HomeMy WebLinkAboutVAIL VILLAGE FILING 1 BLOCK 6 LOT 9 44 WILLOW PLACE LEGAL AGREEMENTS LEGALo
De sign Review Action Form
TOWNOFVAIL
Project Name: Alfond remodel
Project Description: Add two windows, interior conversion
Owner, Address and Phone: Ted Alfond
One Chestnut, Weton, MA 02193
ArchitecVContact, Address and Phone: Peak Builders
285 Bridge Street, Vail
476-3220
Project Street Addess: 44 Willow Place #3
Legal Description: Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village lst
Parcel Number: 210l-682-l&005 Building Name: 44 Willows Place
Comments:
Motion by: nh
Seconded by:
Vote:
Conditions:
Town Planner: Christie Barton
Date: 6116198
Board i Staff Action
Action: StaffApproval
F:\EVERYONE\DRB\APPRoVA L98\ALFOND.6 I 6
DRB Fee Pre-Paid: $50.00
qr.rtionr'Oll ilic Pli:. :irrng Stli. l' r:: 4 7!)-l i 2ii
APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW APPROVAL
,^tto
?F5q5'"
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST:F gaILDilr
pp LL/O o E/+97
B.
pHysTcALADDRESS: qq L,//LloLu pLnCE #3
?tor - 6Xr'Li'oof (Contact Eaglc Co. Assessors Officc at 970-328-8640 for parcel #)C.
D.
E.
PARCEL #:
ZONING:
TOWN OFVAIL
CENERAL INFORMATION
This application is for any projcct rcquiring Design Rcvicrv approval. Any projcct rcquiring dcsign rcvicrv ntust
rcccivc Dcsign Rcvicw approval prior to submitting for a building pcrmit. For spccific information, scc thc subrnittal
rcquircnrcuts for thc particular approval that is requested. Thc application cannot be acceptcd until all thc requircd
infornration is submittcd. Thc projcct may also nccd to bc rcvicrvcd by thc Torvn Council and/or thc Planning and
Environnrcntal Conrrnission. Dcsign Rcvicw Board approval cxpircs onc ycar aftcr final approval unless a
building permit is issued and construction is startcd.
NAME OF OWNER(S):
MAILING ADDREi}: ONE Clf E9f/v/'rT t'{EfoNl /WA OAI?}
l-1n4r,t PHONE:
F.
\J.
O\M\ER(S) SIGNATURE(S):
NAME OF APPLICANT:
MAILING ADDRESS:
H.TYPE OF REVIEW AND FEE:
E Ncrv Construction - $200
( Addition -$50
$20$6r,no. Altcration -
klLOF,
Construction ofa nerv building.
Includcs any addition rvhcrc squarc footagc is addcd to any rcsidcntial or
comrncrcial building.
Includcs nrinor changes to buildings and site improvenrents, such as,
rcroofing. painting, windorv additions, landscaping, fenccs and retaining
walls. ctc.
DRBfccsarctobcpaidatthctimcofsubnrittal. Latcr.rvhcnapplyingforabuildingpennit.plcascidentify
thc accuratc valuation ofthc project. ThcTownof Vail rvill adjust the fcc according to the projcct valuation.
PLEASE SUBMIT THIS APPLICATTON, ALL SUBIVTITTAL REQUIREII{ENTS AND THE FEE TO THE
DEPARTIVIENT OF CONIMUNITY DEVELOPIVIENT. T5 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD,
VAIL, COLORADO 8I657.
o
EUILDI}IOMATERIAI.,S:
LIST OF PROPOSED MATERIALS
TYPE OF MATERIAL:COLOR:*
Roof
Siding
Othcr Wall Materials
Fascia
Sof'tits
Windows
Window Trinr
Doors
Door Trinr
Haud or Dcck Rails
Flucs
Flaslrings
Chirnncys
Trash Enclosurcs
Grecnhouscs
Rctaining Walls
Exterior Lighting**
Other
eKtsf/rG
/vt Afcll €Xlt Tl P6
* Pleasc specify thc ntanufacturer's color, number and attach a srnall color chip
** All cxtcrior lighting must meet the Town's Lighting Ordinance 18.54.050(J). If exterior lighting is proposed,
plcasc indicate thc nurnbcr offixhrcs and locations on a separatc lighting plan. Identif, each fixhre type urd provide
the height above grade, lunrens output. luminous area. and attach a cut sheet ofthe lighting fixhues'
Updated 6/97
- ----'
-_.>--..-.'
l
'"----_ -'- ,.,:'' -
i...- . . 1"1 . ...-., i . . .
UN
N ed N/PDowJ
rER
:i;\'.:
FrLPc ,,p,t
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 -479-2 1 3 I / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303.-479-2452
October 12. 1994
De partnent of Community Deve lopment
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Jay:
Now that the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) has approved the three
employee housing units at the 44 Willow Place project, please complete the three deed
restrictions. I have enclosed a set of restrictions for each unit. Please complete them and
return them to me as soon as possible. Thank you.
Sincerely,
/*tr6-qAndy Knudfxin
Senior Plannbr
O T![.E COPY
2. A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be located
at
Applicant Jay Peterson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approve the request for a conditional use permit to allow
for three employee housing units per the staff memo with Dalton Williams seconding
the motion. A 6-0 vote approved this request.
3. A request for a setback variance to allow for GRFA to be located in the front setback
for a proposed structure al2840 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 4, Block 9, Vail
lntermountain.
Applicant Daniel Frederick
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made a presentation per the statf memo. He stated that staff was
recommending approval of this request with the six conditions outlined on Pages 4 and
5 of the stalf memo.
Kathy Langenwalter inquired about the proposed two-story structure which was located
within 4 leet of the property line.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the DHB had approved the separation request tor the 24
foot tall garage since it complied with all zoning slandards.
Kathy Langenwalter felt that the Zoning Code did not intend for such two'story
structures to be located this close to ths property line given the slope of the site.
Dalton Williams did not feel it was appropriate to locate a24 toot high structure within
4 feet of the front setback. He also felt that the 17 foot high retaining wall was
excessive.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she opposed this request because it did not conform
with her interpretation of the intent of the Zoning Code.
Andy Knudtsen stated that the PEC should make a determination concerning the
location of GRFA in the front setback and that interpretations of the Zoning Code could
be done later.
Dalton Williams stated that the intent of the Zoning Code was to allow for a minimally-
sized garage in the front setback. He believed that a significant change to a project
that had received PEC approval should be required to come back through the PEG.
Conceming the GRFA in the front setback, he stated that he was not familiar with any
sites in Town that have been allowed to have GRFA located above the garage.
Phnning and Environmentrl Commission Minutes
Odob€r r0. 1994
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
. MET'ORANDUM
Planning and Environmential Commission
Community Development Department
_D
Applicant:
Planner:
Jay Peterson
Andy Knudtsen
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
The applicant, Jay Peterson, is proposing to locate three Type lll employee housing units
within the structure under construction at 44 Willow Place. On December 13, 1993, the
Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved setback variances for the project
under construction at this site. ln addition to the setback variances, the applicant had
requested a variance for density to allow additional GRFA to be used for employee housing.
This request was denied and instead, the PEC encouraged the applicant to amend the Zoning
Code to allow developers to use common area for employee housing. On September 16,
1994, the Town Councilapproved on second reading Ordinance No. 17, Series of 1994. This
ordinance amended the Zoning Code to allow developers to use up to 60% of the allowed
common area in a multi{amily project as floor arealor employee housing. This uso, however,
must first be approved as a conditional use. Now that that Code change has been completed,
the applicant is requesting conditional use approval of three Type lll employee housing units
to be located within the project.
,ol( 4?4
october 10, 1994 19.'A
A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be
located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Lot Size: 0.29 acres or 12,632.4 square feet
Zoning: High Density Multi-Family
Allowed/Reouired Prooosed
Site Coverage: 6,947 sq. ft. or 55% 4,678 sq. ft. or 37"h
Density:
DwelfingUnits: 7 3+1.5DU's=4.5GRFA: 7,579 sq. ft. 7,531 sq. ft. free market
Common Area: 35% of allowed GRFA 361.0 sq. ft. mechanical
or 2,652 sq. ft. 1.213.0 sq. fi. EHU's
1,574.0 sq. ft.
Building Setbacks: 20 ft. on all sides '10 ft. north
20 ft. south
10 ft. east
Deck Setbacks: 15 ft. for deck 5 ft. north
5 ft. above grade 10 ft. east
Parking: 11 spaces 9 garage spaces
75olo enclosed or 9 spaces 6 unenclosed surface = 15 spaces
Height: 48 feet 44 teet
Landscaping: 3,789 sq, ft, or 30% 4,725 sq. ft. minimum or 37.S/o
Floor Area for EHU's: 60% of 2,652 sq. ft. 1,213 sq. ft.
or 1,591.2 sq. ft.
III. CRITEFIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and Impact ot the use on development oblectlves of
the Town.
Stafl believes that the proposed request is consistent with the development
objectives of the Town. The Town encourages employee housing units to be
dispersed throughout the community. The goals and policies of the Land Use
Plan support employee housing, as shown in the goals listed below:
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made availabte through'private etforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the
Town of Vail, with appropriate restrictions.
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additionalemployee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sites throughout the community.
2. The eftect of the use on light and air, distrlbution of pgpulatlon,
transportailon facilltles, utllltles, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and othsr public facilitaes needs.
