HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 5 PART OF TRACT B CORNICE BUILDING AKA DAVID SMITH REDEVELOPMENT 1993-1994 LEGALo
^ y , 5'3848r'l)'/<. Sara J ,
/'c{"
,DP-434 I
Eagle
B-642
Fisher
/OC/94 03r57P PG 1 OF
County Clerk & Recorder
Davld SEith
REC
10.oo
APPLICATION FOR REVOCABLE PERMITTO ERECT OR MAINTAIN
A STRUGTURE ON A PUBLIC RIGHT.OF.WAY
(Please type or print)Fence
Wdl
Landscaping
Other
DATE ltay 23, !994
OWNER OF PROPERW
NAME OF APPLICANT n.avi 4.,sn{ th .. . -.,.ADDRESS ,, 108 S. Frootase Road w. Vat1. Co 81657
LEGAL DESCRIPT|ON OF PBOPERTY TO BE SERVED:
Part of Tract B & A, Perc of Mill Creek Road
r\c)
!t{(}.')
^-r\l
LoT-BLocK-SUBD|V|S|oNVai1.VtllageletFllltg(CorniceBulldlng)
(ll necessary, attach legal description on separate qheetl.
Cornbr lot --S__ Inside lot
Attach plans showing encroachment, property line, sidEtalks, culbs, intakes' hydrants'
meters, manholes, any olher affected appurtenance in the proiect area (to scale or
dimensioned) and sectlon(s) as well as elevations (lf applicable).
Does struclure presenuy exist? _I9
Proposed date ior cornmencem@
ln consideration of lhe issuance of a revocable permit for the struclurs above indicated,
applicant agr€€s as follows:
1. That the structure herein authorized on a revocable permit basis is restricted
exclusively to the land above described.2. Tnat the perrTit is limited speciflcauy to lhe lype ol structure descrlbed in this
application.3. That the applicant shall notify the Town Manager, or his duly authorized agent, twenty-
lour hours in advance of the time lor commencgment of conslruction, in ordsr that
proper inspection may be made by the Town.4. The applicant agrees to indemnity and hold harmless the Town of Vail, its officers,
employees and agenis from and against all tiabllity, claims and demands on acclunt of
iniury loss or damage, including without lirnitatlon clalms arising frorn bodily iniury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, prop€rly loss or damage, or any oth€r loss of
any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected wlth
applicants activities pursuant to this permit, if sucfi injury, loss, or damage is cajsed In
whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission,
enor, professional error, mistake, negllgence or other fault of the applicant' his
contraclor or subcontractor or any officer, employee or representative of the applicant'
his conlraclor or his subcontractor. The applicant agr€es to irvestlgate' handle
respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against any such liab||ity, claims, or
demands at the sole expense of tha applicant. The appllcant also agroos to bear all
olher expenses relating thereto, including couft costs and atlorney's fees, whether or
not any such liability, claims, or demands atlsged are groundsss, false, or fraudulent.
The applicant agrees lo procure and malntain, at ib own cost, a polhy or policies of
insurance su{ficient to ensure against all liability clairns, demands and other obligations
assumed by ths applicant pursuant to this Paragraph 4. The applicant furthor agrees
to release lhe Town ol Vail, its otficers, agenls and employees lrom any and all
liabitity, claims, demands, or actions or causes of actlons whatsoever arising out ol any
damage, loss or injury to the applicant or to the applicant's propsrty caused by the
Torn of Vail, ils olficers, agents and employees while engaged in maintonance or
snow removal activities or any olher aclivities whatsoever on Town ol Vail pr0perty,
streets, sidewalks, or rights-of'way.
DESCHTPTTON OF STRUCTURE OR ITEM(S) lN RIGHT-OF-WAY:
lanilscaping , . -
o
5.That the permlt rnay be revoked whenever it is detemined trat the encroachment,
obsfuction, or other stucture conslitules a nubance, destroys or impairs he use of
the right-of-way by the public, constitutes a trafiic hazard, or the propery upon which
the encroachment, obstuction, ot slruch"tre exists is requirod for use by the publlc; or lt
may be revoked at any time lor any reason deemed sufficient by the Town of Vall.
That fie appllcant wlll remove, at his expense, the encroachm€nr, obstruclion, or
structurs ryithin ten days aft€r r€coiving nothe ol any revocalion of said permat.
That the applicant agrees to maintain any landscaping assoclated with the
encroachment on he right-oFway.
That in the sv€nl said removal of lhe sncroachm€nt, obslruc[on, or structure is not
accomplished within ten days, the Town ls hereby authorized to remove sarne and
have thE righl lo make an ass€sflnent against he property and collect the costs or
removal in the same mannor as goneral lax6s are collected.
That the applicant has read and undsrstands all of the terms and condtions set forth in
this application.
Speclal conditions:
6,
7.
8.
9.
10.@()
?{iJi)
s/o /, r
Date
APPROVED:
538481 8-642 p-494 06/os/94 og!szp pc 2 oFz
\JN
Signaturd of Property Ownei
(lf joint ownorship, both signatures_)
Aousrs GtrecJ
'/t Luert' (Po.6,unf dA
\
S/*z/ur \/fo.6u"t O9
- -1is z -U;L l/.td: , A; (1:rr<q)
/ n -t 7r f/, Kacdr-ze-f eL!& -
---,2
t a
o
La:ation:
UnitType:
Unit Size:
New/Edsting:
Availability:
2635 L,arkspur
I
approximately 900 square feet
Existing unit
Prior to issuance of permit for Comice Building
This is an eristing secondary unit of a Primary/secondary residence in Intermountain. While the
unit has been in existence for nrany years, it has recently been remodeled. The unit is
appnrximatcly one block from an Intermountain bus stdp.
The PEC is scheduled to revicw a proposed variance to the enclosed parking requirement for this
Efru qn ViV ?3rd. -tf the PEC aeiriei ttris ."qu"rt, there will Ue no folnt i; di$ussing this
alternative. However, il'the PEC approves thii variance request this unit should be prEsented as
an alternative tbl prrrviding the third off-site unit.
iMrlitionalAppn:vals
No additional approvals would be required for this unit,
Suite 204, Vail Nalional Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
Plc'nutry tgggl
PETER JAMAR ASSOC|ATES, tNC.
PLANNING . DEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS . FESEARCH
May 18, 1994
Jim Cumutte
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RE Cornice Building
DearJim:
As previously discussed, we will be scheduled to present altematives to the Town Council for the
third Comice Building employee unit on May A:th. In light of potential conc€ms that may be
raised_by-the Council and staff regarding these proposed alternatives, I would like to present
three different units to the Council for tlieir coniideration,
Each of the three alternatives described below are significant improvements to the existing
Cornice Building units in terms of quality and size. -However, there are very minor technical
cgmpligatiols associated with each of these alternatives. As you know, units approved by the
Council will also have to be approved by the PEC. It is my hope that if the sAff and Council
agrees in_concgpt that the alternatives proposed are acceptable replacements for the existing
9oqt_.! Building units, specific details can be addressed by the PEC during the formal review of
thc EHU.
The three altematives are:
Intermountain Unit
<nrrer\+Ly ihzru
is q etr.ec/irt 6#*r)
lklFr'uo cr'{cr^6af
5i"", s,ulc!- 4t1'ail'ov,r4"Z7qb
This existing home was constructed in 1975. Parking is provided by nuo garage spaces and two
surflace_spaces ol the property's driveway. A total of foul parking s-pces are required tor the
sile, 2.5 spa.ces for the main unit and 1 space for the EHU. An updated I.L.C has been prepared
in order to determine the dimension of the two surface spaces. Tfus survey indicates ttrai tottr
surface spaces meet the 9' x 19' dimensional requirement.
Additiona.l Alprovals
This urut would require review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the PEC and final
DRB approval.
The owner of this property is considering redeveloping this residence in the next few years. This
redeveloament will likely involve a demo/rebuild and result in a primary/secondary structure with
a third Type 1I EHU unit. If this unit is acceptable to the Town Council, the owner has requested
that the restrictive covenants for the EHU include a provision that will allow the owner to modif y
the corfiguration and size of the restricted EHU, provided that any modification of the EHU unii
would have to comply with applicable provisions of the EHU Ordlnance.
Booth Falls Unit
l,ocation:
Unit Type:
Unit Size:
New/Existing:
Availability:
Vail Raequet Club
kcation:
Unit Type:
Unit Size:
New/Existing:
Availability:
3120 Booth Falls Court
[-ot 7, Block 2, Vail Village l2th
Type II
Approximately 50O square feet, one-bedroom unit
Existing unit
Prior to issuance of T.C.O. for Cornice Building unit
Unit
Vail Racquet Club
Unit 15, Building 11
Type III
579 square feet, one-bedroom unit
Existing unit
Prior to issuance of T.C.O. lbr Comice Buildins unit
This one-bedroom unit fronts on Gore Creek in East Vail. The Racquet Club is located on a
town bus line and the owner or occupant of the unit would have the benefit of club privileges.
While not a requirement for this type of EHU, this building does includes common laundry
facilities on the ground level.
This unit complies with all provisions of the Type III EHU with the possible exception of
parking. The EHU ordinance requires this unit to have one parking space. From a technical
standpoint, none of the units in the Racquet Club have individual deeded parking spaces. All
Pu.Fng on the site is a general common element and each owner has the right to utilize any
parking space. Each owner receives a parking permit that is affixed to their vehicle.
While it cannot be demonstnrted that this unit has its own parkrng space, this is essentially an
acedemic point. The project has been in existance for many years and was built according to
plans approved by the Town (or Eagle Counry- prior to annexation). The parking situation at the
Racquet Club is in all likelihocd a legal non-conforming situation. The designation of this unit as
an EHU will not change the parking situation and as such, parking should not be an issue relative
to this unit being designated an EHU.
l
As yo{t know,-we-must have a flan for providing these three units approved by the Council prior
to obtaining a building or demo permit ior the 6mice Building. Ai iuch, it i6 very irnporairt for
AS y$r Know, we mu$ have a pan lorprovld
to obtaining a building or demo permit -for the
tts to obtain approval for this third unit from t}
ese three units approved by the Council prior
ice Building. Aa such, it is very irnportant for
us to obtain approval for this third unit from the Council at fteii l\ray Uth meeting. While rhere
are minor technical issues with the alternatives deccribed ahove- each unit renrecpitc n dr*n*efieare minor issues with the alternatives described above, each unit represents a drematie
improvement over the existing Comice Building units.
Plese feel free to contact me with any questions you may have. I would be happy to visit tlrese
unit with you prior to the meeting if you desire.
Sincerely,
Thomas A. Braun, AICP
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 28, 1994
A request for the establishment of a special development district for the
redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and
more specifically described as lollows:
A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, Counly of Eagle, State of
Colorado. more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner ol Vail Mllage, Firsl Filing; thence Nonh 79'46'00" Wesl
along the Sourherly line of lJ.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner ot
said Tract "B"; lhence South 10"14'00" West along the Easlerly line of said Tract "B"; a distance of
198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tract "g"; thence North 79"46'00" wesl along the
Southerly line of said Tract "B" a distance of 100.00 feet lo the lrue point of beginning thence norlh
09"10'07'Wesl a dislance of 41.67 feet: lhence South 88027'11" Wesl a distance of 75.21 feel;
thence South 27'13'37" East ot distance ot 77.37 feet; thence North 57"24'00" Easl a distance of
55.11 feel, more or less lo the true point of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting review of the proposed establishment
of a special development district (SDD) for the redevelopmenl of the Cornice Building located
at 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing.
ThriCornice Building property is located in the eastern portion of Vail Village, between the Vail
Athlelic Club and the Tyrolean lnn. The site is currently zoned High Density Multi-Family
(HDMF) and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an
acre (3,659 square feet). The minimum lot size in the HDMF zone district is 10,000 square
feet of buildable area, Existing development on the property includes one condominium, a
small space that has periodically been used as an office space and three employee rental
units that are restricted until the year 2005.
The proposed redevelopment involves the demolilion of the existing structure and the
construction of a new building. The proposed development is limited to one single iamily
dwelling unit. This residence will utilize all of the available GRFA allocated to the property
(2,195 square feet) as well as a "250" allowance, bringing the total GRFA of the proposed
buifding to 2,45 square feet. In addition, the applicant is proposing to provide an otf-site
location for the three restricted employee rental units, which are currently located in the
]1.vu'
i ir" '
Cornice Building. The applicant is proposing to replace these units by restricting another unit
(or units) within the Town of Vail in order to provide an equivalent number of bedrooms
(three). The unit(s) will be permanently restricted in accordance with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing Ordinance. The applicant does not wish to actually identify the employee
housing unit(s) at this time, but wishes to proceed with PEC and Town Council approval of the
proposed SDD with the assurance that the permanent restriction ol otf-site employee rental
units will be in place prior to the issuance of a demolition/building permit lor the Cornice
Building redevelopment. Once the applicant has received SDD approval and has located the
proposed off-site unit(s), they will return to the PEC, and Town Council if necessary, for their
review and approval.
The redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the demolition of the existing building,
which cunently includes the iollowing uses:
1 - 1,084 square foot free market dwelling unit
1 - 202 square foot olfice space
3 - restricted employee rental units (202 square feet each for a total of 606 sq. ft.)
The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the following uses:
1 - 2,445 square foot single lamily residence (includes "250'allowance).
3 - employee rental units (or equivalent number of bedrooms), restricted per the
Town of Vail employee housing ordinance (unit(s) to be located off-site).
3 - enclosed garage spaces
The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting an SDD for this property is to allow
for greater flexibility and creativity in the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, as well as to
provide a mechanism for the review of certain deviations from the existing development
stiandards of the site's underlying zoning. The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice
Building involves deviations from the following HDMF development standards:
1. Sinole familv residence within the HDMF zone district - The permitted uses in the
HDMF zone district are limited to multi-family dwellings and lodges. Multi-family
dwellings are defined as buildings containing three or more dwelling units, including
townhouses, rowhouses, apartments and condominiums, designed lor or used by three
or more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit. A Lodge is defined
as a building or group of associated buildings designed lor occupancy primarily as the
temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or
dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation
units exceeds the gross residential floor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants
thereof cuslomary hotel services and facilities. Single family development is not
permitted as a conditional or permitted use in the HDMF zone district.
As a part ol the SDD review process, the Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) and Town Council may approve uses that are more restrictive than uses
permitted by the property's underlying zone district. The request includes determining
that a single family use is more restrictive than a multi-family use. As such, the
approval of this SDD plan would allow for single lamily residential development as a
permitted use.
2. Buildino encroachments in the lot setbacks - Portions of the existing and proposed
struclure encroach into the property's 20 foot front, side and rear yard setback areas.
The building is proposed to be constructed within 2 feet of the north property line, 1't
feet of the south property line, 2.5 feet of the east property line, and 11 feet of the west
property line. Please refer to the zoning analysis chart on page 6 for a comparison of
the proposed building to the existing building.
3. Parkino in the front setback - The applicant is proposing to place a portion of one of
the required enclosed parking spaces within the front setback area, which is not
allowed in the HDMF zone district. Approximately seven feet of the southwestern
enclosed parking space encroaches into the 20 toot front yard setback area.
II. BACKGROUND
The Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's and included eight small
rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for the rental apartments, apparently due
to its relative proximity to the existing surface parking lot located immedialely adlacent to the
property (now the Village Transportation Center). With the excei:tion of new decks and a
minor building expansion in 1976, the overall form of the building has not changed since it
was built. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopment proposals over the
years and due to the small size of the parcel, virtually all of the redevelopment proposals
involved requesls for variances from the zoning standards. In the mid 'l 970's, a conditional
use permit was granted which allowed for a real estate oflice to operate out of the western
portion of the lower level of the building. The real estate office eliminated one employee
rental unit, leaving seven units on the property.
In 1979, the owner of the property at the time, Dr. Huttner, requested a setback variance for
the purpose of enclosing an existing second story deck. This setback variance request was
one element of the proposed redevelopment of the property which involved the conversion of
the four apartments on the upper floor inlo one dwelling unit and a request to allow one
parking space in the front setback area. The PEC approved the setback variance request but
denied the parking space reguest. In conjunction with the variance request, the owner agreed
to restrict the three remaining apartments on the lower level of the building to long-term
employee rental units. This agreement conlained provisions regarding the minimum size of
the units (no less than 200 square feet per unil), restrictions on the minimum duration of the
lease agreements, guidelines on who the units may be rented to (full-time employees of the
Upper Eagle Valley), and provisions on the length of time within which the agreement shall be
effective (twenty years from the date of the agreement, or the year 2005). For a variety of
reasons, this restriction was not lormally recorded until 1985 (see Attachment #1 for a copy ot
the agreement). Since 1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this
site.
On June 14,.1993, a joint worksession was held with the Design Review Board (DRB) and the
PEC to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building
(see Attachment #2 for a copy of the meeting minutes). The proposal included departures
from the following HDMF zone district standards:
A. GRFA - The proposal exceeded allowable GRFA by 1,305 square feet.
B. Setbacks - Portions of the structure were proposed to encroach into the front,
side and rear setbacks. In addition, the applicant proposed to locate required
parking within the front setback area which is not allowed in the HDMF zone
district.
C. Parkino - The required number of parking spaces for the proposed building was
six spaces. The applicant was proposing to provide two parking spaces on-site
(one enclosed and one exterior). No parking was proposed for the three Type
lV employee housing units that were apart of the project at the time' The
proposal also did not comply with the HDMF zone district requirement that 75%
of all parking be enclosed.
During this worksession, a number of issues were identified as being of concern to the PEC
and DRB. These issues are summarized as follows:
A. The appropriateness of proposing a SDD lor the redevelopment of the property.
B. The project's departures lrom the HDMF zone district standards. The PEC
discussed the possibility that the proposed departures from the zone district
standards could be handled as variance applications as opposed to being
reviewed through the SDD process.
C. Gonlinuance of the three restricled employee housing units on the site. The
PEC felt that the employee housing units on the property were posilive and
commented that it would be desirable to have them restricted beyond the
twenty year time lrame. However, the PEC felt that no GRFA bonus should be
granted for these restricted units and that any GRFA utilized by the restricted
units should come out of the total maximum allowable GRFA on the site.
D. Architectural and site planning issues. The PEC felt that the proposed 48 foot
building height should be reduced significantly and the mass and bulk of the
building should be reevaluated.
On October 1 1, 1993, a worksession was held with the PEC to further discuss two issues that
had arisen at the June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. (See Attachment #3 for a copy of the
meeting minutes.) These issues were:
1. The appropriateness of using the SDD process for the Cornice Building
redevelopment. The PEC and applicant discussed the merits of handling the
Cornice Building redevelopment through a SDD process, as opposed to
.
requesting separate GRFA, setback and parking variances. The PEC felt that
4
I
due to the unusual lot size and configuration,.setback and parking variance
requests would likely receive lavorable support from them, However, the PEC' made it clear that a proposed variance from the maximum allowable GRFA on
the property would be difficult to justify.
2. There was discussion regarding the possibility of allowing a credit for the GRFA
allocaled lo the three restricted rental unils, as opposed to deducting their total
GRFA from the total allowable GBFA of the property. The PEC suggested to
the applicant that if he wished to utilize all of the site's GRFA for the proposed
free market dwelling unit, than he should explore the possibility of finding and
permanently restricting employee rental units elsewhere in town.
Since the October 1 1 , 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant has contacted staff to discuss the
parameters under which staff would be reviewing the applicants proposed off-site housing
units (see attachment # 4 - letter to Tom Braun dated December 8, 1993). Staff believes that
lhe provision of employee housing units to replace those currently existing on the Cornice
Building property must take inlo account the quality of the living environment and access to
employment areas in addition to simply providing housing for a minimum of three employees.
The applicant has indicated that the paramelers for providing off-site employee housing units
as identified in staff's letter would be used as minimum guidelines for providing the proposed
off-sile employee housing unit or units.
III. CORNICE BUILDING ZONING ANALYSIS
The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type.
UNDERLYING ZoNING: EXISTING PROPOSED
HDMF PROJECT SDD
Site Area: 0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft. Same Same
'Dwelling Unib: 25 units per acre or 4 DU's I DU
2 units lor this site.
Allowed Uses: Multi-family residential 4 unit multi-family Single family
dwellings and lodges building residentlal dwelling
GRFA: 60% ",.r1u T.j; 5ro/" or 1,6e0 sq. ft. i]ffif ,1r:r.:. -
ll-- t allowanca)
orrice space: yi:ff.ffj;jl'J::::#:l* '05% or 202 sq'ft' 0 sq' ft'
Common Area: 35% of allowable GRFA or 202 sq. ft. located in 0 sq. tt.
768 sq. ft. the basement of tho bldg'
Setbacks: 20'on all sides. N: 9' N:2'
S:2.5' S:11'
E:12.5' E: 2.5'
w:7' w:11'
site coverage: 55% or 2.012 sq. ft. 32% or'1,160 sq. ft. 38% or 1,397 sq. ft.
?r*P llr a-/10 l(JLandscaping: 30% required or * 'i* 66 % or 2,434 sq. ft. . 40% or 1,455 sq. ft'
1.098 sq. n At ot
Building Height: 45' for a flat or mansard roof 23.5' 35'
48' for a sloping roof
*Parklng: Varies according to proposed 6 spaces required, of 3 enclosed spaceg
use of the property. At least 75ol" which 5 must be enclosed required'
of req. spaces must be enclosed 0 spaces provided 3 enclosed sPaces
Provided
'Although three of the existing dwelling units on the property are permanently restricted to employee housing, they do
not comply with the requirements of the Town's recently adopted employee housing ordinance and, therefore, count as
full dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density.
'-Although the pfoposed redevelopment project meets the minimum number of parking spaces, a Portion of one of thE
enclosed parking spaces is located within the 20 foot front yard setback area.
tv. CRTTERTA TO BE USEp rN EVA|-UAT|NG TH|S PROPOSA!-
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose ol Special Development Districts is as follows:
'The purpose of the special development district is lo encourage flexibility and creativity in
the Cevelopmenl of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the
design character and quality of new development within the Town; to facilitate the
adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and
scenic features of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as
stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special
development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements tor guiding development and uses of property included in the
special development district."
The planning statf believes that the Comice Building redevelopment application complies with the
purpose statement of a Special Development District, as stated above. Specifically, we believe that the
proposed Cornice Building SDD furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vajl
Comprehensive Plan (i.e. VailVillage Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan and VailVillage Urban
Design Guide Plan). The proposed redesign ol the building proposes to improve the design character,
function, and overall quality of the existing development. Permanently restricted employee housing units
are proposed to be provided in place ol the temporarily restricted studio units currently existing on the
prcperty. The applicant has restricted the density on this nonconforming lot below that which would be
allowed by the site's underlying zone district. The applicant has agreed to provide landscaping, and
other site improvements on the public land located immediately east of their property, in order to
enhance its appearance as a pocket park. The applicant has agreed to provide a drainage easement
across the western portion of the property as requested by the Town Engineer.
Special Development Dislrict Criteria
The following are the nine Special Development District Criteria to be used by the PEC when evaluating
SDD proposals.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
In general. staff believes that the overall archilectural style of the proposed Cornice Building is
positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of Vail Village. The gable roof form
and proposed building materials (natural stone and stucco siding, slate roof, divided light
windows, etc.) will also relate well to the established architectural character of the Village. The
applicant has responded to many ol the PEC, DRB and staff comments regarding the
architectural design. The building has been moved as far as possible to the northeast portion of
the lot in order to improve site distance around the lower portion of "Blue Cow Chute", as well as
to provide a greater separation from the Gore Creek streamwalk than is currently provided by the
existing building.
The applicant has lowered the building height lrom 48 feet to 35 feet, which improves the overall
massing of the building. Although this height is 13 feet below the maximum building height
allowed in the HDMF zone district, staff would recommend that the building height be further
reduced to 33 feet. At 33 feet the building would be in conformance with the maximum building
height allowed for single family buildings in the Town ol Vail as well as being that much closer to
complying with the recommendations found in the Vail Village Master Plan (two stories).
Additi6natly, any reduction in building height would have a positive effect on the amount of shade
occurring on Vail Valley Drive and the relationship between the height of the building and the
small lot size would be improved. Staff believes that since the applicant is asking for special
consideration to allow for a single family residence in a zone district where it is currently
prohibited, the building should comply with the maximum height allowance for all other single
family residences in Town.
Although the curved stainray on the west side of the building is located approximately 2 feel
closer to the west property line than the existing building, at that same location, the rest of the
proposed building has been shifted away from Vail Valley Drive to a greater distance than the
current building footprint. Eleven feet is the closest the proposed building will be lrom the west
property line, which is an improvemenl over the seven foot setback of the existing building.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
Although the Cornice Building property is surrounded by a variety of difterent land uses, including
multi-unit condominiums and mixed use buildings that include both residential and commercial
uses, staff believes that the proposed single family residential use of the property is appropriate'
given the size and configuration of the lot. Stalf believes that the small size of the lot and limited
ioom to accommodale on-site parking make High Density Besidential or commercial use of this
property inappropriate. lt is interesting to note that the maximum density allowed on this lot (two
dwelling units) does not even comply with the definition of "multi-family dwelling", which is what
the property is zoned for. We believe that it is appropriate to consider the proposed single family
use of the property as being more restrictive than the multi-family use. We also believe that the
proposed single family use of the property is compatible with surrounding properties.
It should also be pointed out that since the property is zoned HDMF no single lamily or duplex
credits (neither 425 nor 225) are allowed, yet at the same time since the proposed building is not
a "multi-family" structure it is not entitled to any multi-tamily credits (airlocks, overlapping stairs,
common areas, etc.) either. Garage parking spaces are the only credits that apply t0 this
redevelopment proposal.
Staff believes that the applicant's agreemenl to permanently restrict employee housing units in
Town to replace the temporarily restricted units at the Cornice Building site is a benefit. The
applicant agrees that the parameters for providing the unit(s), outlined in a letter to Tom Braun
dated December 8, 1993 (see attachment # 4), is acceptable. This is a use which the Town
promotes in its master plan documents.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52 ol the Vail
Municipal Code.
As mentioned in the Background Section of this memo, the Cornice Building was originally
constructed in the mid-1960's. No on-site parking was provided. In 1979, an application was
B.
c.
made to the PEC to add one surface parking space to lhe site. The PEC denied this request
citing safety and traffic concerns- ln 1985 and 1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to
the Town which included up to seven on-sile parking spaces. Although the PEC felt that some
on-site parking may be acceptable on this site, the design of the buildings being proposed were
not acceptable and the projects were denied. Some members ol the PEC felt that it would be
reasonable for the property owner to request a parking exemption from the Town Council lo allow
payment into the parking fund for some or all of the required parking.
At 2,445 square feet of GRFA, the parking space requirement for the proposed building is three
spaces. Section 18.20.140 (HDMF Parking and Loading) states that "at least 757o oI lhe
required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public
view..." In this instance, the Code requires that all three of the parking spaces located on the
site be enclosed within the main building. The applicant is showing three enclosed parking
spaces within the proposed Cornice Building. However, one of the spaces does not meet the
dimensional requirements for a parking space required by the Parking and Loading Section of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code. Specifically, the Town ol Vail parking standards require that each
off-street parking space be 9 feet wide by 19 feet long. As shown on the attached garage level
floor plan, one of the three enclosed parking spaces is 15 feet long. Section 1 8.52.070 (Parking
Standards) allows the Town of Vail zoning administrator to authorize minor adjustments to the
dimensional requiremenls prescribed in the parking and loading chapter. Staff believes that the
proposed minor deviation to the parking space length requirement located in this three car
garage will not negatively effect the property owner's ability to park three cars inside the building,
At 9' wide and |6' long the smallest parking space in the garage still meets the dimensional
requirement for a compact car space, as identified in the Town zoning code.
As mentioned previously, the HDMF zone district prohibits the location of any required parking
spaces within the front setback area. As shown on the attached site plan, portions of the
southwesternmost enclosed parking space encroaches into the lront setback area. Sta{t believes
the applicant has attempted to locate the required enclosed parking as far away from the front
property line as possible and still allow for adequate vehicle maneuverability on the site. The fact
that the parking spaces are enclosed within the building help to alleviate any visual impacts
associated with the placement of parking in the front setback area. Additional landscape
plantings have been placed along Vail Valley Drive and the streamwalk to further buffer the
parking tumaround areas visibility, The turnaround area is also constructed of pavers, as
opposed to asphalt or concrete. The planning staff and the Town Engineer have reviewed the
proposed Cornice Building redevelopment plan and feel that the on-site parking can work on this
property.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and
Urban Design Plans.
Staff has evaluated the proposal for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail master plans
including:
1. Vail Land Use Plan - The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as
adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The
Land Use Plan Goals/Policies applicable to the Cornice Building redevelopment are as
follows:
D.
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance
between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
4.g The ambiance ol the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be
preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting'
intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.)
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate
restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional emptoyee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
2. Vail Villaoe Master Plan
The land use elemenl of the Vail Village Master Plan shows the Cornice Building property
within the medium/high density residentialcategory. The Building Height element of th€
plan suggests that the maximum building height on the Cornice Building property should
be limited to two slories. The plan is intended to provide general guidelines and
recommends that additional study be made during specific project review relalive to a
buildings height impact on lhe streetscape and relationship to sunounding structures.
Approxlmateiy 25h ot the proposed building complies with the two story recommendation,
with the remainder of the building being at three stories. Staff believes that the departure
from the two story height guideline is acceptable given the allowed height of 48 feet and
the applicants use of sloped roofs on the portion ol the building above two stories' As
stated before, we would suggest that the applicant consider reducing the building height
to 33 feet.
The Cornice Building is tocated within the East Meadow Drive Sub-Area (#5). No specific
reference is made to the building in the text of the sub-area action plan.
The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building has the potential to carry out many
of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals
and objectives are as follows;
Goal #'l -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity-
10
o
E.
Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout
the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land use
patterns.
Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the development of alfordable housing units through the efforts
ol the private sector.
3. Streetscape Master Plan - The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail
Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. lt is especially heavy in the
morning and late afternoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during
the summer months. Pedestrian traffic is likely to increase because of the expansion of
the Village Parking Struclure and the creation of a new exit portal from the parking
structure at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of
the Cornice Building involve the addition of a 8 foot - 10 foot wide concrqlgJli
walkway on the west and south sides of Vail Valley Drive and
concrete unit paver walkway on lhe east and north sides of the roE
No pedestrian walkway is proposed along the western portion of the Cornice Building
property. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows a 5 to 6 fool concrele unit paver
walkway along the western portion of the Cornice Building property, staff and the Town
Engineer agree that, at this time, it is not practical to continue a walkway along the
eastern side of Vail Valley Drive beyond the Gore Creek Bridge. People walking along
the eastern side ol Vail Valley Drive tend to cross the road on the north side of the bridge
where the slreamwalk meets Vail Valley Drive. This seems to be lhe safest and most
logical place to cross the road, rather than at the bottom of "Blue Cow ihute".
Additionally, the construction of a walkway along the western portion of the Cornice. Building property would appear to require the removal of the four existing large evergreen
trees located in this area which staff would prefer not to see removed.
ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on
which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, nor does any floodplain eflect this property.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a
functional development responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The HDMF zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides. After taking setbacks into
consideration, the remaining buildable area on the lot is approximately 20 feet by 25 feet in size.
Staff agrees with the applicant's contenlion that it would be extremely difticull to build on this site
without some degree of setback encroachment. The applicants have indicated that they have
attempted to minimize the setback encroachment by designing the building with a substantially
similar footprint as the existing building. The applicant has incorporated suggestions from
previous PEC meetings into the site planning by moving the building as far to the north and east
F.
tl
G.
as possible on the lot. The siting of the building in this location will provide as much visibility as
possible to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along Vail Valley Drive. Staff believes
that the removal of the second story deck located on the south side of the existing building,
which is within 2-112 feet of the stream walk, is a positive aspect of the redevelopment proposal.
Although the site coverage of the proposed building is slightly greater than the existing building
(1,160 sq. ft. existing and 1,397 sq. ft. proposed) it is still considerably less than the maximum
allowed on this lot (2,012 sq.ft.). Stafl believes that applicants desire to limit the amount of site
coverage on this lot is positive.
The applicant has provided a sun/shade analysis which compares the shading effect of the
existing building to the proposed building. Clearly, the proposed redevelopment would increase
shade and shadow on a portion of Vail Valley Drive. lt would seem that additional shading on
Vail Valley drive is a trade off for moving the building as far to the norlheast portion of the lot as
possible. The advantages of the proposed building location are improved sight distances around
the lower portion of Blue Cow Chute and a greater separation between the building and the
streamwalk. The applicant has oriented the roof ridge of the third slory portion of the building in
a northisoulh direction in order to reduce the shade impact on Vail Valley Drive as much as
possible. The statf and Town Engineer have reviewed the sun/shade analysis and believe that
since there is no major pedestrian walkway along this portion ol Vail Valley Drive the shading
impacts of the proposed building are not significant. However, as suggested earlier in lhe memo
reducing the height oi the proposed building by two feet will improve the shade impacts slightly.
In summary, staff believes that the project's design sensitivity to the site planning and open
space issues has been positive.
A circutation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and oft'
site traftic circulation.
It does not appear that the proposed Cornice Building redevelopment will have a negative impact
on the vehicular or pedestrian circulation surrounding this site. The Cornice Building is located at
the intersection ol Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive. Vehicular access to the three
proposed enclosed parking spaces is provided from Vail Valley Drive. The proposed driveway
has been located at the southernmosl end ol the site, approximately 80 feet from the corner of
Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive, thereby insuring adequate site lines for vehicles
leaving the site. Inlernal circulation includes two "hammerheads" which allow vehicles to
turnaround while on-site. This design allows vehicles to drive out of the site without backing onto
Vail Valley Drive. The driveway and vehicle turnaround areas will be heated and utilize
decorative brick paves as opposed to asphalt or concrete.
The Cornice Building parcel is located directly on the Vail Village bus route, and is also located
immediatelv adjacent lo the Ford ParUVail Village slreamwalk. Existing sidewalks along the Vail
Village Par ng Structure, the Vail Athletic Club and along Vail Valley Drive provide additional
pedestrian c,rculation which will not be negatively eflected by the proposed redevelopment
project. As rnentioned previously, staff does not recommend that a pedestrian walkway be
installed along the western side of the Cornice Building property, as this may encourage people
to cross Vail Valley Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute, which is considered to be a
dangerous location.
12
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Given the limited site area of this parcel, there is little in the way of 'functional open space". The
proposed development does, however, preserve the existing mature trees located on the western
portion of the property as well as include a landscape plan that represents a significant
improvemenl over existing conditions. Landscape improvements are also proposed on the Town
of Vail land to the north, east, and west of the site. These improvements include clusters of
aspen and evergreen trees and a streetscape bench, located immediately adjacent to the
streamwalk. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing fence which runs along the north
side of the streamwalk, adjacent to Town of Vail property, in order to make the area east of the
Cornice Building more inviting to the public. The fence will remain adjacent to the Cornice
Building property to further shield the parking area. The applicant has agreed to be responsible
for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town property for a period of lhree years. lf any
vegetation dies during the three year period it will be replaced by the property owner, his at
expense.
As shown in the previously listed zoning analysis, 40% of the site is retained as landscaping
which exceeds the minimum requirement of 30%. lt appears lhat the proposed landscaping on
the property has been planted in a manner which allows for adequate on-site snow storage and
adequate site lines lor ingress and egress. Stafl believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize a
heated brick paver driveway as opposed to asphalt or concrete is positive and should compliment
the landscaping and open space plan proposed by the applicant.
Statf would recommend the addition of one more spruce tree along the southern property line in
order to provide a more significant visual buffer between the pedestrian walkway and the
proposed vehicle turnaround area, while still allowing for an adequate snow storage area.
L Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, tunctional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the special deVelopment district.
The applicant has not proposed a phasing plan for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, as
it is their intention to complele the entire redevelopment in one phase. The applicant is currently
working with the planning stafl and Town Engineer to develop an acceptable construction staging
plan for this redevelopment.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Cornice Building Special Development District. We find
that the redevelopment proposal is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section of the SDD
zone district as well as the other comprehensive plan elements described in detail above. The staff's
recommendation of approval is based on our understanding that the following are included in the
redevelopment:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolitionlbuilding permit for the redeveloprnent
project, the developer will identify the location of one, two or three permanently restricted
employee housing units, which provide a minimum of three bedrooms. The unit(s) shall
meet the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements. The proposal for acceptance of
13
the employee housing unit(s) shall be brought back to the PEC, and possibly Town
Council (if so desired), for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting.
2. The applicant agrees to provide a drainage easement to the Town in order to provide for
the maintenance of the existing slorm water drainage system located on the western edge
of this property. The location and width of the easement will be determined by the Town
Engineer.
3. The landscape plan will be amended to show the addition of one additional spruce tree
along the southern property line in order to provide a more significant visual butfer
between the streamwalk and the proposed vehicle turnaround area. The applicant has
agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town propefi for a
period of three years. lf any vegetation dies during the three year period it will be
replaced by the property owner expense, at his expense.
4. A revocable right-of-way permit will obtained for all improvements on public property.
cl\p.cvncmos\cornice.228
14
COSGRIFF. DUNN
A AEPLAN LP
rtTgFtrEyt A? L !J9 i.uttc:o: ;_Y... _eia I
colrraEistal wtNo i
ll N. rao{?act RC. w.i
t. o. lol !.o :
^rt. coLoF^DO lrrer Ilsgll .?a.ttg: I
!t
ii. ,|
il
ATTACITMENT #I t
tltrs AGREE{E\rI dared the t*, ot gn1 , 1985, by andbetr"een llia rgt{ oF laE,, corDRADo,-IEre$afterr-teffiE; as ,,vail,l
.+q I'aI,FR Hui:rNER, as t}le or,mer oi t}e cornice e"iiding,Iereinafterreferred to as "&rner. "
.-rr*^ ,,r l1$Tl va+l hjas requested t.hat certain res.trictions regardingEnree [J,, e-,p].oyee *]i" r" placed on t]re cornice Buildirg, hereinifter -
refered to as the Subject eicper:Uy.
_ liq{, TIERFO.RE, for the sun of Ten Dollars ($i0.00) ar:d ot}ergood and valuabr.e ccnsiceration, tie sufficienry ;i-"tii;h-i" herebyackncrrle<lged, the parties hereto agree as follcis:
1. Ttrat portion-of tlre grcund l_evel on the subject prcpertycorprised of three r:1 glre1i:.,re-;"ia;;;;h hil;;-"iiiing area and,
F!9h:n .anf approxi:rarely 200 iqEre ieet (refenr5d to as ErptoyeeUnits) shall be used excLusivelli as enplol,ee irousirrg-rrrdts.
2. Ttre tlree (3) Er-ployee Units shall rnaintain a nrirli:nunsgrte fogtage of 200-:s'r"{e rEet ger 'nit, honrerrer, thJ conEig'rationof the r.:nits may be aLte-red.
3. The tlrree (3) Fployee Units straJ'l not be leased orrented .fol .lV period of less itr"i tf,:.r-ty (30) corrsecutive days; ard, lf
:ny slch @loyee Unit.shall be rented, Lt stratl be rented or,-fy'totenants vrho a:e fu11-tin= enployees in-t},e L[per Ea91e V"if.y. Ihe
:pj=:.,=gi.^-!311ev shart be lesnea to includL-tse c5re valle|, Minrurn,
ff.,t:]jl, Gi]rr€-n, Eagle-Vail and Avon, and the srrrronding areas. Anur-t:.ne eryro!,ee is a person who r.rorks aJr aveliage of tJriity (30) hor.usper we--,k.
- 4. The restrictions contained herein shalr rerain in effectfor a period, tlrenty (20) years fron gle a"te of this agr"-*rrt.
5. This Agreen'cnt shalr be a covenant ).'udng with tlre r.andantl shall bind tl'e O,rner, its hei.'s, successors, arrd assigns, and aILsubsequent lessees ar:d owners of t}e Subject erope-rty.---'--
TOnN OF
Wa1ter P.uEG
O,+l1Pr - Cnr-r.r i no Eti'lJ'-....e_, vv.rrr:l-E .EuJ.rg\:l!g,WATiEST:
By
Tq,,n lGnager
-,
ATTACHMENT /12
-FILE CSPYMeeting Minutes f rorn June 14, 1993, PEC worksession.
Jack Beats stated hat Eagle County has asked him to address the building envelope
size and that he plans lo focus on this aspect of the project next.
Mike Mollica staled that a geologist has reviewed and approved the cunent plan.
Greg Amsden asked the applicant where the fire lumatound was located.
Jack Beats stated bat the 'hammerhead'design allows for such a tumatound.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concemed about the size of the building. envelopes for each of the proposed lots and questioned how hat relates to he
County's standards f or deveicpmenl
Jack Beals stated hat Eagle County considers this a clusler resuMivision.
Mike Mollica stated that the only variance the applicant is requesting trom Eagle
Coung pertains to locating the garages of two of the units in the front setback.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazards
and the sub-surface water on the sile. She added that the driveway access to the
building envelopes needs to be looked at as well as the landscape plan for the project.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments.
' Greg Amsden stated that the plan that the applicant was proposing 'flows with what is
already preseni in the neighborhood.' He stated that he agrees with Kathy's comment
concerning revegetation. He said that the applicant needs to be sensitive to the
existing lopography of the site.
Allison Lassoe stated fiat she agreed with Kathy's and Bill's @mments.
Jefl Bowen stated that fie environmental concerns and soils study pertaining to this
project needed to be addressed.
Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with the previous comments the PEC members' had made. He added that he was particularly concemed with the sub-surface waler
flow if the site was excavaled and lhat changing or diverting fie water flow could atfect
adjacent property owners.
Diana Donovan agreed with all of the previous comments.
Mike then stated that he would draft a letter to Eagle County outlining the
Commission's comments and concerns.
5. A request for a joint worksegslon with fre Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow he
redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more
Planning and Envi@nm€r al Commisson
Jun€ 14, 1993 l.
specifically described as follows:
A part of Tract'B'and ! part ol Mill Creek Road, Vall Villago, First FilirE, County ot Eagle, Slal€ of
Cobrado, more paniqrlarly describ€d as tolbws:
Commerring at lhe Northeast corner ol Vail Village. First Filing; therre North 79e46'0O' West along th€
Sor,nherty line of U.S. Highray No. 6 a dislance of 367.06 fe€t to the Nonhoasl comer ot said Tracl 'B';
thence Sa;th 10p14'@'West along th€ Easl€rty Sne ol said Tract'B'; a distanc€ of 198,31 teet to th€
Souheaslerly corner d said Tract 'B'; thncs Nonh 79'46'0f We$ along rhe Southerfy Ine ol said Traa
'B'a distarce ol 100.m t€€l to $e tru€ pcint of beginning thenc€ Nonh 09'10'07'W€st a distance ol 41.67
lea; therre Soulh 88'27'11'W€st a clistance sl75.21 leeti thence South 27'1337'East a dlstanco ot
V.37 teet:. th€rce North t'24'00f East a distanca of 55.'l1 t.€1, more or less to th€ lrue point ot beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutle
Jim Curnutle made a brief presentation per he staff memo.
Tom Braun, the applicant's representrative, stated hat the Comice Building is a ditficult
site to develop and that lhe applicant had four objectives which he wished to
accomplish through the present proposal. Tom stated that it was lhe applicant's desire
to redevelop the site, to maintain the current landscaping on the site, to ofler on-site
parking to the residents of the Cornice Building and to utilize the available GRFA on
lhe lot for the lree market condominium unit. He said that they would try to improve
the site lines of he project.
Kathy l-angenwalter stated that the three employee housing units cunently 0n the site
are deed restricted for twenty years. She said that she is concemed with the proposed
GRFA and the credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing Task Force
specifically contemplated a trade-off of GRFA or density and that an applicant cannot
have both. Conceming the setbacks, Kathy said that she did not have a problem with
the proposed setbacks. Concerning the proposed height of the Comice Building, she
stated that although it was lrue that the zoning allows for a 48 foot high building in this
zone district, that is within fre sehack area and not for those porlions of the building
located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that the verticality
was inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She siated that all of the required
parking for the condo needs to be provided on-site. She also agreed with staff's
suggestion that the covered walkway between the building and the garage needs to be
removed.
Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments.
Dallon Williams stated that he agrees with Kathy's commenls except with regard to
parking. He stiated frat he felt that parking in the parking structure would minimize the
site impacts of this project.
Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments bul he disagrees with
staff's comment on page 7 of the staff memo concerning GRFA and that it was his
Plannlng ard Envionm€rial Commisslon
June 14, 1 9(Xl
7
feeling that the employee housing units should be included in the figure.
Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of he Comice Building is
not comparable with the other buildings located in the area because he other buildings
have more mass. He suggested that he owner remove the top level or two of the
building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 teet. With regard to
parking, he said that on-site parking is necessary but should be limiled to two parking
spaces and that the applicant could pay into the parking fund. He agrees with statfs
suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA of the eondominium to 2,000
square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space.
Allison l-assoe stated hat she agreed with Kathy's comments, especially conceming
building height.
George Lamb and Bob Bome stated that they agreed with Kafiy's comments.
Sally Erainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Beview Board, stated that she does
not have a problem with a building height of 4{t feet. She said hat she likes the
verticality of the building and teels ihat it gives the structure character. She added that
she was not in favor of a flat rool for the Cornice Building and recommended thal the
owner consider a simpler rool form that encompasses the whole structure. She also
suggested that dle covered entry be removed.
Diana Donovan stated that trefe was no parking requirement for lhis site back when
the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot.
She said that it was important that a sun/shade analysis be conducted' and hat the
building was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staging was going to
be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that it was her opinion hat the
locations of the garage and lumaround need to be switched and that the building
needs to stay within the existing footprints. She added that she lelt hat this project
should not be an SDD and that credit should not be given for the three employee
housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that the SDD was being
used in this instance solely as a mechanism to break the rules and she could not
support the project the way it is currently proposed.
Dalton and Kathy both agreed with Diana's commenls.
Tom Braun stiated that the SDD concept allows for creativity in developmenl and that it
was his feeling that the Cornice Building presented a unique situation with three
employee housing units and one free-market condominium unit. He slated that wihout
the GRFA allowance, tre project is not economically viable and probably would not be
redeveloped.
Diana Donovan stated that frere were originally eight employee units.
Tom Braun added thal these were originally eight apartments.
Planning and Ervilonmental Commission
June 14, 199:!3.
Greg Amsden agreed with Tom's comment that it was a unique site. He said that he
felt a hardship did exist on the site and hat it was a good location for employee
housing.
Bill Anderson asked he applicant whether he would be willing to extend the deed
restriction past twenty years.
Jeff Bowen asked whether there was a way to reorganiza Unit I and Unit 2 of the
proposal so that you would not have lo walk through the kitchen to get to he
bathroom.
Dalton Williams stiated that he does not think that this proposal should be an SDD
because it is not a large enough site. He added that it was his feeling that his was an
inappropriate use of he SDD concept.
Tom Braun inquired about the Garden of the Gods project.
Diana Donovan stated that he mass and bulk ot this proposal needed to be reduced.
Jeff Bowen added that he felt hat the height of the proposed building was excessive.
Bill Anderson stated that he was not convinced that the requested additjonal GRFA on
the sile was necessary.
Dalton Williams added that he also was not in favor ol the proposed GRFA
exceedance.
Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt the proposed site coverage, setbacks
and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being proposed needed to be reduced.
She also inquired whether the PEC found the SDD concept to be acceptable lor lhe
Comice Building proposal.
Diana Donovan stated that she felt that a free market condominium was not
appropriate on his site.
Kathy l-angenwalter stated that she felt the sile was ioo small for the proposed building
and added that an SDD lor this proposal would not be benelicial to the community.
Dallon Williams stated that he could see some benefit to the community for lhe
Comice Euilding to be redeveloped and having the employee units restricted forever.
Allison Lassoe stated hat she was concerned wifr the proposed location ol the
windows for the units on the bottom level because they would be covered in he
winlertime with snow and would feel 'cave-like'.
Diana Donovan stated that tre mass and bulk ol the building needed to be redesigned.
Phnning and E wi'onmental Commission
Junc l.l l€txl 4.
(
I
Kdstan PriE stated that the public benefit with regard to his project needed to be
defined.
Jefl Bowen slated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt
parking on-site would be difficult with regard to getting in and out during he winter
months.
Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving fie employee housing to
another lot in lown.
Dalton Williams said he would hate to see it moved out of he Village area.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not wanl to see upper end housing hat did not
offer parking. She added that she did not feel that this was the best use lor this
property, maybe the best use is open space.
6. A request for a joint worksesslon with fre Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission for an exterior alleration for Lionshead Center to allow an
addition on the southwest comer of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1,
Uonshead lst Filing/S2O Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Oscar TangPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presenlation per the staft memo and stated that there were
two parts to the applicant's request, parking and the design of Alfie Packeis entryway.
Andy reviewed tre five points about the design made in fie statf memo. There is
general concurrence from the PEC members and DRB members that the proposed
addition met he exlerior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width ol
the passageway from the front lo the back ol the site as well as a concern about the
location lor locating the transition of new materials to existing malerials were presented
by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modified he design, '
creating a notch in fre side of the building. This revision.was supported unanimously
by the staff, PEC and DFB.
Conceming the parking situation, Andy summarized tre research the statf had done,
concluding that parking could be provided on-site in CCll, as long as the provision
regarding 50% ot he required parking being within the main building was met.
Because of this standard, statf said that they only supported an addition of two spaces,
which would be located within the interior ol the main building.
Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicant but that he would like to revisit he
issue and ask for additional spaces to be located on-site.
The PEC agreed lhat locating the two spaces within the main building was reasonable
and the lees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16,000.
Phnning ard Environmental Commission
Juno 14, 1glxl 5.
6;
Dalton Williams, Allison Lassoe, Jeff Bowen, Kathy Langenwalter, Greg Amsden, Diana
Donovan and Bill Anderson all were opposed to additional GRFA lor this project.
Greg Amsden inquired whether the cunent employee housing unils had kitchen
facif ities.
,.u-'
Tom Braun slated that the employee housing units had kitchen lacilities as well as
common laundry and storage facilities. \-==t
Jim Lamont staled that he was in favor of this project going through the variance
process for redevelopment but that he was opposed to the Cornice Building increasing
ils GRFA.
A request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family for
an unplatted parcel located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B
for the purpose of allowing an employee housing development.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Housing Authority
Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that statf was
recommending approval of this request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space lo
Low Density Multi-Family with the five recommendations outlined on Page 7 plus a
sixth recommendation regarding the future uses of the site.
Diana Donovan inquired why they had taken access through the schools instead of the
four-way stop.
Kirk Aker, the architect for the project, stated that if access was taken via the four-way
stop, that the grades would be excessive. He then showed the PEC lhe modifications
they had made to the project since the PEC worksession on Seplember 27, 1993.
Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned that a large amount of existing
vegetation would be removed from the site as a result of the accel and decel lanes and
that the Housing Authority did not have the money to replace each tree and bush.
Dalton Williams inquired why such a large accel/decel lane was needed for this project.
Kirk Aker responded that the Colorado Department ot Transportation had a chart which
they went by.
Andy Knudtsen stated that he had spoken to Greg Hall concerning the accel/decel lane
and that the daycare cenlers have already triggered the requirement for the accel/decel
lanes.
Planning and Envlronmental commisslon
octobsr 11, 1993
J.
ATTACIIMENT /I4
ffi-E cspy
75 South Frontage Road
VaiI, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 3 e
FAX 303-179-2452
'December 8, 1993
D e pa r n ne nt of C onnwniry D et eloptnent
Mr: Tom Braun, AICP
Peter Jamar Associates, lnc.
108 South Frontage Road, Suite 204
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Cornice Building employee housing units
Dear Tom;
This tetter is intended to respcnd to your letter to me dated November 24, 1993 concerning
the feasibility of providing off-siie employee housing unils lo replace those currently existing
on the Cornice Buiiding properiy. Also, although we have previously discussed slaff's
response to the questions raised in your November 15, 1993, letter io me, I thougltt it would
be helpful to reiterate our position in this letier.
Staff respcnse to the four questions raised in the November 15, 1993 letter:
1. While the three existing uniis located in the Cornice Building do not comply v,rith all of
the technical standards outlined in the Town of Vail Employee Housing (EHU)
Ordinance, they most closely resemble Type lV units and may be used for determining
ofi-siie equivalenls. The three units at the Cornice Building do provide hcusing for
three people in a private living environment. While searching for off-site employee
lrousing units, piease keep in mind the quality of the living environmenl as v.'ell as the
minimum number of people needing 1o be housed. Staff believes '!hat, at a minirnum,
the three employees should be provided vrith their ovrn bedroom.
2. All otf-site unils prcposed to r'eplace ihe three existing Cornice Building unils must be
permanently restricled in accordance rvith the Town of Vail EHU Ordinance.
3. Fedevelopment plans for the Cornice Building could be approved conditioned upon the
applicant providing ihe equivalent number of oif-site employee housing units prior to
the issuance of either a Cemolition permit or a building permit for the Cornice Building
redevelopment. Staff's concern is that the otf-site employee housing units are
available at the same time, or earlier than, the three existing units are remcved lrom
the housing market.
1.
ATTACI1MENT /I3
i,Ieeclng Minutes from 0caober 11, 1993 PEC worksession.rri[ f
5. A request for a worksession to discuss the establishment of an SDD to allow the
redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a requesl for a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of three Type lV employee housing u.nils, located at 362 Vail
Valley Drive and more specifically described as lollows:
A part of Tract "8" and a parr of Mill Credk Road, Vail Village, First Filing, county of Eagle, Srale of
Colorado, more panicularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Nonheasl corner ol Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79'46'00'West along the
Souherly line of U.S. Highway No, 6 a dislance of 367.06 feet to the Nonheast @rner of said Tracr "8";
thence South 10c14'00'Wesr along the Easrerly line of said Tract 'B'; a dislance of 198.31 feel to lhe
Southeaslerly corner ol said Tract "8"; thence.North 79'46'00' Wesl along the Sodherly line of said Tract
'B' a dislance ol 100.00 feet ro lhe rrue poi of beginning thence Nonh 09'10'07' wesl a dislance of 41.67
feel: thence South 88'27'11' Wesl a distance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27'13'37 Easl a dislance of
77.37 leet: lhence North 57"24'00" Easl a dislance of 55.1 1 feet, more or less to the lrue poinl of beginning.
.fi$P'd
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staff memo.
Tom Braun stated that the Cornice Building proposal has been redesigned since the
June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. He stated that he wanted feedback from the PEG
concerning whether the variance process or SDD process was more appropriate for
this proposal. Tom stated that the applicant was requesiing the full 2,194 square feet
for the free-market condominium unit and that it is their feeling that this will provide a
better quality condominium unit and renlal units. Concerning the SDD process, he said
that it was their feeling that the SDD process was appropriate for the Cornice Building.
