HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 3 BLOCK 4 LOT 1 MINOR SUBDIVISION & REZONING LEGALil t,n ry
':!', i+l E
l*g: l9Y^g -9: Osterfoss noted the^Avon bus grant had not beetr approved inuongress' anct conversations were underway with the Secretary of Traruportation,s officel 'She askedSteve if it was still necessaqf to continue payrng Ms. Robbi; ;dl A;;*"" some success. stevesaid he would have to dleck on that aird- oti what had be€n paid year to date. He said heunderstood if Ms. Robbins lelt.tlrat a grant cpuld not be_gottm^for iOV sn" ** *igofi tocontinue billing Tov. Tom Steinberg moved to approve ddinance No. 35, Series of rgrs] wi"th asecond from Paul Johnston. A vote *as takm a".i ittu motion pasi€d unarimousry, z-0.
l9-,Ir- l_ 3l-1" :g*da was ordinance No. 4, scies of 1993, second reading, an ordinance
:Tgg_Ti reenacting Section 18.24.065 and 1825.0d5, of the Municipal Code of tfre Town of Vail,set[ng lorth new procedures for exterior alterations or modificatioro of b,tildings in the CommerciiCore I and Commercial 9g-."-!I zone Disbicts; and_ providing iutuil"- it re{ard thereto. M"t;;osterfoss read the title in full. Shelly Mello distrib,ttea -results ofltaffs research with local arclitects,
T reqtlestd by Courrcil on fjlst reading. There was discussion about thespecific changes *ua" tothe ordinance since first.reading, resyrdnq in one-additional change to t" -aa" on secSnd reading
:",TS-:,:.qt i lqC fee shall not be cdllected for any exterior ilteration which was only for thEaddltion ot an extedor dining deck;_however, all oth& applicable fees would be required. The
*my"^91^TlY,," b,h cb ana'cciI. rt oJw* rot*rer clarificuaon by Kristan pritz regard.ingtledbility of remodel submittal dates and issues related thereto, and she iaa"a trt" nhnnirg aniEnvironmental Commission felt that it would be appropriate to limit submittal dates for exterioralterations of less than 1S nug.e feet to encour"g" p6opi" to do their troiecb at one time every twoyears' Staff had no problem wi$ atlgwing minoieiterior alterations to be submitted at any tiine asit was felt the minor exterior alterations "psraded the Core areas. Menr Lapin moved to approveOrdinance No: 4, Series of.7993, on secorid"reading with the suggested cfrai ge regarding e;aoio,dining decks. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. A vote was taten aod ttt""nrotioi.r p*r"aunanimously, 7-0.
Item No. 4. on the agerrda was Resolution No. 1Z Series of 7993, a resolution authorizing certain
1o1vn gnntofees and officers to t:gtt 9""1 ! d.".i"g on existing accormts or accounts to bioper.redin the futrue of the Town at the FirstBank of Vail uid f*tn". a"uthorizing certain employees^of theTown to make deposib T *djTo""l.__Y3yo. Osterfoss read the utte iituu. r"re.vLii" movedto approve Resolution No. 17, Series of 1993; \ /ith a second from Tom Steinberg. A vote^was takmand the motion passed unanirnously, Z{.
!@ Ng:.s
"qg 3n--a1>4eal of the Plaruring and Envirorunental e-orrmission (pEC) appoval of trerlgmp Mnor subdivision, l"ot 1, Block *, val vruage 3rd Filing. The appellana *ire po" a"jNancy- Byers. Sitg" Pritz recalled that the PEC iad upproftd the l"ayne minor subdivisionconditioned on.Council's approval of the associated rezoning requesb in Ordinance No. 34, Seriesof 1993. Council had denied that ordinance on first reading"on p"""t"Uo 2l,lgg3,and, tlerefore,this issue was now moot. To handle this appeal through iropo pto.Juru, the issue was beforeCouncil for an official vote.. Merv t apin m6ved to dis;js; nil "pp"a as the question *- *1"t.
Jim Shearer second the motion. A vote was takm and the motion fassed unanihously, 7-0.
Before adjoumment, Paul Johnston asked iI the Lindholm land exchange issue would be on the
IanyaV 4,]914' agenda. Kristan Pritz advised she had spoken with Bill Post about Council,s desireto hear this issue while Mr. Lindholm was available. 'She was advised Mr. Lindholm could be
Presmt at the January 4.1994, Evening Meeting, and the issue format would primarily be that of apublic input session. Merv l3nin fat it waJimpoftant that the communi-ty -* iware of Mr.Lindholm's proposal, specilically regarding land o<change issues near vail,s boundaries.
Alry So*f-ajoummen-t at Paul Johnstin-s request, Kristan Pritz discu$sed in depth staffs workwith Deter Menzel and Leo_Palmer regarding TbV procedure to be lollowed for a'potentiat minorammdment to an SDD at Palmos Cappuccino Spirits. It was established that an appication for that
request had- not yet been submitted for the desired minor ammdmurt, although apilications for theLiquor Authority process ryd Egl ryceived by the Town Clerk. Kristan "gt"t i& salf fraJ*entrying_ to help Mr. Menzel and Mr. Palmer through the process for applying for the minorammdmmt and dining deck in the colrtyard Mr. Menzel *aotea at Palmos. Dirtait of the parking,
fa.qt caPacity, storage sPaces, and building codes related to this issue were discussei. Toil
Pei.nog noted past Councii had encouraged the Community Development Departrnent (CDD) to
9emore "user friendly,'however, in this case, he felt Mi. Menal ** tut iog advintage of the CDD.Kristan did not feel that was so. She felt the applicant in this case had beiome frusFated with the
]e_guttiols qd the CDD was maling efforts to help the applicant proceed through the process. TomMoorhead advised the extent of the potenual modlficatiotiifor the deck would n&a to Ue establshed
before the Liquor Authority could ivm hear the issue. Tom Steinberg rernained concerrred aboutsuch extensive TOV involvesrent. Kristan said the CDD was tril;g to ext€nd a little extray9Ta"an8, which she felt resulted in achieving md results -o." qtickly and amicably. Tom
Steinberg was reassured by Kristan indicatirig that-there was a limit to'*traftn"y can do, ina *ult
{-
[-
ii"
ti
V.il Towa Cor|IEi EvdriDg !!r€frr8 Xinur- ftffr33
U T {IflPYI ilC-r
IFt htro. I was Orrdlnance No.3+ Series of 19q?, first reading, an ordinarncE rezoning Lot 1, Block4. VaiI .YiUuSg 3rd Filing from the Primary/Seconaarf nesiaenu"t 29* district to the
ldnary/-9econqary Residartal and Single Family Residential zone d.isuicb. The applicant ** r.uoPayne.-.Mayor osterfoss read the utle in full. Aithe applicant was not ylipresmt,^Council movedon to discussion of agenda itern No. 9.
Item No. 9 was Resolution No. 16 Series of 1993, a resolution to enter into an IntergoverrrmentalAgreement between the Town of Vail and the Eaglq State ol Colorado, for Animal Control Ssvices.Tom Moorhead noted TOV has.had a defacto agr&ment with Eagle Cormty Animal Control, and thisresolution proposed formalizing the agreern-ent to have the" County'Animal Control officersadminister and enforce animd conhol s;vices for and within the Todr of Vail. He outlined thedetdls of.the_proposed Agreernent, including the various costs that would be incurred by TOV. He
SdYls{ thatJudge Buck Allen, Tom Sheeley-of the Police Departrnmt.the Finance Depiunent, andhe had reviewed the final Agreernent. eoU Stagte, Eagle Ciunty A"i*rl Control O^{fi.u., further
+TuEsed the Agreenrmt deteilsjncluding territof covded, scope"of services,level of service, official
19tu_s., eguipment,lxrsonnel,liabiJity, terrnirution, general prorlisions, and miscellaneous provisions.Mr. Slagle explained the total annual cost to TOV 6t $nnl.gZin depth. per the Agreement, TOVwould.agree t_o pay the County the sum of g2,143.65 per month. After discussion about serviceprovisions and service reporting methods, Paul joluuton moved to approve Resolution No. 19, Seriesof 193, a resolution to mter iito an Intergoverrrmental Agreemmt'i:etween the Town of Vail andthe Eagle, State of Colorado, for Animal Gnnol Services, -with a second from Jim Shearer. A votewas taken and the motion passd unanimously, Z-0.
At this 9.9, Ct"i_g Snowdon, representing Leo Payne, arrived, and Council commenced discussionof agenda itsn No. 8' Kristan llitz recalted that Council had had some discussion regarding thisitem eadier this date during Work Session, during which there had be€n a site visit to the residenceat 381 Beaver Dam Cirde. She reviewed details- from the Cnmmunity Development Deparhnent(CDD) memo dad Novernta ?2, 1993, to the Planning and Environmental bommissiin (pEC)
detailing.-the applicanfs p.Ioposal to_ r€pne Lot 1, HAk 4 Vail Village 3rd filing f.-n gt"
Ff-f/F*dary ptr district to th€ Itinry/Seconaary iesiamtiat riita gryle Finily zone
dlrB&ict. l'he Proposal also requested a minor subdivision for the purpose of subdividing ttre existinglot into two lots. She said the applicant proposed to take ttri n6rthern portion of-the tot anjmaintain it as a Primary/9To"d*y Lot, to be called t,ot 1-A, consisting'ot two units. On thesouthern portion of the lot which *onld be cte.ted, to be called Lot 1-4 on'e single family residence
was proposed' That would result in a net increase of one dwelling unit on thi property. Kristannoted a lGJoot wide road maintenance easemmt along the front pr-operry tine oi tfre trar6 new lots,
a 3Gfoot wide draina_ge easem€nt through L,ot 1-B in the location of in elisting drainage *uy, *d
an approximate 11"860 square foot open ipace and wetlands easemmt on the eastem traU of fot t-e
w-ere proposed' Kristan also reviewed previous similar subdivision requests, noting except for oneof thosg they were different frorn the request under discussion in the iense that mist oi ttrem dianot have a unit increase. She briefly revie*ed the zoning analysis information supplied in the memo.
She discussed the evaluation of the-zone change request-incluiing suitability of th6 proposed zoning.
She said stalf believed the-pj_opo_sed zoning was compatible with low density residmu'aidevelopmdt
whidr was how the Land. .Use PJan desifrated this-area. She said stalf ajso believed si"gle i;ilt
3T1g was.very compatible in that neighborhood and that single family unit$ *"re u per,riitted ,rrein Primary/Secondgy zoning, as well as Single Family zoningl According to the meriro, staff felt a
convenient, workable relationship with the Land Use Plan wal presented -with the proposal and no
major problerns were foreseen. It was noted the two units cunently allowed on the pioperty could
ProPose_to be separated._There was a pos_sibility that the applicant could obtain upp.oua from the
Ttigt fgview Board (DRB) to actually sdparati the primary unit from the secondiiy unit, but thatphysical hardship on the site had to be prbnen. ffre merno stated that the CDD feli that since the
qooPotd rezorring met the development standards for the proposed zone districts to be created on
the lot, T-y_"U as complytng with the intmt and purpos€ s&tior, of the subdivision regulations, thepropoyl di{Fovide lor the grorarth of an orderly viable community and ceated no negitive impacts
or undesirab-le precedents for the community. Staff felt the rezoning complied with*the fand Use
Plan and poliry staternenb from the Land Use Plan concerning controUing growth, mvironmental
issues, and.residentid growth were noted. Kristan discussed three key arei reviewed as part of the
minor subdivision request induding lot Are4 Frontage, and Site p;mensions. She said ire second
set of criteria considered were outlined in Section 17,16.77A of the Vail Subdivision Regulatioru, all
of which staff felt had been met by the ploject. She focused on one of those regulationi concerning
many of_the environmental issues related to the project. She advised staff hadasked the applican"t
to provide an environmental impact report Dames and Moore had been hired to prepare thit study,
and it was found there were two wetland areas on the property. The applicant naa proposea io
protect the wetland areas byproviding the 3Gfoot wide drainlge easemmf ana a wetbnbs ind open
sPace easement which would also protect the existing stand of trees located on the eastern tratf oflot1-A. Kristan advised staff recommended approval bf the proposed rezoning and resubdivision of
Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing from'tire himary/Sicoidary ResidmEal zone district to the
Primary/Secgndary Resideatial zone dishict and the Single Family-Residential zone d"istrict with six
conditions of approval induding that the resubdivision plat not be signed by the Town and recorded
until such time that the existing residence on the lot wasdemolishea; tnat aU aspects of development
V.il Torn Courcil Evening M*ting Minutar 12tr93
:13+l:ll T.t"d*e."ug+ patios and terrac€s and building roof overhangs, be contained within
f1T^=Hp,Syaopes; that the wetland andopm spac€ easement woul-<t be expanded t"
"U"tlne gastern building *""]opu line of Lot 1-A and no corstmction or site airtrtu*i" would occurin ttut eassnent area; thai the .clustg of lalge evertreen bees located in front or me erasungreidence would not h l.o"|yd or damaged-_as a ridt of construction on either of the newl]
fl::.*f.:F^l|131nti."t-tr_t surveyor wiutd provide staff 11th a topog"aphic s*vey verifyir,iIYt eac{t- ot the ProPosed lots met the minimum buildable lot area iequirmreirts in- tfrEPT+"ty{Tqndarl Residmdd T9 Single Family Residenti"l zone districts; and tirat approvat of theminor subdivision would be conditioned upon C6uncil approval of the roi".rr"g" t"q"est. Kristannoted that condition #5r,rega.rling. uctifrros the miniir-um buildable lot area requirernmb hadtguiy been satisfied. srre ldvised ttre rEC-maae_arno1 changei to tnor" conditidns of approvalwhich w€re summarized on CDDs memo to Council dated Decdnb er z,tggg. The prc changed thecondition related to the wetlands to indicate that the open space and wetlands ""*ttt""t;fie;tT slotnt" 9n the plat, however, no site disturbance or tree removal could occur in the area betweenthe Lot 1-A eastem building envelope line and the western line of the open space and wetlands area.It was noted the proposal-was-?pt*g uy trre rrEc on November lb.,tgg3,by a L1vote, DianaDonovan, Dalton Williams, ana xittry Lanimwalter opposed. Kristan stated she fett tfre pbC naaconcerns-about imPact on the draracter of the neighboihood and th,at the pEC felt a better solution
yas 1o allory one single family unit on L,ot 1-A with a caretaker restricted perrnanently for employee
l"-:lg 11f one sl8t-e ig-rity rrnil sn Lot 1-B and ttrat the PEC prefered- 'not to s€e any inqease inGRFA. Minutes of the Novernfu 22, 1993, PEC meeting were supplied. Individual letters ofopposition had be€rt received from Dick Pownall and Mary pownal, fprraine N. and Harley G.Higbie, Jr., a1d Charfie 11d P-atti L_angmaid. A form letter from
" orr-'ber of other perso* i"".ii"i,
]'Lldies and Gentlernm, You have before you today a request for a subdivision of Lrit t, Bock l, Vaii
Yihg" Third-Filing also known as 381 Bbaver pim Circre. The purpose of this letter is to informthe?laruring gmmission-that any decision that will allow additioial^dwelling units in the Town ofVail or tlEt will increase the squdre footage allowed under the etisting ordittlo."t i" "*.".ptutfa.The following.signalr9s on this letter deriroruEate that a number of f,eople who are either full or
Part time residents of the Town oI Vail are not in favor of this propoiA ina ast that you respondto the wishes of the people and reject this request," had also been received
Craig Snowdon of Snowdon and _H9pki* fuchitects represented the applicant. A site drawing was
fisplayed Mr. Snowdon advised tne arawing oous a 6lor rendition o? the tot in questiorl "oi*J! sudt a y-"I tP the v-arioqs proposed zones of the property were evident Mr. Snowdon noted Mr.
Payne and- his family had 91vr,S this property sinc 6 Vrz, iaang filult lgTzwas a time prior tro most
zoning ordinances adgnted !t t" T"f1r . He {uestioned whether"the present zoning wai appropriatezoning when originally established. He noted that Primary/Secondiry zoning, *iri.tt ttrir t,gi *ur,came into existence n79n. The GRFA placed on this prop"*y was created fr f SAO, and had beenarnended several times since then. Mr. Snowdon felt ail oi these issues had affectd titir propetty,
yt{ch.he emphasized had stayed_in single ownership since 1972. The owners had adlustl-d 6Irnitations and restrictions ptud on them throughbut their ownership of the propertn At
mentioned, the owner was planning on maintaining the northerr portion,iot 1-A, f6r fritntiU *a
|is jamily. litr. Snowdon said the pioposal had been reviewed three times by staff and the pEC and
lilggT through dramatic changEs since the first presentation made in August, 1993. He said the
PEC did -aPprove ffi -9 staff recommended appioval. He discussed the froposal at length. He
explained by creating a Single Family zone for the proposed newly created Lot, that attoiea tne
fP!!9ant tg qeate a smaller lot which thm allowed itre appticant to move property lines and
Puildtr-tg envelopes and get-thoseervelopes out of the existin! ree growth. He not6d the applicant
had the gagability within-the 37.J70 square feet of lot area t6 creale two Primary/Seconairy te.
He stated {rat ftu original lot o137,770 wbUa Uy this proposal be designating rs5o square ieet to
other uses besides Mr. Paynds via various easenrents ir"ra opor ateus. He felt the established
av$oPes_ProP{ed on [9 nrong*f insured that a maiority of the existing hee growth would stay
1ilacg. -Hu oid the GRFA was being limid stictly tb thl 425 square fo6t credlt for the new unii.
He said the owner was com-plying with all Single Family nesidential and Primary/Secondary zoner$llations. The majority of gorutruction would stay within what were already ti.u distr.bed areas
oj $f!-poty: He felt another minor benefit was that with the elimination of tire existing residence,
the TOV would lose two wood buming fireplaces and gain gas fireplaces. Discussioln followed
concerning other lots that could be subdivided. Mr. Snowdon felt Council, with this particular
proposal, needed to look at iE rnerib, not the possibility of another applicant collecting large lots and
subdividing. He did not feel that was the situation witfr this proposal.
Public input induded comments in opposition to the proposed project from Don Byers, who felt
Council should recognize there were conshaints on thlt Jite ana thbv should allow Mr. payne to
build a Primary/Secondary improvement with ocisting zoning abwing separation of thl tr^'o
proposed buildings to Protect the hees and take care of the drainage problem. Xristan Pritz clarified
I th9 exyting_izoning was kept, the applicant would not get the aaaitiona unit they wanted. Merv
Laptl asked if it was possible under what was being proposed iI the applicant could come back and
ask fon another caretaker unit on lot 1-B and call it ernployee housing.-Kristan advised t]nt tlnt was
a possibility, but that would require a conditional use approval from the PEC. It was established this
proposal could create the potential for therb being five units on the two lots.
Vdl Tdr'r Council Erenilg }leerira MiDut . lzt48
Rohn Robbins, attomey.with-og1{Untanatp and Cfuistersen representing Mr. and Mrs. DavidRansberg, owner8 of Lot 5. ur. nobbinidid not agree-that this p"o;;Jworid not create negativeimpacts or undesirable precedent for the communi!. He noted ire ial attended the pECls h;;;g,on this proposal and loted one 9f .the developers in the community stood up and indicated if Mi.Payne was allowed this proposal, he would -t"-u similar ptopoia,
"rra di" *-u aeueroper rertevery other developer h tu Y+"y would. Mr. Robbins t ot"a i" the iristory of the Valley u"i^1rt
P:Posal.ryd-+€n 8rantd with increased density. The same effort had bem attanpted on Lot 4 in1988, and had been voted down. HayurS attmded the PEC meetings, he said of tire four positive
PEC votes, he believed he had counted tw-o voters who seerned ,rncotiforable with the propoJ, U.rt
H{,*.,TTtTs by tlre ordinance to do so. Mr. Robbins said the language or section'rz.oi.brooj the _vail Municipal Code was written in a discretionary manner. He-said neither the pEC nor
9:19 ry9" gbliged to_apnrove this sort of proposal. He felt the key issue was language ci1gd in17.M0.01o dealing with Subdivision Regulatioirs riquiring subdivisions to promote ttreiej*r, satety,and welfare of the commurdty' He did not 6ee *trt wis gained by thG proposal other than oie
l*9onq wguld- profit. The other benefits beg,s ntopoia by uie proionme of the proposalincluded the fact that c€rtain hees would be saved. -Fie f6und it diftcrit tqbelieve with tir; ethic of
$is-Valley that those trees would be sacrificed anyway. That would have to be approved by theDRB, and he doubted they would-approve that. -ur.
nouuins believed ther.r"ai'" p;;;d;"
easernent currently running throug\ that property. lI TOV had been encroaching oo tl16t hna torXl-yarc, a prescriptive easern€nt, in his estimation, erdsted. He raised another thiretical pointthat
$is nropgsat was more restrictive than what was currently permissible. He felt that was truetheoreticallY, but realistically he felt the DRB would not approve'the sort of uses that might ottto*i*
be approved. He noted in order to encroach on $e wctlinds, the applicant would havE to appty tor
? 404 p€rmit with Army c-o1ps of Engineers, and he doubted if thaf would be app,roved. n !uri, t e
fltltrcre w9 no_publiq benql of this proposal as required under the tanguife of the Municipal
Code regarding the zoning ordinances. -
Before Council comments-,_therervas additional public input in opposition to this proposal from Tim
!/er, rim Driscoll, and Nancy-Byers. Mr. Drjscoll felt the PEC;;+3 vote to appioue this proposal
showed their ambivalence on this issue. He felt when the founders of vail suidivided ani pLttua
the lot, it was their intent to keep it as one lot, not two. Mrs. Byers stated that she believid that
Qgof- was responsible t9 u-phg_ld the olginal coverumts, odininc*", and zoning restricuons onwhidr the Town was fgunjed.- Shesaid th+ aI bought and built on their ptopendes assuming thetntgSnt} of their neighborhood would be maintained,-and once the propertib itartea Ueing difiaed
and extra density added, the neighborhood character changed.
Merv Lapin asked iJ there were coverurnts on the property that would prohibit the proposed project.
Don Byers s"i:l the covmants were dated Marctr, igej, and were signd in June, 1963, by pete'SeiLert
31d specifically said two aPalqnmts per lot. Merv noted TOV wainot par-ty to the covenants so thatif action was taken, it would be betr,r'een the private parties, it would not involve TOV.
Paul Johnston noted neither the ordinance title nor Section 2 of it refemed to the requested minorsubdivision. Kristan Pritz advised the minor subdivision was already approved'by the pEO
conditioned upon the rezoning being approved by Council. Tom Moorireab-noted he was made
3y--tt" q"t_T_3PPealoJ the PEC decision in favor of rezoning and resubdividing Lot 1, Block 4, Vail
Villagg 3_r{ $ling had beenfled by the Byers. He referred to Minor Subdivisi6n procedure which
provided for an appeal of the PEC's decision by the Town Cnuncil. He said that-S:ection 7Z.76.190
dealt with right toappeal, and he could find no provision within the minor or major subdivision
secti919 that-proyrd$ for appeals by indiyiduals,bnly provisions for appeal by Couircil. The other
provisions that dealt with_Spneat 9t adjacent property owners dealf with tire SDD process and
conditional uses. He stated he would continue to research and would be willing to review anything
the Byers had that would indicate there was a right to appeal this. There was fuither discussion ani
clarification about the appeal procgss. Tom Moorhead said the action of the PEC as it pertained to
the minor subdivision was final, but it was conditioned upon approval of the ordiriance. Tom
Sleinlerg said, since the neighbors were not able to call up tnis issue, tre wanted the record to reflect
that he wanted Council to gLlI this up ihould the ordinance be paased. Mayor Osterfoss suggested
waiting to deal with appeal issues until the disposition of the rezoning reqirest was deterrnlnred.
Courrcil cpmment cpmmenced. Merv lapin felt that the opinion that only 28 lots would be alfected
was inc\ilrect. He felt the Beaver Dam Road neighborhood would be swerely impacted by thisproposal. He also felt moving and adding lot lines did change a neighborhood and was not in the
sp-irit of zoning, because people built houses depending on views and how neighbors sited their loe.
Already existing houses_ could be negatively atrected, Merv asked Tom Moorh6ad if precedence was
or wa$ not an issue in thie tyPe of siruation. Tom Mocirhead felt any actioru or decisions that were
made in the past provided direction. In most instances, prior decisioru could be referred to for
guidance. For historical Pu{Poses, he felt prior decisionslhould be looked at as far as what the
community d-irection had be€n and whether or not that fit within the guidelines and overall plan
presently under consideration. Merv did not feel ttrat tttis proposal met criteria under the Land-Use
Plan.