Stafl believes that there will be no negative impact from the use of the floor
area as employee housing on the issues referenced above.
3. Effect upon trafflc wlth paillcular reterence to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, tlaffic flow and
control, accglss, maneuvgrability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking argas.
The original project was designed to accommodate all parking requirements for
the three townhouses as well as the three employee housing units. Staff' believes that there will not be a negative impact from the proposal on the
criteria listed above.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is
to be located, includlng the scale and bulk of the proposed use an
relation to sunounding uses.
The architectural character of the project under construction has been carefully
evaluated by the PEC as well as the Design Review Board (DRB). The project
has been approved with common area located on the first floor. lf this request
is approved, the common area will be converted to employee housing. As the
space has already been included in the prolect, there will be no change to the
scale and bulk of the building.
B. Findinqs
The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino findinos before
orantino a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section ol the zoning code and the purposes of
the district in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained would not be detrimentalto the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
tv. srAFF RECOMMENPATTON
Staff recommends approval of the request as we believe it meets the criteria as discussed
above. Staff also believes that it meets the findings. Specifically, statf believes that Finding 1
is met in that the application is in accordance with the purposes of the zone district. The zone
district is High Density MultFFamily. Multiple Family Dwellings in this zone district are
consistent with the puFose as called out in Section 18.20.010. Staff believes that Finding 2 is
met as there will be no negative impacts to public health, safety or welfare. Finding 3 is met,
as the proposal meeb the zoning standards or in some cases, variances to setback
requiremenls have been approved. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the request
without. any conditions.
q\pecvnemos\isyl0. 10
$
o
i
q
N\\T
Ll
-qis
l;t
r!{i l,.
)ir.
.ill
-qtt
;
)Q.,.tvt
'il|J
rt't
\t,
t'
I
I
I
L
$\
Jo itu2 I?G.
$[i
P3'
$E
t>
\
\
#
'r!!i!!. 'lr: \rl
' iiltia
/*a \
/ ,sv'u
\
l
\ - 1rr'!" lr J*!.
1.
I
ADDENDT'M
This application_ig__for tlree enployee housing units (trEIIUre'r) tobe located at 44 willow place. rne lnree unltl will bi locateh inthe area marked as common area in units 1, 2 and 3. The units willbe Type fII EHU,s as defined in Chapter tB.OZ.060.
a. The ElfU's to be provided are in furtherance of the Town ofVail Land Use Plan and the purpose section of Chapter 18.57.
b. The three units will be located in the Village area of the
Town which allows employees living there to walk to workwithout the need for bus service or the use of the Town ofVail parking facilities. Because of the size, a single personor at most a couple will occupy the units and thereforeeducational facilities will not be affected.
c. Enclosed parking is provided for each unit with direct accessonto vail Road or WiLlow Road.
d. Scale and bulk of the project will not change because theEHU's are being located in existing common areas. Thecharacter of the area wiII not be affected except in apositive way by bringing local employees back to the Viltage
area.
A site plan is on file.
Building elevations and floor plans are on fiLe.
A title report is attached.
The building is not condoniniunized at this tine.
tr0y.MM.muaP[
2.
3.
4.
5.
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. Bishop Park Condorniniurn Association
63 Wil-low Place
Vail, Colorado 8L657
Lots 1 and 2, Block 6, VaiI Village First
, t/<t:-ab€Ih*
2. €€€iige Websterc/o Boston Harbor Trust Co., N'A'
40 Rowes Wharf, Suite 500
Boston, Massachusetts 0211'0
3. The Willows Condominiurn Association
Box 759Vail, CO 81558
lc/'r lq3 -
lr faoles-
Elftlaa'
S.Lnt oif .q
SI-Yf *g-.f?l
sLn_ a$(i)itu
t\t\
ttJt t 1 re3{
crc-\l
a+iq"
T7V .|;},ifit\4,
0[y. Dcpt
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of lhe Town of
Vail will hold a public hearing in accordance with Seclion 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town ol Vail on September 12,1994, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
ln consideralion of:
1. A request for a Special Development District to allow for the redevelopment and
expansion of the L'Ostello Lodge located at 705 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 2,
Vail/Lionshead 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Alien, Inc.
Planner: Randy Stouder
2. A request for a side setback variance lo allow for a new residence to be located at
1788 Alpine Drive/Lot 1 1, Vail Village West 1st Filing.
Applicant: Thomas Theys
Planner: Jim Curnutte
3. A request for a major amendment to the Glen Lyon SDD to allow for a revision to the
master plan to allow for the expansion ot the Glen Lyon Office Building located at 1000
South Frontage Road WesUArea D, Glen Lyon SDD.
Applicanl: Pierce, Segerberg and AssociatesPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
A request for a conditional use to allow for three employee housing units to be located
at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Jay PetersonPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
5. A request for a setback variance and an amendment to a previously approved plan lo
af f ow for four duplexes to be constructed at 1 894 Lionsridge Loop/Lot 27 , Block 2,
Lionsridge 3rd Filing.
Applicant: SteveGensleriParkwood Realty
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
6. Discussion of Vail Commons.
Fil-E coP r
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
303-479-2 I 38 / 479-2 I 39
FAX 303-479-2452
June 29, 1994
D e parttnent of Comnuniry D eve lopme nt
Mr. Jay Peterson
Vail National Bank Building
108 South Frontage Road
Vail. CO 81657
RE: Employee housing units at 44 Willow Place
Dear Jay:
As we discussed on the telephone, the employee housing units at 44 Willow Place will be
required to be deed restricted. The deed restrictions must be signed and completed prior to
issuance of any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy (TCO) for three units on the site. The
deed restrictions to be used for these units are those that have been in effect since
approximately September of 1991 through July of 1994. Please give me a call if you have
any questions.
Sincerely,
rrm o
From the desk of. ..Andy Knudtsen
{-zz-2r'
C*v,
"/A"* ( a-e/ ,/t<4 q 62-/ f/<
A--t---^*-^_k F - d4L4
'.12L//'e4 n r- c-w*1.,4^.* 6 rfr*
b..74-n.J f''r*< 't y' tL.r,
)-f --a/ 79 fu';.--4/ ru*, ft.*
fr,r'*- *-f*r,,A./
1et<J r(,,. A^or. n*
v€t O'T
4G rt* s_4-4? & fr--'/-vl-q.T 44--f -, 44.-* .,
- v:<ras
c
, ritrl F\ fiftn\/
Conditions of approval for the 44 Willow Place!fl{ftli'blReftnlt# YI ltLf.J \"rU! |
1. Prior to traming inspection, the applicant shall agree with the Town Engineer as
to the location of the edge of pavement along Willow Rd and Vail Fd. Greg Hall will
review the survey information provided to him by Tom Fry. Based on this new information, he
will be able to set the edge ol pavement on the north side ol the property. The curve on the
weslern side of the property is acceptable as it is consistent with the direction Greg Hall gave
Tom Fry previously. In addition, Greg Hall will review the site plan and ensure that the
intersection of the southern driveway with Vail Road is acceptable.
2. Prior to framing inspection, the applicant shall provide signed easements for the
portions ot property adjacent to Vail Road. Legal descriptions for the easements along
Vail Road have been provided lo Greg Hall. Greg will take the responsibility for having the
Town attorney draw up documents 1o record them and will also be responsible lor recording
these easements al the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. lf during construction, it becomes
apparent that alternative legal descriptions are needed, Greg will work directly with Jay to
develop the alternative legal descriplions. The easemenls will not be recorded at this time so
as to provide flexibility during the construction period.
3. The applicant is responsibe for scheduling the work involving the instatltion ot
the storm sewer. The Town o{ Vail will determine the size and elevation of the storm sewer
pipe to be located on the soulhern edge of the property. The Town of Vail (Greg Hall or Terri
Martinez) will provide a detail design of the storm sewer as to the inverse elevation and the
connection to the rest of the storm sewer infrastruclure. The developer will be responsible for
installing the storm sewer and then will bill the Town who will then reimburse Jay. All costs
shall be agreed to prior to construction. The developer will be responsible for regrading in the
right-of-way (over the storm sewer) per the topography plan shown on lhe site plan.
4, The applicant shall secure all public way permits during construction as they are
needed. Public works will be reviewing and approving public way permits during the
conslruction process. Slreet culs for utilities may need to be done one section at a time lo
allow fire truck access. This will need to be coordinated during construction with the Fire
Department and Public Works Department, Street cuts will have to be approved by Town
Council, as Willow Place is a recently improved road. Jay Peterson will need to coordinate
the Council review of this request with Greg Hall. Greg Hall will be responsible for scheduling
it at council. A detail which requires Greg Hall's approval is whether the pan in front of lhe
Willows needs to be removed. At this time, the applicanl has shown on the construction
permit drawing that this pan will be taken oul and replaced with asphalt. Greg will check to
see if this is acceptable and let the developer know if this is the direction to proceed.
5. At this time, no kitchens will be allowed to be constructed within the Ellus.
Based on the discussion between Andy Knudtsen and Jay Peterson, Jay will be proposing an
Ordinance revision to allow the employee unils. At this time, the permit will be issued
showing no kitchens in the units. lt is the hope of the staff as well as applicant lhat the
ordinance will be changed during the construction process so that the kitchens can be
inslalled. lf the ordinance is not approved by council, the applicant will then be responsible lor
proposing an SDD to allow the kitchens. Until the Zoning Code is changed or an SDD is
tltt'z(4
approved, kitchens are not allowed.
oo
post-lt'- brand tax tralsmlgl Temo l!