Jetf Bowen stated that the SDD process required hearings beiore the PEC and the
Town Council and that perhaps the variance process would be more etficient. He
stated that a hardship needed to be shown for the variance process. He stated that he
was not wild about any development at this site. Jefl said that a possible way to
provide a benefit to the Town would be,to build a house there and purchase tlvo or
three employee housing units otf-site. He said that he is against on-site parking of any
sorl.
Tom Braun inquired whether the employee housing would have to be three studio units
or whether a three bedroom home would be acceptable.
Kristan Pritz stated that if the three employee housing units were located off-site, they
would need to conform with the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance.
Allison Lassoe stated that the only benefit that this project could provide to the Town
was employee housing. She stated that she would like to see better quality employee
housing units provided off-site than have the three proposed, which appear to be in the
basement ol the building.
Plannlng and Environmental Commlssion
october 11, 1993
I
o
Dalton Williams asked what the buildable area of the lot would be if the building
conformed to the setback requirements in lhe HDMF zone district.
Tom Braun showed him how the lot would look on the drawing.
Dalton Williams stated that he could find a hardship on the site. He said he was
against the Cornice Building being a SDD. He stated that he would be willing io work
with the applicant on seback and parking variances, if the employee housing unils
were rented to people who lived in the Town of Vail but did not own cars. He said he
also liked the idea of providing the employee housing units off-site-
Greg Amsden stated that he would prefer to see lhis project addressed through the
SDD process, although he did think the size of ihe lot was a hardship. He also
suggested providing the employee housing otl-sile.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that it was an appropriate site for more
development due to the size of the lot, the parking situation and the trafiic at this
location. She said that she felt that the SDD process was more appropriate for this
site than the variance process but with no GRFA credit. She said that no parking
should be allowed on this lot irregardless ol how it is redeveloped.
Bill Anderson inquired which process the applicant would prefer.
Tom Braun stated that they would prefer the SDD process
Bill Anderson stated that he dio not have a firm commitment at this point to either
process. He said that he felt that the GRFA should be limited on this site to 2,195
square feet. He added that he did not feel that credit should be given for the
employee housing units. He also agreed that the applicant should explore purchasing
employee housing units oft-sile. He stated that he did not think this was a good site
for any kind of building due to its location (headlights in windows, noise, etc.).
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was against the SDD process in conjunction with
this project. She stated that she could not see additional square footage above the
2,195 square feet allowed on such a small site. She stated that she would like to see
the employee housing relocated off-site and be permanently deed restricted. She then
took a straw vote of the other commission members regarding their feelings on the
appropriate process.
Bill Anderson and Greg Amsden stated that they felt that the SDD process was
appropriate lor the redevelopment of this property.
The remainder of the commission members lelt that variances were the way to go.
Kathy then asked for a straw vote regarding the GRFA bonus for the employee
housing units.
Planning and Envlronmental Commisslon
October 11, 1993
o
Mr. Braun
December 8, 1993
Page Two
4. As you know, statf has spent considerable time reviewing the Cornice Building
redevelopment proposals which were discussed at two PEC worksessions. Staff would
be agreeable to determining how much, if any, of the original SDD applicalion fee has
not been used by staff and credit the remainder lowards future variance applications
you may submit. This determination will be based on an houriy rate of $40.00 per
hour.
Staff response to the November 24, 1993 letter:
The statement in your letter is correct that all newly constructed EHUs will be required to meet
one of lhe five types outlined in ihe EHU Ordinance. We also agree that there may be
instances in the future where restricted EHU's may be dedicated which do not meet every
provision of the ordinance due to some peculiar situation. Staff feels that your proposal to
permanently restrict three employee housing units to replace those currently held under a
lemporary restriclion at the Cornice Building site is an unusual siiuation warranting special
revievr. While we would encourage you to comply in every way v.rith the Town of Vail EHU
Ordinance, we are open to revierving specific sites lhat may differ slightly from the
requirements in the EHU Ordinance. lt should be pointed out, however, that starf v/ould
probably not look favorably upon proposed deviaiions from the parking or minimum square
footage requirements contained in the EHU Ordinance.
\{ith regard lo your specific proposal lo replace lhe Cornice Building units virilh a one bedroom
Type ll EHU and a one bedroom condominium unit, staff feels that the quality ot the living
environment as vrell as the proximity to employment and activity areas are very important
factors in determining an acceptable lraCe. Statf feets that although the three sludio units are
small, they do provide a quality living environment in terms of privacy, access to work, etc. ln
determininE acceptable alternate locaiions stalf feels that, at a minimum, the three employees
that we are attempting to house should be provided with individual bedrooms. However, il a
parlicular condominium has been locaied, we rvill be happy lo review your specific request at
lhat time.
To recap, staff agrees that in light cf the unusual situation we are dealing with in regard to
relocating and permanently restricting the Cornice Building employee housing units, it may 3e
possible lo consider minor deviations from lhe standards in lhe EHU Ordinance. Holever, we
feel that a deiermination regarding what deviations may be acceptable can only be made
through a speciiic revierv of the units you are proposing to deed restrict. lf the uniis being
proposed are deemed by slalf to be of equal or better: quality than the existing Cornice
Building units, in terms ot the quality of the living environment, accessibility to employment
and aclivity centers, etc., staff may consider supporting minor deviations from the strict
standards contained in the EHU Ordinance.
)
Mr. Braun. December 8, 1993
Page Three
Sincerely,
Jim curnutte
Town Planner
xc: File
I hope this information is cf assislance to you asi you search for acceptable olFsite employge
trouiing unils. However, lf you should have additional queStions or comments, please feel
free to conlact me al your convenience.
3.
.'o'
'ilorll nttruutes
VAIL TOIAN COUNCIL MEETING
May 7, 1996
7:30 P.M.
FIIE COPY
.l
;,..:r'l
A regulai meetihg of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May ?, 1996, in the Council Chambers of the Vail
. tvt,ulicielf AuiHjng. The meeting was called to order at approximatety Z:SO e.tvt., . 't , ,1.:t::
i r 'r " ' !' MEMBERS PRESENT:
:l
irr r.... ,r, , i ,: MikeJewettr: ' .' r : J'. ,-!,.
. .;1 ,, Ludwig Kuz
' MEMBERS ABSENT: Sybilt Navas
., Rob Ford r
' Ii I' TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT: Bob McLaurin, Town Manager . , . ,,
Tom Moorhead, Town Attomey
. : Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Assistant Town Manager ri;. , .
The first item on the agenda was citizen Participation, of which there was none.
Item number two on the agenda was the Consent Agenda which consisted of the approval of the Minutes for the
meetings of April 2 and 16, 1996. A motion was made by Kevin Foley to approve the bbnsent Agenda. and Ludwig
Kurz seconded the motion. A vote was taken and passed unanimously, 5-0.
Third on the agenda was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996, first reading of an ordinance amending
Title 18 Zoning, Chapters 18.12 (Two-Family Residential (R) District), 18.13 (Primary/Secondary Relsidentiat District,
]p.5!(Desro,n F9Yi9ry), 18.56 (Environmentallmpact Reports), 18.58 (SupplementaiRegutationi), 18.60 (Conditionai
U-s9 e91mt$), 18.62 (Variances), and 18.66 (Administration) with resfe& to Administration and'Appeats procedure
of the Vail Municipal Cobe.
Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, Dominic Mauriello, presented the item and gave the following
background: On March 5, 1996, the Council reviewed a proposal to consolidate and amend the appeats process foi
the Zoning-Code.'Council recommended that the proposal be reworked in order to preserve an ai:plicani's abilig to
aFpeal to the Town Council and to preserve Council's ability to call-up a decision of staff or one olthe boards. ihe
prbposal had been revised to comply with Council's concerns. The revised policy consolidates the appeals process
into one chapter of the Zoning Code. Dominic then referred to a memo dated May 7 to Council detailing the proposed
code changes and processes, and further stated the staffs recommendation w-as for approval of Ordinan-ce i{o. Z,
Series of 1996, on first reading. Town Attorney, Tom Moorhead restated that the primary'objective of the ordinance
was to put the appeals process into one section, alleviating inconsistencies which currently existed. He continued,
stating that Dominic had put a lot of time into writing the ordinance and had thoroughly researched regulations in place
in other states. Ludwig moved to approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1996 on first reading, and Paul Johnston
seconded the motion. A vote was then taken and passed unanimously,'5-0. Michael Jeweft commended Dominic
for a job well done.
Agenda item number four was Ordinance No. 8, Series of 1996, second reading of an ordinance repealing
and reenacting Ordinance No.7, Series of 1994, to amend the development plans and allow forflexibilig in the
outdoor lighting requirement for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Tonun
of Vail Municipal Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Mayor Armour read the title in full. Town Planner, George Ruther, presented the item and provided the following
background: On Tuesday, March 5, 1996, Tom Braun, representing David Smith, appeared before the Vail Town
Council for first reading of an ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, to allow for the construction of
a Type lll employee housing unit within the Comice Building and to allow for greater flexibitity in the outdoor lighting
requirement for the Cornice Building. The applicant has since withdrawn his request for a Type lll employee housing
,';l'y;lHli'ffift::;:3"",?Ji':iigJB:i::xul""H:fJ[yil13f;"""1'fl".":Jfl:lli"#JJ":t"JHT
reminded council members that the applicant was requesting approval of a MajorAmendment to Special Development
District No. 32, to allow for twelve outdoor light fixtures on lhe Comice Building, and that according to existing Town
of Vail Design Guidelines, only three outdoor lights would be allowed on the property (one per 1,000 sq. ft. of lot area).
George continued, stating the applicant had indicated that the abnormally small lot size of the Cornice Building lot did
not adequately address the true outdoor lighting needs of a residential property. The proposed lighting plan had.been
illustrated on amended development plans. Council was informed that Staffs recommendation, in accordance with
the O210296 memorandum prepared by staff for the Planning and Environmental Commission, (PEC), was for
approval of the proposed Major Amendment to Special Development District No. 32, the Cornice Building.
V.I Td,r Co.,rdl E6d'!g X.oho Mlrua!. Mrt 7, tood
t
Fifth on the agenda was Resolution No. 6, Series of 1996 to adopt the 208 Region Xll Water euality i
Management Plan. Environmental Health Officer, Russell Forrest, requested the Council review and consider
adoption of the 208 Plan for lhe Town of Vail, as recommended by staff, ahd provided the following information: The
-2-08
plan is a required plan for coordinated regional water quality management under Section 2OB of-the Federal CleanWater Act' There are two volumes of the 208 plan.'Volume 1 identifies six broad policies for water quality
management. Volume 2 rcntaifrs specific watershed plans. One of these Watershed plans is for the Eagle'River
Watershed which includes Gore Creek. This plan addresses specific actions to protect and improve water quality inthe Eagle River and Gore Creek. lssues and recommendaiions in the plan address point sources of pollution,
nonpoint sources, and stream flow. The recommendations in this Plan can be used to modify state water quality
standards and to provide direction for local water resource management. Russell informed C6uncil members thatthe Northwest Golorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG), olwhich the Town of Vail is a member, had been
designaled by the Governor as lhe area wide waste treatment management planning authority under Section 20g of
the Clean WaterAct and was asking its members to adopt the plan. He continued, st-ting the fian did not identifo any
new issues and that the Town ryas already addressing the issues outlined in the plin. Kevin moved to approv6
Resolution No.6, Series of 1996, and ihe motion was seconded by Ludwig. Miie Jewett, clarifying an-earlier
discussion with Russell, stated he was not "bashing" him, but was only expiessing his concern that stream lractproperty values could be adversely effected by adoption of the plan. A vote was then taken and approved 5-0.
Item number six on the ?s9l9a was_ an appeal by Carroll Offison, owner of Lot 10, Block 2, Lions Ridge Filing #4(1464 AspenGrove Lane) of the PEC's decision to deny both a front yard setback variance and a request to utilizethe 250 Ordinance. The request would have allowed for a garage gnd a Type I employee housing unit to be
construcled on the property within the front setback.
Town Planner, Mikd Mollica summarized the staffs memo of April 8, and stated the applicant's request was for a 19,
setback variance to encroach into the front setback of the property and utilization of tn6 ZSO ordinance in building an
additional two-car garage and an upper level caretaker's unit on top of an existing underground garage. lilike
continued, explaining that the PEC's motion to deny the requested variance and 250 utilization included the staffs
findings as discussed in the memorandum, as well as the additional finding that the approval of the variance and 250
utilhation would be a grant of special privilege, and that the PEC's vote wal unanimous (6-0) for denial. Further, Mike
stated that the Department of Community Development recommended denial of the applicint's appeal of the pEC's
decision regarding a front yard setback variance, as well the PEC's decision regarding the utilization of the 250
Ordinance. The staff believed that the review criteria had not been met, as specifled in the staff memorandum to the
PEC.
Rick Rosen, legal council for the applicant, introduced himself and the applicant's land use planner, Tom Braun. Mr.
Rosen explained the reason for his client's appeal and said he did not think the PEC follovried the necessary criteria
as outlined in the Town Code's variance chapter. Tom Braun then explained why he felt the requegt was vatiO, cltft!
physical hardship, that the lot was difficult, and presented diagrams of the proposed addition.' :_.r' j-
At that time RC Stevenson of Dunn, Abplanalp & Christensen, addressed the Council, stating he represented the
Kullers, owners of adjacent Lot 7. He then introduced the Kullers' architect, John Gunson. Mr. Gunson stated he was
involved with the selection of Lot 7, and that the Kullers chose the lot because of the proximity to the town and the
views. He provided information regarding a site analysis that was used in determining sun angles, wind directions,
topography, setbacks and.most importantly, the views from the lot, and distributed i sheet OLtaiting the potential
negative views. He called the proposed addition obtrusive and suggested other alternatives.
Properly owner, Judy Kuller, informed Council of the impact on her property, requesting the setbacks be adhered to,
and the,variance be denied.
'.:L:ii i : : " "'
Greg Moffit, Chairman of PEC informed Council that the minutes adequatety expressed the findings, and sail he was
available to address any questions - I \
Applicant, Carroll Orrison spoke briefly, reviewing his request.
Paul moved to uphold the decision of the PEC and Ludwig seconded the motion. tvtayornrmor stated that although
there.were no regulations in place to protect private view corridors, setbacks were a means to create a view corriddr,
and that a one story garage was the only thing which has been allowed in the front setback. A vote was then taken
3nd approved, 4-1 , Kevin voting in opposition because, he said, of the loss of an employee housing unit.
Seventh on the agenda was an update on the Vail Commons lottery applications and process.
Town Planner, Andy Knudtsen communicated that 76 applicants had turned in applications and that the Town had
re_ceived good exposure on the news and in the paper, Andy continued, stating the drawing would be held on May
20 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, and thattiers would be published in the Vail Trail on May 17. He then
informed Council members that a survey would be going out to individuals who expressed interest inthe project to
determine in detail what people were looking for and why more applications weren't tumed in. Two home owners will
be deed restricting their units, he said. Mayor Armor stated he felt the survey would be important and would reveal
some useful information.
Vd loun Coulc{ Ev.dm H.rlng Ml.rLr I'ht 7. 'lff8
o
Councilthen adjoumed for a short S-minute break at 8:35 p.m. and the meeting was reconvened at approximately g:40
p.m.
Item number eight was an appeal of Design Review Board (DRB) upholding of zoning administrator's
decision to approve a buffer to be built between the tnternational Wing proposed addition and the existing
condominiums, Appellant Anita Saltz.
Andy Knudtsen presented the item and gave the following background: On March 7, 1996, Andy Knudtsen with staff
consultation, approved the submitted plans for the buffer to be constructed between the penthouse on the International
Wng and the existing condominium dwelling units. The staff decision was appealed to the DRB. The DRB upheld
the staff decision on April 3, 1996 unanimously. And the DRB decision was ippealed.
Bob Armour acknowtedged receipt of letters from Art Abplanalp, East Mllage Homeowners, Ann Frick and stated that
certain issues raised did not address the buffer and that such issues were to be resolved in District Court. ln
December the project was approved with the condition that additional buffering be placed to improve the visual
impacts from the adjacent property owners. Andy reviewed the drawings of the proposed buffer.
Jay Peterson, attomey representing the Lodge at Vail, addressed council members, stating that his client was unable
to determine what specifically the objection was, as far as the landscaping plan was conierned.
Anita Saltz, owner Unit #527 ,lold Council that she bought her unit in 1986, and said they were told at that time there
was a possibili$, albeit slim, that an additional building would be built. Ms. Salts then showed council membersphotographs of the model she was shown at the time she bought her unit.
Rick Rosen, legal council to Dr. James and Mrs. Cavenaugh, owners of unit 533, said that his clients also understood
there would be a structure built, and stated that Jay PeterCon and the Lodge Properties, lnc. architects had gone out
of their way to address his clients' concems. He agreed that the buffer ione approved by DRB should coitinue to
be approved, and stated,.'Let's move forward and do what needs to be done, ,
Jim Brown, ajlomey representing lhe Lodge Apartment Condominium Association said he was directed to be keep
a neutral position, and wanted to clarifu for lhe record that the Association did not have an objection to the design df
the buffer.
Architect representing Anita Saltz, Lynn Fritzlen, questioned Andy Knudtsen and asked if ihe Town had taken the
position that no trespassing would occur. Tom Moorhead stated Ms. Fritzlen's question was inappropriate, and that
the issue of trespass had been filed in District Court,
"r}i
Mi8naef Amett spoke on behalf of the DRB and staffs decision and stated that staff had done'a smashing job" He
then reiterated that the issue before the Council related to the buffer.
Ludwig moved to uphold the DRB's decision and that of the zoning administrator and to deny the appeal. The motion
was seconded by Paul. A vote was taken and approved, 4-1, Mike Jewett voling in opposition.
Item number nine on the agenda was a report from the Town Manager. Bob Mclaurin updated Council members
on a request from the Art In Public Places board (AIPP) for a $77,390 contributiori to centis piece for a transparent
sculpture at Seibert Circle. Pam stated that the staff recommendation was for $50,000 and that $60,000 had already
been budgeted for a fountain in connection with the reconstruction of Seibert Circle. Council members agreed to
discuss it at the May 14 work session, giving Kevin an opportunity to attend the AIPP meeting.
Bob then informed that $300,000 in state funds had been granted for design work on the West Vail lnterchange
project. Bob said the Town was currently interviewing three engineering firms to help determine whal solulions might
work for the designing of a new West Vail Interchange.
Pam stated that the water supply to parks and fountains would be turned on May 17, with the exception of the
Childrens Fountain. which would come on after the Creekside Condominium water line.construc$on was complete.
There being no further business a motion was made for a joumment and the meeting was adjoumed at approximatety
9:25 p.m.
llinutes tEken by Hotty l,lccutcheon(.tl es of certaln indlvldudls rho Eave pobllc lnput n.y be lndccurate. )
o
.4t
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
vrlt TornCoudl Evd|lrg .odng lrl.|tn rtt.ai7,1000
I
)x
,\.^4MrD-Vn\
?acl:'q^rililF,4J$#m
.ifa"vq uur-\s'q
a
I
uu[ur
ij\A \ 1iKd"on i
llU \ flt. d, ,ii
-oi\ & :ii,^,T",r( t ._lq | .X_v?7A W4,p.SJ .\ - ,.,'\ L | \r 1 \ Aitr"'--q'I ,4f- L | \r '
l.lU.x' 'h INb\b,{N '\) .rP t/ ^i\cr$ -oo\ JP r }s^n'bFqi
,:I
,i
:il
n
Wi*1'*i h- fr,x S ,r',,?rl
n \*os c#tx?d \,ral ?"n\ tr.,rpd *rB *{ '& wt, X1r4
) c\r o., frr vtt' k ou} *\,r4l}f 4
(+:-w[h \\ry fry) uog-40 @,a] 5l ) ,l\1" *ffi^d-'tt#ota,?.o600 OI- Y tl.
^o i->f, "\t 'um P\fl1 Ll*tffi '',1
4'w' id
t
;, QC(ou-trler e€ &L [b,*.= C*f
y'{,"teCC dq+ryd.*.Ls * Oq*tQ.-f,
\_..
I
.. tfte,,'c,-e-' :
. {w€k [*./';./ct,'s vr/4*'eg-
- fzr-et\J c-eo<e-*4 ,e/u=e e{,'47f f*{ney( ./ vtfyee- =/l;,( Grro<paf 4 t*4 Et{d ;P dZd"Vp PrG
ek ,-(,'t'(,11
,tre - grra;. MSV#IS t'e fu'a*e Qrrf e,
. wt ff is beoC so€e-{Y .s-sq:€ * r*{u'",e{qtk-fi
)ds f=0 C
lVo -Toa-v
/l,O .lvr&fv
alo p ufrl
tl{<t,o4;,
l@lr+
/t/t€,Avf
\, t tt\
{4 Yt
A:- t
iEtttI t
C*r r i.e, LColA..
,Xeg---&r.s (',/<o i)---o{ l*yrry ,t ,c Cq*otc€-" [6!.f .
Ln
vQt
Yespo
)-r@Pafro
,-l-c n-fe/. _4qf > /P,:/
'F C.
to
2:00 P.M. 1.
Tom Moohead
3:00 P.M. 2.
Colleen McCarthy
3:20 P.M. 3.
Andy Knudtsen
Steve Thompson
3:50 P.M. 4.
Jim Cumutte
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MAY 3, 1994
2:OO P.M. IN VAIL LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM
AGENDA
IterTvTopic: Disalssion regarding noise in the Village Core issue.
Action Requested of CounciL Provide comments and direclion based on present
ordinance and any requested changes to odinance.
Backoround Rationale: At April 5, 1994 work session, the issue of loo much noise
in lhe Village Core was brought to the Council's attenilion. Stafi was directed to
review the various problem areas and derrelop a recommendation consislent with
legal requirements.
Stalf Recommendation: Not applicable.
ftenVTopic: Discussion regarding Al Walker Seminar on May 26, 1994.
Action Reouested bv Courrcil: Share cost of presentatbn. The total cost lor a full
day seminar is $5000.00. We are asking the Council to ailocate 91000.00 toilard
lhe cost of bringing Mr. Walker to town.
Backoround Rationale: Mr. Walker is an experienced facilitator in bringing differert
boards/councils together to form a strong intergovernmental relationship. He also
is superb in developing and fostering a good relationship between statf, the
executive office, and the elected body.
ItenvTopic: Discussion of funding for the Vail Cemetery.
Action Requested ol Council: Discuss funding options.
Backoround Rationale: The Cemelery Master Plan was completed October 2g,
1993. The design has been well received by the Planning and Environmental
Commission, the Town Counci| and the neighborhood. Staff has provided a copy
of the cemetery report and the appendix strowing a detailed breakdown of
construction costs. Design and construction is anticipated to cost $660220.00.
Fufure expansbns and maintenance of the cemetery will be lurded by lhe sales
of crypts, niches, and plots. Since the budget lor construction o{ the cemetery
would come from th€ capital fund, staff has attached the list of capital pojects
which have been lunded at this time.
Statf Recommendation: Stafl believes that the design and master plan, if
constructed, will provide a high quality mernorial area for our comnunily. Sitaff
recommends that the cemetery be furded, per Gouncil's directionJ
Discussion regarding Comice Building Housing.
ItenVTopic: Worksession to allow the Town Council to review and consider the
location of three permanently restricted erployee housing units which were
required in conjunction wilh the Town's rec€nt approval of the establishment of
SDD No. 32 (Comice Building). The Cornice Buitding is tocated at 362 Vait Valey
Drive and is a pail of Traci B, Vaii Viiiage, lst Fiting.
Applicant: David Smith, represented by Tom Braun, Jamar Associates
Action Requested of Council: Subsequent to Council's discussion with the
applicant regarding the three proposed employee housing unils, statf requests that
the Council provide direction to the applicant regarding the acceptability ot three
employee housing units.
4:35 P.M.
Kristan PriE
5:05 P.M.
5:10 P.M.
5:20 P.M.
5:30 P.M .
6.
1
8.
9.
10.
Backqround Rationale: On April 5, 1994, the Town Council approved Ordinance
po.ll$eries ot tS9a, on second reading, providing for the establishment of SDD
No. 32" Cornice Building, and adoptirp a development plan for SDD No. 32. The
Council's approval irrcluded several requirements which were a palt ol the
approved development plan, including the provision of three otf-sile employee
nbirsing units. Acceptance of the empbyee housing unils was required to be
brougtrt back to the Town Courrcil for their reviail and approval at a regularly
scheduled meetirE prior to the issuance of a derplitiorvfuilding permit for the
Cornice Building redevelopment.
The applicant has identified the location of three potential employee housing units
which he proposes to permanently deed restricl to meet lhe requirements specif ied
in Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994. The applicant wishes to provide information
lo, and receive direction from, the Courrcil concerning the acceptability of the lhree
prcposed employee housing units.
Statl Recommendation: Not applicable.
ItenvTopic: Discussaon ol ABC School condition of aPproval to pave the pafting
lot adiacent to the school.
Aclion Requested ol Council Determine if the condition of apprcvd should be
changed.
Backoround Rationale: When the school expanded several years ago' it was
required that the parking lot be paved in coniunction with the addition. At
Councif's previous uorksession on April 26, 1994, statf was requested to provue
background inlormalion on the approval.
Stafl Recommendation: Nol applicable.
Inlormation Update.
Council Reports.
Other.
Executive Session:
Adiournment.
Legal Matters
Personnel lssues
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ATL N ES SUBJECT 10 CHAMIE)
ooooooo
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN @UNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,5/10194, BEGINNING AT 2O0 P.ttl.lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEENNG
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,5l17E4, BEGINNING AT 730 P.M. lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,5I17I94, BEGINNING AT 2OO P.ITI. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
ooooooo
Thomas A. Braun, AICP
PETER JAMAR ASSOCTATES, tNC.
PLAnNING . DEVELOPMENT ANALYSTS . RESEARCH
A1:iL 77, 1994
Ms. Kristan Pritz, Director
Depaitment of Community Development
Town of Vail
'75 South Frontase Road
Vail, CO sl65i
Jim Curnutte
Deprtnent of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
RL,; Comice Buiiding
DearKristan and Jim:
Aq Vou are aware, a condition of approval for the Cornice Building SDD requires the applicant to
submit a plan outlining the manner in which ofl'-site employee rental units will be provided to
leplace the three existing rental units in the Cornice Building. This plan is lo be submitted to the
Town Council for their review and approval prior to the issuance ola building or demolition permit
for the redevelopment of the building. As wt discussed last week, I would request that this -
discussion be placed on the Town Council's Work Session agenda for May 3rd.
Tlte iciloling summarizes the SDD condition of approval and describes the existing Cornice
Building unis and the off-site units that are proposed tro satisfy this condition. The description of
pioposed olf-site units outlines the type of unit proposed (i.e. Type I-V), an assessment of how
eaoh unit will comply with applicable review criteria, a schedule for when each unit would be made
availape, and additional review/approvais that would be required for each unit.
Thank you for I'our time reviewing this material. Please do not hesitate to call with any questions
you may have- I uuottld be very happy to organize a site visit to each of these units prior to
'Iuesciays meeting.
Sincerelv.
Suite 204, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 4767154
o
CORNICE BUILDING OFF.SITE UNIT PROPOSAL
Cornice Building Condition of Approval
Prior Eo the issuance of a demo/building permit for the redevelopment of the building, the applicant
shall present a proposal for providine the tbree off-site units to the Town Council for their reviewshall present a proposal for providing the tbree
and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting.off-si
Permanently restricted in accordance with the Tovm of Vail ffru Orain*"".
Comply with all applicable requir.eqp_qts of Town of V_ail E_FI-IJ Ordinanc,
Eachuirit shall havi a kitchen.' ::::r.:i;i:'4-;!:1-'6::i';"i-*-:'::-'
Units shall be located within theTown of Vail.
Units shall be located close to a Town of Vail bus route.
Units shall be rented at reasonable rates.
Units shall be restricted and available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a temporary
certrficate of occupancy for the Cornice Building.
Existing Cornice Building Units
The following summarizes the existing Comice Building rental units:
. The use of units is restricted to long term employee rental until 2005.c J studio units, each approximately 225 square feet.. No laundry facilities. No storage facilities.
Proposed Off-site Units
The tbllowing units are intended to satisfy requirements for two of the three required off-site units:
1157 Vail Valley Drive
Type II
300 square feet
New unit
Prior to issuance of T.C.O. for Comice Building unit
i)Golf Course Unit
l.ocation:
UnitType:
Unit Size:
New/Existing:
Availability
The applicant is scheduled !o close on aTwo-Family/Duplex lot located on the Vail Golf
Course in late Spring. Conceptual plans for a duplex residence were recently presented to
the DRB. If this location is acceptable to the Town Council, applications will be made !o
add an EHU to this site. This altemative would'represent a new unit added to Vail's
housing stock and all applicable provisions of the EHU Ordinance would be satisfied. The
unit is located approximately 1,000 feet from a Golf Course Route bus stop.
Additional Approvals
This unit wculd require review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the PEC "md
final DRB approval.
2) Cornice Building Unitl.ocation: 362 Vail VallevDriveUnitType: TypeIV
Unit Size: 300 square feetNew/Existing: New unitAvailability Prior to issuance of T.C.O. for main unit in Cornice Building
The Cornice Building received final DRB approval on April 20th. The building approved
by the DRB reflects essentially the mme bulk and mass €rs the building approved by the
Town Council. The required reduction in GRFA to 2,00O was satisfied by reducing the
size of the ground level and bacKilling a portion of the ground floor of the building.
During the review of this SDD a wide variety of comments were expressed by the Council
regarding whether employee units should be located on the Cornice Building site. It is our
belief that utilizing a portion of the ground floor for an employee housing unit is the most
positive and efficient use of space.
A revised ground level floor plan indicating a 300 square foot unit has been prepared. This
altemative would represent a new unit added to Vail's housing stock and all applicable
provisions of the EHU Ordinance would be satisfied. If approved, GRFA on this site
would be as follows:
N{ain Unit -
EHU -
ToAI GRFA
2,000 square feet
300 square feet
2,300 square feet
This alternative includes 2,300 square feet of GRFA,300 more than what was approved by
the Council. The addition of this GRFA can be iustified for a number of reasons. First,
the 2300 square feet is well below the2,45 sqdare feet the site is permitted by underlying
zoning. Second, the additional square footage will not increase the bulk and mass of the
building that was approved by the Council. Third, the additional square footage over
2,000 square feet would be used for a permanently restricted EHU.
The addrtron of the EHU would technically require one additional paxhng space. As
discussed during the review of the SDD, no more than two on-site spaces are acceptable to
the Council. In light of this, we would request that the on-site parking requirement for the
EHU be waived. As with the GRFA, there are a number of compelling reasons for this
requesl First, the parhng fund represents a viable altemative for satisfying this parking
requirement. Second, the property is located adjacent to the Town parking structure.
Third, the proximity of the Village and Town bus line reduce.s the tenant's dependence on a
car.
It is our belief that this alternative represents a win-win situation for the owner and the
Town:. An on-site EHU on this location has many advantages over an EHU located
elsewhere in the Town and the addition of"an on-site unit is consistent with
comments made by some members of the Council regarding the Village bedbase
and the desirability of rental units in this location.. The unit can be designed to provide all amenities required lor aType IV unit
(laundry, storage).. The overall building design does not change from what was approved at first
reading - a design that appeared to be acceptable to the Town Council.. The additional GRFA is well below what is permitl€d by the property's underlying
zoning.
. With the addition of an EHU, the property would still be in ompliance with
ugderlyrng zoning which permits up to 2 dwelling units,r The existing on-site rental units have functioned for a number of years with no on-
site parking and the location of the Village Parking Structure provides a very viable
alternative to on-site parking for the EHU.
Additional Approvals
This unit would require anamendment to the approved Cornice Building SDD, approval to
utilize the Town's pay-in-lieu parking fund toithe one additional parkinl space,
-aird
a
Conditional Use Permit for the EHU.
The following two units qe proposed as alternatives for providing the third off-site unit. As
descnbed below, either of thEse units can satisfy the specific requirements that have been
established for these replacement units and both repreient dramdtic improvements over the existing
Comice Buildine units.
?)I ntermountain Unit
I-ocation:
Unit Type:
Unit Size:
New/Existing:
Avaitability
East Vail Unit
Location:
Unit Type:
Unit Size:
New/Existing:
Availability
;*;',al\ffpdft::'! ,*"&&Tlp/"'/'i ]k+-r';#,(r',7
2635larkspur
I
approximately 900 square feet
Existing unit
Prior to issuance of permit for Cornice Building
thi_s rs an existing secondary unit of a Primary/secondary residence in Intermountain.
while the unir has been in existence for many years, it his recently been remodeled. The
unit is approximately one block from an Intenirountain bus stop. '
This unit would require review and approval of a conditional Use Permit by the PEC.
4)
{SlQ F-as[ Frontage Road North
Type II
350-400 square feet
New unit
Prior to issuance of T.C.O. for main unit in Cornice Buildins
This unit would be created by remodeling existing space wittrin an existing unit of a duplex
struclure.- This space is currently unfinished. This alternative would represent a new unit
ldded t9 Vail's housing stock and all applicable provisions of the EHU -Ordinance would
be satisfied. The unit is located approximately on-e quarter mile feet from an East Vail bus
stop.
This unit would require review and approval of a Conditional Use Permit by the PEC and
DRB approval.
o
Summery of Proposed Units
. Each unit will be permanently resricted in acmrdance with the EHU ordinanoe. Current
restrictions on the existing Comice Building units expire in 2005.. Each unit is located within the Town of Vail.. Each is located proximate to aTown of Vail bus line.. Tbree of tlre four proposed uniB are rcw units that would be added to Vail's housing
stock. The one unit that is not new has recentlv been remodeled.
' Each of the units exceed the square fooage of ihe existing Cornice Building units.
o
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEMNG
MEMBERS PRESENT:
APRIL 5,7994
Z3O P.M.
4. *g$"t mge-ting o-f the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, April 5, 1994, tnthe Councilchambers of the vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to oider at 7:30 p.M.
Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, ldayor fto-Tem
Paul fohnston
Sybill Navas
Jim Shearer
Tom Steinberg
Jan Strauch
JO
FILE COPY
TOWN OHCIAIS pRESENT: Bob Mclaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Hilr"r#siffi5l,Tff#fl Marnger
The firet itern on the agenda was Gtizen participation of which there was none.
Item No. 2 was a C-onsent 4gmda coruisting two itfiis: G) Approval of the minutes of the March
1' 1994, March 15, 1994, and lvlarch22,7%)4 Vail Town C-ourrclt'uvening Meetings, and (i0 OrdinanceNo. 7, Series of 7994, 19on{ reaging, an ordifturc€ providing for"the estaf,f*uneni oi Sp"oJDevelopmmt Dishict No. 32, cornice adopting i aeu"toprn*t plan for si*oaDevclopmmt DisEict No. 32 in accordance wi*r"chapt& 1gl,o of tne t'al vuriiclpa cod;;;;setting forth details in regl{ \ereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Merv r.ipi" movea totake Ordinance No. 7 off of the Consent Agmda and to approve the minutes of ttre Mirch t, March
15 and March 22, 1994 Eveninq Mgetings, with a second fi6m tom steinberg. A vote was t"te^ u"othe motion pasd unanimousln 7-0. -
At this time dirussion began regarding Ordinance No ,7,7994.lim3urnutte reviewed changes made
:TT,f*J t39hg,5 rSlested by Council. Tom Braunwas piesent, representing the owier of theLbrnicE b.uilding, David smith. The ordinance was revised- further, ir,co.poraEne the followinechanges_(i)-permanmtly restricbd mrployee housing units to be located witliin *," fov rt iE"f"Jto a TOV bus route, (ii) empfgyge f,orising units'shall.always comply with the Tov housine
grdtnayerequirem€ntsas specfiea in *reTdV Municipat Code,as u-,hi"a hild-;; m", <iiijC.*41 aacePtance of the three gnployee housing unils being'requirea prior to the issuance-bf aderno/building permit, 1d. (iy) atf mrq gnnt uni"ts to u" aefr restsicted and ready foroccuPancy Prior to a TCO being issued. Menr moved to ipprove Orrdirrance No. Z Series of i994,with the abovelisted changes. Further, staff was directea t6 preeare copiee of Ordinance ?,1994,;
lTtd, for review by Council at the April lg,lgg4 meetinf. P;ul lodlsbn seconded the motion.
tsetore a vote was takm, T.om SFhbog expressed concern about the C-ornice Building constnrctiontaking Place cDncnrrent Ytft 9Fo maior fOv projecB, including the proposed VaiI AtNetic Club.
Jim Curnutte informed Coyrrcil a-stagmg plan irad been submitt"ed to ttd ro*t Engineer by romBraun- A vote was then taken and the rn-otion passed, 61, Torn seinberg opposd.
Item No.3 was Resolution No. 8, 1994 a resolution designating Dana Investments Advisors, Inc., asan inves.tmmt.mana€er for the financial funds of the Toin of fait as permitted by the Charcr of theTown of Vail, its ordinances, and the statutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Osterfoss read the titleinfull. Chris And*"*d,l.E:e.Thompson explained thedetails of ttre nesolutio". Steue a"ucllJJhigher yields as a result of this invesunent manager designationnas dollars would be invested at alp"gq t""tn and restricted to.the adiustable rate m6rtgage irarkets. Merv Lapin suggested comments
Tl $1j\*"n elPerts_be sought to rerriew TOV-invesrnents. Bob l{cLaurti"ageed to speak
lltth lTal businesses regarding the matter and indicated he would discuss the issul further'withMerv afterllre.meeting. Tom gteinberg moved to approve Resolution No. 8, Senes of 1994 with asectnd by Paul fohrubn A vote was taken and the irotion passed unanimousty, 7-0.
Item No. 4 was Reolutio_n f.I9. 9, Sbries of 1994,a resolution releasing a Title Restriction on Lots 1
412,^PtS-l: H*idff Subdivisioo and geganenuypsuicting Site"4, Casolar n"it; F"trth FiIi";tt9| g de\teloPment. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full. Tom Braun requested the Resolution 6tabled for 90 days, as the owners were not compelled to resEict lot 4 without improvemmb. paul
Johnstron moved to table lesolution No. 9, Seriis oI 19,f,4, until July 5,7g4. Ueri t apin secondedthe motion. A vote was akm and the motion passed "tnni-ouiry, ziL
Item No- 5 was ResoluHon No. 1O Series of. 194, a resolution determining the necessity of, andauthorizing the acquisition of, certain p,operty by either negotiation o, coid"rrr*tion, io, foro.
V.ll ?!r! Co|rrll lrtfnf lL.tirf Ninl|tc 0{rcr9{
ot
ORDINANCE NO.7
SERIES OF 1994
. AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.32, CORNICE BUILDING;
ADOPT]NG A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTHICT NO. 32
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE;
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes speciatdevetopment
districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, the developer, David Smih, or fre successors in interest, has submitted an
appfication for the establishment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 32, tor a certain
parcel of property within the Town, legally descdbed in the attached Exhibit A, and commonly
refened to as the Comice Building Speciat Development Disfid No. 92;and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission, on February 28, 1994, held a public hearing on the establishment of an SDD, and
has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitants, and visitors to establish sDD No. 82; and
WHEREAS, the Town Gouncil has held a public hearing as required by Chapter i8.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
sEcTtoN 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures set torth for Special Development Districts
in Ghaprer 18.40 of the Municipal code ot the Torrn of vail have been fully satisfied.
SECTION 2
Special Development Disfid No. 32 is established to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area in a manner that will be hamonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space, employee housing, and other amenities, and promote the
obiectives of the Town's Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to
the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are
significant aspects of the special development which cannot be satisfied through the imposition
Odimnca iao- 7. S.,i.. ol lgc4
o o
I
?'
of standad zoning disticts on the area.
sEcTroN 3
special Development District No. 32 is established for the development on a parcel of land
comprising 3,659 square feet in the Vail Village area of the Town; Speciat Development District
No. 32 and said 3,659 square feet may be refened to as 'SDD No. 32".
SECTION 4
The Town Council finds that the devetopment plan for SDD. No. 32 meets each ot the
standards set forth in Section 18.rm.080 ol the Municipal Code of the Town of Vait or
demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or fiat a practical solution
consistentwith the public interest has been achieved. In accordane wifr Section 18.40.OCI, the
development plan for SDD No. 32 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those
plans submitted by David William Haase Associates, and consists of the following documents:
1. Sheet No. 1, dated February 29, 1994 (site plan).
2. Sheet No. 2, dated March g, 1994 (tandscape ptan).
Sheet No. 3, dated February 23, 1994 (west building elevation).
Sheet N0.4, dated March 21, 1994 (south buitding elevation).
. Sheet No.5, dated fvlarch 9, 1994 (north building etevation).
6. Sheet No. 6, dated March 24, 1994 (east buiEing etevation).
7. Sheet No. 7, dated March 24, 1994 (garage level "1" floor plan).
8. Sheet No. 8, dated Janu ary 24,1994 (bedroom level "2" lloor ptan).
9. Sheet No. 9, dated January 24,1994 (great room level ,S" floor plan).
10. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the
Speciat Development District.
sEcTtoN 5
In addition to the Approved Development Plan described in Section 4 above, the following
development standards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmental Commission for
its consideration and recommsndation and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these
standards are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan to protect the integrity of the
development of SDD No. 32; the following are the development standards for SDD No. 32;
A. Lot Area - The lot area shall consist of approximately 3,659 square teet.
B. Setbacks - The required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved
Development Plans.
C. Height - The maximum height of the Comice Building shall not exceed 33 feet and
3.
4.
5.
Ordii.nc. ltb. 7, S.ri6 ol 1e04
o
shall be as dimensioned on the Approved Development Plans. The elevation drawings shall be
revised to verify a maximum height of 33 feet at the time the Design Revierlr Board application
is submitted.
D. Density Confd - The maximum GRFA for the Comice Building shall not exceed
2,000 square feet. This figure is the maximum GRFA that will be allowed on ths lot. An
additional 250 square feet of GRFA, per Chapter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code, shall not be
allowed on this site, now or in the future. A 600 square foot credit tor a two-car garage shall be
allowed in addition to the 2,000 square leet of GRFA allorrrred on the site. The approved density
for the Comice Buikling shail be one (1) singte famity ctwelting unit.
site coverage - The maximum site coverage forthis special Development District
shall not exceed 1,397 square feet, or 38% of the lot area, and shall be as indicated on the
Approved Development Plans.
F. Landscaping - All landscaping shall be in accordance with the Approved
Development Plans.
sEcTroN 6
The developer, jointly and severally, agrees with the following requirements, which are a
part of the Town's approval of the establishment of this sDD No. 32:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolition/building permit for the
redevelopment project, the developer shall identify the location of thrae permanenuy restricted
employee housing unib, which provide a minimum of three kitchens. The unib shallbe located
within the Town of Vail limits, close to a Town of Vail bus roub and be rented at reasonable
market rates. The units shall always comply with the Town of Vail housing ordinance
requirements specifted in Chapter 18.57 (Employee Housing) of the Vall Municipat Code, as may
be amended from time to time. The proposal for acceptan@ ol the employee housing units shall
be brought back to the Town Council for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled
meeting, as a condition of the issuance of a demolition/building permit. The trree unib shall be
deed restricted and available for occupancy before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is
issued for the Comice Building. Upon receipt and recordation of a writen agreemsnt to
permanently restist the three otf-site employee housing units in compliance with Chapter 18.57
(Employee Housing) of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, and upon issuance of a Temporary
Cerlificate of Occupancy for the rcdeveloped Cornice Bui6ing, the syner shall be released from
all obligations contained in the employee housing agre€mer.rtdatedMay2,1985, by and between
the Town ol Vail and the owner of the Comice Buildirg, its heirs, sucoessors and assigns.
Odin.,|c. l,lo. 7, g.ritr ol 19e4
o
2. The applicant shall provlde a drainags easement to the Town in order to provide
for the maintenance of the existing storm water drainage system located on the western edge of
this property. The location anct width of the easement will be determined by the Town Engineer.
3. The applicant, or his assigns, agrees to be responsible for the maintenance of all
landscaping on Town property, as indicated on the approved landscape plan, for a period of three
yearc- lf any vegetation dies during the three year period, it shall be replaced by the property
owner at the time, at his/her expense.
4' A revocable right-of-way permit shall be obtained for all improvements on public
property.
SECTION 7
Amendments to the approved devetopment plan shall be reviewed pursuant to Section
J8.110.100 of the Vait Municipat Code.
sEcT|oN I
The developer must begin construction of the Special Development District within three
(3) years from the time of its final approval, and continue diligenily toward completion of the
project. The developer must meet the requirements of Section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail.
SECTION 9
lf any part, section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or
more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
SECTION 1O
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the heatth, satety and welfare ol the Torrn of Vail and its inhabitants thereof.
SECTION 11
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment ot any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right whicfr has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occuned prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacbd. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein_
Otd'nance No. 7, Sr.i6 ot 1Sc
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED ONCE lN FULL ON FIRST READING thls 15th day of March, 1994, and a public
hearing on this Ordinance on the Sth day of April, 1994, in the Gouncil Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
ATTEST:
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
'tu frU.Z- this rirtlday ot /0#.L2. . tss4.
ATTEST:
Margiret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
MargarefA. Osterfoss, Mayor
Holly L. Mc0utcheon, Town Clerk
Ordil.rE No.t Sdb d r$ia
o
EXHIBIT A
Gornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specificalty described as
follotfls:
A part of Tract '8" and a part ot Milt Creek Road, Vait Village, First Fiting,
County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as foiloG:
Commencing at the Norfrreast corner of Vail Village, First Fafing; hence
North 79"46'00" West atong the Southerly tine of U.S. Highway No. 6 a
distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast comer of said Tract .8"; trrence
South 10o14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract .8.; a distance
of 198.31 feet to the Southeasterly comer of said Tract "8";thenoe North
79'46'00" West along tre Soulherly line of said Tract ,B* a distance of
100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09"10,07. West a
distance of 41.67 feet; thence South gg'27'1 1. West a distance ol ZSZI
feet; thence South 27"13'37" East of distance ot 71.37 feet; trence North
57'24'00 East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of
beginning.
Odhricc No. 7, S.d! d rge4
rOru cour'rct ne Eruon FrOEsr(Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdavs.)
MEETING DATE: Mav 3, 1994
(Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. lf the
agenda item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening
Meeting, be certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time
needed during each meeting.)
O Work Session
O Site Visit
O Evening Meeting
TIME NEEDED: +5 minClgg_
TIME NEEDED:-
TIME NEEDED:
WILL THERE BE A PRESENTAT]ON ON THIS AGENDA ]TEM BY NON.TOV STAFF?o No.
O YES. Specilics:Jom Braun. representino the owner
WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REOUTRE ANY SPECIAL
EOUIPMENT?o No.
ft YES. Specifics:
WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM?
o No.
tr YES. lf yes, is the material also for public distribution?
O Yes.
Q No.
ITEM/TOPIC:
Worksession to allow the Town Council to review and consider the location of three
permanently restricted employee housing units which were required in conjunction with the
Town's recent approval of the establishment of SDD No. 32 (Cornice Building). The Cornice
Building is located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and is a part ol Tract B, Vail Village, 'lst Filing.
Applicant: David Smith, represented by Tom Braun, Jamar Associates
ACTION BEOUESTED OF GOUNCIL:
Subsequent to Council's discussion with the applicant regarding the three proposed employee
housing units, staff requests that the Gouncil provide direction to the applicant regarding the
acceptability of the three employee housing units.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On April 5, 1994, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, on second
reading providing for the establishment of SDD No. 32, Cornice Building and adopting a
development plan for SDD No. 32. The Council's approval included several requirements
which were a part of the approved dwelopment plan, including the provision of three ofFslte
employee housing units. Acceptance of the employee housing units was required to be
brought back to the Town Council for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled
meeting prior to the issuance of a demolitionlbuilding permit for the Cornice Building
redwelopment.
The applicant has identified the location of three potential employee housing units which he
proposes to permanently deed restrict lo meet the requirements specified in Ordinance No. 7,
Series of 1994. The applicant wishes to provide information to, and receive direction from, the
Council concerning the acceptability of the three proposed employee housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
Jim Cumutte, Communig Development
W.4J_LJJA UJ: J9fJT]
Memom:
Ffom:
Dare:
Rb:
TER JRI1RR RSSOC.
Jim Crurctte
Tom Braun
Apnt +, tY;+
Co,rnice Building Conditions of Approval
FREI1 FE
o
479?45V P. EL
As we discussed today, I would likc to see two minor changes to thc Cornic:e Building ordinance
Both of these changes perhin to the off-site units addre-sscdln item I of section 6:
1) change: 'The units shall be located wirhin the Town of Vail limits, t#?own d
Vail busroute.. ..to: 'The uniF shall be located within the Town of Vail limirs, cloae to a Town
of Vail bri-s route . . . .
Afbr reviewing a frfre of the first re.ading hearing, lr{erv's motion wuq for the units to bc
close to a bus route, not on a bue ruute.
2) changc: "The propmal f'or acreptarrcc of the employcc housing units shall be
brought back to tha Town Crruncil, for ihoir rcvicw aia rcgularty sshcdulert
rnctting. Two of tho unim shall be dccd restricted and arailable fcrr
oocupancy bcforethc issuancc . . . .,lo: '"The proposal for acceptance of the cnrployee housing unie shall b€
brought b6ck to thc Tcnvn Ccruncil, for ilrcir lsvi$w al a rEgularly schedulecl
heeting. Generally, it ic the intcnt of the Town Council that two
of thc uuitF Crdl be deed rcshictrxl and avqilable for occupanCy bcfore tre
issuance.....
There are two reusons for this propcaed change. First, when Pcglgy: re-rearl ttreconditions
of upp,.wol prir.r.u.r udling tfie notion, she qfatificd this corditifrby saytng "generally,
two unis should be provided prior t,o rhe issuance of a building mrmit aid ihc'thirO unit te
pruvirJul prior to rhc issuance <f a T.C.O." Secrndly, rt woutE'Ue advantagcous to have
some latitudc in horv and when wc provide Lhe off.siri unitq- For example]we mav be able
m provide new uniu (in licu of'resricfing erustJng unrlsi ll'we have the bpportunity tc
nake thern available prion to a T,C.O. T-his chanle is also in keeping wirh"commeirrs tuarlt
by the Planning Cornmission.
Please mll wlth any questions you mav havc recarding rhcse chanscs. I spoke to Kristan eadier
kx$y anO she lblt that *qiven thb minof nailre ofthcso;hanges yori may w-ant to go ahead irnd
revi# tbe ordinance priior to the meeting. I'll hlk to ],ou mlmoirow. itrant<s for-your help.
foet lt* brand tax Uo*O m+mo ?€i7l
. .Jf [- tt.,Q. aflt tc
TOTRL P.O1
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
I
MEMOBANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
April 5, 1994
A request for the establishment of a Special Development District for the
redevelopment of the Comice Building, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive
and more specifically described as follows:
A part ot Trad 'B' and a pan of Mt! Creek Rotd, Val Vlllsg€, Ft3t Fltng, Cou y ol Eagle, slde ol Colorado, mots p.diqrlady
d€6crbed as tollows:
Comme[ci]g al the Nonhcasl corner ol Vail Village, Fkst Filing: thence North 79"46 m" West along th€ Souherly line ot U.S.
HighrEy Ng. 6. distenca ot 36?.05 leet to the Nmheasl comer ot srd Tracl 'tr: thenca South lopl.lD(r We8l slong the E3$edy
f,na ot said Trad 'F: a distance o{ tgE.3t fgot to lh. South€n6terly comer ol srid Traci 'R; lhence Ngdh 79"461}C Weat dong lh.
Soulherly tin. of said Tr.cr "B" a dbtence ot 100.00 t€et to lh€ lru. peint of bcginning $ence nonh 09e1007' Wesl a disl.nce ol
,11.67 l€er; lhence South EE"27'11'We3r a dbrance of 75.21 ie6r; thence Sodh 2701337" East of disl.nce d 77.37lesti lh€nce
Nodh 57"2,000 Easr . distrnca ol 55.11 l€et. more or l.8t ro rhd rrlE pdnl ot bsgbning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
On March 15, 1994, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, on first
reading providing for the establishment of SDD No. 32, Cornice Building and adopting a
development plan for SDD No. 32. The vote was 5-2. Jim Shearer and Tom Steinberg voted
in opposition. The Council's approval included several revisions to the proposed development
plan. The revisions to SDD No. 32, made pursuant to the Council's discussion on March 15,
1994, are reflected in the revised Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994.
The Town Council's approval of Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, on first reading, was
granted with the understanding that the following requirements are a part of the Town's
approval of the establishment of the Special Development Dislrict:
1. The maximum GRFA allowed on the site is 2,000 square fdet. An additional
250 square feet of GRFA, per Chapter 18.7'l of the Vail Municipal Code, shall
not be allowed on this site now or in the future.
A 600 square foot credit for a two car garage shall be allowed in addition to the
2,000 square feet of GRFA allowed on the site.
Prior to the issuance of a demolition/building permit for the redevelopment
project, the developer shall identify the location of three employee housing
unils, which provide a minimum of three kitchens. The proposal lor acceptance
of the employee housing units shall be brought back to the Town Council for
their review and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting. The units shall be
located within the Town of Vail limits, on a Town of Vail bus route, and be
rented at reasonable market rates. The units shall also comply with the Town
2.
3.
of Vail Housing Ordinance requirements specified in 18.57 ot the Vail Municipal
Code. Two of the units shall be deed restricted and available for occupancy
belore the issuance of a demolition/building permit for the Cornice Building
redevelopment, and the third unit shall be deed restricted and available for
occupancy before a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy is issued for the
Cornice Building.
4. The applicant shall provide a drainage easemerit to the Town in order to
provide for the maintenance of the existing storm water drainage system
located on the western edge of the property. The location and width of
easement will be determined by the Town Engineer.
5. The applicant, or his assigns, agrees to be responsible for the maintenance of
all landscaping on all Town property, as indicated on the approved landscape
plan, for a period of three years. lf any vegetation dies during the three year
period, it shall be replaced by the property owner at the time, at his/her
expense. The southern property line shall be delineated by landscaping to
separate lhe streamwalk from the Cornice Building property.
6. A revocable right-ol-way shall be obtained for all improvements on public
propefiy.
7. The maximum height of the building shallbe 33 feet,
i\
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, APRTL 5, 1994
7:30 P.M.lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AGENDA
l.
2.
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Consent Agenda:
A. Approval of the Minutes ol the March l, tgg[, March 15, lgg4, and March22, 1994, vail
Town Council Evening Meetings.
B. ordinance No. ?, series of 1994, second readlng, 6n ordinance providing lor the
establishment ot Special Developmenl District No. 32, Comice Building; adopting a
development plan for Special Developrnent District No. 32 in accordance wittrChapter tg.a0
ot the Vail Municipal Code; and setting lonh details in regad lhereto. Applicafi: David
Smith represented by Tom Braun.