V.il Tott Coun il Ey.ning Mecting l{inut . 12lr/93
l
IT:l3i11l F_.-luy"" w19 responsible in his_approach, but Jim was nor in favor of the proposal
lol many ot the same reasons Merv cited. Itecedence or not, he felt over a per:iod of time ti.re &,titehillside would be divid{,T'd resubdivided again a1d "g"il a"" 6 rtaiuial"ur rur"cur gaitt i"atHe felt the rezoning would be a negative impai ot the chlacter or trre ieighuoriood. He"felt 6npAP*.bI.* w-ere Pat,of ttte ne€ative aspects-6f tnis ptoposal. Further, he sai? he was inclinJ ;;[;weight on theneighborhood'f iPinion, and ttrere was a great deal ofopposition. He was not in favoror rncreasmg the density in this neighborhood. He was oPposed to the proposal.
Jan Strauch-agreed that the intent of the original developmmt was not to force a lot of houses intoevery possible 15,fr)0 square feet of land, ana tne only-benefit he saw b this proposal was to theowner. H-e salv no positiv_e-impact tothe communitybr the neighborhooa ana'it was strategically
lFltst what he felt should ! nroviaea in incentive for peopie to downsize what peopdwerl
b.uitding on_their properties. He noted there were many reseicuots on the Lot, i.e., trds, wetlands,drainage. He was opposed O the proposal.
Paul Johrston the rninority position of the PEC. He felt the Lot should be left tlre wav itwas now.
S-ybil ]f3-vas-was-opposed-to the rezoning and saw no benefits to the community. She also obsewedthe neighborhood oPPos_igol to the proposal. She advised she had spokm with some of the pEC
members who had voted in favor of the rezoning, but felt they *oe {rraifyittg their votes becausethey fel! co^1n9tl9d by the ordinances. the diE not feet thiy were co*;"iti"d in theory to ttreproposal. She indicated she would vote no.
Tot ltoP".g ai*gfO !{rat the rylning would be consistent with the surrounding and immediateneighborhoodt tl" ultp disagreed that it-would be a benefit to the community. He'felt ttre requirea
1F pq*it from the .{rmy Corp-s of Engineers would never be allowed to go through Uecani: Urls
louncil would object strenuously to that. He felt the bsrefits TOV was beiig told iiwas to receive
{orn this proposal_.werg ryt $rinSs the applicant had ccnhol to give u*uyl He lelt the otiginJ
werc lnleli8gt developers wfroi6orca at that Iot and fit ir neeAed to be a Utg toti flefdl tt
"y
were right and asked why TOV should look back 30 years and change that for one"person sprivate gain. He was opposed.
Mayo-r Osterfoss felt although rezoning was a theoretical possibility based on the size of this lot, this
specific Prcposat did not address kna Use Plan cdieria B rLferencing convenient workablet*tigrylripu with land uses consistent with municipal objects nor did it addiess item D, compliancewitll Vail knd use Plan. She felt it failed to meei these criteria based on adding "aditio"ir ,*its
and additional GRFA. She agreed wittr Paul's comments and with the minority poisition of the pEC.
She also did not feel there was benefit to the community.
Y* t.ap-T.*ou_{ !o deny Ordinance No. 34, Series of 1993, on first reading because it did not meet
Sections 1.2 and 1'3 of the L^and Use Plan Goals, the Subdivision Regf-rhtions purpose under
17.04.010, and rmder T"i"g criteria did not rneet items B and D. toni Steinberg seconded themotion. A vote was takm and the motion passed unanirnously, Z-0.
Merv Lapin further moved that stalf have the PEC look into ways to avoid huuiog these types of
p.roPoTls ge_se"!d again. There was no second to this motion. He felt *re minimirm Uuitiiirg tot
siees sttottld be increased on Single Family lots from 12"500 to 17J00 and 15,000 to z),0fl) 6n a
fqnaV/Secondarf. He said those numbers wer€ meant only as guides, but hewanted the pEC to
look at this or other methods. _Y"yol Ostdpfoss asked Merv if he itiApated this being ao* us pa"t
of the review of the Land Use Plan plarured for the next year. He said he would like to see this back
to- Council by February 75, 1993. Kristan t}itz felt staif needed to diruss possibilities with Tom
Moorhead, and thm work with the PEC. Merv agreed to that, but felt thde was a necessity for
speed with this issue. Kdstan wanted the PEC and-Council to have a lrint Work Session to discuss
possible solutions. She advised staff would have notice published to id\dse the public. but initially
a Work Session in February worrld be prefered. Tom Steinberg felt an alternauvi to ttrat was to prit
a moratorium on an_y lot subdivision until sudr time as the t ana Use Plan had been thorouglly
reviewed and passed. Merv stated he was reluctant to use a moratorium proc€ss. Mayor OsterJojs
felt tlult the idea described by tftistan was a helpful starting point to define what the concems were
and discuss dilferent approadres.
Tom Moorhead recommended tabling of the Byers' appeal as a technicality. Merv Lapin moved to
table the Byefs appeal of the subdivision until December 27,7993,with a iecond tom 1im Shearer.
A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimousln Z{.
Item No. 10 was a sign variance request from Pineridge Tor,rmhouses. Jim Cumufte discussed the
CDD memo to Council dated Decernber 7,lgg3,summarizing DRB action on this request He said
the DRB recommended approval of the request by a vote of SO, wittr two conditioru of approval.
Jim expained that the requested signs were not permitted subdivision enEance sigru due to the
zoning on the ProPerty. However, staff felt this was a hardship to the applicanl. AIter brief
Vr foryD Coulcil Ev.tri'a Uccting Uinutr t2lt,9ll
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 rO7 / FAX 303 479-2 I 57
Office of TownAttorney
December 9, 1993
Craig Snowdon
Snowdon & Hopkins Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
VaiI, Colorado 81657
RE: Appeal of Don Byers of the PEC's decision granting a minor subdivisioo request
Dear Craig:
As you recall, Town Council tabled the objection of Don Byers to the PEC's decision granting
Leo Payne's request f61 4 rn.ine1 subdivision. It will be scheduled for the next-evening
meeting on December 21, 1993.
I believe that, regardless ofwheth.er or not Don Byers as an adjacent property owners has
the legal right to appeal the granting of the minor subdivision, the question is now moot. It
was my understanding that the PEC decision conditioned the granting of the minor
subdivision on the successful rezoning of the lot. It wouldbe my recommendatioo to Council
at this time that the appeal be denied as being moot siuce the request for rezouing was
denied by Town Council.
If you have any thoughts in this matter contra4f to what I have outlined. hereiu, I would
appreciate hearing from you. Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Very try!.yours, a,-l ///'/n \ lr J' /fua Y/6ril"*(
R. Thomas Moorhead
Town Attorney
RTIWdd
xc: Ikistan Pritz
Jim Curnutte
Don Byers
RESONOV
g 1e91
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMOFANDUM
.Town Council
Community Development
December 7, 1993
Summary of Planning and Environmental Commission action on Payne
Rezoning and Minor Subdivision requests.
On November 22, 1993, the Vail Pl#ning and Environmenlal Commission (PEC) approved
the Payne Minor Subdivision request and recommended approval of the associated request to
rezone the existing Primary/Secondary zoned lot to Primary/Secondary and Single Family.
The PEC included the following colditions to their approval ol the resubdivision request:
1. That the approval of th6 minor subdlvision shall be conditioned upon Town
Council approval of the zone change request.
2. That the resubdivision ptat not be signed by the Town and recorded with the
Eagle County Glerk and Recorder until such time that the existing residence on
the lot is demolished.
3. That all aspects of development on each lot, including at-grade patios and
tenaces @ be contained within platted building
envelopes.
4. Tie rvetlefld and epen spaee oas€mert shall be ex^anded te *st the eastern
eeeur in thie aasement area. That the bpen space and wetlands easement may
stay as shown on the plat. However, no site disturbance or tree removal may
occur in the area between the Lot 1-A eastem building envalcpe line and the'
western line of the open space and wetlands area.
5. That the cluster of large evgrgreeh trees located in front of tfie existing
residence not be removed or damaged as a result of construction on either ol
the newly created lots.'i
6. That the applicant's surveyor shall provide staff with a topographic survey
verifying that each of the proposed lots meet the minimum buildable lot area
requirements in the Primary/Secondary Residentialand Single Family
Residential zone districts
Attached please find a copy of fie staff memorandum and a draft copy of the November 22,
1993, PEC meeting minutes.
.t
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
FII. T
November 22,1993
A request for a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the
Primary/Secondary Besidential and Single Family zone districts and a minor
subdivision to create two lots from the existing lot.
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
80P y
'TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Planner:
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REQUEST
Leo Payne is requesting a rezoning of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filingi38l Beaver Dam
Circle from the Primary/Secondary Flesidential zone district to the Primary/Secondary
Residential and Single Family zone districts. Mr. Payne has also requesied approval of a
minor subdivision for the purpose of subdividing his existing lot into fwo lots. Lot 1 is located
north of Beaver Dam Circle and south of an unplatted Agricultural and Cpen Space zoned
tract of land owned by Vail Associates. The lot is 37,771 square feet in size.
In oi'der to accomplish the proposed rezoning and minor subdivision, Mr. Payne has located
the nerv lot line in such a manner that each new lot meets ihe minimum lot size requirements
in the Primary/Secondary zone district (15,000 square feet of buildable lot area) and the
Single Family zone district (12,500 square feet of buildable lot area). The proposed lot line
also bisects the existing single-family residence located on the property. In order to avoid
creating a nonconforming situation with regard to building setback requirements, it is proposed
that the existing structure will be demolished prior to signing and recording the subdivision
plat. Mr. Payne has agreed to this condition as well as agreeing to plat a 10-foot wide road
maintenance easement along the front property line of the two new lots, a 30-foot wide
drainage easement through Lot 1-8, in the location of an existing drainage way, as well as an
approximate 11,860 square foot open space and wetlands easement on the eastern half of
Lot 1-4. Atthe requestof the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC), the applicant
has indicated building envelopes on each of the proposed lots, and has also agreed to restrict
the GRFA allowed on each lot to an amount below that which would be allowed if calculated
strictly according to the proposed zone district standards. The proposed GRFA restrictions
are described in more detail in the zoning analysis section of this memo.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The subdivision plat creating Lot 1, Block4, VailVillage 3rd Filing was approved by the Eagle
County Board of County Commissioners in 1964. The Beaver Dam/ForesURockledge F.oad
o
neighborhood was part of the original "Town of Vail" when incorporated in 1966, and was
zoned "Residential" when the Town established its first comprehensive zoning regulations in
1969. The allowed uses within the Residential zone district included single family dwellings
and two family dwellings. lt was not until 1977, that the Town amended the zoning regulations
to create the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. lt was at this time that all of the
tots along Beaver Dam Road, Beaver Dam Circle, Forest Fload and Rockledge Road were
zoned Primary/Secondary.
On August 23, 1993, a worksession was held with the PEC for the purpose of discussing the
proposed resubdivision of Lot 'l from one PrimaryiSecondary zoned lot to two
Primary/Secondary zoned lots. At that meeting, the staff, PEC and adjacent property owners
expressed a number of concerns related to the proposed resubdivision. (See attached
minutes from August 23, 1993 PEC meeting). Upon receiving the alorementioned input, the
applicant requested tabling of the application in order to provide additional information and
further refine the application. Specilically, the applicant was asked to address each of the
categories contained in the Environmental lmpact Report section of the Vail Municipal Code
(Section 18.56.040). The applicant was asked to concentrate on possible wetlands impacts
on the property as well as impacts on existing vegetation, specifically, the large stand of
evergreen trees located on the easlern half of the property. As mentioned previously, the
PEC suggested the use of building envelopes on each lot for the purpose of reducing possible
impacts associated with the siting of future buildings on the property.
In early September, 1993, Mr- Payne contracted rvith Dames & Moore to perform a wetlands
analysis of the property. The consultants identified two areas on the property that are
classified as wetlands. The wetlands consist of an area approximately 20 feet x 70 feet in
size located at the far eastern end ol the property and an area approximately 6 feet x 125 feet
in size straddiing the existing drainage way that runs through the property. A copy of a
portion of the wetlands analysis is enclosed for PEC review. The applicant is proposing to
protect the wetland areas by providing the wetland and open space easement and the 20{oot
wide drainage easement mentioned in the first paragraph of this memo. In addition to the
wetlands analysis, the applicant has addressed each of the nine categories contained in the
Environmenlal lmpact Report section of the Vail Municipal Code. These categories relate to
the proposed subdivision's impact on hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, visual, land
use, circulation and transportation, population, and other environmental conditions of the
property. This analysis was completed by the architect for the project, Craig Snowdon.
On October 1 1, 1993, a second worksession was held with the PEC for the purpose of
discussing tha revised application for subdividing the property (see attached copy of meeting
minutes). At thai meeling, the PEC reviewed two resubdivision scenarios. The lirst scenario
involved subdividing the property into two Primary/Secondary zoned lots. The second
scenario involved suMividing the property into one PrimaryiSecondary zoned lot and one
Single Family zoned lot. The PEC suggested that the applicant explore the
Primary/Secondary and Single Family lot option because that scenario would allow the lot line
between the two lots to be shifted further lo the west, allowing the building envelope on Lot 1-
A to also be shifted to the west and out of the dense stand of evergreen trees located along
the eastern half of the property. The PEC recognized the public benefit of the applicants
intention to dedicate a drainage easement and a road maintenance easement to the Town
and plat a wetlands and open space easement on the eastern half of Lot 1-A. The PEC
acknowledged the fact that in the past, several lots have been resubdivided resulting in more
GRFA on the lot than had previously been allowed prior to resubdivision. No unit increase
was approved for these lots. However, it should be noted that in only one instance has a
resubdivision of a lot in Vail resulted in an increased number of dwelling units on the property
per staff's research to date.
III. PREVIOUS MTNOR SUBDIVTSTON REQUESTS SIMILAR TO THIS APPLICATTON
Staff feels that it would be helpful to the PEC to be aware of previous subdivision requests
similar to the one eurrently being discussed, as well as some information regarding the
potential for additional requests of this type. There have been five comparable proposals
submitted to the PEC over the past eight or nina years to the best of staff's knowledge.
These include the following:
1. A resubdivision and rezoning of Lot 1, Slock 1, Bighorn Subdivision 1st
Filing (1983): This subdivision approvaldivided one Duplex lotinto two Single
Family lots. Although this property was large enough to be divided into two
Duplex lots, or four units, the net result was no increase in the total number of
units on the site. The original lot, prior to subdivision, allowed up to 5,862
square feet of GRFA to be buiit on it. The PEC approval restricted the GRFA
on each of the new single family lots to 3,300 square feet each. There was an
increase in GBFA of 738 souare feet. Although building envelopes were
originally proposed on each of the single family lots, the planning staff as well
as the PEC recommended that they be deleted. The only other restriction,
besides GRFA, applied to this resubdivision involved a plat note requiring a
shared driver,vay for both lots. The shared access requirement was
subsequently removed from the plat at a later PEC meeting.
2. A resubdivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows (1986): This parcel had a long
history in terms of previous attempts to subdivide the property. About the time
East Vail was annexed to Vail, applications were made to subdivide lhe existing
duplex lot into three duplex lots. At the time, minimum lot standards required
17,500 square feet of buildable area per lot. Because of this requirement, only
two lots were approved on the parcel, for a total densitv increase of two unils.
Follov'ring the reduction of the minimum lot size in the Duplex zone district to
15,000 square feet, a new application was submitted to the PEC in 1987.
Approval by the PEC at that time resulted in the creation of a third duplex lot !91
a densitv increase of an additional two units on the lot. While the new parcel
contains significant amounts of area over 40/" slope, it was the finding of the
PEC that the lots were both accessible and buildable. In addition, the newly '
created lot was bordered by residential development on one side, with National
Forest property on two sides of the parcel and l-70 bordering the property on
the other. No restrictions on GRFA were attached to either ol the
aforementioned lot resubdivisions.
3. A resubdivision and rezoning of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7,Yail Village lst
Filing (referred to as the Tennenbaum Subdivision) (1987): This approval
crealed two Single Family lots and one Primary/Secondary lot from two
4.
Primary/Secondary zoned parcels. This subdivision resulted in no increase in
the total number of units. and a 37 square foot GRFA increase. Due to the
nature of the GRFA ordinance and the way it functions on a graduated scale,
lhe creation of one Primary/Secondary lot and two Single Family lots would
have resulted in an increased amount of GFIFA for the property. The allowable
GBFA on the existing lots was 7,518 square feet. Without restrictions, the new
Primary/Secondary and two Single Family lots would have been allowed a total
GRFA of 9,100 square feet. After discussions with the PEC, it was agreed to
restrict the total amount of GFIFA on the combined area of the three lots to
7,755 square feet for a total GRFA increase prior to resubdivisioq of 37 square
fee!.
Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing (1988): This application appears to be
the most similar to that being requested by Mr. Payne and involved a similar
resubdivision request (the property is located two lots to the west of the Payne
parcel). Specifically, the applicant proposed to resubdivide the existing 30,030
square foot lot into 15,020 square foot and 15,010 square foot
Primary/Secondary zoned lots. Both of the proposed lots complied with the lot
frontage and site dimension requirements ol the Primary/Secondary zone
district. The original lot was considered to be legally non-conforming with
regard to density because four units were in exisience at the time it was zoned
Primary/Secondary. Maximum GRFA allowed on the lot prior: to the proposed
subdivision was 5,251 square feet. Although the property stood to gain
approximately 2,150 square feet of additional GRFA as a result of subdivision
approval, the property owner agreed to resirict the GRFA on each lot to 2,667
square feet, with an additional 500 square feet allowed if an optional caretaker
unit was constructed. Therefore the maximum amount of GRFA proposed on
the combined area of the two new lots was 6,334 square feet, for a total
increase in GRFA on the orooertv of 1.083 souare feet if two caretaker units
were built. No increase in densitv was oroposed because of the nonconforming
situation, however two of the units associated with the resubdivision request
were required to be restricted to employee housing. This application was
denied by the PEC.
Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision 1st Addition (1992): The PEC's
approval involved the resubdivision of an existing Duplex lot into two Duplex
lots. The approval conlained a condition that the density on each of the new
lots was restricted to one single family dwelling, therefore, there was no
increase in the total number of units. The GRFA was also restricted to 8,804
square feet for both properties, which was 3,745 square feet below the GRFA
that would have been allowed without the plat restriction. The original GRFA
for the lot was 7,950 square feet so there was an increase of 854 souare feet
of GRFA.
Please note that these GRFA numbers in the above projects do not include
credits which equaled 275 square feet per unit excluding garages.
5.
tr
?
--{, t,
The staff memorandum prepared for the above-mentioned request for resubdivision of
Lot 4, Block 4, Vail t/illage 3rd Filing included some research with regard to lot sizes
within the neighborhood ol the proposal. The memo states: "we have researched lot
sizes in Block 7 of Vail Village 1st Filing and Blocks 1 , 2, 3, and 4 of Vail Village 3rd
Filing, encompassing what is commonly known as the Villag'e side of the Forest Road
area. The results of this research found that the average lot size in this neighborhood
is 22,723 square feet, with a mean lot size ot 24,025 square feet. In addition, there
are a total of five lots in the neighborhood greater than 30,000 square feet "(including*. Mr. Payne's parcel). "These lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37,769
square feet. All of these lots are zoned PrimaryiSecondary. By way of comparison,
fourteen of the forty-tlvo Primary/Secondary zoned lots in Vail Potato Patch are over
30,000 square feet and nine of the fifty-two PrimaryiSecondary zoned lots in the Glen
Lyon Subdivision exceed 30,000 square feet. Because of the various laclors involved
in determining the "buildable area" of a site, staff is unable to specify exactly how
many of these lots could meet the buildable standard for a potential future
resubdivision."
IV, ZONING ANALYSIS
Listed below is the zoning analysis which provides a comparison between the development
slatistics of the existing Primary/Secondary zoned lot and the proposed Primary/Secondary
zoned Lot (1-A) and the Single Family zoned Lot (1-B).
Exislino Lot Prooosed Lots Nel lncrease
Lot Size: 37,771 square feet Lot 1-A: 24,771squar€ feel {-
Lot 1-B: 13.000 square feet
Total: 37,771 square teet
Densily: 2 unils Lot 1 .A: 2 units 1 unlt
Lot 1-B: 1 unil
Total: 3 units
At<.^rrar6 la.r .GRFA: 6,489 square feet' Lot1.A: 4,014 square feel 425 squars leel
Lol l.B: 2,900 square feel
Total3 6,914 square leet"
Sile Coverage: 7,554 square feet Lot 1.A: 4,954 square feel €-
Lot 1.8: 2.600 square feel
Tolal! 7,554 square feet
Garage Credit: 1,200 square leel Lot 1.A: 1,200 square feel 600 squala leet
Lot 1'B: 600 souare feel
Total: 1,800 square feet
Selbacks:
Front: 20 feet Front: 20 feet -o-
Side: 15 feel Side: 15 feet -0-
Rear: 15 feel Rear: i5 feet -0-
r_-
\._Building Heighl: 33 feet 33 leer -O-
Landscaping: 600/. or 22,663 squars teel Lol 1-A: 14,863 square feet -0-' Lol 1-B: 7.800 souare feel
Total: 22,663 square loel
V.
This figure includes two 425 square lool credils.
This figure was anived al lhrough he applicant's decision lo restrict lh€ GRFA on lhe property to lhat which is cunently
atlowable, plus a 425 square foot credil for lhe new d\i/elling unit. Wlhout the GBFA reslricrion, and calculaled striclly
according lo the proposad zoning on €ach lot, the GRFA allovrance (including 425 square foot credits) would be:
Lot 1-A:
Lol 1 -B:
Total:
Proposed:
Difference:
5.577 square feet
3.600 square feel
9,177 square teet
8,914 squaro feet
2,263 square teel
The abov€ listed GRFA restriction on the combined area ot lhe proposed lots (6,914 sqrare feel) does not prohibit the
applicanl's right to apply for "250 addilions" according to lhe provisions of Chapler.18.71 otlh€ Vail Municipal Code.
EVALUATION OF THE ZONE CHANGE HEQUEST
A. Suitability of the prooosed zoninq.
The Community Development staff feels that the existing zoning in this area of the
community is appropriate and does meet the development objectives of the Town of
Vail. The Vail Land Use Plan, adopted in November of 1986, identifies this
neighborhood as appropriate for Low Density Residential development, Lot 1, at
37,771 square feet in size is the largest lot in Vail Village 3rd Filing, and has more than
twice the minimum buildable lot area necessary in the Primary/Secondary zone district.
Although the applicant had previously considered subdividing the lot into two
Primary/Secondary zoned lots, which would not require a zone change application, he
has since proposed to rezone a portion of the lot to Single Family. This redevelopment
scenario was discussed with the PEC, at their October 1 1, 1993 worksession, in an
effort to move the proposed newly created common lot line between Lots 1-A and 1:B
further to the west. By moving the common lot line west, the building envelope on Lot
1-A would also be moved to the west, thereby saving all of the existing trees in the
heavily forested area on the eastern portion of Lot 1-A.
There areSingle Familyzoned lots in the immediate neighborhood. In 1986, Lots l4
an 17, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing were resubdivided and rezoned in a manner
which created one Primary/Secondary zoned lot and two Single Family zoned lots. lt
was the determination of the staff, PEC and Town Council at the time that Single
Family zoning in this neighborhood was appropriate. Staff believes that the proposed
rezoning of the Payne parcel to one Primary/Secondary zoned lol and one Single
Family zoned lot is suitable.
B. ls the Amendment Preventino a Convenient. Workable Relationship with Land
Uses Consistent With Municioal Obiectives?
The proposed rezoning and resubdivision would not effectively change the concept of
low density residential development in this area of the community. Although the
proposed rezoning and subdivision.will result in an additional structure on the lot, statf
believes that due to the location of the heavily wooded stand of trees to the east of the
existing building and the existing drainage way to the west, the applicant may be able
to make a good case for a 'separation of units' under the existing Primary/Secondary
zoning. Additionally, since the total gquare footage of development on this property
,o
does not change substantially, staff feels that the proposed redevelopment will not
prevent a convenient, workable relationship with land uses consistent with municipal
objectives.
C. Does the Rezoninq Provide for the Growth of an Orderly. Viable Communitv?
The Community Development Department leels that since the proposed rezoning
meets the development standards for the proposed zone districts to be created on the
lot, as well as complying with the intent and purpose section of the subdivision
regulations, the proposal does provide for the growth of an orderly viable community
and creates no negative impacts or undesirable precedent for the community.
D. Does the rezoninq comply with the Vail Land Use Plan?
The Vail Land Use Plan designates this area as suitable for Low Density Residential
uses. Single family, prirnaryisecondary and duplex construction are all considered
acceptable building types within the definition of Low Density Residential.
Other Municipal Objectives can be found in the Vail Land Use Plan. Staff has listed
the relevant goals and objectives from the plan below:
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.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in existing,
platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high hazards do not exist.
Staff believes that the requested rezoning is consistent with the above stated goals and
objectives of the Vail Land Use Plan.