Conditions of approval for lhe 44 Willow Place Building Permit
1. Prior to framing inspsction, the applicant shall agree with the Town Engineer as
to the location of the edge of pavement along Willow Rd and Vail Rd. Greg Hall will
review the survey information provided to him by Tom Fry. Based on this new information, he
will be able to set the edge of pavement on the north side of the property. The curve on the
western side of the propefi is acceptable as it is consistent with the direction Greg Hall gave
Tom Fry previously. In addition, Greg Hallwill review the site plan and ensure that the
intersection of the southern driveway with Vail Road is acceptable.
2. Prior to framing inspection, the applicant shall provide signed easements for the
portions of property adlacent to Vail Road. Legal descriptions for the easements along
Vail Road have been provided to Greg Hall. Greg will take the responsibility for having the
Town attomey draw up documents to record them and will also be responsible for recording
these easements at the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder. lf during construction, it becomes
apparent that alternative legal descriptions are needed, Greg will work directly with Jay to
develop the alternative legal descriptions. The easements will not be recorded at this time so
as to provide flexibility during the construction period.
3. The appticant is responsibe for scheduling the work involving the instatfton of
the storm sewer. The Town of Vail will determine the size and elevation of the storm sewer
pipe to be located on the southem edge of the property. The Town of Vail (Greg Hall or Terri
Martinez) will provide a detail design of the storm sewer as to the inverse elevation and the
connection to the rest of the storm sewer infrastructure. The developer will be responsible for
installing the storm sewer and then will bill the Town who will then reimburse Jay. All costs
shall be agreed to prior to construction. The developer will be responsible for regrading in the
right-of-way (over the storm sewer) per the topography plan shown on the site plan.
4. The applicant shal! secure all public way permits during construction as they are
needed. Public works will be reviewing and approving public way permits during the
construction process. Street cuts lor utilities may need to be done one section at a time to
allow fire truck access. This will need to be coordinated during construction with the Fire
Department and Public Works Department. Street cuts will have to be approved by Town
Council, as Willow Place is a recently improved road. Jay Peterson will need to coordinate
the Council review of this request with Greg Hall. Greg Hall will be responsible for scheduling
it at council. A detail which requires Greg Hall's approval is whether the pan in lront of the
Willows needs to be removed. At this time, the applicant has shown on the construction
permit drawing that this pan will be taken out and replaced with asphalt. Greg will check to
see if this is acceptable and let the developer know if this is the direction to proceed.
5. At this time, no kitchens will be allowed to be constructed withan the Ellus.
Based on the discussion between Andy Knudtsen and Jay Peterson, Jay will be proposing an
Ordinance revision to allow the employee units. At this time, the permit will be issued
showing no kitchens in the units. lt is the hope ol the staff as well as applicant that the
ordinance will be changed during the conslruction process so that the kitchens can be
installed. lf the ordinance is not approved by council, the applicant will then be responsible for
proposing an SDD to allow the kitchens. Until the Zoning Code is changed or an SDD is
,4rdo*
approved, kitchens are not allowed.
-.\,.8, 1
TC;ar1.1 CfF t F|Il-
]llrsllryrour Cdt
w-l+44 181461 35
Raccipt J L+?462Rccouit* d(1126
*u * r, LTD\OELEL0PER BGREEI€HT
n ",.r.,t
ierrdrred > 6685'6?
It|r F.id hlr|i Paid
gtwffiffi 6683'6?
ChffqF resuwrcd > g'BB
Tr5ild< vcflJ
*^--_-._-.-_
TO:
oo oo
MEMORANDUM
Jay Peterson, Tom Fry, Chupa Nelson, Shelly Mello' Dave Schreiner'
Mike McGee, travis eoslo*ibi.r Duran, Terri Mar1nez, Greg Hall'
Tom SheelY
Andy Knudtsen
April 13, 1994
44 Willow Place, Pre-Construction Meeting
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Below is a summary of what we all agreed to during the preconstruction^meeting this week'
please let me know if you have a ditferent understinding of any ol the issues listed below'
l.GregHa||willreviewthesurveyinformationprovidedtohimbyTomFry.
Based on this new information, he will be abie to set the
"99"
oi^?1u:T:il3i^
the north riJ" ot tn" property. The curve on the western side of the propeny ls
acceptabl; ", it ir consiiteni with the direction Greg Hall gave Tom F y . ..
previousryl fn
"AOition,
Greg Hall will review the site plan and ensure that the
intersection of the southern driveway wittr Vail Road is acceptable'
2.Locationof|irehydrantisacceptab|etotheTowno|Vai|FireDepartment.
During construction, the construction fence must be located south of the fire
hydrant, reaving access available to the street' Upper Eagle Valley Water'and
sanitation Distiict may require a new hydrant. Jay Peterson will check with
them regarding this.
3. The construction fence location was agreed upon. The six foot wood fence will
wrap around the westem corner, out tiitt not be raised up the slope, next to vail
Road.Gonescanbeusedtodesignatethestagingareainthestreet'
4. Access over International Bridge is acceptable until Memorial Day' At that time
the devetope[ *iir]"rx to roniSn""ly about altern{ves, lf International Bridge
is closed to construction tratfic, access over Forest Road will be the only
altemative. Access across International Bridge until Memorial Day shall only
occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 P'm'
5.A.Lega|descriptionsfortheeasementsa|ongVai|Roadhavebeen
pio'uiO"O to breg Halt. Greg will take the responsibility for having the
Townattorneyo-rawupdoc-umentstorecordthemandwi||a|sobe
,esponJiOfe tor recording these easements at the Eagle County Clerk
and Recorder' lf during construclion' it becomes apparent that
alternative legal descriptions are needed, Greg will work directly with Jay
tooevetoptn-ea|temative|ega|descriptions.Theeasementswi|lnotbe
recorded at this time so as io provide flexibility during the construction
Period.
oo o,
B. The Town of Vail will determine the size and elevation of the storm
sewer pipe to be located on the southern edge of the property' The
Town of
'Vail
(Greg Hall or Terri Martinez) will provide a detail design of
the storm sewer as to the inverse elevation and the connection to the
rest ol the storm sewer infrastructure. The developer will be responsible
for installing the storm sewer and then will bill the Town who willthen
reimburse Jay. All costs shall be agreed to prior to construction. The
developer wili be responsible for regrading in the right-of-way (over the
storm sewer) per the topography plan shown on the site plan'
6. public works will be revieraring and approving public way permits during the
construction process. Streetiuts for utilities may need to be done one section
at a time to ailow fire truck access. This will need to be coordinated during
construction with the Fire Department and Public Works Departmsnt. Street
cuts will have to be approved by Town Council, as Willow Place is a recently
improved road. Jay Peterson will need to coordinate the Gouncil review of this
request with Greg Hall. Greg Hall will be responsible lor scheduling it at
council. A detail;hich requires Greg Hall's approval is whether the pan in front
of the Willows needs to be removed. At this time, the applicant has shown on
the construction permit drawing that this pan will be taken out and replaced with
asphalt. Greg witt check to see it tnis is acceptable and let the developer know
if this is the direction to proceed.
7. Based on the discussion between Andy Knudtsen and Jay Peterson, Jay will be
proposing an Ordinance revision to allow the employee units. At this time, the
ierhit riif be issued showing no kitchens in the units. lt is the hope of the staff
as well as applicant that the-ordinance will be changed during the construction
process so inat the kitchens can be installed. lf the ordinance is not approved
by council, the applicant will then be responsible for propo_sing an SDD,to allow
the kitchens. Uritit me Zoning Code is changed or an SDD is approved,
kitchens are not allowed.
8. At this time we are planning to issue a demo pennit on April 15, 1994. we will
try to follow that up with a Building Permit on April22,1994. It the applicant
cin provide the iniormation to Greg Hall in a timely fashion, regarding the site
planning issues, these dates are "doable'. Statf will certainly do all we can to
meet these deadlines. Looking down the line, we will anticipate issuing a.
.
Temporary Certificate ol Occupancy in March of 1995, following that up with a
finalGertificate of Occupancy in July of 1995'
Thank you all for your cooperation on this poect.
U,,tLf L-\ol oo
44 WILLOW PLACE PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING
AGENDA
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 13TH' 1994
11:00 A.M.
, rY?l"
'1.Setting edge of pavement.
North side of proPerty
Along western 6urvs'- 0Vfif Uf lg Wtilttil | | rvul Ys.'- !, P ./
Intersection ol southern driveway with Vail Road. ."
tocarion \[e wgryr#,J,r.. rr*t;-::t .'6a
*-^ -'t
Public improvemenls required of the developer:
J*'/z -
a.
b.
c.Dff"'{"
t/2.
d Construction f ence Jocationistaging. area.A4 b^.L fu,+,.)" \tt^<f *Gc" t-net 0{ l> sH *,ft
Access routes to the site: Internalional Bridge or Forest Road'
q ..-n t',/ tt**.u-.- J'? fL* l-+e
7/'-.^- h l/^-
-{ Easements/when will they be recorded/who will be responsible?* b. Storm sewer. -Ctr-l
i/tt/ *;rl ,C. Regrading the right of way. U-J",' . A. Other public improvements required of the developer'
tu-w*,"-
>tT 4. 6.