Resolulion No. 8, Series of 1994, a resolution designaling Dana Investmenls Advisors, Inc., as an
investment manager for the financial funds of lhe Town ol Vail as permitted by the Charter ol the
Town ol Vail, its odinances, and the slatutes of the State of Coloiado.
Resolution No. 9, Series of 194, a resolution releasing a Title Restriclion on Lots 1 and 2, BlockI' Lionsridge SuMivision, and permanently restricting Site 4, Casolar Vail, Fourth Filing, from all
development.
Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, a resolution determining the necessity of, and authorizing the
acquisition of, certain property by either negotialion or condemnation, lor Town pubtic purpoies.
Discussion Re: Design and construction of improvements to lhe Main Vail Interchange to include
installing modem pundabouts, landscaping, lighting, and signs.
Town Manager's Report.
Adjournment.
NOTE UPOOMING MEETTNG START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL T|MES SUSJ€CT TO CHANGE)
oooaaoo
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSTONwLL BE oN TUESDAY,4l12EA, BEGINNING AT 2:dt P.M. tN Tov oouNctL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,4/19/94, BEGINNING AT 2:00 P.M. tN Tov coUNctL CHAMBERS.
TFIE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING IIEENNG
WILL BE ON TUESDAY, IV19I94, BEGINNING AT 7:30 P.M. !N TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
3.
4.
.).
-,
8.
C:\AGENDA.TC
oaaoooo
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
ruESDAY, APRTL 5, 1994
7:30 P.M.lN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS
1.7:30 P.M.
?:35 P.M.
Holly McOutcheon
Jim Gumutte
7:,10 P.M.
Christine Anderson
?:45 P.M.
Andy Knudtsen
7:50 P.M.
Tom Moorhead
2.
EXPANDED AGENDA
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION.
Consent Agenda:
A. Approval oi the Minules ol lhe March l, 1994, March 15,
1994, and March 22, 1994, Vail Town Gouncil Evening
Meetings.
B. OrdinarEe No. 7, Sedes ol 1994, second reading, an
ordinance poviding for the establishment of Special
Development District No. 32" Comice Buildirq; adopting
a developmenil plan for Special Development District No.
32 in accordance with Chapter 1E.40 of lhe Vail Municipal
Co<le; and setting totth details in regard thereto.
Apdbant: David Smith represented by Tom Braun.
Resofution l,lo. I, Series ot 1994, a resolulion designating Dana
lnvestments Advisorg |rrc., as an investment manager tor the
financial funds ol the Town of Vail as permitted by the Chaner of
the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the statules ol the Stale of
Colorado.
Action Reouested ol Councih Approve/deny/mdify Resolution
No. 8, Series of 1994.
Backqround Rationale: Changes to the investmenil policy
cunently being approved permit lhe use of an independent
investment manager. This resoh.rtbn names one ol those
managers.
Staff Recommendation: Approve Resolution No.8, Series ol 1994.
Resofution No. 9, Series of 19,4, a resolution releasing a Title
Restriclion on Lots I aN 2, Block I, Lionsrilge Subdivisbn, and
pemanently restricling Site 4, Casolar Vail, Foutlh Filing, frcm all
development.
Action Requested of Courrcil: Approve/deny/modify Resolulion
No. 9, Series of 194.
Backorourd Rationale: There was a site visil to the Andecon
residence during Woft Session today and review of Anderson's
proposed release ot deed restriclion.
Stalf Recommendation: Deny Resolution No. 9, Series ol 1994.
Resolution No. 10, Series of 1994, a resolution delerminirE the
necessity ol, and authorizing lhe acquisition of, certain propeny by
either negotiation or condemnatior! for Tovrrn public putposes.
Aclion Reouesled of CounciL Approveldenylnndify Resolutbn
No. 10, Series d 19E4.
3.
4.
f,.
8:05 P.M.
Greg Hall
8:25 P.M.
Bob Mclaurin
8:30 P.M.
6.
Backoround Rationale: This resolution has been prepared
pursuant to Council's molion of March 22" 1994, directing the Town
Attomey to prepare a resolution providing for a negotiated
puchase or, in the altemative, condemnation of the Trapper's
Run propedy.
Discussbn Re Design and construction ol improvemenls lo the
Main Vail Inlerchange lo include installing rnodern roundabouts,
landscaping, lighling, and signs.
Aclion Requested of Courrcil Discuss and direct stafi to proceed
with design and construction ot the project to be completed by
November, 194.
Backoround Rationale: Statf, in conjunciion with the Pa*ing &
Transportation Advisory Committee have been investigating the
use ot modern rcundabouts at lhe Main Vail and West Vail
inlerchanges for the pasl year. lt is both our determinalion,
modern roundabouts will greatly improve conditions at these
inlersections, In addition to improving traffic flow, we see the
project enhancing the gate$ray to Vail, through landscaping and
improved signing. The Colorado Depanment ot Transponation
has been very favorable to the project. Now is the tirne to make
the commitrnent to proceed into the design of the interchange
improvemerils. The proiectwill be subjeclto FHWA, CDOT, PEC,
DRB, and Council review.
Stafl Recommenclation: Approve the project proceeding wilh the
design and the review prcoess with construction to be completed
by November, 1994.
Town Manager's Report.1
8.Adjournment.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TITTIES BELOW:
(ALL TII,ES SUBJECT To oHAIIIGE]
ooooaoo
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAB WOFK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,4/12/94, BEG|NN|NG AT 2:00 p.M. tN Tov coul,tclL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWTNG VAIL TOWN COUNCTL REGULAR WORK SESSION
WILL BE ON TUESDAY,4/19/94, BEGINNING AT 2dIO P.M. IN TOV COUNCIL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEET]NG
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,4l19l94, BEGINNING AT ?30 P.M. IN TOv CouNclL CHAMBERS.
C;\AGENDA.TCE
oaooooa
MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETTNG
MARCH 15, 1994
7:30 P.M.
TILE COPY
MEMBEHS PRESENT:Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor
Merv Lapin, Mayor Pro-Tem
Paul Johnston
Syblll Navas (arrived at 7:37 p.m.)
Jim Shearer
Tom Stelnberg
Jan Slrauch
Bob McLaurin, Town Manager
Tom Moorhead, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Asslstanl Town Manager
Holly McCutcheon, Town Clerk
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Flrst ltem on lhe agenda was Cltlzen Participation, of which lhere was none.
Item No. 2 was a Consent Agenda consisting of one item, Ordinance No. 6, Series ol L994,
second reading, an ordinance amending the Investment Policy set forth in Chapter 3.52 of the
Municipal Code of the Town of Vail. Mayor Ostedoss read the title in full. Paul Johnston moved
to approve the Consent Agenda, with a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote was taken and
passed unanimously, 6-0, Sybill Navas not yet in attendance.
Item No. 3 was Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, first reading, an ordinance providing for the
establlshment of Special Development District No. 32, Cornlce Buildlng; adopting a development
plan for Special Development District No. 32, in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of ths Vail
Municipal Gode, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Mayor Osterfoss read the title in full.
Jim Gurnutte introduced property owner and applicant David Smith and explained that a sile visit
had been conducted earlier during Work Session. Jim went on to explaln the details of the
requested teardown and rebuild of the building, as outlined in the memo provided by the
Community Development Department to lhe Town Council dated March 15, 1994, and informed
Council the Planning and Environmental Commission ("PEC") had recommended approval of the
requesl. Of major concern was the relocalion of three reslricled employee housing unils, on site
parklng, and difficult vehicle ingress and egress. Tom Moorhead read the requlremenls of the
employee housing seclion of the Town Code, as requested by Mayor Osterfoss. Discusslon
continued at length, with comment from Jim Lamont referencing letters to Council opposing lhe
request, as well as comment from Tom Braun, planner for lhe applicant. After discussion, Merv
Lapin moved to approve Ordinancb No. 7 with conditions as follows: (i) thal three employee
housing unils located within the town limits, on the bus route, and with reasonable renlal rates
be presented and approved by Council, and be permanently deed restricted. Two of the unils
must be deed restricled and available for occupancy before the issuance of a demo/building
permit for lhe Cornice Building redevelopment, and the third unit musl be deed restricled and
available for occupancy prior to the issuance of a Temporary Certiflcate of Occupancy for the
Gornlce Building; (ii) lhat GFFA of the Cornice Building not exceed 2p00 sguaro feel (no '250"
alloared ln the future); (iii) that an enclosed garago not exceeding 600 square feet and able to
house two vehicles be incorporated into the project by the applicant; (lv) lhat the height of the
structure not exceed 33 feet; (v) that the applicant provide landscaping as proposed; (vi) lhat all
statf & PEC recommendations as detailed in the March 15, 1994, Memorandum be met; and (vii)
that there be a clear delineation between the stream walk and the applicant's property line. Jan
Strauch seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5-2, Jim Shearer and
Tom Steinberg opposed.
Item No. 4 was Resolution No. 8, Series of 1994, a resolution designating Dana Investments
Advisors, lnc., as a money manager for the funds of the Tourn of Vail as permitted by the Charler
of the Town of Vail, its ordinances, and the staiutes of the State of Colorado. Mayor Osterfoss
read the title in full. Paul Johnslon moved to table Resolutlon No. E to the April 5, 1994, Evening
Meeting, with a second from Jim Shearer. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
Val Tqvn Col'EI E€dng lllldng Mtr, '| 0yf5/91 .
A regular meeilng of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, March 15, 1994, in the Councll
chambers of the Vail Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 7:30 p.M.
...
(Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdavs.)
MEETING DATE: April5. 1994
(Prepare a separats Agenda Request for each agenda item. lf the
agenda item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening
Meeting, be certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time
needed during each meeting.)
tr
D
D
Work Session
Site Visit
Evening Meeting
TIME NEEDED: 1 houT
TIME NEEDED:-
TIME NEEDED:
WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA TTEM BY NON.TOV STAFF?
D NO.
O YES. Specifics: Tom Braun.repres
WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL
EOUIPMENT?o No.
tr YES. Specifics:
WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM?
tr NO.
O YES. lf yes, is the material also for public distribution?
Q Yes.
B No.
ITEM/TOPIC:
Worksession to receive information and discuss various alternative development scenarios for
the Cornice Building SDD. The applicant wishes to provide information to, and receive
direction from, the Council on proposed alternatives for redevelopment of the Cornice Building.
Applicant:David Smith, represented by Tom Braun, Jamar Associates
ACTION REOUESTED OF COUNGIL:
Subsequent to Council's discussion with the applicant regarding alternative development
scenarios for the Cornice Building SDD, statf requests that Council review the information
which is intended to assist Council in consideration of second reading of Ordinance No. 7,
Series of 1994 at the evening meeting.
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
On March 15, 1994, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, on first
reading providing for the establishment of SDD No. 32, Cornice Building and adopting a
development plan for SDD No. 32. The Council's approval included several revisions to the
proposed development plan, including a 2,000 square foot cap on the GRFA and he provision
of three off-site employee housing units.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Not applicable.
Jim Curnutte, Community Development
I4J-?1-IYV4 HU! lEFII,1 FRCT,I - PETER JANRR RSSOC. TO
v
PETER IAMAR ASSoCTATES, INC.
PLAhINII{G r DEIEI,0FMSITAI{AI.YSE . RESEARCH
FACSIMILE TRANSI,IISSION_.SHEET
4?9?432 P.Sl
TO:
GOIIPANY:
FAX #:
DATE/TIME:
\'*'
FROiI: Pcter Jamar Asgociates, Inc. +FAl--
PROJECT:C*^-'*-
Numbt of Pag€ Including Cover $heet:
DOCUTIENTS TRAN$IIIITTED:
COIIIIENTS:
.) ("^ c6^t^hn *f L dn*'*-\",.L \ 1 b*
/*. rd t ,,8t ?,
*ae.-
Please contact Petff Jrrner Assocides d (303) 47e^7164-il
allol the doflJmonts listcd ebove arc ml recgivod.
Sulte 20{, Vall Nadunal Eank Buildintl
l66SouthFronlagsRoadW$t ' Vall,Colorado8l657 c (W\ 476719a 'Fax (300)47&5143
TOTH- P.A1
Pr c-,L:,d,n^{l prfeF
'' /'s? lqrl /,ft64 at t'u** oj*od s/*"e
TM-u ?*"0 C -jtw l"os pt6r.a,* .r4 C*<
ii[,:E Lrt"g o.lo=.g,o t? g;6,,"- ^--*Cft ra4.a+a
)il&*4-- --rup qr. li p€aoe {e se..s4e-r6"-"etF g*-* tr*at^*-'( fl*{q-: gr+fav.uqfr/-,ec
eLoes /412 hLz*- 1*+ gilp ,e w
:-RAu.u st=-e e€ a,i( ,/e eptu;l;e-
Pqr k"*? /\aeei'ea-*s4
- 3 enTQ,Va- ua*)fe n.ec..eesq4r
- 7"u Ca.,ta q ccn/F k,?e
cq,u 4a = ue)v=-lb &-.*Nltr
Qruq u-)t' e 6) s fte _
' 1r-t,- [e/w-1.-------=\
i
,]
il,
ilil
rl
fi, gQ ac4 6<- $pz- (a * 4r"r,1- ( S rf;#*-)
):;fu =,r+i ede n".4^rr€-ae q G*.y/ eQc* p6# - sue
1.,iryTt {o sry6e Q*,}CF, pkr5zo,o-.-v..i
laacL
?"1't E
* (g@ -ga*cg{
3-7
-/1/le/'V
1u1gt{ +e q4rOrc..n-'L
-- 5 '.frffi- 6a a,,t<)@6cg c"d td F "'<- d+t.{s
* *Aq- [\4d/-4.4.v{ rzaNl-e'C ;'utaqe 7qg-c-5-
< &R r/f46ffi'S'ffifr; g +e{z <
-q-grdagL c-e/ b 6;rcseCf [*q{ry<
'.--- BB ["<-ryr[+f
--- Lo-8=-.Vt\7 q2= lf s6€€-
Jz e q . (Lr ilnc;f>{) a*-Gy dnf)
{&b{cty ee p^ *,**q{F g- g frfrffi"^,
*; -
- 6'$ e -; s/e{* -<i - 4 q.{
*- Pee<rf ?WA -{rr-^ 7ffi-l@ Afr. -
- Lo*e;p"'-L *),-A.-k-6 Tc- eatCY
/ *Li,er( r*#ri*rb,o /- l(+ fcl'*,4 o,4
5 #tre ,-.op#-= + g*[e* # Tco e:.J
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
TUESDAY, MARCH 15,1994
12:00 P.M.lN TOv COUNCTL CHAMBERS
12:00 P.M.
1:0 P.M.
Biil Post
2:00 P.M.
Mike Mollica
Claft Willingham
2:45 P.M.
3:00 P.M.
Jim Cumutte
Tom Braun
4.
5.
6.
7.
EXPANDED AGENDA
Exerutive Session: Lard Negotiations.
Discussion re: Lindholm Land Exchange.
Aclion Heouested of Council: Lislen to presentation by Bill posl
on the portion of the Lindholm Land Exchange adiacent to l-70
and A\on.
Backoround Rationale: The representatives lor Mr. Lindholm
have revised this portion ot the lard exchange proposat and
would like to share their ideas with Council,
Discussion with Clark Wllinghanl devebper ot lhe Golden peak
House rcdevelopment, regading a potential demo/rebuild ot the
structure (278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots, A, B, and C, Block 2, Vail
Village 2nd Filing.l
Action Reouested of Council: Subsequentto Council's disc{.lssion
with Claft Willingham regarding the demo/rebuiH, staff requesls
Courrcil direcl the applicant to proceed wilh one of three options:
a) Council can decide a demo/rebuild shall require the
review ol the PEC, and as such, direct the projecl to go
back through the planning prccess.
b) Council can decide to appove the demo/rebuiH project,
per discussion with Claft Willingham at this Wofi
Session, and direct the applicant to proceed to the tinal
DRB review of the prcject.
c) Council can deny the applicanl's request for a
, demo/rebuild poject.
Backoround Ralbnale: Please see the enclosed letterlrom Cla*
Willingham to lhe Torrn ot Vail dat€d February n, l9F,4.
lnfrormation Update.
Council Reports.
Other.
Sile Visil: Cornlce Blitsiog (362Yart Vailey Drive). Appticant:
Dave Smith represent€d by Tom Braun.
Action Requested of Council: Review the site in preparation for
discussion of Ordinance No. ?, Series ot 1994, first reading, an
ordinance providing forthe establishment of Special Developrrent
3:45 P.M.
Mike Mollba
4:15 P.M.
8.
Dislrict No. 32, Comice Building; adopting a development plan for
Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter
18.40 ol the Vail Municipal Code, and setting forth details in regard
thereto.
Backoround Rationale: Please see the backgrourd and analysis
of criteria in the staff memorandum dated February 28, 1994. On
February 28,1994, the PEC recommended to approve (5-1-l) the
establishment of Special Development Dislrict No. 32, Cornice
Building, wilh the understanding the development include the
items outlined in the staff cover merK) dated March 15, 1994.
Statl Recommendation: Approve establishment of Special
Developmenl Disirict No, 32, Cornice Building.
Site Visit: Covered Bridge Building (227 Bridge Street, Lots C and
D, and a part of Lot B, Block 5-B, Vail Village First Filing).
Applicant: Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners.
Action Reouested of Council: Review site in preparation for
discussion at the Evening Meeting Council's appeal of a maior
CCI exterior alteration. to allow for the redeveloomenl of the
Cov€red Bridge Building.
Backqround Rationale: Please see the CDD's memorandum to
the PEC, dated March 14, 1994, included in this packet.
Staff Recommendation: Staff recommendation is for approval,
with the conditions listed in the stalf mernorandum to the PEC.
Adjoumment.9.
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
ooaooao
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION
wlLL BE oN TUESDAY,3/2?94, BEGINNING AT 12:0{l P.M.,lN Tov coUNctL cttAMBERs.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSIONwlLL BE oN TUESDAY,4l5l94, BEG|NN|NG AT 1:(Xt p.M. tN Tov couNctL CHAMBERS.
THE FOLLOWING VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEET]NG
wfLL BE oN TUESDAY,4tstgA,.BEGtNNlNG AT 7:30 p.M. tN Tov couNctl CHAMBERS.
ooaoaao
at --rF-r a
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Town Council
Community Development Department
March 15, 1994
Areouestfortheestab|ishmentofaSpecia|Deve|opmentDistrict|o1t|eil:ffiil;"i';;; C;l:;;e 6uiroine" rocated at 362 VairVarrev Drive
and more specifically described as follows:
A p{t ol lrrd 'g' 3nd a p3n ol Mit Cr!€k Ror4 viil Mlhgt' Fbt FdinO' Counly ol Eagle' $ate gl Cobrrdo' more Paniq'btty
descfiod $ 1010l!6:
Conm.nchg d the NonheaBl corner ol Vrlt Vilhge Fi6l Filhg: then Ngnh 79'46'09 West along lhe Solthsdy lhe ol U S'
f.iahwtv No. 6 r d,l.nc. or goz.06 red to r;'iv;rt-i toti' ot t"'o r,ao 'B': lhence sourh loo14!f w€tt srong the Easlefly
In; d dd Trad'B':. di$ence ol 198'31 'tI illi" t-"'il"ii"i't-tJi*r oi :rio T-ract "g:tlence Nonh 79'4600'wesl arong tn'
souheny ,n. or srid Tr*.g, . oo,"n"" " i';lool"a ro rt" r,,u poinr or begrnning rhcnce noni o9'1oor wcrt ' dislance ol
41.67 l.d: fience satrrh ,r'rr',r' *.", . o"ii'i! i ii:i Lli'iit"* so'r; 27'ri 37" Easr ol dislancr d 77'37leer: thence
*oJ if"io OA i- . Obt$ce ot 55.1 | lee! more or ls:s to rh! Itue Poit ol bcgioning'
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
onFebruary28,1994,theP|anningandE.nvironmenta|Commission(PEC)recommended
approval for the establirnt.ni ot atpeciat Oeveioit"niOitttitt for the.redevelopment ol the
cornice Bui6ing. rn" "oi" *"r'slt-i. oatton wirri"rs voled in opposition to the sDD
because he telt that the request constituted spor';;;i;; and-that lhe owner of the property
knew about it's developmliiiitit"riont when he io'gfit it, .P9?. Armo-u-r abstained because
he was not involved in the two previous *orf,sessioni and didn't teel comfortable acting on
the request at this point in the review process'
The pEC's recommendation for approval was.granted with the understarding that the
folowing requiremenrs ;;;; ;il;i the.Town'i JpRrou"r ot the establishment of the Special
Devetopmenr District. j6;;;';.0" Oi tf,'. psd are indicated in bold type:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolilionftuilding permit for the
reoeveropm-eni;;i;;i, rhtdevelofer shall identify the location of ene two or
three permanenlly restricteO etpfJyu" nousing units'.wnicn orovide a minimum
ot two kitchens and mree ueoroJil'sl inlr""ib ritin meet the Town of Vail
housing ordinance requirements' in" prop991 for acceptance of the employee
housing units shail be brought uacr.'io [n.'pec, and possibly.T.own council (if
so desired), for their review and appiovat at a regularly scheduled meeting'
2. The applicant shall provide a drainaqe easement to the Town in order to
provide torlne-mainienance of the eiisting storm water..drainage system
|ocatedonthewesternedgeormisprope-rtv.The|ocationandwidthofthe
easement will be determined by the Town Engineer'
o
The landscape plan shall be amended to show the addition of one additional
spruce tree along the soulhern property line in order to provide a more
significant visual buffer between the stream walk and the proposed vehicle
lurnaround area. The applicant, or his assigns, agrees to be responsible lor the
maintenance of all landscaping on Town property, as indicated on the
approved landscape plan, for a period of three years. lf any vegetation dies
during the three year period, it shall be replaced by the propefi owner at the
time, at his/her expense.
A revocable right-of-way permit shal! be obtained for all improvements on
public property.
The maximum height of the building shafi be reduced from 35 feet to 33
feet.
o
4.
.1
ORDINANCE NO.7 4 ^4Series of 1994 *.Mo/or_,
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT \./
DISTHICT NO. 32, CORNICE BUILDING;ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO.32 IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF
THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE;AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 ot the Vail Municipal Code authorizes special devetopment
districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, the developer, David Smith, or the successors in interest, has submitted an
application for the establishment of Special Development District (SDD) No. 32, for a certain
parc€l of property within the Torn, legally described in the attiached Exhibit A, and commonly
refened to as the Comice Building Special Development District No.32; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Gommission, on February 28,1994, held a public hearing on the establishment of an SDD, and
has submitted its recommendation to the Town Council;and
WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to he
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Tonrn Gouncil considers that it is reasonable, appropriate, and beneficial
to the Town and its citizens, inhabitanb, and visitors to establish sDD No. 32: and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Municipal Code of the Town of Vait.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
sEcTroN 1
The Town Council finds that allthe procedures set forth for Special Development Districb
in Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
frlnarNce No, 7.
S€ri6 of '19O4
4'{ /Eoo/,*3
SECTION 2
Special Development District No.32 is estabtished to ensure comprehensive development
and use of an area in a manner that will be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space, employee housing, and other amenities, and promote the
objectives of the Town's Zoning ordinance. The development is regarded as complementary to
the Town by the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission, and there are
significant aspects of the specialdwelopment which cannot be satislied through the impeition
of stiandard zoning distrists on the area.
SECTION 3
Special Development District No. 32 is established for the development on a parcel of land
comprising 3,659 square feet in the Vail Village area of the Town; Special Development District
No.32 and said 3,659 square teet may be referred to as "SDD No. S2..
SECTION 4
The Town Council finds that the development plan lor SDD. No. 32 meets each of the
standads set fonh in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of fie Town of Vail or
demonstrates that either one or more of them is not applicable, or that a practical solution
consistent with the public interest has been achieved. ln accordance with Section 18.40.040, the
development plan for SDD No. 32 is approved. The development plan is comprised of those
plans submitted by David William Haase Associates, and consisb of the following documents:
1. Sheet No. 1, dated February 23, 1994 (site ptan).
2. Sheet No. 2, dated February 23, 1994 (tandscape ptan).
3. Sheet No. 3, dated February 29, 1994 (west buitding elevation).
4. Sheet No. 4, dated February 23, lgg4 (south building elevation).
5. Sheet No. 5, dated January 24, 1994 (north buitding elevation).
6. Sheet No. 6, dated February Ag, 1994 (east building elevation).
7. Sheet No. 7, dated January 24, 1gg4 (garage level u1,, floor plan).
8. Sheet No. 8, dated January 24,1994 (bedroom tevet ,2" ftoor plan).
9. Sheet No. 9, dated January 24,1994 (great room level ,,3" floor plan).
10. Other general submittal documents that define the development standards of the
Special Development District.
frlnance No. 7,
Seri€6 ol 1s4
SECTION 5
In addition to the Approved Development Plan described in Sestion 4 above, the following
development stiandards have been submitted to the Planning and Environmential Commission for
its consideration and recommendation and are hereby approved by the Town Council; these
standards are incorporated in the Approved Development Plan to protect the integrity of the
development of sDD No. 32; the following are the development standards for sDD No. 32;
A. Lot Area - The lot area shall consist of approximatefy 9,659 square feet.
B. Setbacks - The required setbacks shall be as indicated on the Approved
Development Plans.
C. Height - The maximum height of the Comice Building shall not exceed 33 feet and
shall be as dimensioned on the Approved Development Plans. The elevation drawings shall be
revised to verifo a ma,rimum height of 33 feet at fie time the Design Revielv Board application
is submitted.
D. Density Control - The ma<imum GRFA for the Comice Building shall not exceed
2,445 square feet. This figure includes 250 square feet of GRFA that has been added to the
GRFA allowance on the site per Chapter 18.71 of the Vail Municipal Code (Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area). The approved density for the Cornice Building shall be one (1) single
family dwelling unit.
E. Site Coverage - The maximum site coverage forthis Special Development District
shafl not exceed 1,397 square feet, or 38o/o of the lot area, and shall be as indicated on lhe
Approved Development Plans.
F' Landscaping - All landscaping shatl be in accordance with the Approved
Development Plans.
SECTION 6
The developer, jointly and severally, agrees with ihe following requirements, which are a
part of the Town's approval of the establishment of this SDD No. 32:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolition/building permit for the
redevelopment project, fre developer shall identify the location of two or three permanently
restricted employee housing units, which provide a minimum of two kitchens and three bedrooms.
The units shall meet the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements. The proposal for
acceptiance of the employee housing units shall be brought back to the PEC, and possibly Town
Odlnance tlo. 7,
SedG of 199,t
o
council (if so desired), for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting.
2. The applicant shall provide a drainage easement to the Town in order to provide
for the maintenance of the existing storm wabr drainage system locabd on the westem edge of
this property. The location and width of the easement will be determined by the Town Engineer.
3. The landscape plan shall be amended to show the addition of one additional
spruce tree along the southem property line in orcler to provide a more significant visual buffer
between the stream walk and the proposed vehicle tumaround area. The applicant, or his
assigns, agress to be r€sponsible for the maintenance ol all landscaping on Town property, as
indicated on the approved landscape plan, for a period of three years. lf any vegetation dies
during the three year period, it shall be replaced by the property owner at the time, at his/her
expense.
4' A revocable right-of-way permit shall be obtained for all improvements on public
property.
5. The maximum height of the building shall be reduced from 35 feet to 33 leet.
sEcTtoN 7
Amendmenb to the approved developnrent plan shall be adminisbred and approved
pursuant to Section 1 8.40.1 00 Amendment Procedure and Section 1 8.66.060 Hearinqs - Gonduct.
SECTION 8
The developer must begin construction of the Special Developrnent District within three
(3) years from he time of its final approval, and continue diligently toward completion of the
project. The developer must meet the requirements of section 18.40.120 of the Municipal Gode
of the Town of Vail.
SECTION 9
lf any part, section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held
to be invalid, such decision shall not atfect the validity of tre remaining portions of this ordinance;
and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part,
section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or
more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid.
Ordinane llo. 7,
S8rier of 'lgst4
o
SECTION 1O
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary
and proper for the health, safety and wellare of the Torn of Vail and its inhabitants thereof.
SECTION 11
The repeal or the repeal and rsenactment of any provision of the Vail Municipal Code as
provided in this ordinance shall not aflect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any
violation that occuned prior to the effective dab hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any
other action or proceeding as commenced urder or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provisions or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless stated herein.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED IN FULL ON FIRST
READING this 15fr day of March, 1994, and a public hearing shatl be held on this 5th day of
April, 1994' at 7:30 p.m. in the Gouncil Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
ATTEST:
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this _ day of 1994.
ATTEST:
i,largaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
Holly L. Mc€utcheon, Town Clerk
Ordlnancs No, 7,
Serb of 1994
EXHIBIT A
cornice Building, 362 Vait Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A patt ol Tract '8" and a pen of tvlill Creek Road, Vail Vtlage, First Filirg, County ot Eagle, State of Colorado, more
panicularly described as follows:
Commencing al th€ Nonheest comer of Vail Mllage, Fi6t Filing; thence North 79o4E0O' West alor€ the Souherly
line of tJ,S' Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 leet to the Northeast comer ot saict Traa 'B'; &ence South
10"14'00'Wesl along lhe Easrerly line ol said Tract'B': a distance of 198.31 teel to the Southeasrerly corner of said
Tract '8": thence hlorth 79'46'00'west abr€ the South€dy line oi said Trad 'B' e distance of t00.OO feal to the tru€poinl ol beginning lhence north 09'10'07' West a distance ot 41.67 feet therEe SdJth g8o27'1 t' Wesl a distence of
75.21 feet; lhence South 27'13ts7' East ot distance o177.37 feet; thenco Nonh 5724'00' East a dislance ot ss.1 1
leet, more or less to the true point of beginning.
o
(Request form must be given to the Secretary to the Town Manager by 8:00 a.m. Thursdays.)
MEETING DATE: March 15. 1994
(Prepare a separate Agenda Request for each agenda item. lf the
agenda item will be discussed at both a Work Session and an Evening
Meeting, be certain to check both boxes in this section and indicate time
needed during each meeting.)
Work Session
Site Visit
Evening Meeting
tr
tr
tr
TIME NEEDED:
TIME NEEDED:45 minutes
TIME NEEDED: t hour
WILL THERE BE A PRESENTATION ON THIS AGENDA ITEM BV NON.TOV STAFF?
a No.
tr YES. Specifics: Tom Braun. repres
WILL THE PRESENTATION OF THIS AGENDA ITEM REQUIBE ANY SPECIAL
EOUIPMENT?o No.
O YES. Specifics:
WILL THERE BE MATERIAL TO BE INCLUDED IN COUNCIL PACKET FOR THIS ITEM?
o No,
D YES. lf yes, is the material also for public distribution?
tl Yes.
O No.
lTEltil/TOPIC:
Ordinance No. 7, Series of 'l 994, first reading, an ordinance providing for the establishment of
Special Development District No, 32, Comice Building; adopting a development plan for
Special Development District No. 32 in accordance with Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal
Code, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
Applicant:David Smith, represented by Tom Braun
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL:
Approveideny/modify, Ordinance No.7, Series ol 1994, on first reading'
BACKGROUND RATIONALE:
Please see the background and analysis of criteria in the staff memorandum dated February
28, 1994. On February 28, 1994, the PEC recommended to approve (5-1-1) the
establishment of Special Development District No. 32, Gornice Building, with the
understanding that the development include the items outlined in the staff cover memo dated
March 15, 1994.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Ordinance No. 7, Series of 1994, on first reading.
Jim Curnutte, Community Development
rft_[
4. A requesl for a worksession lor a proposed minor subdivision located at 4316
Streamside Circle WesVlots 2 and 3, Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition.
$ffF if
5.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Walter Kirsch
Randy Stouder
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Randy Stouder made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the applicant
had worked hard to come up with an environmentally sensitive sile plan. Flandy noted
the discussion items at the end of the staff memo.
Greg Amsden stated that this request was positive.
Bob Armour agreed with Greg's commenl.
Allison Lassoe and Jeff Bowen did not have additional comments.
Dalton Williams stated that he was in favor of this request.
Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Dalton's comment and told the applicant that he could
come back before the PEC on March 14, 1994 for approval of the requested minor
subdivision.
A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a
conditional use for the off-site relocation ol three existing employee housing units,
located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specilically described as follows:
A F||l|| ot Tracr "B' and a prn d Mill Creek Road, VaLlhge, Frst Filng, County of Eagle, Srale of Colotado, more psilicuhdy desqibed .s tollorxs:
Comnendng at tho Northeast cotngl ol Veil Village, Fkst Filing; thqnce Nonh 79"46 0O Wgsl along lhe Soulh€dy line ol U.S. Hlghway No. 6 a dbranc€ ol
367.06lefi lo rh€ Nodheaol corner ol sai, Tr.d 'E'; then.e South 10p14 0(r West .bng lhe Easledy line ot said Tract'tr: a distancs sf 198.31 leel lo lhe
Southe3ltsrly corng. of said Trad 'R: thenco Nonh 7946'0(I West abng th€ Souihedy line ol rrid Trrcl 'R a dlstanco ol 100.00 feet lg the lrue Poid d
beginning thence north Oglot'" We$ a dis.lance ot ,fl,67 leet thence South 88027 11' West . distancs ol 75.21 leet: rhlnce South ?"133f Eest ol
dFtr'|co ot 77.37 feet: rhence Nonh t?4 0O East a dislance ol 55,1I l€sl, mor or ldsB lo ihe lrue poinl of beginnhg.
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo. He stated that the lot is zoned
High Density Multi-Family and is nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is 3,659
square feet, He stated that the proposal involves the demolition of the present building
and the construction of a new building. He stated that this project will utilize all
available GRFA on the site, as well as a "250" allowance, which brings the total GRFA
of the proposed building to 2,445 square feet. He stated that there were three
deviations from the underlying zone district which the PEC should consider along with
this request. These are locating a single family residence within the HDMF zone
district, building encroachments in the lot setbacks, and parking in the front setback.
He stated that staff was recommending approval of this request for the establishment
of a Special Development District with the lour conditions contained on Pages 13 and
14 of the staff memo.
Plannlng ond Envilonmcrtsl Commlssioo
Febtuery 28, t!94
Tom Braun stated that this site was challenging to redevelop but that he felt that what
was now being proposed would be a positive improvement for the site. He stated that
they would locate and permanently restrict three employee housing units off-site. He
pointed out that all three required parking spaces are located on-site. He stated that
they would prefer to keep the building height at 35 leet.
Jim Lamont, representing the East Village Homeowners Association, stated that the
Homeowners Association did not feel that a SDD was appropriate for this site and that
the granting of a SDD on this site would essentially be a grant of special privilege. ll
was his opinion that revisions to the HDMF zone district to allow single family dwellings
was more appropriate for this site.
Kristan PriE staied that staff looked at changing lhe uses in the HDMF zone district
and that the Cornice Building was a unique situation and that it did not seem justifiable
to change the zoning.ordinance to accommodale one site.
Dalton Williams stated that he liked the building design but was concerned that this
appeared to be "spot zoning" for the gain of an individual. He stated that variances
seemed to be a more appropriate process for developing this property.
Allison Lassoe stated that this site was ideal lor the SDD concept because there did
not seem to be a zone district that fits this property. She stated that she would like to
see the building height reduced to 33 feet. She stated she would like to see three
individual employee units as opposed to one three-bedroom unit. She stated that there
was a good possibility that the eventual owner ol this property would have at least one
vehicle larger than what the existing turning radius is proposed to accommodate.
Jeff Bowen stated that he appreciated Tom's organized presentation of this project'
He stated that this property was unique but that he had concerns about a SDD being
approved for this site. He stated that he was in favor of the building height being
' reduced to 33 feet. He said that a hardship does exist on the lot but pointed out that it
has always been present at this site. He was concerned about the employee housing
being located off-site because the Comice Building itself was an ideal location for
employee housing units. He stated he would like lo see employee housing units
added to our existing supply, instead of merely deed restricting existing employee
housing. Jefl said that parking on this site was still a concem to him and that he would
feel more comfortable with limiting on-site parking lo one or two parking spaces and
paying into the parking fund for the third parking space.
Greg Amsden stated that the square footage was okay and that the building height
was okay at 35 feet. He felt a SDD was appropriate on the site and that a finding of a
hardship was nol necessary in order to approve a SDD. He did not foresee that
parking would be a problem for this site given the ownership pattern.
Bob Armour would like to see the applicant abide by the building height lor single
family building or stick with the High Density Multi-Family uses allowed, but not take
advantage of both scenarios.
Plsnnlng snd Environmontal Commi$lon
F*ru.ry 28, 199,0
Bill Anderson stated that he felt the building height should be reduced to 33 feet. He
said the proposed parking plan was positive, but he has the same concerns with
people backing into traffic at this location.
Kathy Langenwalter asked staff whether a 250 request would be allowed on this site in
the future even though it would seem they are taking advantage of the "250" now.
Jim Curnutte stated that the building is over five years old and that a 250 is available
for this site now, and that no additional 250 could be applied for in the future because
it is proposed to be used in conjunction with the construction of the new building.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired whether future development rights would be restricted on
this site.
Kristan Pritz stated that per the current HDMF zoning, the site is not eligible for single
family credits, nor are multifamily credits allowed. She said that the only credits this
project is getting is parking. The SDD ordinance would limit the GRFA as proposed'
However, the owner could request an amendment to the SDD in the future.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was originally opposed to an SDD on this site but
is now comfortable with the proposal as is, but that the building height should be
reduced to 33 feet. She felt allowing single family units in HDMF made no sense. The
fact the existing allowable number of units is in nonconformance with the HDMF zoning
makes this site unique.
Allison Lassoe stated that no exterior parking on the site should be allowed. She
added that some sort ol block may be necessary to prevenl the general public from
using the driveway as a turnaround point.
Greg Amsden stated that he preferred the enclosed parking scenario and that
restricting external parking would be difficult to enforce.
Kathy Langenwalter told the applicant that the consensus of the PEC was to reduce
the building height from 35 feet to a maximum of 33 feet.
Tom Braun stated that this was acceptable to the applicant.
Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing issue still needed to be addressed. He
said that the new employee housing needs lo be better than what presently exists and
that the employee housing units need to be units that were not previously used as
employee housing units.
Dalton Williams emphasized that this proposal results in a loss of employee housing
units.
Plsnning .nd ErviroDmental Commisdon
F.bruary 2q 1994
Greg Amsden said he disagreed vehemently with the proposed additional conditions
regarding employee housing units were excessively restrictive and that even if the
applicant found units that are being rented to employees now we would benefit by
permanently restricting them for such use in the future. He felt the additional condition
reduced housing for guests.
Jetf Bowen stated that other proposals create employee housing and the Town
encourages this and that the Cornice Building should be handled in the same manner.
He wants to ensure that housing is created for employees.
Tom Braun stated it would be difficult to create three additional employee housing
units. He said that wherever the employee units are created, the Town would benefit
from the permanent restriction of these units.
Bob Armour stated it was important that lhe employee housing units be located in the
Town of Vail.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that a minimum ol two units, providing at least three
bedrooms, would be the criteria for the employee housing units.
Bill Anderson made a motion to approve the establishment of a special development
district for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building with the lour conditions contained
on Pages 13 and 14 of the staff memo and two additional conditions that the building
height be limited to 33 feet and that the employee housing units must be a minimum of
two units with three bedrooms and two kitchens. Allison Lassoe seconded the motion.
A 5-1-1 vote approved this request with Dalton Williams opposing per the reasons
stated above and Bob Armour abstaining.
Jeff Bowen requested that his comments concerning employee housing be forwarded
to the Town Council.
6. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract lrom Primary/Secondary
Residential lo Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more
specitically described as follows:
A p3 cel oJ lrnd in thg SouthrN€st Ouane. of Sedion 14. Tgvirnshir 5 Souli. Range 8l Wogt ol lhe 61h Pdncipd Moddh[ morr paniculady desctbsd as
lolloYrs:
geginning .t r poinl whence a brass cap ser lor a rdtnesg comer lor lhe Wesr ouaner ol sald Section 14 b9|ri (No h 29 degn€s 28 mln|,les 5l seconds
Wasl, 1073.08 leer Oeed) Nonh 43 Osgrge6 15 minure6 02 seconds West, 915.96 teel llleaE!,edl; Thenco Nodh 74 de9€es 05 minutet 19 s€cods Ea6l,
't0.76leel; Th.nco 183.62leet along the arc ol I cun/s lo ihe righl whbh .re 3ubtends s chord b61'lng Nonh 88 degrees 12 mhuies 30 seconds East,
18 t.78 ,eet Thence Solth 77 degree. 40 minrn€6 21 seconds E|st, 62.77 le6: Thonce 147.43 leel alodg lhl .rc ol a ql e lo $e leh w'lich .tc sublends a
dlod bearhg Norlh 68 degre$ 36 minules 17 leconG EasL 1,{5.60 teet; Thenc. Nonh 70 degrees 52 minutes 55 r€conds E$t, 406.55leel: Theice 54.10
le€( dgng ths tlc ol a cuwe 10 the dght which trc srJb|ends a chod beaing Sgsth 47 degfo€r 20 mlnues 37 seconds Eas! 44,20 lee! Ilenci Sgulh 1,1
degees 25 minutes 50 seconds Wesl 110.51 leet:
Th€nce Sodh 68 de9.e6 18 fiinules 9l se@ndl we.l. 320.00 leet;
Thonce Nonh 19 degrees 07 minules 05 Eeconds Wesl, 50.00lee|:
Ihence Sodh 77 degrces 48 mihures 41 secon& West, 160.18leel:
Thencs South l0 degEes 53 r{nutes 33 6econds West. 36.46le€i;
Thonca Nonh 87 degrees 40 minules 06 recon& Wesl, 337.72 teel:
Thence (North 11 dEg..e6 52 minutes 'tg secondr E s! l3O.0O leet Deed) North 11 degreB 55 mihuteE 3l s.conds Ea!i, 129,75leet tt ea$rred) to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Be$lng lrom G.L.O. record lgr gouth hrll ot Seclion fine between Section3 1+ 15. (G.L.O. rocord South 0t deg,ees 30.2 min'Ie€ East) (sguth 0l degEe! 38
minutes 32 3aconds Ecr [reasuredl
Plannhg aod Environmcntsl CommB3lon
Frbluary 28, t9${
f
^,11u/*=
C-t.: rc,q Lr,6 '.^7 -
7{t* aKrr,e o€ fto,rlec*
,Vi*'- (."^*^:1 - E. t),(qt ,{O./
rr,a-{e - }L* @vQ b.e [*,4"1
ft^noug\n- a}J ,*^e,*&.u,oy* *'- t'le- FOnt
2-prtz J,#n'r.t 121fu*'")'t *[*'' ; q-
3 ^c..J>( c € 9;f" da ( /n /r i 6*$a
X<s
/os
/,=L,r: "
*)
I
Loo{ f (nr<'/- [,.*t q^t €M - *:eeJS
, ]o 6e o'1 s3'
, - Co ,ut ce u**l uJ W /,a,ut < Hy (C) t = €P @. :? ,rl-tQ
ta>(let Gee 3 u o,Vc, **hJ o c k t "6.*f,wvu.
/*tr*
-T-rt/raj ,^q.)';i s[*"H ,<*1,{r- p67 uy'G--t' @a'4
, L+ it g 4 vlvtg,i{'a
'.i"et - jL,,'* 1r,E'*{y,; uuigus
fu,,u*: prt6(*tng u4/ ,f i
t ealhJc4- /e B?'
w L*{ ,; L*r-b {-,i"
fuy, htY {* f,-- s
fl
Iia',lr; ,'il] -\./ n /t lt tl t , I. *t t---t +ftt& *,fl, #"" ad'sr{d Aor#,iy --- Ito*)
"\yj LiX:{; iV )f '/o 4*o * t'qr ;il'# +avft,,'7
Y+: t/
v){; ," ,s.Vnq*,)*{* {-t"- 1t-"i" uge .',,
/-,*.o?SL ,d g;' ,ee 4 t', 4) t sl€e.rg ,krU $,,t ,ril
I ' ;'" \ ,r' I
9;{; ,r." *4ffr)*{t {e*rn, 4tr,*' ug4
. I '_t, \ {'P@ Pfr-lb ,1' ,,'{(, P*tra/rr<f a-,tt;t 9ie4#.
Y.')'-&L
Vo,, ioui+s a.ft ok Lq
- lt f'zu.-4r'€^/ F A4f rt_.,1
frrOp*.r*{ ,y l( Ki {,(-, r. \. t-t. ,,-r E t\a AY a S"'tf"
&,(/=\.---f /@p n ,'A{e
,qwe {
."*u-* lrr* u tI Nrr.-l
-@/;, ,yit: c,7yrcs+& {e silA_A& ts /&
-k ,tr r'{/, 4{t us Trnjgc{
-32' AetgL,f )u,ig. - {a*e 6"4** e;*(r-
c.*t.tcec,n*n.&. *L*ri t't< glau,"fr, +
c4*
--, ( tt "rCJ
- '- ,.t,,*i.+< /'*[,4s ilet q eI( fit::<aJ
Lr4. *' rjt C6,^44. ,
7v ' 4)u ,^A le q't'***'*d1f/rveeL
yU €e{C**ry } 3L c"\'w!U
l) p.ie o€" {u:e €tlUL }o b o#*A Ayfec
\.,4? ?>- t*;;Y >6u,
3 i '--'{e €c' ' -to{oardq
L/)
i I sv' 7+-+*-K LU? Ln;rn f
fltt3ea! >-4 \-/
i__ - \-rdt
I
t.
Ff il tr fr'Ji=l
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 28, 1994
A request for the establishment of a special development district for the
redevelopment of the Cornice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and
more specifically described as follows:
A parl of Tracl "8" and a pan of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, couily of Eagle, Slate of
Colorado, more panicularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Nonheast comer of Vail Village, First Filing; thence Nonh 79"46'00" West
aiong the Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of
said Tract "B"; thence Soulh 10"14'00" Wesl along lhe Easlerly line of said Tract "B'; a distance of
198.31 feet to the Southeasterly corner of said Tracl "B": thence North 79"46'00" West along the
Southerly line of said Tract'B" a distance ot 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning lhence nonh
09"1 0'07" West a dislance ot 41 .67 feet; thence South 88"27'1 1 " West a dislance of 75.21 feet;
thence South 27"13'37" East of distance ot 77.37 feeu thence Nonh 57'24'00" Easl a distance of
55.11 feel. more or less to the lrue point of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting review of the proposed establishment
of a special development district (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building located
at 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part ol Tract B, Vail Village First Filing.
The Cornice Building property is located in the eastern portion of Vail Village, between the Vail
Athletic Club and the Tyrolean Inn. The site is currently zoned High Density Multi-Famif
(HDMF) and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an
acre (3,659 square feet). The minimum lot size in the HDMF zone district is 10,000 square
feet of buildable area. Existing development on the property includes one condominium, a
small space that has periodically been used as an office space and three employee rental
units that are restricted until the year 2005.
The proposed redevelopment involves the demolition of the existing struclure and the
construction of a new building. The proposed development is limited to one single family
dwelling unit. This residence will utilize all of the available GRFA allocated to the property
(2,195 square feet) as well as a"250" allowance, bringing the total GRFA of the proposed
building to 2,445 square feet. In addition, the applicant is proposing to provide an off-site
location for the three restricted employee renlal units, which are currently located in the
Cornice Building. The applicant is proposing to replace these units by restricting another unit
(or units) within the Town of Vail in order to provide an equivalent number of bedrooms
(three). The unit(s) will be permanently reslricted in accordance with the Town of Vail
Employee Housing Ordinance. The applicant does not wish to actually identity the employee
housing unit(s) at this time, bul wishes to proceed with PEC and Town Council approval of the
proposed SDD with the assurance that the permanent restriction of otf-site employee rental
units will be in place prior to the issuance of a demolition/building permit for the Cornice
Building redevelopment. Once the applicant has received SDD approval and has located the
proposed off-site unit(s), they will return to the PEC, and Town Council if necessary, for their
review and approval.
The redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the demolition ol the existing building,
which currently includes the tollowing uses:
1 - 1,084 square foot free market dwelling unit
1 - 202 square foot office space
3 - restricted employee rental units (202 square feet each for a lotal of 606 sq. ft.)
The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the following uses:
2,445 square foot single family residence (includes "250" allo'wance).
employee renlal units (or equivalent number of bedrooms), restricted per the
Town of Vail employee housing ordinance (unit(s) to be localed olf-site).
enclosed garage spaces
The applicant has indicated that the purpose of requesting an SDD lor this property is to allow
for greater flexibility and creativity in the redevelopment ol the Cornice Building, as well as to
provide a mechanism for the review of certain deviations from the existing development
standards of the site's underlying zoning. The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice
Building involves deviations from the following HDMF development standards:
1. Sinole familv residence within the HDMF zone district - The permitted uses in the
HDMF zone district are limited to multi-family dwellings and lodges. MultiJamily
dwellings are defined as buildings containing three or more dwelling units, including
lownhouses, rowhouses, apartments and condominiums, designed for or used by three
or more families, each living as an independent housekeeping unit. A Lodge is defined
as a building or group of associated buildings designed for occupancy primarily as the
temporary lodging place of individuals or families either in accommodation units or
dwelling units, in which the gross residential floor area devoted to accommodation
units exceeds the gross residential tloor area devoted to dwelling units, and in which
all such units are operated under a single management providing the occupants
thereof customary hotel services and facilities. Single family development is not
permitted as a conditional or permitted use in the HDMF zone district.
As a part ol the SDD review process, the Planning and Environmenlal Commission
(PEC) and Town Council may approve uses that are more restrictive than uses
permitted by the property's underlying zone district. The request includes determining
that a single family use is more restrictive than a multi-family use. As such, the
1-e-
.1 -
approval ol this SDD plan would allow for single family residential development as a
permitted use.
2. Buildino encroachments in the lot setbacks - Portions of the existing and proposed
structure encroach into the property's 20 loot front, side and rear yard setback areas.
The building is proposed to be conslructed within 2 feet of the north property line, 11
feet of the south property line, 2.5 feet of the east property line, and 11 feet of the west
property line. Please refer to the zoning analysis chart on page 6 tor a comparison of
the proposed building to the existing building.
3. Parkinq in the front setback - The applicant is proposing to place a portion ol one of
the required enclosed parking spaces within the tront setback area, which is not
allowed in the HDMF zone district. Approximately seven feet of the southwestern
enclosed parking space encroaches into the 20 foot front yard setback area'
II. BACKGHOUND
The Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's and included eight small
rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for the rental apartments, apparently due
to its relative proximity to the existing surface parking lot located immediately adjacent to the
property (now the Village Transportation Cenler). With the exception of new decks and a
minor building expansion in '1976, the overall form of the building has not changed since it
was built. The property has been the subject of numerous redevelopment proposals over the
years and due to the small size of the parcel, virtually all of the redevelopment proposals
involved requests for variances lrom the zoning standards. In the mid 1970's, a conditional
use permit was granted which allowed for a real estate office to operate oul of the western
portion of the lower level of the building. The real estate office eliminated one employee
rental unit, leaving seven units on the property.
In 1979, the owner of the property at the time, Dr. Huttner, requested a setback variance for
the purpose of enclosing an existing second story deck. This setback variance request was
one element of the proposed redevelopment of the property which involved the conversion of
the four apartments on the upper floor into one dwelling unit and a request lo allow one
parking space in the fronl setback area. The PEC approved the setback variance request but
denied the parking space request. In conjunction with the variance request, the owner agreed
to restrict the three remaining apartments on lhe lower level of the building to long-term
employee rental units. This agreement conlained provisions regarding the minimum size of
the units (no less than 200 square feet per unit), restrictions on the minimum duration of the
lease agreements, guidelines on who the units may be rented to (full-time employees of the
Upper Eagle Valley), and provisions on the length ol time within which the agreement shall be
etfective (twenty years from the date of the agreement, or the year 2005). For a variety of
reasons, this restriction was nol formally recorded until 1985 (see Attachment #1 lor a copy of
the agreement). Since 1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this
site.
On June 14, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Design Fleview Board (DRB) and the
PEC to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Comice Building
(see Attachmenl #2 lor a copy of the meeting minutes). The proposal included departures
lrom the following HDMF zone district standards:
A. GRFA.The proposal exceeded allowable GRFA by 1,305 square feet.
B. Setbacks - Portions of the structure were proposed to encroach into the front,
side and rear setbacks. In addition, the applicant proposed to locate required
parking within the front setback area which is not allowed in the HDMF zone
district.
C. Parkino - The required number of parking spaces for the proposed building was
six spaces. The applicant was proposing to provide two parking spaces on-site' (one enclosed and one exterior). No parking was proposed for the three Type
lV employee housing units that were apart of the project at the time. The
proposal also did not comply with the HDMF zone district requirement lhal75%
of all parking be enclosed.
During this worksession, a number of issues were identified as being of concern to the PEC
and DRB. These issues are summarized as follows:
A. The appropriateness of proposing a SDD lor the redevelopment of the property.
B. The project's departures trom the HDMF zone district standards. The PEC
discussed the possibility that the proposed departures lrom the zone district
standards could be handled as variance applications as opposed to being
reviewed through the SDD process.
C. Continuance of the three restricted employee housing unils on the site. The
PEC felt that the employee housing units on the property were positive and
commented that it would be desirable lo have them restricted beyond the
twenty year time frame. However, the PEC felt that no GRFA bonus should be
granted for these reslricted unils and that any GRFA utilized by the restricted
units should come out of the total maximum allowable GRFA on the site.
D. Architectural and site planning issues. The PEC felt that the proposed 48 foot
building height should be reduced significantly and the mass and bulk ol the
building should be reevaluated,
On October'l 1, 1993, aworksession was held with the PEC to furtherdiscuss two issues that
had arisen at the June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. (See Attachment #3 lor a copy of the
meeting minutes.) These issues were:
1. The appropriateness of using the SDD process for the Cornice Building
redevelopment. The PEC and applicant discussed the merits ol handling the
Cornice Building redevelopment through a SDD process, as opposed to
requesting separate GRFA, setback and parking variances- The PEC felt that
due to the unusual lot size and configuration, setback and parking variance
requests would likely receive favorable support from lhem. However, the PEC
made it clear'that a proposed variance from the ma:dmum allowable GRFA on
the property would be difficult to justify.
2. There was discussion regarding the possibility of allowing a credit for the GRFA
allocated to the three restricted rential units, as opposed to deducting their total
GRFA from the total allowable GRFA ol the property. The PEC suggested to
the applicant that if he wished to utilize all of the site's GRFA for the proposed
free market dwelling unit, than he should explore the possibility of finding and
permanently restricting employee rental units elsewhere in town.