VI. MINOR SUBDIVISION CRITERIA
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot
must be met. These standards gpically deal with minimum lot size, lot configuration, etc. As
a result, these standards establish the first set of review criteria to be considered with this
application:
A. Lot Area
The Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a
property located within the Primary/Secondary zone district be 15,000 square
feet of buildable area. The minimum lot or site area for property located in lhe
Single Family zone district is 12,500 square feet of buildable area. The
Municipal Code defines "buildable area" as any site, lot, parcel, or any portion
thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche
area, or areas in excess of 40/o slope. Both of the proposed lots meet the
minimum lot size requirement and will be verified by the applicant's surveyor
before the minor subdivision plat is signed.
B. Frontaoe
The Vail MunicipalCode requires that any lot, in both the Primary/Secondary
zone district and the Single Family zone district, have a minimum frontage of 30
feet. Both of the proposed lots are able to meet the minimum lot frontage
requirement of 30 feet.
C. Site Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape capable
of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries. The
applicant's proposed resubdivision will create lots of a size and shape which
meet the 80 square foot area regulation.
The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are outlined in
Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations and are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is
in compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable- Due
consideration shall be given to the iecommendations by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16'090. The PEC
shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town
policies relating to subdivision control, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, effects on the
aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding uses."
Some of the key aspects of the above statement refer to "compliance with the intent and
purposes of this chapter..., ... environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land
uses," etc. As mentioned in the introduction portion of this memo, the applicant has been
asked to address each of the nine categories contained in the Environmental lmpact Report
section of the Vail Municipal Code. These categories relate to the proposed subdivision's
impact on hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, visual, land use, circulation and
transportation, population, and other environmental conditions of the property. The applicant's
response to these Environmental lmpact Report categories will be reviewed for conformity with
the seven purpose statements outlined in Section 17.04.010 (Purpose Section) of the Vail
SuMivision Regulations. The purpose section is intended io insure that a suMivision is
promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community. The subdivision purpose
statements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
I
Staff Response:
One of the underlying purposes of subdivision regulations, as well as any development
controls, is to establish basic ground rules with which the staff, the PEC, applicants,
and the community know will be followed in the public revievu process. During the two
preVious worksessions, the staff, PEC and public made the applicant aware of their
concerns regarding this request including preservation of the heavily forested area on
the eastern half of Lot 1-A, preservation of the two wetland areas, establishment of
buildlng envelopes and GRFA restrictions to limit impacts of future structures on the
site, etc. Staff believes that the applicant has adequately responded to the concerns
raised at previous meetings.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent land.
Slaff Response:
While Lot 1 was originally platted in 1964, prior to incorporation into the Town of Vail,
Town zoning has guided development in this area for the past twenty years. The
proposal's compliance with the zoning development standards implies consistency with
the Town's overall development objectives. The proposed building envelope locations
create buffers rvhich will limit impacts on adjacent property's views and privacy, as well
as sufficiently limit negative impacts to the environment.
3. To protect and conserve the value of land throughout the municipality and the value of
buildings and improvements on the land.
Staff Response:
The value of a lot, and to a greater extent the value of a neighborhood, is in large part
dependent on the level and type of development within it. Staif believes that this
proposal's compliance with the zoning development standards as well as the voluntary
restrictions on GFIFA and building location demonstrate that this proposal will not be
detrimental to the value of land throughout the Town, nor in the immediate
neighborhood.
4. To insure that subdivision of property is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
Staff ResDonse:
Both of the proposed lots comply with the Town's zoning ordinance and are
additionally restricted in such a manner (building envelopes, GRFA restrictions, etc.)
that subsequent development will achieve a harmonious, convenient, workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
5.To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient
transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other
public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facilities will have
sufficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
Staff Response:
This purpose of the subdivision regulations is intended primarily to address large scale
subdivisions as opposed to this particular proposal under consideralion. We do not
believe that the additional unit will create negative traffic impacts. lt is also positive
that the applicant is willing to create the proposed road maintenance and drainage
easements.
To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to establish
reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures'
Staff Response:
This is an inherent goal of the subdivision regulations that has little specific reference
to this particular application.
To prevent the pollution of air, streams, aniJ ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management
of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve the integrity,
stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land.
Staff Response:
lnitially, staff was concerned with the impacts of the proposed resubdivision on the
mature stand of evergreen trees on the eastern half of the existing lot, as well as
possible impacts to any designated wetland areas on the lot. Dames and Moore
identified two areas on the property that are classified as wetlands. These areas
consist of an area approximately 20 feet by 70 feet in size located at the lar eastern
end of the property and an area approximately 6 feet by 125 feet in size straddling the
existing drainage way that runs through the property. The applicant is proposing to
protect the wetland areas by providing the 3O-foot wide drainage easement, and the
wetlands and open space easement, mentioned in the first paragraph of this memo'
The wetlands and open space easement is being proposed not only as a means of
protecting the wetlands on the property but also the existing stand of trees located on
the eastern half of Lot 1-A.
With regard to development on this lot, the applicant has agreed to place building
envelopes in such a manner that virtually no trees would be removed as a result of
future building construction. There are two evergreen trees (one 5-inch and one 18-
inch caliper) located within the Lot 1-B building envelope which will be removed. The
Lot 1-A building envelope contains seven trees (a cluster of three S-inch caliper aspen
trees located behind the existing building and a cluster of four 6-inch caliper aspen
trees located in front of the existing building) which will be removed. There is a cluster
6.
7.
10
of large evergreen trees in front of the existing residence that are located outside of
the proposed building envelopes. Staff believes that it is very important to preserue
these trees and have included a condition to this effect in the staff recommendation
section of this memo. The applicant has agreed to restrict all building encroachments
beyond the building envelope lines with the exception of an allowance for at-grade
patios and tenaces along the rear lot lines and building overhangs. With the exception
of the applicant's proposed building envelope encroachments, staff believes that the
above described development limitations on the property, as well as those mentioned
previously in this memo, adequately mitigate the concerns previously raised with
regard to developing the property in an environmentally sensitive nature.
VII. STAFFRECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed rezoning and resubdivision of Lot |, Block 4, Vail
Village 3rd Fiiing, from the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone district and the Single Family Residential zone district.
Staff believes that the criteria are fulfilled as discussed above and that ihe platting of the
proposed building envelopes, and olher easements, has caused this property to be restricted
in a manner which is both sensitive to the environment and limits the effect on the surrounding
neighborhood. As proposed, development occurring on the newly created lots would appear
to be more restrictive in terms of environmental impacts to the property than what could
currently take place under the existing development rights on the property. In other words,
the applicant could propose to turn the existing residence into the secondary unit allowed on
the lot and build an entirely new primary residence with ihe 3,000 to 4,000 square feet of
GRFA remaining on the lot. Of course, this new dvuelling unit would be required to obtain the
review and approval of the Design Review Board (DRB).
Staff recommends that the following conditions be attached to the recommendation of
approval of this rezoning and resubdivision request:
1. That the resubdivision plat not be signed by the Town and recorded until such
time that the existing residence on the lot is demolished.
2. That all aspects of development on each lot, including at-grade patios and
terraces and building roof overhangs, be contained within platted building
envelopes.
3. The wetland and open space easement shall be expanded to abut the eastern
building envelope line of Lot 1-A. No construction or site disturbance shall
occur in ihis easement area.
4- The cluster of large evergreen trees located in front of the existing residence
shall not be removed or damaged as a result of construction on either of the
newly created lots.
11
5. The applicanfs surveyor shall provide staff with a topographic survey verifying
that each of the proposed lots meet the minimum buildable lot area
requirements in the Primary/Secondary Residentialand Single Family.
Residential zone districts.
6. Approval of the mlnor subdivlslon shall be conditioned upon Town Council
approval of the zone change request
c:\pec\menros\paynel 1 .22
12
tril
r:it
I::Ill:t
itlil
ll;!l
l:r!!!rI linit;.Iir!itiliir
i:J Iq! i Ir'l
ritlri!l
tl| i
r-_r I
:r! |
'I.l
I
I
i J.t
i
i
a
I ti
ti2
,rl
ri!
t':!l:
.! i:
-t
- zt
i jl
i.i l!i; -rli
:i =,fiili; ffil;
i:;l!:!ii:
itt r:'illi:
iilil' iiilr
iiii
|: '!
r:ii! .l
.j i ii,rrii ' ili i i:l.';:lli iii ir, ti:!!il;! i:i ii; i:t!a::l ,' i
; i iii !;iiiili : i::r !;! t'.!ill: : 'l;ii iiii il:iiiri I lii;r nrj ;:iii;ii: uj
Ii i _:!,:.ii iifl i! : ril;iili l,:! i: !:-iii:irir::i I,i : i:;;;;i! li.:i ; ri: ! ir:..i:il li:ii:,''j !:iliiiit:i
r: -
iii!! i
i'!13i i;ii:i:i:_'i:r!:l! r!
iiljilr !:
ffi*ffi
Oz
Fl
.P.
t+r
t-{
rh
Fl
Fl
Ft
<ax\<
-Flrso
Ov--iita\z
rn;1
-tri'-r G
.r lCrs
Y'J
F...{ <
53
,-ZA=
\J-
U)
;l(/)
F
,-1
P-r
-l
z
/ l:\/ lr\-(,/ \l?
ri\'
!i\;.
.,1, i\\i itiii \i\ !rii! \ ,'li
.ri' l'.'
.a !'ri
{.a'r :'17
\s/
,r.'F/ :i
filii ,)r:i.i."
:ilf i tt:;"
\:i,
qR-
R€x<
s.s
3=
.JI.
-+
.l | .t'r{X!r:-f* s-l :r;;'--€ {l ; EFsi -l ;-sgsf '+l :-ilx-5 .S lt*- F=-=
F Flryg€€
-+ s] s+ €E
T-E EI +E i*
Tr------'T
N.
-€!r
-Mlrq.te+tt Lu tq l'ol JYr!',l
r_
,rr/ot:
;
t.tlllt
ii-f
:t.l . '
F*;i
=F$- \. -P;-F 9-E
=:9 ' Ii.$- Fj
t;
i
-l.r .g__3' _ ._=
r' - t-
€€;jri t ,€
-€ 59 --t{
"r=Fa .. a
tt -< I
'4-
_roO
a
o
lt u?q7
$'lf'o,oz.
Fftr"[ fr#Fy
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSlON
August 23, 1993
ABSENTPRESENT
Kathy Langenlatter
Greg Amsden
Diana Donovan'
Jeff Bowen
Dalton Williams
Allison Lassoe
BillAnderson
Applicanl:
Planner:
STAFF
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Jim Curnutte
A request for a worksession to discuss a proposed minor subdivision of Lot 1, Block 4,
Vail Village 3rd Filing/38'l Beaver Dam Circle.
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a presentaiion per the staff memcrandum. He stated that the
applicant vras requesiing to subdivide the existing primaryisecondary zoned lot into fwo
prinrary/secondary zoned lots. He said that during the site visit, the PEC had several
ccncerns about this site and that a ,,,rorksession wouid be held prior to iuriher
development of the site so that the PEC's concerns could be addressed. Concerning the
wetlands, Jim stated lhat the site plan provided to staif did not shovr that wetlands were
present on this site. The wetlands issue needed to be documented.
Craig Snorvdon, the applicant's architect, inquired rvhether ihe approval could lapse
beirveen the signing of the plats and the demoliiion of the existing building on the site. :
Kristan Pritz stated that the minor subdivision section of the code v/as vague on this issue
so staff vrould discuss this subject with the Town Attorney and let the applicant knol.
Kathy Langenwalier stated that the PEC could atlach a time limit to their approval, if so
decided.
Concerning the four conditions recommended by sta{f in the memo, Craig stated that he
did not have a problem vrith any of the four conditions. He staled that the applicant plans
on relaining the northern lot fcr his own private uses.
Dalton Williams staled that he was concerned with the wetlands on the south lot and the
trees on the north lot. He said that he would like to knovr exactly where the vretlands are
located and how this would effect the buildable area and building envelopes of the
properly.
Planning and Environmental Commlssion
August 23, 1993
o
2.
Allison Lassoe stated that she would like to see building envelopes on each lot so that the
PEC would be assured of future buitding locations.
Jeff Bowen slated that he was concerned with the wetlands, trees and the excessive slope
on this site. He stated that he felt that the rryetland issue pertained to what $/as
considered buildable area.
Jim Curnutte pointed out that the definition of buildable area was that portion of the lot
which did not include stopes in excess of 40/o, redhazard avalanche or designated flood
plain.
Kristan Pritz stated that wetlands enforcement was a federal issue but that the Tovrn
attempts to minimize wetland impacts whenever possible and to inform applicants of
wetlands issues.
Greg Amsden stated that more sile analysis needs lo be done on this site tvith regard to
building envelopes and lrcc:. lle said that he feit that four units on the site might be
excessive. He felt that the additional GRFA that rvould be allowed by splitting the lot was
not appropriate as it increased the actual square footage buildable by appr;oximately 50%.
Kalhy Langenvvalter slated that an access easement between the two sites needs to be
stuciied.
Nancy Byers, an adjacent property'o\'r'nei', stated that she rvas concerned with the
potential loss of trees on the site. She added that she did not want to see this lot turn into
"all house".
Craig Snowdon stated that they were lrying to save as many trees as possible and that
it was their intent to leave as many trees as possible along the front property lines to
screen the future buildings.
Kathy Langenlalter stated that lhe PEC rvould like to see this item tabled so that the
applicant could obtain a wetlands study as vyell as information concerning building
envelopes.
Craig Snowden requested that this item be tabled until September 27, 1993 in order to get
the additional information that the PEC had requested.
Dalton Wlliams made a motion to table this item until September 27,1993 with Jeff
Bov,,en seconding the motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this request until September 27., 1993.
A request for a site coverage variance 1o allow for an additional covered entry to an
existing residence located at 1547-A Springhill Lane/Lot 2, Block 3, Vail Valley Znd Filing.
Applicants:
Planner:
Frank and Marlene Rembert
Andy Knudtsen
Pianning and Envlronmenlal Commlsslon
August 23, 1993
It25 SEVENTEENTI{ STREE-I, SUITE t200, DBWER, COLOMDo 8A202'2027
(303) 294-9100 FAX: (303) 299'?901
13 Sepember 1993
Ssowdon aod Hopkinc
201 Gore Crek Drive
Suite 201
Vail, CO 81657
Attn: Ivfr. Craig Snowdon
Re: 381 Beaver Dam Circle Property Wetland Evaluation
Vail, C.olorado
F!le: 274a1{01{50
Dear lt{r. Snon'don;
Dames & lr{oore conducted a wetlands a:ralysis of the above-referenced property in VaiI, Colorado oa
September 7, 1993. Wetlands were Celineated using U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Qrps) 1987
guidelioes, whereby vegetation, soils, and hydrology data q'ere used to ldentify wet!and conditions.
Foliar cover was estimated for prominent species at sites coniaining vuious plant communities to locate
wetland-uplard boundaries. Soils and hydrology data were also obtained at each site, and consisted of
texrure, mineral, orgaric, color (h{unseli color chart), piesence of rnottles or glel'eC conditions, and
presence of water on the surface or in the top i2 inches of tlre soil profile.
Resul(s
Two areas that are considered waters or wetlends of rhe United States were identified on the property'
Such areas require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which is administered by the Corps
prior to.ldredge and fill' acrivities, A wetland area approxirnately 0.03 acres (20 x ?0 fee) occurs near
the eestera edge ofrhe property, and is characteizelby blue spruce (Ptcca pungens) with an understory
of willow (Salixbracttynrpa) afihorsetail (Equisclwr lrynenalis) (See Appendix A, Site l). Ofter plant
species of tlre site that. are obligate io weiland conditions inciude cow bain (Oxypolis fendlen-) and grass-
of-parnassus (Pamassiaf mbn'ara). Scils of this site rvere black (7.5 YR 2.5/0) silts and were saturated.
No springs or definite seeps of surface water, however, were observed in this area.
A small stream bisects the properly, draining upslope development to Gore Creek, which occurs Dorth
of the subject property. Tbi stream varies from l8 to 24 inches ia widrh and is incised in most areab to
one foot below the soil surface. Wetland vegetation is confined in most arees to tlre baaks excePt in
several places where the sreem gradient fla$ens and moist conditions extend for 12 a 15 f*t'
Vegetation aJong the creek is dominated by bog birch (Eetula glandulosa), willow (5. braclrycarya),
borsetail, and thimbleberry (Rtbus paniflorus), which are either obligate or facultative to wetland
crnditions. Orher common species along the stresm dge inctude honeysuckle (lanicerd spp.), shrubby
cinquefoil (Potentillafruticosa), cow bain and green bog orchid (Habercria saccala).
Other arecs of the site support blue spruce forest with a.n understory prinarily of twinJlower (Liwwea
borealis), Wood's rose (Rosa voodsiQ, wild strarvberry (Fragaria virginiana), bedsuaw (Galiwn
septeilrtotnle), and elk sedge (Carex gEeri). Openings in the forest ue chuaeter'veA by a mixture of
wedand and upland species including bog birch, willow, wild stran'berry, bedstraw, timothy (Phlewn
alpinum), and shnrbby cinquefoil.
$r'ic!s sonLDvlDE
t o
REDaurs & Moo
Snowdon and HoPkinc
13 September 1993
Page2
The soils of thase ,11"s g6nr:ined ni evidence of sahrration, havhg a dark brown (?.5 YR 412) maa,;y-
without mottles. Thus, because of the number of upland species and lack of soil characteristics, no other
jurisdictiond wetlalds n'ere delinea'red oa the property.
Based on dominantvegetaiion (willows, bcg birch, sedges), we',.lands occut on the Gore Creek floodplain
but tiris ares is north of tlie prcperty boundagr.
Concjusions
Riverine wetla::ds occur along ur unnamed creek that flows across tbe property io Gore Creek. Tbis
skg3.d glay be relocated to make more efficient use of the property. The stream.is cocsidered by 4O{
regulations to be waters of t\e U.S., and will rbquire a 404 permit prior to construction activitiss 6at
.fi."t or",l*ds. Approximately 0.02 acres (125 x 6 feet) of c,etlands occur in conjunttion with the
sue€In.
Accordiag go inforrnation provided by rhe Corps (Grand Junction.District; Rady Snyder aad lv{ike
Claffey) action that would affect wetlands require eltier a Nationwide or Individual 404 Permit,
dependiog on tbe amount of wetlurds affected. In tlis case, since less than one acre would be affected,
ani tle str€m flow is less than 5 CFS, an individual permit would be appropriate for relocating tbe
stre€-Do. Mitigation me€sures, however would need to be specified to offset relocation impacLs.
The most effective mitigation measures aie to relocate wetland soils and associated PlaDt Baterial t,o
simitar eovironments along tbe new stream channel. The details of reestablishing wedands on the site
will necd to be provided to the Corps in a letter report requesting clearance *rrough Oe 1O4 process.
Thus, if tle subdivisioa is approved by the Town of Vail, a letter notifying *re Corps of the activity,
a6ount of wetland acreage impacted, and meaas to mitigate such impacts wilt be required. At that time,
if mitigation is still deemed Decessary, Dames & Moore would be prepared to assist you in preparing such
alettcr for Corps review.
Please contact me if you bave questions on this submittal.
H
Senior Ecolo
\l
2i PIN€7 '{w I
I
I
o$
$
Y,(:,b{j
i_or
:r4'./'
t
'o;
/,//
ii I'.!//
/// \'('U-SE\r.'EA UA$HCLF-
.r, r.. Ait,t EL. . S:5i. s/ iNV EL. :6t3-o.8
€r3: cF p;vettekr
/ \f cr.r6.\L I u
/ ,--.oio*'u= -\
i / -'cb\ ,/
$..-t''-'
i-'r
t*.//
l/t,
Qc.
.--f--
LOT
^'"'' ,tr!i'r'Yj
w/
' .t<-i ," ,"
'oa
t-aar*r)
,.rrrA .,./'
..tlK
ir" ,/ o/' ry'' .r.''' i/ ,,'rfn',tv1' ../ ,'' /t i /"b$-."/ .;" 1' / / i"r)<\-n(" i 1 i I
SpLrt Rltt-
FEIICE
,'u ss
Atli
iN\
/
:r'TE
,:')Iccfen
r P,L,S.
lrrr-irv
ISEP.EHT
/,r>'
j cgc
Qg'
s7+
SSti'oo":--=-
TIME€R
iwAL!
&4---:jl
i,-.---')
,6)..ixb'qtx
./'
LOT
TREE LIIIE
o.;:li
)rEt5l.2 // TIMS€Ra waLL'
Dacx /z'' ./
../..
-.'/
/aQ
,*-r.oog Oi PAveitElrT
(30 )
€
L€ARtsiC-.
,A'4 Ti.td,gjtE 35LTr;i t :r=i.'!'f l.l:tij fC:87
;F_- .t-,-- --o-,- -
rr^ Pelto
I 1-': -."'.. - " "''1'' - 6'
:---- 29'oa'35"
; +0'25'42'
.a.lr'-'lq--
Radtus"'
rt-..r ri-L-l--t
A.r An' tv.vv
. ^.i 'a1\' YUrVw
-1 .--'--'./:,/a
/*-eceg Oi PAvEll€Ni
(30
-1
3?
)- y--4
i+e .21
:=._a_[1 r\ _a3l l:tu
REE LIIiE
r.r* j-l 'I; rr:ii iSSi-tE-C3st-i I;s739ira
a fl$t [ ff$P y
1, Block 4, Vail4. A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision of Lot
Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver Dam Circle.
Applicant:
Planner:
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo.
Craig Snowdon stated that he rarould like to have a clarification of staff's comment that
the proposed road maintenance and drainage easements would be public.
Jim Curnutte explained that Greg Hall of the Town's Public Works Department stated
that calllng the easements "public" was necessary to allow the Town to go onto them
for maintenance purposes, holvever they would not be open to the public walking
across Mr. Payne's property.
Larry Levin, an attorn€y, slated that he represented several of the adjacent property
owners. He stated that both the minor subdivision and the rezoning scenarios would
essentially create hl'o additional access points. He stated that he vras concerned that
Beaver Dam Road v.'as not made to handle this type of additional traffic. He pointed
out that the two nev,r building areas that would be created as a result of this request
would essentially leave three leveled areas on the site. He stated that he r,ras
concerned about the effects of the drainage easement on Vail Associates' parcel of
land adjacent to this site. He stated that the neighbors that he had spoken to rvere not
in favor of the increased density and traific in iheir neighborhood. He felt that the
impact on existing irees r{as significant and cices not comply with the purpose
statement in the subciivision zoning regulations.
Craig Snorvdon sta'ted that since the last time this item was brought before the PEC,
the applicant had a n'etlands analysis performed for this property and ihat a copy of ?this repod rvas atlached to staff's memorandum. He slated that he did not feel that the
proposal would negatively effect the traffic and densiiy of the neighborhood. He said
that special circumstances exist on this piece of property that meet the criteria laid out
by the Tov;n and ailorv for its subcjivision.
Greg Amsden stated ihat he noticed a pattern among the five previous minor
subdivision requests similar to this application, especially items 1, 3, and 4 in the staff
memo. He stated that he would like this proposal stay within the ballpark of the GRFA
increases allowed for previous minor subdivision requests (1 ,500 to 1,700 square feet
maximum). He suggested that the applicant seriously look at the single family
rezoning option because it saves the trees within the Lot 1-A building envelope.
Diana Donovan agreed with Greg's comments. She stated that she did not totally
agree with how this process was handled, but that she could not justify denying this
type of request vrhen the criteria have been met. She said that we should favorably
consider the public benefit of getting the easements rryhich we currently do not have.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlssion
october 11, 1993
11
Bilt Anderson stated that he agreed with Greg's comments and that shifting the lot line
to the west would greatly decrease any impacts to the trees on this site.
Dalton Williams stated that he was hesitant to go along rvith this request for a minor
subdivision because the subdivision was apparently vrell thought out when originally
platted. He said that both lots ought to be zoned Single Family and that the density
should not increase and that the totat GRFA should not be increased.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments, with the exception that
some additional GRFA should be allowed on the lots.
Jeff Bowen stated that he feels that the center lot line should be shifted to the west in
order to save the trees. He said that he is not totally persuaded by the wetlands study.
He said lhat he has concerns that the 12,500 square foot vsest lot is not of adequate
size. He stated that he was in favor of two single family homes on.this site.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with Diana's comments. She added that
she would like to see a singly family home on the west side of the property and a
single family home with a restricted secondary unit on lhe eastern lot. She felt that the
proposed GRFA allorvance on both lots should be decreased
Larry Levin stated that he did not feel that there was a public benefit having the
wetland area designated as such because the property orvner would need a 404
Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build in that area anyway.
Craig Snowdon handed out a site plan to staff and the PEC members that showed the
center property line shifted 20 feet the west. Craig'asked the PEC whether they would
like to see the drainage easement running parallel to the property line.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that this was a technical issue rryhich the 1
applicant could vrork with staff on.
Greg Amsden inquired whether there rvould be two drivervay cuts in conjunction with
this request.