/'r' t
' j luat'o't
Tiir'
L,ir"
,[ tlx^
,r"'(
\8,fi "nr,",,., ,,
* ,^tlo'
fN -'l' -z,m [q't*
Public works approvals:
a. Revocable permit.y'
b. Public way permit.r'
Employee Housing Units.
l'
Time Line, anticipated dates for:
0-^L"-'
[' ,rt.'t '^a & .r,r..f .-
.@t A, /.-- ^f n- s< -./.^t r^ .,2 .-. I /D(ul ,-'7 F""=_
J"-1 ,...-Z 6 c.r./*
# ,+'<- ;4 ,1 c ":: 7 Of
@ 6-r a'4 k a/.* 7nn-h y'7. tu, ,r,ur th :,,,-- . / ./rg fu .+,*,"n .
"1
l
I
a.
b.
c.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Demo permit. "-kl[ alr<.
,
Building pemil./ AlLx Fn*t
Ic.9:-^{ft hts,t, qf
Ffnal U.U.-
-)^\,1 u(
gr{
I't^
I.LL. lt'>t
12. Council Update:
.Trappers Run
.Cornice Building
.Todger Anderson Appeal
.Joint Council/PEC/DRB worksession on Alpine Design, April26, 1994, Tuesday
Afternoon, Council Chambers.
.Vail Mountain School appeal.
13. Discussion of landscape requirements torlll
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy presented the three main issues: 1. the reduction in the proposed number of
trees; 2. the proposal to replace six existing trees instead of transplanting them; and,
3. eliminating the sidewalk.
Bill Anderson asked if it was necessary to vote on the request.
Andy explained a vote is needed to confirm that the proposed buiEing permit drawings
were consistent with the original PEC approval. He said that the DRB had no
objections if the PEC said its okay.
Jeff Bowen motioned that the changes be approved with Bill Anderson seconding the
motion. A 5-0 vote approved the changes to the landscaping plans.
14. Discussion of procedures for making motions.
Plfinhg .nd Environment l Comr{tlion
April tl,1004
10
hrpv
PLANNING AND ENVIBONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 11, 1994
AGENDA
11:00 a.m.
Discussion on making motions/Tom Moorhead.
Site Visits
Dauphinais
Weiman/Reiss
Westin
Lionshead Center
Dickenson
12:00 p.m.
Drivers:Andy and Mike
Public Hearino 2:00 p.m.
1. A request for a minor SDD amendment to allow a modification to the approved access
and landscaping at the Westin Resort located at 1300 Weshaven Drive' more
specifically described as:
NSG|DE LODGE JOIXI VENTUFE
ftV.d. Hold)
nd on ol io st\, t/tt Ne t /a. settoo t 2, Tov,n.t|p $ sqrnl, R.rE. 8r w3d oi h. ltrh Prhdpd llltulen. To$i 01 val €|g1. cqtrt'. cd.'rdo, d'sb'd r ido":
Bi'mrErlrPohlc!rt.dr'rih.lvbdrtnrryol0|.Fr!.loll.nld|dimttc"dorndunt'!|P|gfi3c'{ddoirotrl*rc"x|o'd'l'ir-'tc(tddh
8ok 38.f .t p|€. 620 h rl. *.. o, ,r" e.d. c.r,iy. coro.lo. ckr .,id Bedrr-. *rr-c. r. 'l'od .drn rt ..ns d !.it p.tJ b-t s !45029. w
ra.l6 tir d.$r; rrnc. !,",r*rBnir" i.'.- j.rg 1r..o{rhgly bdmdry ol..o ps..t O) N rC'sttzf E.9.16l.ai (a Ngf't?'s'W 123' 1.'t 131
N5e.471tE1.mi€.t(4N37"12rS'W1.30to6ti(5)N5?47,1S.a2.60t.€r{6)N37.r?4S'W8.70tcd:(rt'ls2".7l5.E15.mbdi(ss3712'5'E
22 r0 t-tt (9) N s2'50'zs E as.:s r-i, rt-'"" a6pa.|q ."b .ouhriy boudry t{ 52'50 29' l..ll lfrrr. s 37"09s1' E 4t34 l..l |r|c N 32'5ot{r E
aa.m b.tr tra.. s 37^oc3|. E r 60 i..tr h.r,c. N siso.zs. E 8oo0 t..ti hdtc. s 37'0e31' € 220.02 L.! !o Gd. c...k lb,lo lh. klotirE ldr'
l:gr- dd9 cd. crdt: {t) s a9.2a3a w 76.a5 !..ti lA s ?zgt i6. w r2aa7 tdr (o s sit37!6' w I t 9.3a h.! (4) 5 65ats w laSc h.t irE N
ir|ll931' W | !6.115l-t b ln. Pdnl ol b.tnrillg coi|Liti'rs 1lO 20o.qrr.l-t d 2
'9 'cr- hdt d l'a
PUZA SUTIE
thd prt ot al. sw l/a NE r/4, scloo 12, Tom.hp 5 Sourh. R.ng.8l Wbd ol a|. grh Prhdpd ir.itn. Toni ol vjl. colo|dod'|cnd r ldldr:
B€rYthg.ltn'63tmrrh.rtdr'.rolhotti.iqnit.PolCdordoM.r'd|hCondcthbtEcoi{ngloitm?ll.i&lllcd'dhAo'k387r|P€'
6co in h. .fike ot Eqt. co6ry. cdo.do o.k -d R.cod- *r'dtc. n irql d^ wi6 C..lic c.p hrtins lh. ctt.r ol .*l S.caon 12 b..l| s 3'"1054
w s64-37t.ti tric. N !5-,€a4'E t(E 67 t!.t 5a€ 79.9 t-t JdE b. r. or.orw.lo lho bn h.nns rrdr,|oi lla z h.lr.c.ntd nql' ol
Oa'oXoa..nd i dlld hrl b.t! N 5,4'€'lf €7995b4: h€r|c. N 52"€'l'E 2832|'ott !x'E S 31093l'E l(ET6LotlhnctSSeS{t2gW2500
t .ti tr6c. s 37.0g3t. w 25 rxl te€t th..E. s 52.gla. E 80.00 todi rl€.ic. s 5aso 20' lv t5.m l..li li6c. s 37'0931' E 16 ?l L.l ,l|l- s 52'5029
w 2r.:to h.ti thfrc. s 37.ctc3t. E 9.€O t-t th-6 s 5e.so29 w Sooo t.ol th.nc, N 9/q0931' W 9.60 l.ct 0!-E s 52'502$ w 4a.70 L'ii lhtE t{
9.m31. W a5.3a t..t: th.oc. s 5,2"50 29 W 56.96 t..t to rho norrh.|.rdt Ii! ol..l, cotdonldom ir.P d colo..do Mor.dn cordo'nh'lm': li.'lct !h'
rorod.D rr.c corl!.!.td!g 3& no.$o..!rt tno: (|) N 37.0931'w 55.00 to.ri (2) N 0750 tf E 45(p t €t F) N 37'0931'lv $-/o L'l lo llF pdil ol
b.dntig. .o.ritille I .00) $to6. .ndo or L..
\
2.
Vail Ancillary Trust, dlb/a l'he Westin Vail Resort
Andy Knudtsen
A request for a setback variance to allow for an expansion to the residence located at
4295 Nugget Lane/Lot 7, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Margaret Gross
Randy Stouder
3. A request for a minor subdivision and to rezone a tract from Primary/Secondary
Residential to Low Density MultFFamily, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more
specifically described as lollows:
a p.n t ot bd h thc sornh*..t o!,rnd ol s.di(r| r 4, Tdndt|p 5 sdrh, R.ngo 8t w.d .l l$ 6|h Ptir+l rrh.rd't, nrre Pdicil.tlt d-dib.d .. ldd.:
8qh'i'9rt|poin1*'€nca.brrscrp3!.1o..{ih...com..|orttw..lQurbrol.lds9dio14'b..rs(tlort2gd€gr.?adifl|$5l..!o.diw..t.lo73'(B1o.|I)..d)(l\|ort|
O.fllt t 5 d*rrr- tn !....d. w€.r. 915.96 t €r l/br.ra)i Ttt-c. tiqt' 7a d.9,...05 rilubs l0 ..cddt E a. 10.76 b.t Tn-.. 18362 ba &€ t I! ot I off lo dr. dsnl
*i.., e aabtd. ! d|o.d b-/:rg ||atr ft d.sro 12 ri r..31) eddi E d, l8l.76 L.t rh-Ee Souh 7, &9r-. aO mhuL.2l ..c{rd. E-1. 82.77 |..t tut.. la7 € 1.4 ddE
Itl. & ot rcJfl.lo 0F t6tt rti.t' rc arbt.d. I chcd b..rhg tffi! 86 d.gd 36 nind.. |?..c.rtd! E.,t, l a5.€l) l..l; lhd|c ilori 7odqrt s 52 niruL SS ..ddt €t.1, 4)€.55
to.t Th.16 5a.t0t6t d.(lg h. rc 61. cwvo to tho.ight whi.t uc.lbhdr.dsd trrins So{4h 17 d€gr...20 n*ul!.37 3cq!d. E.tt,4a20 t..li Th.ic. Sdh lade@t25
rdn t6 50 ..coid. Wo.l. 1 1 0 5l l.€l:
IhdE3 Sdrh €8 d€9'6s I8 mhie6 gl ..ccr& Wcl 320.q) ktl:
Ih.lE€ Ndh le dqrte(I,t txn* 05.€co.dt lv€d 50001€'t:
Thco Sdnh z d€gr-. a8 mh'a€. al ..cc|d3 w-l 160 18l€€li
ThtEo Sdnh l0 d.sd! 53 mhdca 33 ..cc!d. W4l. 36 aB ltolr
ItolEe l{o.t! 37 dqrccc /o .nflilE 06 ..coids wost. S17 72 l€.t
nldE€ (Norg II dqr6- Se 6iur.3 13 !.coin. E.6r. 130.m bd tb€d) lildh ll d.gr-! 55 di ra3l ..ootrd! E|d.129-75 L.t Mr{rd) lo lh. po||{T OF BEcliltllilc.