Since the October 11, 1993 PEC worksession, the applicant has contacted statf to discuss the
parameters under which staff would be reviewing the applicants proposed oflsite housing
units (see attachment # 4 - letter to Tom Braun ddted December 8, 1993). Stafl believes that
the provision of employee housing units lo replace those currently existing on the Cornice
Building property must take into account the quality of the living environment and access to
employment areas in addition to simply providing housing for a minimum of three employees.
The applicant has indicated that the paramelers for providing off-site employee housing units
as identified in staff's letter would be used as minimum guidelines for providing the proposed
off-site employee housing unit or units.
il1.CORNICE BUILDING ZONING.ANALYSIS
The project's departures from the HDMF zone district standards are highlighted in
Site Area:
'Dwelling Units:
Allowed Uses:
GRFA:
Office Space:
Common Area:
Setbacks:
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
Building Height:
"Parklng:
UNDERLYING ZONING:
HDMF
0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft.
25 units per acre or
2 units for this sit€.
Multi-family residential
dwellings and lodges
60% or 2.195 sq. ft.
Varies depending on issuance
of conditional use approval
35% of allowable GRFA or
768 sq. ft.
20 ' on all sides.
55% or 2,012 sq. ft.
30% required or
1,098 sq. ft.
45' for a flat or mansard roof
48' for a sloping rool
Varies according to proposed
use of the property. At least 75olo
of req. spaces must be enclosed
EXISTING
PROJECT
Same
4 DU's
4 unit multi{amilY
building
51ol. or 1,690 sq. tt.
.05% or 202 sq.fr
202 sq. ft. located in
the basement of the bldg.
N: I'
S: 2.5'
Ei 12.5'
W:7'
32% or 1,160 sq. ft.
66 % or 2,434 sq, ft. .
ZJ.J
6 spaces required, ot
which 5 must be enclosed
0 spaces provided
bold type.
PFOPOSED
SDD
Same
lDU
Single tamlly
re3idential dwelling
67o/" or 2,445 sq. ft.
(includes '250'
allowance)
0sq.ft
'0sq.tu
N:2'
S: 11'
E: 2.5'
W:11'
38% or 1,397 sq. ft.
40% or 1,455 sq. ft.
eE
3 enclosed spaces
requiaod,
3 enclosed spaceg
provided
'Although three of the existing dwelling units on the property are permanently restticted to employee housing, they do
not comply with the requirements of the Town's recently adopted employee housing ordinance and, therefore, count as
full dwelling units for the purpose of calculating density.
"Although the proposed redevelopment proiect meets the minimum number of parking spaces, a portion of one of the
enclosed parking spaces is located within the 20 foot front yard setback area.
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows:
'The purpose of the special development district is lo encourage flexibility and creativity in
the Cevelopment of land in order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the
design character and quality of new development within the Town; to tacilitate the
adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to provide the natural and
scenic leatures of open space areas; and to further the overall goals of the community as
staled in the Vail Comprehensive Plan. An approved development plan for a special
development district, in conjunction with the property's underlying zone district, shall
establish the requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the
special development district."
The planning statf believes that the Cornice Building redevelopment application complies with the
purpose statement of a Special Development District, as stated above. Specifically, we believe that the
proposed Cornice Building SDD furthers the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Gomprehensive Plan (i.e. Vail Village Master Plan, Streetscape Master Plan and VailVillage Urban
Design Guide Plan). The proposed redesign of the building proposes to improve the design character,
funclion, and overall quality of the existing development. Permanently restricted employee housing units
are proposed 1o be provided in place of the temporarily restricted studio units currently existing on the
prcperty. The applicant has restricted lhe density on this nonconforming lot below that which would be
allowed by the site's underlying zone district. The applicant has agreed to provide landscaping, and
other site improvements on the public land located immediately east of their property, in order to
enhance its appearance as a pocket park. The applicant has agreed to provide a drainage easement
across the western portion of the property as requested by the Town Engineer.
Special Development District Criteria
The following are the nine Special Development District Criteria to be used by the PEC when evaluating
SDD proposals.
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighbbrhood and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
In general. stalf believes that the overall architectural style ot the proposed Cornice Building is
positive and would be compatible with the alpine character of Vail Village. The gable roof form
and proposed building materials (natural stone and stucco siding, slate roof, divided ligd'tt
windows, etc.) will also relale well to the established architectural character of the Village. The
applicant has responded to many of the PEC, DRB and statf comments regarding the
architectural design. The building has been moved as far as possible to the northeast portion of
the lot in order to improve site distance around lhe lower portion ol "Blue Cow Chute", as well as
to provide a greater separation from the Gore Creek streamwalk than is currently provided by the
existing building.
The applicant has lowered the building height from 48 feet to 35 feet, which improves the overall
massing of the building. Although this height is 13 feet below the maximum building height
allowed in the HDMF zone district, stalf would recommend that the building height be further
reduced to 33 feet. At 33 feet the building would be in conformance with the ma(imum building
height allowed for single family buildings in the Town of Vail as well as being thal much closer t0
complying with the recommendations found in the Vail Village Master Plan (two stories).
AOditionatly, any reduction in building height would have a positive effect on the amount of shade
occurring on Vail Valley Drive and the relationship between the height of the building and the
small loisize would be improved. Staff believes that since the applicant is asking for special
consideration to allow for a single family residence in a zone district where it is cunently
prohibited, the building should comply with the maximum height allowance lor all other single
family residences in Town.
Although the curved stainrvay on the west side of the building is located approximately 2 feet
closer to lhe west property line than the existing building, at that same location, the rest of the
proposed building has been shifted away from Vail Valley Drive to a greaier distance than the
current building footprint. Eleven feet is the closest the proposed building will be from the west
property line, which is an improvement over the seven foot setback of the exisling building.
B. Uses, activlty and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
Although lhe Cornice Building property is surrounded by a variety ol different land uses, including
multi-unit condominiums and mixed use buildings that include both residential and commercial
uses, statf believes that the proposed single family residential use of the property is appropriate'
given the size and contiguration of the lot. Stafl believes that the small size of the lot and limited
room to accommodate on-site parking make High Density Residential or commercial use of this
properly inappropriate. lt is interesting to note that the maximum density allowed on lhis lot (two
dwelling units) does not even comply with the definition of "multi-family dwelling", which is what
the property is zoned for. We believe that it is appropriate to consider the proposed single family' use of the propedy as being more reslrictive than the multi-family use. We also believe that the
proposed single family use of the property is compatible with surrounding properties.
It should also be pointed out that since the property is zoned HDMF no single family or duplex
credits (neither 425 nor 225) are allowed, yet at the same time since the proposed building is not
a "multi-family" structure it is not entitled to any multi-family credits (airlocks, overlapping stairs,
common areas, etc.) either. Garage parking spaces are the only credits that apply to this
redevelopment proposal.
Stafi believes that the applicant's agreement to permanently restrict employee housing units in
Town to replace the temporarily restricted units at the Cornice Building site is a benefit. The
applicant agrees that the parameters for providing the unit(s), outlined in a letter to Tom Braun
dated December 8, 1993 (see attachment # 4), is acceptable. This is a use which the Town
promotes in its master plan documents.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52 of lhe Vail
Municipal Code.
As mentioned in the Background Section of this memo, the Cornice Building was originally
constructed in the mid-1960's. No on-site parking was provided. In 1979, an application was
D.
made to the PEC to add one surface parking space to the site. The PEC denied this request
citing safety and traftic concerns. In 1985 and 1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to
the Town which included up to seven on-site parking spaces. Although the PEC felt that some
on-site parking may be acceptable on this site, the design of the buildings being proposed were
not acceptable and the projects were denied. Some members of the PEC felt that it would be
reasonable lor the property owner to request a parking exemption from the Town Council to allow
payment into the parking fund lor some or all of the required parking.
At 2,445 square feet ol GRFA, the parking space requirement for the proposed building is three
spaces. Section 18.20.140 (HDMF Parking and Loading) states that "at least 75% of the
required parking shall be located within the main building or buildings and hidden from public
view..." In this instance, the Code requires that all three of the parking spaces located on lhe
site be enclosed within lhe main building. The applicant is showing three enclosed parking
spaces within the proposed Cornice Building. However, one of the spaces does not meet the
dimensional requirements for a parking space required by the Parking and Loading Section ol the
Town of Vail Municipal Code. Specifically, the Town of Vail parking standards require that each
off-street parking space be I feet wide by 19 feet long. As shown on the attached garage level
floor plan, one of the three enclosed parking spaces is 16 feet long. Section 18.52.070 (Parking
Standards) allows the Town of Vail zoning administrator to authorize minor adjustments to the
dimensional requirements prescribed in the parking and loading chapter. Statf believes that the
proposed minor devialion to the parking space length requirement located in this three car
garage will not negatively etfect the property owner's ability to park three cars inside the building.
At 9'wide and 16' long the smallest parking space in the garage still meets the dimensional
requirement tor a compact car space, as identified in the Town zoning code.
As mentioned previously, the HDMF zone district prohibits the location of any required parking
spaces within the front setback area. As shown on the attached site plan, portions ol the
southwesternmost enclosed parking space encroaches into the front setback area. Staff believes
the applicant has atlempted to locate the required enclosed parking as far away from the front
property line as possible and still allow for adequate vehicle maneuverability on lhe site. The lact
that the parking spaces are enclosed within the building help to alleviate any visual impacts
associated with the placement of parking in the front setback area. Additional landscape
plantings have been placed along Vail Valley Drive and the streamwalk to further buffer the
parking turnaround areas visibility. The turnaround area is also constructed of pavers, as
opposed to asphalt or concrete. The planning staff and the Town Engineer have reviewed the
proposed Cornice Building redevelopment plan and feel that the on-site parking can work on this
propeny.
Conformity with appticabte elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and
Urban Design Plans.
Staff has evaluated the proposal for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail master plans
including:
1. Vail Land Use Plan - The goals contained in the Vail Land Use Plan are to be used as
adopted policy guidelines in the review process for new development proposals. The
Land Use Plan Goals/Policies applicable to the Cornice Building redevelopmenl are as
follows:
2.
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a balance
between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serue both the visitor
and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural resources
should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality ol development should be maintained and upgraded whenever
possible.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be
preserved. (Scale, alpineiharacter, small town feeling, mountains, natural setting'
intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmental quality.)
5.3 Alfordable employee housing should be made available through private etforts,
assisted by limited incenlives, provided by the Town ol Vail, with appropriate
restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied sites
throughout the community.
Vail Villaoe Masler Plan
The land use element of the Vail Village Master Plan shows the Cornice Building property
within the medium/high density residential category. The Building Height element of the
plan suggests that th; maximum building height on the Cornice Building property should
be limited to two stories. The plan is intended to provide general guidelines and
recommends that additional study be made during specific project review relative to a
buildings height impact on the streetscape and relationship to surrounding structures.
Rpproxlmately 25% of lhe proposed building complies with the two story recommendation,
w1h the remainder of the building being at three stories. Staff believes that the departure
from the two story height guideline is acceptable given the allowed height of 48 feet and
the applicants use of sloped roofs on the portion of the building above two stories. As
stated before, we would suggest that the applicant consider reducing the building height
to 33 feet.
The Cornice Building is located within the East Meadow Drive Sub-Area (#5). No specific
reference is made to the building in the text ol the sub'area action plan'
The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building has the potential to carry out many
of the goals and objectives contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals
and objectives are as follows:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique architectural
scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and identity.
10
Obiective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities-
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas throughout
the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these established land usepatterns'
,,.
Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the developnient of afiordable housing units through the efforts
of the private sector.
3. Streetscape Master Plan - The Streetscape Master Plan points out that traffic on Vail
Valley Drive is very heavy throughout most of the year. lt is especially heavy in the
morning and late aftemoons during the ski season, and evenings and weekends during
the summer months. Pedestrian tratfic is likely to increase because of the expansion of
the Village Parking Structure and the crealion of a new exit portal from the parking
structure at Vail Valley Drive. Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in the area of
the Cornice Building involve the addition of a 8 foot - 10loot wide concrete unil paver
walkway on the west and south sides ol Vail Valley Drive and a 5 foot - 6 foot wide
concrete unit paver walkway on the east and north sides of the road.
No pedestrian walkway is proposed along the western portion of the Cornice Building
property. Although the Streetscape Master Plan shows a 5 to 6 foot concrete unit paver
walkway along the weslern portion of the Cornice Building property, staff and lhe Town
Engineer agree that, at this time, it is not practical to continue a walkway along the
eastern side ol Vail Valley Drive beyond the Gore Creek Bridge. People walking along
the eastern side of Vail Valley Drive tend to cross the road on the nofih side of the bridge
where the streamwalk meets Vail Valley Drive. This seems to be the safest and most
logical place to cross the road, rather than at the bottom of "Blue Cow Jhute".
Additionally, the construction of a walkway along the western portion of the Cornice' Building property would appear to require the removal of the lour existing large evergreen
trees located in this area which staff would prefer not to see removed.
E. ldentilication and mitigation of natural andior geologic hazards that affect the property on
. which the special development district is proposed.
There are no natural and/or geologic hazards, nor does any floodplain elfect this property.
F. Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a
functional development respon'sive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation and
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
The HDMF zone districl requires 20 loot setbacks on all sides. After taking setbacks into
consideration, the remaining buildable area on the lot is approximately 20 feet by 25 feet in size.
Staff agrees with the applicant's contention that it would be extremely difficult to build on this site
without some degree of setback encroachment. The applicants have indicated thal they have
attempted to minimize the setback encroachment by designing the building with a substantially
similar footprint as the existing building. The applicant has incorporated suggestions from
previous PEC meetings inlo the site planning by moving the building as far to the north and east
11
G.
as possible on the lot. The siting of the building in this location will provide as much visibility as
possible to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling along Vail Valley Drive. Staff believes
that the removal of the second story deck located on the south side of the existing building,
which is within 2-112 feet of the stream walk, is a positive aspect of the redevelopment proposal.
Although the site coverage ot the proposed building is slightly greater than the existing building
(1,160 sq. ft. existing and 1,397 sq. lt. proposed) it is still considerably less than the maximum
allowed on this lot (2,012 sq. ft.). Stalf believes lhat applicants desire to limit the amount of site
coverage on this lot is positive.
The applicant has provided a sun/shadd analysis'which compares the shading effect of the
existing building to the proposed building. Clearly, the proposed redevelopment would increase
shade and shadow on a portion of Vail Valley Drive. lt would seem that additional shading on
Vail Valley drive is a trade off for moving the building as far to the northeast portion ol the lot as
possible. The advantages of the proposed building location are improved sight distances around
the lower portion of Blue Cow Chute and a greater separation between the building and the
streamwalk. The applicant has oriented the roof ridge of the third story portion of the buibing in
a north/south direction in order to reduce the shade impact on Vail Valley Drive as much as
possible. The statl and Town Engineer have reviewed the sun/shade analysis and believe that
since lhere is no major pedestrian walkway along this portion of Vail Valley Drive the shading
impacts of the proposed building are not significant. However, as suggested earlier in the memo
reducing the height of the proposed building by two feet will improve the shade impacts slightly.
In summary, stafl believes that the project's design sensitivity to the site planning and open
space issues has been positive.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-
site traftic circulation.
It does not appear that the proposed Cornice Building redevelopment will have a negative impact
on the vehicular or pedestrian circulation surrounding this site. The Cornice Building is located at
the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and Easl Meadow Drive. Vehicular access to the three
proposed enclosed parking spaces is provided from Vail Valley Drive. The proposed driveway
has been located at the southernmost end of the site, approximately 80 feet from lhe corner of
Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive, thereby insuring adequate site lines for vehicles
leaving the site. Internal circulation includes two "hammerheads" which allow vehicles to
turnaround while on-sile. This design allows vehicles to drive out of the site without backing onto
Vail Valley Drive. The driveway and vehicle lurnaround areas will be heated and utilize
decorative brick paves as opposed to asphalt or concrete.
The Cornice Building parcel is located directly on the Vail Village bus route, and is also located
immediately adjacent to the Ford Park/Vail Village streamwalk. Existing sidewalks along the Vail
Village Par ng Structure, the Vail Athletic Club and along Vail Valley Drive provide additional
pedestrian crrculation which will not be negatively eflected by the proposed redevelopment
project. As rnentioned previously, staff does not recommend that a pedestrian walkway be
installed along lhe western side of the Gornice Building property, as this may encourage people
lo cross Vail Valley Drive at the bottom of Blue Cow Chute, which is considered to be a
dangerous location.
12
H. Functional and aesthetic tandscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation,. views and functions.
Given the limited site area of this parcel, there is little in the way of "functional open space'. The
proposed development does, however, preserve the existing mature trees located on the western
portion of the property as well as include a landscape plan that represents a significant
improvemeft bver existing conditions. Landscape improvements are also proposed on the Town
of Vail land to the north, east, and west of the site. These improvements include clusters of
aspen and evergreen trees and a streetscape bench, located immediately adjacent to the
streamwalk. The applicant is proposing to remove the existing fence which runs along the north
side of the streamwalk, adjacent to Town ol Vail property, in order to make the area east of the
Cornice Building more inviting to the public. The fence will remain adjacent to the Cornice
Building property to further shield the parking area. The applicant has agreed to be responsible
for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town property for a period of three years. lf any
vegetation dies during the three year period it will be replaced by the property owner, his at
expense.
As shown in the previously listed zoning analysis,407o of the site is retained as landscaping
which exceeds the minimum requirement of 30o/o. lt appears that the proposed landscaping on
the property has been planted in a manner which allows lor adequate on-site snow storage and
adequate site lines for ingress and egress. Staff believes that the applicant's proposal to utilize a
heated brick paver driveway as opposed to asphalt or concrete is positive and should compliment
the landscaping and open space plan proposed by the applicant.
Staff would recommend the addition of one more spruce tree along the southern property line in
order to provide a more significant visual buffer between the pedeitrian walkway and the
proposed vehicle turnaround area, while still allowing for an adequate snow storage area.
l. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the special deVelopment district.
The applicant has not proposed a phasing plan for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, as
it is their intention to complete the entire redevelopment in one phase. The applicant is currently
working with the planning stalf and Town Engineer to develop an acceptable construction staging
plan tor this redevelopment.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed Cornice Building Special Development District. We lind
that the redevelopment proposal is in compliance with the objectives and purpose section ol the SDD
zone district as well as the other comprehensive plan elements described in detail above. The staff's
recommendation of approval is based on our understanding that the following are included in the
redevelopment:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a demolitionbuilding permit for the redevelopment
project, the developer will identify the location of one, two or three permanently restricted
employee housing units, which provide a minimum of three bedrooms. The unit(s) shall
meet the Town of Vail housing ordinance requirements. The proposal for acceplance of
13
the employee housing unit(s) shall be brought back to the PEC, and possibly Town
Council (if so desired), for their review and approval at a regularly scheduled meeting.
2. The applicant agrees to provide a drainage easement to the Town in order to provide for
the maintenance of the existing storm water drainage system located on the western edge
of this property. The location and width of the easement will be determined by the Town
Engineer.
3. The landscape plan will be amended to show the addition of one additional spruce tree
along the southern property line in order to provide a more significant visual butfer
between the streamwalk and the proposad vehicle turnaround area. The applicanl has'
agreed to be responsible for the maintenance of all landscaping on Town property tor a
period of three years. lf any vegetation dies during the three year period it will be
replaced by the property owner expense, at his expense.
4. A revocable right-of-way permit will obtained for all improvements on public property.
g.\Decvncno6\rgmtce.226
14
ATTACHI'IENT #1 o
(
I
THrs Acrm\@,n dated rhe 7Y*, ot g^1
_, 1985, by andbetrn'een ITE Ig{N oF \aE, co[DRnmrEre6aiieGfu-to as ,,vail,'
a+d t{AllER HLili:[]IR, as the ounrer oi t]re cornice Buiidb;, hereinafterreferzed to as tt0uner. "
.-. I*IEREAS, vai] i:,as reguested, ti:at certaj:r restrictions regard.inguuee (3) ernolovee !''*!" ru pJ.icec on the cornice Buirdj-,,g, t.=eioitter '
refeseC to is -t}e s,rliect eicperty:-- -'-
_ liC{, fl*FO.RE, for tJ:e sr-:ra cf Ten Dollars ($10.00) and othergood a:rd valuabLe ccnsiceration, tle sufficienry "i-"tii"r, i='her"by-'--acknovleclged, tJre lnrties hereto aElee as foll*s:
1. that portion_of tJre grcrnd level on tle subject property
_coprisej of tlrree.l3) f"elli:.:g t-it", each having "-"f"eping Ld analg!*:" and approxirnately 200 ;q.=r" ieet (refer5d to aj urptoye"Units) shalt be used exc-lusive{ as erq>lo1,ee frosirrg-r-its.
2. lbe three (3) Erployee Ur:_its shall rnairrtain a mini:nunsquare fcotage of 2O0-sqrr:are tiefper r:nit, holever, the config:r:rationof the ruriis may be altered.
3. lhe tl:ree (3) Erployee Units shall not be Leased or
lented 5"I .lV period of Less i}r"i tf,irry (30) consecutive days,. ard, if
fnY sucn @loyee Unit shaLl be rented, it stratt be rented oniy-totenallts uho a.re fulL-tirE- errgloyees jn the l{per Eagle Valley. T}re
F^r:,=gl"^J311ev shail- be desnea to inclucE-tjre c5re Valrel, Mjnturr,
5'":-111, Gilnan, Eagle-vail ard Avon, and tlre sru=ondiag areas. Arur'r-trr€ eTprolree is a person raho rrcrks an average of tnirty (30) hor:rs1nr week.
, 4. The res'urictions contained herein shalr remain i', effectfor a pericd, t$enty (20) ygags d*, th; date of tlris agreerent.
5. rhis fureenert sharr be a @venant ffini.,.,g with tjre rarxiancl shall bind the G,rner, its heirs, "o""."*r=, and assigrns, and allsr:bseguent Lessees ani olv:rers of the Subject *A;;y. ---'
ll:pF'|fFrf.n
TCr,$t oF
il
ii
iiil
iiIt. ilrt
il. riil
ii. ;ltl
tl
ilil
rl
iiil
ii;ttt
tl
;l.;l
t:rl
ii
iitl
ililil
tl
il
tltl
cosGFtFF. orn o, i!
& AEFT,ANAu, ii
^7torN(Yt a? Llw, il!urt3 :ol ;i
cot r.tEtcl^L Wt,.o ;lrr x. raoltec: nar, w.i ir. o. Dor,.o il
^ta. "oao"^oo "rarl l I(!O!t .?t.?!!: il. ll
il' ,|
:l
wal'"efIfuEG
Gtrer, Cornice S.rilding-
A15EST:
By
tc,,rn Manager
:
I
I
lr"".iog ltinutes r.or :"t"?a, 1993
(
ATTACHMENT /I2
FILE OOPY, PEC worksession.
Jack Beats stated fiat Eagle county has asked him to address the building envelope
size and that he plans to focus on this aspect of the project next.
Mike Mollica stated that a geologist has reviewed and approved the alrrent plan.
Greg Amsden asked the applicant where the fire tumaround was localed.
Jack Beals stated frat the 'hammerhead' design allows lor such a tumaround.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concemed about the size of the building
enveiopes lor each of the proposed lots and questioned how hat relates to the
County's standards tor deveicpmenl
Jack Beals stated hat Eagle County considers this a cluster resubdivision
Mike Mollica stated that the only variance the applicanl is requesting from Eagle
County pertains to locating he garages of two of the units in the front setback.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazards
and the sub-surface water on the site. She added that the driveway access to the
building envelopes needs lo be looked at as well as tre landscape plan for the project.
BillAnderson stated that he agreed with Kathy's comments'
Greg Amsden stated that the plan that the applicant was proposing 'flows with what is
already present in the neighborhood.' He stated that he agrees with Kathy's commenl
concerning revegetation. He said that the applicant needs to be sensilive to the
existing topography of the site.
Allison Lassoe stated hat she agreed with Kathy's and Bill's comments'
Jeff Bowen stated that the environmental concerns and soils study pertaining to this
project needed to be addressed.
Dallon Williams staled thal he agreed with the previous comments the PEC members
had made. He added that he was particularly concemed with the sub-surface water
flow if the site was excavated and that changing or diverting the water llow could atfect
adjacent property owners.
Diana Donovan agreed with all of the previous comments.
Mike then stated that he would dratt a letter to Eagle County outlining the
Commission's comments and concerns.
5. A request for a joint worksesslon with he Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Gommission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow the
redevelopment ol the Comice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more
Planning and Envionmental Commission
June 14. 1993 I.
o
specifically described as follows:
A part ol Tract'B'and a pan of Mill Cre€k Road, Vail village, First Filr€, County of Eagle, Siate of
Cobrado, mor€ paniqrlarly descdH as follor,vs:
Cornrnencing al fi€ Nonheast corner of Vail Vitlag€, First Filirg; therE€ Nonh 79o46'0f Wesl abng the
Southerly line of U.S. Higttway No. 6 a distarre ot 367.06 t€€l to th€ Nonheast comer ot said Trad'B';
thenc€ South 1tr14'00' West alorE the Easterly fine of said Traa 'B'; a distarne of 1 98.31 l€€t lo the
Southaastody corner d said Trsct 'B'; thenc€ Nonh 79'46'0(r West abng lho Souherty lino ol said Tracl
'B' a distarce of 100.00 f€€t to lh€ tru€ pdnt ot boginning thenc€ North 09410'07' West a diganc€ of 41.67
toet; fi€nco souh 88'27'11'W€s1 a dsrance ct 75.21 t€€t; thenc€ Sodh 27"1337'East a distance ol.
71.37 leeti $erce Nonh 5?"24'0t East a disEnc€ ol 55.11 fcet, rpre or less to lhe trua polnt ol beginring.
Applicant:
Planner:
Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per he staff memo.
Tom Braun, the applicant's representative, stated frat the Comice Building is a difficult
site to develop and ftat the applicant had four objectives which he wished to
accomplish through the present proposal. Tom staled that it was the applicant's desire
to redevelop the site, to maintain the current landscaping on the site, to offer on-site
parking to the residents of the Cornice Building and to utilize the available GRFA on
the lot for the free market condominium unit. He said that they would try to improve
the site lines ol he project.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the three employee housing units cunently on the site
are deed restricted for twenty years. She said that she is concemed with the proposed
GRFA and the credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing Task Force
specifically contemplaled a trade-otf of GRFA or density and thal an applicant cannot
have both. Conceming the setbacks, Kathy said that she did not have a problem with
the proposed setbacks. Concerning the proposed height of the Comice Building, she
staled that although il was true that the zoning allows for a 48 foot high building in this
zone district, that is within the setback area and not for those portions ol the building
located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that the verticality
was inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She stated that all ot the required
parking for the condo needs to be provided on-site. She also agreed with staff's
suggestion thal the covered wallftvay between the building and the garage needs lo be
removed.
Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's commenb.
Dalton Williams stated that he agrees with lGthy's comments except wih regard to
parking. He stated $at he felt that parking in the parklng stucture would minimize the
site impacts of this project.
Bill Anderson stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments but he digagrees with
staff's comment on page 7 of fie stalf memo conceming GRFA and hat it was his
Planning ard Envitonmor al Gommission
Jun€ 1.t, '1993
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
)
feeling hat the employee housing units should be included in the figure.
Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of the Comice Building is
nol comparable with the other buildings located in the area because fie other buildings
have more mass. He suggested that he owner remove he top level or two of the
building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 feet. With regard to
parking, he said that on-site parking is necessary but should be limited to two parking
i spaces and that the applicant could pay into the pa*ing fuM. He agreeg with staffs
i, suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA ol the condominium to 2,000
.\. square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space.
Allison Lassoe stated frat she agreed wih Kathy's comments, especially conceming
building heighl.
George t-amb and Bob Bome stated that they agreed with lGthy's @mments.
Sally Brainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Fleview Board, stated lhat she does
not have a problem with a building height of 48 feet. She said fiat she likes the
verticality of the building and feels lhat it gives the structure character. She added that
she was not in lavor of a flat roof for the Cornice Building and recommended that the
owner consider a simpler roof form that encompasses the whole struclure. She also
suggested that he covered entry be removed.
Diana Donovan stated that fiere was no parking requiremenl for this sile back when
the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot.
She said that it was important that a sun/shade analysis be conducted, and hat the
building was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staging was going to
be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that it was her opinion hat the
locations of the garage and tumaround need to be switched and that the building
needs to stay within the existing footprints. She added that she felt fiat this project
should not be an SDD and that credit should nol be given for lhe three employee
housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that lhe SDD was being
used in this instance solely as a mechanism to break the rules and she could not
support the project the way it is cunently proposed,
Dallon and Kathy both agreed with Diana's comments.
Tom Braun stated that the SDD concept allows lor creativity in development and that it
was his feeling that the Cornice Building presented a unique situation with three
employee housing units and one free-market condominium unit. He stated lhal wihout
the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically viable and probably would not be
redeveloped.
Diana Donovan stated that frere were originally eight employee units.
Tom Braun added that these were originally eight apattments.
Phnning ard Environmer al Commission
June 14, 19€3 3.
Greg Amsden agreed with Tom's @mment that it was a unique site. He said that he
, felt a hardship did exist on the site and that it was a good location lor employeeI 6ousing.
Bill Anderson asked he applicant whether he wsuld be willing to extend the deed
restriction past twenty years.
Jeff Bowen asked whether frere was a way to reorganize Unit 1 and Unit 2 of the
proposal so thal you would not have to wajk hrough lhe kitchen to get to he
bathroom.
Dallon Williarns stated that he does not think thai this proposal should be an SDD
because it is not a large enough site. He added that it was his feeling that his was an
inappropriate use of $e SDD concept.
Tom Braun inquired about the Garden of the Gods projecl.
Diana Donovan stated that he mass and bulk of this proposal needed io be reduced.
Jetl Bowen added lhat he felt hal the height of the proposed building was excessive.
Bill Anderson stated that he was not convinced that the requested additional GRFA on
the site was necessary.
Dalton Williams added that he also was not in favor of the proposed GRFA
( exceedance.
Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt the proposed site coverage, setbacks
and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being irroposed needed to be reduced.
She also inquired whether the PEC found the SDD concept lo be acceptable lor the
Cornice Building proposal.
Dlana Donovan staled that she telt that a free market condominium was nol
appropriate on his site.
Kalhy l-angenwalter stated that she felt the site $,as too small for he proposed building
and added hat an SDD for this proposal would not be beneficial to the community.
Dalton Wlliams staled that he could see some benefit to the @mmunity tor the
Comice Building to be redeveloped and having the employee units restricted forever.
Allison l-assoe stated fiat she was concerned wih the proposed location of the
windows for the units on the bottom level because they would be covered in he
wintertime with snow and would feel 'cave-like'.
Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk of the building needed to be redesigned.
Planring and Envlrcnmental Commission
Jun la tglxl 4.
o
Kristan PriE stated that the public benefit with regard to his project needed to be
, defined'
I
Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt
parking on-site would be ditficult with regard to getting in and out during he winter
months.
Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving the employee housing to
another lot in lown.
Dalton Williams said he would hate to see it moved out of he Village area.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not want lo see upper end housing hat did nol
offer parking. She added that she did not feel hat this was he best use for this
property, maybe the best use is open space.
6. A request for a joinl worksesslon with fre Design Fleview Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center lo allow an
addition on the southwest comer of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1,
Uonshead 1sl Filing/520 Lionshead Circle.
Applicanl: Oscar Tang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated hat there were
/ two parts lo the applicant's requesl, parking and the design of Alfie Packer's entrpvay.\. Andy reviewed he five points about the design made in he statf memo. There is
general concunence from the PEC members and DRB members that the proposed
addition met the exterior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width of
the passageway from the front to the back of the site as well as a concern about the
location lor locating the transition of new materials to existing materials were presenled
by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modified the design, '
creating a notch in fre side of the building. This revision was supported unanimously
by the staff, PEC and DRB.
Conceming the parking situation, Andy summarized he research the staff had done,
concluding that parking could be provided on-site in CCll, as long as the provision
regarding 50% ot fre required parking being within the main building was met.
Because of this standard, staff said that they only supported an addition of two sPaces,
which would b€ located within the interior of the main building.
Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicant but that he would like to revisit he
issue and ask for additional spaces to be located on-site.
The PEC agreed that locating the two spaces within the main building was reasonable
and the fees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16,000.
Planning and Environmernal Commission
Juno 14, 1993
l^o.-
Dalton Williams, Allison Lassoe, Jeff Bowen, Kathy Langenwaller, Greg Amsden, Diana
Donovan and Bill Anderson all were opposed to additional GRFA for this project.
Greg Amsden inquired whether the cunenl employee housing units had kitchen
facilities.
Tom Braun stated that the employee housing units had kitchen facililies as well as' common laundry and storage facilities.
Jim Lamont stated that he was in favor of this project going through the variance
process for redevelopmenl but that he was opposed to the Cornice Building increasing
its GRFA.
6; A request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family lor
an unplatted parcel located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B
for the purpose of allowing an employee housing development.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Housing Authority
Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the statf memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of this request for a rezoning lrom Agriculture Open Space to
Low Density Multi-Family with lhe five recommendations outlined on Page 7 plus a
sixth recommendation regarding the luture uses of the site.
Diana Donovan inquired why they had laken access through the schools inslead of the
four-way stop.
Kirk Aker, the architect lor the project, stated that if access was taken via the four-way
stop, that the grades would be excessive. He then showed the PEC the modifications
they had made to the project since the PEC worksession on September 27, 1993.
Diana Donovan staled that she was concerned that a large amount of existing
vegetation would be removed from the site as a result of the accel and decel lanes and
that the Housing Authority did not have the money to replace each tree and bush.
Dalton Williams inquired why such a large accel/decel lane was needed for thii project.
Kirk Aker responded that the Colorado Department of Transportation had a chart which
they went by.
Andy Knudtsen stated that he had spoken to Greg Hall concerning the accel/decel lane
and thal the daycare centers have already triggered the requirement for the accel/decel
lanes.
Plannlng and Envlronmental commisslon
octobet 11, 1993
J.
ATTACH}TENT /I4 rfr r;r;py
TOIYI] OFVAIL
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-179-2452
'December 8, 1993
Deparunent of Conntunity Developtnent
Mr: Tom Braun, AICP
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.
108 Soulh Frontage Road, Suile 204
Vail, CO 61657
RE: Cornice Building employee housing units
Dear Tom:
This letler is intended to respcnd to your letter to me dated November 24, 1993 concerning
the feasibility of providing off-siie employee housing units to replace those currently existing
on lhe Cornice Buiiding properiy. Also, although we have previously discussed stalf's
response to the questions raised in your November 15, 1993, letter to me, I ihougltt it would
be helpful to reiierate our position in this letier.
Staff response to thefourguestions raised in the November 15, 1993 tetter:
1. While the three existing uniis located in the Cornice Building do not comply vrith all of
the technical standards outlined in lhe Town of Vail Employee Housing (EHU)
Ordinance, they most closely resemble Type lV units and may be used for determining
off-siie equivalents. The three units at the Cornice Building do provide hcusing for
three people in a private living environment. While searching for off-sile employee
housing uniis, piease keep in mind the quality of the living environment as vrell as the
minimum number of people needing to be housed. Slafi believes ihat, at a minirnum,
the three employees should be provided with their ovrn bedroom.
2. All oif-site unils prcposed to rbplace the three existing Cornice Building unils must be
permanently restricted in accordance with the Town of Vail EHU Ordinance.
3. ReCevelcpmenl plans for the Cornice Building could be approved conditioned upon the
applicant providing ihe equivalent number of off-site employee housing units prior to
the issuance of either a Cemolition permit or a building permit for the Cornice Building
redevelopment. Stafl's concern is that the off-site employee housing unils are
available at the same time, or earlier than, the three existing units are removed from
the housing market.
l.
tlee t ing
5.
ATTACIIMENT /I3 o'
rrfd.IUinutes from Ocuobir 11, 1993 PEC worksession.
A request for a worksession to discuss lhe establishment of an SDD to allow the
redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a request for a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of three Type lV employee housing u.nits, located at 362 Vail
Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A pan of Tract "B'and a part of Milt Creek Road, Vail Village, Firsl Filing, County ot Eagle. Stale ot
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the.Northeasl corner of Vail Mllage, First Filing; thence North 79'46'00'Wesl along th€
Southerly tine of U.S. Highway No. 6 a di$ance of 367.06 feet to the Norlheast cornEr of said Tract "B';
thence Soulh 10o'14'00" West along rh€ Easrerly line ot said Tract "B'; a dislance of 198.31 feet to the
$utheasterly corner ot sajd Tract "8"; thence Nonh 79'45'00" Wesl along lhe Southerly line of sajd Tract
'B' a distance of 100.00 feel 1o lhe true point of beginning thence Nonh 09"10'07" West a dislance ot 41.67
feet: thence South 88027'11' Wesl a dislance of 75.21 feet: rhence South 27'13'3T Easl a distance of
2.37 feel; lhence North 57"24'00' East a di$ance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the lrue point of beginning.
e$F?'
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutle
Jim Curnutte made a brief presentation per the staft memo.
Tom Braun staled that the Cornice Building proposal has been redesigned since the
June 14, 1993 PEC worksession. He stated that he wanted feedback from the PEC
concerning whether the variance process or SDD process was more appropriate for
this proposal. Tom stated that the applicant was requesting the full 2,194 square feet
for the free-market condominium unit and that it is their feeling that this will provide a
better quality condominium unit and rental units. Concerning the SDD process, he said
that it was their feeling that the SDD process was appropriate for the Cornice Building.
Jeff Bowen stated that the SDD process required hearings before the PEC and the
Town Council and that perhaps the variance process would be more efficient. He
stated that a hardship needed to be shown for the variance process. He stated that he
was not wild about any development at this site. Jeff said that a possible way to
provide a benefit to the Town would be to build a house there and purchase two or
three employee housing units otf-site. He said lhat he is against on-site parking of any
sort.
Tom Braun inquired whether the employee housing would have to be three studio units
or whether a three bedroom home would be acceptable.
Kristan Pritz stated that if the three employee housing units were located off-site, they
would need to conlorm with the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance.
Allison Lassoe stated that the only benefit that this project could provide to the Town
was employee housing. She stated that she would like to see better quality employee
housing units provided otf-site than have the three proposed, which appear to be in the
basement of the building.
Plannlng and Environmental Commls3ion
October 11, 1993
1.
o
Dalton Williams asked what the buildable area of the lot would be if the building
conformed to the setback requirements in the HDMF zone district.
Tom Braun showed him how the lot would look on the drawing.
Dalton Williams stated that he could find a hardship on the site. He said he was
against the Cornice Building being a SDD. He stated that he would be willing to work
with the applicant on setback and parking variances, if the employee housing units
were renled to people who lived in the Town of Vail but did not own cars. He said he
also liked the idea ol providing the employee housing units ofl-site.
Greg Amsden stated that he would prefer to see this projecl addressed through the
SDD process, although he did think the size of ihe lot was a hardship. He also
suggested providing the employee housing off-site,
Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that it was an appropriaie site lor more
development due to the size of the lot, the parking situation and the traffic at this
location. She said that she felt that the SDD process was more appropriate for this
site than the variance process but with no GRFA credit. She said that no parking
should be allowed on this lot irregardless of how it is redeveloped.
Bill Anderson inquired which process the applicant would prefer.
Tom Braun stated that they would prefer the SDD process.
Bill Anderson stated that he dicj not have a firm commitment at this point to either
process. He said that he felt that the GRFA should be limited on this site to 2'195
square feet. He added that he did not feel that credit should be given for the
employee housing units. He also agreed that the applicant should explore purchasing
employee housing units off-site. He stated that he did not think this was a good site
for any kind of building due to its location (headlights in windows, noise, etc.).
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was against the SDD process in conjunction with
this project. She stated that she could not see additional square footage above the
2,195 square feet allowed on such a small site. She stated that she would like to see
the employee housing relocated off-site and be permanently deed restricted. She then
took a slraw vote of the other commission members regarding their leelings on the
appropriale process.
Bill Anderson and Greg Amsden stated that they felt that the SDD process was
appropriale for the redevelopment of this property.
The remainder of the commission members felt that variances were the way to go.
Kathy then asked for a straw vote regarding the GRFA bonus lor the employee
housing units.
Plannlng and Environmental commisslon
Oclobsr 1t, 1993
,)
Mr. Braun
December 8. 1993
Page Two
L As you know, slaff has spent considerable time reviewing ihe Cornice Building
redevelopment proposals rryhich were discussed at two PEC worksessions. Staff would
be agreeable to delermining how much, if any, of the original SDD application fee has
nol been used by staff and credit the remainder lowards future variance applications
you may submit. This determination rvill be based on an hourly rate of $40.00 per
hour.
Staff response to the November 24, 1993 letter:
The stalement in your letter is correct that all neivly construcled EHUs will be required to meet
one of the five types outlined in the EHU Ordinance. We also agree that there may be
inslances in the future where restricled EHU's may be dedicated which do not meet every
provision of the ordinance due to some peculiar situation. Staff feels that your proposal to
permanently restrict three employee housing units lo replace those currently held under a
temporary resiriction at the Cornice Building site is an unusual siiuation warranting special
revievv. While we would encourage you lo comply in every way vrith the Town of Vail EHU
Ordinance, we are open to revierving specific sites that may differ slightly from the
requirements in the EHU Ordinance. lt should be pointed out, horvever, that staif vyould
probably not look favorably upon proposed deviations from the parking or minimum square
footage requiremenls contained in the EHU Ordinance.
\{ith regard lo your specific proposal to replace the Cornice Building units with a one bedroom
Type ll EHU and a one bedroom condominium unit, statf feels that the quality of the living
environment as well as the proximity to employment and activity areas are very important
factors in determining an acceptable traCe. Slaff feets that although the three studio units are
small, ihey do provide a quality living environment in lerms of privacy, access to work, etc. In
determining acceptable alternate locaiions stalf feels that, at a minimum, the three employees
that we are attempting to house should be provided with individual bedrooms. However, i{ a
parlicular condominium has been located, we will be happy lo review your specific request at
that time.
To recap, staff agrees that in light cf the unusual situation we are dealing with in regard to
relocating and permanently restricting the Cornice Building employee housing unils, it may 3e
possible lo consider minor deviations from the standards in the EHU Ordinance. Horvever, we
feel that a determination regarding what deviations may be acceptable can only be made
through a specific reviel of the units you are proposing to deed restrict. lf the units being
proposed are deemed by staff to be of equal or bettef quality than the existing Cornice
Building units, in terms ot the quality of the living environment, accessibility to employment
and activity centers, etc., slafl may consider supporting minor devialions from the strict
siandards contained in the EHU Ordinance.
.,
Mr, Braun
December 8, 1993
Page Three
Jim Curnutte
Town Planner
xc: File
I hope this information is of assistance to you as you search for acceptable off'EitE empJoyee
houling units. However, if you should have additional questions or comments, please feel
free to conlact me at your corwenience.
3.
*i
\\
,/'
fr\
\
I.lI
6
tt
?:rtl}
!E
llr
I
t
litli
li
t
I
frr
3i
ai
ii
=I
=E3to!
3Io:
€
7
t,s
lltl
Ir-i
EI
G.
a\
{----''
iY-rW
'f',',\'ii'ii'. | :i I
\\\"il",,it'...t'\,, 1
=:
I
\\*$\$::\lel
N\\\:irFr
Iry'\/
|5l
{*$$,1
: ifi;j I
I
iri$ 6-i Ii$Sx*. ''.*=-./
|
#*
,J , i.-\
V^nt=
a/xi ,tt
I
6
ct
I
!r
!
\f
I
I
['
\
D,&
a
v
+r:itti
o
I
..
t
:?,l
,
-e;J€
'tI
!
a
$r(1
i1,i4
(o
*
^\lY,,t
q)/<.u)
7
5Jul
=dU'
?
fr'otl
ai
H:
1!
;i
t:3lol>t{=o.
'9
*
;
+g
2
-
.r-"i' !{';
etq
'r.fr
"#.'iE,
H,&i
:<e
i
t'
<r .,-\\'\
,-,, :.
-\
: \'l\
,!
'f?ffi{
I
fir
3i
gT
<l
3i
;i
=E3tol
?Ioe
€
.-' tl
It
:'
9\
r-)i !-
Il- j? -i
1
rl
; 3.
.c:5t
i.
o
gi
I
I
i
=;lt 'ol| 'Biil
iti_ i. Id --.-
|r;t ri,::) ti
IS.;l
FLValiaJtt\:aafl+ trl.r
Ttu€q,,tn
gA6T €LEVATION
scarr rrf.r U a
.rAx ?4. l1.rl. '
j'
-t
I
I
I
!
i
I
a'o.a,r-a,
I o4RFA\ 6ta {'? ^4xt.l1067 gfi tr.@. tt
711 lctr tr.@cr!
-rutfat GnA?i7 slrr xr n@.r
ItC. rla lQft at FA{IF||
t'fn DAvrD wrLLrAM HAASE ASgocrATES
.
-r-
oltlrrEl|rDyl rgrff.lllfrtlanla.t:lFe-.
t:
6
Fo
4
e.g
-----T
--;;-'-
g,
5"t
s.:
7
G
lr
:i!;-6
Eiti
'd,
--f_-_.-
I_-_
F
do
hil|
i(__i_,i
I
i
rIt r fflnqqE" !; ! ? i :il:i ". l- 'rr-',
12- A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment.of the 6omi,ce Building and a
conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee housing units,
located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A part ot Tracl "B'and a pan of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County ot Eagle, Stale of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeasl corner of Vail Village, Firsl Filing: thence North 79%6'00" West along lhe
Southerly line ol U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet lo the Northeast corner of said Tract "8";
thence South 10'14'00'West along the Easterly line of said Tract "8"; a distance of 198.31 feet lo the
Sourheaslerly corner of said Traa;B"; thence hlorth 79%6'00'Wesl along lhe Southerly line of said Tract
"8" a dislance of 100.00 feel to the true point of beginning lhence norlh 09'10'07" West a distance of 41.67
feet; thence Soulh 88.27'1 1' West a dislance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27'13'37" Easl of distance of
T1.37 teeti thence North 57.24'00" East a dislance of 55.11 feet, more or less to lhe lrue Poinl of beginning. /
Applicant: David SmithPlanner: Jim curnutte TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 28, 1994
Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to February 28, 1994 with Jeft
Bowen seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until February 28, 1994.
13. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lols
16, 19 and 21 , Seclion 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north
of l-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED UNTIL MARCH 14,'1994
Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request to March 14, 1994 with Jeff Bowen
seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item until March 14' 1994.
14. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasUan unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical center
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY
Bill Anderson made a motion to table this request indefinitely with Jeff Bowen
seconding the motion. A 6-0 vote tabled this item indefinitely.
15. Selection of a representative lo the West Vail Master Plan (Vail Commons) Task
Force.
16. Approve minutes {rom January 24,1gg4 PEC meeting.
Diana Donovan made a motion to approve the minules from the January 24, 1gg4
Planoing lnd Envlrontnenlr l comml3sion
F.bn[ry 14, t0s4 17
v1-r (-t5aq rt,JbHt't rEUTI I EH J HI'IHX I{55UL,.
5.We have considered
Suite e04, Vail Nrtionai B,rnk Buitding
lC,6 Sorjn Frofileoe HOaO West . Veit. Uotof8do 81657 . (3031a7S-215a
PETER IAMAR ASSOCTATES, tNC.
Rrt{{hl€ . O€\€IOPMENT $lAtySiS r nESEAACH
Febnrary 17,1994
Mr"fimCumune
Comn T'Iy Dcvdopment Dcpafimefit
Tswnof Vail
75Sou*r Frontase Rffid
Varl; CO 81657-
RE Ccnnice Building
DearJirn:
I. thought it would be hclpflrt rn $.mmarize orrr cen'crsation of yesterdav affl thc ohonses lvirl
,E *#lq !s tlte cornic; Burlding propsral. The fordtint
"i,irmi"t-- ipncsp.il'il)ift" "'
letter of Fehnrarv l4rh
l - ttre. ativeway will he re-designcd in accordance with Greg Holl's skctch. As dir,cusscd,
Ihe lootpnflt ol the residence will be shifted I ftrct to the nbrtlr as a part of this re-dcsisn.Atter tie $ite plan has been revisod, I s'ill havc Atpinc Enginccrin} providc thc tuflil;E'mov€menls based on a mid-sized tar and a 2l' radius.
2. The -landscape plan wili be amended to irlctude norc mahrials on the east side of thercslcronsc, and a scaring arca alurg drc Tr,rr,r.u's trdi! (bench to Uc proviued by applican$.
I
-:-itl ogltl*ify planllpecies, raiher,I.will.just disiingursn betr*?en shnrbs', sprucr #c
l3Itn: ll 11 ts acseptabtc-to yuu, wc wi!! eull out spccific rypes and siz€s ol trees at theDRB level based on Trxld's c-orumenur. Thc cxisdn! fence ii io be removerl,
3. While chaugcs n,ay F prupased
_ar time ol' DRl3 review, at this timc majrr rnar,erials to be
ustet uu the builtling inclucle fte following:
. Sla-re dle roof - grcen lo grEy. Stucco walls - iilht cold -
. Stone vencer r,n walls - bulf sandstone
" Windows - divided light
4' Revised tlryr1p 1ns and elcvations were left on your desk last night. Th€s€ plans reflect
changes to GRFA and thc addititn ol windowr to the gnrund floor-berlrqxm.
o
+{3C4}Z r.UJr
we hav€ con$dsttd y(ur commcnts regarr.ling the hcight of the building and have decided
1o qot reduce thc heieht from 35' to 33'. $hile I afpreciate your commenLs regartiingro qQr resuce rnc nergot lrom J1' I0 J3" wntle I appreclat€ your commenLs regarding
|ow the lfp may respond m our 3.f proposal, I do irirt feel t]rit a 2' reduction wilt resuft
m anl'public improvement to the building nor improvc the prop*air cnrnplianrx wifhimprovc the proprxair cornJrlianrx with
SDD review critcria" It is my hopc that thil rsue is'not even rlisid in vour niemorandum
and I would like to discuss this wirtr you fufiher. Tf, for cxampl*, you'h"ue concemg
l|ost lt^ brand tax transnnittel rnemo 76Zt # Al?q"., L
t4t-L PI:JJA 11 r JbHt't FFlOfl JFII,IHR R5S[C.FETERo Tii 479?457 P.gZ
6.
7.
ielated to the building height and s_unishadc impacrs, I will have anotler sury'shadeanallsis done for a33'1att UiritCing. Let.s Dalk abo'r,t thii issrc.
The stte plan rvtll be amended to reflect lhe acsurate location of the Town's pedcstriantrail.
Ag discussed with Kristan, we will bc leaving thc entry stair in it"q crrrrent loe*tion. I did
show Kristan the sirc line srudy prepared bt itf,ilEd$naring. ttri otiieiconcern win
tbe. sairway was enc'roachmeni inio ttre si,tuabt urof t 1,,rini*l "ui t" m"i"" that the
l_q.y,1l-"*1d :nttoT!t.tq$$ rhan the exisring buildingl As rvirh rhe buirffig heith;
tssue, lt lS my hope that thls issue not even hc misal in yotrr memorandum.
The ratlirrg abovc this element of the resjdence will be incrc*.eed from *g" ro 15" ts'.i nrs dimenslon wli match the pmposed railing detail shown on the baloony of the southelevation. As dircusserl with Krisian, it is my-hopc thar rhis modification ir.iit ctiminatc
this staff concefi,
Isill.drop-by1rg1iged preliminary landscopc latcr today, Your suggccriorr ro have coloredeleva[o$ for the PEC meeting is a good one. I will discusi rhis rvith ttie*ctlent and designer.
]!anks,fqr.ycYI.help Jim. I think that with thc excepdon of the buitding height isrue wc haveresponded to all iecues rais€d in your icttcr, Ler's diisuss any outstantlin-g isJues over lhe nexl
few days.
Sincerely,
8.
f{>-R'W=*/
Thomas A, Braun. AICP
(iary Bossow
David Flasse
TgTftL P.62
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 t 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303479-2452
February 14, 1994
Department of Communiry Development
Mr. Tom Braun
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.
108 South Frontage Road, Suite 204
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Cornice Building SDD Application
Dear Tom:
This letter is intended to tollow up on our previous conversations regarding information related
to the Cornice Building redevelopment that are of concern to statf. We would request that you
provide additional information in the following areas:
1. Please amend your site plan to provide more functional vehicle maneuvering
areas. The Town Engineer has reviewed your site plan and suggests that you
move the building to the north as lar as possible without causing building
overhangs to encroach onto public property. The Town Engineer has prepared
a sketctrdrawing which shows a functional vehicle turnaround layout. Staff
would recommend that you pay special attention to providing a landscape buffer
between the stream walk and the paved portions of the site' For your
information, although the Town Engineer has drawn up a vehicle turn around
area that is functional from a technical standpoint, he still has reservations
about its practicality. I would suggest that we set up a meeting with the Town
Engineer and your engineer to discuss this issue further no later than this week.
Once we can agree on a solution, you will need to revise your site and
landscape plans.
2. Please amend your landscape plan to show substantially more planting in the
area east of the proposed dwelling unit, Several aspen, spruce and a bench
are staff suggestions for the pocket park. Staff would also recommend that the
trees along the north and east sides of the house be moved further away lrom
the proposed building because they are currently located directly under the
eave lines. Again, staff recommends an adequate landscape bufler along the
south property line.
3. Please provide a list of general materials being proposed for the cornice
Building redevelopment.
t
Mr, Braun
February 14, 1994
Page.Two
4. Please provide new floor plans and elevation drawings which reflect the
changes you have made to the building since your initial submittal (GRFA
reduclion, 250 addition, window changes, etc.)
5. Statf would recommend that the building hoight be reduced from 35 feet to 33
feet. This would reduce the shade occurring on Vail Valley Drive as well as
bring the building into conformance with the maximum building height for single
family residential dwellings in the Town of Vail.
6. Please amend your site plan to show the accurate location of the Gore Creek
stream walk and fence.
7. Staff would recommend that you consider the relocation of the building's
entryway on the east side of the garage, as opposed to the westem side of the
property in order to decrease the encroachment into the setback in the area of
the stair. This would reduce the proposed setback encroachment and increase
the landscaping along this side of the road. We understand you have hired
Alpine Engineering to review site distances. You may want them to look at the
vehicle lurnaround as well. Please note. the site distance is not an issue for
staff.
8. Staff would recommend that you soften the appearance ol th€ garage master
bedroom element of the building. The lorm of this particular portion of the
building does not seem lo match the alpine character of the rest of the building.
This could be arcomplished by removing the deck and creating a sloped roof or
adding a full railing to the deck instead of the cunent partial rail.
