. Certain submittal requirements may be waived or
• modified by the Director of the Department of Community Development if it is
demonstrated that the material to be waived or modified is not applicable to the
review criteria, or that other practical solutions have been reached.
A. Application form and filing fee,
B. A written statement describing the project including information on the
nature of the development proposed, proposed uses, and phasing plans.
C. A survey stamped by a licensed surveyor indicating existing conditions of
the property to be Included in the development plan, including the location
of Improvements, existing contours, natural features, existing vegetation,
water courses, and perimeter property lines of the parcel.
D. A title report, including schedules A and B.
E. Plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans,
elevations, etc.), if applicable.
F. A complete zoning analysis of the existing and proposed development
including a square footage analysis of all proposed uses, parking spaces,
etc.
G. A site plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing the location and
dimensions of all existing and proposed buildings and structures, all
principal site development features, vehicular and pedestrian circulation
systems and proposed contours and drainage plans.
H. Building elevations, sections and floor plans at a scale not smaller than
1/8" = 1', In sufficient detail to determine floor area, circulation, location of
uses and scale and appearance of the proposed development.
I. A vicinity plan showing existing and proposed Improvements In relation to
all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller than 1" = 50'.
J. Photo overlays and/or other acceptable visual techniques for demonstrating
the visual Impact of the proposed development on public and private
property in the vicinity of the proposed development plan.
K. An architectural or massing model at a scale sufficient to depict the
proposed development In relationship to existing development on the site
and on adjacent parcels.
L. A landscape plan at a scale not smaller than 1" = 20', showing existing
landscape features to be retained and removed, proposed landscaping and
other site development features such as recreation facilities, paths and
trails, plazas, walkways and water features.
M. An Environmental impact Report in accordance with Chapter 18.56, unless
waived by Section 18.56.030.
N. Any additional information or material as deemed necessary by the Director
of the Community Development Department.
With the exception of the model, four complete copies of the above Information shall be
submitted at the time of the application. When a model is required, it shall be submitted a
minimum of two weeks prior to the first formal review of the Planning and Environmental
Commission. At the discretion of the Director of Community Development, reduced copies
in 8.5" x 11" format of all of the above information and additional copies for distribution to
the Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council may be required.
18.39.120 Deslgm Development Standard slCrite ria for evaluation.
The development plan i✓ tha GN 3aseffleereatiom Distriet shall meet each of the
followft standards or derneristrate that either one or more of thern is met applieable, or
is ;Aurzat
Diaff. L-our,dary'.3-adjaeertte-a rajigu:GLI ► � Th✓ -Aaf
l/ I:ai! f� ,
sending Gi�z a r- a` c �ifia I, tr. a
iateiy separate the proposed use from the surrounding propeffix ir, Wiv-.3
of vistial privacy, noise, adequate light, alf, aiF �a..V..J-&Cher
C,G.-rapnra
B. A circulation system designed for the type of tfffiffie generated, ta"111W '11—
, fr3r lip'uJa
M eonsli."- fled -and provided when the site Is to be used for resddenfial
Purposes_
ftmefiew,
1) Veriety-FR'tcrma OT : housing+
E---m:G:l, �Ctindividuals, -rmCri+ivs"dneighbors:
F. Pedestfuen tfaffle : i tirriG J+ : aafety-separation, convcn;c 7a , access to poinis of
G. me aI! city relationship, and bulk-1
and effeet an the-i9eigh"verheod.
. {01.1 0J t19&SI1 4 1
The foltvwing criteria shall be used as the principal means for evaluating a
proposed development plan. It shall be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate
that the proposed development plan complies with all applicable design criteria.
f. Building design with respect to architecture, character, scale, massing and
oaientation is compatible with the site, adjacent properties and the
surrounding neighborhood.
2. Bruildings, improvements, uses and activities are designed and located to
produce a functional development plan responsive to the site, the
surrounding neighborhood and uses, and the community as a whole.
3. Open space and landscaping are both functional and aesthetic, are designed
to preserve and enhance the natural features of the site, maximize
opportunities for access and use by the public, provide adequate buffering
between the proposed uses and surrounding properties, and when possible,
are integrated with existing open space and recreation areas.
4. A, pedestrian and vehicular circulation system designed to provide safe,
e%'llicient and aesthetically pleasing circulation to the site and throughout the
dewelopment.
5. Environmental impacts resulting from the proposal have been identified in
the: project's Environmental Impact Report, if not waived, and all necessary
mitigating measures are implemented as a part of the proposed development
ptan.
6. Compliance with The Vail Comprehensive Plan and other applicable plans.
18.39.130 Lot area.
The minimum lot or site area shall be forty acres of site area, at least one acre of which
shall be buildable area. (Ord 83 (1983) §1.)
18.39.150 Setbacks.
In the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation District, front, side, rear and stream setbacks
shall be as indicated on the approved development plan. (Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39.170 Height.
For a flat er kd14ht . Up to
sixty percent of the building (building coverage area) may be built to a height of thirty-five feet, or
less. No more than forty percent of the building (building coverage area) may be higher than
thirty-five feet, but not higher than forty feet. Towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles, and
similar architectural features not useable as gross residential floor area may extend above the
height limit a distance of not more than twenty-five percent of the height limit nor more than
fifteen feet.
(Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39.180 Density Control.
Total density shall not exceed one dwelling unit per eight acres of site area. (Ord. 38
(1983) § 1.)
18.39.190 Site coverage. ,- ' •
Site coverage shall be as shown on the approved development plan. (Ord. 38
(1983) § 1.)
18.39.210 Landscaping and site development.
Landscaping requirements shall be as shown on the approved development plan. Ali
areas within the area(s) of disturbance in the landscape plan not occupied by building, ground
level decks or patios, or parking shall be landscaped.
(Ord. 38 (1983) § 1.)
18.39,230 Parking Plan and Program
on the approved development plan. (E)rd. 86 (1988) § 4.)
Parking Plan and Management Program shall be as shown on and described In the
approved development plan.
f Aeve ryon eVi m\skibase.wpd
•