B..fhg romG.L.O. r.cdd io, Sdr$ han ot s.ctim tno bnrdr s€clirr t4-15 (G.r.o. r..od soull 01 d.9rce63o2 n*i/!.. E.0 (souh ltl d.gro.3,a ftrrul- 32 €edxr. Esl
M.Itr.d)
Applicant Juanita l. Pedotto
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
4. A request for a minor subdivision and a wall height variance to allow for the
consiruction of an avalanche mitigation wall located at 4229 Nugget Lane/Lot 6,
Bighorn Estates.
Applicant Helen Dickenson
Planner: Mike Mollica
S. A request for a minor SDD amendment and a minor subdivision to vacate the lot line
between Parcel D and Tract C, located at 1320 Morraine Drive/Parcel D, Lionsridge
Filing No. 3, and Tract C, Dauphinais Moseley Subdivision.
Applicant Pat DauPhinais
Planner: Jim Curnutte
6. A request for a major CCll exterior alteration and setback variance to the Lionshead
Center Building to allow for the expansion of the Vail Associates otfices located at 520
Lionshead Mall/Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead lst Filing.
Applicant VailAssociates,lnc'
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
7. A request lor a minor subdivision for two Primary/Secondary lots located at 2682 and
2692 Gortina Lane/Lots 9 and 10, Block B, VailRidge Subdivision.
Applicant: Hans Wiemann and Helmut Reiss
Planner: AndY Knudtsen
B. A request for preliminary plat approval of a major subdivision (Trappers Run) on Lots
16, 19 and 21, section 14, Township 5 south, Range 81 West, generally located north
ot l-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway Development
Planner: Jim Curnutte TABLED TO APRIL 25' 1994
a
9. A request for variances to allow for off-site parking, GRFA in the front setback, and site
coverage to allow for a nenr Primary/Secondary residence located at 1799 Sierra
TraiVLot 17, VailVillage West 1st Filing.
Applicant: George Plavec
Planner: Mike Mollica TABLED TO APRIL 25' 1994
10. A request for a wall height variance and driveway slope variance to allow for a
driveway to exceed 10% located a12445 Garmisch Drive/Lots 10 and 11, Block H, Vail
das Schone 2nd Filing.
Applicant Steve Sheridan and Adam Szpiech
Planner: Andy Knudtsen TABLED INDEFINITELY
11. Approve minutes from March 28, 1994 PEC meeting.
12. Gouncil Update:
.TrapPers Run
.Cornice Building
.Todger Anderson Appeal
.Joini Council/PEC/DRB worksession on Alpine Design, April 26, 1994' Tuesday
Afternoon, Council Chambers.
.Vail Mountain School appeal.
13. Discussion of landscape requirements for 44 Willow Place.
Planner: Andy Knudtsen Wol, ^ ) -&
'14. Discussion of procedures for making motions. 2 Y'A S:t (
J-o/,k
6ffrr-J
lign*ie*Actionilm
TOWN OF VAIL
Project Name:
Building Name:
lt <-
Project Description::j A_.(. Lt) .{ o..r* tt rr":.t, I
Owner, Address and Phone:
Legal Description: tot 6{ Block L Subdivision ZoneDistrict lt0tttf
Project Street Address:4 4 /J.//,t,; ,'J/.
Comments:
uotion oy: E,; d
Board / Staff Action
Vote: 5 - A
Seconded by:
t3,tl
g-Approval
! Disapproval
n StaffApproval
Conditions:
DRB Fee Pre-paid
o
fLIF
The rM Willow Place pioject was approved by the DRB on March 16, 1994 wih the following
conditions:
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall revise the design of the plans
so that:
A. The proposed edge of pavement for Willow Rd. and Vail
both the Town Engineer and the Town Fire Department.
d> tu;tlmts '3
The applicant
o
MEMORANDUM #sfr!,
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
wD.
44 Willow Place File
Andy Knudtsen
March 16, 1994
Conditions of Approval
1.
,t^W
at-n
I
Rd. are acceptable to
c ty-c,-c,E
v
6lc c.
oy
E.
,Or -2,Viz
B. All walkways and driveways are shown to be concrete unit pavers'
C. All outdoor lighting conforms to the Town of Vail lighting ordinance.
must show all lumen ouput data and luminance area calculations.
The six existing spruce trees on site are transplanted (unless the applicant is
allowed by replace these six trees by the PEC). 4-ll-q1 ; ,LoL +" P'*f ^-'a"' lr''1^ 'r'
The same number of spruce trees shown to the PEC are included on the
landscape drawings (1 9 spruce trees). Please note that the eleven spruce trees
shown on the proposed landscape plan are acceptable to the DRB if approved by
the PEC. 4-tt-c1$ ol Pet 6L v, ,,teC 4-tt.,t4
The intersection of the southern driveway and Vail Road meets the standards of
the Town Engineer.
The fire hydrant is shown at finished grade. '. h, - '/
The architect submit three cut sheets for each of the three railing designs to the
project planner.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall provide an easement
acceptable to the Town Engineer lor public access and public improvements along Vail
Road.
Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall secure a revocable right'oF
way permit and public way permit.
.3y'
,: . Jaa,;*\ PLq> rvL\v 2" .J ),
o
Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall sign a Type
lll Employee Housing Unit Deed Restriction for each of the three units. This assumos that
the Town of Vail allows the housing to be built. lf the housing is not built, the deed
restrictions will not be required.
cbndyvn€mod4/firillow
a
4.
#,h*,
NOTES
\
. a' . ., tt..a
l
Al.A.etANClo
03/L3/94 tSrO{
Sherry
Sen ior
8 505 476 7669
March 15, 1994
Associate
Brooko Tbomas, Presi den r,
Petcr Rudy, Attorney
Andy Knudtsen, Town of
Bishop Park Condo Assoc.
Vail Communily Devclopmcnl Dcpt,
EEn,'FlPlnr P.01
ttDoN Etct(
ASSOCTATCS
I rnd l,lannin6
Rcr(r1 Ocsign
Urtran Ocsign
landlcapc
Ar(hiloctrrre
tlA A$nt
500 Ea tionshead Circle
Vail, Colotado E1657
(3031476.0668
f^x 476.7660
tBA Paclfic
ltl (..rrlo!, Orivr
S.rn N;rt,rr' (.rlilirrnia 9{901
r.l I i) .l91.47 2,1
fAx 4t9-67t 0
( A t95fl
Mr. Tom Fry
Pierce Segerberg Spaeh Architects
1000 South Fronrage Rd. West
Vail, Colorado 8165?
[sent by faxl
Dcar Tom:
At the request of the Bishop park Condorninium Association, I havcreviewed tbc landscape plan for 44 wllow place donc by Tcirasan. Theplan is generous in plint materiils, and I think it satisfiis thc owncrs'conccrn tbat thc landscaping at your projecr bc equal in quality to rhar atBishop Park. My only requesr oi Design hevicw Board rerativi to thclandscaping will bc to add a condition to their approval sripulating that anytranrplrnttd sprucc that do nol survivc shalt bc iriomptty rcplaced-with thcsame numbcr of ncw conifcrs at least 1g-20'in sizc.
There wcrc sevcral othcr site issues mentioned in peter Rudy's letter oflll8l94 that thc lrndscape plan does nor address, bur that I?ssume aic stillagrccablc to your cticnts: 1) a drainage ptan reviewed by a civil enginccr toassure that on-site drainage wilt nor affect thc Bishop rark propcriy; 2) thcuse-or unlt paverr for drivcway surfaces;3) covcnan[s that icstiicr'prr'ri"gin driveways for shorl.term use only.
The Bishop Park owncrs appreciatc your wiilingncss to incorporate thcircotnments into you r plans.
Sin cerely,
r"!1"w^^^L
o J**^a
r I rA l^4r/ I' I I
.-- rn@ nl brgt^tpPorkMq "aryyztvwrQ c,%A tf y"Lfh*
z@ D, il,qfr dlftln;"K 1x-*t-,f,'e-d9** ld"*e*" .%(-gbve.rarYk Y?/- f ,A A''-[lll'^ lrm g6*"'t
ru^ln *
uw-*@t(,
rl(- tlulra n
M4rJ
tury IrL ehrydj-t{a z.nf t "e
10^
oo
.iI+1l
| ,/^)
P l^ @trc4 qv\
0h.4A "*l^€V
T0rrl}l 0F UF I L-
l'liscel lanequs Cash
$1-1?-94 Lg! f-li! l:
FrF'-e j.F,t $ 138115
Flc,::oun t- # CH +
FIEFIT.:E 5EfiEF:FHR6 A
Flfir,:ruFr t t *nd* red :'
Item Paid
F-l l. EtB{18 4 1 f, 3 1. ff F€1
Cli',,rrrg':i r'l t u rned .:r
651?