As you know, the Cornice Building application has been scheduled for review by the Planning
and Environmental Commission on February 28, 1994. In order for staff to have adequate
time to review your revised submittal, we musl receive the above referenced information no
later than Thursday moming, February 17, 1994 at 9:00 a.m.
We would like to apologize for the problems we both dealt with on Friday. The parking turn-
around issue should have been resolved shortly after it was identified as a concern by the
Town Engineer on February 2, 1994. As you will recall, his written comments were faxed to
you on February 3, 1994. This issue in turn had implications on building location and
landscaping which we felt needed to be resolved before the project was presented to the
PEC.
' {*'t
r ri a" ft I
Mr, Eraun
February 14, 1994
Page Three
lf you should have any questions orcommenls regarding this letter, please feel free to contact
me at your convenisnce.
Siincerely,k"ffi n'{j4r
Town Planner
oc: Grqg Hall
Community Dwelopment Director
gt-H5-1554 U4;4btsH FHUfl l-t tEt-( J Ht'lHfi H55UL,
i\,'h. Fr^{',.rr a* }.-'*'\r
*[\***-\ft.'1+ F -S-t*,ft
-11l A^q' A*4 an**'t"..4*'3,
\
T* ulrltp"llsl
4 (at4at H. ul
$L**
\rr
,.,1,,
lF
\,'\",: .
-|-
tl'ett
T61qg F. Bt"
-(Retum to ,,1 t I, v ( .ttarctfk-
Town Planner
o,'L),iPROJEGT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
COMMENTS NEEDED
BRIEF DESCRIPTION
DATE OF PUBLIC HEAR
vr6- s /r=s
/BY: 7,,/R
T
OF THE PROPOSAL:
Aer'^o 1r"L*;t4 e {' e.6is{,g L-rt /,g,
PJBLIC.ItffiKs
Reviewed by: Gren&Tsni Date:
v
Comments:
3crrgaro<B dffii not arbvr [c{ 3ry, Fx{',i3tFxer.r
5l::4:'ffJ3ll, ePot gr streei
faru$l rnrfr ic rc: d/ Porgrfx\4POr€
"qr*c>r 1c\(c/)e aar.ts be dc..: */o bccX,cx\<r,tv., (A,l Vatre.l :''ir'vg
need eercca\ar @dPerrn'r 1r, i-'tt"d;crry,rr\.
nll ^r*r*
ta\', tQrg Oan - nr6cl p:!1,c urJa1 prt' i ''" tr' i g':'r: tt'r'rr htir'l
.,t60t*) &*t'' i
-,tBeviewed by: lald Pals'
Comments:
ivgy,r 4cY€t-t\tr\3 Ali,r'rl v triV4llr\l tzoact'
@trr*,, i.r arrt.l :to{/{y ''' :1tit flnt'rtr'C)
Retum " l7^ fimre#
PFIOJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
De^u / rzL.-U ef-€Xis{,,ge Lu',d,*
.//", ,/-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed bV: ."2 <::={
Comments:
/l.4 o (7lz-u lrlt:''t -S
a-d / -'
Date: 'rLz'€ 2'/
o
The Cornice Building
REVISEI)
Special Development District Application
Environmental Impact Report
January 21,1994
I. INTRODUCTION/PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Summary
The purpose of this report is to present information regarding revisions to the proposed Special
Development District (SDD), for the redevelopmeni of the Cornice Building. The Cornice
nuildiqe site is located in the eastem portion of Vail Village and is currently zoned High Density
Multi-Family (HDMF). Existing development on the site includes one condominium, three
lgslncted employee rental units, and a small space that has periodically been used as office space.
This redevelopment involves the demolition of the existing structure and the reconstruction of a
new building. Development proposed for the sile is limited to one single-family unit. In addition,
three restricted employee rental units will be provided off-site as a element of this development
proposal.
As with many of the buildings constructed during the early years of Vail, t}re Comice Building was
not built to exceedingly high standards. The building is in need of redevelopment flrom the
standpoint of both construction and appearance. In addition, the building does not comply with a
number of the Town's zoning standards. The legal non-conforming aspects of the building are
generally a function of the very small parcel the building is located on. Only .084 acres, or 3,659
square feet in size, the parcel itself is a non-conforming lot. In addition, the four units on the site
exceed the two units that are permitted by the HDMF zone disfict.
This revised submittal reflects a number of changes that have been made to development plans
previously submitted to the Town. Many of these changes were made in response to inputlrom
the Staff and PEC during two work sessions that have been held over the past few months.
Significant revisions and other important elements of this proposal are summarized below.
Significant Revisions and Important Elements of the Proposal
Significant revisions and important elements proposed by the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building include the following:
. The redevelopment of this high profile Vail Village site will replace an outdaied structure with a
new high quality building.
. The Tyrolean design of the proposed building will further the design goals of Vail Village.
. Proposed redevelopment is within allowable GRFA and will include less density than permitted
by zoning - two units are permitted for the site and only one dwelling unit is proposed.
The proposed redevelopment will eliminate an existing non-conforming situation with density
(four units currently exist on the site and only two are permitted) and will reduce existing
setback encroachments.
The redevelopment will maintain and upgrade three existing restricted employee rental units by
providing these units off-site, While the existing restriction on these units only last until the
year 2005, if approved, these rental units will be permanently restricted in accordance with the
Town's EFIU Ordinance.
All required parhng will be provided on-site and enclosed within a garage.
THE CORMCE BT]ILDING
. The proposal is in compliance with all applicable design criteria, including the Vail Village
Master Plan, the Vail land Use Plan and the SDD Desien Review Criteria.
Report Organization
This report describes the proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building, existing site conditions
and impacts associated with the proposed development. The findings of this report also address
lPecific submittal requirements and review criteria outlined in Section 18.4O - Special Development
Districts, and 18.56 - Environmental Impact Reports. This report is divided into the following
sections:
Tntroduction
This section presents a brief description of the proposed development, outlines important elements
of the proposal, and describes the organization of this report.
This section describes the property size and location, access, surrounding land use, existing and
proposed zoning, and deviations from zoning standards.
Relationship to SDD Criteria
A written response to the projects relationship to Special Development District Design Cri0eria are
presented in this section.
trnvironmental Tmoact Report-(ElR)
This section of the report includes an evaluation of enyironmental impacts related to the proposal.
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
ProJect Description
Since it was originally constructed in the mid-lftiO's, the Cornice Building has been the subject of
numerous development proposals. Due to the extremely small size of the parcel, virtually all of
these requests involved exceptions to zoning standards. The original building included eight small
rental apartrnents. With the exception of new decks and a minor building expansion in 1976, the
overall form of the building has not changed since it was built. In the mid-7O's four aparffnents on
the upper floor were converted to one dwelling unit. During the process of converting this space,
the owner agreed to the Planning Commission's condition of approval to restrict three of the
remaining apartments to employee rental units for a period of 20 years. For a variety of reasons,
this restriction was not formally recorded until 1985. Since 1985, there have been approximately
three proposals to redevelop this site. None of these proposals have been approved by the Town.
The redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves the demolition of the ensting building. This
building includes the following uses:
THECORMCEBLIILDING
Fxisting Ruilding
| - 1,279 sq. ft, open market dwelling unit
3 - restricted employee rental units (225 q. ft. each)
L - 225 square feet of office/miscellaneous space
The proposed redevelopment of the building includes the following uses:
Profned Developmenl
I - 2,195 sq. ft. single family dwelling unit
3 - enclosed parking space
In addition to the single-family home proposed for the site, the three existing rental units will be
replryed off-site. As a condition of approval, the applicant will replace these units by restricting
another unit (or units) within the Town of Vail that provide an equivalent number of bedroomi
(three). These units will be restricted in accordance with the Town of Varl Employee Housing
Ordinance. The restriction of off-site units to replace the three existing units will be resolved prior
to the issuance of a building permit for the redevelopment of the Comice Building.
Property Size and Location
The subject parcel is .084 acres, or 3,659 square feet. The property is located in the "East Village"
on Vail Valley Drive adjacent to Gore Creek. The minimum lot size of a HDMF lot is 10,0O0
square feet of buildable site area. As such, the Comice Building parcel is a legal non-conforming
site.
Surrounding Land Use
The Cornice Building is surrounded by a variety of different land uses. To the north is the Vail
Village Parking Structure. To the west is the Vail Athletic Club, a mixed use facility that includes
both residential and commercial uses. To the south is the Gore Creek stream tract. To the east is a
Town of Vail owned open space tract and the Tyrolean Inn, a condominium project that includes a
limited amount of commercial space. The residential uses proposed for the Cornice Building are
consistent with surroundins uses.
Access/Circulation
The Cornice Building is located at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive.
Vehicular access to the three proposed on-site parking spaces is provided Vail Valley Drive.
Access to on-siie pa.rking has been sited to minimize potential conflicts with the site's proximity to
the "Blue Cow Chute". In order to provide adequate site lines, the driveway is approximately 80'
from the corner of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive. In addition, internal circulation
includes a "hammerhead design" which will allow vehicles to turnaround while on-site. This
design eliminates potential difficulties of cars backing directly out onto Vail Valley Drive. Finally,
the number of cars that can be parked on-site is limited to only three. The proposed single family
use and limited number of parking spaces will limit the overall amount of trip generation to and
from the site.
The parcel is located directly on the Vail Village Bus Route, and is also located immediately
adjacent to the Ford Park/Vail Village Pedestrian Trail. Existing sidewalks along the Vail Village
Parking Structure site, the Vail Athletic Club, and along Vail Valley Drive provide additional
pedestrian circulation.
THECORMCEBIIILDING
Existing Zoning and Proposed Development Standards
The Cornice Building is located on a parcel currently zoned High Density Multi-family. A stated
1bove, the existing Cornice Building does not comply with a number of zoning requirements. The
following table illustrates how both existing and proposed development relates to the HDMF
development standards.
Standard
Units
GRFA
Setbacksx
Height
Site Coverage
t andscaping
Parking
HDMtrZoning
2
2,195
20' all sides
48'
2,Otz
r,o97
varies
4
1,954
4'front
8'side(north)
3'side(south)
12'rear
23',
1,225
2,434
0 spaces
I
2,r95
11' front
3'side(north)
12'side(south)
2.5'reat
35'
1,46r
L,534
3 spaces
trxistingRuilding ProfrrsedRuilding
Setbacks on the existing building are measured to the outside edge of existing second level
decks.
The following summaries the relationship of proposed development standards to existing
development on the site and HDMF development standards:
Units
There are currently 4 units on the site while exisling zoning permits only two units.
One unit is proposed for the site. Not only is a non-conforming situation being
eliminated, the site is proposed to be development at less density than is permitted
by underlying zoning.
GRFA
Allowable GRFA for the site is 2,195 square feet. Proposed development will
utilize all 2,195 square feet of allowable GRFA.
Setbacks
The HDMF zone district requires 20' setbacks on all sides. Given the parcel size of
3,659 square feet, it is virtually impossible to build on this site without some degree
of setback encroachment. In order to minimize encroachments, the main portion of
the building has been designed with an approximately 3I'x39' footprint. This
footprint accommodates a three-car garage. As indicated above, the existing
building encroachments from 12' to I7' into required setback areas. While the
proposed building would encroach to within 2-3' of the north and east property
line, encroachments to the west and south will be reduced to only 7'and 10',
respectively. The proposed building has been sited as far back as possible from Vail
Valley Drive and Gore Creek. This has been done to maintain space between the
building and the road, maintain vehicular site lines, and provide a buffer between
TTIE CORMCE BTJILDING
the building and the Gore Creek Stream Walk. In addition, it should be noted that
property immediately adjacent to the southern and eastern boundary of the site is a
Town of Vail open space tract
The proposed building height is 35'. This is considerably less than the allowable
48' height limit.
Site Coverage
The proposed site coverage is39.9Vo of the existing site area. This is in compliance
with the 557o site coverage requirement.
I "ndscaoi ng
The proposed landscaping ts 4l.9Vo of the site area. This is in compliance with the
307o landscaping requirement. In addition to on-site landscaping, new plant
materials are proposed for the Town of Vail parcel that borders the site on the east
and north.
Parking
The parking requirement for the proposed development is 2.5 spaces. Three spaces
are proposed for the site. These spaces are all enclosed within a garage, thereby
mmplying with the zone disffict's parking requirement and the requirementfor'75Vo
of all required parking to be enclosed and screened from view.
Purpose of the Special Development District
The SDD process provides a mechanism to allow for deviations to existing development standards
of a site's underlying zoning. The purpose of the SDD process is to allow "flexibility and
creativity in the development of land". The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building
involves deyiations to the following HDMF development standards: \
Setbacks
The proposed structure encroaches into the front, sides and rear setbacks. As described above,
building setbacks encroach to within 2-3' of the north and east property line and between 13' and
9' on the west and south, respectively. However, the proposed building footprint will allow for
greater separation between both Vail Valley Drive and the Gore Creek Streamwalk than is currenfly
provided.
Uses
Permitted uses in the HDMF zone district are limited to multi-family dwellings and lodges. Single
family development is not permitted as a conditional or permitted use in the HDMF zone district.
As a part of the SDD review process, the PEC and Town Council may approve uses that are more
restrictive than uses permitted by the underlying zone district. In this case, a single family use is
more restrictive than a multi-family use. As such, the approval of this SDD will allow for single
family residential development as a permitted use.
THECI)RMCEBTIILDING
Nine criteriaare used to evaluate special development district proposals. The following responses
have been prepared to demonstrate this proposals compliance with these design criteria.
III. RELATIONSHIP TO SDD CRITERIA
Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Response:
The architecture of the proposed building is very compatible with the
established Tyrolean design theme of Vail Village. The gable roof form and
building materials will relate well to the established architectural character of
the Village. The proposed building height is 35' and will provide a
comfortable relationship with surrounding buildings and uses.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
Response:
The proposed re-development is compatible with existing residential uses found
on surrounding sites. The site's proximity to the Village, Ford Park and the
Gore Creek Streamwalk provide for a convenient and workable relationship with
surrounding uses and activities.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Response:
2.5 spaces are required for the single family residence. This requirement will be
satisfied on-site by a three-car garage.
Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and
urban design plans.
Response:
This proposal is consistent with a number of goals and policies articulated in
the Vail Village Masler Plan and the Vail l-and Use Plan. For example, the
project will:. Significantly upgrade a deteriorated property. Maintain the Vail Village DesigrTheme
Marntain and upgrade restricted employee rental units
Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on
which the special development district is proposed.
A.
B.
c.
D.
E.
THECORMCE BTIIIDING
F.
Response:
The only applicable hazard is the 100-year flood. As indicated by the official
FEMA Flood Plan Maps, the proposed building is not within the 100-year flood
line of Gore Creek.
Site plan, building design and location and open space provisions designed to produce a
functional development responsive and sensitive !o natural features, vegetation and overall
aesthetic quality of the community.
Response:
The small size of this parcel creates many challenges in site planning and building
design, A number of factors have influenced the siting of this building. First, to
preserve all mature vegetation on the site; second, to maintain as much setback as
possible from Vail Valley Drive; third, to maintain as much setback as possible from the
Gore Creek Stream Walk; and finally, to allow for vehicular access that is sensitive to
the Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive intersection.
A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing on and off-site
taffic circulation.
Response:
As described above, the proposed driveway has been located as far as possible
from the intersection on Vail Vallev Drive and East Meadow Drive and the site
plan is designed to allow vehicles t6 turn around on-site. Additional pedestrian
and vehicular circulation issues are discussed below in the EIR
G.
Response:
Given the limited site area of this parcel, there is little in the way of "functional
open space". The proposed development does, however, preserve all mature
trees and include a landscape plan that represents a significant improvement over
existing conditions. landscape improvements are also proposed to Town of Vail
owned land adjacent to the site.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the special development district.
Response:
This project will be completed in one phase.
H.Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, recreation, views and function.
THECORMCEBIJIIDING
The following environmental impact report has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of a
Special Development Distnct. The EIR has been prepared in accordance wittr th-e provisions of
chapter 18.56 - Environmental Impact Reports. Due io the nature of development proposed and
the project's location in an established neighborhood, the Community Development Staff has
requested the following elements be addressed by this report. Each of these elements have been
addressed as a part of the SDD application. As such, this report summarizes information
previously presented in the SDD application.
Hydrologic Conditions
The only applicable hazard is the 100-year flood. As indicated by the official F'EMA Flood Plan
Maps, the proposed building is not within the 100-year flood plain of Gore Creek. A survey
prepared by a licensed surveyor indicating the elevation of the lOGyear flood has been submitted
to the Town.
Traffic/Circulation Conditions
The Cornice Building is located at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive.
Vehicular access to the three proposed on-site parking spaces is provided Vail Valley Drive. At the
recommendation of the Town Engineer, access to on-site parking has been located at the southern
most end of the site. The driveway is approximately 80' from the corner of Vail Valley Drive and
East Meadow Drive, thereby ensuring adequate site lines for vehicles leaving the site. In addition,
intemal circulation includes a "hammerhead design" which will allow vehicles to tumaround while
on-site. This design will allow vehicles to drive out of the site without backing onto Vail Valley
Drive.
The number of vehicle trips that will be generat€d by the site are very limited due to the proposed
development (single family home) and the limil,ed number of on-site parking spaces (three). ITE
trip generation figures for a single family home are approximately l0 trips per day on average.
However, this residence will in all likelihood be used as a second home. Based on traffic studies
completed for other developments in Eagle County, second homes generate an average of 3.5 trips
per day. This limited number of trips represents a minimal impact on the existing road system.
The parcel is located directly on the Vail Village Bus Route, and is also located immediately
adjacent to the Ford Park/Vail Village Pedestrian Trail. Existing sidewalks along the Vail Village
Parking Structure site, the Vail Athleric Club, and along Vail Valley Drive provide additional
pedestrian circulation.
IY. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Description of Development
Items to be addressed in the Description of Development section of the EIR include:l hoject Boundaries
2 Present and Proposed Uses of the Site
3. Present and Proposed Zanrng of the Site
4. Quantitative Information
TIIECORMCE BTIILDING
5. List of Specific Regulations tlrar Apply
6. Development Plan
Each of the considerations listed above are addressed in the SDD application.
IV. APPENDIX
AdJacent Property Owners
Tract A - Vail Village lstFiling
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Tract C - Vail Village 1 st Filing
Townof Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Vail Village T ran sfrortation Center
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
T)nolean Condominiums
Tyrolean Condominium Association
c/o Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail Athletic Club
Attn. Debra Swain
3szEastMeadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657 .-=s 1 , ^
I la+lcl+- odgacrts AYf o.''J ':l I v
TTTE CORMCE BIIILDING
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on February 14, 1994, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
ln consideration of:
1. A request for a minor subdivision located at 363 Beaver Dam Road and 383 Beaver
Dam Circle/Lots 2 & 3, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: John Tyler/John Tyler, Jr./Robert TylerPlanner: Mike Mollica
1. n lcqucsl, rul a wuthscsslutl lur a lltdjol v\..1t ri^tt,r tr,,/l attvtirtiutr <1rlu )rriudr,r\ vario,,,.1'
to the Lionshead Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associales
offices located at 520 Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant Vail Associates, Inc.Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for a worksession for a major CCll exterior alteration and setback variance
to allow for the expansion of dwelling units at the Lionshead Center Building located at
520 Lionshead Mall, Units 208,209,308 and 309Aot 5, Block 1, VailLionshead 1st
Fiting.
Applicant: Victor Cano Faro, Transcon lnvestments, Inc., and Jose Luis
ChainPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for a minor subdivision located at 4316 Streamside Circle WesUlots 2 and 3,
Block 4, Bighorn 4th Addition.
Applicant: Walter KirschPlanner: Randy Stouder
5. A request for a conditional use to allow for a Type ll Employee Housing Unit to be
located at 1358 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 21, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing.
Applicant Chris KempfPlanner: Randy Stouder
6. A request for a worksession to discuss proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District;Chapter 18.32, Agricultural and Open
Space District; and Chapter 18.36, Public Use District of the Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant Town of VailPlanner: Jim Cumutte
7.
o
A request for a worksession for a major CCI exterior alteration to allow for the
redevefopment of the Covered Bridge Building located at227 Bridge Streevlots C and
D and a part of Lot B, Block 5-8, VailVillage 1st Filing.
A request for an SDD to allow for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a
conditional use for the off-site relocation of three existing employee housing units,
located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, Stale of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencine et lhF Northdast corner of Vail Villaoe. First Filino: thence Nonh 79"46'00" West alonq the
southeriy llne ot u.s. Hrgnway No, 6 a 0tslance ot 3ti/,utj reei to rhe Not (heast corner of salo l ract B ;
thence South 10"14'00" Wesl along the Easlerly line of said Tract "8"; a distance of 198.31 feel to lhe
Southeasterly corner of said Tract '8"; thence North 79%6'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tracl
'8" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence north 09"10'07" West a distance ot 41.67
feel; thence Soulh 88"27'1 1 " Wesl a distance of 75.21 feet; lhence South 27'13'37" East of distance of
77.37 feet; thence North 57'24'00" East a dislance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant;
Planner:
Hillis of Snowmass, Inc. and East West Partners
Mike Mollica
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Rod and Beth Slifer
Kristan PriE
9.
10.
A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeVPart of Lots B and
C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing.
A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary
Residentialto Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more
specifically described as follows:
A parcal ol lshd In ths Southu.st Ouader ol Sedlon 14, To|nshh 5 Sorilh. Range 8l West of th€ 6th Pnncipd Meddbn. mo(e particuhrly d63crb€d as
lo{oryg:
goginnhg at a polht whsflca a brrss crp sel lor. witnrs6 comer tor th€ ftst Quart€. ol 3dd Sadion 14, berqii (North 29 degrgss 28 mhules 5l recoids
W.st, l073.Og leet De.d) (NoAh.l3 D€grsa8 15 minules 02 seconds West 915.96 l€€t Measursd): Thence North 7,1 degne. 05 minu63 tg second3 E l,
10.76 Lel; Thencp 183,62 tee't along lhe rfc ol a curve lo th€ dtht trhlch ar€ subtendr a qhord bearing Nofih 88 degreeg 12 nlnutes 30 reconds East,
181-76 leeq Th€nce Soulh 77 dsgrE$ 40 minut$ 2l Beconds E€st 6477 h€ri Thence 1,17..13 leel along the rrc ol a co|e io lhe ldt which erc subtends a
dlod bearing Norlh 86 degrees 36 minule! 17 secondg Eart, 145.80leet Thercs Nonh 70 degrees 52 mlnutes 55 s€conds East, 408,55 fset: Thsnco 5,1.10
feet dmg th! arc of a cu 9 !o the righ 'ritlich .rc subl.nds a drord bodng Souh ,17 degrees 20 mindes 37 s€cond! EaBt, 44,20lgtt Th€nca Soulh 14
degre$ 25 mlnul€6 50 seconds Was! 110.51 le€t;
Thonco South 68 dogree8 18 minules 9l secoflds WEsl, 320,(I) l.et;
Ihenca Nonh 19 degrees 07 mlnules 05 seconds We8l. 50-m bd;
lienca Soulh 77 deg|€€6 4{l minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 leet:
Thenca Sorrth 10 dEgr€es 53 mlnules 33 s.conds We3L 36.48led:
Thgncs North 87 degrrsg 40 minu6 08 sgcgnds Wesl, 337.72 legt;
Theoca (Nonh tl degrees 52 mhde6 13 seconds E6r, 130.m |eet Dood) Nonh 11 dggf€er 55 mlnutEs 31 soconds East, 129.75 tss( M..sured) ?o the
POINT OF BEGINNING,
Beedne llom G-L,O. recod to. SoUh hrfi ol Sedion lne bsftrEeo Secdons l+15. (c.L.O. reca.d Sourh 01 degees 30.2 mlnlnes Eas0 Fo(|lh 01 dsgroea 38
mlnut{ 32 seconds Eigl Mg$urd)
Applicant:Juanita l. Pedotto
11. A request for a minor exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to allow for an
enclosed trash and grease dumpster at the southwest corner of the Gore Creek Plaza
Building, specifically located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of Block 5-B, VailVillage 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Charles Rosenquist, represented by Kevin Glair and Tom
ArmstrongPlanners: Randy Stouder/Shelly Mello
12. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between VailVillage 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way.
Applicant VailValley Medical Center
i",.e,,,,.;t. tirr,,.,1 ,rti..*..rir..r' i-.trL:;:;:l:li;:;T:L'r'
'13. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots
16, 19 and 21 , Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally located north
of l-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway DevelopmentPlanner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO THE MARCH 14, 1994
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMISSION MEETING
I
AL
- charges -
AIJTA owner Policy
Tax Report
--TOTAL--
****WITH yot R REMITTANCE
o,
EA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE A
o-
our order No. V19804
For Information OnlY
$1,148.00
$2 O. OO
$1,168.00
PI,EASE REFER TO ouR oRDER NO. V19804.****
8: OO A.M.1.
2.
Effective Date: Septenber 25, 1992 at
Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured;
rALTArr ownertS PoliCy
1987 Revision (Arnended 1990)
Proposed fnsured:
C. DAVID SMITH
95S7,5O0. OO
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this couunitrnent and covered herein is:
A Fee sinPle
Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
WALTER A. HIITTNER Al.lD BARBARA J. HIITTNER ' as Joint Tenants
5. The land referred to ln this conmitrnent is described as
follows:
A PART OF TRACT B AND A PART OF l'tILL CREEK ROAD' VAII VILLAGE'
FIRSTFTLTNG,COT'NTYOFE.AGLE,STATEOFCOLORADOMORE
PARTICUI..ARLY DESCRIBED AS FOIJ,OWS:
CoMMENCING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAIL VTLLAGE, FIRST
FTLING, THENCE NoRTH 79 DEGREES 46 MINUTES 00 sEcoNDs wEsT
ALONG ign SOWUERIJY LINE OF U.S. I1IGHWAY NO. 5, A DIS1'ANCE_9F
36?.00 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER Or SAID TRACT B; THENCE
SOUTH 10 DEGREES 14 IIINIIIES OO SECONDS WEST ALONG TIIE EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID TRACT B; A DISTANCE OF 198.31 FEET TO THE
SoUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF SAID TRACT B; THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES_
45 l'tINuTES OO WEST AL€NG THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID 1IRACT B' A
PAGE 1
3.
4.
ALTA COltl'!ITt'IENT
SCHEDI'IJE A
o
our Order No. v19804
fr-
DrsTAl{CE OF 17O.OO FEET, THENCE SOTIIH 74 DEGREES 15 MINt:tEs 0o
sEcoNDS WEST Al{D ALONG inn soutnERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT B, A
DISTAI{CE OF 1OO.OO FEFT TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNTNC' THENCE
NORTH 09 DEGREES 10 }'TNUTES O? SECONDS WEST A DTSTANCE OF 4L'67
rnnr; THENCE soUTH 88 DEGREES 2? MINIIIES 11 sBcoNDs ![EsT A
pfSfiNCn OF ?S.21 FEET,. THENCE SOUTH 27 DEGREAS 13 MINTIIES 37
gEC6NDS EAST A DISTAI1C! OF 77.37 FEETT IHENSE NSRTH 57 DEGREES
24 MTNUTES OO SECONDS EAST A DTSTANCE OF ss.1l FEET, l'toRE oR
LESS TO TITE TRUE POINT OF BEGTNNING.
PAGE
o
ALTA COMI'!IT
SCHEDITIJE B-1
(Requirenents)
MENT
Our Order No. V19804
2.
3.
thb following are the requirements to be conplied with:
1. Palment to or for the account of the grantors or rnortgagors of
tha full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
proper instrurnent(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insirea nust be eieiuted and duly filed for record, to-wit:
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED November 21, 1989, FROI'| WALTER A. HIIITNER
AND BARBARA J. HUTTNER TO THE PUBLIC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COUNTY FOR THE USE OF
ALPINE FEDERAIJ SAVTNGS AND I,OAN ASSOCIATION TO SECURE THE SUM OF
9169,700.00 RECORDED Decernber 01, 1989, IN BOOK 518 AT PAGE 957.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS ASSTGNED TO FIRST DENVER MORTGAGE COMPANY IN
ASSIGNI'{ENT RECORDED JUIY 18, 1990, IN BOOK 533 AT PAGE 836.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS ASSIGNED TO CENTURY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION IN
ASSIGNI'{ENT RECORDED JuIy 18, L99O, IN BOOK 533 AT PAGE 837.
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED June 04, lggo, FROM WALTER A' HUTTNER AND
BARBARA J. HTJ1TTNER 1TO THE PUBLTC TRUSTEE OF SAGLE COI'NTY FOR THE USE OF
oMNIBANK souTHEAsT To SEcuRE THE sttM oF $25,ooo.oo RECORDED JuIy 30' 1990,
IN BOOK 534 AT PAGE 601.
SAfD DEED OF TRUST vfAS FITRTHER SECURED BY ASSIGNI{ENT OF LEASES A}ID RENTS
RECORDED JuLy 30, 1990, rN BOOK 534 AT PAGE 602.
EXTENSION AGREEI,TENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OI' TRUST WAS RECORDED JUNE
18, L99L, IN BOOK 556 AT PAGE 436.
EXTENSION AGREEMENT TN CONNECTION WITH SATD DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
January 29, L992' IN BooK 571 AT PAGE 679.
EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COUPANY TTIAT THE TERMS, CONDITIONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFTED'
WARRANTY DEED FROM WAIJTER A. HUTTNER AND BARBARA J. HIITTNER , AS JOiNt
TenaNtS TO C. DAVID SMITH CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPERTY.
===
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETI'RN
ADDRESSES ON DOCUI'TENTS SENT FOR RECORDING! !
PAGE 3
4.
5.
6.
fr- f:
ALTA COMUITIiTENT
SCHEDTJLE B-1
. (Reguirenents) Our order No' V19804
PAGE 4
o,
ALTA COMMITT'tENT
SCHEDIILE B-2
(ExeePtions) our order No' v19804
The policy or poticies to be issued will contain exceptions to the
iJir-o"i"g- unle-ss ittE iur" are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the ConpanY:
1. standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6.TaxesandasgessmentsnotyetdueorpayableandsPecial
assessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land'
8. tiens for unpaid water and selrer charges, lf any'
g. RTGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VEIN OR IJODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFRoI,|sHoULDTHESAI'IEBEFouNDToPENETnATEoRINTERSECTTHEPREMTSES
As RESERVED rN uNr?ED srATEs PATENT RECoRDED July 13 ' L899 ' rN BooK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AIITHORITY OF THE
uNITED STATES AS RESERVED IN ITNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 13' 1899',
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
]'1. RESTRICTIVE covENANTS wHIcH Do NoT coNrAIN A FoRTEITI'RE oR RSVERTER cI,AUsE'
BUT OMITTING RESTRICTIONS, IF ANy, BASED ON RACE' COLOR' RELIGION' OR
NATTqNAL oRrcrN, As coNTAiNED rN illstnuungT RES9PDED August 10, 1952, rN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE 179.
12. TERMS, CONDITIONS Al{D PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED August 03' 1972 IN
BOOK 224 AT PAGE 994.
13. STORM SEWER INLET AFFECTING SI'BJEST PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON I!'IPROVE}I8NT
IOCATION CERTIFICATE PREPARED NOVEMBER 13, 1989 BY INTER-I'IOI'NIAIN
ENGINEERING LTD. PRO'IECT NO' 893925'
14. EXISTING LEASES A}ID TENN{CIES.
t lrlF t
--l
6
--,v
ARANIEE CO!{PANY
DISCLOSI'RE STATEX'TENT
Required by senate Bill 91-14
A) The subject real property nay be located in a special taxing
district.
. B) A CertLficate of Taxes Due listing each taxing- Jurlsdiction
may be obtained from the county Treasurer or the county
Treasurer's authorized agent-
c) The infornation regarding special distrigts and the boundaries' of such districts iay be-obtained from the Board of County
comrnissioners, the county clerk and Recorder, or the county
Assessor.
ReguLred bY Senate Bill 92-143
A) A Certlficate of Taxes Due listing each taxing Jurlsdiction' shall be obtained from the county Treasurer or the county
Treasurer's authorized agent-
lr ,t"3 'a
-_-arLT EflPY
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
io3 -479-2 I i 8 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
DecemberS, 1993
Department of Communiry Deve lopment
Mr. Tom Braun, AICP
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.
108 South Frontage Road, Suite 204
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Cornice Building employee housing units
Dear Tom:
This letter is intended to respond to your letter to me dated November 24, 1993 concerning
the feasibility of providing off-site employee housing units to replace those currently existing
on the Cornice Building property. Also, although we have previously discussed staff's
response to the questions raised in your November 15, 1993, letter io me, I thouglrt it would
be helpful to reiterate our position in this letter.
Staff response to the four questions raised in the November 15, 1993 letter:
1. While the three existing units located in the Cornice Building do not comply with all of
the technical standards outlined in the Town of Vail Employee Housing (EHU)
Ordinance, lhey most closely resemble Type lV units and may be used for determining
off-siie equivalents. The three units at the Cornice Building do provide housing for
three people in a private living environment. While searching for off-site employee
housing units, please keep in mind the quality of the living environment as well as the
minimum number of people needing to be housed. Staff believes that, at a minimum,
the three employees should be provided with their own bedroom.
2. All off-site units proposed to replace the three existing Cornice Building units must be
permanently restricted in accordance with the Town of Vail EHU Ordinance.
3. Redevelopment plans for the Cornice Building could be approved conditioned upon the
applicant providing ihe equivalent number of off-site employee housing units prior to
the issuance of either a demolition permit or a building permit for the Cornice Building
redevelopment. Stalfs concern is that the off-site employee housing units are
available at the same time, or earlier than, the three existing units are removed from
the housing market.
r}..
Mr. Braun
December 8, 1993
Page Two
4. As you know, statf has spent considerable time reviewing the Cornice Building
redevelopment proposals which were discussed at two PEC worksessions. Staff would
be agreeable to determining how much, if any, of the original SDD application fee has
not been used by staff and credit the remainder towards future variance applications
you may submit. This determination will be based on an hourly rate of $40.00 per
hour.
Staff response to the November 24, 1993 letter:
The statement in your letter is correct that all newly constructed EHUs will be required to meet
one of the five types outlined in the EHU Ordinance. We also agree that there may be
instances in the future where restricted EHU's may be dedicated which do not meet every
provision of the ordinance due to some peculiar situation. Staff feels that your proposal to
permanently restrict three employee housing units to replace lhose currenfly held under a
temporary restriction at the Cornice Building site is an unusual siiuation warranting special
review. While we v.rould encourage you to comply in every way with the Town of Vail EHU
Ordinance, we are open to reviewing specific sites that may differ slightly from the
requirements in the EHU Ordinance. lt should be pointed out, however, that staff would
probably not look favorably upon proposed deviations trom the parking or minimum square
tootage requirements contained in the EHU Ordinance.
With regard to your specific proposal to replace the Cornice Building units with a one bedroom
Type ll EHU and a one bedroom condominium unit, staff feels that the quality of the living
environment as vuell as the proximity to,employment and aclivity areas are very important
factors in determining an acceptable trade. Statf feels that although the three studio units are
small, they do provide a quality living environment in terms of privacy, access to work, etc. In
determining acceptable alternate locations staft feels that, at a minimum, the three employees
that we are attempting to house should be provided with individual bedrooms. However, if a
parlicular condominium has been located, we will be happy to review your specific request at
that time.
To recap, staff agrees that in light of ihe unusual situation we are dealing with in regard to
relocating and permanently restricting the Cornice Building employee housing units, it may be
possible to consider minor deviations from the standards in the EHU Ordinance. However, we
feel that a determination regarding what deviations may be acceptable can only be made
through a specific review of the units you are proposing to deed restrict. lf the units being
proposed are deemed by staff to be of equal or better quality than the existing Cornice
Building units, in terms of the quality of the living environment, accessibility to employment
and activity centers, etc., staff may consider supporting minor deviations from the strict
standards contained in the EHU Ordinance.
" - -1.&; .
Mr. Braun
December 8, 1993
Page Three
I hope lhis information is of assistance to you as you search for acceptable off-site employee
housing units. However, if you should have additionalquestions or comments, please fbel
fee to conlact me at your convenience.
Sincerely,. ./\ /<[;, (-^*r*ffiu
f-'---
Jim Curnutte
Town Planner
xe: File
-.v
e9a*ss ef - -lo{;c )/ po{ o F
3 *-u/t o;ar.Q - v.) 3& ?at-ts4cf so y'proA*f Ceo-st S LeJ tvo*+*
S rn'rfL errs,{ u}eoC"? 5e O K;P sey,*€ffi.p6g
Pe Ce44c-.{r.;ot C
€rce@
clog< o K
lootvt
we tts,u(;t .le M ,'{ L-{,'il),Y./t*,^t
SL,,.-r 0e d[.ek+ * a["f g np{(C C*t?qf
i {, e lvti,e s6 4 * f cor t;E uli/( Ae
n{/t ?bJE =- J*f,.,- J:v ,p '4ea,v{1'ns' .)
o ! Er\ J HI'IHI< HbSUL .qHl4>Z P,ge
PETER IAM,\R ASSOCIATES, lNC.
PtA\,lNlt.J6 . O€VEl.oFt\lCNr aN^ryglg r RFSTAF;r{
November 15, 1993
Mr. Jim Cumutle
Crrnuutrli ty De velcgurerrt Dcpartnrcnl
Town of Vail
75 Soutb Frontage Rtxrl
Vail. CO E1657
RE ComiceBuilding
DearJim:
As we discussed on the phone the week before last, i.rc are studying the le.asibility of eliminating
thc three rentitl units tibm the Cornlce tsurldtng and complyingiwith the existing rentel uni-t
restriction by providing an equivalent numter of unils olf-site, As a part of our assessmeilt, it is
imporant *rit'tve unde-rstand'horv thc staff wilt derermine what constitutes an €qurvalent numbcr
of units. As you can imagine, it will bc difficult if not impossible to find 'lree stuclio units
similar to lhe exisdrrg unih in the Cornice Buiiding. As suchf wc would ernticipate one large unit
or a conbination of units wuuld ba necesserf iu order to $ati$fy this requirerncnt with off-sitc
units.
At the last worksesiion rvith thc PEC, Kristan stated that the unit typcs dcscribed in the EHU
ordinance should he used for dercrmining the t!'pe of unit or units that would bc required to
replace the tbrcc cxisting unilq. Basql on this commcnt, we have assumed that even though thcy
do not coruply with all the. technicsl stanrlards rutlined in rhe EHU ordinanoe. the three existing
Cornice Building unirq should be considered Type IV unitt for determining off-site equiv*lents.
Bascd on this ;r-esumption, the tc',tal o."cupancy o1-the three existing unils is three perrple. A e
such, if we pursue thc off-sitc altemative rjnirs would nccd tro acoomrirxtirte three penple in order
to bo cquivaleut to thb tbree exiscirrg unite. For cx,a,mple, a three-hedroonr Type I uniq or a Tylr
IV unifand a. tn'o-bedrL.om Typc I*l unit are tu,o altirnarives that would pioviAe an equivalent
nurnber of units,
I noull apprcciatc 1ou cliscusring thc following four itcms rvith thc Staff at this rvcoks staff rl"
,,mceting; , ? r,-. Can we procccd with the understanding thar the assumption described above is vtlid -*---* r ' :p+1
i,c., off-fitc uriit(s) rvill nrerl to uc,;o,rurr5du.oll5Elfreld i n
'iJ
nUou -Z I Any off-site uniu prr:posed r<l rcplacc the tlupe cxistirrg Cc,nricc Building units will bc i* U^=!.}FZf=-r.--- resiticted t'or a pcrioa of tinre eriual io ihe tirnc remaiiling on the deed rlstuicuon for tirc ? J-l-,Yz-r a@.--\ - edstins Crrrnir.r Rnilrlino rrnirc .-. "41e.,d{fi" cxistingCorrriccBuitdinguni$, ,.',, Yt*
\pv r lbdevclopment plans (i.e, vnriance rEque$Lc) for r[e comice building crrulcl be appruvul
' t );, )
conditional upoa the applicant providing the cqulviilent nuniberof'off'site rental t-urits Lr-- ,prior to thglgEuang o1-a-trutOin-g permit.-,- , )f , ''(Gn
cgir.Eo{, vair Hotione.r Bnnlr gsircrtng * -t.i *( 4 (L ;.1.-- '1",. H
ro8 south Fronrage qoad vr'est . uui, cu,rrrno *r6sz . (3m) 4?5.z1sa *,
l'tC l,f' . '
,
-s
lr-tErl:ttJ E l-]Jt.|'l
j ,,. ' -,r
1',(AZ4>2, t.UJ
. lf w6 purlouc variance requests, eny varisffr rffilicf,riffi t'em would be waivcd ia lieu of
thc SDD application fcas previously perd.S,
Ptopeo lct mc know your lreeponse to these or eny other i$rrce regarding the Cornice. Brrilding at
]'flr carlicst convcnience. ilant yorr f<x your crhgoing afsistance witlr this pffiect
Siuccrcly,
{bnk' Tl*masA. Braun, AICP .z->-'' ,r\,( #soTa. ,\----' c=*ejgf/
TOTEI- P.E
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING. OEVCI OPt4tNI ANnLySlS. RESEAnCH
November 24. L993
Iv{r. Jim Curnutte
Community Development Department
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vaii CO Rl557
RE: Comice Building
DearJim:
I want to thank you and the staff for your thoughts regarding how we can potentially satisfy the
current rental unit restriction for the Cornice Building with off-site units. As I understand the
staff's position, the provisions of the EHU Ordinance-should proyid_e the standards from which
to evaluate the appropriateness ofoff-site units we may propose to replace these units.
I,would agree that the unit type, square footage and occupancy standards outlined in the EHU
Ordinance provide a good benchmark for defining what type of unit or units may be necessary to
equitably replace the Cornice Building units. However, it appears that many of the specific
ptovisions of the ordinance are intended to address issues related to the construction of new
uniis. In iact, the stated purpose of the EHU Ordinance is "to allow for the construclion of an
EHU unit . . . .". Our approach to this situation will likely be to provide use restrictions to
e,'iisting units and as such many of the provisions of the ordinance will not be relevant to what we
arc trying to accomplish.
I rvould hope that the staff will recognize the limitations inherant in trying to apply every
provision of this ordinance to our situation. While the EHU Ordinance certainly has its purpose
and represenis a key tool for encouraging the development of rental units, I question wnether
your comment that all units that may be restricled in the future should comply with one of the live
unit types permitted by the EHU Ordinance is practical or in the best interests of the Town.
W-hile they do not satisly every requirement outlined in the EHU,Ordinance, the three studio units
in the Cornice Building reprcsent Type IV units. Type IV units are to be between 2-300 square
feet, include a kitchenette and accommodate a maximum of I person. Using the standards oT the
Type IV unit, it. is our understanding that we will need to provide a unit or units capable of
accommodating three poople in order to equitably replace the Comice Building uruts.
in order to repiace the Cornice Building units, we would propose that the use of, the following
t\.r,o Bnits be restricted fo long-ierm emplolee rental:
l) Existing Secondary Unit at the Smlth Residence
L,ot 6, Vail Village 1fth Filing
Suile 204, Vail National Eank BdiLding
108 Soulh Frontage Road Wesi . Va I, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
176* srYS
According to the Town's files, this secondary unit is comprised of one-bedroom and 567
square feet. The unit satisfies all relevant standards for a Type II EHU:
. I-ot 6 satis[ies minimum lot size requirements. The secondary unit is attached to the main unit "J-. The unit has less than two bedrooms. Parking for the secondary unit is provided
Up to 2 adults are permitted to occupy a one-bedroom Type II unit. As such, this unit
represents housing for 2 people.
{,-7
t )l',
| -.-:
2) Existing One-bedroom Condominium Unit
Locatron to be determineC
Efforts are undcrway to acquire a one-bedroom condominium or townhome. While the
location of this unit is unknown at this time, it will likely be located in the West Vail area
proximate to the Town of Vail bus line. It is our intention that this unit would comply with
the size and occupancy standards for a Type III unit. As such, this unit would:
. Be betwg.en 45e%0. Include"ot#"Filiiffi
feet
kitchen
Upto2
one parking space per bedroom. Because we do not know the location of this unit, at this
time we do not know whether we would comply with parking requirements. However,
given the fact that the unit is existing, the imposition of a use restriction on the unit will have
no impact on the existing parking situation. As such, in this case parking standards outlined
in the EHU Ordinance are not relevant.
The two units described above can provide housing f"qtC"-r p""p.,l-blror one person more than
can be housed in the Cornice Building units. This proposal, if deemed acceptable by the Town,
represents a significant improvement to the existing Cornice Building units both in terms of
quality of housing and the number of people that can be accommodated. As you know, the
existing Cornice Building units are extremely small, even for one person. The two-bedroom
units described above will provide very comfortable housing for a couple.
We understand that the Town Council has final authority with regard to lifting the existing
housing restriction on the Cornice Building. However, it is very important flor us to know the
staff's opinion of the proposal described above. In order to move forward with the redesign of
the Cornice Building and the acquistion of off-site units, it is very important for us to have an
indication as to whether in concept this proposal is acceptable to the staff.
Thank you for your ongoing assistance with this project. I will look forward to meeting with
you next week to discuss this further. Please do not hesitate to contact me with any questions
you may have.
Sincerely,
A. Braun. AICP
f,fd. [ $0P y
5.A request lor a worksession to discuss the establishment of an SDD to allow the
redevelopment of the Cornice Bulldlng and a request for a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of three Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail
Valley Drive and more specifically described as follows:
A part ot Tract "B" and a part of Mill Greek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of
Golorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing aI the Northeast comer of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79o46'00" We$ along lhe
Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeast corner of said Tract "B';
lhence South 10'14'00" West along lhe Easlerly line of said Tracr "8"; a dislance of 198.31 feet lo lhe
Southeasterly corner of said Tract "8"; lhenc€ t{otth 79"216'00" Wesl along th€ Sorltherly line of said Tract
"8" a distance of 100.00 feet to lhe true point of beginning thence North 09'10'07'Wesl a distance of 41.67
feel; thence South 88'27'11" Wesl a distance of 75.21 feet: thence South 27'13'3T East a distance of
77.37 teel; thence North 57"24'00" East a dislance of 55.1 1 feet, more or less to the true poinl of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnufte
Jim Curnufte made a brief presentation per the statf memo.
Tom Braun stated that the Cornice Building proposal has been redesigned since the
June 14. 1993 PEC worksession. He stated that he wanted feedback from the PEG
concerning whether the variance process or SDD process was more appropriate for
this proposal. Tom stated that the applicant was requesting the full 2,194 square feet
lor the free-market condominium unit and that it is their feeling that this will provide a
better quality condominium unit and rental units. Conceming the SDD process, he said
that it was their leeling that the SDD process was appropriate for the Cornice Building.
Jetf Bowen stated that the SDD process required hearings before the PEC and the
Town Council and that perhaps the variance process would be more efficient. He
stated that a hardship needed to be shown for he variance process. He stated that hE
was not wild about any development at this site. Jeff said that a possible way to
provide a benefit to the Town would be to build a house there and purchase two or
three employee housing units off-site. He said that he is against on-site parking of any
sort.
Tom Braun inquired whether the employee housing would have to be three studio units
or whether a three bedroom home would be acceptable.
Kristan Pritz stated that if the three employee housing units were located otf-site, they
would need to conform with the Town of Vail's Housing Ordinance.
Allison Lassoe stated that the only benefit that this project could provide to the Town
was employee housing. She stated that she would like to see better quality employee
housing units provided otf-site than have the three proposed, which appear to be in the
basement of the building.
Plannlng and Envlronmgntel Commission
October 11, 199:l
13
Dalton Williams asked what the buildable area ol the lot would be if the building
conformed to the setback requirements in the HDMF zone district,
Tom Braun showed him how the lot would look on the drawing.
Dalton Williams stated that he could find a hardship on the site. He said he was
against the Cornice Building being a SDD. He stated that he would be willing to work
with the applicant on setback and parking varian@s, if the employee housing units
were rented to people who lived in the Town of Vail but did not own cars. He said he
also liked the idea of providing the employee housing units off-site.
Greg Amsden stated that he would prefer to see this project addressed through the
SDD process, although he did think ths size of the lot was a hardship. He also
suggested providing the employee housing otf-site.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not feel that it was an appropriate site for more
development due to the size of the lot, the parking situation and the traffic at this
location. She said that she felt that the SDD process was more appropriate for this
site than the variance process but with no GRFA credit. She said that no parking
should be allowed on this lot irregardless of how it is redeveloped.
Bill Anderson inquired which process the applicant would prefer.
Tom Braun stated that they would prefer the SDD process.
Bill Anderson stated that he did not have a firm commitment at this point to either
process. He said that he felt that the GRFA should be limited on this site to 2,195
square feet. He added that he did not feel that credit should be given for the
employee housing units. He also agreed that the applicant should explore purchasing
employee housing units otf-site. He stated that he did not think this was a good site
for any kind of building due to its location (headlights in windows, noise, etc.).
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was against the SDD process in conjunction with
this project. She stated that she could not see additional square footage above the
2,195 square feet allowed on such a small site. She stated that she would like to see
the employee housing relocated off-site and be permanently deed restricted. She then
took a straw vote of the other commission members regarding their feelings on the
appropriate process.
Bill Anderson and Greg Amsden stated that they felt that the SDD process was
appropriate for the redevelopment of this property.
The remainder of the commission members felt that variances were the way to go.
Kathy then asked for a straw vote regarding the GRFA bonus for the employee
housing units.
Plannlng and Envlronmenta I Commlsslon
octobsr 11, 1993
14
,a
6.
Dalton Williams, Allison Lassoe, Jeff Bowen, Kathy Langenwalter, Greg Amsden, Diana
Donovan and Bill Anderson all were opposed to additional GFIFA for this project.
Greg Amsden inquired whether the current employee housing units had kitchen
facilities.
Tom Braun stated that the employee housing units had kitchen facilities as well as
common laundry and storage facilities.
Jim Lamont stated that he was in favor of this project going through the variance
process for redevelopment but that he was opposed to the Cornice BuiHing increasing
its GRFA.
A request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to Low Density Multi-Family for
an unplatted parcel located between Tract C, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch and Parcel B
for the purpose of allowing an employee housing development.
Applicant:
Planner:
Vail Housing Authority
Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the statf memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of this request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open Space to
Low Density Multi-Family with the five recommendations outlined on Page 7 plus a
sixth recommendation regarding the luture uses of fte site.
Diana Donovan inquired why they had taken access through the schools instead of the
four-way stop.
Kirk Aker, the architect for the project, stated that if access was taken via he four-way
stop, that the grades would be excessive. He then showed the PEG the modifications
they had made to the p@ect since thb PEC worksession on September 27, 1993.
Diana Donovan stated that she was concerned that a large amount of existing
vegetation would be removed from the site as a result of the accel and decel lanes and
that the Housing Authority did not have the money to replace each tree and bush.
Dalton Williams inquired why such a large accel/decel lane was needed for this project.
Kirk Aker responded that the Colorado Department of Transportation had a chart which
they went by.
Andy Knudtsen stated that he had spoken to Greg Hall concerning the accel/decel lane
and that the daycare centers have already triggered the requirement for the accel/decel
lanes.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commisslon
octobef 11, 1993
15
Ir
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Gommunity Development Department
rftE r'ilPtt
October 11, 1993
A request for a worksesslon with the Planning and Environmental Commission
to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing, and
more specifically described as follows:
A part of Tract "8" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, Stale of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing al the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence ltlorth 79"46'00' West
along the Southerly line of U.S. Higlrway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feel to lhe Northeast comer of
said Tracl'B"; lhence South 10"14'00" West along lhe Easterly line of said Tract 'B'; a di$ence of
198.31 fe€t lo the Southeasterly corner of said Traci 'B': thence No.th 79"t16'00' West abng the
Soulherly line of said Tract "B' a dstanc€ of 100.00 feet lo the lru€ point of beginning thence North
09'10'07" West I distance of 41.67 feel; thence South 88"27'11'W6st a distance of 75.21 feel;
lhence South 27'13'3T East a distance ol77.37 foet; thence Nonh 57"24'00" Easl a distance of
55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David and Myra Smith
Jim Curnutte
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting a worksession to disclrss issues related
to the proposed establishment of a special development district (SDD) for the redevelopment
of the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing. The
Cornice Building site is located in the eastsm portion of Vail Village, between the Vail Athletic
Club and the Tyrolean Inn. The property is currently zoned Hlgh Density Multi-Family (HDMF)
and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an acre (3,659
square feet) in size.
The applicant has indicated that this worksession is not intended to be a detailed review of all
aspects of the proposed redevelopment project. The purpose ol this worksession is to
discuss two specilic questions that arose at the original, June 14, 1993, Planning and
Environmental Commission (PEC) worksession, at which the Cornice Building redwelopment
was lirst discussed. These questions include:
I1) ls the Special Development District process appropriate for the Comice Building
redevelopment? ls the review of separate variance applications for the proposed
deviations from the development standards within the High Density Multi-Family zone
district appropriate? The deviations include:
A) GRFA - The project is proposed to exceed the ailowable gross residential ftoor
area (GRFA) on the site by 840 square feet, which is the combined floor area
of the three restricted housing units (approximately 280 square feet each).
B) Setbacks - Portions of the structure are proposed to encroach into the front,
side and rear setbacks. In addition, the applicant is proposing to locate
required parking within the front setback area which is prohibited in the HDMF
zone district.
C) Parkinq - The required number ol parking spaces for the proposed
redevelopment is six spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide two parking
spaces on-site (one enclosed and one exterior). ln addition, the proposal will
not comply with the HDMF zone district requirement that 75/o ot all parking be
enclosed or othenilise hidden from the view of adjacent propsrties. No parking
is proposed for the Type lV employee housing units, nor does any parking
currenfly exist on the site.
2) Should the GRFA allocated to the three restricted rental units ( 840 square feet) be
deducted from the total allowable GRFA on the property (2,195 square feet) ?
The applicant has indicated that the PEC's disposition towards these two issues may influence
the manner in which they proceed with.the redevelopment proposal and therefore, they have
requested additional dialogue with the PEC before refining their development plans.
II. BACKGROUND
The Cornice Building was originally construcled In the mid 1960's and included eight small
rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for th€ rental apartments, apparently due
to its relative proximity to the existing surface parking lot located immediately adjacent to the
property. Wih the exception of new decks and a minor building expansion in 1976, the
overall form of the building has not changed since it was built. The propefi has been the
subject of numerous redevelopment proposals over ths years and due to the small size of the
parcel, virtually all of the redevelopment proposals involved requests for variances from the
zoning standards. ln the mid 1970's, a conditional use permit was granted which allowed for
a real estiate office to operate out of the western portion of the lower level of the building. The
real estate otfice eliminated one employee rental unit, leaving seven units on the property.