Craig said yes the property would be limited to two driveway cuts, which is what the lot
could have nol.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a map at the next meeting which
depicts the sizes of all of the lots in the neighborhood. She said that she would also
like to see the documents which Larry Levin had made reference to, regarding the
history of the platting of this subdivision.
Plannlng and Envlronmental commlssion
Octobsr 11, 1993
12
4.,.{9\rtl
c\
rt't
L)
d
f-.
c_..r.
cl
1l\.
f-_t-ia
'l'l
'l
I
t
I
I
.;
$
s_
,J-
|'n
'r]
lr I
-
z.
5'\..9indN
CT<F
E9
E5
6.J
t!
F
/ s-tlpiltlE
t-t
G/
s
^L)
J
ol
T
'-St
if\
tls_
€\N
o
-i
- GD!:OCL'\
t -
F().{
t-
aa:'r
;1<
a
Q
.3
s -.-.-.--;-. i-->,,.S]
z.IJ
J
?f f bt'.t9e
bl.o'9h=J
oc9'gh!
ohtt'2he,.
.F.f
+F,$
c!!JFl-
J
f
" Et|l
RESUI
-aoir|t ruY I fi'\Ptixmo tor v
I
'D
10t o
/A
vrleiTr.o
too
Atcro
MnPal tq q tRntvlstnN VAIL LIONSHEAD
t
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 22, 1993
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT
dreg Rmsden
BillAnderson
Jeff Bowen
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Allison Lassoe
Dalton Williams
1.
oaaFy
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritr
Jim Cumufte
Mike Mollica
A request for a minor extErior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of
Gottrelfs/l96 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant PaulGotthelfPlannen Jim Gurnutte
Jeff Bowen niade a motion to approve this request for a minor exterior alteration to
allow facade changes a! Gotthelf's per the staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding
this motion. The PEC felt that the door design as proposed by the applicant was
acceptable. A 7-0 vote approved this request.
A request for a minor subdivision and a rezoning from the Primary/Secondary
Residential zone district, to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone
districts, for a parcel located at 381 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd
Filing.
Applicant Leo Payne
Planner: Jim Cumutte
Jim Curnutte mads a brief presentation per the staff memo. He stated that this was
the third time that ttlls item had been before the PEC. The first two times were
worksessions. During those worksessigns, the public, stafl and PEC made several
recommendations to improve the applications. Jim stated that staff was recommending
approval of the minor subdivision and rezoning requests with the six conditions
outlined on Pages 11 and 12 ol the stafi memorandum.
It was decicted fhat since Craig Snowdoh, the architect for this project, had not yet
anived, that the PEo.would move on to ltems #3 and #4. Upon review and action on
items 3 and 4, the PEC returned to reviewing the Payne applications.
Ptannlng and Envlrpnmental Commlsslon lllnutes
Novembor 22, 1993
Graig Snowdon stated that he was concerned whether the lerm 'open space and
wetlands easement" was correct because the plat called this an 'open space and
wetlands area". He added that he would like to see conditions 2 and 3 of the staff
memo conceming roof overhangs and enlargement of the open space and wetlands
area be deleted lrom thE list of conditions on Pages 11 and 12 of the staff memo. He
said that he did not have any problems with the other four conditions outlined in the
stiaff memo.
Jim Curnutte stated that slnce the area to which Cralg was refering was not being
dedicated to the public it did not necessarily have to be termed an easement and that
calling it an open space and weUands area was okay.
Nancy Byers, an adjacent property owner (352 Beaver Dam Circle), stated that she
wondered if it was really necessary to subdivide this lot for the additional nel increaso
of 425 square feet. She added that shewas concerned that approvalof this
resubdivision request could be precedent setting and that it was her understanding that
twenty-eight other lots wi$rin the Town could In the future come before the PEC with
similar requests. She said that neighboring property owners bought thelr properties
with the assumptiorl that the surrounding lots would remain as originally platted and
zohed. She said that she would like to keep the uniqueness of th€ir neighborhood in
tact.
Ron Robbins, attomey for David Ransberg, stated that he was called at the gym and
asked to attend this mesting so he has not yel had an opportunity to review lhe
request in detail. He said that Mr. Ransberg is against this proposal as it would
increase the density in ilris neighborhood. He added that this application may well be
considered spot zoning.
Mary Pownall, an adjacent property owner, she said that she opposes this project
because it increases the density in lhe neighborhood. She acknowledged that her
property was also involved in a resubdivision and rezoning in the neighborhood but
pointed out that no increased density resulted. She said that she felt that this
resubdivision and rezoning would be a bad precedent.
Craig Snowdon responded that there may be twenty-eight lots that could possibly
resubdivide but that-not all of these lots could benetit the Town in the way that this
proposal could with regard to wetlands and open space dedications, drainage
easements, the road maintenance easement and GRFA and density restrictions. HG
said that building envelopes are also being proposed becauss the applicant wanted to
maintain as much ol he natural vegetation on the site as possible.
Mary Pownall asked if an applicant just had to list the Town benefits of a proposal to
get approval.
plsnnhg and Enylronmentrl Commission ltinute g
November 22, 1993
I
Jim Curnutte stated that approval of this request was not based on how many benefits
the proposal would give to the Town. He explained that the staff recommendation of
approval of ths project was based on whether specific resubdivision and rezoning
criteria were met.
Jeannie Bailey, inquired why a ten foot road maintenance easement had not been
agreed upon at an earlier date. She wondered whether this was a deal that the
applicant and the Town were making in order for this reguest to be approved.
Kristan PriE emphasized that the Town was not approving this request so that they
could get a drainage easement and a road maintenance easement from lhe applicant.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that the applicant has the right to request a resubdivision
on this site due to the size of the property.
Jeannie stated that she agreed with Na-ncy Byers comments concerning this proposal.
Ron Robbins stated that it is possible to make a case that since the Town had
maintained the road for many years in the past that the road maintenance easement
may not be needed.
Craig Snowdon stated that this was a somewhat unique situation and that the Town
was merely taking this opportunity to formalize the right to continue to come onlo the
property to maintain the road.
Nancy Byers stated that she was concerned with the applicant's statement that three
houses would save morE trses than two units. She stated that the two units would still
need to be reviewed by the Design Review Board.
Greg Amsden asked a question concerning the Zoning Analysis on Page 5 of the staff
memo. He wanted to know how to interpret the figures for GRFA.
Jim Curnutte stated that the applicant had volunlarily restricted the GRFA and that he
was well below what was the allowable GRFA for a Primary/Secondary and Single
Family approach.
t
Diana Donovan inquired whether the units would be able to apply lor a 250 at some
future date.
Jim Cumutte stated that there was nothing to Prevent the applicant from doing this.
Dalton Witliams stated that he was not comfortable approving this request and that he
agreed with the comments that lhe neighbors had made. He said that he felt that this
could set a negative precedent for the Town. However, he said that he would have a
hard time denying this request because the proposal does meet the applicable criteria.
He said that he felt that this proposal did offer the Town some benetit and wondered
whether there was a way to possibly get mors Town benefit out of this request. He
Plann lng 8nd Envlronmental commlsslon lllnutes
Nowmber22, 1*)3
a
suggested that the applicant agree to allorv public access across the property in order
to reach the open space behind the lot.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed that this could set a negative precedent for the
Town but that she felt that the proposed request seemed to be a good solution. She
stated that Mr. Payne had made a lot of concessions lo addrsss PEC concems. She
stated that she did not havs a problem with the open space and wetlands area line as
cunently proposed, nor allowing building overhangs to go outside of building
envelopes.
Dalton Williams agreed with Allison's comment concerning staff conditions 2 and 3.
Jeff Bowen stated that he felt that the applicant had met the criteria set forth in the
stiaff memo. He said that he did not have a problem with the proposed open space
and wetlands area line, or the roof overhang allowance which fie applicant was
proposing.
Greg Amsden stated that he felt that th€ applicant had complied with all of the criteria.
He said that if the neighbors were unhappy with this type ol request thal the rules
would need to be changed, but that was not the request before the PEC today. Greg
Amsden stated that he was in favor of leaving the roof overhang allowance and open
space line as proposed by the applicant as a part of the proposal.
Diana Donovan stated that the roof overhang allowance does not bother her. She felt
that the plat should include a note that explained what $pe of uses and struclures
would be allowed in the open space and wetlands area as well as the area between
the building envelope and the open space area. No trees should be removed for
improvements in the easement area. She said that she did not feel that this area
could accommodate the additional density or tratfic. She said that she was against the
resubdivision of this property but that she did fesl that two single family units could be
placed on this lot.
Craig Snowdon stated that when you increase density that you do get additional
square footage and garage credits.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed witlr the other PEC members comments. He said
that this proposal did seem to meet the requirements tor r€subdividing the lot. He said
that he felt caught between a rock and a hard place since he did not want to see an
increase in density in this neighborhood. He said that Diana's suggestion concerning
two single family units could possibly be the best solution.
Ron Robbins stated fiat it sounded like the Board members were struggling with
approving this request and told them that they did have the ability to deny the request
if they did not approve of the resubdivision.
Pbnnlng snd Envlrcnmental Commlssbn m|nute3
November 22, 1993 4
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she lelt that this request did meet the criteria tor a
minor subdivision and directed thE PEC to reler to th€ PEC meeting minules of
October 11, 1993. She felt that the proposed secondary unit should be a restricted
employee housing unit.
Dalton Williams stated that a petition signed by fifty or so citizens submitted to the PEC
illustrated that there was concern regarding this proposal. He said that hs agreed with
Diana's and Kathy's comments. He said that he would like to seo ths secondary unit
restricted as Kathy had suggested. He said that he would like to see public access
atlowed across the lot. He said that he felt that the Town rules might need to be
changed because of the publiCs concem.
Ms. Langmaid, concErnEd citizen, presented the PEC with more petitions' signed by
people all over town, objecting to the application and stated her own objeclion.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed wifh Kathy's comment that the secondary unit
should be a restricted caretaker's unit.
Jeff Bowen, Greg Amsden and BillAnderson had no addilionalcomments.
Diana Donovan stated that she would support this project if the third unit was a
restrlcted caretaker's unlt.
Jay Peterson stated that he was involved with developing a duplex in this area and
that if this sort ol proposalwas allowed rrat he would like to havB the same opportunity
to do this type of development. Jay was concerned about compatibility'
Jetf Bowen made a motion to approvs this request for a rezoning and resubdivislon of
Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing per the staff memo with a modification to staff
recommendations 2 and 3 to allow building overhangs to go beyond platted building
envelope lines and to atlow the westem line of the open space and wetlands area to
remain as shown on the plat. Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
Diana Donovan stated that she would vote against this request because the secondary
unit on the primary secondary lot was not proposed to be restricted.
Dalton Williams statbd that he agreed with Diana's position.
Diana Donovan suggested that the motion be amended to include the wording that no
construction site disturbance or tree removal may occur in the area between the Lot 1-
A building envelope and the western line of the open space area.
Jeff Bowen amended his motion accordingly and Greg Amsden amended his second to
the motion.
A 4-3 vote approved this request with lGthy Langenwalter, Diana Donovan and Dalton
Wlliams voting against the motion.
Phnnlng and Envlrcnmental Conrmlsslon lllnulos
ilovember 2a 1993 5
o
lrlrlan l. & lderlene C. f,earaey
t46O Bldge lcne #BVplI', C0 81657
lovenbcr 22, 199,
Plannlng end &lvlrouncutel Oonnlssloatomr of VelI
?5 South Srontrge BoedValI, Oolorado 81657
Iledles and Geatlsrens
Iou heve before
Lot t, 31ock 4, Vell
Seaver Dan Clrc].e.
you today e request f,or e'gubdlvlsloa of
Vlllege lhlrd Fl1lng also kaown ae i8l
the purpoea of thls letter ls to luforn the Plennlng
Conmtsslon that enSn deolalon that r1l1 al.low addltlone3- dweLllng
ualts ln the tora of Vell, or that w111 lncreaEc the cquaro
footege allowed undcr the erlstlng ordlnenoaa le totally un-
e,acepteblc.
Wc do not belleve that alterlng ordlnanoae and or stetuteg
the sake of contlnued developuent anil lncreaslng deaelty tu
Iowa of Veil are ln the best lntereEts of our connunltyt
.l
Slnoerely,
for
the
NOVEMBER 22.1993
PI,ANNING AND EI.WIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTTIFRONTAGEROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQI]EST T.OR A SI.JBDIVISION OF LOT T, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
TI{IRD FIIING ALSC i.ir\,*OWTi ,':S 3S1 BEA\#R DAM CIITCIE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TI{AT ANY DECISION
THATWILL ALLOW ADDMONALDWELLINGIjNTTS INTlMTOWNOFVA]L ORTHATWILLINCREASE
TITE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IJNDER T}IE E)fiSTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE.
TIIEFOIIOWINGSIGNATI.JRES ON THIS LETTERDEMONSTRATE TI{AT ANTJMBEROF PEOPLEWHO
ARE EITIIER FIJII OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF T}IE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF TTIIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK TT{AT YOU RESPOND TO TTM WISHES OF TI{E PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY,
ln Var/
NOVEI\fiER22, 1993
T{-A}.INING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUT1IFRONTAGEROAD
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN,
YOU IIAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A STJBDIVTSTON OF LOT t, BLOCK 4, VArL VTLLAGE
T}IIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 38I BEAVER DAM CIRCI.E.
THE PI,JRPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION
THATWILL ALLOW ADDMONAL DWELLINGT]NITS IN TTIE TOWN OF VAIL ORT}IAT WIII- INCREASE
TI{E SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED TJNDER T}IE E)OSTING ORDINANCES IS I.JNACGPTABLE.
T}IEFOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON T}IIS LETTERDEMONSTRATE THAT A NTIMBEROFPEOPLEWHO
AREEITI{ER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF T}IE TOWNOFVAIL ARENOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO THE WISHES OF T}IE PEOPLE AND REJECT T}trS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY,
ila;oo1 l-vv<,r.n,*. Gl
6oK 2324 V*tt-
fu{ z=ta
NOVEMBER 22. 1993
PT-ANNING AND ETWIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUT}IFRONTAGEROAD
VAIL. COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SLJBDIYISTON OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILI-AGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 38T BEAYER DAM CIRCI-E.
THE PTJRPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TIIAT ANY DECISION
THATWILL ALLOWADDMONALDWELLINGT]NTTS INTHETOWNOFVAILORTHATWILL INCREASE
THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE DflSTING ORDINANCES IS UNACCEPTABLE.
THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON T}IIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NIJMBER OF PEOPI."E WHO
ARE EITHER, FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF T}IE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO TTIE WISHES OF T}IE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS
REQTJEST.
SINCERELY,
u*.E+r
8"t 1at C-6*',l^\ q* (d
('l \,:1 i L.tv r^, 24'51 Li,(Lvrv, lvt* L t t (t.r,..--..
t1
NOVEMBER 22. 1993
PT,ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMSSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTI{FRONTAGEROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUI]ST FOR A SIJBDIVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BDAVER DAM CIRS,E.
THE PTJRPOSE OF TTIIS LETTER IS TO INFORM T}IE PI,ANNING COMMISSION T}IAT ANY DECISION
TIIAT WILL ALLOW ADDMONAL DWELLING TJNITS IN TTIE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT WILL INCREASE
TTM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED TJNDER TIIE E)ilSTING ORDINANCES IS TJNACCEPTABLE.
T}IEFOLLOWINGSIGNATT]RES ON THIS LETTERDEMONSTRATETHATA NUMBEROFPEOAEWHO
AREEITHERFTJLL OR PARTTIME RESIDENTS OFTTIE TOWNOFVAIL ARENOT INFAVOROF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO TTIE WISHES OF THE PEOPT,E AND REJECT TI{IS
REQTJEST.
SINCERELY.
../4//74- Asf*zt Gkoue
NOVEMBER22, 1993
PLANNING AND ENVIRONTvIENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTHFRONTAGEROAD
VAIL. COLORADO 8165?
LADIES ANDGEN]LEMEN,
YOUIIAYE BEFOREYOUTODAY A REQUESTFORASUBDTVISTONOFLOT t, BLOCK4, VArL VILLAGE
TI{IRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 38I BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
TT{E PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM TI{E PI-ANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION
TI{ATWILLALLOWADDMONALDWEIIINGI]NITS INTIIETOWNOFVAILORT}IATWILL INCREASE
TTM SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER T}TE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS I]NACCEPTABLE.
THEFOLLOWINGSIGNATTJRES ON T}IIS LETTERDEMONSTRATETHAT ANIJMBEROFPEOPLEWHO
AREEITHERFI.JLL OR PARTTIME RESIDENTS OFTIIE TOWNOF VAIL ARENOT INFAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK T1IAT YOU RESPOND TO TTIE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REIECT TTIIS
REQUEST.
Z<z
NDtr'-
{<o tUa
a.tw t y1"c8 /lrout
NOVEMBER 22.1993
PI.ANNING AND ENIVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTII FRONTAGE ROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEI{,
YOU }IAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQI]EST FOR A STJBDTVISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
T}IE PT]RPOSE OF TI{IS LE-TTER IS TO INFORM T}IE PLANNING COMMISSION TFIAT ANY DECISION
THATWILL ALLOW ADDMONALDWELLINGI]NTTS INTHETOWNOFVAIL ORTTIATWILLINCREASE
THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED TJNDER TIIE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS I.JNACCEFTTABLE.
TIIEFOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LSTTERDEMONSTRATETHAT ANUMBEROF FEOPLEWHO
ARE EMHER FTJLL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF T}IE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF T}IIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK TI{AT YOU RESPOND TO TTIE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REIECT TI{IS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY.
PRINTEDNAME VAIL ADDRESS SIGNATURE
oo
NOVEMBER 22. 1993
PI.ANNING AND EIVVIROMdENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUI}IFRONTAGEROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A SIJBDIVISION OF LOT I, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
TI{IRD FILING ALSO KNOWN .{S 38I BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISIONTHATWIIIALLOWADDMONALDWELLINGTJMTS INTIIETOWNOFVAIL ORTHATWILL INCREASE
T}IE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER TTIE E)flSTING ORDINANCES IS I.JNACCEPTABLE.
TI{E FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE TIIAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHOAREEITHER FT]LL ORPART TIME RESIDENTS OFTIM TOWN OF VAIL ARENOT INFAVOROFTHIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO T}IE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND RETECT THIS
REQTJEST.
SINCERELY,
2z w H",J"u, Ar,,.
'l ss- 7t--.' /(Litu
COPY
AVAILABLE
Ltl.it:i1 il i-tr,l l-i ':1tr
liii!,:l I i6liit 2?,. Itt(,t!
i.'t.,qhlir,!r_;nql'.LJ{Vit"',(}ii}i}:,tr,I'i'At,II}lr,,lI{rSr-i{:}i
. ' iw|\ {'lir \/ illl
'' i,1ll.i1l-: :ri'l{ \i\"I Ji{ ii:; ;t i }A.)
' f :!:!1, riliAlXi lili.'i; I
' .r.l'1. ; ,/. i'.: r '.1 I).t u,:.1".',
Ytjl: r.i.r.-r'.i- .dHl.:',nj-: i'{,)l:'t\ ,1)d} A itile'1l[:,!;'i'r;{JR A,l{IBD]ylSli:l}t riF I.OT l, BLillK.i, tAU, ViLLnrjEiiri.'i', ,i ;", !..r l,,i] Kf,l1*l{ ,41i lt81 EBCvi:lt T}/LV(llRCLF
'lll!:fi! l1,ll\.,iil'r)i'Il{isl-ljr'ii1lli5T{ilNlr(-}RV11'.11 }rt.ANMNGUr}\.t,}-lls$}.r.}N l}i,4'l'djqyDF:t]Lltr)Nilir , w,r i. At..L.tjw.{j}lxi1i.'i\i^t. D\[,HLLN{] '-illT:S tN,ll.|B'Irl}'r\ti(1f,vAIL(rRTilA?.Wfl_! IN{:REA5Eilii '. .rr j' tiu'fiT,{'-'il ; Ai-l..tl}srF.n l-t\itlttR 'rllji L,x.t:{ I'tFt{i oR.nfl-.t^t;l:h:s Ii i iNACflLli/t Aitl_.F-,
lrll,t{.i,{.. " '5;iiNAltillli{}hiTHIs!.t;l'fl:.ri. Irrr.M(rN.q"tR,r]t frtA'l ANi jl,tiri_'iqilliI}F;{)ptEw}itl
Alr-], t:.li llhli r.i. i , ' P.dir'i 'f tL{Ii Rt.Sll1i'.:'i'l'! iitllHfi I'LIWN rlF VAIL AI{il Nfti'TN f,Av{r:r OF't HiSi'Rrri-\JsA1. A!';Ll A:'., .r{,4} \l)LrRllqi{tr{rt .., 1r,r' 1t'{sHF:5 (.tt, i'lltillEr.lFl.n,\hr}ldE.rF.{ T Tills
li i i r, :1r,1. :
'\ f'j,','l,tf; ..."yAli..{lJ!-,rr.*
*,"'l{t**
.. i .ri-,' l 'i .,"4\{lrlrgl ,,x,1 ,f_ .+,
li.f.
BHiT
coPv
.,*|rlt".+'
{,AVilLAFILI
NOVEMBER22.1993
PI-ANNING AND E}WIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR A ST]BDIVISION OF LOT I, BLOCK 4, VAIL UI-LAGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PI.ANNING COMMISSION THAT ANY DECISION
THATWILLALLOWADDMONAID\ryELLINGUNNS INT}TETOWNOFVAIL ORTIIATWILL INCREASE
TTIE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED UNDER THE DflSTING ORDINANCES IS T]NACCEPTABLE.
T}IE FOLLOWING SIGNATT.JRES ON THIS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPI-E WHO
ARE EITIIER FUI-I- OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF TTIE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF TI{IS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO TIIE WISHES OF TTIE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY.
NOVEMBER ?2,1993
F:4{IEQ _/$p ErwrRQ}.r{Er.rr^L cohdMrsstoNTOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUffi FRONTACE R,OAD
vAlI1 COLOR/\DO 8ld5?
LADIES Al-rD Gggn Et;6,,1,
. YOU tlAvE BEFORF you.:gpfry_4.[EQUcSr rOR A $UFDrvrSrON OF LoT t, DL0CK 4, v^rl VILLAGBnrrRD FnrNo Ar_so KliowN rs lrf t-e}-vEri biii CilicrE]
TIIE PURFOSE OF TiiI$ LE]EI'.I"S]PII'-F9R}I THEI-L4TryINq CQIVIil{ISSION THAT
^I-IY
DECISTONrtrArw&LAtlowADDffl0N^tDu,€Li6i0iliidq$irti6\tiliililifiilbRruArwrLLrNc.RpAsB
nE $QUARE FOorAcE Ar.r.bwED UnDER ilriliiii$raiobRDiN'lfrcEd iftrr,rac$rr^slr.
i$Efffif{fff eW#.'#tfr ffi 'ffi:fEggfiffi ffi it$'HHf t$,T,lH'],'#ii'PRollc$At AIVD AsK TrtAT vou i'ixFol6 ioiHn wrsugs oF TlrE pEopLB Ar\rD RErEcr tlrrsREQIIEST.
$II.ICERELY.
<'
NOVEMBER.22. 1993
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTII FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
LADIES ANDGENTLEMEN.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQIJEST FOR A STJBDIVISION OF LOT I, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
TIIIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
THE PIJRPOSE OF THIS I.ETTER IS TO INFORM T}IE P'I.ANNING COMMISSION TI{AT ANY DECISION
TTIIffWILLALLOWADDMONALDWELLINGTJMTSINT}IETO\ryNOFVA]L ORTHATWILL INCREASE
T}IE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED TJNDER THE EXISTING ORDINANCES IS TJNACCEP{TABLE.
TI{EFOLLOWINGSIGNATTJRES ON TI{IS LETTERDEMONSTRATETTIATANIJMBEROF PEOPLEWHO
ARE EITHER. FTJLL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESFOND TO T}IE WISHES OF TTIE PEOPLE AND REIECT TI{IS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY,
NOVEI"iSER22' 1993
,ffiffitffitr-AlcoM*ssr."l
LADIESANDGE}ITI-'EMIN' ^ ormr*vtsloNgsLflf I'BLCICK4'VAn'VIIIAGE
}liH3,sffEffie",s.BffitJ;}ffi,x.Hl?i,tiH&'j;:lsloN0FLoTl
ffi ffi 'f,ffi#it#;s+Hltffi ffirfiffislpirffi[l'#-;$"
ffiffiT,
,ED, HIfKS, II{PIRTS
i O' ttt 2sssoors ,o.l ,',-r,11t15 N,r.00J p.01
NOVEMBER 22,1993
*.$ylyl "4ryD EN VtRoNMliNlLlr. (-:oMMrssroN
TT]WNOFVATI-
?5 SOU1IT I.'RON'IAGE ROADvAlL, ccil{rRADo 816-(7
LADIES AND GENILFJ\{EN,
YOU IJAVE BJjFI)RE YOU TOP+-Y.4 qEAUtr$T rORA-SUBI)IVISION OF LOT t, BLOCK 4, VAII. VII.I.^GETIURD FrLNc amo rNowr.r ,cs rdiunXvfii biira ,rncr.r.:,
THE PURPOSE 0FTHIS LETIER ls'I1) INI'URM THq-LLiN!![\,rG c]oMMIssIoN 'rgAl.ANy DEcIsIoN11{ATWIIIALLowADDI'Ilo}I,tr.nwni.i.lxidili.iiis glrumwNor;v;iibn'rua.r'wnr,rNLrREAsETnE 'SQTTARE r'florAcE Af .lfiwFn u{riEii Ti#i;rsnNc (lRuNANCri$j r$i I.rN4(:cHFTABLE.