::PFEH'.[,EEr FEf
:BE. tlifi
Fuount Paid
';]Er$. EIB
F.8S
-rHF|hll< 1/tllJ
PLEASE I''AKE
TOWN OF VAIL
D EPA RTT{E)iT O F CO JVI;VIL|].IITY DEVEL O P}IENT'
S,\LES ACTION FOR}{
. 75 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD
NA.\IE onrr I rG F't 4VAIL, C0L0MD0 8r657It:t{:r C iS's >rv t \
ZCNL\C .d\D A DD R.EJS I'IAPS0t 00004,J10
IINI:':OR-\ { B I'LDD{O C OD E
0l ol00{24t5 U M FOL\{ PLU!r'G L\-'C C O DE
0l 00lc 42415
ol c.&?042.1i I urnroR-rtrrecHr$IcALcoDE
0t com{2{15 UNIFOfu\{ FTRE CODE
N,\TIONAL EL ECTPJCAL CODE0l 0001 12{ t 5
0t 0000{21r5 | oniER coDE500Ks
0t olo0 .l I J43 BLUE PRT{TS (IJYL;R5)
ot 00ol{2112 I >tERoxcopEs/s'tuDIEs
0l 00co42371 i PENAI.TY FEES/R:-I.,..-',SPECTIONS
0l ocm'{13i2 PL,L\.RE\'JE'n/ RE.CI.IECX FEg IS-<O FER, F;R.}
0t 00co 42321 OFF I]OURS [\is?ECTION FEEJ
0t 0000.11{)2 CONTL1 CTO RS LICL\s ES FT.]:S
0t c{00 { r330 OTIIER FTES
.01 0300 41113 SICN APPLICAI]ON FEE
ADDITION^I, SICNAGE ;;E ISI.OC PE.q
ol c{cvJ rz.i.:o lrrc,lnr pRoJEcr DoNAnoN
0l C,00041113
PRE P.AJD DESIGN .R,E\TEW BOAR.D FEE0t 0c00.1t33t
OtOOOO424I2 I BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COI"IPUTER DI
*.0r 0000 41010 TAx
or 0000 42371 TNVESTTGATToN FEE (BUTLDTNG) I ,o"o" our, 2_cc ,,
.. 0t 0000{r330 IADDITtoNA
0t 0c/-\1{r330 lcoNDt'noN;L USEPER\flT
LESSTHA-r'r t00SO.FI.0l c9cr041330
0l 0000.r t 330 oR ALTER..\TION t:\iORE TH.A.\I rCO SO.F|.
0t 0000 j 1330 SPECL4L DEVELOPi\'ENT DIS OR AIIL\D
0l f)0004t3
0l 0000Jt3
ODE tuV::.^ Dl'IEVTSc900.i r 330 lzo
^'., : :ry "{'n :;; orn r"lW #h @tP-a.' '^. .f
?'-ruu 7 p>r/?r4.2w'r' >t>?Y ,ntY" O
n.;t,"'"J 4-.,q /2,rt\1 ,N @-t +'f4 *+"t* gialt'|Lst . frsz,',/.,i/tn - r.grsL /t,cst
PhQ I
L',sto I
-/ lriu"ri
a'zz
o-zl -t'l g
lar.24t/'4 t.n-'ft', b., f--q,>nv/ t:*Lf.. 6\
f I \',,>vt tt-yl:-gns a1 ;d \gJ
zl t.j'r/ --/ tog
7 \'totz'
h'e-z t
y''st z r
9'4 /
,.t +\5 z-
.,9-5 b t
ttb
5'4l*
LLI/-'c/*?*11
ra-a_^reT g7t
!:,ecierick A, l-a rson
' _t
a (409) 846-5419
Dns erPDrqlrlo|t - EOlllf Ot lllltr,
DerE trFPITICATIOI{ RECEIIDD :
DIEE OF DRB I.IEETINGI
alta tl 'l tt I
I8l8 TDPIJICLEIOII tfll& trg! BI ICCIDIED
uD|rtt" ll&.rlQulnlD ttrlolflllltolt 13 SttICfllDl*tti*tt tt
.. .,IEcr. iv[o8ual;IgN:
I:
'i. " ,4.,-,-.-
ft{r/s/94
f"otttocolp:irDo
e4:55 PM )2!2
'IU9L
.:f .,.IPTION:
PE OF REVIEII:
const,ructlon {$200.00)
-ptnor
Alt€ratlcr. 520.00)
_. __Acdition ($50.00)Conceptual Reviih,'30)
-. ADDRESS:
D. :.EGAI.I DESCRIPTION: hOE 7 , EIOEh G
ls drrerlbcd by
plEase psovtile
atcEch to thls apDllcation.
BUSt DrOVldC a currenc-,211 tats
Mai i;lng
Phone
OF OIfNERS r
,).
x
4
FEE.SCHFp.U.LE:
' V}IJUhTIONS 0-$ 10,000
$10,001 -$ 50,000g50ro0t-s 150,000
{r50,00t - s 500,ooo
s500,001 - $1,000,000
. $ Over S1,000, 000
t DESIOI{ REl,llEnt EOBXD ePPRrn4! Elltlnit
aDPRO\IIIJ UuIaSg A.EUIIDIIIG ?lBlfrr rB
SllRTnD.
l/Ht l" t- fr*tr.F.u-gq
a tnect g and bouod: 'cAaI
on a sepaEate Ehca
zoNrNG: '(,4#1
No
rr$
ii.
'i",
;iAr,rE.oF aButtct{x: r)*r Mu*lEeu Br+ilp -MalllngMdress: ,, ,,, , , - . /,,,thoneW
NA},IE O!' AFFI,JCAT{T' 6 NEIREsENTATIYE ;
<.{"
9ubdlvlsion
If paoFerty
dcsqrlpBlon,
LoT .IREA: If reguired, eppllcant
stilnped survey Bhowing lot aE€a.
srGilf,fuRE(5):
M,alling lddre
Condonirrlum j\pprove,l if applicable.
DF,jB FEE| DBB fees, as Bhown abovel arc to be pald atth. thc of submltttl. of DnB appllcatlon" Ieter, nhen
FEE'
$ 20.00
s 50.00
$100. ^0c200.00
$400.00
$500.0c
qlfE ff.AR AfTER islnAh
rssIED f,!' -cNslBItcqIoI
'rHO tPFLICtrlIOlr tf,ll& Bl pROCESSED WIIIOUr OHNEn'S glCtlAl!ru
Ig
65 '94 1b:56 P.S.S. ARCHITECTS . VAIL, CO..o P.7
-TFN
tt*trrrlll
Elrs lrr&Iclrrolf litrLL nor EG
ufinll' atl iloqIRED rmonuArroltll****ttt t
t P!()jIgg,L-I xIoBUA$EsN :
A. DESCRIPTION:
ACCE?!tDIS SUEldt!',llDD
I rerim d sl4lrh
DRE APPr.,rCrrrON - lolfN oF \tLt&, colpnA'Do
DATE AgPLICATION RSCEIVED :
DATE OT DRB I.{EETING:
B. TYPE OF REVIE!{:
lz- Ncw Construction (5200.00)
Addirion (s50.00)
Minor Alterat,ton ($20 .00)
Conceptual Revlew ($0)
L'.
ADDREss z ,,, 44 ilru,az -"4 P:- - , ,,,-".., ,*
LEGAL DESCRIPTT0N: :JoL q Block , -e. -subdivillon //pk Uu*a.a--frcsr Fterk
zoNrNG, ftPnt(-.- , .-...,,,
LOI AREA: If rgqulred,
stanped survey thowing
If property j.s descrlbed by
dasgrlpLlonr please provldc
attach co ahls appl.ication.
appllcant rnuat
]og area.
a meegs and bounds legal
on a sEperate sheet and
e current
FEE SCHEDUI*,Pj.
VALUATION$ o - $ l0,o0o
$10,001 -$ 50,000
$50,001 *s 150,000
$1501001 - $ So0rooo
9500r oo1 - $1,000,000$ over $1r 000,000
i DESICH REVTEW BOE,RD EPPROT'AJ, E)(!'RES ONE IET$, AI'TER TIN$,
APPRO1TAS ONI.JSSS A EUII..DING PERXIT IS ISST'DD AI{D CONSTNSCTION IS
SIARIED.
r*NO APPLrctrtIoN t{r11, 3E pRocESSED tfrtHottll owNER's GIS}IAIURD
t-
Malling Address:
T
NAME OF
NA}{E OF OWNERS;
A.PPIXCANT/ S REPRESENTATIVE :
Mail:1ng Address !
Phone
*SIGNASURE(S):
,r. Condominl,um Approval, if appllcable.
K. DRts FEEI DRB fceg, as shown above, are to be paid at'
the tlna of submittal of DRB appltcatj,on. taLer, when
applylng for a building pcrmlt, please tdentlfy Uhe
accurale valuallon of the proposal . The town of Vailwill adJust the fee according to the table belowr to
ensuro the correct fee is paid. -c,on.@*,r" ,^ro, ,. .t*'
FEE
$ 20.005 50 .00
$100.00
$200.00
$400.00
$e00 .00
r a.'.r''''4&4l
. * rt' -'.'|]
- *,*-' ic
Phone
LOCATION VERIFICAT
SUBDIVISION
44 /hcterp Pc...'OB NAI{E
LOT BLOCK 6 FTLTNG L/lp Uuqtap fr*r
ADDRESS 44 aluaou z,p.