In 1979, the owner of the property at the time, Dr. Huttner, requested a setback variance for
the purpose of enclosing an existing second story deck. This setback variance request was
one element of the proposed redevelopment of the property which involved the conversion ol
the four apartments on the upper floor into one dwelling unit and a request to allow one
parking space in the front setback area. The PEC approved the setback variance request but
denied the parking space request. In conjunction with the variance request, the owner agreed
o
to restrict the three remaining apartments on the lower lwel of the building to long-term
employee rental units. This agreement contained provisions regarding the minimum size ol
the units (no less than 200 square feet per unit), restrictions on the minimum duration of the
lease agreements, guidelines on who the units may be rented to (full-time employees of the
Upper Eagle Valley), and provisions on the length'ot time within which the agreement shall be
eflective (twenty years from the date of the agreement). For a variety ol reasons, this
restriction was not formally recorded until 1985 (see Attachment #1 for a copy of the
agreement). Since 1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this
site.
On June 14, 1993, a joint worksession was held with the Design Review Board (DRB) and the
PEC to discuss the establishment of a SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building
(see Attachment #2 for a copy of the meeting minutes). During this worksession, a number of
issues were identifled as being of concern to the PEC and DRB. These issues are
summarized as follows:
A The appropriateness of proposing a SDD for the redevelopment ol the property.
B. The project's departures from the HDMF zone distdct standards. The PEG
discussed the possibility that the proposed departures from the zone district
standards should be handled as variance applications as opposed to being
reviewed through the SDD process.
C. Gontinuance of the three restricted employee housing units on the site. The
PEC felt that the employee housing units on the property were positive and
commentgd that it would be desirable to have them restricted beyond the
twenty year time frame. However, the PEC felt thet no GRFA bonus should be
granted lor these restricted units and lhat any GHFA utilized by the restricted
units should come out ot the total maximum allowable GRFA on the site.
D. Architectural and site planning issues. The PEC felt hat the proposed building
height should be reduced significantly and the mass and bulk of the building
should be reevaluated.
III. CORNICE BUILDING ZONING ANALYSIS
Although the purpose of this worksession is to discuss two issues related to the process lor
redeveloping the comice Building, and not necessarily to get into a detailed rwien, ol the
redevelopment project itself, statf lelt that it might be helpfulto include the latest preliminarv
drawinos lor the PEC's information (see Attachment #3). The lollowing zoning analysis has
been prepared lor the purpose of reviewing the most recent conceptual redevelopment
proposal, however, please keep in mind that the numbers in the "proposed SDD'column are
preliminary at this time. The project's departures from the HDMF zone district slandards are
highlighted in bold type.
o
o
Site Area:
'Dwelling Units:
GRFA:
Common Area:
*.Setbacks:
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
Building Height:
'*'Parking:
UNDERLYING ZONING:
HDMF
0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. ft.
25 unrts per acre or
2 units for this she.
60"/" or 2,195 sq. tt
35% of allowable GRFA or
768 sq. ft.
20 ' on all sides.
557" or 2,0.|2 sq. ft.
30.o/o roqJirod or
1,098 sq. tt
48 ' irregardless of root typ6
EXISTING
PRoJECT
Same
4 DU's
51ol" or 1,892 sq. ft.
N: 9'
S: 2.5'
E: 12.5'
W:4.5'
40% or 1,460 sq. ft.
PROPOSED
soD
Same
2 DU's
8il% or 3,035 sq. ft
N:5'
S:5'
E: 5'
W:3'
46P/" or 1,700 sq. ft.
202 sq. ft. located in 14olo or 300 sq. ft.
the basement of the bldg.
2 .5'
Varies according to proposed 6 spaces required
us€ of the property. 0 spaces provided
66 % or 2,i134 sq. fL 38% or 1,400 sq. ft.
3s',
6 space8 rcquked
2 rpac€s pmvlded
'Although three of the existing dwelling units on the property are permanently lestricbd to emPloyee
housing, they do not comply with re reqrirements of the Town's raconuy adopted €fiployee housing
ordinance and, therefore, count as full drivelling units for the purpose of calculating density. The proposed
SDD plan will comply with ttre requirements of TypE lV employee housing units except in r€spect to
required parking. Therefore, he density of each unit will @unt as one-third of a dtelling unil
"setbacks from the south and w€st prop€rty lines were meagured to the €xisting second floor d€ck
proiections. Second floor dacks are allowad to enc.oach 5 t6et into a required setback. lf msasurod b
the building foundation, the setbacks would be 1 1 feet on the south and 8 fe€t on the west.
*"The parking r€quirement was calculated at 2.5 spaces tor ths condominium unh and ono spaco for each
of th€ three smployee housing units.
tv. DtscussroN tssuEs
As mentioned previously, the purpose of this worksession is to: 1) discuss the pros and cons
ol redeveloping this property through the SDD process versus reviewing the proposed
deviations lrom the zoning standards as separate variance applications, and 2) discuss
additional GRFA for the purpose of allowing all ol the available GRFA on the property (2,195
square feet) to be utilized by the free market condominium unit in addition to the GRFA tor the
restricted employee rental units (840 square feet).
A)
1.
Soecial Development Dlstricl vercus Varlances
SDD Ootion
As stated in Section 18.40.010 of the Vail Municipal eods, the purpose of the Spscial
Development District is to:
"encourage flexibility and creativity in the development of land in
order to promote its most appropriate use; to improve the design
character and quality of new development within the Town; to
facilitate the adequale and economical streets and utilities; to
reserue the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and
to furlher the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan.'
The applicant has indicated that they have evaluated all potential review processes
and concluded that the sDD process is the most appropriate zoning mechanism
available in order to facilitate the redevelopment ol the property. The applicant has
provided the following reasons for proceeding through the SDD process, versus the
variance process:
"Three factors must be considered when evaluating the use of a SDD
for the Cornice Building redevelopment. These factors include lot size,
lot location, and the employee unit restriction. The Gornice Buildng site
is only .084 of an acre, or 3,659 squar€ feet, in size. The site is also
located in a very prominent location within Vail Village. Finally, a deed
restriction requires that three employee units be provided on the
propefi. These factors create a number of difficulties witr this
redevelopment, and the SDD process provides a nechanism to
creatively resolve these difficulties.
The SDD provides a zoning mschanism, revierrrr criteria and review process lor
finding a balance between the objectives of the developer and the development
objectives of the Town. While the variance process is a mechanism to be used
to request relief to site development standards, the SDD process allows for an
entire project to be evaluated as a whole. In this manner, design solutions can
be obtained that satisfy thg goals ol the de\rsloper, adiacent property owners
and the Town. Historically, the SDD review process has involved a'give and
take" process belween the developer and the Town. The product of this efiort
is typically a development that may receive exceptions to development
slandards, but in retum, may provide community benefits.
While it is likely that the redevelopment of the Cornice Building will require
exceptions to development standards, the redevelopment of this building also
presents an opportunity to provide community benefits. The SDD process is
the most appropriate mechanism to accomplish both of these goals.'
Staff Ooinion
Given then way the purpose statement of the SDD section is wriften, staff believes that the
applicant could make a case tor utilizing the SDD process for the proposed Gornice building.
Although, historically, the SDD has generally been utilized lor mixed use or new development
projecF, these do not appear to be requirements for proposing a SDD given the cunent
wording. As proposed, the Cornice Building redevelopment project does have several
community benefits, ie., streetscape improvements, landscape buffer between the property
and surrounding roads and bike path, and larger employee rental units that are permanently
restricted. The burden of proof rests with the applicant to prove that the proposed deviations
lrom the development standards are necessary and result in improved design and quality of
the new development. Staff believes that, at best, given the constraints of the site, only a
very modest increase in GRFA may be warranted provided that the increase results in
improved living conditions for future residents ol the employee units.
2. Variance ootion
With regard to the issue of handling the proposed deviations from the development
stiandards through separate variance applications, the burden of proof rests with the
applicant to convince the PEC that the proposed deviations from the development
standards are necessary and result in the improved design and quality of the new
development. Statf will discuss our opinion of the likelihood of receiving variance
approvals for the three categories of deviations from the Zoning Gode (GBFA,
setbacks, parking):
Statf Ooinion
GRFA - The proposed GRFA overage will be discussed in more detail in the following
section ol this memo. Variances are to be granted sparingly. There is a presumption
against the granting of variances. A development is suitable for a variance only when
there is a hardship due circumstances unique to the particular plat rather than those
which are general in the neighborhood. The need for a variance should not be selt
inflicted.
Setbacks - The HDMF zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides. After taking
setbacks into consideration, the rsmaining buildable area on the lot is approximately 20
feet by 20 feet in size. Statf agrees with the applicant's contention hat it would be
extremely difficult to build on this site wiftout some degree of setback encroachment.
In general, statf believes that the applicant may be able to justify a requested setback
variance whether it was proposed as a ssparate variance application or through the
SDD process.
Parkino - As mentioned in the Background section of this memo, ihe Comice Building
was originally construcled in the mid 1960's. No on-site parking was provided. ln
1979, an appliqtion was made to the PEC to add one surface parking space to the
site. The PEC denied this request citing safely and traffic concernS. In 1985 and
1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to the Town which included up to
seven on-site parking spaces. Although the PEC felt that some on-sile parking may be
o
reasonable on the site, the designs were not acceptable and projects were d€nied.
Some members of the PEC lelt that it would be leasible for the property owner to
request a parking exemption from the Town Council to allow payment into the parking
fund lor all or some of the required parking.
The parking space proposal for the proposed building in the HDMF zone district is six
spaces, of which 75olo rnust be located within the main building or buildings or shall be
completely hidden from public view from adjoining properties within a landscape berm.
In addition, no parking may be located in any required lront setback area. The
applicant is proposing to provide two on-site spaces of which one would be enclosed
within a garage and one would be located in front of the garage door. A portion of
both parking spaces would be within the front setback area.
The Town Engineer has reviewed the proposed site. plan, and feels that in general, the
proposed on-site parking can work on this property. The applicant has stated that
there are three compelling reasons for not providing required parking on-site. The first
is the site's proximity to Vail Village and the bus line. Second, is the adverse impact to
the site caused by more than two spaces. Third, is the benefit of limiting trip
generation from and to the site. Staff believes that it is reasonable to allow some on-
site parking on this property. We agree with the applicant that providing all six
required parking spaces on-site is nol a desirable situation. We Believe it is
appropriate to provide at least 2 spaces on site. Payment into fie Town parking fund
would be necessary for the lour space deficit.
B) Additional GRFA tor restricted rental unats
The applicants' proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building, maintains the three restricted
rental units and also includes a request to not count the GRFA allocated to the restricted units
toward the total allowable GRFA for the site. The applicants' justilication for not counting the
GRFA attributed to the restricted rental units is as follows:
"lt is not uncommon for the Town of Vail to require or allow employee rental
units as a part of development proposals. However, In this case, it is important
lo consider the magnitude of the existing employee unit restriction and the
impact this restriction has on the development of this site. Only 2,195 square
feet ol GRFA are permitted on this site. Wth a required minimum unit size ol
200 square feet, the employee unit requirement eflectively restricts 27"/o ot lhe
sile's available GRFA. This is a disproportionately high percentage of
allowable GRFA to restrict lo employee units.
It is very unlikely that other employee unit restrictions that have been imposed by the
Town of Vail restrict to this high of a percentage of allowable GRFA. In fact, GRFA
'bonuses" in excess of allowable GRFA has been approved by the Town in the past
for restricted employee renlal units. While the developer of the Cornice Building is
amenable to maintaining and upgrading these rental units, consideration for not
including square footage used for these restricted units in the total allowable GRFA of
the project is requested."
Statf Opinion
Staff does agree with the applicant's contention hat the restriction of hree ol the four units on
the property to employee housing is fairly onerous. However, this was a condition agreed to,
by the property owner at the time, in consideration of a setback variance associated with the
conversion of lour rential units to one large condominium. Although the proposed building's
mass has been reduced by locating the rental units on the garden level, staff believes that the
site is too small to allow for the requested 840 square feet of GRFA on the property.
The applicant has agreed to permanently restrict the three rental units on this lot, as Type lV
Employee Housing Units (EHUs). lt should be noted that the existing rental reslriction on the
property expires in the year 2005. In addition, it has been delermined by the Vail Town
Attorney that since lhe restriction was agreed to in association with a variance request, the
applicant could make a case to be released from the obligation to provide the three restricted
rental units on the property if the building was totally redeveloped within the parameters of the
lot's development standards. In other words, if the building were to be demolished and rebuilt
in a manner which did not require any variances the applicant would, in all likelihood, be
released trom the obligation to provide three rental restricted units on thg property (see
attachment #4, letter from Andy Knudtsen to Charlie Gersbach dated October 14, 1991).
Staff agrees with the comment that was made during the Jun6 14, 1993 PEC worksessio.n
regarding the provision of the required restricted rental units otf-site ot the Cornice Building
property. Although we believe that the Comice Building location, adjacent to the Village and
Gold Peak activity centers is very convenient for employee housing, we also believe that it is
possible lo find other locations that are equally convenient for future employees. Moving the
required rental units off of the property would accomplish the applicant's goals as well as
providing for the possibility of upgrading the quality of the living environment for future tenants.
v. coNcLusroN
It would appear that the applicant has several options to consider regarding the proposed
redevelopment of the Cornice building, including, but not limited to:
A. Proceed throuoh the SDD orocess - As mentioned earlier in this memo
redevelopment ol the Cornice building through the SDD process would result in a
number of community benefits, ie., strsetscape improvements, landscape buffer
between the property and surrounding roads and bike path, larger employee rental
units that are permanently restricted. lt would appsar however that an SDD request
involving an additional 840 square feet of GRFA on the Cornice Building site would be
very difficult to justify given site constraints and the SDD criteria.
B. Relocate the reouired emolovee unils to an off-site location - This option would
allow the owner to lulfillthe obligations of the employee housing commitment while
freeing up the GRFA allocated to these employee units for use in the free market
condominium unit. With this scenario 0re SDD process would not be used slnce
proposed deviations from the developments standards would be limited to setbacks
and parking issues, which appear to be legitimate hardships supportable
through the variance procedures. ln addition, the requested variance from the
minimum number of.parking spaces to be provided on the site would be reduced by
three spaces.
C. Redevelop the property without requestinq additional GRFA - This scenario would
also limit the proposed valiance requests to setbacks and parking. This scenario may
result in the employee units being reduced in size from the current 280 square feet to
the minimum necessary to meet the requirements of the 1985 rental agreement (200
sq.ft.).
c:ts€c\m€mosbornice. 1 0 1
#F*;;=o ATTACtrI'{ENT #I
..'. -:
A@m!m{I
::, llilIttltlilil
!lll!l
;ltltl
II
l!tl
titl
iltl
il
tlii;lrl
THIS AGREETVIENI dated tne 2-Fdday of , L985, by andberween trE TCI,IN oF \rAn, coroRADo,-here iirar[eire]f,sffi6 ;; - ;riuii"
1$ oiALTl lit]IT$, as tlp or^rn.r oi t]:e Cornice goifding, hereinafterreferred to as ,t0,vner.rl
TlCriN OF
.-- I@, VafI h^as requested that certajn restrictions regarrC.ing
1lpe (l)
. erq>loyee un1_ts be pJ.aced on the cornice Buildirg, hereinafterreterred to as the Subject property.
lig,.I, THRIFOF.E, for the srln of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and othergood and valuable consiceration, the sufficiency of ui'iich is herebyackncr^r1edged, the parties hereto agree as folloils:
^__:__, 1: ,F.t g:*ion_of the ground. Ievel on t*re subject prcpertyccrPn-sed of three (3) drdeUing units, each having a slee[ing irei an&Flglt:" and approxirnatefy ZQO iquare ieet (reter6a to as'nrptoyeeUnits) shall be used exciusively as enployee housing *ia"l
2. Ttre tlrree (3) Enployee Units shall nraiatain a ninfuunsguife footage of 200-:S,rqe fLeCper unit, honever, tire contig'rationof tJle units nray be alte-red.
3. The three (3) Erployee Units shall not be leased orrented .f": uly period of less tfran tLirty (30) consecutive days; ard, if
lny such Erployee Unit.shall be rented, it snatl be rented onfy totenants vrho are full-tlr._ enpLoyees in tlre upper Eagle vauey. Ttre
F^BT,BgI"J311ey shatl be beenea to includJthe C5re v"II"i, r4inturn,
ff'.:11", Gifman, Eagle-Vail and Avon, and ttre surrounding a!ea.s. Anu'r-tin= erpl0yee is a person who works an average of tniity (30) hor:rsper vteek.
4- The restrictions ccartained herein shalr rernain in effectfor a period twenty (20) years frcm tfie-aate of ttris agr#"t.
5. Ttr-is Agreenrcnt shail- be a @venant n:nn:,g rdttr the larxtand shall bincl the q,,rner, its heirs, succesrcrs, and as6igars, arxi allsrrbsequent lessees and crsners of the subject pr"e"r-ty;---'"-
COSGRIFF. DUNN
E ABPLANALP
.'TTOENEYS AT LAW
sut.|.E ?O:l
€oMr,rERct^L WtNc
:AlL. qoLoFAoO 6t6SA
(ro3t.7a-7552
Walter lffierq,mer, Cornice BuildinJ
By
Tom Marnger
<-AKY '/544<\t-x-UnFany / t
:8IOn
v4 , ^'nr'fl () )f^ </fn3'Q;A) '7 X\,( ( \.-'\
nrn9nls
i***{}U/u /!-4Ji.J L
lLocatiin
.lFax#fr' 'Orlginal. iPirPseilcni
€E€ /(&e
! o.tr,oy
o r Depl. Chargo
fTelephone f! Tebphone #.
- -i;-.
-: (,(^c\-{^C)cr
Ff[ t c$P y
Jack Beals stated that Eagle County has asked him to address the building envelope
size and hat he plans to focus on this aspect of the project next.
Mike Mollica stated that a geologist has reviewed and approved the current plan.
Greg Amsden asked the applicant where the fire tumaround was located.
Jack Beals stated that the 'hammerhead'design allows for such a tumaround.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was concemed about the size of the bullding
envplopes for each of the proposed tots and questioned how Srat relates io the
County's standards for development.
Jack Beals stated hat Eagle County considers his a cluster resuMivision.
Mike Mollica stated that the only variance $e applicant is requesting from Eagle
County pertains to locating the garages of two of the unils in the front selback.
Kathy l-angenwalter slated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazarG
and the sub-surface water on the site. She added that the driveway access to the
building envelopes needs to be looked at as well as he landscape plan tor the project.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with lGthy's commenls.
Greg Amsden stated thai the plan that the applicant was proposing Tlows with what ls
already present in the neighborhood.' He stated that he agrees with Kathy's comment
conceming revegetation. He said that the applicant needs to be sensltive to the
existing topography of the site.
Allison Lassoe stated hat she agreed wlh Kathy's and Bill's comments.
Jeff Bowen stated that the environmental concerns and soils study pertaining to this
project needed to be addressed.
Dalton Wlliams stated that he agreed with the previous commenb thE PEC members
had made. He added that he was particularly concemed wlth the sub-surface water
flow il the site was excavated and that changing or diverling the water tlon, could affect
adjacent propedy owners.
Diana Donovan agreed with all of the previous @mments.
Mike then stated that he would draft a letter to Eagle County outllning the
Commission's comments and concerns.
5. A request for a joint worksesslon with he Design Review Board and Planning and
EnvironmentalCommission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow he
redevelopment of the Cornice Building located ai 362 Vail Valley Drive and more
Plannlng and Envionmenlal Commission
June 14, 19*l
O ArrAcHrENr #2 O
"pEc l{EETrNc }trNUTEs FRoM JUNE 14, 1993 I.IoRKSESSr0N,
4
o o
feeling that the employee housing unlts should be Included in th€ tigure.
Greg Amsden stated that lt was his opinion that the height of the Comics Building is
not comparable with the other buildings located in the ar€a because the other buildings
have more mass. He suggested that he owner remove he top level or two of tha
building and that the maximum building height should be 36 to 39 feet. With regard to
parking, he said that on-slte parking ls necessary but shouH be limited to two parking
spaces and that the applicant could pay lnto the parking lund. He agrees with stiaffs
suggestlon that the applicant consider reducing the GBFA of the condominium to 2,000
square feet or less to reduce the parking requirement by one parking space.
Allison Lassoe stated ftat she agreed wih Kathy's comments, especially concerning
building heighl.
George Lamb and Bob Borne stated that they agreed with lGtry's comments.
Sally Brainerd, who spoke on behalf of the Design Review Board, stated that she does
not have a problem with a building helght of 48 feet. She sald that she likes lhe
verticality of the building and feels that it gives the structure character. She added that
she was not in favor of a flat roof for he Comice Building and recommended that the
owner consider a simpler roof form that encompasses the whole struclure, She also
suggested that he covered entry be removed.
Diana Donovan stated that here was no parking requirement for this site back when
the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge parking lot.
She said that it was important that a sun/shade analysis be conducted, and hat the
building was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staging was going to
be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that lt was her opinlon hat the
locations of the garage and tumaround need to be switched and that the building
needs to stay within he existing fooprints. She added lhat she felt hat this project
should not be an SDD and hal credit should not be given for the three employee
housing units since they are already in existence. She felt lhat the SDD was belng
used ln this Instance solely as a mechanlsm to break the rules and she could not
support the project the way it is currently proposed.
Dalton and lGtry both agreed wih Diana's comments.
Tom Braun stated that the SDD concept allows lor creativity in development and that it
was his feeling that the Comice Building presented a unique situation with three
employee housing units and one free-market condomlnium unit. He stated that wihout
the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically vlable and probably would not be
redeveloped.
Diana Donovan stated that there were originally eight employee units.
Tom Braun added that these were origlnally eight apartments.
Planning ard Envlronmental Commisslon
June 14, 1993
6.
o
Kristan Prits stated that the pubtic benefit with regard to this project needed to be
delined.
Jeff Bowen stated that the employee houslng units were positive and that he felt
parking on-site would be ditficult with regard to getting in and out during he winter
months.
Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider movlng the employee housing to
another lot ln town.
Dalton Williams said he would hate to see it moved out of tre Village area.
Diana Donovan stated that she did not want to see upper end housing hat did not
offer parking. She added that she did not feel hat this was the best use for this
property, maybe the best use is open space.
A request for a joint worksesslon with he Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmentat iommission for an exterior alteration for Uonshead Center to allow an
addition on the southwest comer of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1,
Lionshead lst Filing/520 Uonshead Cirde.
Applicant:
Planner:
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staff memo and stated hat there were
two parts to the applicanl's request, parking and the design of Alfie Packe/s entryway.
Andy reviewed tr6 five points about fre design made tn the slaff memo. There is
gen6ral concurence troh tfre PEC members and DRB members that the proposed
iOOition met the exterior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width of
the passageway lrom the tront to the back of the sits as well as a concem about the
location toi tociting the transition of new materials to existing materials were presented
by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modilied he design,
cieating a notch in the side of the building. This revislon was supported unanimously
by the staff, PEC and DRB.
Conceming the parking situation, Andy summarized the research the staff had done,
concluding that iarking could be provlded on-site in CCll, as long as the provision
regarding 50e/o of tre requked parking being within fie main building was mel.
Because of this standard, staff said that they only supported an addition ot two spaces,
which would be located within the interior of the main building.
Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicant but that he would like to revisit tho
issue and ask for additional spaces to be located on-site-
The pEG agreed that locating the two spaces within the main building was reasonable
and the fees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16'000.
Planning and Eruironmenlal Commlsslon
Juno 14. 1993
ATTACIIMENT /I4
tlrr
offlce of communily development
80P y
75 souih trontage road
vail, colorado 81557
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479-2139
October 14, 1991
Mr. Charlie Gersbach
Vail Associates Real Estate
P.O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81558
Re: Cornlce Bulldlng
Dear Charlie:
Kristan Prits, Larry Eslwith and ldiscussed your questions on Thursday, October 10, 1991,
and the answers are listed below. To clarify your original questions, let me rephrase them:
1. Could the Cornice Building be remodeled on the interior only, and combine all of the
dwelling units Into a single unit without any exterior changes?
2. Could the Cornice Building be torn down and reconstructed as a single family dwelling
unit?
Conceming the tirst question, the current building has been constructed according to a
variance granted in 1979. As the existing structure was allowed to be built because of a
variance, all conditions of approval which were given as a part of lhe variance must be
continued. One of these conditions was the requirement to create employee housing. As a
result, as long as the existing building continues to be on this site, the employee housing deed
restriction must be maintained.
Concerning the second question, if the structure were rebuilt without the need of anv
variances, the deed restriction could be taken off the property- This elimination ol the
restrictions would be made possible by conformance to zoning standards. lf any variations
lrom the code are neeCed, the housing restriction could still be applicable.
o
Mr. Charlie Gersbach
October 14, 1991
Page2
This Information coincides with the letler Kristan PriE wrote you on January 14, 1991. ln her
letter, she emphasized lhe fact he employee unib must be maintained In any reconslructed
building on lhe sile, assuming that the existing variances would be needed.
Please feel free to call me, Kristan or Larry if you have any more questions about tltis
property.
Sincerely,
Larry Eskwith
Krislan Prits
lab
cc:
I
E+
s-r\?lo,l.,
\-n
,. Gt m
.-
t'i)k.'\
).
(-w
lt,
7l
I
I
f':-J:'--
I:-l.""
I
i
I
I
J
Il
III
C+(/\
13rt'lf,BE4.1 S6 r_. LrL l
-11-'38 r,J E Il t'J11:5= Il '.t'..J I It H*Ft=-E
::;
Prc qts Cooqo-e.r{=. (ln
; *.{ JA /o//rs
/L>nto-,$e(y lrreur',€* *{h.'* f ryitd rc *fc
| ;,*e*{aSttt
*t"eaf' :e
[oesi.g, * ual o{ ts f
TotvaL"lp e# Fc'f€
a- *dil."*t tu|+ qs l*r&ty,
-ij"*,"e{_y*s43W
crrtt fun,"btA 'r^*; ,^r["o.tt*lf w &s,
-Gtr4 -'?tt r@J( ti/r'% ui** q-
e€ ftorlei& u*'7(* o€"{{e,
-t f r r / n I c
:-
- rr-r<!-rr't adk ottr grv€
O,Jpa - fn*r*r|y "LJA 6s car#u**o,
- s:f jour ir* €*$q*e *u*n& *nu,*
- S i*L* 6**,(y * u-,ft oFg s/4-s{ng}- rs efr 6.-e{ ;,',tsrrr6$t."'d *rc[;/
F"* Teat-* eh( 6? ,,'or[4 rw***he w,4 s g) bem*w.vF 6eF*.' r,'zwfuA*Lr*ttf gtarA #o ryqtMSr
Fg
paxo[,**,I t)cu;{s b#f
- fre( o s@d g.i-{s &en q.
( t ;gh#-,b w, ttatg/ €{ t)
t"{4g'." mLo'p rc6fr€, e*g4oc-effi F*:# S€/6'qck $attud*6€,
- erfq|.€*' ir+rr*r& u4cH? fu**t tffi ' 4r4/.e{S&wi*,& b_+
i> =oO fc$cesF T
7 yes
5 rt.tQ (v"r,*oragJ
!fvfrvwQ
-,Jt4'- t u, LA ne3ai I -*"-(scqloa-: nf eta4:'r,{S Z
Wtaryr,q,* uzf $e j?O
7
Io
7 * A.i€F
o
PETER JAMAR ASSOCTATES, tNC.
PLANNING . DEVELOPMENT ANALYSTS . RESEABCH
September 27,1993
Mr. JimCurnutte
Community Development Deparunent
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
VaiI, CO 81657
RE: Comice Building
DearJim:
The purpose of this letter is to formally request a work session with the Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss *re Cornice Building. As per our previous conversations,
it is my understanding that this meeting will be scheduled for October 1lth.
As you know, we presented plans for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building to the PEC at
their June 14, 1993 meeting. The primary purpose of the October l1th meeting is to follow up
on two specific items that were discussed at the original work session. These items include 1)
the ptupose of a Special Development District and whether this process is appropriate for the
Comice Building, and 2) the site's total allowable GRFA and GRFA allocated for the resticted
rental units. The Planning Commission's disposition oward these two issues may influence the
manner in which we proceed with this proposal. As such, it will be helpful for us to have
additional dialogue with the PEC before we spend additional time refining redevelopment plans.
As per your request the following is a brief summary of our position on both of these issues:
Special Development Districts
A number of PEC members questioned whcther a SDD is an appropriate zoning mechanism for
this project. During the preparation of our redevelopment application, we evaluated all potential
review processes and concluded that the SDD process is the most appropriate zoning mechanism
available in order to facilitate the redevelopment of this site.
In order to evaluate the appropriateness of using the SDD process for this proposed
redevelopment, it is important to understand the purpose of a SDD. As stated in the Town of
Vail Zoning Code, the purpose of a SDD is:
"The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to prornote its most appropriate use;
to improve the desigr character and quality of new development within the Town;
to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and utilities; to
preserve tl,re natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to further the
overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive Plan."
Suite 2O4, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
Three factors must be considered when evaluating the us€ of a SDD for the Comice Building
redevelopmenl These factors include lot size, lot location and the employee unit restriction. The
Comice Building site is only .084 acres, or 3,659 square feet. The site is also located in a very
prominant location within Vail Village. Finally, a deed resfict requires Orat three employec units
bc provided on the property. These facdors create a number of difficulties wittr ttris
rg{gvelopment, and the SDD process provides a mechanism to creatively resolve these
diffrculties.
The SDD provides a zoning mechanisr[ review cdteria and review process for finding a balance
between the objectives of the developer and the development objectives of the Town. While the
variance process is a mechanism that could be used to request relief to site development
standards, the SDD process allows for an entire project to be evaluated as a whole. In this
manner, design solutions can be obtained that satisfy the goals of the developer, adjacent
propcrty owners and the Town. Historically, the SDD review process has involved a "give and
take" process between the developer and the Town. The product of this effort is typically a
dwelopment that may receive exceptions to development standards, but in retum may provide
community benefits.
While it is likely that the redevelopment of the Comice Building will require exceptions to
development standards, the redevelopment of this building also presents an opportunity to
prcvide community benefits. The SDD process is tlre most appropriate mechanism to accomplish
both of these goals.
GRFA
An agreement between a previous owner and thc Town of Vail mandales that three employee
units be maintained on the Cornice Building until the year 2005. This agreement was not
formalized until 1985, but was originally agreed to in the late 1970's as a part of a PEC approval
to enclose existing decks on the second floor of the building. The agreement states that the units
may be modified, but shall maintain a minimum of 200 square feet each. The proposed
redevelopment of the Comice Building mainains the three rental units and also includes a rcquest
to not count the GRFA allocated for the restricted rental units toward the total allowable GRFA
for the site.
It is not uncommon for the Town of Vail !o require or allow employee rental units as a part of
development proposals. However, in this case it is important to consider the magnitude of the
existing employee unit restriction and the impact this restriction has on the development of this
site. Only 2,195 square feet of GRFA are permitted on this site. With a required minimum unit
size of 200 square feet, the employee unit requirement effectively restricts /77o of the site's
allowable GRFA. This is a disproportionately high percentage of allowable GRFA to restrict to
employee units.
It is very unlikely that other employee unit resEictions that has been imposed by the Town of Vail
restrict this high of percentage of allowable GRFA. In fact, CRFA "bonuses" in excess of
allowable GRFA has been approved by the Town in tlre past for restricted employee rental units.
While the developer of the Cornice Building is amenable to maintaining and upgrading these
rental units, consideration for not including square footage used for these restricted units in the
toal allowable GRFA of the project is rcquested.
a
Wc rp'prociarc the orpponunity to nrcct with the PEC to discnss these iems. lVe will alm prccenttwid ekctches of the Comice BuiHing at this m€eting. While thesc revisions are by no mcans
final, trey will give the PEC an idea oittre dircction ic are headed with this proposal tnant
you ftr youtinte andplease do nothcsitarc to contactnp wittr any questions you may have.
Shcerely,tu
Thomas A. Braun, AICP
Ii
I
I
JIIl
CA9\
1--1t-'J; l.l fTr 11 ' r:t,:!13rl:i$rr +4s6
IJ11I..JTJI HF1 f:tEE
-i
--11-'-r= l.J t rr 11:5=l.l
i
I
L-
Cr f nSPri'rlfi
TI ilN-
l h ,,3CAtF
3,N -'
(. -:
q\
_6;..
L,J
-1.-t
,-\
l
(A
F
Ql
t^ll-
HULr-
t"l HF|trrSE !.I EgG-11
;i:';"1 :
Fl U
'l:,.
Ir da 'tr I D
;
F
va'
,n
o
o
_f
et
q
-s
$
IrF.
I
I
't
v.4I'PENDIX
Adjacent property Ownersw
{l"f,o6$"Tfrt"ge Road
{,ff:d:i"T#t"ge Roadw
281 Bridge Street --
Vail, Colorado g1657
Vail Athtetic Club
Attn. Debra Swain
352.P'rut Meadow Drive
vau, Colorado 91657
{iri,"8ll"l;?lTi*?'
ffinlffiffimil#iu?jon
qpalw .q 6.un\- c\rt d lrl
- Viil Viilage tstFilin
t t -T
lr
\
4Kf- rnts trEM MAy EFFEcT youR pRopERTy
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Gommission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
fie Town of Vail on October 11, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
1. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end ol the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasUan unplatted parcel located between VailVillage 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way-
Applicant: VailValley Medical CenterPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request for a height variance to allow for dormers to be constructed at the Mountain
Haus located at 262 East Meadow Drive/part of Tract B, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Mountain Haus Condominium AssociationPlanner: Shelly Mello
3. A request for a fence height variance to allow for a fence to be constructed around a
swimming pool at the May Residence located at 1119 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 6, and the
east l/2 of Lot 5, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Paula MayPlanner: Shelly Mello
4. A request for an amendment to SDD #4, Area D, to allow an expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road WesVLot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
LoanPlanner: Shelly Mello
5. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an addition to the Cyranos Building,
located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot G, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. ParksPlanners: Mike Mollica
s'A request for a worksession to discuss the establishment of an SDD lo allow the
redevelopment of the Cornice Building and a request for a conditional use permit to
allow the construction of three Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail
Valley Drive and more specitically described as follows:
A part of Tracl "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, Firsl Filing, county of Eagle, $ats of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
..r
Commencing at lhe lt{ortheast corner of Vajl Village, First Filing; thenco North 79%6'00" Wesl along the
Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feel to lh€ Northeast corner of said Tract "B';
thence Suth 10o14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract "8"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the
Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B'; thence No(h 79'46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Ttact
'B" a distance of 100.00 feet 10 the true point ot beginning thence North 09"10'07'West a distance of 41.67
feet; thence South 8827'11" Wesl a dislance of 75.21 feet; thence South 27"13'37" East a dislance of
77.37 teeti thence Norlh 57'24'00 East a dislance of 55.1 1 fee1, more or less to the true poinl of beginning.
Applicant: David SmithPlanner: Jim Curnutte
7. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant: Leo PaynePlanner: Jim Curnutte
8. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Timothy DriskoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
L A request for approval of the Cemetery'Master Plan and Report, for the Town of Vail
Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench ol Donovan Park.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
10. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District, a CCI exterior
alteration, a minor subdivision, a zone change, and an encroachment into View
Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B, C,
Block 2 and Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.Ay'ail Associates,
Inc./GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, lnc.Planner: Mike Mollica
uoeilTuo'lsc HLcS t_- | nrO'nH YCU ,.-"-h
rHrs rrEM MAy EFFEcT youR pRopERw \]lle1\q-L1
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vailon Augustg, 1993, at2:00 P.M. in theTown of Vail MunicipalBuilding.
Consideration of:
1, A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an addition and exterior upgrades to
the Cyranos Building, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
lst Filing.
2.A request for a setback variance, a rezoning from Greenbelt Natural Open Space to
Single Family Residential, and a minor subdivision to allow for the construction of a
caretaker unit for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision, located at Tract C, Spraddle Creek
Subdivision.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Margretta B. Pad<s
MiKe MoIIica TABLED INDEFINITELY
SBC Development Corporation
Mike Mollica
Briar Patch Condominium Association,
represented by David Leach
Shelly Mello
BAB Partnership
Andy Knudtsen
3.A request for an amendment to the approved development plan and a minor
subdivision for the Briar Patch Condominiums, located at 1390 Butfehr Creek Road/Lot
F, Lions Ridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
c.
A request for a worksession for a proposed major subdivision (Trappe/s Ridge) to
create thirty-three Hillside Residential lots to be located on Lot 8, Block C, Vail Ridge
and Lots 16, 19, and 21, Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West, generally
located north of l-70 and west of the Vail Ridoe Subdivision.
Jolrn Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Developnrent, lrrc.
(Gary Arthur)
Jim Curnutte
A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision, a request for a variance from
Section 18.13.050 buildable area, and a request for a rezoning from High Density
Multi-Family to Primary/Secondary Residentialzone district for a property located at Lot
4, Block 3, Bighom Subdivision Filing No. 3Y4333 Bighorn Road.
I
#
MECM Enterprises, represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings.
Shelly Mello
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Tim Devlin
i8.A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion and a request to
amend a previously approved Conditional Use Permit for an existing "Television
Station" at the Sunbird Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 3rd Filino.
O
6. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
That pan ol thr S:W i/4 NE 1.r4, Secton la Township 5 Soulh, Range 81 West ot lhs Sinh Principej L,teddian, Town of Vail, Esgle County,
Colorado, descdb€d as lollows:
Beginning at a psint on $e Eouthedy ight.sl-way line ol tnterslat€ Highway No. 70 whenc€ ao irofl pin urilh a Phsl;c cap ma.Lng lho cenlet ol
said Section 12 bslrE S 33'lO'19'W 1447.03 le€t f|€nce aloog 3!id sourherly right-ol'way lin€ two coufsos
1) N 62'5029' E 229.66 leel
2) N 74'38'lr E 150.70 t8et
lhBnce departlng said southorty rightd.way line N e8'45 57' E 138.93 lect thence S 40'45'14'W 94.32 le€t lhence S 18' 18'36'W 5,1.08 feeli
theoce S 0t.21'36. W 2O5.O2fe€t; henc€ S 12.C736'W r10.25 feet; th.ncs S 28'28'36'W 164.4E fs3g thenco N 40'17?4'W211.16 le€t
thenccN49.42!6'E97.80teetthsncBN3?.0931'W95.59feetth€ncaS5l5O'29'W55.10le€thenc€69.48le€talongthea,colanon-
tangeit cu've to thc telt having a r8dus ot 65.00le€! a central angLle ol 61'14'42'end a chod that bears N 58r 55 53. W 66.22leet thenc€ N
37"0931' W r 18.50 leer To The True Point ol Eeglnnlng, Counly ol Eagle, State ol Colorado;
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Plannen
Applicant:
Planner:
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Comlce
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tract'8" and a part of Mill Cteek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, more"particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00" West along the
Southerly line of U.S. Highrvay No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Norlheast comel ol said Tract "8":
thence South 10o14'00" West along th6 Easierly line of said Tracl "B'; a distance of '198.31 feel to the
Souiheasterly corner of said Tract "8"; thence North 79"46'00' West along thE Southerly line of said Tracl
"B'a distance of 100.00 leet to the true point of beginning thence North 09"10'07'West a distancg of 41.67
feet: thence South 98"27'11'West a dislance of 75.21 feeti thence Soulh 27'13'37'East a distance ot
77.37 teet: lhenc€ North 57"24'00" East a dislance ot 55.11 feet, more or less lo th€ trus point of beginning,
I Fil.t CICIPy
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PHESENT
Diana Donovan
Jeff Bowen
Bill Anderson
Kathy Langenwalter
Allison Lassoe
July 12, 1993
MINUTES
ABSENT
Dalton Williams
Greg Amsden
STAFF
Kristan Pritz
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutte
Tim Devlin
This session of the PEC was called to order at approximately 1:20 p.m. The PEC
members decided to move forward on the Fqenda to the tabled items (items #8 - #12).
ra. a'g'{(gsspte {e o&*l*ss'
1. A request forthe establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice ,
Building and a request for a c,onditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tract "B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County ot Eagle, State of
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast comer of Vail Village, First Filing; thence North 79046'00" West along the
Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 leet to ths Northeast comer of said Tract "B";
thence Soulh 10'14'00" West along the Easterv line ol said Tract "B"; a distance ot 198.31 feet to the
Southeasterly corner of said Tract "B"; thence North 79'46'00'West along the Southerly line of said Tract
"8" a distance of 100.00 feet to the true point of beginning thence Nodh 09"10'C7" West a distance of 41.67
feet; thence South 88027'11" West a distance ol75.21 lee\ thence South 27'13'37" East a dislance ol
77.37 teeli thencs North 57o24'OO" East a dislance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point ol beginning.
' : Applicant David Smith
, Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO JULY 26, 1993
Diana Donovan made a motion to table this item until July 26, 1993 with Jeff Bowen
seconding this motion. A 4-0 vote tabled this request untilJuly 26, 1993.
2. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, Fkst Filing, Town ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as {ollows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner ol said Tract B; thence N 79"46'00'W along the Norlherly line ol Vail
Village, Fhst Filing, and along the Norther'ly line of said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 06o26'52" W a
distance of 348.8:| leet to the Southwest comer of that parcel of land described in Book l9l at Page .|39 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and liled in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said comer also
Phnning and Environmental Commission
July 12, 1993 1
FIL T
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until July 12, 1993 with Greg Amsden
seconding this request. A 6-0 vote tabled this item untilJuly 12, 1993.
12. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO JULY 12, 1993
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request untilJuly 12, 1993 with Greg Amsden
seconding this request.
^A
6-0 vote tablefl lhis item untilJuly 12, 1993.
/.^ u.retr4<Wto * F / r *ceJ- 9
A request forthe establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Comice
"frtilding and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more speci{ically
described as follows:
A parl of Tract "8" and a part ot Mill Creek Road, Vail Mllage, Flrst Filing, County of Eagte, State ol
Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing al the Northeast corner of Vail Village, Fkst Filing; lhence Norlh 79'46'00" West along th€
Southerly line ot U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance ol 367.06 feet to the Northeasl comer of said Tract "B";
thence South 10o14'00" Wesl along lhe Easterly line of said Tract'8"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the
Sodheasterly corner ol said Tract "8"; thence North 79'46'00' West along the Southerly line of said Tract
"B" a dislance of 100.00 leet to th6 true point of beginning thence North 09"10'07" West a distance ol 41.67
feet; thence South 88'27'11" West a distance ol 75.21 feet; thence South 27.13'37" East a distiance ol
77,37 leel; thence North 57024'00" East a distance ol 55.1 | feet, more or less to the lruE point of beginning.
$8P y
13.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte TABLED TO JULY 12, 1993
14.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until July 12, 1993 with Greg Amsden
seconding this request. A 6-0 vote tabled this item untilJuly 12, 1993.
A request for a worksession for proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agriculturaland Open
Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code.
Town of Vail
Jim Cumutte and Russ Forrest TABLED TO JULY 12, 1993
Jeff Bowen made a motion to table this request until July 12, 1993 with Greg Amsden
seconding this request. A 6-0 vote tabled this item untilJuly 12, 1993.
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 28, 1993
10
v.APPENDIX
Adjacent Property Owners
Tnlt A - vallYillage lst Filing
Town of Vail
75 South Frontase Road
Vail. Colorado -
Traa C - V= il Yillage lst Filing
Town of Vail
75 Sourh Frontase Road
Vail. Colorado -
Vail Villagg Transponation Center
Town of Vail
75 South Frontase Road
Vail, Colorado dtOSZ
Tyrolean Condominiums
Tyrolean Condominium Association
c/o BrandesVCadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Sneet
Vail, Colorado 81657
VailAthletic Club
Attn. Debra Swain
352 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
T lTlq3^ o.d1
{l
8Lrrt o--qf
IS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PBOPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on July 26, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A clarification of the subdivision process regarding payment of taxes.
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
Thlt Frt ol the sw 1 l{ NE I ,it, sscion I 2, Townshlp 5 South, Ranoe 81 W6t of tt|e sixlh Princlp.l Meridian, Tovrn of vEll, Ealle coonry,
Colotedo, &6crib€d as blows:
B€ghnlng 8l a pdnt on th€ $uth€dy right{t*€y llrc of hbrsbts Hgtrwsy No 70 whance ar lrm pin with a d€stic cap marldng the carllor ot
sail Sedion 12 boaG S 3if10'19' W 1447.03 to€l; &enco alon! sald south€.ly ight{f.way lino o coursss
1) N 5250'2Y E 229.68 t€€l
2) N 7l-38'1f E 160.m hori
lhe.|c. deparlin9 sald southerly rtghtd-way llne N 88'4557' E 138.93 f€.t; thenca S 40"45'14'W 94.32 f€.1; lh€nc€ S t8' 183f U/ 54.08 fecti
fnnceS0t"2l36'W205.02t€ei;fiencoS12"O736iWl'lO.5t€€l:th.ncsS29?836'1./16{.46fo€t;thencaN/n"171X'W2tl.i6b€t
t|enc€N49"4256'E97-80lbot;th€ncsN3?S31'W95.5st€etrhencaS52So'2YW55-t0teer;fi€nc€69.4Ete€talonOth€arcolanon-
langenl curvs It lhc l€lt havirE a radlus o165.00 test a ceitral an0l€ of 61144f and a chofd flat b€$s N 58' 55'5:l'W 58,22 fe€t thenos N
3ru'31'W 118.50 te€l To Ths True Polnt ol B€glnnlng, County ol EaOt€, $al€ ot Colo.ado:
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings.Planner: Shelly Mello
3. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow an expansion to a residential unit at
the Red Lion/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5-A, Vail Village 1st Filing/304 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Aagje NoursePlanner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for a modification to the conditional use for the snow dump to allow an
expansion of the road located at '1309 Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located
west of the Town of Vail shops.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a variance to allow a deck to enoroach into a setback for a residence
located at Lot 14, Bighorn 2nd Filing/3876 Lupine Drive.
Applicants: Eric and Susan SipfPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
6. A request to amend the development plan for the Gold Peak Base to allow a building
for restrooms and locker rooms located at Tract F, Vail Village 5th Filingizl58 Vail
Valley Drive.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc., represented by Tim Kehoe
Planner: Tim Devlin
7, A request tor a lolnt worksesslon with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design Review Board for the establishment of a Special Development District
to allow the expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive,
and more specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, First Filing, Town ol Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
descdbed as folbws
Commendng al thE North€ast corner of said Tract B; $€rc€ N 79'46'00' W along lh6 Norlherly llne of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the North€rly line ol said Tract B 622.86 feet; thence S 0626'52' W a
dislance of 348.83 feet to lh€ Southwesl cornEr ot that parcel of land describEd In Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and lil€d In Reception No. 10297S in the Eagle County Records, said mrner also
being the True Point of B€ginnirE; thence S 79p04'@' E and along th€ Soulherly line ol said parcsl 200.00
l€el to the Southoast corner lherEot; th€nce N 62"52'00' E and along th€ Northeily lins of lhat parcel of land
descdbed ln B@k 22 at Pag6 513 as r€corded In 1971 in the Eagl€ County R€cords, a distanc€ of 66.78
teet lo the Nonhsasterly corner of said parcel of tand; said corner being on lhe W€st€rly dght-ot-way lino of
Gore Creek Road, as platted in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; lhence N 27"13'37'W a dislance ol77.37 leel
abng said Waslerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; lh€nce N 89o29?2" W a distance of 12.80 f€€l to
the Nonhgast€rly corner ol that parcsl of hnd described in Book 191, Pag€ 139 as recorded January 10,
'| 966 and liled In Reception No. 102978 In the Eagle County Recods; thsncs Northwosterly 26.51 feet along
the arc of a 37,50 f€el radius curve to the l€ft having a central angle of 40o30'00" whos€ chord bears N
53"40'0f W a distancg of 25.96 f€et lo a pc{r of langency; thence N 73'55'00' W and along said langsnt
166.44 l€ol; thonco N 85'10'21'W a distance of 50.40 f€€t to the Nortl v€sl€rly cornsr ot lhE i/bunlain
Haus Parcol; th€nce S 02'18'00" W and atong the easlerly line of said i runtain Haus Parcol a distarre ol
100.00 fe€t ro th€ Southeasterly corner th€reof; lh€nce S 45'13'53" E a distance of 38.70 fe€l to the True
Pcfnt of B€ginning, conlainlrE 30,486 square fost, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Athletic ClubPlanner: Shelly Mello
8. A request for a major exterior alteration to allow for a retail expansion at the Sunbird
Lodge, located at 675 Lionshead Place/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: VailAssociates, lnc.Planner: Tim Devlin
: A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment ot the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specitically
described as follows:
A pan ot Tract '8" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County ol Eagle, Stale of
Cobrado, more particularly describ€d as folbws:
Comm€ncing al the Northeast cornEr of Vail Village, First Filing; th€nce Norlh 79"46'00'West along lhe
S.){iiherlr iiire oi i.i S. !'liolru;av l'Jr, I - ,''.' --,-'' r,f 361.C6 f.-jct i.' ih,t lJ.'1:,i,,asi cr:inor ol :;airj Tracl "i:1":
thenco Soulh 10o14'0O" West along the Easte y line ol said Tract "B"; a distanc€ of 198.31 fe€t to thE
Southsasl€rly cotnsr of sald Tract 'B'; thence North 79146'00 W€st along th€ South€dy tin€ of sald Tract
'B'a dlstance of 100.00 t6€t to the truo polnt ot beginning thenc€ Nonh 09"10'07- West a distarrce of 41.67
feet; therce South 88"27't1'W€st a distance of 75.21 t6€t; th€ncs South 27"1337'East a dlstance of
77.37 teeti th€rce Norlh 91"24'OO' East a distance of 55.11 te€t, mor€ or l6ss to the tru€ point ot begtnnlng.
Applicant: David SmithPlanner: Jim Curnutte
10. A request for a conditional use permit and a landscape variance to allow an expansion
of the Vail Associates vehicle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4
Section 7 and the SW 1/4 SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the
60th P.M.^/ail Associates.
Applicant: VailAssociatesPlanner: Jim Curnufte
v.AII'ENDrx
Adjacent property Owners
lsJ,t:l#nase Road
ffi;6$gx"cn""a
Vail Athtetic Club
$##,'m"Ha;;-
bla+- "*d"".*s SirT o-rr CtV
ffi#,'
1,:,f:S,#t"fi.H"
J ".
2r\
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPEBTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of fte Tov'm of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Munlclpal Gode of
the Town of Vail on July 12,1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a wall height varlance for a property located at 3130 Booth Falls
CourVlot 6, Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Johann MuellerPlanner: Shelly Mello
2. A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, for an a&lition and exterior upgrades lo
the Cyranos Building, located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village
lst Filing.
Applicant: Margretta B. ParksPlanners: Mike Mollica and Tim Devlin
3. A request for an exterior alteration and a site coverage variance to the Gondola
Building to allow the construction of a wheelchair lift located on Lot 4, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1sU600 West Lionshead Circle.
. Applicant: VailAssociatesPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for proposed lext amendmenE to Ghapter 18.38, Greenbelt and Natural
Open Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open Space District ol the
Vail MunicipalCode.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanners: Jim Curnutte and Russ Forrest WITHDRAWN
5. A request for a proposed SDD and minor suMivision to allow for the development ol
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parkwood RealtyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
I e. A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornlce
> Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow he ionstruction of three
n Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specilically
described as follows:
A part ol Tract "B' and a parl of Mill Creek Road, Vail Vlllage, First Fllng, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, mor€ parlicularly d€scrib€d as follry$
I
Comm€ndng at th€ Norlheasl cornor ol Vail Villag6, Firsr Fiilng; thenco North 79"46'0d Wost along the
Sonherly llne of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 t€€t to the Nonheasl corn€r of sald Tract 'B';
thenco South 10"14'00'WEsl alorE lh€ Easlerly tlne of said Tract "B'; a dislance of 198.31 fe€l lo lh€
South€ast€rly corner of said Tract 'tr; th€nce Nonh 79'46'00' West along lh6 Soulherly [n€ cf said Tract
'B'a distarrce ot 100.00 f€€t to the true point of beginning thenc€ North 09'10'07'Wesl a dlstarce ol 41.61
feet; thorrcs Scrrth 88027"11'West a distance of 75.21 feet; th€nce South 27'13'37'East a dlstance of
77.97 leel; thencs North 57"24'0fJ. East a dslance of 55,11 feet, more or less lo th€ true polnt ol beginning.
7.A request lor a work sesslon for the establishment of a Special Development Dlstrict,
a CCI exterlor alteration, a minor suMivision, a zone change, and an amendment to
View Corridor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House. 278 Hanson Ranch Road/Lots A, B,
C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
Inc./Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, Inc.
Mike Mollica/Tim Devlin TABLED INDEFINITELY
Sallie Dean and Larry Rousch
Tim Devlin
Vail Associates
Jim Curnutie
SBC Development Corporation
Mike Mollica
8. A request for a site coverage, density variance and wall height variance to allow the
construction of a garage at 2942 Bellflower/Lot 8, Block 8, Vail Intermountiain.
9.
10.
11.
A request for a conditional use permit to allow an expansion of the Vail Associates
vehlcle maintenance shop located at the NW 1/4 NW 1/4 Section 7 and the SW 1/4
SW 1/4 Section 6, Township 5 South Range 80 W of the 60th P.M.A/ail Associates.
A request for a minor suMivision for Lots 14 and 15, Spraddle Creek Estates
Subdivision.