TIIEFDLLoWING sIcNAt'l,REs oN TIIl.s I.ETTER r)Ft{c).Ns'ntA-JU'lrtAl'ANUMBTTR otrp'()rr,r-.: wHoARriEIrrmR FL]LL oR e4g-igq npiri;iiiii'oi'ii1e lowiioiiv?ir e'rii'i{ar nrrr\von oF rursf;ffi#i!+: ^* AsK rliAr vou ttii-r'iii'iiii$I'i{E wlsHss tr mn ndoi'i.r'. A}.rD RErDcr rrm
SINITREI-Y.
FOREST VI,IL,
o
NOVEMBER2z,1993
P!,AI{NING AND E{VIROI\I\,TENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOF VAIL
75 SOUTHFRONTAGE RO^D
VAIL, COLORJ\DO 81657
LADIES Al.rD GENTLEIvTEI{.
YOU HAVE BEFOR}' YOU TODAY A REQUES'T FOR A SUBDIVISION OF I-O f I, BLCXK 4. VAJL VILLAGE
THIRD }"ILING ATSO IS{OWN AS 381 BEAVFR DAM CIRCLE.
T}IE PURPOSE OF.THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TI{AT ANY DECJSION.IIIA1' \ry]LT- AL.LOW ADDMONAL DWELLI}iG TINITS IN THE TOWN OF VA]L OR TTTAT WTI I INCREASE
TIIE SQUARE FOOTAGE AILOWED TNDERT}IE EXISTING ORfJINAIICES IS TJNACCEPTA5LE.
TTIEFOLI-oWING STGNAruRES ON THIS LDTTERDEMONSTRATE TI{AT ANUMBEROF PEOPLEWTTO
ARE EITHER FLILL OR PART TIME RESIDF TTS OF THE TOWN OF VA]L ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THiS
PROPOSAL AND ASK TIIAT YOU RESPOND TO THE 1YISHES OF T}IE PEOPLE AND RSIECT THIS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY,
PRINTEDNAME .- VA& ADDRESS ,. SIGNATURE
r" -- ?.Y\ar,*Crs A. r{Qev__ \1,--\ ?cr.*.\e,{a.e.,_ 'f*--^ t L A#.
1A'd @S6B9aFT o1 d336 'U SIfNHUJ l'l0Ul Etr:gI t65T-EZ-ftON
. H0v,a'r ,93 1t:eefil,1 6lR|J LIftrrED v 5 ?5
NO\|EMBER ?2. 1993
PLANNS.IG AND EI.WIRONMENTAL COI/a\4TSSIONTOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTII I..RONTAGE ROAD
vNL. COTORADO 81657
LADIES A}ID CEI{ILEJVMhI,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU.TO,DAY-A.ry9IE.T.IOBA-SUBDIVISION OF LOT I, BLOCK 4, VAIL ULI,AGETIIIRDFILING ALSO KNOWN AS 381 BEAVM,DAVi'N,{O-E-.
TI{E PURPOSE OF TTIIS LEnER IS TO INFORM THE pIlttrNNG COMMTSSTON THAT A}iy DECISIONTT{AT WILL AILOW ADDINOTAT DWELT"NG uTNS Nq fiE TOWN OF VAIL ORTHAT WIIT INCREASETl{E SQUAREFOOTACE AII,OWEDiN.IDERNfr'i:iiSrU.rC ORDINA.!.ICES IS UNArcEPTABLE,
T!E!OIL_O]il$*GSIGNATTJRES ON TITTS LENTRDEMONSIRATETI{ATAN'TT.{BER OFPEOPI,E WHOARE EITHER FIJLL oR pART TIME RESDENTi-dF;rcTorvli-oFvau. nrin ilor n r ravon-tx riiirlBql9s-At AFID AsK THAT YoU REspoND To rr*l wrsHes oF THB pEopLE Ar{D RErBcr rr{rsREQUTEST.
SINCERELY.
NOVEMBER 22. 1993
PI-ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTI{ FRONTAGE ROAD
VAII. COLORADO 81657
LADIES AND GENILEMEN,
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQI.JEST T.I]R A SIJBDIIISION OF LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 38I BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
TTIE PIJRPOSE OF THIS LETTER IS TO INFORM THE PLANNING COMMISSION TI{AT ANY DECISIONTHATWILLALLOW ADDMONALDWELLINGIJMTS INTTIETOWNOFVAIL ORTIIATWILL INCREASETI'IESQUAREFOOTAGEALLOVTEDI]NDERTtMDOSTINGORDINANCES IS I,JNACCEFTABLE.
THE FOLLOWING SIGNATURES ON TT{IS LETTER DEMONSTRATE THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPI.E WHOAREEITIIER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF TI.IE TOWN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO T}IE WISHES OF THE PEOPLE AND REJECT THIS
REQTJEST.
SINCERELY,
PRhITED NAT,ffi VAtr. ADDRESS SIGNATTJRE
ll '- -$
b lo ,,Fo zeg; aD ll*EoFuE& o€,otLtr gpz +lensofl V.pfle,t+ rzD. c. jbfeaa
l//floF L cn- 6u^,rHen- \66 Fortetr tz^ -- l+=-
.t
RrsDDfc 6 m.
NOVEMBER 22,1993
AANNING AND ET.IVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
TOWNOFVAIL
75 SOUTI{ FRONTAGE ROAD
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
LADIES AND GENTLEMEI\T.
YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQIJEST FOR A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1. BLOCK 4. VAII. VIIIAGE
THIRD FILING ALSO KNOWN AS 38I BEAVER DAM CIRCLE.
THE PTJRPOSE OF THIS LE-TTER IS TO INFORM T}IE PLANNING COMMISSION TI{AT ANY DECISION
TIIAT WILL ALLOW ADDMONAL DWELUNG TJNITS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL OR THAT \ryILL INCREASE
TTIE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED T]NDER TI{E E)flSTING ORDINAATCES IS I.JNACCEP{TABLE.
T}MFOLLO\ryINGSIGNATURES ON TTIIS LETTERDEMONSTRATETHATANT]MBER OF PEOPLEWHO
ARE EITHER FULL OR PART TIME RESIDENTS OF T}IE TO\ryN OF VAIL ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS
PROPOSAL AND ASK THAT YOU RESPOND TO TI{E WISHES OF THE PEOPI,E AND RETECT THIS
REQUEST.
SINCERELY,
ORDINANCE NO.34
SERIES OF 1993
AN ORDINANCE REZONING LOT 1, BLOCK 4, VAIL VILLAGE 3RD FILING FBOM THE
PRIMARY/SECONDARY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT TO THE PRIMARY/SECONDARY
RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICTS.
WHEREAS, Leo Payne is the owner ol Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Payne has submitted an application to rezone the lot from the
Primary/Secondary Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single
Family zone districts; and
WHEREAS, the rezoning effort is consistent with the surrounding and immediately
adjacent properties; and
WHEREAS, the proposed rezoning is for the benefit of the community as it meets the
municipal objectives identified in the Vail Land Use Plan; and
WHEBEAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission had a public hearing on the proposed zoning amendment and has submitted its
recommendation for approval to the Town Council; and
WHEREAS, all notices required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66
of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that the procedures for a zoning amendment as set forth in
Section 18.66 of the MunicipalCode of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied, and all0f
the requirements of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to zoning amendments
have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
The Town Council hereby rezones lhe property from Primary/Secondary Residentlal to
PrimaryiSecondary Residential and Single Family Residential, as shown on the attached
Exhibit A.
Section 3
lf any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this 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 4
The Town Council hereby finds, determines, and declares that this ordinance is
necessary and proper for the health, safety, and welfare of the Town of Vail and the
inhabitants thereof.
Section 5
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of the Municipal Code
of the Town of Vail as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued,
any duty imposed, any violation that occuned prior to the etfective date hereof, any
prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceedings as commenced under or by
virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal of any provision
hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded
unless expressly stated herein.
Section 6
All bylaws, orders, resolutions, and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith
are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to
revise any bylaw, order, resolution, or ordinance, or part thereof, therelofore repealed.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED, AND OHDERFD PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL
ON FIRST READING this-day ol-, 1993, and a public hearing shall be held on this
Ordinance on the _ day of , 1993, at 7:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Vail
Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado.
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
it
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this _ day of _-_, 1993.
Margaret A. Osterfoss, Mayor
Holly L. McCutcheon, Town Clerk
ATTEST:
00,, &JF {* cq.o a€co*ft,sA *1"{ k nor*& Fnq)
+hcra fu g*+ Uf, #s "f *tft** *& G4rl*&*fi",;*
4gr.ro*W,
f"-*tc*t*{.4 feL
1i :r:^- (o'+,(r a*r,pn rt$fu,$ yy
-rr*,a6 w,(( t$.y qpFe<l(
-l'[".ru- r s q- Afsg;c]rf {,v* gqgeivtri# e^t flcn *t<)
,y* 1-4*tf
2-
; ? Lo,-rJ u,Ez
-7*o
I o
I fthl.t-- Bllqpl
QecE,vEDDEc-eres3
Lorraine N. and Harley G. Higbie, Jr.
1600 Broadway, Suite 2100
Denver, CO 80202
(303) 861-4230
December 6, 1993
VailTown Council
75 Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
Dear Council Members:
We are disturbed and distressed that a homeowner on Forest Road
proposes to divide his property into four home sites. We cannot conceive
how the covenants can be interpreted to allowfor such a result. The
original concept of Vail envisioned an attractive uncrornrded residential
development. Squeezing four home sites onto property that was best
suited for a single home site, and vvlrich remained that way for years,
could only result in a less desirable place to live and lower property
values.
We urge you not to permit such over-development of Vail.
Sincerely,
?L- lfE?'Cn;
Lorraine N. Higbie
,t'-
gr
GONDOLASKI SHOP
LIONSHEAD AT \AIL
December4, 1993
To:Ms. Peggy Osterfoss, Mayor, and
Members of the VailTown Council
Vail. Colorado
Re: Request for rezoning of 381 Beaver Dam circle from the primarylsecondary
Residential zone district to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single ''
Family zone districts and a minor suMivision to create two lots from the
existing lot.
Dear Council Members:
We are writing to ask you to refuse the request by Leo Payne to change the
zoning laws to allow him to build more than a PrimarylSecondary home on the
Beaver Dam Circle lot. lt is time to be firm about the zoning laws, in spite of
arguments about legal square footage and concessions that Mr. Payne will
make concerning wetlands and trees. The fact remains that the parcel in
question is zoned for a PrimarylSecondary structure and to change the zoning
would set a precedent for zoning changes for similar parcels.
We are writing on behalf of Nanry and Don Byers who live in a Primary/
Secondary home close to the Payne lot. We feel strongly, as they do, that
increasing density in that neighborhood is detrimental to the quality of life, ie.
less open space, more traffic, and that a stand should be made now to
adhere to the zoning laws.
Respectfully,
C/, *1** f'2"*,f,.^f * *, J
Charlie and Patti Langmaid '
P. O. Box'159 . Lionshead Mall.. Vail, Colorado 81658 . (303) 476-1700
o
EIVE
TC:
n nr--q - Iv \; t-'t -
-
unua.e,\ , /w )//
rs$l
To:
Frbm:
The Vail Town Council75 South Frontaqe RoadVaiI, Col-orado 5f e sz
Nancy Byers
352 Beaver Dam CircleVail, Colorado 91,657
REC
Sincerely,
q."--..,-/ A4/ru.
Ysritr, , .-lr y/
frfc0OEC 5 W3 H
Re: Appeat of pEC decision to favor re.zoning of Lot l-, BJ_ock 4,vail village 3rd Filing rrorn the erimaryTsecondary zone district tothe prinary/ secondarl, f.e sident i ai ;-;Jl'i,nA;;;;i iy zone districts,anct a minor subdivision to create two ro€s tron 1ie existinq lot.
Date: November 22, 1993
Dear Torn/n Council Members,
As an adiacent property owner. to the subject property, Iformarry appeal by riqhi th; a".i"i"" ot'-tti"*irc to favor therezoning and ninoi subaivision of Lot 1. tr* -p-ec vote on thismatter was verv crose (4-3), and there ,"" ,n,rJ-ailcussion from thepublic as weLi as the'pnc'nrernber. tt"t tne increase in density onthis 10t is contrrary to the goals and objectives of the Tov and thepublic to linit aenlity t.o eiisiins zq4;s i" ttr. v.rrey. Anotherconcern voiced is that this decisio-n wil] iJ --Jingerous precedent
-tl tt-'r val-l-ey-wh1ch wir-r affeci iwenty-eight additionar rots, andcreate a frood of sinirar proposars which,,iirr u" al??i""rt t"'tiliidown given this cleclsloD.
Property owners on Beaver Dam Road, Forest Road, and RockledgeRoad-have paid a premium to o!,/n.property in this area. The intent:{ P: . propert-y ovrners here i; tiat -the aiea woura remain ascurrently zoned, and not have the threat of density i;;;;;;";:This proposar as accepted by the pEC is a s:.ap irr-tn" face to alLproperty oi^rners in this area, and as nentioied above it sets adangerous precedent in the vail valley.
our understanding is that we can voice our appeal on Decenber7 ' L993 ' we arr sincerely hope that you as reprellntatives of thepublic in this varfey wiri r&erse tliis decision and preserve thedensity and zoninf of Lot 1 to its --oJ-gGar status asPrirnaryr/Secondary.
b: \byer -; 1L/22/s...z
Nancy Byers
Lt76-S5Jf
(rc +g-a u/*/es
Ge e(€s r-
dc-ff r-tn_(*
&q{{a,at = *-L l-O Ta.tn4
w:E,:ft#'ftve<
Qa+ (te il 4*+:4[ aSp). o.=o,d
7O eqpyntxZL
':/)aeoy EyuS -
=S
p A*q.rrri,b,* (ik
-
*-;s .(:-.5 u:or4(n ; + .
^ Pcrsge4 a** 5(?^oo.{-Y23 o€ psfT@fpd
.F.t P RoLCr*s - k bev,4g -
- ru*-/ G* -sftr* Ece urp
Af &u'4 A*"5'*
Kj"q -
6*;9 - ce'asc.nr"+A-t^t #?vB
*-\
A - .--.\1,q.P '-flrrc{ eog;aas4;ff -owu(A t, tn 4e [ce4.
cu,s ;.G
, L
-ry-
t ef \.F-\3z\. r A v 4
iey ,.o-c.Q (,ka {o o{(e,ro 6Ug
I . [r*g e*"-q',{naezr
--pw P"* ro,s$$or$ rht' (ot' q /a6'#o{vtl,qg A,Ctt tLd o' -d,l, rzA'c t-,ctn -
L-t*tf.? - j*rrtr-V edY ,Q.l,cc-*** TvAY
@-* &rL 4, r' -. f , q,j% {;C ryrPo*A4 f,tu 6fk*frs.
-\Je.4,p t a
AIIg$e?$".-*.{blf ;}r-{ {.k*
.n
Qe *f yf rr,vcrl..0pb*,,*
&,("/ :qgf*< .Lt rA+*ef &re*S
tl,|* L'014n*s{
&r*tiQa
,l*f {t rJ - *w{ cip,'.G,n*np 6k u\}
-_..f
qq' [,fr.ru t'h,'s r.so11c4 Uq\--- cz c{ lt { "r.r 3cfistpg,
,l t
'&WltlQtt) t
e&tlt
€W.q_ Mes fe s_&fr4,; sri*
i,{,1 wq{6}S $ f@f -"d'h*€s
A)**z: Yi#[ka; ";fJ:A*Ltn*
/-spWf
#*/ Jt (ne*=
*rt'Cf
*,,r*
pllf '.'ro.#e 4ga),os,/ &c c-''s7
&rr*, hoLfu4.-t' fiaug,
&c c-'a{
s rrvgLl €on,, Qls e,4
oF t&tus"(
4 frro6 a),
t'f* b*
g'.(trY- fnoT;rg,wC -toos *e*{ * r)'nf sA+,
Ci;4+f ,L . truf ,+wt' c.e4r,J A,*'.Eq.* g ut,rt rf *
,tl),*h r"ry4r')c-{./ 4^/'t{, -,-.wd CrEy, Vo** sercAq&r .t*' i t' Ae eao*o&fut/t-v;9.
u-ed- Le ,oet+ r.o {nt+* ;€ &,,xL**y
t&if atQ.te-" **rtrrt;@, a pil C: Qcccess
t+te-&-. ee C(a.,.a-s{- A*tlAq-gh bt'
Lct *t+,r, V. - q5lqno'-s-1/
/L{ri-*1 .s*qC4 agr+* ul y'q#n*{.d*
(),ip<.- u+o& *pi** r? z/& ,ur)t' 4tue-rwg*t'LH :
T-K l,u'rg+a
wettq--&s, Cio*@S ap&_
*l\l*'L {!..-'r'*;1 "r*f €p^
,.<l td/ l;,;f fq dt*,c&
<(,1&24-
lvYcari d reSv4
Mfr s@k
er& Je)& t qd&e &"{nm*
{v**9
W'e'<G*'ra
"Lt_s ffi uyis|
' O7,
-e S-9ScsE'xs-od
s.51
3=.s --s.'Of'
-# "r,l^r\ -- ,/
\r *t / -\'^/ors .*.34rn'$
l..tsr .- o\"7ool trir
$\.)K':'r-E*"$/ ]-S *"E F s F=+s-Fs-Et :€ eE{.1 F--.:+. s -=-l FSt*-l =E 5S
*,,- \i$"ili:SB.F
F-ie s^
si-\-r-;e.s-i:B3S€€
[s 3EF* cs
:5-= 3 E__-o s \)
rq
s
-l+-G€.E
>.E
-ee
=G)
rb6
.)F.:s|\
G-e
sa,=\s
Jl-\s+
(.4\e
+N-s-fi$-lr
Itwr@i u4
4)1"t1r"'f
,!t^' 'f.titi'
a
+g\l'
'\;t.l- .
fr,
a
tt'.=
.-s,lt
--Ett
-fE
.S.O-r=CD3s
e
drlr
sl€\E
c
$/"11'o 'u
=$--\r"ts9
-rL cq
-J--3.a
;o--f;F
€€\5
9aDd,--_ts tr-$ip :>
Ct
-t
l.
ErF
zq.te+titLu,9l &L itt{]J
PLEASE
TOIVN OF VAIL
D E PA RT;\{ E)iT OF CPiVI}1I.i'IITY D EVELO P}IENT
N,ITIE
S,lLES ACT]ON FORIT
SOUIH FRONTAGE ROAD
oro)/
ZCTZ\' C fu\D .{ D DR.EJ S !'i,A-FS0l 0+30 4 )J40
0l rt]3 12415 ttNIFC L\ { B L.TL Di\'G c O D E
0l 000c {2.{ t5 U ht FOtu\{ FLU!6 L\-C C OD E
01 c'37C .'12.1 : 5'l U).'1 FOP-\ l Ii€C lJ$lC,:.L CO DE
0l crtolj2<15 I u,..-tFoa.,r{ F:r.q-E coDE
0t 030012{!5 | N,rnorril;rEcrPJcALcoDE I I . s:o.co
OTI;ER, CODE ICOXS0t c\)00.{2115
ol o]lo{t513 I sLusprDrrs6lYL;Rs
0l o.trt.r2412 | >:erox copgs / s'iuDcs I so.:s
0l ooc{i?37t i puxet-r:' Fr.Es/ R:.r.,\-spEcnoNs
ot c{,*3 { t 332 i PL.IX .qEr,lsv RE'CI]ECK FEE ts.:o FER, fiR.l
0l c{00 42323 | OFF t{OUF,S [\SF[CT]ON tlES
coNI+.. croRs LIc L\s gs FEES0l 0c.-\)3 i l1 l2
0l ci,c\]rl-130
.01 or004t1)3 SIG N APPL]CA'I-'J O}.I FEE
0l 0000411t3 IADDITION,\lislcNAGEFIE [Sl.oJ;,E.RSQ.I;T.
0l 0c{o.!2.:.,t0 lvTc ARTPRoEcTDoN.,\TtoN
0t 0c00.t)331 IPRE. P,riD D|:SION ,qiiltnY BS^RD F:t
OI C,C30424L2 I BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COI'fPUTER DI
*.01 0000 41010 T,LX
0l 0000 42371 TNVESTIGATToN FEE (BUILDING) TOIAL DUE:
0l cos).rl3i0 tcohDt'noN^LUSEPER\flT
0l 0030 .1r 330 |
il ALTIRAJION ILES5THA}.I I
.RJ O R. A LTE R ATION I I JOR E TiJ.'l.,''{ I CO SO.FI.
SPEC'AL DSVEL
0l 00ol1l3i0 lsPscl^L DEVELoP.\|E\T DISTFJCT
OI OOCOTI}JO ' I5PECLAL DEVELOPIfENTD'S
0l oml4l3 sLEDtvlSlO;
,I I JJO ; V.{ PJANCE
O]90 .i I -l-10 | ZONI]*,'C CODE A.l
0t 00$,1 413
'.:s.lCOSllvlE\TS::
*
*
*
*
1*
*
*
.'.
t Page &p
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 GorE Creek Drive 309 426.2201
Vail, Colorado 816s7
LOT 1 . BLOCK 4 . VAIL VILLAGE FIRST FILING
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
. LOT 2 . BLOCK 4 . VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING
CAROLWOODS SCHMIDT
3901 SO. GtLPtN
ENGLEW@D, CO 80110
LOT 4 - BLOCK 3 . VAIL VTLLAGE THIRD FILING
ARTHURA MORGAI.I
IF\A'IN DINER
245 SUMMIT STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43603
LOT 5 . BLOCK 3 . VAIL VILLAGE THIRD FILING
NAI{CY R. BYERS
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAtL, co 81657
WARREN &LAURIMITIER
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAlL, co 81657
UNPLATTED
VAIL ASSOCTATES, INC.
P.O. BOXT
vAtL, co 81657
Pl\tb Acfcrurf's O
CAROL WOODS SCHMIDT ARTHUR A. MORGAN NANCY R. BYERS
3901 S. GILPIN IRWIN DINER 352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110 245 SUMMIT STREET VAIL. CO 81657
TOLEDO, OH 43603
WARREN & LAUFI MILLEB VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC. LAWRENCE L. LEVIN
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE P.O. BOX 7 HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN
1700 LINCOLN, #4100
DENVER. CO 80203
FAX# 866-0322
vAlL, co 81657 vAtL, co 81657
f f f elqs- odfl'ca-nl-s SLrf o-If, Q1;.l
*
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
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 November 22, 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 of the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road East/an unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 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 site coverage variance to allow the construction of a new garage and
the conversion of an existing garage to an employee housing unit located at 1045
Homestake Circle/Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Valley Filing 1.
Applicant: Rod and Beth SliferPlanner: Andy Knudtsen/Mike Mollica
3. A request for a variance to allow a satellite dish to exceed the height limitations to be
located at the VailValley MedicalCenter/181 West Meadow Drive/Lots E & F, Vail
Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center represented by Dan FeeneyPlanner: Jim Curnutte
A request for a minor subdivision and a rezoning from the Primary/Secondary
Residential zone district, to the Primary/Secondary Residential and Single Family zone
districts, for a parcel located at 381 Beaver Dam Circle/Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd
Filing.
Applicant: Leo PaynePlanner: Jim Curnutte
5. A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow a bay window expansion of
Gotthelf's/196 Gore Creek Drive/Lots A, B, C, Block 5-C, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: PaulGofthelfPlanner: Jim Curnutte
," fitfi o{ h/ Ps# o7 ltnu /rr
7r fr f?rhil&4 'f/'toil
, fr/rt"flrl f/bE/
SNOWDON AND HOPKIN
ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAlL, coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476-220r
frfurnoqD
LETTER
Date /l/Fhq
,,^"",'(h/1,/ tu'lil,r,rm *4
ftaruiw o
lil t, luf f l/a;t hl ?4
Jrw '/r,w//o i (l"nh4.