The location and availability of utilities, whether they be main
trunk lines or proposed lines, must be approved and verified by
the following utilities for the accompanying site p1an.
Authorized Siqnature Date
q
U.S. West Communications
1-80 0-922-1987
458-6860 or 949:4530
Public Service Company
94 9-5781
Gary HaIl
Holy Cross Electric Assoc.
949-5892
Ted Husky/Michael Laverty /z-o'*
Ta/ - 44taa@ T.V.
94 9-5530
Steve Hiatt
Upper Eagle Valley Water
& Sanitati.on District *
47 5-7 480
Fred Haslee
service availability and
be used in conjunction withplan and scheduling
NOTE:
For any new construction proposal, the applicant
must provide a completed utility verification
form.
If a utility company has concerns with the
proposed construction, the utility representative
should notcdirectly on the utility verification
form that there is a problem which needs to be
resol.ved. The issue should then be spelled out indetail in an attached letter to the Town of vail.
However, please keep in mind that it is theresponsibility of the utilj.ty company to resolveidentified problems.
If the utility verification form has signatures
from each of the utility cornpanies, and no
comments are made directly on the form, the Town
will presume that there are no problems and that
the development can proceed.
These verifications do not relieve the contractorof his responsibility to obtain a street cutpermit from the Town of vail, Department of Public
lilorks and to obtain utilitv locations before
diqqinq in any public right-of-way or easenent in
the Town of Vai1. A buildinq permit is not a
street cut pernit. A street cut permit must be
obtained separately.
* P1ease bring a site plan, floor pfan, and elevations when
obtaining Upper Eag1e Va1ley water & sanitation signatures. Fire
flow needs must be addressed.
This form is to verifylocation. This shouldpreparing your utilityinstallations.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ZONE CHECKt, *,.ffiJorrr*.rl
DATE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot Block
-
Filing
ADDRESS:
OltlNER PHONE
PHONE
AIlowed Existinq Proposed TotaI
(30) (33)
ARCHITECT
ZONE DISTRICT
PROPOSED USE
**LOT SIZE
Primarv GRFA + 425 =
Height
Totaf GRFA
Setbacks Front
S ides
Rear
Water Course Setback
Site Coverage
Landscaping
Secondary GRFA + 425. =.
20,
15t
15'
(30) (50)
/
Retaining Wa11 Heigrhts 3'/6'
Parking
carage Credit
Drive:
Reqrd
(300) (600) (900) (1200)_
Permitted Slope _.,,Q! Actual Slope
Date approved by Town Engineer:
View Corridor Encroachment: Yes No 2aa
Environmental,/Hazards: 1) Flood Plain
2l Percent Slope
3) Geologic Hazardsa) Snow Avalancheb) Rockfallc) Debris Flow4) lrletlands
Prevlous conditions of approval (check property file)-;
Does thls request involve a 250 Addition?
How much of the allowed 250 Addition is used with this request?
**Note: Under Sections 78.12.090(B) and 18.L3.080(B) of the Municipal
Code, lots zoned Two Family and Primary,/Secondary which are Less than15,000 sq. ft. in area may not construct a second dwelling unit. The
Community Development Department. may grant. an exception to thisrestriction provided the applicant meets the criteria set forth underSections 18.12.090(B) and 18.1.3.080(B) of tbe Municipal Code inctuding
permanently restricting the unit as a long-term rental unit for full-
time employees of the Upper eagle Va1]ey.
L0
6-.1 (tlF
S-€-i ts-l
l&w 6t1
J:=::
Er !o. Jl
!rJ0 r5
Bt{r 07
Et{r.Et
5 -JO-o|P
or 66a
s 8t37.a7[ 6rJE.O7
@ K
GE,
I
I
I
I
sr al
l0Y Et J6
st 8133 5,6
fi€a6g 6t Jr. 50 ElJ..26
'1
J/ 8t.-2r'RC?
cRee\(..---::
, !lJt.6J
l1f,J.r2
Er 5r.6a
!5 ar)r.t9
8135.eO
W atjg. IN{ 31 3g r
I
I
I
N 615t 14
s 0!JJ.22
J5 N
@-'
@
PARCEL A
VAIL VILLAGI
FIRST FILINC
{H
FiE'
Irvlitv
ati.:9
ed
WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
ST'BDIVtSION
JoE Nrlrr ' 44 //ttocou &. ,. .,
,or
-L
BLocK 6 rr1,rNc Ul ^ Ukf.'Pq fresr
ADDrBss 11 au*otct 4P.
Th. locstlon rnC avallgbtllty ot utlllttes, whathtr thclt-b..n1in
trunF llnas o! ProPosld tlnr-, nult ba rPprovrd lnd vcr,'tllcl by
th. f,ollowlng ultt-tttm lor thr tocoqDlnytng llto Plan'
@ Dlts
^ /t/ot g('2
a,
upprr Eaglr valley t|lBor
& grnr.rrsloa Dtatrlct .
{? 6-?{t0Fnd Hrelec
NOTE: 1.
u.l. lftat Cotununlcrtlons
1-t00-922-198?
-r{6E-6!60 or I't9-1t30
Prrbllc Servlor Conprny
9{9-5781
Gery ltatl
goly Cro.r llactrlc Alroc.
9{ 9-58 92
T.d Hurly/Hichacl llvalty
T.V.
Ssrvl HLrtt'
lhte forrn ls to vcrj.fy cervlce avallablLlty and.
i-oiitl,on. thlr rhoul3 br rrsrd ln conJunction rlth
prcpartng your utiltty plan and rchlCullng
ln3tallat,lonr.
For any naw construct,lon pro.pottlr thc^apgllcant
rnust, plovlclc a complrted uttttt'y vertficatlon
form.
It a utitlty conrpany haa conccrnf wlgh thc
prooogcd coictructl-on, thr utlltty rcprcsentativo
inoirfa notrClrectlv on th. utillcy vrrlficatlon
lorrn that thase ls a problcn which nords to ba
rilotvea. Thc Lrsue ihourd tben b. rpcllcd -out-indotall ln an attached lrtter to Ehc Town ot vlil'
io"cvrr, pllree keep ln mlnd thrg lt ls thc
iiiponsilillty of thr uctlitv oonpanv to rcrolve
ldentlfhd problcnl.
If the utlllty vcrltlcation form har sl'gnrturcg
fron each or thc utlllty conpanlcsr and no
cornncntg art madc dtrrcily on.the form, thr Sown
if-i1-p"ccune that tharo glc no prcbl'ena and shat
Bhc dbvcloPnGnt can Procecd.
?hcsc verlllcatlons do not rellcvc thg congrrctor
of his responslblllty to obtrln a screet sut
oennlt frcir ttre Torn-of Vail, D.Partmcnt of Publtc
horkc anct to obta.lJ utltitv lQgations befgrc
dlaqinq ln anv publlc rlght'-of-way or 'aten'nE In
E6i-go*rn or viil. A buildlag oernlt ip noc a,
s:re:i- !.-:l- 3.r-If- -a- ttrcet cut gefinrt hust DG
obBalncd repartt.ly.
* Plclrc bring r aite plan, floor plrnl and Glcvatleng Ithcn
ortiinlng-uppir-ergrc i'ittiy-iater e Sipttatlon slgnrtures. Ftre
flor needt murt be rddrcsccd.
2,
3.
4,
5.
NAME OF PROJECT:
LIST OA MATERIALS
44 lU/bLow Fa**
LEGAL DESCRTPTTON: rOT-l BLOCK suBDrvrsrow l/+rtilunu /{Funtq
STREET ADDRESS:
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:flaee F+zqp r 2atezznttu /,u trs4lEl
frc* EttPLzlE4 /ldbg/pG uu/r3.
The fol.fowing lnformation is reguired for submittal to the Design
Review Board before a final approval can be given:
COLORA. BUILDING I'TATERIALS:
Roof
Siding
Other l{all Materials
Fascia
Soffits
Windows
Window Trlm
Doors
Door Trim
Hand or Deck Rails
FIues
Flashings
Chlnneys
Trash Enclosures
Greenhouses
Other
Sra t,rl
9rorpa
B.LANDSCAPING:Name of Designer:
Phone:
Botanical NamePI,A}TT T'IATERIAI.,S:
PROPOSED TREES
ExPrzttb 73,4-s
T3 BE F+:taA-rpct
*Indicate
04. / b 6'-/4/
dutznb ^v 4O zLlnczcsfrl* tu 4 -s"z*+"
4tl- b"alt,
&P. suFW y
TYPE OF MATERIAI
Ce
ll
tU*rup.qa
€rzue- 'hrneo* t4tx'
,l)aruz
Ouantitv Size*
?Sr\'.t' F
callper for deciduous trees. Minirnun calipqr for
trees is 2 inches. Indicate height for coniferous
Conmon Name
'At
h"uAo
tl *t-u; st'.'sPzlNb s./Lrdto'
trees.
PLANT },'ATERIAT
PROPOSED SHRUBS
Botanicaf Name Conrnon lmg ouantitv Size*
I-Pl4tAaanrr-Z;7Ti';;;i-"- /:,EPvr.L Qezp r?-fu.