A request for a minor amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village for the Waterford
parcels in area A, described as follows:
Thal Frl ol ll|o SltY lA NE 1f. Secdofl 12, Torvnshlp 5 Souil. Rano|o 8i Ursl of tha Sldh PrlnclFl MeMbn, Town ot Vall, Eaele Counv,
Crlortdo, descllbed !! blloxs:
B€glnnlng !t a Fol on lhg soltherly rlght-of-$ray line ol hbrolate Hlgtryray tlo. 70 whenca .n lron pln vrlth a phs c cap rnafilng lh€ a$l.r of
sald Sac{on t2 be|€ S *lcl0"lf W 1.147.03 lc€ti thence along srld 6outherly rlghl-ot-way llne o coun6
1) N s2.50?r E 2A.66 b3r
2) N 7it38l f E 160.7|, bel:
th..r€. deFdhe 3ald roulhsly rlohtd-way llne N 88".+55f E t30.93 b€t Ornca S 4(r45'tf liY 94.32 bot ll|enca S lEl l83d W t{.08 bet;
lhena. S OJ?r"3f W 205.02 teel; hon€€ S l2o0736. W llO.25 teet: lhonce S 28o28fi'W te4.,l8 feol; th€ncs N.|{t'lnJ.['W a 1.16 b.q
ir.roN4gP,lr!'5dE97.grbotlhonceN37"@3r'W95.59toegth€.rc.SsalsoFW16.10betience6g.{Ef€€lrlo||0rhoarcofanon-
lanoent c1rflc b lhs lett hsJlng t rsdlus of 65.00 f€€t a cenlrsl Angl€ of 6'1"1.{'4f and a chonl t\al bsal€ N 58" slt'str W 6422 fcag lhenca N
371rgll' W 1l&5O bcl To Th€ True Pdnt of B€ghnlng. Cfl t of Eagle, $ate ot Colocdo;
t
i
Applicant MECM Enterpdses represented by Euslaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings.Planner: Shelly Mello
12. A request for the establishment of a Special Development Dlstrict to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A parcel of land ln Tract B, Vail Village. First Fillng, Town of Vall, Eagle CdJnty, Colorado, more partlculatly
descdbed as follows:
Commendng at the Norlheast corner cd said Tracl B; th€nce N 79'46'00' W along the Northerly Ine of Vail
Village, First Filing, and abng the Nonherly line ol said Traa B 622.86 feel; therrco S 0626'5f W a
distancs of 348.83 feet lo lh€ Southlvost corn€r ol lhat parcol of land dEscribed in Book 191 al Pags 139 as
recoded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 In the Eaglg County R€cord9, sald cornor also
b€ing the True Point ol Beginning; thence S 79oO4'08' E and along the Sodhedy lin€ of said parcel 200.00
tset to th€ South€ast cornsr thereof; th€nco N 62"52'00' E and along the Northerly line of that parcel of land
described in 8ok 222 at Page 513 as recoded ln 1971 in the Eagle County Rocords, a distanc€ of 56.78
t€el to th€ Norlhoaslerly corner of said parcel ol land; said corner belng on the Weslerly dght-of-way line ol
Gore Creek Road, as plattEd in Vail Village, Fltth Filing; thence N 27"13ts7" W a distance of 77.37 feet
along said Weslerly right-of-way line of Gore Cr€€k Road; thence N 89p29'2? W a distarce ot 12.80 le€t b
lho North€asterly corner of that parcel of land described in Book 191, Page 139 as recoded January 10,
1966 and fil€d in Roception No. 102978 in the Eagle County R€cords; lhence Northwestorly 26.51 feet along
lhe arc of a 37.50 feot radius curve to th6 teft havirE a central angle of 40"30'00" whose chord bears N
53'40'00' W a dislanc€ of 25.96 f€et to a point of tangency; thenc€ N 73"55'00' W and along said tangent
166.44 feet; lhonco N 85"'10'21' W a distance of 50,40 t€et to thE Northwesterly corner of lhe i luntain
Haus Parcel; thonce S 0f 18'00" W ard atorE the easterly lne of said itounlain Haus Parcel a distance of
100.00 f€ot to the Southeastery oorner thor€of; lhence S 45o13'5:l' E a distanco of 38.70 fsel to the True
Polnt of B€ginning, containirE 30,486 square t€€t, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Athletic ClubPlanner: Shelly Mello
13. A request for a height variance, a density variance, a landscape variance and a major
exterior alteration of the L'Ostello Condominium Building located at 705 West
Lionshead Cirde/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
Applicant: L'Ostello CondominiumsPlanner: Shelly Mello
14. A request lo revlew the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3
o
15. A requlest for a mlnor subdlvlslon and rezoning lrom Greenbelt Nafural Open Space to
Hillsirb Fesidential for Traet C, Spraddle Creek Estales Subdlvlslon.
Appllcant: SBC Development CorporationPlanner: Mike Molllca
::r 't
J. ''gn
APPENDIX
Adjacent Property Owners
Tract A - Vail Village lst Filing
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Tract C - Vail Village 1st Filine
Townof Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Vail Village Transportation Center
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Twolean Condominiums
Tyrolean Condominium Association
c/o Brandess/Cadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Street
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail Athletic Club
Attn. Debra Swain
352 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
ab
blq
q3-
q3-
oC/act rts CLrt- o-Lt St 0
oel*\crurrs sr-t G-'r- Qt tl
THE CORMCE BUILDING
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
in accordance with Section 18,66,060 of the Municipal Code of
1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
2.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
Vail will hold a public hearing
the Town of Vail on June 14,
Consideration of:
1. A determination for the
and CCll zone districts:
60 day review period
60 day review period
90 day review period
90 day review period
90 day review period
90 day review period
90 day review period
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
review periods of the Exterior Alteration requests in the CCI
L'Ostello Shelly Mello
Lionshead Center Andy KnudtsenEnzian Shelly Mello
Lifthouse Lodge Jim Curnutte
(Pizza Bakery)
Sunbird Lodge Tim Devlin
Gondola Building Andy KnudtsenCyrano's Mike Mollica
A request for a major CCll exterior alleration, a setback variance and a site coverage
variance to allow for the construction of an elevator tower located at the Enzian at Vail
Condominiums, 705 West Lionshead Circle/oart of Enzian Condominium Association,
Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Enzian Condominium Association
Shelly Mello
A request for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the
southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st
Filing/520 Lionshead Circle.
3.
4.
5.
A request for a modification to PEC conditions of approval for the revised development
plan for Vail PoinU1881 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 1, Block3, Lionsridge Filing No.3.
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudtsen
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
A request to review the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neiqhborhood.
6. A request for a proposed SDD and minor subdivision to allow for the development of
single family homes located on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
7.A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request tor a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A part of Tract "8" and a part ol Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, Firsl Filing, County of Eagle, Stat€ of
Colorado, mor€ particularly described as follows:
Commencing al the Northeast corner oJ Vail Village, First Filing; lhence North 79"46'00" West along the
Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a dislance of 367.06 leet to the Norlheast corner of said Tract "8";
thenc6 South l0'14'00" West along rhe Eastefly line of said Tract "B"; a dislance ol 198.31 feel to lha
Southeasterly corner ol said Tract "8"; rhence North 79"46'00" West along lhe Southerly line of said Tract
"B" a distance ol 100.00 teet to rhe true point of beginning rhence Norlh 09'10'07" Wesl a distance ot 41,67
leeti thence Soulh 88"27'11" Wesr a distance ol 75.21 teel; thence South 27"13'37" East a dislance of
77.37 leeli thence Nonh 57"24'00" Easl a disrance ol 55.11 feet, more or less 10 the true point of beginning.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Steve Gensler/Parkwood Realty
Andv Knudtsen
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Carl Fauland
Tim Devlin
8. A request for a setback variance to allow for the construction of a residence located on
the north half of Lot 5, Matterhorn Village, 1711 A Geneva Drive.
q A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining portion of the Simba Run SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specifically described as follows:
That part of th€ Fi,st Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, according to the map thereof
recorded in the ollice of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as tollows:
Beginning at the most southlveslerly corner ol said map, lhence lhe tollowing lhfee courses along the
weslerfy fines of said map; 1) NO3"33'01"E 150.79 feer;2) N12'50'33"E 144.72feet; 3) N17'56'03" 70.60
feel; thence, departing said westerly line, S13"16'03"W 157.26 leet, lhence S76o43'57"E 91.50 leel; thenca
N13'16'03"E 35.00 leet; thence 576o43'57"E 72.31 feet to the easterly line ol said map; thence the follorring
two courses along lhe easterly and southeasterly lines ol said map; 1) S24o44'57"E 52.38 feet; 2)
S52"50'29'W 272.50 leel lo lhe Point ol Beginning, containing 0.6134 acres, more or less; and
That part of Simba Run, according to lhe map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 753 in the Office of
the Eaglg Counry, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as lollows:
Beginning at lhe most soLrtherly corner of said Simba Run, lhence the Jollowing four courses along lhe
southwesterly and northwesterly lines ol said Simba Run; 1) N37o09'31'W 233.28 leet; 2) 334.57 teet along
th€ arc of a curve 10 the left, having a radius ol 1771 .95 feel, a cenlral angle of 1 0"49'06", and a chord that
bears N42ol3'20"E 334.07 leet; 3) N36"48'48" E 201.36 teet; a) 15.96 feel along lhe arc ol a curve to the
right, having a radius of 428.O2leel, a central angle ol 02'08'12", and a chord that bears N37"52'54" E
15.96 feet to a corner on fte westerly boundary of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run
Condominium, according to the map thereof recorded in the olfice ol thg Eagls County, Colorado, Clerk and
. Recorder; lhence lhe tollowing lour courses along said westerly boundary; 1) S21c51'28"W 69.90 leet;2)
517"56'03"W 181.17 feet; 3) S12"50'33"W 144.72 teeti 4) 503033'01"W 160.79 foet to the southeaslerly line
ol said Simba Run; lhenc€, along said southeastefty line, S52'50'29"W 113.08 leet lo the Poinl of
Beginning, conlaining 1.560 acres, more or less.
Applicant: Simba Land CorporationMalid SaidPlanner: Mike Mollica
10. A,request to amend Section 18.58.020 of the Zoning Code to clarify the height allowed
for retaining walls in setbacks.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Tim Devlin
11. Update on Sweet Basil's deck construction located at 193 Gore Creek Drive/part of
Block 58, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Ned GwathmeyPlanner: Shelly Mello
'12. Update on the Smail/Connely variance located at Lot 5, Bighorn Estates/4238 Nugget
Lane.
Applicant: Michael and Sally ConnelyPlanner: Shelly Mello
13. Discussion with Greg Hall regarding traffic studies for Vail Road.
14. Appoint PEC Chairperson.
1. A request for the establishment of a Special Development District to allow the
expansion of the Vail Athletic Club, located at 352 East Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as lollows:
A parcel of land in Tract B, Vail Village, Fifsl Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, more particularly
described as lollows:
Commencing at the Nonheast corner ol said Tract B; thence N 79'46'00" W along ihe Norlherly line of Vail
Village, First Filing, and along the Northerly line ol sald Tract B 622.86 leel; lhence S 06'26'52" W a
dlstance of 348.83 leet to the Soulhwest corner ol lhat pafcel of land described in Book .|91 at Page .|39 as
recorded January 10, 1-066 and filed in Reception No. 102978 In the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point of Beginning; lhencE S 79'04'08" E and along th€ Sbutherly line of sald parcel 200.00
feet lo the Southeast corner lhereo{; thence N 62c52'00" E and along lhe Norlherly line o{ that parcel o{ land
described in Book 222 :t Page 513 as recordod in 1971 io the Eagle County Reccids, a disianco of 66.78
feel lo ths Northeasledy corner of said parcel ol land; said corner being on the Weslerly dghhof-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as ptatted in Vail Village, Fitth Filing; thence N 27'13'37" W a dislance ot 77.37 leel
along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89"29'2t W a distance ot 12.80 teet lo
lhe Norlheasterly corner of lhat parcel of lard described in Book 191, Page .|39 as recorded January 10,
1966 and filed in Receplion No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records; lhence Northwesterly 26.51 feet along
lhe arc of a 37.50 feet radius curve to tha left having a central angle of 4O'30'oO" whose chord bears N
53'40'00" W a dislance of 25.96 feet lo a point of tangency; thence N 73'55'00" W and along said tangsnt
166.44 leet; thence N 85'10'21" W a distance of 50.40 teel to the Northweslerly corner ol the l/'lounlain
Haus Parcel; lhence S 02"18'00'W and along the easterly lin€ of said lt{ountain Haus Parcel a distance ot
100.00 feel to the SoLtheasterly cofner thereof; thence S 45o13'53" E a distance ol 38,70 l€et to lh€ Truo
Pcrl'nt ol Beginning, containing 30,486 square feet, more or less.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN
Vail will hold a public hearing
lhe Town of Vail on June 28,
Consideration of:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
VailAlhletic Glub
Shelly Mello
L'Ostello Condominiums
Shelly Mello
Town of Vail
Jim Curnutte and Russ Forest
i
2.A request for a height variance, a density variance, a landscape variance and a major
exterior alteration of the L'Ostello Condominium Building located at 705 lryest
Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead 4th Filing.
.B s'A request for a worksesslon tor proposed text amendments to Chapter 18.38,
Greenbelt and NaturalOpen Space District, and Chapter 18.32 Agricultural and Open
Space District, of the Vail Municipal Code.
..4.
F
o.
A request for an EHU-lll to be located within the former Whitehead residence, 366
Hanson Banch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
-!
Applicant:
Planner:
A request for the
residence located
Drive.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
A request for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an addition on the
southwest corner of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Lionshead 1st
Filing/520 Liotrshead Circle.
John Shirley
Andy Knudtsen
establishment of an SDD to allow the expansion of the Anderson
at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lion's Ridge 4th Filing/1775 Sandstone
Todger Anderson
Andy Knudlsen
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudtsen
A request for a major amendment to SDD #5 to allow for the development of the
remaining porlion of the Simba Bun SDD, Savoy Villas, located at 1100 North Frontage
Road, more specifically described as lollows:
That part of the First Supplemental Map for Simba Run Condominium, acmrding to the map lhereof
recorded in the otfice ol the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as lollows:
Beginning at the mosl soulhwesterly corner of sald map, thence the following thre€ courses along lhe
westerfy lines of said map; 1) NO3"33'01"E 160.79 leer; 2) N12"50'33"E 144.72ieer;3) N17'56'03" 70.60
feeu thence, departing said weslerly line, 513o16'03"W 157.28 feet, lhence S76'43'5/"E 91.50 teet; thenco
N 13"1 6'03"E 35.00 fe61; thence S76'43'57"e 72.31 leet to lhe easterly line of said map; thenc€ the follo,ving
two courses along the easterly and southeasterly lines of said map; 1) 524"44'57"E 52.38 leet; 2)
S52'5029"W 272.50 leet to the Poinl of Beglnning, coniaining 0.6134 acres, more or less; and
That part ol Simba Flun, according to the map thereof, recorded in Book 312 at Page 763 in the Otfice ot
thg Eagle Counly, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder, described as lollows:
Beginning at lhe most southerly corner of said Simba Run, thence the following four courses along the
soulhwesterly and northwesterly lines of said Simba Bun; 1) N37'09'3 1"W 233.28 feet; 2) 334.57 fe€t along
the arc of a curve lo the left, having a radius of 171.95 feet, a central angle of 10'49'06', and a chord thal
bears N42'13'20"E 334.07 teet; 3) N35o48'48" E 201.36 feet; 4) 15.96 feel along lhs arc of a curva to ths
right, having a radius ol 428.02 feet, a cenlral angle of 02"08'12", and a chord that bears N37'52'54" E
.|5.96 feet lo a corner on the westerly boundary of the First Suppl€mental Map for Simba Run
Condominium, according lo the map thereof recorded in the office of the Eagle Counry, Colorado, Clerk and
Recorder; lhence lhe lollowing four courses along said weslerly boundary; 1) 521"51'28-W 69.90 feet;2)
S17o56'm"W 181.17 fsel; 3) S12'5033'W 144,721ee1; 4) 503'33'01'W 1@.79 feer to rhs south€asterly line
of said Simba Run; thence, along said southeasterly line, S52'50'29"W 113.09 leet 1o lhE Point ol
Boglnning, clntaining 1.560 acres, more or less.
Applicant:Simba Land CorporationMalid Said
o
Planner: Mike Mollica
..8. A request for a proposed SDD and minor suMivision to allow for the development of
single family homes localed on Tracts A and B, The Valley, Phase ll/1480 Buffer Creek
Rd.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Parla,rrood Realty
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
9. A request to revievr the Management Plan and Master Plan for the Vail Cemetery to be
located in the upper bench of Donovan Park generally located west of the Glen Lyon
subdivision and southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner:Andy Knudtsen
A request for the establishment of an SDD to allow the redevelopment of the Cornice
Building and a request for a conditional use permit to allow the construction of three
Type lV employee housing units, located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more specifically
described as follows:
A parl of Tract "B" and a parl of Mill Creek noad, Vail Village, First Fil'ng, Cornty of Eagle, Srat6 of
Colorado, more particularly described as tollows:
Commencing at lhe Northeast corner of Vail Village, First Filing;thence Norlh 79'46'00" W€st along lhe
Southerly line ol U.S, Highway No. 6 a dislance ol 367.06 feet to the Northeast corn€r ol said Tract "8";
thenca Soulh .|0o14'00" West along thg Easterly line of said Tract'B"; a distance of 198.31 feet 10 the
Southeasterly cornsr ol said Tract "8"; thenc€ North 79"46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract
'8" a distancs of.10000 feet to th€ true point ol beginning thence North 09'10'07" West a dislance of 41.67
f€€t; lhenco South 88o27'11' West a distance ol 75.21 feel; thence South 27"13'37" East a distance of
77.37 leel; thence North 57"24'00" Eait a distance of 55.11 teet, mor€ or less to the lrue point of beginnlng.
Applicant: David SmithPlanner: Jim Curnutte
t
1 1. Discussion of restrictions pertaining to development in areas having 40% or greater
slope.
Planner: Mike Mollica
, t-
o.r-.,{€arb,q PPC,M"
C*rr"c c,4-Tuc-L lr{ , /tt3
*,7{-
--tl"|crks l]14 ({1F"4 y.{*qLd .[e rnoa'#
/\tlkb ..4-
ft*-u-tff;ffi
--D,+(\
.--- rlgf r9 ,A-G-)
atu___1 _
td
U fr*q
--. 4uk qlo F,
Alt.s.A4 -b F{4 fvle
a
C n^e.,.*'Ler^s- <r,/
A^ulatt*!' e)
9tr,u$.'af
a.t4op- tla){A
Lta e s lM,
s6€ q*O.ff . r'{ , t"' ,*S A h,.A '' wa (l*
Uq*-c4/- "&nk' ,*., uoV? ybu.Lft -{ Ap!
{^r4t6f, *Uic(* S.pi /} \oo '{o co"ff
wfr
o
-Le.i
F-€- -te r.z.. c
*re r,t*ql {o
( ,,r, <,ln* rrc oov
tr4,
h-tr$h
l,a btd.t ti r h-ar)1 4/* ,tAJ, Y c
-l*r.dJt€ urQn
r.sP- wi't/5 ,uj,(( :
Lt-ofu
ur,( ( @L
'/ ' r
Ys _€ltd=_Ee_tt2_-_
$ P v*vrtbpoQ
--rO br')odq*.-
,s,+t{*" frso2
*4* ,
0 loe
4@
,i,40.ile_4tl,
s Fq.c
..1 ' -r o Ff{. t cOPy
Jack Beals stated that Eagle County has askod him lo address the building onyelope
size and that he plans to focus on this aspect of he project next.
Mike Mollica stated that a geologist has reviewed and approved the qrrrsnt dan.
Greg Amsden asked the applbant where the fire tumaround was located.
Jack Beals stabd that the 'hammerhead'design allows for such a tumaround.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was @ncemed aboui the size of the buiHing
envelopes tor oach of the proposed lots and questioned hor hat relates to he
County's standards for developmenl
Jack Beals stated hat Eagle County conriid€rs this a cluster reeubdivislon.
Mike Mollica stated that the only variance the applicant is requestng from Eagle
County pertains to locating he garages of two of the units in the front scback.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she was also concerned about the geologic hazarcls
and the sub-surface water on the site. She added that the driveway access to the
building envelopes needs to be looked at as well as the landscape plan for the project.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Kathy's clmments.
Greg Amsden stated that fte plan that the applicant was proposing Tlows with what is
already present in the neighborhood.' He strated that he agrees with Kathy's commsnt
concerning revegatation. He said that the applicant needs b be sensitive to the
existing topography of the site.
Allison Lassoe stated hat she agreed wih Kathy's and Bill's comments.
Jgtf Bowen stated that the envlronmental conoems and soils study p€rtaining to this
project needed to be addressed.
Dalton Williams stated that he agreed with the previous commenb the PEC members
had made. He added that he was particularly concamed with the sub-surface water
flow if the site was excavated and that changing or diverting fte water flow could affect
adjacent propsrty owners.
Diana Donovan agreed with all ol the previous comments.
Mike then stated that he would draft a letter to Eagle County outlining the
Commisslon's @mments and concerns.
5. A reguest for a joint worksesslon with tre Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a SDD to allow the
redevelopment of the Comice Building located at 362 Vail Valley Drive and more
PhnnirE and Bwlonmental Commission
Jun€ 14, 1999
speoifically described as follows:
A parl ot Treet 'B' and a parr of Mill Crcd( Road, Vall Vlflage, Fi]st Filing, County ot EegL, State of
Cobrado, more panialady d€scrib€d as bllowa:
Commerdng at th6 l{orth€asl corner of Vrll Village, FIst Fllng; therco North 79p46'0d West along th€
South€rly line o{ U.S. Hlg}r!'vay tlo. 0 a dlsta.E. ol 367.oG fe€t ro th€ Northesst comer ol aaH Tracl'B';
fienoe South 10c1,f'@'WosI abng the Easledy lne of sald Tract'B'; a dstarEe of 198.31 trer b lhe
Solheastedy corn€r d sald Tract 'B'; thenc€ North 79'46'00r W€st slong th€ Souttterv lne of said Tract
'B' a distance ol 100.00 feel b the tue pdnt ot begindng thonoo Nonh Otl.10O7'West a distarce of 4t-67
fcd; thorE€ Scrnh 88Ul'11' West . di$ancs of ?5.21 leet; $dlcc Soufi 2f1S"7' East a dlslarE d
T1.37 ledli rherEe Nonh 57?4'00 East a dstance cr 55.11 tst, npre or lces b the true polnt of bcgindng.
Applicant:
Planner:
Davld Smltr
Jim Curnutte
Jlm Curnutte mde a brief presentiation per he staff memo.
Tom Braun, the applicanl's repesentativo, stabd fiat the Comice Building is a ditficult
site to develop and that th€ applicant had lour objectives whlch he wished to
accomplish hrough the present proposal. Tom stiated that lt was the applicant's desire
to redevelop the site, to maintain the cunent landscaping on the site, to offer on-site
parking to the residenb of the Gornice BuiEing and to utilize the available GRFA on
the lot for the free market condominium unit. He said that they would fy to improve
the site lines of he projec't.
Kathy Langenwalter stated $at the three employee housing units cunenUy on the site
are desd restricted for tryenty yaars. She said that she is concemed with the proposed
GRFA and he credits for density. She stated that the Employee Housing Task Force
specifically cont€mplated a trade-off of GRFA or density and that an applicant cannot
have both. Conceming the setbacks, lGthy said that she did not have a problem with
the proposed setbacks. Conceming the proposed height of the Comice Building, she
stated that although it was true that ths zoning allorvs for a 48 foot high building in thls
zone district, that is within the setback area and not lor lhose porlions of the building
located beyond the setback lines. She added that it was her feeling that lhe verlicality
was inappropriate as well as the proposed GRFA. She stated that all of the required
parking for fie condo needs to be provkied on-slte. She also agreed with staffls
suggestion lhat the covered walhray between the building and the garage ne€ds to be
removed.
Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Kathy's @mments.
Dalton Wlliams stated that he agrees with Kathy's comments except wih regard to
parking. He stated that he felt that parking in the parking sfucture would minimize the
site lmpacts of this proiect.
Bill Anderson stated that he agrees wih Kathy's @mments but he disagrees with
statf's comment on page 7 of tre staff memo conceming GRFA and that it was his
Phnr$ng and Ewironm€nlal Commission
June 14, 1999 5
leeling frtat the employee housirq units should be induded in the figure.
Greg Amsden stated that it was his opinion that the height of the Comice BuiHing is
not comparable with the other buildings located in the area because lfie other buildings
have more mass. He suggested that the owner remove he top lev€l or two of the
building and that the maxlmum building height should be 36 to 39 teet. With regard to
parking, he said that on-site parking is necessary but should be limited to two parking
spaoss and that the applicant could pay into the parklng fund. He qrses with staffs
suggestion that the applicant consider reducing the GRFA of the condominium to 2,000
square feet or less to reduce the parking requiremenl by one parklng spacs.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed wih Kathy's commenb, especially conceming
building height.
George Lamb ard Bob Bome stated that they agreed with Kahy's @mments.
Sally Brainerd, who spoko on behalf of the Design Review Board, stated that she does
not have a problem with a fuilding height of 48 feet. She said hat she likes the
verticality of the building and feels that it gives the struc{ure character. She dded that
she was not in favor of a flat roof for he Comice Building ard recommsnded that the
owner consider a simpler roof torm that encompasses the whole struclute. She also
suggested that he covered entry be removed.
Diana Donovan stated that here was no parking requirement for this site back when
the building was built because the lot was immediately adjacent to a huge pafting lot.
She said that it was important that a sun/shde analysis be conducted, and hat ths
buiHing was way too high. She asked how on-site construction staglng was going to
be accomplished on such a small lot. She stated that lt was her opinion hat the
locations of the garage and tumaround need to be switched and that the building
needs to stay within the existing tootprints. she added that she felt hat this project
should nol be an SDD and that credit should not be given for the lhree employee
housing units since they are already in existence. She felt that th6 SDD was being
used in this instance solely as a mechanlsm to break lhe rules and she could not
support the project the way it is cunently proposed.
Dalton and lGtry both agreed with Diana's comments.
Tom Braun stated that the SDD conoept allows for creativlty in development and that it
was his feeling that the Cornics Building presented a unique situation with three
employee housirq units and one free-market condominium unit. He stated that without
the GRFA allowance, the project is not economically viable and probably would not be
redeveloped.
Dlana Donovan stated that there were originally eight employee unib.
Tom Braun added that these were originally eighl apartments.
Plandng and E fllronrn€ntal Comr{ssion
Jun€ 14, 1993
Greg Amsden 4reed wih Tom's @mment that it was a unigue site. He saH that he
felt a hardship dld exlst on the slte and hat it was a good location lor employee
housing.
Bill Anderson asked he applicant whether he woub be willing to extend the deed
restriction past twenty years.
Jetf Bowen asked whether there was a way to reorganize Unit I and Unit 2 of the
proposal so that you wouH not havo to walk through the kitchen to get to fie
bathroom.
Dafton Williams stated that he does not think that this poposal should be an SDD
because it is not a large enough site. He added thal it was his leeling that this was an
inappopriab use of the SDD concept.
Tom Braun irquired aboul the Garden of the Gods project.
Diana Donovan stated that the mass and bulk ol this proposal needed to be reduced.
Jeff Bowen add€d that he felt that the height ot the proposed building was excessive.
Bill Anderson stated that hs was not convinced that the requested additional GRFA on
the site nas ne@ssary.
Dalton Wlliams added that he also was not in favor of the propased GRFA
exceedance.
Kristan Pritz asked the PEC whether they felt he proposed site coverage, setbacks
and parking were okay and whether the GRFA being proposed needed to be reduced.
She also inquired wheher the PEC found the SDD concept to be acceptable for the
Cornice Building proposal.
Diana Donovan stated lhat she felt that a tree market condominium was not
appropriate on his site.
Kathy Langenwalter stiated that she felt the site was too small for he proposed building
and added that an SDD for this proposal wouH not be benelicial to the community.
Dalton Wlliams stated that he could see some benelit to the community lor the
Gomice BuiHing to be redeveloped and having the employee unib rsstricted fore\rer.
Allison Lassoe stated that she was concemed wifi the proposed location of the
wlndows lor the units on the bottom level because they would be coverod in the
wintertime wih snow and would feel 'cave-like'.
Diana Donovan stated that tre mass and bulk of the fulHirq needed to be redesigned.
Planning ard Ewiron mental Comflisdon
Jnf |. l09g 7
6.
Kristan Prits stated that the public benefit with regard to tris project needed to be
defined.
Jeff Bowen stated that the employee housing units were positive and that he felt
parking on-site would be ditficult with regard to getting in and out during fre winter
months.
Greg Amsden suggested that the owner consider moving the employee housing to
anolher lot in town.
Dalton Wlliams sairJ he would hate b see it moved out of $e Mllage area.
Diana Donovan staled that she did not want to see upper ond housing that did not
offer parking. She actded that she dld not feel that this was he best use for this
property, maybe the besl use is open space.
A request for a joint worksesslon with he Design Review Board and Planning and
Environmental Commission for an exterior alteration for Lionshead Center to allow an
addition on ths southwest comer of Lionshead Center, located at Lot 5, Block 1,
Lionshead lst Filing/S2O Lionshead Circle.
Applicant:
Planner:
Oscar Tang
Andy Knudben
(
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the staft memo and stated that there were
two parts to the applicanl's requ6st, parking and the design of Alfie Packe/s ontryway.
Andy reviewed he five poinb about he design made in ths staff memo. There is
general concunsnoe from the PEC members and DRB members that the proposed
addition met he extsrior alteration criteria. A concern raised on-site about the width of
the passageway from the front to he back of the site as well as a concem about the
location for locating the transition of new materials to existing materials wer6 pres€nted
by Bill Pierce. Since the site visit, he and Ray Nielson had modified the design,
creating a notch in he side of the building. This revision was supported unanimously
by the staff, PEC and DRB.
Concemlng the parking situation, Andy summarized he research the staff had done,
concluding hat parking could be povided on-site in CCll, as long as the provision
regarding SCn:/" ot he requked parking being within the main buildirq was met.
Because of this standard, stafl said that they only supported an addition of two spaces,
which would be located within the interior of the main building.
Bill Pierce said that was acceptable to the applicanl but that he would like to revisit he
issue and ask for additional spaces to be locat€d on-site.
The PEG agreed that locating the two spac€s within lhe main tuildirg was reasonable
and the fees to be paid into the parking fund could be reduced by $16,000.
Plandng and Envlm.nental Coornission
Jun€ 14, 19gil
t
i, a.-
.TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ilEMORANDUM
Planning and Envlronmental Commisslon
Community Development Department
rf{. f E&Pv
June 14, 1993
A request for a joint worksesslon wittf the Design Review Board and the
Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the establishment of a
SDD for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, 362 Vail Valley Drive, a
part of Tract B, Vail Village Flrct Filing, and more specifically described as
follows:
A part of Tract 'B' and a pan of Mill Cre€k Road, Vall Vlllage, Fltsl FUng. County of Eagle, Stato ot
Colorado, more partio.rlarly descdbed as tollows:
Commencing al th6 Northeast cornor ol Vail Villagq Fi.st Flling; thenc€ North 79"46'90' Wesr
along lho Sorrtherly ling of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distarr€ ot 367.06 fe€t to lhe North'east com€r of
said Tract'8"; th€nce South 10"l4OO W€st along tho Easterly line ol said Trast'B'; a dlstanc€ ol
198.31 teot to the Southeastsdy @m€r ol sa? Tract 'B'; thence North 79'46'0(r West alorE lhe
Sodherly line of said Trast'B' a dlslarre of 10o.OO lset to th€ true point ot b€glnnirE thenco North
09'10'07 West a dlstance of 41,67 fe€l; th€nce South 88'27'11'WEsl a dislance ol 75.21 fe€t;
thence Sorrth 27"1337' East a digtanco of T1.37 feeq thencs Nonh 57"24'00" East a dlslanc€ ot
55.11 feet, .nore ot less lo the true point of beglnning.
Applicant:
Planner:
David and Myra Smith
Jim Curnutle
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
The applicants, David and Myra Smith, are requesting review of the proposed establishment
of a speclal developmeni district (SDD) for the redevelopment of the Cornice Building, 362
Vail Valley Drive, a part of Tract B, Vail Village First Filing.
The Comice Building site ls located in the eastern portion of VailVillage, between the Vail
Athletic Club and the Tyrolean Inn. The property is currently zoned High Density Mulll-Family
(HDMF) and is considered to be nonconforming with regard to lot size, which is .084 of an
acre (3,659 square feet) in size. The applicant has lndicated that the purpose of requesting a
SDD for this property is to provide a mechanism tor the review of certain devia$ons from the
existing development standards of the site's underlying zoning. In addition, the SDD process
will allow for the joint review of a conditional use for three proposed Type lV Employee
Housing Units. Although there are three units on the site whlch are restricted to employee
use, lhey do not cunently meet lhe requirements of Type lV Employee Housing Units. The
proposod redevelopment of the Cornice Bullding involves deviations lrom the following HDMF
development standards:
t,
1. GHFA - This proposal exceeds allowable GRFA by 1,305 square feet.
2. Setbacks - Portions of the structure are proposed to encroach into the front, side and
rear setbacks. ln addition, the applicant is proposing to locate required parking within
the front setback area which is generally prohibited in the HDMF zone district.
3. Parkinq - The required number of parking spaces for the proposed redevelopment is
six spaces. The applicant is proposing to provide two parking spaces on-site (one
enclosed and one exterior). The proposal will also not comply with the HDMF zone
district requirement that 75% of all parking be enclosed or otherwise hidden from lhe
view of adjacent properties. No parking is proposed tor ths Type lV employee housing
units.
The redevelopment of the Gomice Bullding involves he demolition of the existing building,
which currently includes the following uses:
1 - 1,084 square foot open market dwelling unit
3 - restricted employee rental units (202 square feet each)
1 - 202 square feet of office space
The proposed redevelopment of the Comice Building involves the following uses:
1 - 2,702 square foot unrestricted dwelling unit
3 - restricted employee rental units (approximately 265 feet each) per Town of Vail
Type lV employee housing requirements
2 - parking spaces (one enclosed and one exterior)
II. BACKGROUND
The Cornice Building was originally constructed in the mid 1960's and included eight small
rental apartments. No on-site parking was provided for the rental apartments. With the
exception of new decks and a minor building expansion in 1976, the overall lorm of the
building has not changed since it was built. The property has been the subject 0t numerous
developmenl proposals over the years and due to the small size of lhe parcel, virtually all of
the redevelopment proposals involved requests for exceptions from the zoning standards. ln
the mid 1970's, a conditional use permit was granted which allowed for a real estate office lo
op€rate out of the western portion of the lower level of the building. The real estate office
eliminated one employee rental unit, leaving seven units on the property. ln 1979, four
apartments on the upper floor were converted to one dwelling unit. During the process of
converting this space, the owner agreed to a Planning and Environmental Commission's
condition of approvalto restrict the three remaining apartments to long term employee rental
unils. For a variety of reasons, this restriction was not formally recorded until 1985. Since
1985, there have been approximately three proposals to redevelop this site.
.n.
The project's deparlures from the HDMF zone distric.t standards
UNDERLYING ZONING:
HDMF
0.084 acre or 3,659 sq. fi.
25 units p€r acre or
2 units for this sile.
60% or 2.195 sq. fl.
95% of allowable GRFA or
768 sq. ft.
20 ' on all sides.
EXISTING
e@Ecr
Same
4 DU'S
N:9'
S:2.5'
E: 12.5'
Wl 4.5'
/t0% or 1,460 sq, ft.
are highlighted in bold type.
PROPOSEDgq
Same
2 DU's
N:5'
S:6'
E:6'
W:8'
41% or 1,500 sq. ft.
Site Area:
'Dwelling Unhs:
GRFA:
Common Area:
ftSetbacko:
She Coverage:
Landscaping:
Building Heighl:
*Parklng:
51% or 1,892 sq. lt 96% or 3,500 8q. tt.
202 sq. ft. located in 3% or 70 sq. fl.
the basement of the bldg.
55% or 2,012 sq. ft.
30% requked or
1,098 sq. ft.
48 ' inegardless ot root type
66 % or 2,2t34 sq. fi, zl5% or 1,ff15 sq. ft,
Vaties according to poposed 6 spaces required
48'
6 spac€i fequkc\t
2 spacos provldoduse ol lhe properfy.0 spaces provided
'Although lhroe of th€ exiSing dwelling unhs on the property ar€ permanently restrided to employee
housing, they do not comply with th€ requirements of the Town's recently adopted employee housing
ordinancs and, lherefore, count as full dwelling unils tor the pueose of calculaling density. The prcposed
SDD plan will comply with th6 requir€m€nls of Type lV employee housing unils excefl in respect to
requited pa*ing. Therefore, the density of eaci unit will count as one-thkd of a dwelling unit.
-Setbads from the south and west floperty lines were measurod lo the second lbor ded< ptojoc{iorc,
Second floor decke are allowed to encroaclr 5 f6€t into a required selback. lf measured lo the buiHing
foundation, lhe setbacks would be t1 feet on lhe south and 8 feEt on the wesl,
"'The parking requirement was cabulated at 2.5 spaces for the condominium unit end one space for each
of lhe thr€€ employee housing units.
3
IV. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
.As stated In the zoning code, the purpose of Special Development Districts is as follows:
'The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexlbility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote ils most appropriate.
use; to improve the design character and quality ol new development within the
Town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and
utilities; to provide the natuial and scenic features of open space areas; and to
furlher the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with the properly's underlying zone district, shall establish the
requlrements lor guiding development and uses of property included in the
special development district.'
1. Although the statf will not specifically address each of the nine SDD review criteria for
thls worksession, lhe criteria are llsted below:
A. Deslgn compatlblllty and sensltlvtty to the lmmedlate envlronment'
nelghborhood and adtacent propertles relatlve to architectural deslgn'
scale, bulk, bulldlng helght, buffer zones, ldentlty, character, vlsual
Integrlty and orlentatlon.
B. Uses, activlty and denslty whlch provlde a compatlble, efllclent and
workable relattonshlp wlth surroundlng uses and actlvlty-
C. Compltance wlth parklng and loadlng regulrements as outllned In Chapter
18.52.
D. Conformlty rvlth appllcable elements ol the Vall Comprehenslve Plan'
Town pollcles and Urban Deslgn Plans.
E. ldentiflcailon and mltlgatlon of natural and/or geologlc hazards that affect
the property on whlch the speclal development dlstrlct ls proposed.
F. Slte plan, bultdlng deslgn and locatlon and open space provlslons
deslgned to produce a functlonal development responslve and sensltlve
to natural features, vegetatlon and overall aesthetlc quallty ol the
communlty.
G. A clrculatlon system deslgned for both vehlcles and pedestrlans
addresslng on and ofi-slte trafflc clrculatlon.
H. Functlonal and aesthetlc landscaplng and open space In order to optlmlze
and preserve natural features, recreatlon, vlews and functlons.
4
l. Phaslng plan or subdlvlslon plan that wlll malntaln a workable, functlonal
and efflclent relatlonshlp throughout the deyelopment of the speclal. development dlstrlct.
2. The review criteria for a conditional use permit are as follows:
A. Relatlonshlp and lmpact of the use on deyelopment obJectlves of the
Town.
B. The effect of the use on llght and alr, dlstrlbutlon of populatlon,
tnnsportatlon facllltles, utllltles, schools, parks and recreatlon facllltles,
and other publlc lacllltles needs.
C. Etlect upon trafflc wlth partlcular reference to congestlon, automotlve and
pedestrlan safety and convenlence, trafflc flow and control, acoess,
maneuverablllty, and removal of sncw from the street and parklng areas.
D. Effect upon the character of the area In whlch the proposed use ls to be
located, Includlng the scale and bulk of the proposed use In relatlon to
surroundlng uses.
E. Such other factors and crllerla as the commlsslon deems appllcabte for
the proposed use.
V. VAIL MASTER PLANS
Staff has evaluated the proposal using for compliance with the applicable Town of Vail master
plans including:
A. Vall Land Use Plan - The goals contained in the Vail Land use Plan are to be
used as adopted policy guldelines in the review process for new development
proposals. The Land Use Plan GoalVPolicies applicable io the Cornice
Building redevelopment are as follows:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
bolh the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.2 The quality of the environment including air, water and other natural
resources should be protected as the Town grows.
1.3 The quality of development should be maintained and upgraded
whenever possible.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to he identity of Vail and
should be preserved. (Scale, alpine character, small town feeling,
mountains, natural setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmentat quality.)
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
etforts, assisted by limited incentives, provlded by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
B. Vall Vlllaoe Master Plan - The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice
Building has the polential to carry out many of the goals and objectives
contained in the Vail Village Master Plan. Applicable goals and objectives are
as lollows:
Goal #1 -Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and
identity.
Oblective 1.2 - Encourage the upgrading and redevelopmenl of residential and
commercial facilities.
Obiective 2.1 - Recognize the variety of land uses found in the 10 sub-areas
lhroughout the Village and allow for development that is compatible with these
established land use patterns.
Obiective 2.6 - Encourage the development of affordable housing units through
lhe efforts of the private sector.
Goal #3 - To recognize as a top priority the enhancemenl of the walking
experience throughout the village.
Obiective 3.4 - Develop additional sidewalks, pedestrian-only walhlrays and
accessible green space areas, including pocket parks and slrearn access.
Goal #5 - Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency, and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the Village.
Obiective 5,2 - Encourage the use of public transportation to minimize the use
of private automobiles throughout Vail.
The land use element of the Vail Village Master Plan shows the Gomice
Building property within the medium/high density residential calegory. The
Building Height element of the plan suggests that the maximum building height
on the Cornice Building property should be limited to 2 stories. The plan is
intended lo provide general guidelines and recommends that additional study
be made during specific project review relative to a buildings height impact on
the slreelscape and relationship lo surrounding structures.
The Comice Building is located wlthin the East Meadow Drive Sub-Area (#5).
No specific relerence is made to the building in the text of the sub-area aclion
plan.
C. Streetscape Master Plan - The streetscape master plan points out that traffic
on Vail Valley Di'ive is very heavy throughout most of the year. lt is especially
heavy in he morning and late aftemoons during the ski season, and evenings
and weekends during the summer months. Pedestrian tratfic is likely to
increase because of the expansion ol the village parking structure and lhe
creation of a new exlt portal from the parking structure at Vail Valley Drive.
Specific improvements for Vail Valley Drive in ihe area of the Cornice Building
involve the addition of a I toot - 10 foot wide concrete unit paver wallcway on
the west and south sides of Vail Valley Drive and a 5 foot - 6 foot wide
concrete unit paver walhray on the east and north sides of the road.
vr. prscussroN tssuEs
Since this is a worksession, there is no formal staff recommendation at this time. However,
the staff has identilied the following issues which we would like to discuss further with the
PEC, DRB and applicants:
1. The prolect's departures from the HDMF Zone Dlstrlct standards, which are
specifically listed in the zoning analysis section of this memorandum and are as
lollows:
.GRFA - The applicant has indicated that they would like to utilize all of the
properties available GRFA (2,195 sq. tl.) for the free-market mndominium unit.
Although the current plans for the proposed condominium unit totals 2,702 sq.
ft. of GRFA, the applicant has indicated that they have ered in their calculation
of GRFA and do not intend to exceed the 2,195 sq. ft, maximum allowance.
They do, however, request hat the GRFA used for the restricted employee
rental unils (798 sq. ft.) not be counted toward the tolal allowable GRFA. In the
SDD application, the applicant has stated lhat since the rental units have been
designed on the garden level, there is little appreciable increase in the
building's mass from the additional GRFA. The applicants point out that the
Town of Vail has historically allowed a credit for GRFA used for most restricted
employee rental units because the Town benefib from the creation of the rental
units and the developer benefits by being able to utilize allowable GRFA for
other purposes. Staff does agree with the applicant's contenlion that the
restriction of three of the four units on the property to employee housing is fairly
onerous. However, this was a condition agreed to by the property owner at the
time in exchange for converting four rental units to one large condominium. We
also believe that his location lor employee housing is very good as it is
adjacent to the Village and Golden Peak activity cenlers.
€etbacks - The HDMF zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides.
After taklng setbacls inlo consideration, the remaining buildable area on the lot
is approximately 20 feet by 25 feet in size. Staff agrees with the applicants'
conlenlion that it would be extremely ditficult to build on this site without some
degree of setback encroachment. The applicants have indicated that they have
attempted to minimize the setback encroachment by designing the 'main'
portion of the building with a similar footprint as the existing building. lt is
evident by looking at the plans, however, that various additions to the main
form of the building (i.e. garage, covered walkway, elevator shaft, exterior
slorage, etc.) have caused the buildlng footprint to be located closer to the
property lines than fre existing building. Staff believes that the removal of the
second story deck located on the south side of the existing building, which is
wlthin 2-112 feet of the streamwalk, ls a positive aspect of the redevelopment
proposal.
Staff would prefer that the applicant provide as much visibility as possible to
motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through 'Blue Cow Chute'. We
would recommend that the covered entryway between the building and lhe
garage be removed. This will not only improve visibility along VailValley Drive
but will also reduce the bullding's proposed site coverage and GRFA figures.
Also, statf would recommend lhat the entire structure be moved toward the
north and easl as much as possible. The distance the building could be moved
to the east will be limited to walhruay width and landscape butlering
requirements. On the north side, snow removal and landscaping should also
be considered when shifting the building. This shift in building location will have
a positive effect on users of the streamwalk and improve visibility through Blue
Cow Chute. Staff has asked the applicant to provide a sun/shade analysis in
order lo lully assess the proposal's impact on adjacent roadways.
'Parklng - As mentioned in the Background section of this memo, the Cornice
Building was originally constructed in ihe mid 1960's. No on-site parking was
provided. In 1979, an application was made to the PEC to add one surface
parking space to tho site. The PEC denied this request citing safely and traffic
concerns. In 1 985 and 1986, redevelopment proposals were submitted to the
Town which included up to seven on-site parking spaces. Although the PEC
felt that some on-site parking may be acceptable on the site, the designs being
proposed were not acceptable and the projects were denied. Some members
of the PEC felt that it would be reasonable for the property owner to request a
parking exemption lrom the Town Council to allow payment into the parking
fund for some or all of the required parking.
The parking requirement for the proposed building in the HDMF zone district is
6 spaces, of which 75% must be located withln the main building or buildings
and hidden from public view or shall be completely hidden from public view
from adjoining properties within a landscape berm. ln addition, no parking may
be located in any required setback area. The applicant is proposing to provide
two on-site parking spaces, of which one will be enclosed within a garage and
one will be localed in lront of the garage door. A portion of both parking
spaces will be within the front setback area. The Town Engineer has reviewed
the proposed site plan and feels lhat, in general, the on-site parking can work
on this property, although he has asked for additional back-up space length and
information on sight-lines from the drivewayA/ail Valley Road intersection. The
:',a o
2.
applicant has stated that thero are three compelllng reasons for not providing
required parking on-site. The lirst is the site's proximity to Vail Village and the
bus llne. Second is the adverse impact to the site caused by more than two
spaces. Third ls the benefit of limiting trip generation from and to the site.
Staff believes that it may be reasonable to allow some on-sile parking on this
property. We agree urith lhe applicant that providing all six requlred spaces on-
site is not a desirable situation. We have recommended to the applicants that
they consider reducing the size of the condominium unit to 2,000 sq. ft. or lggg
so that the parking requirement, and the requested deviation from the
requirement, is reduced by one parking space. In addition, the option to pay
hto the parking requirement for the remaining three spaces should be
considered. (Staff will provide more background information on this option at
the meeting.)
Gontlnuance of restrlcted employee houslng unlts - As Indicated in a number of the
goals and objectives of lhe Town's master plans, employee housing is a critical Town
issue which should be addreqsed through the planning prooess of all development
proposals. The applicants's intention to keep thres employse housing units is a
positive aspect of his application. Some redesign of the units will be necessary in
order to comply with the common laundry requirements required for Type lV employee
housing units as specified In the Town's recently adopted employee housing
ordinance,
Archltectural and slte plannlng lssues:
.ln general, the tyrolean design of the proposed building is very compatible with
the established theme of Vail Village. In statf's opinion, however, the upper
story and roof of this building are out of proportion to the mass of the rest of the
building and the size of the site. The statf believes that the applicant should
consider lowering the building's height and consider a gable roof or possibly a
terraced roof form rather than the proposed flat roof. Also, staff leels lhat the
proposed building should be redesigned to provide more articulation and avoid
the sheer vertical walls lhat are curently shown.
.The applicant has stated that the proposed building is within the maximum 48
foot building height allowance in the HDMF Zone District and is very similar in
height to other surrounding buildings in the area. The building height of the Vail
Athletic Club averages approximately 46 feet, the Tyrolean Inn is 54 feet high
and the Vorlaufer's building height is 40 feet. Staff believes that, due to the
small size of this parcel, designing a building to the maximum 48 foot building
height is not appropriate for this property.
.ln order to minimize paving on this property, the asphalt walhray to the
employee houslng entrance should be replaced with flagstone or other similar
material. Staff would also point out that the streamwalk is not maintained in the
winler, therefore, access to the employee housing entrance may become
diff icult ancUor dangerous.
3.
t.
.Staff recommends that the applicant provide a more detailed landscape plan
. that includes a legend which specifies plant species and sizes. Staff would
encourage lhe applicant to provide additional plantings on the property,
especially along the north and south property lines, with particular attention
given to buffering lhe vehicle turnaround area. Landscaping around all paved
areas should be sited in a manner which allows for adequate on-site snow
storage and adequate sight-lines for ingress and egress.
.Staff has concerns that the vehicle turnaround area is not of adequate length
to function properly. However, the proposed width of the space seems
excessive for itls intended purpose. We are also concerned about the asphalt
turnaround's visual impact on the adjacent streamwalk.
.Slnce it is not shown on the plans, slaff assumes that lrash storage will be
accommodated within the building.
.Staff requests that the applicant provide a drainage easement to the Town in
order to provide for the maintenance of the storm drainage system localed on
the western edge of this properly.
.Staff would like to insure that the large trees on the site will survive
conslruclion. We would ask that the applicant review this concern with a
landscape architect.
Statf requests that the above-listed issues be discussed with the applicants, so that they have
specific direction on how to proceed. The applicants have indicated that they are on a very
light construclion schedule with this project and would like to present final drawings at the
next PEC meeting on June 28, 1993. lf this is to be possible, reviseddrawingswould be
necessary no later than June 1 6, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. for statf review.
10
oo{l
{,h'i\,.\^i \
.I
\\'c-R.E€r<
\\
\€,,u").,,,
\I
\
\
)
A.
s_iv!
'1\ -. -/
:Py^-"
\_----/1.- eaoa
._..:-/r,i43l
\_>'i'T \
*i-'],1,,: 'i:')
!l t ,l Il-l- -L - - - - -r- r l- -F - -r(',1 \:iF.t"&o"./ | t
Nl i /\.-,r/ -1:
+-- ---3ol{- !
I
I
I
I
I
-'l . -- Jf-T:J---l'--L t*Yl':--
6C^LE ; t'. ,O'
ODIT * I
t3,g X ra
J
tl
tl
tl
tl
Urvtf tt3'
IzY IL
ClrLrl€N
FO,O t'S 667taA)
t-ouE7z FtDo\
-l
:E:--#r{ | n*-/i---. -
--t4fan
"a"f-.
rrn Aicr li'oor..
'nnrxt
I
I
i'(
itt"J
)-
\21
{}-v
O?T't'€zha<.a
t/'Asftr<t3EDaot>d
2t}{t1,c
D^,, UP L
.lr -l
,0.',,.,u1i F-,Ir
1l c(, s €'I- rl'l;rl'll ll ll-'ffi] 'r^a{Broq6o- ll ----::'l1jt(.f tZ
I gEAT :
-1
I
I
I
I
f
t
II
&o Fccrl4
oI
g no trt-c.
r
opr FP
(o0eRet
Fr'r1 o
ATL=A
5l-'r
-t/9 trt-o<re
zo
R-'1E
.l
tl.
q
oo
w€5r
nrfuoPl
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 I 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-24s2
June 4, 1993
Deparnnent of Conmwnity Development
Mr. Thomas A. Braun, AICP
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Fload West
Vail, GO 81657
RE: Cornice Buibing SDD and Conditional Use Permit Applications
Dear Tom:
As we have discussed during our previous telephone conversations, the Town of Vail planning
staff has completed a preliminary review of the Cornice Building application to be considered
by the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) on June 14, 1993. We have also
conducted a site visit to the property. Please provide additional information to address the
following slaff concerns:
1. The Community Development stalf and the Town Attorney agree that your proposed
Type lV employee housing units will not require the submittal of a separate conditlonal
use permit application. lf your proposed SDD application is approved, the existing
employee housing units will be considered part of the approved development plan.
Your application fee will be refunded shortly. The provision of Type lV Employee
Housing Units requires a common laundry facility and common storage area accessible
to all lhree units. We request that you amend your lloor plans accordingly.
2. Section 18.40.050 (SDD Submittal Requirements) requires the submittal of a "complete
set of plans depicting existing conditions of the parcel (site plan, floor plans and
elevations)'. Based on our site visit to the property earlier this week, it would not
appear that the lloor plans you have provided are accurate. Specifically, the basement
level of lhe building is not depicted nor do the interior walls on the lirst floor appear to
be accurate. Please provide accurate floor plans of ihe building's existing conditions.
The SDD submittal requirements also require the submittal of "a vicinity plan showing
the proposed improvements in relation to all adjacent properties at a scale not smaller
than 1" = 50". Please provide a vicinity plan.
3. In slatf's opinion, the upper story and rool of this building are out of proportion to the
mass of the rest of the building. Please consider lowering the building's height and
conslder a gable roof or possibly a tenaced roof form rather than the proposed flat
roof. Also, staff suggests that you redesign the architecture of the building in order
Mr. Braun
June 4, 1993
.Page Two
4.
to avoid the sheer verlical walls that are currently shown. Please consider bay
windows or other ways to break up the predominantly tlat walls curently drawn.
Your proposed site plan shows that the new building will be located several feet closer
to the west property line than the existing building. Staff would prefer that you provide
as much visibility as possible to motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists traveling through
'Blue Cow Chute". We would recommend that you consider removing that portion ot
the covered walkway between the building and the garage and attaching the garage
directly to the buibing. This will not only improve visibility but will reduce the buildings
proposed site coverage and GRFA figures. Also, please consider moving the entire
structure toward the north and east. The distance the building can be moved to the
east will be limited by walkway width and landscape buffering requirements. This shift
in building configuration will move the building away from the streamwalk. We do think
that it is positive that the deck on the south side of the building has been removed so
that more space is created between the streamwalk and building.
Please amend your site plan to reflect the accurate location and width of the Town
streamwalk located immediately south of your property line. Also, please show the
a@urate location of the fence which surrounds this property on the soulh and west
sides.
Please provide information to verify the building heights of surrounding buildings
mentioned in your submittal letter. lt would appear that the numbers in your letter
exceed what staff believes to be the actual building heights of these buildings.
The staff's GRFA, site coverage and landscape area ligures are different than those
contained in your submittal. lt woutd be helpful if you would consider providing a fully
dimensioned, redlined, set of floor plans in order to show how you calculated the
various ligures you have provided so that we can find the discrepancies. lt appears
that GRFA will need to be reduced.
In order to adequately assess the building's possible impact on pedestrian and
vehicular ways, please do a sun/shade analysis of your proposal and submit it to the
staff for review.
In order to minimize paving on this property, please consider replacing what appears to
be an asphalt walkway to the employee housing entrance with flagstone or other
similar material. Also, please amend your site plan to reflect the accurate location and
widlh of the walkway. The site plan shows that it is 1-1/2 feet wide in some locations.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Ja
Mr. Braun
June 4, 1993
.Page Three
'10. Please provide a more detailed landscape plan that includes a legend which specifies
plant species and sizes. Staff would encourage you to provide additional plantings on
the property, especially along the north and south property lines. Also, if you wish lo
show landscaping on your elevation drawings, please be sure it matches your
proposed landscape plan.