Jm
L:|n,E,,( k
A[aohil ,i a.t aiil 701 4wriil,* fu ilu ruil*rirt, d
E ,/ kl l, (/,qt'/, /r;l tlllzrye 4r/ ft1,^'1 ,t/dl , lolry/', rttr ko
ry,'a n-nbdlri,r;yi n/r'. thuiw rrrh nft tiits ar,/ trokvrsraitritt ,ii/s
a;,/.4//a7Vtr f.// dl al4l/4,'iltf ftrV ftlrtlb , /- nw iu4d h
'/,ryt/lz uyuly nufrd ful /A'/rn frfhry/uar+/zry tln 7anry rh
fu'Ei.frn;h ltff I ?thtL4 hb*,r,u' o[ rltr' 2h*.p /* ' r^pi , zu
tl I I -l I
3t/ VahM sr[e f/4 .
f Please reply I lNo reply n.c'essary
f,ryi ftr,k trff ). ?rh,.hf ftryv' afrfu| ilrny /rn */i, ?t4
a//;ltnr/ ,fulrrfw ti'r"oVUr)/ . '
.
4;; ,k,,[,i'rrin ;/b;[r;;",,r, /*,4, rtfuri, uzilraaq/r a,,4
rt:hbfrue yu laiq ft,ofrvl rtr//. hta/y trirfr/ '/o/, /A al /b (r
ru>uHrnittra ,/ /r/ /,'/rlir/ (,'(/;,1 l/,ilqr fr/ f,lpq) ,
l"p/ /h Hfu nrf,ht *1ar// rn'fut ,/ ht' I ) ' ' ftf ltatq o
'/ot 4,*ury*:, o/ tw o' r'f 70.t' '{/1,0/f f-{F) I
) br,t4+tt /,/ lrn (/rs,/hr, 4t'/ tl,l") of '/, ria V rt ,, bfFh lllvifalrn ( 1,uX ry ft ( /rr r*ry' ,/ qt tr ft n,r ), lili flrrnqu lxiwrl
^1,;i
nnrlr*ly'rroi*fl hue i'arnoa S
' U' lllainhilr* ra*ruw/ a/irqfltr
^t/u,troVoyufy
/tfu (rdQ ), 1ftlfik/ lu;t{tu"7 e uwhTi ty tuuil tf ft ' ai rhrru on 7l,t
FrrFM 1€o-? Availablelro'" F.nll tn Groron Mass C,r50
ro fu/". ,/ti, /rrr*rte '
SNOWDON AND HOPKARcnnecrs v
201 Gore Creek Drive
vAtL. coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476.220r
NtreDtaaD
. -.,- - -_! ^ ^t^EJJER
Dare /t/ % /rt
subject Lot t, fttt 4 , h,l l4
(ayue fiwb4,n'nftr1,
rctI (?
7'./
l,ot' lb ft' u,Cla:1,*tt Klry { nt t ) ,f/f ?,,t,ry '
o l,of ara, '/ 4, lfi ry ft, bui/,/"ll /i7 ara t/ q', 7t r t rt, hfft lmil;hru o/' f ,1fi ,t /f' futo' wvp ,[ /w, {t na )
' f0' /flainlmenoo 'fase no,t'ilnylhu sa'iflo*li ifnn lw ftn/ )^
" q:fz(lriltol 4a/,-re1ful"/"n/ aTti ,yro, **'(rffox fi1r, yft)
[n/1, eccfu{y /t" Hh *rl*/l
,' ufa[/,i/,r,y 'bu;g,fn *r[fu] ,'{ frna n rt (rru'x gr,o') as
trf,y/ t4'*;fLi ,fu Turu*'s/u,s e'/>l/rih,/ 1,7 ntoilrr' fld iprwu/s
I Please reply L--l No reply necessary STGNED
rhsytrTl ,r/ht ul{uAA ,L 'rl^t.' Q(e ' '
l/,t /tiu1n4 /t/", b0hi',,4 fre 9/dq "huqc /atlht r4qal 4 :hfr n/
fr( ) nnc /r "lir futl* lturaft oi-lu] r"ori,lf lr' ( nnkou Li/aw, /fu
folttd /,/, ) /o'lu th,ft,l'lt'/,4hu'Wltr'(&,e h snilrrf/qru, /ar/"/c'r/ ft,w lfi asfu^/ ;/ /{aa q fU, 77r,, ,rt,// a//rae//hu (tr*/
la,/q/,E *ol,/,p' p, l,f '/h h 4i 'ri/c lr/6, ,*lfU n///,w4wo' pfroo
fl,,t u'rrfopo ni,f,r,th a;/htn rfu ,hezly 4,;/rtrld pvn /rV/ hry/* {/4,
lf; nim;kiqu,q/4i tnp,fi ,, l/u /xrf,nx fru irn*lh .' h,i/h f/+1c ttthr
tn{qunft! ,'ry t,owl /hry ,,f rt,[ fuf',u(t latt' *,!,, rile, fr1.f ow/
urulitt 7fru lfarumwt t/lfu ,poVur/ ba-lhr,a w,rrfopo m h/ /l ronryir
/h ion*, hrli*, /k wrrt, r,lrlr 7r-/r, n/'fr, nrlu/olu i ronndftd,
'fl1o aha ) ?,,,/ hraui/as tuil"t /rifaunu /a* fit zri/tq iruftr4s /n/kt/ ,
1,,/,/i //i bfFA lrwifs as{-"bliihd tu evofi /if n n/,drftl,1/,v
r:cFru lEo-2 Availab,e ifom &@l.c Grotor M.ss Dr45o
ro //tr. Jtin f,rrn,/t'7
SNOWDON AND HOPKIN
ARCHITECTS
201 Gore Creek Drive
vArL, coLoRADO 81657
(303) 476-2201
Dfutno,qD
LETTII ..^-
Date hlw /7,
subiect /il t, fi1k4,lt;,| kl' %/
t"yrn ftubdiwsru /fqrat
t,/u q 'f ?
FoF{ 140 2 Availabb l.om ,/A-s-d-1'linc, Groton, Mass 0i450
drttlt
o
iile'uoci ed i$$3
Peuton *n-lillflfr-_.TT
pETmoN roi' FoR AMENDMENTTo rHE zoNrNG .BDTNAN.E
OR
REOUESiT FOR
A CHANGE IN DISiTRICT BOUNDABIES
Thle ptocedura ls requlred lor arry amendment to the zbnlng ordlnance or lor a request "
for a district boundary change.
A. NAMEOF
ADDRESS
B.
c.
aa
NAME OF PETITIONER'S BEPRESENTATIVE
, onetlb'trQhADDRESS
NAME OF OWNER (prlnt ortype
SIGNA
^DDREsrs
\g Ww Vamlirfu U?tl,(n.pHoNE 410.{&07
D. LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:
ooor=rs j
LEedL DESCRTPTTON: LOr-!- rr**{ r,ut-|
FEE:
PAID
ldmenr: S250.00 ,a t ^ - Rezontngs: $eQD,g'' ;
aCHECK # .l lu u_DATE.W_E.
[.
lll.
ndmenb: $250.00
F. Stamped, addrEssed envelopes and llst ot ho naflios ol owners of all property.
adjacent to the subject property.
Four (4) coples ol he lollorlng Informatlon:
A" The peU$on shall Include a summary of the proposed revlslon of the
regulatons, or a complete descrlptlon of the proposed changes in disctrict
boundarles and a map lndicating the existing and proposed disctrict boundariss.
Applicant must submit written and/or graphic materials stating the reasons for
reguest.
Tlme Requlremenb
The Plannlng and Envlronmantal Comlsslon meets on the 2nd urd 4th Mondays of
each month. A petition with the necessary accompanying material must be submitted
lour weeks prior to the date of the meeting. Following the Planning and Environmental
Gommlssion meetlng, all amendments to the zoning ordinance or distict boundary
change must go tot the Town Council for linal acuon.
Yourpropoialwlll be rwlswed for complalnaca wlh Vail's Gomprehenslve Plan.
lf thls appllcaton requlres a separate revlew by any local, Stiale or Federal agency
other than the Town of Vail, the application fee shall be incroased by $200.00.
Examples of suclr review. may include, but are not limited to: colorado Department of
Highway Access Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
The appllcant shall be responslblo for paylng any publlshlng fees which are ln oxcess
of Sff/o of the appllcation fee. lf, at the applicant's request, any maner is postponed lor
hearing, causing the matter to be re-published, then the entire fee for such re-
tv.
v.
FFI ru rtrLL
4. A request for a worksesslon to discuss a minor suMivision of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail
Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver Dam Circle.
tr$P y
Applicant:
Planner:
Leo Payne
Jim Cumufte
Jim Curnutte made a presentation per the staff memo.
Graig Snowdon stated that he would like to have a clarification of staff's comment that
the proposed road maintenance and drainage easements would be public.
Jim Cumutte explained that Greg Hall of the Town's Public Works Deparfnent stated
that calling the easements "public" was necessary to allow the Town to go onto them
for maintenance purposes, however they would not be open to the public walking
across Mr. Payne's property.
Larry Levin, an attorney, stated that he represented several of the adjacent property
owners. He stated that both the minor subdivision and the rezoning scenarios would
essentially create two additional access points. He stated that he was concerned that
Beaver Dam Road was not made to handle this type of additional traffic. He pointed
out that the two new building areas that would be created as a result of this request
would essentially leave three leveled areas on the site. He stated that he was
concerned about the effects of the drainage easement on Vail Associates' parcel ol
land adjacent to this site. He stated hat the neighbors that he had spoken to were not
in favor of the increased density and traffic in their neighborhood. He felt that the
impact on existing trees was significant and does not comply with the purpose
statement in the subdivision zoning regulations.
Craig Snowdon stated that sinee the last time this item was brought before the PEC,
the applicant had a wetlands analysis performed for this property and that a copy of
this report was attached to staff's memorandum. He stated that he did not feel that the
proposal would negatively effect the traffic and density ol the neighborhood. He said
that special circumstances exist on this piece of property that meet the criteria laid out
by the Town and allow lor its subdivision.
Greg Amsden stated that he noticed a pattern among the five previous minor
subdivision requests similar to this application, especially items 1, 3, and 4 in the statf
memo. He stated that he would like this proposal stay within the ballpark ol the GRFA
increases allowed for previous minor subdivision requests (1,500 to 1,700 square feet
maximum). He suggested that the applicant seriously look at the single family
rezoning option because it saves the trees within the Lot 1-A buiHing envelope.
Diana Donovan agreed with Greg's comments. She stated that she did not totally
agree with how this process was handled, but that she could not justify denying this
type of request when the criteria have been met. She said that we should favorably
consider the public benefit of getting the easements which we currently do not have.
Plannlng and Environmental Comm|3slon
october 11. 1993
11
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Greg's comments and that shifting the lot line
to the west would greatly decrease any impacts to the trees on this site.
Dallon Williams stated that he was hesitant to go along with this request for a minor
subdivision because the subdivision was apparently well thought out when originally
platted. He said that both lots ought to be zoned Single Family and that the density
should not increase and that the total GRFA should not be increased.
Allison Lassoe stated that she agreed with Dalton's comments, with the exception that
some additionalGRFA should be allowed on the lots.
Jeff Bowen stated that he leels that the center lot line should be shifted to the west in
order to save the trees. He said that he is not totally persuaded by the wetlands study.
He said that he has concerns that the 12,500 square foot west lot is not of adequate
size. He stated that he was in favor of two single fami| homes on this site.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she agreed with Diana's comments. She added that
she would like to see a singly family home on the west side of the property and a
single family home with a restricted secondary unit on the eastern lot. She felt that the
proposed GRFA allowance on both lots should be decreased.
Larry Levin stated that he did not feel that there was a public benefit having the
wetland area designated as such because the property owner would need a 404
Permit from the Army Corps of Engineers to build in that area anyway.
Craig Snowdon handed out a site plan to staff and the PEC members that showed the
center property line shifted 20 feet the west, Craig asked the PEC whether thsy would
like to see the drainage easement running parallel to the property line.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt that this was a technical issue which the
applicant could work with staff on.
Greg Amsden inquired whether there would be two driveway cuts in conjunction with
this request.
Craig said yes the property would be limited to two driveway cuts, which is what the lot
could have now.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see a map at the next meeting which
depicts the sizes of all of the lots in the neighborhood. She said that she would also
like to see the documents which Larry Levin had made reference to, regarding the
history of the platting ol this subdivision.
Phnning and Envlrcnmenlal Commission
octobef 11, 19$!
12
\rlt
S".
$.1
\,) Il
}G-$ t4
{L, ,0\
*
.6i $
_.S'tL
trt O.Ae
&'ur tt\o*
Itio1..- a
;u,r... .lLJ*1) r.,t u
iI. l,
if\tF
S.*"$u
S$
;"trL.ttqrq
t'i
Fi4.il
ul:
Ar
(yd
Itj
\,
-,.s)
ot
"f-
3.e
at$nt s-f\* o S3 b'{ill -t-
\ ns$-.il + ciu .o
n$*tl *t- ?"tF*d
l'll
;h
i*(Iti*l{
UT
$
0
L
'{*
+tr
"L,
1
$
k
u
$
.-$
otfrf,
'tt
nr'Il'
\0!q
v\
$
'.U
UI
k
U
{
t
0,
9,U
}(
ry
t4
b
?vp
?rJ
"p
0
I\g
qf
\t'l
{N
,U
$
,.t
1al
af9l
I
^0fs
UI
u
&
"$
0
1
$t
+
o
uj
,}'II
r)
q
KI
3i| .lvl
YI
I
9'
$t
s
\
t
-sst
-r,_$
1
&rf!
F{
I*
q.tt
U-
.D\vt
&
J
,t
'G
{)rf'
(
,+t
rn
\..-,-\--
\
-.97t{
$(t
L
tgtLul t
;J
rt,9 U
qFl
oi k)'6') I
u-_J-laf
d
I
h[
:
{ql{tt
j$
{
'1,P
t$tq
)-$s
Uu+:\rpt
d. 4.U3
i
II
6UJ .pnaS€--- Ja )=*, ,.eo.cu,
? eEAe{ .4 Q,1,*gr * OrL
ttVr^
qlrel4^ 4)
ePt;{ ie **€pe( a5+ elo=*,"* &e (
u)+ t\nq *Iq._l*,l. 4 4naf - *-'e. dorq
6e fu{v,ry a*g*Iea g,ltctt'F;t nl"J6dy'.
*G*"tz e['rtl- %;A-Z e,pcF uc*]*rt-t;
,$ptt 8t 4+{rbp e4ce*y' #I+*jtV *.# ha-R.@<-_a6f<
iE*rr*' fiaw ,tJ^te L t@*
$*fif * {-= ty'7cpptr ,r/-J,Ep fr;5S**{f * !h7*:1cpp6,r/"l,Ep fr,gfie F*ae-€7
b"{ th|pk; BF@ is +d**aff
,^"ooQ. ,/dr€ - #t ;e =F ko€ e p6t rl ! ,(-'Kq+tL- 1-e 'e. farrlaf\ rD ftte.qCe l€*9+
l,w*r+ lrealwe+cu, +e -Dc*f' fe>$',r'{4 ,}/}f ee g*tec4A*f :
- A*ctca* @fr*
. MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmential Gommission
Gommunity Development Department
October 11, 1993
A request for a worksession to discuss a minor subdivision to create two lots
from Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver Dam Circle.
f;.lfd" f ,#$F y
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Applicant:
Planner:
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
I. INTRODUCTION TO THE REOUEST
Leo Payne, owner of Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing, has requesled a worksession to
discuss his proposal to subdivide his existing Primary/Secondary zoned lot into two
PrimarylSecondary zoned lots. This property is located north of Beaver Dam Gircle and south
of an unplatted Agricultural and Open Space zoned tract of land owned by Vail Associates.
The current lot size is 37,771 square feet. In order to accomplish the proposed minor
subdivision, Mr. Payne has located the new lot line in such a manner that each new lot meets
the minimum lot size required in the Primary/Secondary zone disfict (15,000 square feet of
buildable area). The proposed lot line also bisects the existing single-fami|y residence located
on the property. In order to avoid creating a nonconforming situation regarding sstback
requirements, it is proposed that the building will be demolished prior to the signing and
recording ol the subdivision plat. Mr. Payne has agreed to this conditlon as well as agreeing
to plat a 10 foot wide road maintenance easement along the front property line of the two new
lots, and a 20 foot wide drainage easement through Lot 1-B, in the location of an existing
drainage way, as well as an approximate 4,500 square foot open space and wetlands
easement on the eastern-most portion of Lot 1-A. At the request ol the Planning and
Environmental Gommission (PEC), the applicant has indicated buiHing envelopes on each of
the lots.
In addition to the above described scenario for subdividing the property Mr. Payne is also
considering the possibility of rezoning and resubdividing fie property into one single family
zoned lot and one primary/secondary zoned lot. Since the minimum lot size in the single
family zone district is 12,500 square feet it is assumed that the new single family lot, located
on the eastern end of the property, will be at least 12,500 square feet in size. The remaining
primary/secondary zoned lot wound be 25,271 square feet in size. The open space and
wetlands easemenl, road maintenance easement, and drainage easement proposed as apart
of the above-mentioned resubdivision scenario would also be applied to the property if it were
resubdivided in this manner. Because of the conceptual nature of this resubdivision scenario,
stalf does not have a plat which shows the proposed lot layout.
A more detailed analysis of the proposed development statistics related to both of these
resubdivision options is found in the Discussion lssues section ol this memo.
On August 23, 1993, a worksession was held with the PEC for the purpose of discussing the
proposed resubdivision ot Lot 1. At that meeting, the staff, PEC and adjacent prop€rty owners
expressed a number of concerns related to the proposed resuMivision. (See attached
minutes from August 23, 1993 PEG meeting). Upon receiving the aforementioned input, the
applicant requesled tabling of the application in order to provide additional information and
further refine the application. Specifically, the applicant was asked to address each of the
categories contained in the environmental impact report seclion of the Vail Municipal Code
(Section 18.56.040). The applicant was asked to concenlrate on possible wetlands impacts
on the property as well as impacts on existing vegetation, specifically, the large sland of
evergreen trees located on the eastern half of the property. As mentioned previously, the
PEC suggested the use of building envelopes on each lot for the purpose of reducing possible
impacts associated with the siting of future buildings on the property.
Since the August 23, 1993 worksession, Mr. Payne has contracted with Dames & Moore to
perform a wetlands analysis of the property. The consultants identified two areas on the
property that are classilied as wetlands. The wetlands consist of an area approximately 20
feet x 70 feet in size located at the far eastern end of fie property and an area approximately
6 feet x 125 leet in size straddling the existing drainage way that runs through the property. A
copy of the wetlands analysis is enclosed for PEC review. The applicant is proposing to
protect the wetland areas by providing the wetland and open space easement and the 20 foot
wide drainage easement mentioned in the first paragraph of this memo. ln addition to the
wetlands analysis, the applicant has addressed each of the nine categories contained in the
environmental impact report section of the Vail Municipal Gode. These categoriss relate to
the proposed subdivision's impact on hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, visual, land
use, circulation and transportation, population, and other environmental conditions of the
property. This analysis was completed by the arcfiitect for the project, Graig Snowdon.
II. PREVIOUS MINOR SUBDIVISION REOUESTS SIMILAR TO THIS APPLICATION
Staff leels that it would be helpful to the PEC to be aware of previous subdivision requests
similar to the one currently being discussed, as well as some information regarding the
potential lor additional requests of this type. There have been live comparable proposals
submitted to the PEC over the past eight or nine years. These include the following:
1. A resubdivision and rezoning ot Lot 1, Block 1, Bighom SuMivision 1st Filing:
This subdivision approval divided one Duplex lot into two Single Family lots.
Although this property was large enough to be divided into two Duplex lots, or
four units, the net result was 19 increase in the total number of units on the
site. The original lot, prior to subdivision, allowed up to 5,862 square feet of
GRFA to be built on it. The PEC approval restricted the GRFA on each of lhe
new single fami! lots to 3,300 square feet each. There was an increase in
GRFA ol 738 square feet. Although building envelopes were originally
proposed on each of the single family lots, the planning staff as well as the
PEC recommended that they be deleted. The only other restriction, besides
GRFA, applied to this resubdivision involved a plat note requiring a shared
o
2.
driveway for both lots. The shared acc€ss requirement was subsequently
removed from the plat,
A resuMivision of Pitkin Creek Meadows: This parcet had a long history in
terms of previous attempts to subdivide the property. About the time East Vail
was annexed to Vail, applications were made to create three
Primary/Secondary lots on this property. At the time, minimum lot standards
required '17,500 square feet of buildable area per lot. Because of this
requirement, only two lots were approved on the parcel. Following the
reduction of the minimum lot size in the Primary/Secondary zone district to
15,000 square feet, a new application was submitted to the PEC in 1987.
Approval by the PEC at that time resulted in the creation of three
PrimaryiSecondary zoned lots. While the new parcel contains significant
amounts of area over 40/" slope, it was the finding of the PEC that the lots
were both accessible and buildable. In addition, the newly created lot was
bordered by residential development on one side with National Forest property
on two sides of the parcel and l-70 bordering the property on the other.
A resubdivision and rezoning of Lots '14 and 17, Block 7, VailVillage 1st Filing
(referred to as the Tennenbaum Subdivision): This approval created two Single
Family lots and one Primary/Secondary lot from two Primary/Secondary zoned
parcels. This subdivision resulted in p increase in the total number ol units,
and a 37 square foot GRFA increase. Due to the nature of the GRFA
ordinance and the way it functions on a graduated scale, the creation of one
PrimaryiSecondary lot and two Single Family lots would have resulted in an
increased amount of GRFA for the property. The allowable GRFA on the
existing lots was 7,518 square feet. Without restrictions, the new
Primary/Secondary and two Single Family lots would have been allowed a total
GBFA of 9,100 square feet. After discussions with the PEC, it was agreed to
restrict the tolal amount of GRFA on the combined area of the three lots to
7,755 square feet for a total GRFA increase prior to resubdivision of 37 square
feet.
Lot 5, Block 2, Bighom Subdivision 1st Addition; The PEC's approval involved
the resubdivision of an existing Duplex lot into two Duplex lots. The approval
contiained a condition that the density on each of the nerr lots was restricted to
one single family dwelling, with an optional caretaker unit. The GRFA was also
restricted to 8,804 square leet for both properties, which was 3,745 square feet
below the GRFA that would have been allowed without the plat restricton. Ths
original GRFA for the lot was 7,950 square feet so there was an increase. In
addition, the subdivision approval included a condition that if the optional
carelaker unit were constructed, the usual 425 square toot credit would not be
applicable to the caretaker unit, nor would the caretaker units qualify for garage
credit. The maximum size ol the caretaker units, if constructed, is limited to
900 square feet of GRFA.
3.
4.
5. Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing: This application app€arc to be the most
similar to that being requested by Mr. Payne and involved a similar
resubdivision request of the property two lots to the west ol the Payne parcel.
Specifically, the applicant proposed to resubdivide the existing 30,030 square
foot lot into 15,020 square foot and 15,010 square foot Primary/Secondary
zoned lots. Both of the proposed lots also met the lot frontage and site
dimension requirements of the Primary/Secondary zone district, The lot was
considered to be legally non-conforming with regard to density because four
units were in existence at the time it was zoned primary/secondary. Maximum
GRFA allowed on the lot prior to the proposed subdivision was 5,251 square
feet. Although the property stood to gain approximately 2,150 square feet of
additional GRFA as a result ol subdivision approval, the property owner agreed
to restrict the GRFA on each lot to 2,667 square feet, with an additional 500
square feet allowed if an optional caretaker unit was constructed. Therefore the
maximum amount of GRFA proposed on the combined area of the two new lots
was 6,334 square feet, for a total increase in GRFA on the property of 1,083
square feet. No increase in density was proposed because of the
nonconforming situation, however two of the units associated with the
resubdivision request were required to be restricted to employee housing. This
application was d@igd by the PEC.
The stafl memorandum prepared for the above-mentioned request for resuMivision of
Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing included some research with regard to lot sizes
within the neighborhood of the proposal. The memo states: 'lot sizes in Block 7 ol
Vail Village 1st Filing and Blocks 1 , 2, 3, and 4 of Vail Village 3rd Filing, encompassing
what is commonly known as the Village side of the Forest Road area. The results of
this research lound that the average lot size in this neighborhood is 22,723 squars
feet, with a mean lot size ot 24,025 square leet. In addition, there are a total of five
lots in the neighborhood greater than 30,000 square teet, including Mr. Payne's parcel.
These lots range in size from 30,945 square feet to 37,769 squar€ feet. All of these
lots are zoned Primary/Secondary. By way of comparison, fourteen of the forty-two
Primary/Secondary zoned lots in Vail Potato Patch are over 30,000 square feet and
nine of the fitty-two Primary/Secondary zoned lots in he Glen Lyon Subdivision exceed
30,000 square feet. Because of the various factors involved in determining the
"buildable area" of a site, staff is unable to specify exactly how many ol these lots
could meet the buildable standard for a potential future rssubdivision."
III. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND ZONE CHANGE CRITERIA
The first resubdivision scenario discussed in the Introduction section of thls memo involves a
resubdivision, and not a request for new zoning or rezoning of the property. Th€ s€cord
scenario would involve the rezoning of the westernmost portion of the property from
Primary/Secondary to Single Family.
A. Minor Subdivision Criteria
One of the basic premises of subdivision regulations is that minimum standards for a new lot
must be met. These standards typically dealwith minimum lot size, lot configuration, etc. As
a result, these standards establish the first set of review criteria to be considered with this
application:
A. Lot Area
The Vail Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for a
property located within the Primary/Secondary zone district be 15,000 square
feet of buildable area. The minimum lot or site area lor property located in the
Single Family zone district is 12,500 square feet of buildable area. The
Municipal Code defines "buildable area' as any site, lot, parcel, or any portion
thereof, which does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche
area, or areas in excess of 40"/o slope. Both of the proposed resubdivision
scenarios appear to be able to meet the required minimum lot size. Please
note that the second scenario has not been surveyed.
B. Frontaqe
The Vail MunicipalCode requires that each lot in both the Primary/Secondary
zone district and the Single Family zone district have a minimum frontage of 30
feet. Both of the proposed resubdivision scenarios are able to meet the
minimum lot frontage requirement of 30 feet.
C. Site Dimensions
The Vail Municipal Code also requires that each site be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area, 80 feet on each side, within its boundaries.
The applicant's proposed resubdivision scenarios will create lots of a size and
shape which meet the 80 square foot area regulation.
The second set of criteria to be considered with a minor subdivision request are outlined in
Section 17.16.110 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations and are as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is
in compliance with the intent and purposss of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration shall be given to the recommendations by public agencies, utility
companies and other agencies consulted under Section 17.16.090- The PEC
shall review the application and consider its appropriateness in regard to Town
policies relating to subdivision conlrol, densities proposed, regulations,
ordinances and resolutions and other applicable documents, etfects on the
aesthetics of the Town, environmental integrity and compatibility with
sunounding uses."
Some of the key aspects ol the above statement refer to 'compliance with the intent and
purposes of this chapter..., ... environmental integrity and compatibility with surrounding land
uses," etc. As mentioned in the introduction portion of this memo, the applicant has been
asked to address each of the nine categories contained in the environmenlal impact report
section of the Vail Municipal Code. These categories relate to the proposed subdivision's
impact on hydrologic, atmospheric, geologic, biotic, visual, land use, circulation and
transportation, population, and other environmental conditions of the property.
The applicant's response to these environmental impact report categories will be reviewed for
conformity with the seven purpose statements outlined in Section 17.04.010 (Purpose Section)
of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. The purpose section is intended to insure that a
subdivision is promoting the health, safety and welfare of the community- Staff will be
revianting each of these factors in addition to the environmental impact report provided by the
applicant to determine compliance with the basic purpose and intent of the Town's subdivision
regulations. The subdivision purpose slatements are as follows:
1. To inform each subdivider of the standards and criteria by which development and
proposals will be evaluated and to provide information as to the type and extent of
improvements required.
2. To provide for the subdivision of property in the future without conflict with
development on adjacent land.
3. To protect and conserue the value of land throughout the municipality and the value ol
buildings and improvements on the land.
4. To insure that subdivision ol propefi is in compliance with the Town's zoning
ordinance, to achieve a harmonious, convgnient, workable relationship among land
uses, consistent with municipal development objectives.
5. To guide public and private policy and action in order to provide adequate and efficient
transportation, water, sewage, schools, parks, playgrounds, recreational and other
public requirements and facilities and generally to provide that public facililies will have
sutficient capacity to serve the proposed subdivision.
6. To provide for accurate legal descriptions of newly subdivided land and to esfablish
reasonable and desirable construction design standards and procedures.
7. To prevent the pollution of air, streams, and ponds, to assure adequacy of drainage
facilities, to safeguard the water table and to encourage the wise use and management
of natural resources throughout the municipality in order to preserve ths integrity,
stability, and beauty of the community and the value of the land.
B. Zone Chanqe Criteria
1. ls the existing zoning suitable?
2. ls fie amendment preventing a convenient, workable relationship with land
uses consistent wih municipal objectives?
3. Does the rezoning provide for the growth of an orderly, viable community?
4. ls the amendment consistent with the Vail Land Use Plan?
V. VAIL LAND USE PLAN
The Vail Land Use Plan identifies the neighborhood surrounding the Payne properg as
appropriate for 'Low Density Residential" uses. The Land Use Plan goals/policies which seem
applicable to the Payne resubdivision request are as follows:
1.'t 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 protectc:: as the Town grows.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the identity of Vail and should be
preserved (scale, alpine characler, small town feeling, mountains, natural
setting, intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling, environmenlal quality).
lJ Additional residential growth should continue to occur in existing primary platted. areas and is appropriate in areas where high hazards do not exist.
vl. prscussroN rssuEs
The issues related to each of the proposed resubdivision scenarios will be addrEssed
separately as follows:
A. Two Primarv/Secondarv Lots
Under this resubdivision scenario the existing Primary/Secondary lot would be divided into two
Primary/Secondary lots. In order to remain consistent with similar resubdivision requests the
statl and the PEC encouraged the appticant to propose certain development restrictions on
the proposed properties. Without any sort of development restrictions, the resubdivided
property would stand to gain 3,296 square feet of additional GRFA than would be permitted
under existing conditions (not including an additional 600 square feet of garage credit). In
addition, the property would be permitted four units, as opposed to two under existing zoning.
ln response the applicant has offered to limit the density of Lot 1-B to one single lamily
residence and the GRFA on Lot 1-B to 4,500 square feet of GRFA. Wittout this voluntary
GRFA restriction, the newly created Lot 1-B would be allowed 4,693 square feet of GRFA.
Lot 1-A would have no density (dwelling unit or GRFA) restrictions imposed upon it. The
applicant would not be precluded from applying for a Type ll Employee Housing Unit on either
lot in the future, similar to most other property ownen with PrimarylSecondary zoned lob
throughout town. The following zoning analysis compares the existing development potential
on the property to what is proposed:
Exisling Lot:
Lol 1-A:
- lor 1-B:
Totah
Nel lncreare:
Lot Siz€
37,771 sq. tl.
2l,845 sq. ft.
15,926 sq. tl.
37,771 sq, tt.
N.A
Number ol
Dug Allowed
2 unils
2 unils
1 unil
3 unils
l unll
4,369 sq. ft.
3,185 sq. tt.
7,554 sq. tl.
.G,
1,200 sq. ft.
600 Eq. fi.
I,800 sq. n.
600 sq. tt
Maximum Maximum Geragts
GRFA Allowetr Sile CoveraEe Credil
6,489 sq. ft.
5,285 sq. 11.
4,500 sq, lt.
9,785 sq. fi.
3,29C !q. n,
7,554 sq. ft. I,A)0 sq. n.
*lndudes 425 square lool credits.
GRFA and Density lssues - While some resubdivision proposals in the past have allowed
minimal increases of GRFA, these increases have been nominal and usually associated with
some public benefit, ie. restricted employee rental units, decreased density, etc. Staff
believes that the proposed increase of 3,296 square feet of GRFA, in addition to the increase
of one dwelling unit, is unacceptable given the subdivision review criteria.
Site Planning lssues - In addition to providing he 10 foot wide road maintenance easement
along the front property line of the two proposed lots, a 20 foot wide drainage sassmsnt
through Lot 1-8, in the location ol an existing drainage way, and a 4,500 square foot and
wetlands easement in the northeast comer of Lot 1-A, Mr. Payne is also proposing to plat
building envelopes on the new lots. Staff has field revieured the proposed locations ot the
building envelopes and believes that some revisions to the proposed locations are necessary.
Specifically, the building envelope lines on lot 1-B should be moved further away from existing
trees in order to assure that future structures do not damage them. The cunent lay-out of the
building envelope for lot 1-A extends farther to the east than would appear necessary. As
curently laid out the building envelope only takss advantiage ol approximately half of the
clearing created by the existing residence. The eastem half of ths building envelope projects
into the wooded area. There are approximately 70 - 75 evergreen trees within this portion of
the building envelope with a 2" caliper or larger. Many of these trees are up to 12" in
diameter. Staff believes that the building snvelope on lot 1-A should not extend into the
wooded area
B. One Primarv/Secondarv and One Sinole Familv Zoned Lot
Under this resubdivision scenario the exlsting Pdmary/Secondary lot would be divided into one
Primary/Secondary lot and one Single Family lot. Again, statf would encourage the applicant
to restrict the GRFA on the lot to a figure as close to the existing GRFA allowance as
possible. The following zoning analysis is provided for the purpose of comparison with the
existing development potential on the property as well as the previous resubdivision scenario.
8
Lol Size
37,771 Eq. tt.
Number ot
Dus Allowed
2 unilsExisling Lol:
tol 1 -A:
Lot 1 -B:
Ioral:
Net lncr€6so: tl.A.
Maximum Ma\imum Garage
GRFA Allowed She Coveraoe CrEdil
6,489 sq. ft. 7,554 sq. fi. 1,200 sq. fi.
25,271 sq. ft. 2 units
12.500 sq. tt. I unit
37,771 q. n. 3 unils
5,627 sq. ft. 5,(F[ sq. ft.
3.125 sq. n. 2.500 sq. ft.
8,752 sq. tt. 7,554 6+ ft.
2,263 sq. lt. +'
1,200 sq. fl.
600 sq. fl.
1,mO sq. fl.
G00 sq. tl.1 unll
' Includes 425 square feel credils.
GRFA and Density lssues - As evident by reviewing the two zoning analysis charts, the only
difference between the two resubdivision scenarios is the amount of the proposed GRFA
increase on the property. The GRFA allocated to lot 1-B is decreased by 1 ,375 square feet
and Lot 1-A GRFA is increased by 342 square feet, for a total decrease ol 1,033 square feet
OI GRFA.
Site Planning lssues - li i_s assumed that the proposed road maintenance easement, drainage
easement, and open space and wetlands easement will be unatfected by this resubdivision
scenario. The advantage of this option is that, because of the smaller building area
requirement of a single family zoned lot (Lot 1-B) the common lot line between lot 1-A and lot
1-B can be shifted
approximately 20 feet to he west, which would in turn allow the building envolopg on lot 1-A
to move to the west and out of the large stand of evergreen trees. This approach uses the
existing building site the most.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Since this is a worksession, no formal stafl recommendation will be given at this time. lf the
PEC's comments seem favorable and the applicant decides to pursue the resubdivision
request, staff would like to see additional information provided in the following areas:
1. The plat should be amended to contain notes explaining the purpose, and
allowed use within, the open space and wetlands easemant. The applicant
should consider extending the open space and wetlands easement as far to the
west as possible in order to assure the continued preservation of the large
stand ol evergreen trees.
2. A lot summary chart should be placed on the plat which specifies the density,
GRFA, site coverage, and any other use restrictions placed on th€ nsw lots.
3. A statement of dedication ol the proposed road maintenance and drainage
easements to the Town should be added to the plat.
4. Building envelopes should be amended to reflect the locations found acceptable
to the PEC and property owner.
c:pec\memos\payne. l 0l
o
o
FINAL PI,AT, A RESUBDIVISION oF toT 1,
OT.VAIL, SAGLE
BLOCK 4, VAIL
COUNTY, COLORADO
VILLAGE THIRD FILING
vrcsl|Tr UAP
UIIF|.ATIED
.|'9.n_.',-
r l.' h.kn
ri.rh o-r - &L.i{-- ri'
-.t
rt bE,- 4kr __.
-*r Isfii-
U PUTIED
s Fz'FJf
i-CO.@
T-Xt.aOL-+120cl|-|| l.'actf I nE dtIAE
R.o.{.)
t.ar2s'af CRCI'l-00 m
l--6J.51
t-1f,.11
lC-42.2O
CB-S 5424'Ja I
ijt::l
4!tr|.aai.F.'.-|'.'d|''||inn.b
II
+sI
n
t^l
i----J-------: --i -
saA.E l'.l0
drs
.a!G-!!{r-
Sf;;L'.'
rg-r_-.',...-...--.-_.^''-.1'o,
dh|"h!.+'
t.-
r. -ni----.-_
8:f:-'1',.^\tl*
1f::$">)
$.t-.,41
-(a- t{o,tr
o
Deurs & MooRE
II25 SEVENTEENTH STREET, SUtrE I2()O, DENVER, COLORADO 8O2CT2.2027
(303) 294-9100 FAx: 603) 299-7901
File: 27441{01{50
13 Se4tcmber 1993
Snowdon and Hopkins
201 Gore Creek Drive
Suite 201 .:
Vail, CO. E165?
Ath: Mr. Craig Snowdon
Re: 381 Beaver Dam Circle Property Wetland Evaluatiou
Vail, Colorado
Dear Mr. Suowdon;
Dames & Moore conducted a wetlands analysis of the above-referenced property in VaiI, C.olorado on
September 7,1993. Wetlands were delineated using U.S. Army C-orps of Engineers ($rps) 1982
guidelines, whereby vegetation, soils, and hydrology data were used to identiff wetlantl conditions.
Foliar cover vas estimated for prominent species at sites coutaining various plant communities to locate
wetland-upland boundaries. Soils and hydrology data were also obtained at each site, and consisted of
te)fture, mineral, organic, color (Ir{unsell color chart), presenc€ of mottles or gleyed conditions, and
presenoe of water on the surface or in the top 12 inches of the soil profiIe.
Resdfs
Two arcss that are considered waters or wetlands of the United States were identified on thc property.
Such areas require a permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act which is administered by the Corps
prior to idredge and fill" activities. A wuland area approximately 0.03 acres @0 x 70 feet) occurs near
the eastenr edge of the property, and is characterized by blue spruce (Picca pungens) with an undersory
of witlow (Salix braclrycapa) and horseail (Equisehat lrynerulis) (See Appendix A, Site l). other plant
species of the site that are obligate to weiland conditions include cow bun (Arypolis fendleri) utd grass-
of-parnassus (Panwssiafinbn'ara). Soils of this site were black (7.5 YR 2.5/0) silts and were sailrated.
No springs or definite seeps ofsurface water, bowever, were observed in this area.
A small stream bisects the property, drrining upslope development to Gore Creek, whic.h occurs north
of the subject property. The streau varies from 18 to U inc,he,s in width and is incised in most arcas to
one foot below the soil surface. Wetland vegetstion is confined in most areas to the banks excePt in
serreral places whore the stream gradient flattens and rroist conditions extend for 12 to 15 feet.
Vegetation along tho creek is dominated by bog birch (Bettda glandulosa), willow (S. braclrycarpa),
horsetait, and thimbleberry (Rubus parvtflorus), which are either obligate or facultative to walud
conditions. Other common species along the stream edge include honeysuckle (Innicera spp.), shrubby
cinquefoil (Potentitlafruticosc), cow bain and green bog orchid (Habenaria saccata).
Other areas of the site support blue spruce forest with an understory primuily of twinflower (Linrum
borealis), Wood's rose (Rosc woodsii), wild strawberry (Fragaia virginiana), bedstraw (Galiwn
septeilrtonole), and elk sedge (C-arex geyerf). Openings in the forest are characterized by a mixture of
wetland and upland species including bog birch, willow, wild strawberry, bedstraw, timothy (Phleum
alpinum), and shrubby cinquefoil.
omcEs cDiu)rvlDE
:..-!I
o
Daurs & Moonr
Snowdon and Ilopkius
13 Septenber 1993
Page2
Tte soils of these sites contained'nti evidence of saturation, having a dark brown Cr.s YR 4/2) narix
without moftles. Thus, because of the number of upland species and lack of soil characteristics, no other
jurisdictional wetlands were delineated on the propedy.
Based on dominant vegetation (willows, bog birch, sedges), wetlands occur on the Gore Creek floodplain
but this area is north of the prcperty boundary.
Conclusions
Riverine wetlalds occur along an uonamed creek that flows across the property to Gore (heek. Tbis
sfream may be relocated to make more efficient use ofthe property. The stream is considered by 494
regulations to be waters of the U.S., and will require 14Q4 permit prior to construction activities that
affect wetlands. Approximately 0.02 acres (125 x 6 feet) of wetlands occur in conjuriction with the
According to infonnation provided by the Corps (Grand Junction.District; Randy Snyder and Mike
Claffey) action that would affect wetlands require eitber a Nationwide or Individual ,()4 Pernil
depending on the amount of wetlands atrected. In this case, since less than one acre would be affected,
and the srean flow is less than 5 CFS, an individual permit would be appropriate for relocating the
stream. Mitigation measure,s, however would need !o be specified to ofBet relocation impacts.
The most effective mitigation measures are to relocat€ wetland soils and associated plant material o
sinilar environments along tbe new steam chumel. The details of reestablishing walands on the site
will need to be provided to the Corps h a letter report requesting clearance through the 404 process.
Thus, if the subdivision is approved bi the Town of Vail, a letter notirying the Corps of the activity,
anount of wetland acreage impacted, ud means to mitigate such impacts will be required. At that time,
if mitigatiou is still deemed necessary, Dames & Moore would be prepared to assist you in preparing such
a leter for Corps review.
Pleaso contact me if you have questions on this submittal,
Sincerely,
t
o t
Ma9 Unir Nomo -/fsrrirr rnc Fhlriu.#--E--- orrlnogc cl:$:
Filltl Obrarrtlr(|r.rt
Confrrq Mropcd Trar? Yct No
Tlttu.c. Conc,.ticnt.g!r.cr$!-!:*.--
s,'/* ' ra-rl,aaLat
Hydric Ssil lndicntorr:
-
Hiato.cl
-
Conctcrionl
- Hi:rlc Epipodon ' ;* Xicrt Oraoai€ ;onlcnt In Serfrco Lryrr in Sir*ty goitl
_ Sultidio Odor _ O.ganic Ett.a!:lnl in 3rndv Sollr
_ Aguic l*loirlutl Rogirnr _ Littcd rn Loc.l Hydric Soih Urr
$ Rrduclng Condldodt _f Llrrod on Notlanal ftydric Soilr Urt .* Gicyod ot Low.Chrlrn! Colgr. .__ O$.r (ExDllin ia R.m€rktt
.:
WETISND DETEFMINATION
Xydrephytic Vogo trtion Frcrnti
Wctlrnd Hydrology Frcranr?
Hyddc Soilr Pr.r66rt
(Clrrld)
lr thil $1a1p;,6t tcinr lVlrhin . Wadrnd
(ChclcJ
Ram|'krt
Itto,$u / arq ha*'j *' //e7, S'7'-,,'tr/'r/,
Yi.f '
)!.:l
;:'. -
'l.-'"'''',
Mat Ur{t l{!mr
(llrfut .l,|Ct ?h.nal: *---*-,#.=! o-t*"-q" c't:1-.
Fiald 'Jbr6rYtttior|'
Mgtlix Color
lul!r-6J-u3iili
-
Hi*torol
_ Hbilc Epiordon
-
Sultldlq Odor
* Aqulc Moittuf t Ra?iin!
-
Rrduclng 6andltlon!
.; Conorrti?nt'* Hioh Orcrnie contlht tn Suclarc Lryrr ln Sandy Soils
- Orilnic Sva,rtlng h slr"dy Sont
- Lit,"l on Lscll Hydtie Soilr Liri
- L,stc.t (,n Natldall HYdric Sollt Litl .
.T sth", (dxPlsin in R€nrsrksl
nd,t*r\':j t#&'A€'z
$TETLANb b€TEf, till NATIO N
Hvdrophytia Voiotodoa t'rtrrrtt
Wr{aad Hydfololv Pr;rrnt?
Hyddo Soib Prusrntl
,.{;D N+ (circt"}r"t'fFf o
il3r no
(Cirel.)
Ir rhlr s,lrnPfin€ P?it:l V\rithin e WcUcnOffi no\=.Y
OATA FORM
ROUTINE WETI.ANO DETERMINATION
(1967 COE Y'retlands Oelineadon ldlnuall
1,1
Proiecy'sire: Ge'g-M?-+- i
Applicant/Ownen *- -,-.--!...*,.rE-tnvestisator: __.-A-:.k#:(IA!-;-L:-{EW.- __
Do Normal Cirdumstancee exlst sn rie sita?. i,f-dt N9
ts the site signllicantly disturbb.d tAiypicat Siiuaticnl? 'Yes(p
ls the area e patentiet Prcblem Area? Yes lio
{lf needed, exi:lein rn r^8verse.l
com,muniry tulfuW
Transect lD"
Ptot lD:
ger,l!cglal.$5.s3si.g-- Elt4eln- - !eg!€ge!
M<3- Il#
rz\ 2 tl l:Ac
Ptaccnt ol Dornin6nt spleic* thrt arc oBL, FA$W or FA6
{.xctuding FAC.t.%
lolrndltcd
S rtstiiod 16 tJtpr, I I hchat
Wliar Ma,kt
Orih Linc,
.q.Ci nrrrt 0ercdtr
-
Drrinrgo Paatoaor in tar.drn63
Soaondrry tn4ictictl l2 oa,nct. .aquirocl:
oridi:ld Fcot c|r.ntr!l! in uppcr l2 heltla
] Waor.$ttinrd Lrrvrr
- * Loeal s.il Su.v.Y Oat
FAC.iJru(frt Tort
ii.lil^'iijrffi.a,
w'rl.nd hydrclogY l..|dlc.tott:
Prirtrary Indicllstr:_ Raaotdad tt(i (Dlt€tibi ln tlimr.ksl:
Stlorfi, Lrka, or 'fior Gnsg.
-
Aedd PhotolaPhe
. Cthct
-{ruo nrEioeu oair Aveilebh
E ld Obrlrvrlicngi
Doptlr of Surfscc Wltot:
Oogih to Frcr td,lslcr in Flr:
OGpth to tr,urc,o4 Soil:
Rrm!.k': Qnwrr{ ;S SFtr'7/ - Srfif
------ -:7fa\,
-CLEARIN6.:_--
\_r
-"-t
t
I
-?'.
F'--
-!.
-..1'.''
9ze'lq
EARI$(t
/Heooe oF PAVEM€NT
t30')
t5P.:,3en6 =J-t0r'l
3':3.|tni
EEE Ltfi€
r,ir.;jj T:,:qi i6.5i-ta-#s
r :: \ : .::
-!-i
I o
6TILITY
ASEMgHT
Ft
/ ogcr<
LOT
ac:
{
EARU{6-
NEW
a0Dtf loN -/"oo
1'*''yt"qqa
;srs;rzlr,nrr--\FCLT \
J coic*sT€ \
r{;*'" -7
/ :\/-
( LIGHr PoLf, / '/7\{a ./7
13 d
g\RCL€
$##
TEtl,g.:tE ff: 3tsi-lr-'i'i t S=i{Yq l'i!-J,5i ff :AT ihgl-te-d3g
;.'.i.?...;j-i.,.;...-.-'.-.:'....--.:Y1J.'j./::{'w''":::'.../".."..?.'/..:...''.i
PAVEMENT
oo
trq4
,4
DE
- 20'
t9/3 /ae
.iPDArE: 9/t/93
{-*.-.. , lrf \,\f ,t *,
,\r
t^ ot *-
r---/r*-cE,ttygfi Liil€ 0r
--'-'t"'fr
us,
.l
TRE€ LtNg
/,.-
tq
t:/.'.v ./.? -/'./
'rut' ,/
8i)
@,''k{
*.:*'ffi, *
f o--/,')
LOT Z
t""-
'oi IT RAIL
FENCg
a)rcor€$
: P.L,S. 1
tIFICAIg
ncLon certlf lcate :::.n::n?:':":"t
/,&m
2.O ptN6
f.,. *-n
fP': d-.'l-,{-r
l.,f, Fif'li.
./,'f,,ll | ./I tl fvl .,"I t\Jt 1.,"
\ \ J''
l.l
t1' Rr.lL
FENC€
Ir>)
td--
i-07
\
'"),o;/ir ! EfliiE cF PAVaMEMT
K.i*--3y9. yflls'
/ iNv EL. :6t39.8
i/
1)
/n:'
.5rNE
rf.Jg,/
:'l
sfn
. cs-
gb
,t//-'-'/ " ,t /ti/i--/l/'/i
F
+'
*
---l'ti3o
-9ss
+g
/3'
:
,,'*
ld.l
ll(+
.J
el
c,'lrl
/'.;/ e\
-\-J
,/
.volr/
/
I
o
tr
trJ
a
lrJ
@
,-"-
$$T
lvt
Ii
itj i
:i-t:#-
[l--]
,"_i F.%-
q$'t'","y|-F_\\t'F{T
iIriil4a!fri\
F\ r'r\\ls\!i.x
v
H
ri
II
I
I
llU
l,
I;ll'tol0/
lo-
I
I
**a
iC-.<l-
st\r
eDv
dnl"**
t6lrffi
'J71e-',l1-tl*H'
-"::{r'130.00lf tl '+.a'tz.t
.€$t .'\
-.
rr
./.2t
//I
a
.EF
j:=E
-rt-.s tFit"-S-Fg5E
"g'
xiVi'\s
f&
,&
r)
a
GI
Ll.l
3t
t
a
tFlFl
ol
ot
sbrl'/u, t
;-re
€
brt-
l)l.