11. Parking is an issue. The project requires six spaces. You are proposing to proposing
to provide only two spaces on-site. Staff would recommend that, at a minimum, the
GRFA of the condominium unit be reduced to 2,000 square feet or less, thereby
reducing its parking requirement by one space,
12. lt would not appear that the backup space you have provided is of adequate length to
function properly and the width of this space seems excessive for its intended purpose.
Please review and respond as appropriate. Also, please consider providing a heavier
landscape butfer around this area.
13. Please provide information on the type of fireplaces you are proposing to use within
lhe condominium unit.
14. Please contact Gary Murrain, Town ol Vail Building Olficialto discuss access
requirements from the upper levels of this building.
As discussed with you over the telephone last week, the Fire and Public Works Departments
have not completed their review of the project and this letter does not contain any concerns
that they may have. Upon receiving their written comments, I will relay them to you
immediately.
As provided for in Section 18.40.040 (Development Review Procedures) the first public
meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission will be handled as a work session.
The work session will allow you and the property owner lhe opportunity to discuss the abovo
listed issues, and the entire project, prior to making revisions to your plans. Staff's work
session memo to the PEC will be written based on the plans you have submitted with your
application. Please do not hesitate to call me with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,fukb
Jim Curnutte
Town Planner
I
I
DArE: S{a t fa=
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
P"rf otr TVo .f E
+ilin^
ADDRESS:
OWNER
Il?aH T'FE n'rl
ZONE DISTF(IT HAMF
PROPOSED USE
**LoT SIZE
3
Height
Total GRFA 6oeto =
Setbac'lrs
All-owed
Itg,,'S{5 ',tg.ar lqsl
PHONE
PHONE
ddWater Course
Site Coverage
Landscaping
Front
Sides
Rear
Setback
is%
3&{to rce';t4 = ltffi g
Retain.ing wall lleighrs 3t /6,
Parkins t:b.H*?f#C_Reqrd
Garage Credit (300) (600)
Ii: iDrive: permitted Slope g8 Actual Slope _ , ,ltii"
.
: r .',.il;
,,Date approved by Town Engineer: , ,, ":ir
View C,rrridor Encroachment: yes.- No
Envi ronnental,/Ha zards :1) Flood PIain
2l Percent Slope
IU
Planning Commission Minutes
9-10-79--Page Three
Ed Drager asked. about how thesetbacks. Jim Rubin said the
survey equipment with him.
inspections are done to enforce
building inspector does not have
Bob Warner said. they know the variance might not be granted.
They could have rectified the problem much easier than thisif they had only known about the problem earlier. They have
spenL more in time with the Forest Service, Town Staff, etc.than iL would have cost. to change the drain tile system. Hesaid they have advanced. to the framing stage, have impactedno one and. have worked out their problems with the Forest
Service.
Roger Tilkemeier said to comply with the zoning, four unitswould have to be moved..
Jim Rubin pointed out that if this request had come beforethe Board before it, was built, it probably would have beenturned d.own but this was an honest mistake. Jim said theinspector inspects 500 units during a season and cannotpossibly check all the lot lines.
Bob Warner showed what they could have done had they knownabout the problem and mistake.
Gerry White said he agrees that this was an honest mistakebut every variance must be justified and he doesn't thinkit is justified
Roger Tilkemeier made a motion to approve the Setback Variance
Request for Mount.ain Meadows located on an unplatted parcel inBighorn. Jack Goehl seconded the motion. There were four votesfor approval and three against; Jim Morgan, Jack Goehl , Ron Todd,
and Roger Tilkemeier voted for approval . Ed Drager, Sandy Mills,
and Gerry White voted against.
Ron Tod.d. said it can be appealed to Council- within ten days.
'Al1 the Board Members who voted against said they just did notfeel the granting of t.his setback was justified.
4.', Setback V+riance Request for the Cornice Building located
_ on a portion of rract g, glock 5, vail villaqd lsf rilinq.
Jim Rubin explained this request. The new owrrer of theCornice Building is Dr. Huttner. They would like toconvert the upper floor (4 units) into one unit.
Planning Commission Minutes
9-10-79--Page Four
Jim Morter, architect for the applicant, introduced Dr. Huttner
who has been hired by the Vail Medical Center as a consultant
and recently purchased the Cornice Building. ilim explained thatthe complete lower floor woul-d be turned into long-term employee
housing as soon as current leases run out. Jirn Morter said theHuttners also plan to stop an i1lega1 laundry that has been operatingin the basement. Jim said the plans wiLl architecturally improve
and upgrade the building. There is no adverse impact. Jim saidthe doct.or needs the parking space to get to the hospital in anemergency. There will be no trees disturbed.
Gerry White said there will be no control on the employee housingif the building were sold again or if the new owner would want togo back to four units. Jim Rubin said they could not go back tofour units on the top floor.
Dr. Huttner said he would guarantee that it would stay employeehousing whil-e he owned it. Ed Drager asked if he would be willinEto have deed. restricfions and he said he would..
Dick Ryan brought up some questions on the parking space.
Sandy Mi11s said i.t was a very dangerous spot for anyone to beturning in to a parking space.
Gerry White said he feels it is an unappropriate place for aparking space. He said the doctor knew when he bought the propertythat there was no parkj-ng. It was suggested to make a garage out ofthe Real Estate Office.
Ron Todd asked the applicant if he would consider having the twoissues (parking and setback variances) voted on separately andhe agreed.
Dr. Huttner said when he bought the building he did. not necessarilythink he would be given permission to park there but did think hewould be guaranteed parking in the transportation center.
Roger Tilkemeier asked about the possibility of having a space'assigned. Bob Rud.er said he didn't think that was possible.
Ron Todd suggested the possibility of approving the parking spacefor a twelve month trial basis.
'Bob Ruder said. that is a very dangerous place. He is opposed toparking.
Sandy Mil1s said she feels his profession does not justify thegranting of this parking space.
o
Planning Cqrnission lt{inutes
9-IQ-79 -- Page Five
Jjm Morter said they rnoul"d be willing to have a vote on the two
issues separately.
Jim Uorgan made a nrction to approve the Setback Variances for the
Oornice E;ilding located on a porbion of T'ract B, Block 5, Vail
Village Ist Filing with the exception of the parking and with the
recluirerent of a. con'rnj.ttment for arployee housing to be arranged with
the Town of Vail attorney. Roger lilkeneier seconded the nption.
lhere was fi:rther discussion. Sandy l[i.Ils asked about fireplaces.
There is one a,llorvable. Roger Titkareier asked if they cruld convert
the ReaL Estate Office to a garage. Jim Rr.rbin said they u,lculd haveto cdne back to Pla-nning Ccnmission to convert it,
Ttre vote was taken on Jim Morgan's notion. The vote was unanirnlrs.
Gen'y l{hite ma.de a rnotion for denial of the parking space. Sandy
It{il}s seeonded. The vote was six for denial and one for approval .
Jadr C'oeh1 voted for the apprrcval.
5. C,onditional Use Permit Request for expansion of the Core Cbeek
g.
Kent Rose explained this request. they will go to Design Revisw
Board if approved today.
Jim Morgan made a rption to approve the Oonditional Use Pennit
Request for the expansion of the Gore Creek Water Treatment Plant ':.
loca.ted on Tbact C, Vail Village ?th Filing. Gerry llhite seconded
the rption.
The vote was unaninpus. (Ed Drager had already 1eft.)
6.Arnendrnent to Subdivision Resulations and ffiinance
terval
Larry Rider, To$n Attorney, exlplained each of the above and there wa,s
discussion.
Jim Morgan left at 5:30.
Roger Tilkerneier made a nption to continue th-is until 9-?"4-75.
Gerry'tYhite Seepnded, The vote was unanirnnrs.
Ihe neeting was adjoutned at 6:O0 P.M.
WHEREAS' vaiL has requested t}at eertai'restrictions regardingthree (3) enq:royee r:nils be placed on the cornice Buildj.ng, hereinafterreferred to as the Subject ticperty.
NCFV, THEREORE, for the srm of Ten Dollars ($10.00) and othergood and valuabre consi-deration, the sufficienry or wtr-ictr is herebyackno,'4edged, the parties hereto agree as folloivs:
^*_.:^^, 1: ,3?t qg*ion-of the ground levet on rhe sr:bjecr. prcpertyccnPnsed ot three t:f fi,te|ling units, each having a steeling -arei ani
]<j-!cn9n and approxirnately 200 iquare ieer (referr6d to as'orftoyeeUnits) shall be used er<clusively as enployee housing units.
2. Ttre three (3) ErpLoyee units shall rnaintajn a mjr:irruns-qu9le fcotage of 200-:quar_e fleCper unit, however, ttre configurationof the units may be altered.
3. ltre three (3) Erployee Units shall not be leased orrented.fol uly period of less tfran ttrirty (30) consecutive days; and, ifany such Erployee Unit.shall be rented, it sfratt be rented or*y totenants who are full-tine- enployees jl the tlpper Eagle V"if"y.- ft"tlpper_Eagre plley shalr be beetrea to includi-the c5re Va[ei, r4inturn,Red-cliff, Gilman, Eagre-vair and A'ron, and tlre ""tror"did areas. Afirll-tinE arplcyee is a person who ,raoris an average of thirty (30) hoursper week.
4- The restrictions contained. herein shar-r renain i'effectfor a period twenty (20) years fr.crn ttre date of tfri" aSr;*."t.
5. l'is Agreenent shall be a @venant n:ruri_ng with tlre Lardand shall bind the G*ner, its heirs, successors, ana as6ig"i, and alJ_subsequent lessees and owners of tlre Subject fropurey. --'-
AGREEMN.II
TrIrS AGRffiMEI{I dated the }q'%day of , 1985, by ardbetween Ir{E rtx^tN oF \ar!, cc[oRADo,AEreiiarteFEffiT6 u"-;ir.ii"*q mrTER HLri:[t{ER, as tJre cvrner of t}re cornice Buil-ding, hereinafterreferred to rrGrtrl€f . rl
TCffN OF
COSGRIFF. DUNN
I& ABPLANALP i
A'TORNEYg AT LAW
autiE 2q?
icourEncral wrNc j
aatt n. r"onr^o"
"o. *. i
p. o. Box 31ro i
"^r,-, ao"o"^oo "r""" ,.t(3o3) 476.7s52 |
tl
it
il
Walter HutGi
G^rner, Cornj_ce Br.rildino
a,TTrFc.F.
Torzn Clerk
By
Toum lGnager
-l W;;TTa;;ryv'A;i{= i;
,t, {t7 3 Pfu*{y =y* .Fr/,
+@ U* pryefh p&*u p{4 4;" %&ryq-
'.r 't l--
l * eg sp gY fq&H a t gtt*sl@m r,,rstl-
Aoc
+4,n- v>{ Q(wt I- t ,trf *,* v1q. "e; PC*r{
4-
{e a6tp**Ce {e Cenpc)( n{^e ,plaf* fui6
ee(L I
lqfi
{fi * \|t
re P\Af,eha. *)rs *To4pfutq
,.b{+rc={ €c.r-
'q [".rt *
&t fEqL. -a-,Lce-
,nor4 Xeet >lapann{
P@a)o uuQ*e /9O
ki,a*)t'fa-
uerk 'lt
* -9'.'
hh
bL;
L
trrT6 -
q{
*a9
t\10t
lv\
fc-
hete€
*yd si,er@{1
sl\)
;
CO o4'ftc '/t'e*-
rer#L- 4,
l4wat
7
4ok
w
|9 4
f *v €c8.",
/eq
eF
.qr
1 .*q--v((5ltq16 -i, {*#.rqr k"ffw+Or*lf*4t n*,-fur-ui{r
va tt d<^.r' c .e. =Le_ce*f*s. { F/e&t _4!* tr' ( T _+_f t{_t
,.s F Lq.,u =t-sQ-aL)-et{b Frfti.tP -l' ^- --" f - v'/neqs+ dce'ec4- 6-o
rcg6- 4 'rref
Cce,* *rci L oal Oct' s1 rq€€7
tqa6 -
t>t:z IzBT - At, (u
[w-r, g t1*9 ./'4.o'{r;,o4t")q
,&
oo
Retum to
Co"nio<, &-, CJ
OATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:QA<
BR]EF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
-1<or Atu"^ v r<Li(A <er'uroe.
OA btrr< Cec-<-p c|u{e
bHS. ol lh L%^-
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Reviewed by:
Commenb:
6" ,'tc 3
< j'z-r'z r-r1 .'- 1 'Lrr'v;z"t'l: z z-- z;t' z' t''1 zS:z r'1a au 'Z"J- ,/ al ,/
tA ,,-'.1-,-,/ ,<1 /."t'.'/
,2... 'i 4 ,--=a.-
t-.a .? . ,,. i7? f z7 S-iiVz .'-" "/ .'J',t/.
,/ j.ra,L; ,,./r/ 2', t " ..
Town Planner
rrad ltrtE
Town Planner
INTER.DEPARTMENTAL REVIEW
PROJECT:
DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
PUBLIC WORKS
Reviewed by:
Comments:
tl.I I
Date: ulq /q<
') Dro;*r Eov.'*'-l r- 'l(
CU)* L)r^"^ T.. [. { .--* )
z) =-J I^ t? ) o, | +1^ L^
1 %eE Lz4, fS. 17t{ef;..-{t,
nS e(Jl.1'Cors"J{
rvJ-l +- .[g{g. .,."-.-i "-\ .^*.!.- I J L" € r.+-c i--.*- -} ."s .
3) ?uruz, *,(( r.t J J' L , p J^1.) i., ;Va.-,t
Curarn-\' \or.*l,u^ .f s1 ,ao--^ t,,*l/c.
4) D',vQ*c i "i-ihl
(t^"s c.-,'{( ,*tJ l- ;'l/
€o\^bl; rL* J ,t *lu '.A5ctt*, ll.. i, , ..- ,*^.' I I ---u,,, l. .
Jt",, ir Jl*. !r..) 1)[n,."- L i)*- | Jf. do,'.,..
, -[ -": {1b-l 1,< > i.-c,. L fF,-",.Qe rL ro-)
5) %.:!*- T* ra(o.rNJ 3o. d I {_^ *.J,o,^ , Lrrllr,loa-ar -.-..,L*c ., l.l.{\- (\i*,(to-.tr
G)
J" b^ ^,-a,.l1,x,! {",, . ..-.. .uLota z ..tit".r/. /;*o
, rrrrrd t lrJR t'lHk 'pr, l7.,, ,,-;l( ^rc; l, V ^^^| ,ts.J {_.
,*-A -1. b. o t{-,.* J
-ul LL Pte-
a, - -L Qa- tc ,,,""*l
eho- ,'+ ) ,-,'tl
)haie
t*.11.-erc-
(c.l,rr rr
.to,<rJ ,1*t*f1*
r h
lo\ <s *-'-
S-n
6)q)
"fi b I *" (o-', C[".il .0,. "1,
iJa, -ad .
I
/a ver )
o
^/A J.l.)^d Di u. *^7 6n-rt ,'; l(
tho,*-^.
tt LIJP_ J, no# M/,s^Jo. 61 re_.*tttaIf<i .. ucl )n- k, . -7'k
"n 17 r;r.cce ss /_, -ltu
frus] r;,-*eJ L,-n;J5 ,( oL.5 Jt-,.o4rro*-atqlL, *tl.t iz L.{^6c*fJLL.
75 Souih Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-21 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
De partne nt of C onnnwity D eve lo p ment
May 20, 1993
Mr. Thomas A. Braun. AICP
Suite 204, Vail National Eank Building
108 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81658
RE: Cornice Bulldlng SDD and conditional use permit Jpptications
Dear Tom:
The Town has received your special development district and conditional use applications for
the proposed Cornice building redevelopment project. I have been assigned to the project
and look forward to working with you as the proposal proceeds through the development
pr0cess.
Your application cover letter dated May 17 , 1993, indicates your desire to present this
appication to the Planning and Environmental Commission on June 14, 1993. We have
scheduled your application for review by the PEC on June 14, 1993, however, as we have
discussed previously, the planning staff belives that the issues related to the proposed
redbvelopment of this property are significant enough to warrant a ioint worksession with lhe
PEC and the Design Beview Board prior to a final public hearing before the PEC.
Since I have not yet performed a detailed zoning analysis of the project, I do not have a
detailed list of staff concerns to share with you. However, I will be providing you with our
comments related to your proposed changes to the development standards shortly.
I intend to work with you very closely as we proceed through the Town's review process. lf
you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 476-2138.
Siqcerely,
/,-(Jim Curnutte
Town Planner
revia€d LO/5/92
DATE APPLICATION RECEIVED
EPPLICETION FORM rOR SPECTAI. DEVEI..OPI{ENT
DISTRICT DSVELC}PMENT PIA}I
I.This procedure is required for any project that would gothrough the Special Development oislrict procedure.
ilislq)
llb{(r5
B.
D.
(please print or type)
A. AppLICANT C. fuuid and
The application wilt not be accepted until all inforn-ationj-s submitted. p.l S tr bCO
/+f 'S 7CD,
furfz to/MAILING NDresS 1@ E. f"-'tq" R.d w., l|@.
APPLICANT' S REPRESENTATIVE
ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNER(S) C.
orfNER (s) srcNATnRE (S)
MAILING ADDRESS IOB 6. T-.rotrtage Road W.. No. 3lO, yait. @ gt6s7
PHONE 303476-2002
LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
STREET ADDRESS:
C.r.'-'... \\&q.LOT-BLOCK $ SUBDIVISToN
E' STAMPED, ADDRESSED ENVELOPES OF.THE NAMES oF ouINERs oFAI,L PROPBRTY'ADJACENT TO THE SUB.]ECT PROPERTY AND ALIST OF THEIR NAMES AND MAILING ADDRESSES.
F. A TITLE REPORT TO VERIFY OWNERSHIP AND EASEMENTS.
II. Four (4) copies of the following information must besubmit.ted:
A. Det.ailed written/graphic description of proposal;
B. An environmental impact report. shatl be submitted tothe zoning administ,rator in accordance with Chapter18.56 hereof unless waived by Section 1g.56.030; exemptprojects;
c. An open space and recreationar plan sufficient to meetthe demands generated by the development without undueburden on available or proposed public facilities;
D- Existing contours having contour intervars of not morethan five feet if the average slope of the site istwenty percent or less, or wit.h conlour intervals ofnot. more than ten feet if the a.;erage slope of the siteis greater than twenty percent.
E. A proposed site plan, at a scale not smaller t.han oneinch equals fifty feet, showing the approximatelocations and dinensions of alt buildings andstructures, uses therein, and al_I principal sitedevelopment features, such as landscaped areas,recreational facilities, pedest.rian plazas andwalkways, servj-ce entrj.es, driveways, and off-streetparking and loading areas wit,h proposed contours aftergrading and site development;
/
F.A preliminary landscape p1an, at a scale not smaller
than one inch equals fifty feet, showing existing
landscape features to be retained or removed, and
showing proposed tandscaping and landscaped site
development feat,ures, such as outdoor recreational
facilit.ies, bicycle paths, Lrails, pedestrian plazas
and walkways, vrat,er features and other elementsi
Preliminary building elevations, sections, and floorplans, at a scale not smaller than one-eighth equals
one foot, in sufficient detail to determine floor area,gross residential floor area, interior circulation,Iocations of uses within buildings, and the general
scale and appearance of the proposed developnenL.
REOUIREMENTS
The Planning and Environmental Commission meets on t,he
2nd and 4th Mondays of each monLh. An apptication with
the necessary accornpanying material must be submittedfour weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
The deveLoper must begin initia] construction of thespecial development district within t.hree years from
the time of its final approval, and continue diligently
toward the cornpletion of t.he pro ject. If the special
development. district. is to be developed in phases, the
developer must begin construction of subsequent phaseswithin one year of the completion of the previous
phase -
It is recommended that before a Special
Development District application is submitted, apre-application meeting should be set up with a
member of the Department of Connunity Development,.
G.
III. TIME
A.
NOTE:
B.
IV. FEES
Application Fees are as foltows:
a. Establishment of SDD :
b. Major Amendments:
c. Minor Amendments:
$1, ooo. oo
$ 200.00
Check #
A.V.
B.
Application fee paid: $ /5&.@ oate.
Tf this application requires a separate review by anyIoca1, State or Federal agency other than the Town ofVail, t.he application fee shall be increased by$200.00. Examples of such review, may include, but arenot limited to: Colorado Department of Highway AccessPermits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
The applicant sha1l be responsible for paying anypublishing fees which are in excess of 50? of theapplication fee. rf, at, the applicant.'s requesLr 3nymatter is postponed for hearing, causing the matter t.obe re-published, then, the ent,ire fee for such re-publication shall- be paid by the applicant.
Applications deened by the Cornmunity DevelopmentDepartment to have significant design, Iand use orother issues which may have a significant impact on thecommunity may require review by consultants other thattown staff. Should a determination be nade by the townstaff that an outside consultant is needed to reviewany applicationr. Community Development nay hire anoutbide ionsultant, it shall estimate the amount of
\
c.
,.,,.! /i .. i i -.,.-.
MnY lry
Date of Appllcation
Date of, pEC Meetl,ng
.01
is requiredpernit,.
wl"]l not be
AFFLICAN? C. David
08 S. Fron Road
CONDITIONAIJ USE
for any project
accept,ed until
a Snith
PERMIT
required UO obtaln a
all information is
80R
and
I{est
PHoNE 476-2002
B.NAME O]r
ADDRESS
APPIJICANT' SP.O. Box 5055r
RtrPRNSENTATIVEVal1, C0 81657
HONE_9ZF. 4g.Q]_
x c.NAME OTI'
owNER(S)
ADDRESS
OWNER(S) (print or type)
SIGNATURT (S)
D.
E.
PHONE
LocArroN oF pRoposA],: LEGAL,r,orf?lllEiocK *.rrl.,r*c lSit.liliff:ADDRESS
FEE 92OO.OO PAID N/A cK tl
Iry_Iry WStr BE pArD BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNTTYDEVELOPMENT WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
' stamped, addressed enveJ.opes of the names of owners of arr
9:gP.q:tv adjacent to rhe subjecr property rNcr.uDrNc pRopERTy
BEHTND AND ACROSS STBIETS, and a iisi: ot'no*"*-and mairing--addresees. THE AppLrcANT wrLL BE ItlrspoNsrBIJE FoR coRREcTOI.,INERS AND CORRI'Cf ADDRESSES.
LJT
MUST
BY
F.
II. FRE_APPIJICA'TION CONFERENCE:
Jl pre-application conf,erence with a prannlng sLaff rnember lssLrongly suggested to deLermine if ";t ,aaiiional inioimarion rsneeded. No appricarion wilt be. accepled-,r"i*"s rr ;;;pt;i*- tru*rlnc,t-ude ar1 it-ems reqrrired by rhe "oiiing io*i'i"iiac6ril--iE i"the-appLican!'s responsiuiriiv to nake in appo:-r,gment with thestaff to find out, about additionar suuni[tii- requirements.
III ' PLEASE NOTE TI{AT A COMPLETE APPLICATION WILL STREAMLINE THAAPPROVAL PROCESS N'OR-TffiN PNOJECT SY 6BCNUESING THE NUMBER.CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL TI.IAT THE PLANNTNC ANP ENVIRONMENTAIJCOMMISSTON (PEC) MAY STTPULATE. AJ.L CONDITTONS OF AppROvALBE COMPI-,IED WITH BEFORE A BUILDING"TEru,T'T TS ISSUED.
. 1/.
I Four. (4) copies of the followlng informaLion must be+ auDmrtt,ect:
=it
tr-
Jo-+
X
0t.f
U,
3
0',t
5o
$
A description of Lhe precise nature of Lhe proposed useand it's operatlng characterisLics and rneasures'proposeoto make the use compatible with other-propertiei i^r-t tt',.vicl-nltv.
The description rnust also address:
a. RelaLlonship and impact of {:he usc on developmentobjecLives of the Town.
Tf
1
/
a
PETER JAMAR ASSOCTATES, tNC.
PLANNIiIG . DEVELOPMENT ANALYSTS . RESEARCH
May 17,1993
Mr. Jim Cumutte
Community Development Department'Iown of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
DearJim:
Enclosed you will find special development district and condition use applications for the Cornice
Building Project. In accordance with applicable sections of the Vail Municipal Code, the
lbllowing material has been submitted:
1) 4 copies of the written proposal.
2) Four complete sets of plans:
' Project site plan. Preliminary landscape plan. Building floor plans and elevations
3) List of adjacent property owners
4) F<>ur copies of stamped survey.
5) Application forms and filing fee
We have commissioned a model of the proposed redevelopmant and anticipate it being completed
in the first week of June. As per the PEC schedule, it is our intention to present this application
to the PEC on June 14. I look forward to working with you on this prqect. Please do not
hesiate to contact me lvith any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Suite 204, Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
oo
The Cornice Bailding
Special Development District Application
Conditional Use Application
Environmental Impact Report
May L7,1993
The Cornice Building
Special Development District
Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Impact Report
Prepared for:
C. David andMyraSmi0r
108 South Frontage Road
Vail" Colorado 81657
Prepared by:
Peter Jamar Associates, Inc.
108 South Frontage Road West, Suite 204
Vail, CO 81657
Q03) 476-7t54
May 17, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
INTRODUCTION / PROJECT SUMMARY
. Project Summary. Important Elements of Prroposal. Town of Vail Review Process
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
. hoject Description. Property Size andlocation. Surrounding Land Use. AccesVCtrculation. ExistingZonrngandProposedDevelopmentStandads. Purpose of the Special Developnrnt Dlistrict
3
3
3
4
4
6
III. RELATIONSHIP TO SDD CRITER.IA
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
. Hydrologic Conditions. TrafEc/Circulation. Visual Conditions
V. CONDITIONAL USE APPLICATION
VI. APPENDIX
. Adjacent Prop€rty Owners
10
10
t0
11
I2
TIIE@RNICEBT'II.DING
I. INTRODUCTION/PROJECT SUMMARY
Project Summary
The purp_ose of this report is to present information regarding the proposed Special Dcvelopment
Distric_t-(SDD), for tht redevelopment of the CornicE Builfung.- The Cornice Building iite is
located in the eastem portion of Vail Village and is currcntly zoned High Density Mulri-Family
(HDMF). Existing development on the site-includes one coniominiunu lhree restricted employee
rental units, and a small space that has periodically been used as office space. This redevelo]rment
involves the demolition-of the existing struct;rc and the reconstruition of a new buiiding.
Development proposed for the site includes one condominium unit and three restricted employ&
rental units.
As with many of the buildings constructed during the early years of Vail, the Comice Building was
not-built to vbry high standards. The building iiin neea 6f reOevelopment fnrm the standpoint of
both constnrction and appearance. In addition, the building does not comply with a number of the
Town's zo-ning standaids. The legal non-conforming alpects of the b:uilding are generally a
function of the very small parcel the building is locatedon. Only .084 acres, or 3,659 square feet
in size, the parcel ilself is a non-conformingiot. Due to the small size of this parcet, Oe |roposeAredevelopment includes requests for deviations from three existing zoning standards. A SDD has
been proposed in order to provide a mechanism for the review of these deviations and the project
as a whole. In addition, a Condition Use Permit has been requested in order to designate the three
resnicted rental units as "Employee Housing Units" as defined by Ordinance n, 1992,
Important Elements of the Proposal
Important elements of the redevelopment of the C-ornice Building include the following:
. The rederrelopment of ttris high profile Vail Village site will replace an outdated structure with a
new high quality building.
. The Tyrolean desigr of the proposed building will further the design goals of Vail Village.
. The rdevelopment will not only maintain, but upgnde three resrricted employee rental units.
. !!e proposal is in compliance with all applicable design criteria, including the Vail Village
Master Plan, the Vail Land Use Plan and tliC SDD Desigm Review Cliteria.
Report Organization
This report describes the proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building, existing site conditions
and impacts associated with the proposed development. The findings ol this repbrt also address
lFcific submittal rtquirenrents and review criteria outlined in Section 18.40 - Special Development
Districts, 18.56 - Environmental Impact Reports, and 18.60 Condition Use Permits of the Vail
Municipal Code. This report is divided into the following sections:
T}IECORMCEBI]ILDING
Innoduction
This section prcsent_s a brief description of the proposed development, outlines important elernents
of the proposal, and describes the brganization of this report
Project Description
This section describes the properry size and location, access, surrounding land use, existing and
proposed zoning, and deviations from zoning standards.
A vnittel pspgnse tq the pmjects relationship to Special Developnrcnt Distict Design Cliteria are
presented in this section.
Environmental IrqDact Report (EIR)
This section of the report includes an evaluation of environmental impacts relaed to the proposal.
Conditional Use Application
This section summarizcs the pmject's compliance with Conditional Use Perrnit criteria.
TIIECORMCEBI.JILDING
II.PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Description
Since it was originally constructed in the mid-1960's, the Cornice Building has been the subject of
numerous development proposals. Due to the extremely small size of thl parcel, virtually all of
these_requests involv_4exceptions o zoning standards. The original building included eight small
rental-gPartrnents. With the-exception of n-'ew decks and a mindr building eipansion in 1926, ttre
overall form of the building has not changed since it was builr In the mid:70'i four apartrnents on
the up'per floor were converted to one dwelling unit. During thc process of convertiig this space,
the oy.ner ageed to the-Planning Commission's condition of approval to restrict iluee ol the
remainin-g apartments to long term employee rental units. For a variety of reasons, this restriction
was not formally recorded until 1985. Sirice 1985, there have been aplroximaely three pmposals
to redevelop this site.
The redevelopment of the Comice Building involvcs the demolition of the existing building. This
building includes the following uses:
Existing Building
I - 900 sq. ft open market dwelling unit
3 - resnicted employee rental units (225 sq. ft. each)
| - 225 square feet of office/miscellaneous space
The p'roposed redevelopment of the building includes the following uses:
hoposed Development
| - 2,195 sq. ft. open market dwellins unit
3 - rcsricted employee rental unirs (ringe from 252-280 sq. fr)
1 - enclosed parking space
As indicated above, this proposal maintains and upgades the three employee rental units. The
225 square feet of office/miscellaneous space is eliminate, and one encl6sed pa*ing space is
P_rgPoJ4 on the site. A comparison of the proposed development, existing developmCnt and
HDMF developrnent standardsls prcsented below.
Property Size and Location
The subject parcel is .084 acres, or 3,659 square feeL The property is located in the "East Village"
on Vail-Vafey Drive adjacent to Gore Criek. The minimum lot size of a HDMF lot is 10db0
squarc feet of buildable site area As such, the Cornice Building parcel is a tegal non-conforming
srrc,
Surrounding Land Use
The Cornice Building is surrounded by a variety of different land uses. To the north is the Vail
tillage Parking Structure. To the west is the Vail Athlctic Club, a mixed use facility that includes
both residential and comnprcial uses. To the south is the Gore Creek sream tracl To the east is a
Town of Vail owned open space ract and the Tyrolean Inn, a condominium project that includes a
limited amount of commercial space. The residential uses proposed for the Comice Building are
consistent with surrounding uses.
THECORNICBBIJILDING
Access/Circulation
TheCornice Building is located at the intersection of Vail Valley Drive and East Meadow Drive.
Vehicular access to ttle two proposed on-site parking spaces is prdvided Vail Valley Drive. Access
pgn-slte parking-has_been-sitid to minimirt porc-ntial confli^cts with the site's iroximity to the
"Blue Cow Chute". In order to provide adequate site lines, the driveway is ap-proximaiety ZO'
from the corner of Vail Valley Diive and Eait Meadow Drive. In additibn, inGmal circulition
includes a "hatnmerhead design" which will allow vehicles to turnaround while on-site. This
{esign eliminates potential difficulties of cars backing directly out onlo Vail Valley Drive. Finally,
the number of cars that can be parked on-site is linited to 6nty rwo. This williimit the overali
amount of trip generation to and from the site,
The parcel !s lggaqeq directly on the Vail Village Bus Route, and is also located immediately
$jryent to the Ford ParlqA/ail Village Pedesrian-Trail. Existing sidewalks along the Vail Vitlage
Parting Structure site, the Vail Athletic Club, and along VailValley Drive piovide additional
pedestian circulation.
Existing Zoning and Proposed Development Standards
The Cornice Building is located on aparcel currently zoned High Density Multi-family. A stated
abo-ve, the existing Cornice Building rioes not comply with a nuirber of zbning requirements. The
fJrllowing table iiiustrates how boih existing and froposed development ritatei to the HDMF
development standards.
Standad
Units^
GFSA
Setbacks*
HeiCht
Sitc Coverage
Landscaping
Parking
2
2,L95
20'all sides
48'
2,012
1,097
varies
4
L,575
4'front
8'side
3'side
16'rear
23'
1,225
2,434
0 spaces
c
2,982
8'front
5'side
6'side
6'rear
48'
1,436
1,763
2 spaces
HDMF Zoning Existing Building Proposed Building
Units in tlre pmposed redevelopment were calculated using the definition of the
Type tV Employee Housing Unit (EHU).
Sctbacks on the existing building are measured to the outside edge of existing
second lcvel decks.
!!e fqllgwing surilnaries the relationship of ploposed development to existing development and
HDMF developrnent standards:
Units
Based on the definition of a Type IV EHU, proposed density for the redevelopment
is 2 units. This complies with site's allowable 2 units.
*
TIIE CORNICE BUILDING T
GRFA
GRFA for the proposed redevelopment involves utilizing the allowable 2,195
square feet ofGRFA for the free-market condominium unit and 787 square feet for
the three restricted employee rental units. This additional GFRA is wdnanted for a
number of reasons. First, the Town of Vail has historicallv atlowed a "credit" for
GRFA used for restricted enrployee rental units. The theory behind this concept is
that the Town benefits from the creation of the units and the developer benefits by
being able to utilize allowable GRFA for other purposes. Secondly, ihe rental units
have been dgsigned on a garden level. With tliis design, there is little appreciable
increase in the building's mass from the additional GRFA. Finally, Che PEC's
1976 requircment for three employee rental units resulted in the restriction of 75Vo
of the sites allowablc legal non-conforming units. Restricting three of four
allowable units to emplJyee rental use ont-y is a fairly onerois condition of
approval.
Setbacks
The HDMF zone district requires 20' setbacks on all sides. Given the parcel size of
3,,659 square feet, it is virtually impossible to build on this site withouf some degree
of setback encroachment In order to minimize encroachments, ttre main portion of
th9 luilding has been designed with the same 30'x30' footprint as the existin
building. As indicated above, the existing building's encroachments range from 3'
to 16', rylilq the proposed building would encroach from 5' to 8'. Genbrally, the
pro_pgs€d bSilding has been sited as far back as possible from the Vail Valley Drive
and Gore Creek This has been done to maintain space bctween the road
-and
the
Core Creek Stream Walk. In addition, property imnEdiately adjacent to rhe eastern
boundary of the site is a Town of Vail qperi spice nacr
The proposed building height ranges foom 45' to 48'. This is in compliance with
the allowable 48' height limir
Site Coverage
Thg propoqed site coverage is391o ofthe existing site area. This is in compliance
with the 557o site coverage requircmenL
l,andscaping
Th9 proposed landscaping is 48% of the existing site area. This is in compliance
with the 307o landscaping requirement.
Parking
The parking requirement for the existing building is 6.5 spaces. Cunently the
Cornice Building has no on-site parking. Baseilon the Tbwn of Vail paiking
reqlirements, the proposed redevelopment of the building requires 5.5 spaces.
This figure is based by 2.5 spaces fof the free-market condominium and I space
each for the three employee units. Two on-site spaces are pmposed as a part of this
redevelopment. These spaces will be utilized by the free-market condominium.
Thesetwo spaces rcpresent a significant improvement because there are cunently
no parking spaces on-site. There are three compelling reasons for not pmviding all
required parking on-site. First, the site's p,roximity to Vail Village anrl thc bus line
are a perfect match for employee rental units. The location of these units provide
tenants witJr excellent transportation alternatives to the automobile. Secondly,
more than two on-site spaces would adversely impact the site. Finally, limiting the
number of on-site spaces will limit frip generation to the site.
TTIECORNICEBUILDING
Purpose of the Speciat Development District
The SDD processprovides a mechanism to allow for deviations to existing dwclopment standards
of a-site s underlying zgning, The purpose of the SDD process is to allow-flexibili'ty and creativity
ln the.development of land". The proposed redevelopment of the Cornice Building involves
deviations o the following HDMF dwel6pnrnt sandardls:
GRFA
Tl4l proposat exgeeds allowable GRFA by 787 square feet. This additional square footage is
dedtfated exclusively to the three restricied rental units. Square footage of ihe free-market
condominium is within the allowable 2,195 square feet of GRFA.
Setbacks
The proposed structure encrcaches into the front, sides andrear setbacks.
Parking
The proposed redevelopment requires 5.5 parking spaces, of which two spaces are provided on-
sile. +ppr_ofal of this SDD will require an exception to this development standard. Approval of
this planwill requirc an exception o I8.SZ.OZO 4.7., asection of thi EHU ordinance thii requires
oqq parling space per EHU. Finally, the HDMF zone disfict does not allow parking to be lobated
within ttte front setback. The proposed design will require an exception to thii sandlrd.
III. RELATIONSHIP TO SDD CRITERIA
Nine criteria are used to evaluate special dwelopment distict proposals. The following respons€s
have been preparcd to demonsnatc this pmposals compliance wittr,these design criteria.- -
A. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate environment, neighborhood and
adjacent properties relative to architectural design, scale, bulk, building height, buffer
zones, identity, character, visual integrity and orientation.
Response:
The architecture of the proposed building is very compatible with the
established Tyrolean design theme of Vail Village. Building scale has been
articulated with the use of exterior materials that include stone and exposed
timbers. In order to maintain compatibility with the surrounding area, the
fooprint of the main portion of the building is the same as the 30'x30'
footprint of the existing building. With a maximum height of 48', the
building is similar in height to the Vail Athletic Club, the Vail Village Parking
Structure and the Vorlaufer Condominiums. As measured from Vail Valley
Drive, the Tymlean is 54'in heighr Thc highestridges of the Vail Atheletic
Club range from 40' to 57'. The highest ridge of the Vorlaufer is 42'.
Finally, the building has been sited and oriented to maintain as much open
space as possible between Gore Chcek and Vail Valley Drive.
THECORMCEBI.JILDING 6
B.
c.
D.
E.
F.
Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
Response:
The proposed redevelopment is the same density as the existing development on
the site. In addition, the new building simply ieplaces uses that currently exist
on the site and are compatible with suioundirig uses.
Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
Response:
Two of the required 5.5 spaces are to be provided on site. As described above,
an exception to the remaining 3.5 spaces will required in orde.r to facilitate this
proposal.
Cgnformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, town policies and
urban desiga plans.
Response:
This proposal is consistent with a number of goals and policies articulated in
the.Vail Village Master Plan and the Vail Land Use Plan. For example, the
project will:. Significantly upgrade adeterioratedproperfy. Maintain ttre Vail Village Design Thane. Maintain and upgraderesricrcdemployeerenal units
There are no specific pedestrian improvements indicated in the Town of Vail Sreefcape
MasterPlan ttlat are €htive to Orisiite.
ldentification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect the property on
which the special development district is propofta.
Response:
lhg onllr applicable hazard is the 100-year flood. As indicated by the official
FEMA Flood Plan Maps, the proposed building is not wittrin the 100-year flood
line of Gore Creek.
Site plan, building desigr and location and open space provisions designed to produce a
functional development responsive and sensitive to natural featrres, vegetation and overall
aesthetic quality of the community.
Response:
The small size of this parcel creatcs many challanges in site planning and building
design. A number of factors have influenced the siting of this building. First, to
preserve all mature vegetation on the site; second, to maintain as much setback as
p_ossiblc from Vail Vallcy Drive; thfud, !o mainain as much setback as possible from the
Gore Creek Stream Walk; and finally, to allow for vehicular access tliat is sensitive to
the Vail Valley Drive and East Meadou'Drive intersection.
TI{ECORNICEBUILDING
G. A lirculatio-n system designed for both vehicles and pedesnians addressing on and off-site
traffic circulation,
As described above, the proposed driveway has been located as far as possible
from the intersection on Vai[ VaUey nrive l.nd East Meadow Drive. Additional
pedestian and vehicular circulationissues are discussed below in the EIR.
Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize and preserve
natural features, r€creation, views and function.
H.
I.
Given the limit€d site area of this parcel, there is little in the way of "functional
open space", The proposed development does, however, presbrve all mature
tre€s ard include a landscape plan that r€pr€sents a significant improvenrent over
existing conditions.
Phasing plan or suMivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the developnrcnt of the qpecial development disnict.
Response:
Thispro!rct will be completed in one phase.
TTIE@RNICEBTJILDING
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Jne {oltgwing environmental impact report has been prepared to satisfy the requirements of a
SWcial D^evelopment Disricr. the ENhas been prepareil in accordanci with tlie provisions of
$apter. 18.56 -_Environmental Impact Repons. Dire io the nature of development proposed for
Crossview at Vail and the project's lo-cation in established developed'neigh6odiood, the
9oryryrytY De-velopment Staf'f hasrequested the following elenpnts be iddressef, by this report.
Each of these elements have been addrissed as a part of thdSDD application. As such, this rdport
sluilnarizes information previously presented in the SDD applicatio^n.
Hydrologic Conditions
The only applicable h€zard is the 100-year flood. As indicated by the official FEMA Flood Plan
Maps, tlg proposed building is not within the 100-year flood ilain of Gore Creek. A survey
prgpqred_bV a licensed survey formally indicating the elevation of the 100-year flood will bi:
submitted on May 24.
Traffic/Circulation Conditions
The_Comice Building is located at the intersection of Vail Valtey Drive and East Meadow Drive.
Vehicular access to the two propos€d on-sie parking spaces is provided Vail Valley Drive. Access
l9_9n-sl!e parking has been sited to minimize potential conflicts wittr the site's iroximity to the
"Blue Cow Chute". In order to provide adequate site lines, the driveway is aplroximaiely 70'
from the corner of Vail Valley Drive and Eait Meadow Drivc. In additibn, internal circulation
includes a "hammerhead design" which will allow vehicles to tumaround while on-site. This
design eliminates difficulties of cars backing directly out onto Vail Valley Drive. Finally, the
number of cars that can be parked on-site is limited to bnly two. This will liririt the overall amount
of fip generation to andfrom the site.
Thc parcel is located directly on the Vail Villagc Bus Route, and is also located immediately
@jgqent to the Ford Parl/Vail Village Pedesrian Trail. Existing sidewalks along *re Vail Village
Parking Structure site, the Vail Athletic Club, and along Vail-Valley Drive piovide addition-al
pedestian circulation.
Visual Conditions
In order to understand the relationship of ttre proposed building to existing structures, a massing
model has been prepared. The model will be completed and submitted to the Town on June 4th.
Description of Development
Items to be addressed in the Description of Dweloprnent section of the EIR include:
1. ProjectBoundaries2 Present and Proposed Uses of the Site
3. Present and Proposed Zoning of the Site
4. Quantihtive Information
5. List of Specific Regulations that Apply
6. DevelopinentPlan-
Each of the considerations listed above are addressed in the SDD application.
TI{ECIf,RNICtsBIJILDING 9
v.CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
A Cottditional Use Permit isrequired in order to designate the three rcsticted employee rental units
as "Employee_ Housing Units" as defined in Chapter 18.57 of the Municipal-CoAe. Submittal
requirements for a conditional tse permit are esseitia[y covered by the SDb submittal material.
There are however, four specific elements of informatidn (or criteriL), requested for a conditional
use r€quest. While the preceding SDD information addresses each of these criteria, the following
is a bribf summary of hrjw this pijtrt relates ro these criteria:
1 . Relationship and impact of Ore use on the development objectives of the Town.
The upgrading of existing restricted employee rcnal units is a stat€d goal of both the Vail Land
Use Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.'
2. Etrer;t of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportarion facilities, utilities,
schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities anil public facility needs.
The proposed uses represent no change from existing conditions on the site. There are no
negative impacts to the considerations liited above.
3. Effect upon traffic., with particular refereirce to congestion, automotive and pedesrian safcty and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverability, and removal or snow from the
streets and pa*ing areas.
The proposed uses reprcsent no change from existing conditions on the site. There are no
negative impacts to the considerations listed above.
4. Effect upgn the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located, including the
scale and bulk of the proposed use in rclation o surrounding uses.
The architecture of the proposed building is very compatible with the established Tyrolean
design theme of Vail Village. Building scale has bcen articulated with tlre use of exterior
materials that include stone and exposed-timbers. With a maximum height of 48', the building
is similar in height to the Vail Athletic Club, the Vail Village Parking Structure and the Vorlaufer
Condominiums. Finally, the building has been sited anii oriented to maintain as much open
space as possiblc betrneen Gorc Cleek and Vail Valley Drive,
TIIECORMCE BIJILDING l0
v.APPENDIX
Adjacent Property Owners
Tryt A - V.ail Vilag€ lst Filing
Townof Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Tract C - Vail Village lst Filing
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado
Vail Village Tranqporation C-ener
Tovmof Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Tyrolean Condominiums
Tyrolean Condominium Association
c/o BrandesVCadmus Real Estate
281 Bridge Saect
Vail, Colorado 81657
Vail Athletic Club
Atn. Debra Swain
352 East Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
TIIECORMGBIJILDING II
a z-' "o
rA
o
AL
- charges -
AIJTA Owner Policy
Tax Report
--TOTAL--
****WITH YOUR REMITTANCE
COI{I,tITI.IENT
SCIIEDIILE A
91, 148 . oo
$2O. Oo
$1, 158. oo
PLE,ilSE REFER TO
our Order No. V19804
For Infornation OnlY
ouR oRDER NO. v19804.****
Effective Date: Septenber 25, 1992 at
Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
r.ALTAr Ownerrs Policy
1987 Revision (Arnended 1990)
Proposed Insureds
C. DAVID SI'IITH
8: 0O A.M.1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
$5B7,5oo. oo
The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this Conmitnent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
WALTER A. HIIITNER AND BARBARA ;t. HIIITNER ' as Joint Tenants
Ttre land referred to in this cornmitnent is described as
f,ollows:
A PART OF TRACT B AND A PART OF MILI., CREEK ROAD, VAIL VILLAGE'
FIRST FILING, COUNTY OF E,AGLE' STATE OF COLORADO MORE
PARTICUI,ARI,Y DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
coMt{ENcING AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF VAIL VILLAGE, FIRST
FTLING, THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES 46 MTNUTES OO SECONDS WEST
ALONG inr SOUtttERLY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY No. 6, A DISTANCE OF
367.00 FEET TO THE NORTTTEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT B; THENCE
SOIIHT 10 DEGREES 14 I4INIIIES OO SECONDS WEST ALONG TH8 EASTERLY
LINE OF SAID TRACT B; A DISTANCE OF 198.31 FEET TO TITE
souIHEASTERtY CORNER OF SAID TRACT B; THENCE NORTH 79 DEGREES
45 I.'INUTES OO WEST ALONG THE SOUTHERLY I,INE OT SAID TRACT B' A
PAGE
ALTA COI{MITMENT
SCHEDUL,E A
o
Our Order No. V198O4
v.--.
DISTAT.ICE OF 17O.OO FEEE; TIIEI{CE SOUIH 74 DEGREES 16 I'IINUTES OO
sEcoNDs WEST AND ALONG THE SOUTHERTY LINE OF SAID TRACT B' A
DISTANCA OF 1OO.OO FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE
NORTH 09 DEGREES 10 MINIIfES 07 SECONDS WEST A DISTANCE OF 4L'67
FEET' THENCE SOITTH 88 DEGREAS 27 UINTIIES 11 SECONDS WEST A
DISTi\NCE OF 25.21 FEET; THENCE SOUTII 27 DEGREES 13 I'IINUTES 37
SECONDS EAST A DISTANSi oF 77.37 FEE1.; THENSE NORTH 57 DEGREES
24 I.IINIITES OO SECONDS EAST A DISTAI.ICE OF 55.11 FEET, MORE OR
LESS TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGTNNING.
PAGE
o
COMI,IITMENT
SCHEDI'LE B-1
(Requirenents) our Order No. V19804
lltr'e following are the requirernents to be cornplied with:
1. paynent to or for the account of the grantors or mortgagors of
tne futf consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
proper instrument(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insirred must be eieiuted and duly filed for record, to-wit:
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED Novernber 21, 1989, FROM WALTER A. HUTTNER
AND BARBARA .f. HUTTNER TO THB PUBLIC TRUSTEA OF EAGLE COIJNTY FOR THE USE OF
ALPINE FEDERAL SAVINGS AND I,OAN ASSOCIATION TO SECURE EHE SI'M OF
s159,700.00 RECoRDED Decenber 01, 1989, IN BOOK 518 AT PAGE 957.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS ASSIGNED TO FIRST DENVER MORTGAGE COMPANY IN
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED JuLy 18, L99O, IN BOOK 533 AT PAGE 836.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS ASSIGNED TO CENTIJRY SAVINGS & LOAN ASSOCIATION IN
ASSIGNMENT RECORDED July 18, 1990, IN BOOK 533 AT PAGE 837'
RELEASE OF DEED OF TRUST DATED June 04. Lggo, FROI{ WALTER A. HUTTNER AND
BARBAR.A J. HUTTNER TO THE PUBLTC TRUSTEE OF EAGLE COI'NTY FOR THE USE OF
oMNIBANK souTHEAsT To sEcIrRE THE s(x oF $25,ooo.oo RECORDED Jul-y 30, 1990'
IN BOOK 534 AT PAGE 601.
SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS FITRTIAR SECURED BY ASSIGNMENr OIl LEASES AND RENTS
RECORDED July 3o, 1990, IN BOOK 534 AT PAGE 602'
EXTENSION AGREEMENI IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED JUNE
18, 1991, rN BOOK 555 AT PAGE 436.
EXTENSION AGREEI.{ENT IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEED OF TRUST WAS RECORDED
January 29, L992, IN BOoK 571 AT PAGE 679.
EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERMS' CONDITTONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL IRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED'
WARRANTy DEED FROM WALTER A. HUTTNER AND BARBARA J. IIUTTNER , as Joint
Tenantg TO C. DAVID SMITH CONVEYING SUBJECT PROPEREY.
o
ALTA
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
THE COI'NTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFICE REQUIRES RETURN
ADDRESSES ON DOCU},IENTS SENT FOR RECORDTNG! !
3PAGE
o o
ALTA CO}IMIT!,TENT
SCHEDI'I,E B-1
(Requirements) our order No' v198o4
PAGE 4
o
ALTA COUI,TITUENT
o
SCHEDI'IJE 8.2
(ExcePtions) our Order No. V198O4
The policy or pol.icies to be issued will contain exceptioll to the
e-fr-owing-unle3s the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Conpany:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payabte and special-
aaseEsments not yet certif-ied to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessments against said land'
8. l,ienE for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any'
g. RIGHT OF PROFRIETOR OF A VEIN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REI'IOVE HIS ORE
THEREFRoI' sHoULD THE SAI,TE BE F.oTJND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREIIIISES
As REsERvED rN INTTED sTATEs pATENT REcoRDED July 13' 1899' rN BooK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
10. RIGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CAIIAI,S CONSTRUCTED BY IHE AUTHORITY OF TIIE
ITNITED STATES AS RESERVED INITNITED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 13' t899'
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
11. RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITURE OR REVERTER CLAUSE'
BUTOI,TITTTNGRESTRICTIONS,IFANY'BASqD9-IIICE,COLOR'RELIGION'OR
NATToNAL oRrGrN, As coNTAiNED rN insgnuunru REcoRDED Augrust 10, 1962' rN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE 1.79.
12. TERMS, CONDITIONS AND PROVISIONS OF EASEMENT RECORDED August 03' 1972 IN
BOOK 224 AT PAGE 994.
13. STORI,! SEWER INLET AFFECTING SUBJECT PROPERTY AS SHO?IN ON IMPROVE!{ENT /,
LOCATION CERTTFICATE PREPARED NOVEI',IBER 13, 1989 BY INTER-UOUNTAIN /
ENGINEERTNG LTD. PROJECT NO. 89392S. ,/I
14. EXISTING LEASBS AND TENANCIES.
.-)
(t
PAGE 5
-a L't
ANTEE CO!.IPANYI.,AND TITLE GUAR
DISCLOSURE STAIEI.{ENT
Required by Senate Bill 9L-14
A) The subject real property nay be located in a special taxing
district.
B) A Certificate of Taxes Due lLgting each taxing- Jurisdiction
may be obtained from the County Treasurer or the County
Treasurer's authorized agent.
c) The infornation regarding special distri-cts and the boundaries' of such districts nay be obtained from the Board of county
commissioners, the county clerk and Recorder, or the county
Assessor.
Required bY Senate Blll 92-143
A) A Certificate of Taxes Due listing each taxing jurisdiction
shalt be obtained from the county Treasurer or the county
Treasurer's auttrorized agent.
./r1
cJl *ft lsit-\'
PETER JAMAR ASSOCIATES, INC.
PLANNING . OEVELOPMENT ANALYSIS . RESEARCH
May 5, 1993
Ms. Kristan Pritz, Director
Departrnent of Communify Development
'Town oI'Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vai!, CO 81657
RE: Comice Building SDD Application/ElR Requirements
Dear Kristan:
Thank you for the opportunity to discuss the redevelopment of the Cornice Building last month.
Since our meeting, I have met with Gary Bossow, the owner's representative, and David
Haasse, the project architect. Based on this meeting, we have developed a project schedule that
involves the submittal of a compleie SDD application on May 17th. I understand that we had
discussed a review process that would involve a worksession with the PEC. However, due to
the relatively straight forward nature of this redevelopment and the construction schedule of the
owner, it is our intention to formally present our development plans to the PEC on June l4th.
The purprxe of this letter is to clarify precisely what material will be necessary lor the EIR. As
you knc'rw. the EIR may be waived for certain types of projects. Section 18.-56.030 A. states that
tlie EIR may be waived for "alteration, repair and maintenance of existing structures and site
improvements". Given the nature of the site and proposed development, wc request that the EIR
be limitecl to the submittal of the following informaton:
18.56.040 A. 1 Hydrologic conditions
The property survey will be amended to indicate the extent of the l0Gyear flood. -
18.56.040 A. Visual conditions
A rnassing rnodel of rhe oroposed develooment will he prepared.
Given the limited time between now ard the l7th, it will be very helpful to have an answcr on the
EIR at your earliest possible convenience. I will be in touch with you later this week 1o discuss
the EIR and the entire project. Thank you lor you assistance.
Sincerely,,no/ \ fr* \)'6dr"----
Thomas A. Bratrn, AICP
cc: Jay Peterson
Gary Bossow
Suite 2O4, Vail Nalional Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West . Vail, Colorado 81657 . (303) 476-7154
I
Ii ,
'/01li"" l+-
$sthb'\'l\