G'
+
a
o
G'p
It
I
II
Itl
t3o.oo =-.-.........tsl
,aructh;ttgT,?, +ff''rrtf<el .ot i
I
ll0l '4!'JE
$sl
,'l\
*#
t-
tl
It-
'ao
F
GI
brt/
at+
a
l!
a
,Gte
a
F
F
a
el
Gtl
'olioa
{
Fz
a?
sllt-gq
ss3
f.=
=.!r&=
fEt'E
/
lJi
.dln'.!ok:Jb
HF-sBS
/E
/€
/*
€,F
-.gS
er''
:+,ssS
d
I
"s"
t30.00'fc.tlTflcl
t)
:Eg i
tu
,it
arr.O
o
'oc
,&
.ol
.t
\)
N
t\
\)I '.
rtt \
l'r
\\
atl
+o
!l
\\i\..,,
3.1
\r t'-l
\' c{'
\trF\ \.zo
.l'
\
Tq{f ", 7*1^, lnl
o
I
I4 r'I II lNs]rw tvt* htwl "
ll. 73; -frers cuet- a/lcq(tpe1
, e4,l1n plF\,gt[ft ,
*iW+k*,
Inl* ",li
qr;
l{,
.kf
t'"'
oJ"
jt {/t
te, ''ta- j rJ6{rl,-
flr
r/
1f,t3. ar
.tei
.4
)t
lr. '?o
,'6
1"I
?'
ac
€
i'rit
(l
6
""j"fi
I' ,"
?D'
{
Ft\S
J
\s
i
iN.'o-
rt\o's\
a
/7
tGc
{o
..J''
ta^$
'lavf t .'A
wvily lv,€. I
,h.\'rlt+t, v
CAROL WOODS SCHMIDT
3901 S. GILPIN
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
WARREN & LAURI MILLER
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vArL, co 81657
t PrTtNa o
ARTHUR A. MORGAN
IRWIN DINER
245 SUMMIT STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43603
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 7
vArL. co 81657
NANCY R. BYERS
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAtL, co 81657
LAWRENCE L. LEVIN
HOLME ROBERTS & OWEN
1700 LINCOLN. #4100
DENVER, CO 80203
(F+Jr + ?oto€
o7&,
EEST
COPY
AVAI*ASI-E
lKU I'EIVEI{ NTUO$
If*q**ftgowen,,-
0wlda
(btot,J,.h gy.r,ss
Danvr,
Enb'll;1va'g
4'r? t..te Ct 't-<udoo
Septeraber 21. 1993
Li-tu/ag
cc9
llhanlc you very nuch for your cooperation.
Very truly yourr,
rrOLllE ROBERIS & OwllN r.r,c/,*-.*f.L:
Eaurence L. Levin
Don and Nancy gyer,s
Lot 9 v6uv ld 002
1700 [in(olr1
guiG {l'1.1
Der($, CO 6020.J
30r 86t.,-c00
Fq 303 Er;0+r00
Lirrr'l'.f L t.vin
r01 866_0 llr
YIA FtGgftfl'rE t-r?9-245e
!rr. ,fin Curnutte
Totrn of Vallcoilmunity Development Departnent
Re; Milgr_.Subdivislon
_Re_queet - I€t !, Block 4lVail Vitlagc Thlrd Firing/3er nio-r*.l.Dglr clrcleDear !,tr. Curqutte;
I an rr_i:ting to -cnnfi_rrn_ that our fir:u !s6s p6311
;il$'flEf; ."otufff i11 *$ stii" -Jr
.s sz Beave-i-o-.*' cr ror.,ureii-i-ritJi*-"ii""i1ro':H":xf t5;"l"rfn"iffi """L-rrL:r"*ff ::subd.ivision r€quest. i
Bccauee lcertai?_of go, cliants clthet do not livetull. tiue in vai1 , or travel Lxllnsivery, I request thatyou include he as en addreeecc to rocrive aff pubficnotice€ whtch
"":.. p3ii.d-;ifi';;_pe9t c.o pubric--rrear:inssil*E3ll" " !l" iuJ,l-li- + l.' tlT;'a' i,, i'.- =,,uaiv i s i o n
+yg!a.-ui;;,*;1'h'.ir1li."^ri!"iffll.:::"1"r"""""11+*:".tirmpact starenent .I_ngo*rt_.d 1-f, tn" v;-ii plliijls andEnvlronnehtal conrnission, r rouia apprcciate-iJui*carringne at the above
-air^eci ii;: .Fffi. nunber, sd tnat r canarrange to plck np aopies ot ti,em.-
Finallv f .1* oonfir:aing ilraL the.re will be nohearing on rhe'".priooJ'-r.;il::i, on sepreuber az, tee3,ilu""tl"1..JTi,".rE"il,{-'pL,lilT"pLri"niirini*oiilwouri
Jo- crc'r"d-rcl tc oc\6acrrl- {-t:h$rc,ofcor Jt s.t-a/aa/qs Jl\
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERW
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 October 11, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. In
consideration of:
1. A request to relocats the helipad to the east end ol the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between Vail Village 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 righfof-way.
2.
3.
4.
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:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planners:
Vail Valley Medical Center
Andy Knudtsen
Mountain Haus Condominium Association
Shelly Mello
Paula May
Shelly Mello
Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
Loan
Shelly Mello
Margretta B. Parks
Mike Mollica
A request for a fence height variance to allow lor a fence to be constructed around a
swimming pool at the May Residence located at 1119 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 6, and the
east 1/2 of Lot 5, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
A request lor 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.
q A request for a major exterior alteration in CCl, lor an addition to the Cyranos Building,
located at 298 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot C, Block 2, Vail Village 1st Filing.
6. A request for a worksession to discuss the establishment of an SDD to allow the
redevelopment of the Comice 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'B" and a part of Mill Creek Road, Vail Village, First Filing, County of Eagle, State of
Golorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing al lhe Northeast corner of Vail Mllage, First Filing; thence North 79%6'00" West along the
Southerly line of U.S. Highway No. 6 a distance of 367.06 feet to the Northeasl corner of said Tract "B';
thence South 10'14'00" West along the Easterly line of said Tract '8"; a distance of 198.31 feet to the
Southeasterly corner of said Tract "8"; thence Nonh 79"46'00" West along the Southerly line of said Tract
"8" a distance of 100.00 feel to the true point of beginning thence North 09"10'0/' West a distance ot 41.67
feet; thence South 88'27'11' West a distance ot 75.2'l teel; thence South 27o13'37" East a dislance of
77.37 teeti thence North 57.24'00" East a distance of 55.11 feet, more or less to the true point of beginning.
A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/381 Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicanl:
Planner:
Applicants:
Planner:
David Smith
Jim Curnutte
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte
Timothy Drisko
Andy Knudtsen
Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen
Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
Inc./G PH Partners, Ltd.iMargaritaville, Inc.
Mike Mollica
8.
9.
10.
A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, VailVillage 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
A request for approval of the Cemetery'Master Plan and Report, for the Town of Vail
Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park.
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 RoadiLots A, B, C,
Block 2 and Tract E, Vail Village lst Filing.
O nrcu.srp a 7 rg:
Snowdon and Hopkins o Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado
September 21 , 1993
303 476-2201
81657
Enclos
Bl ockwith ohis pr
exi st i
mately
Circle
2900 s
pr0per
underd
garage
f t. th
s u bd i vhis n
proper
obta in
since
northe
Mr. Jim Curnutte - Planner
Town of Va i I Pl ann'i ng DepartmentVajl, C0 81657
Jim -
ed is a revised application for a minor subdivis'i on of Lot 1,4, Vail Vil lage Third Filing (381 Beaver Dam Circle). Asur original appi ication, Mr. Leo Payne wishes to subdivideoperty into two lots of pri mary/secondary (P/S) zoning. Theng lot with 37,770 sq. ft. of area stretches for approxi-375' feet along the north and west side of Beaver Dam. The existing residence (single famjly) of approximatelyq. ft. (without garages) sits on the center portion of thety. As the present situation exists, thjs property is veryeveloped. t.lith a potential of 8188 sq. ft. available (GRFA,
and EHU credits) the existing residence has over 5000 sq.at could be added. In l ieu of that, the owner would prefer
i di ng the property and creati ng resi dences more i n scal e with
eighbori ng properties. The majority of the adjacentti es are smal I er and have gone through redevel opment totheir maximum potential. Mr. Payne has owned this propertythe late sjxties, and he intends to keep the newly createdrn Lot (1A) in his and his famjly's ovvnership,
At the 8/23/93 PEC worksession on this matter, both lots w'i ll have
a'l 0'roadway majntenance and drainage easement along the front lot
As with the previous appl ication (7/26/93), Mr. Payne wishes tocreate 2 P/S zoned lots which would meet the development criteria(Sections 18.13.050); as well as all other aspects of the
Primary/Secondary Resident'i al District (Chapter 18.13). In theprevious appl icatjon, Eagle Val ley Surveying had computed those
areas ot 40% slope 0r greater (a majori ty of which are man-made dueto the constructi on of the ex isti ng resi dence ) and removed that
area from al l calcul ations prior to the creatjon of new propertylines. Based on those calculations, the newly created Lot 1B (391
Beaver Dam Circle) is 15,930 sq. ft. and Lot 1A (maintaining theexisting 381 Beaver Dam Circle address) is 21,840 sq. ft.; both
complying with Section 18.13.050.
line (as requesLed by the T.0.V Department of Publ i c l{orks ) aswell as a 20'wide drainage (for existing water course) easement.In addition, the owner is proposing a new open space and wetlands
easement on the eastern 105' of Lot 1A to ensure the preservationof trees (of concern by adjacent property owners ) and on-site wet-lands (noted in the Dames & lvloore report dated 9/13/93). This is
an area of over 4500 sq. ft. being dedicated to open space withinthe Town of Vail, and should give the adjacent property ovfners some
assurance of Mr. Payne's concerted efforts to achieve an environ-
mental ly conscj ous proposal.
lle prevjously agreed that the existing residence will have to be
removed, prior to any sign-off on the plat by the Town of Vaii, andthe building envelopes will be staked prior to the next PEC review.
An added measure of consideration (and at the request of the PEC),building envelopes have been established on both proposed lots.
These envelopes rvi 11 agai n gi ve some assurances that the exi sti ngsjte conditions w'i ll be preserved as much as is possible in respectto existing tree growth. As with any proposal, some trees v.tjll belost (as would be the case should the owner pursue allowable
development of hjs remaining 5000 sq. ft. of building). It js our
hope that these additional measures will have meri t in the town'seyes. The neighbors, I am sure, have grown used to seeing a large
underdeveloped property as an extension of open space and that isnot the case. Any c,levelopment wi I I have an impact on the adjacentproperty orvners i n th at context.
Additional restrictjons the ov,/ner is wjlling to place on the newiycreated Lot 1B are the limjted use of the secondary unit as adesignated Employee Housing unit (EHU) Type II as defined jn the
Town of Vai I 0rdi nance No. 9 (1992 Series ), and that the develop-able GRFA of Lot 1B be ljmited to 4500 sq. ft. of living space and
900 sq. ft. of garage. This lvould be a net savings of over 600 sq.ft. of potential development. The northern Lot (1A) would have norestrjctjons placed on its development criteria. This further
enhances the property's compatibi lity with adjacent lots.
This project may have what some consider "significant" impact onthe development jn the Town cf Vail, I yrill try and respond to thestaffs' concern as this subdivision re'l ates to "environmental'i mpacts. " As noted i n Chapter 18.56 "Environmental ImpactReports", the purpose of a report or analysis is to ensure thatproper thought has been given to private or publ ic developmentwithjn the Town of Vai1. That a proposal has provided adequateinformation for review, has merit, insures iong-term protectiorr ofthe environment, avoidance of geologic hazard areas, and ensuresthe quality of surface anci ground water with'i n the Town of Vail.
As the following data shows, al1 of these factors are consjcjeredand provided for to ensure its compatibility r^,ith adjacentproperties and the des'i res of the Town of Vai l.
As for its applicability, this proposal does not "significantly"change the envjronment in the categories A-0 as listed jn
18.56.020; however, the proposal does remove existing trees (item
C ) as part of the proposal . The exi st'i ng drai nage course i s a
manipulated water course (not natural ) whjch is djverted approxi-
mate'l y 400 feet from the east along a drainage swale on the south
s'i de of Beaver Dam Circle and di verted through a cul vert to the
proposal property. At that poi nt, it drops through the property to
the large meadovl area below the property. hie are establ ishing a
drai nage easement (whi ch at present does not exjst ) and sti I I
allowing the water to empty into the existing meadow. The loss of
trees are minima1 (and some loss on Lot 1A would occur with the
construction of an al lowable secondary or pri mary unit ) and
comparable replacement could be achieved on the proposed Lot 18.
Per Sect i on 18. 56 . C40,
responded to:
bhe fol lowi ng cateqor.i es need to be
1. Hydrologic Condjtjons2. Atmospheric Conditjons3. Geologic Conditions4. Biotic Conditions5. 0ther Environmental Conditions6. Visual Conditions7. Land Use Conditions8. Circulation and Transportation Conditions9. Population Characteristics
The Hydrol ogi c and Bi oti c Cond'i t ions are analyzed in the l etter
(attached) from Dames & Moore as noted, dated 9/13/93. As n6ted,
the one wetlands area is be'i ng preserved via a wet'l ands/open space
easement at the eastern corner of the property. The exi sti ng
drainage area is preserved and wetlands soils and vegetatjonpresently located along its banks are protected by the
establishment of the new drainage easement. All other biot'i c
conditions remain the same and existing fir tree growth on all
s ides of the property wi 1l be ma intaj ned by the establ j shment of
building envelopes.
The Atmospheri c Conditions rli I I actual ly be improved by the
replacement of 2 exjsting wood burning fireplaces by gas units aspresently requ ireC under new ordi nances establ i shed by the To'un of
VaiI since the present buildings construction in the late sixties.
Both properties wi I I be required to conply with the new ordinances
as the existing residence js to be removed from the site.
The Geologic CondiLions will be improved by the probable removal of
some 4Ay. slope conditions wh'i ch !iere created t'rhen the present
residence rvas constructed. hith the removal of the residence'
grad'i ng can be returned to its pre-construction conditions (more
su'i table to today's Torvn standards). There presently do not exist
any hazards (flood p1ain, avalanche or debri s flow) on or adjacentto the site and those conditions wi I I remain unchanged.
This proposal is consistent with area zoning so there are no
anti cipated nojse or odor characteristics (odor is improved byelimination of wood burning fireplaces) impacts.
Visual conditions are modified by the loss of some trees on bothLots 1A and 1B; holever, with the establishment of an open
space/wet'l ands easement, drainage easement and building envelopes,this minimizes the loss, and actual ly provjdes some assurances thata majority of the existing tree growth wi ll be maintained andbuffers establ ished.
Land use conditions are najntained by use of zoning P/S lrh'i ch isexisting 0n adjacent properties. The limitations established onLot 1[j a'l so provide assurances that architectural scale comparableto adjacent propert ies i s mai ntaj ned.
Circulation and transportatjon Condit'ions virtually remainunchanged. The increase in density'i s .01X based on the addjtionof l residence with EHU to an area of 186 residences (93 duplexes)
served by Forest and Beaver Dam Roads. l/ith trip generation on aresjdential level of 3-4 trips/ttay/unit, (average) the impacis are
min'i mal. The likelihood that these residences are part-time owners(except EHU) the impact is even less.
Popu l ati on Characteri sti cs arepercentages t.01% jncrease) andpatterns. The establ j shment of ahousing conditions jn the va'l 1eypresenrly does not ex'i st.
similar to the above mentioned
have no impact on neighborhoodpotential EHU improves long term
and provi des EHU hous i ng uhere it
In summary, the impacts are mj nimal ncontributing to the long-range planningVail goals and master p1ans.
whjle establishing and
encouraged by the Town of
The question has been raised over the concern that if this Proposalis approved, hotrr many others w j I I be knocking at the door. How
many of those others (if any) have the access, shape and topographyto acc0mmodate such a i^equest? I vrould think few have su'i tablecharacteristics or can offer the Tovrn of VaiI the benefits andmerits of this Proposal. I would hope the Town staff, Planning
Board and Town Counci I appreciate the uniqueness of this Proposal
and allow the subdivision to happen.
If you have questions or need additional information as it pertainsto this Proposal, please let me know.
Sincereiy,
Snowdon
and Hopki ns ArchitectsSnowdon
o
.et
-.-""'*n'-
c'.--ffh$,H5
Wetla"tl
t. :-, ,-:-11
I
Mt9 Unit Homc
lSrrirl end Phrrl:
Fitld O!ttr"ra$6n!
€onfrFl [4$prd Tt?a] Ycr No
Mrtrii Color Modr Coiorr Mottlc T!xlufo. Canarrtionf.
q.!u_.tlttl U-oj6Jl- (MbnrjllJ4ilEll* $9'i{rn,t!rcoff_r.jj :!_i!EUI!".!:s.'*_
-
Hitlolol
_ Hirrlc Epipodon
-
Sullidig OieT
_ Aquic Mcittutr nsgima
!: R.dtrclng CcnClilonr
J: Glay.C ot Low.Shromr Cglerr
_ Qoncrodonr
-- Xieit Otasnic ;ontant ln Sgrloqa Lryrr in Sindy Soils
_ Orgoflc Strc.t:lnl in Sandv Ssilr
_ Lirted nn L!c{l Hydri6 $oilc U.tr
J LlrrcC ar'! l.l!d{rn6l Hydtic Soitr Ust .
.-__. Ottrar tExploin in Rrmtrksl
WETI.AND DETERMINATION
Hydrephyaic Vog.t.tisn Prornl|
Wad.nd HVd?6lagy Frcrcnr?
HyC,ls g6ilr Pftr.dt?ffi:''o''''ls thir Sarrp[ng P6int Wirhin 6 W.tlrnd
{6irclcl
Ramcrke:r4'*7f a* ha"**/ "^{ry,S*7;,/,!/A
Ft["8
A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit
28, Tract B, Bighorn Townhomes/4718 Meadow Drive.
f;fiPY
4
5.
Applicanl:
Planner:
Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie Mork
Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Dalton Wifliams made a motion to table this item until September 27, 1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item untll September 27,1993.
A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block 9, Vail Intermountain/2854 Snowberry Drive.
Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary Ball
JiM CUTNUIIC TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27,1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27,1993.
6.A request for a minor subdivision fo
-
Applicant:
Planner:
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27,1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27,1993.
A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the Todger Anderson residence
located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge 4thFilingl1775 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner;
Applicant:
Planner:
Leo Payne
Jim Curnutte TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27,1993
7.
8.
Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item until September 27, 1993 with Jeff
Bowen seconding this motion. A 7-0 vote tabled this item until September 27,1993.
A request for an amendment to SDD #4, Area D, lo allow an expansion to the Glen
Lyon Office Building located at 1000 South Frontage Road WesVLot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar
Associates
Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
Loan
Shelly Mello TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1993
Plannlng and Envlronmentat commisslon
September 13, 1993 14
Oel/tr\l
ARTHUR A. MORGAH
]RWIN DINEH
2/+5 SUMMIT STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43603
vAlL ASS@|ATES, tNC.
P.O. BOX 7
vAtL, co 81657
CAROL WOODS SCHMIDT
3901 S. GILPIN
ENGIEWOOD, CO 80110
WARREN & I-AURI MILLER
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAlL, @ 81657
NANCY R, BYERS
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAtL, co 81657
o
*,
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
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 September 27, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
In consideration of:
1. A request for a conditional use to allow a cemetery in an Agricultural Open Space zone
district and a request for a variance from the paving standards to allow a gravel road
to be constructed in the Town of Vail Gemetery located in the upper bench of Donovan
Park.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request for a minor subdivision, a request for a rezoning from Agriculture Open.
Space to Greenbelt Natural Open Space and Low Density Multi-Family and a request
for a variance to allow parking in the front setback 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 Vail Housing AuthorityPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for approval of the Cemetery Report, for the Town of Vail Cemetery to be
constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park.
Applicant: Town of VailPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
4. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an addition to Unit
28, Tract B, Bighom Townhomes/4718 Msadow Drive.
Applicant: Jerald and Mary Lou Kocak and John and Julie MorkPlanner: Jim Curnutte
5. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block 9, Vail Intermountain/28s4 Snowberry Drive.
Applicant Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary BallPlanner: Jim Curnutte
A requesl for a minor subdivision for Lot 1, Block 4, Vail Village 3rd Filing/38l Beaver
Dam Circle.
Applicant: Leo PaynePlanner: Jim Curnutte
7. A review of a request to lift a deed restriction for the Todger Anderson residence
located at Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Lionsridge 4lh Filingl1775 Sandstone Drive.
Applicant: Todger Anderson, represented by Tom Braun, Peter Jamar
AssociatesPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
8. 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 WesULot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet Federal Savings and
LoanPlanner: Shelly Mello
9. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, VailVillage 1st Filing/325 Forest Road.
ApplicanL Timothy DriskoPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
10. 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, First Filing, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Cohrado, more particulatly
described as follows:
Commencing at lhe Northeast corner of said Tract B; thence N 79'46'00' W along lhe North€rly line of Vail
Mllage, First Filing, and abng lhe Northerly line of said Tracl B 622.86 feet; thence S 06"26'52'W a
dislance of 348.83 feet to the Southwest corner of thal parcel of land described in Book 191 at Page 139 as
recorded January 10, 1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle County Records, said corner also
being the True Point of Beginning; thence S 79'04'08' E and along the southerly line of said parcel 200.00
feet to the Southeasl corner thereof; thence N 62'52'00" E and along the Northerly line of lhat parcel of land
described in Bod< 222 at Page 513 as recorded in 1 971 in the Eagle Coumy Records, a dislance ot 66.78
feet to the Northeasterly corner of said parcel of land; said corn€r being on the Westerly righlof-way line of
Gore Creek Road, as platled in Vail Village, Fifth Filing; th€nc€ N 27'13'37 W a dislance ot 77.37 leet
along said Westerly right-of-way line of Gore Creek Road; thence N 89'29'22'W a distancs of 12.80 feet lo
th6 Northeasterly corner of that parcel of land descdbed in Book 191, Page 139 as recorded January 10,
1966 and filed in Reception No. 102978 in the Eagle Cornty Records; thence Northwestedy 26.51 feet along
the arc of a 37.50 feet radius cu.ve to the left having a central angle of 40o30'00' whose chod 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 tar€ent
166.44 f€el; thenc€ N 85'1 0'21" W a distance of 50.40 feet lo the Northwestorly corner of the Mountain
Haus Parcel; thence S 02"1S'00'W and along the easterly line of said Mounlain Haus Parcel a distance of
100.00 feot to lhe Southeaslerly corner thereof; thence S 45"13'53' E a distance of 38.70 feet 10 the True
Point of Beginnirg, co aining 30,486 square feet, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Athletic ClubPlanner: Shelly Mello
.E+.
CAROL WOODS SCHMIDT
3901 S. GILPIN
ENGLEWOOD, CO 80110
WAHREN & I-AURI MILLER
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAlL, co 81657
ARTHUR A. MORGAN
IRWIN DINER
245 SUMMIT STREET
TOLEDO, OH 43603
VAIL ASSOCIATES, INC.
P.O. BOX 7
vAtL, co 81657
NANCY R. BYERS
352 BEAVER DAM CIRCLE
vAtL, co 8t657
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
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 September 13, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
ln consideration of:
1. 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 WesULot 45, Block K, Glen
Lyon Subdivision.
Applicant: Paul M. DeBoer, representing Calumet FederalSavings and
LoanPlanner: Shelly Mello
2. 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
Conidor No. 1 for the Golden Peak House, 278 Hanson Ranch Roadlots A, B, C,
Block 2 and Tract E, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicants: Golden Peak House Condominium Assoc.A/ail Associates,
Inc,/GPH Partners, Ltd./Margaritaville, lnc.Planner: Mike Mollica
3. A request for a density variance and a setback variance to allow for an expansion to a
residence located at Lot 198, Block g, Vail Intermountainl2Sl4 Snowberry Drive.
Applicant: Millie Hammer, Chris and Mary BallPlanner: Jim Curnutte
4. A request for setback and site coverage variances to allow for a new residence on Lot
18, Block 7, Vail Village 1st Filing/S25 Forest Road.
Applicant Timothy DriskoPlanner: Andy Knudlsen
5. A request for a minor subdivision, a request {or variances for wall heights, construction
in an area with slopes in excess of 4O% and parking in the front setback and an
amendment to lhe approved development plan for the for the Briar Patch development
located at 1398 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot F, Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
Applicant: Briar Patch CondominiumsPlanner: Shelly Mello
I