CeENus F+o Tutzr; - '-- -t /,SrzcanttfE4 f)eeutda.b ?Saqt
Juil/Pf-R-@azltJezeB ( ''' "PPz a 6qtlt
-a----------.-..El6Es l+LP/P4rnil2ilL
CeVp44t/a 4
-%L
-
I Lro/,UE a:tza-:r 7 az
Mininum size of shrubs is
a2 qAL
s44e_
EXISTING SHRUBS
TO BE REMOVED
*Indicate size
5 qal.lon.
GROUND COVERS
of proposed shrubs.
Tvpe
'+r'Ptu/+
Scruare FooLaqe
2oa eF
soD
SEED
TYPE
OF IRRIGATION
TYPE OR METHOD OF
EROSION CONTROL
C. LANDSCAPE LIGHTING: ff exterior lighting is proposed, please
show the nurnber of fixtures and focations on a separate
lighting plan. Identify each fixture from the lighting plan
on the list below and provide the wattage, height above
grade and tYPe of ligttL ProPosed-
ap E44/ /tUtT 4 '' alQl/- =aa ' '<- z'7- r4laH,E/:7P/
I
OTI|ER LANDSCAPE FEATURES (retaining wal]s, fences, swimming
pools, et,c.) Please specify. Indicate heights of retaining
walls. Maximum height of walls within the front setback ls
3 feet. Maximum height of walls elsewhere on the property
is 6 feet.
4lilnokat FtaE 6P*3s 4s; aa =r.
D.
,+-rup Qpe / -- u /tu 4Pr.,rts
hrott
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 13, 1993
MINUTES
MEMBERS PRESENT
Greg Amsden
Bill Anderson
Jeff Bowen
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Allison Lassoe
Dalton Williams
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Tom Moorhead
1. A request for variances for setbacks, density and parking in the front setback for
the development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be
located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicants: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. LarsonPlanner: Shelly Mello
. Shelly Mello made a presentation per the staff memo and stated that there was a
correction on Page 2, Section ll, Zoning Analysis concerning GRFA. The correct
numbers for the proposed GRFA should read "7,531 sq. ft. free market units +
1,213 sq. ft. EHU's - 8,744 sq. ft". She said that this was the third proposal
concerning this site presented to the PEC. Shelly reviewed the variance criteria and
findings with the PEC. She added that staff was concerned with using the variance
process in order to use common area for employee housing units. She said that
staff had safety concerns with the proposed three road cuts. She said that staff
would encourage the applicant to consider a single access point. She said that staff
was recommending denial of the requested setback, derisity and parking in the front
setback variances.
Jay Peterson, the applicants' representative, stated that they were attempting to
give the site a more residential type of appeal and that they were trying to stay
away from a large parking garage type of scenario. He said that this was why they
were not proposing a single access point. He said that they were trying not to push
the building envelope in every direction and that they felt that the three proposed
empfoyee housing units were positive. He said that they were over 2Ooh below
what HDMF zoning allows for site coverage. He said that one of the issues
concerning this proposal for the PEC to consider was: does the PEC want to se€
employee housing units on this site? He said that if the PEC does not feel employee
housing units are appropriate at this location that they would not pursue this part of
Planning cnd Environmental Commirrion Minuter .
December 13, 1993
l
I
the request. He said that this site was a difficult site due to its triangular shape.
He said that Bishop Park well exceeded 48 feet in building height and that parts of
the structure were located in the stream setback. He said that one foot of a garage
encroaches into the front setback and that he could modify this if the PEC felt that
this was a significant issue.
Kathy Langenwalter reguested that Tom Frye, of Pierce Segerberg Spaeh, the
architect for this project, review the floor plan for the project with the PEC.
Tom Frye explained the proposed building layout to the PEC members.
Bill Anderson stated that he was confused as to why the applicant removed the
underground parking from the current proposal.
Jay Peterson responded that there was not enough room on the site for
underground parking.
Tom stated that underground parking was desirable for the site because it took
away from the living spaces. He said that underground parking would necessitate
the height of the building to increase. He added that eliminating the underground
parking also helped to reduce the mass of the building because the building could
now be stepped.
Diana inquired what variances the applicant was intending to minimize.
Kristan Pritz stated that staff was concerned that guests would be parking along
Willow Road. She said that staff was in favor of underground or covered parking
instead of three driveways.
Diana Donovan inquired whether sidewalks would only be located on Willow Road.
Tom Frye stated that it was the Town's desire not to have sidewalks along Vail
Road.
Greg Amsden, Jeff Bowen and Allison Lassoe did not have questions for the
applicant.
Dafton Williams inquired about the area of proposed parking that would encroach
one foot into the front setback.
Shelly Mello pointed out that there would always be two surface parking spaces
required which would be located in the front setback, therefore, a variance would
be required for these two spaces.
Rick Travers, representing Bishop Park, stated that they are concerned with their
view as they look south and how this proposal would effect that view. He said
many of the property owners are concerned about looking at three floors.
Planring rnd Environmental Commhion lltinutes ,
December 13, 1993
i
I
o
Jay Peterson stated that no matter what type of development went in on this site
that ths adjacent property owners' views would be effected.
Dalton Williams stated that he was for the employee housing units being located on-
site, but he said that he was concerned with how to make this happen. He
suggested that the applicant consider making the front side of the building lower
and the back side of the building higher, similar to what Clark Willingham proposed
for the Golden Peak House. He said that this would put the building at a more
pedestrian scale.
Dalton Williams would like to see the 1 foot encroachment for parking in the front
setback eliminated from this request. He said that he wished there was a way to
accommodate the parking without three roadcuts. In summary, he said that he
would like to see the building terraced more and that he did not have a problem
with the parking except for the 1 foot encroachment.
Allison Lassoe stated that she did not want to see the employee housing units
switched out for increases in common area. She stated that she was concerned
that Willow Road would become a "corridor".
Jeff Bowen complimented the applicant on the proposed design for this project. He
said that he had a problem with the proposed Vail Road access and he did not know
if there was any way around this issue. He said that he was in favor of the
employee housing. He said that he had a problem with the requested
encroachments into the setbacks for parking.
Greg Amsden stated that he felt the encroachments into the setbacks were okay
and that he felt that a hardship did exist on this site. He said that he was for the
employee housing, but against using common area for GRFA. He said that he was
in favor of the building design and that he was in favor of the at grade parking
spaces, although three road cuts were a concern.
Diana Donovan stated that when you consider the neighborhood this project is
located in, that she could generally.support the proposal. She said that she was
willing to push the common area variance to achieve the employee housing. She
said she would like to see the applicant tighten up the overhangs and
encroachments to minimize variances as much as possible.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed wholeheartedly with Diana's previous
statements,
l(athy Langenwalter stated that she was in favor of the employee housing but that
she did not feel that a hardship existed and was concerned about the process- She
said that she would be more inclined to see the common area used for GRFA if an
underground parking structure was part of this proposal. She said that she would
feel more comfortable with this proposal if the parking issue was addressed
Planning and Environmental Commiaaion Minutss
December 13, 1993
tI
differently. She added that since this was a difficult site, that the mass and. butk ol
the building still needed to be reduced. She said that if the above grade parking
spaces within the building were located below grade, the mass of the building could
be reduced.
Jay Peterson stated that they were attempting to do a townhouse project with the
appearance of a duplex. He said that when they had proposed an underground
parking structure, that the requirements for such a structure added tremendous bulk ,
to the project. He said that the current proposal removed bulk. Jay asked the PEC
for direction as to how they should proceed from here.
Kristan Pritz stated that the Town finds it frustrating to recommend denial on a
project which proposes three employee housing units and that possibly amendments
to the code which would allow the use of common area for GRFA for employee
housing units could be looked at.
Greg Amsden stated hs felt that the common area could be used for employee
housing units and that he felt that this concept was worth pursuing. He said that
he would vote for the project if the emptoyee housing units were eliminated for now
and the applicant would pursue the amendment.
Diana Donovan stated that she was prepared to vote for the project because there
were unique circumstances concerning this lot. She said that she did not feel that
this proposal was pushing the limits in any of the categories on Page 2, Section 2
of the staff memo.
Bill Anderson stated that he was prepared to vote for the project, but that he
wanted the three employee housing units to remain as part of the proposal.
Jeff Bowen said that he would vote for the project and that he was hopeful that
ther€ was a legal way to locate the employee housing units on the site. He inquired
whether there was an alternate way to access the site besides Vail Road.
Allison Lassoe commended the applicants on their creative solutions to the
problems presented at this site. She said that she would like to see the intersection
of Vail Road and Willow Road narrowed so that people did not use this locaticin as a
turnaround,
Dalton Williams stated that he would vote no on the EHU'S even though he liked the
proposal. He felt that the PEC did not have the authority to approve the proposed
employee housing units using common area as GRFA. He requested that the Town
Council call this project up and overturn the PEC's denial of the project.
Jay Peterson stated that he would commit to convert the common area to employee
housing units after Town Council has reviewed and approved this type of code
amendment.
Planning and Envirorrnentrrl Corrnireion Minuter .
Deoembei 13, 1993
I
II 4
shelly Mello stated that there was no guarantee that Town council would amend
the code to allow common area to be used as GRFA so that employee housing units
could be built.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that it appeared that most of the pEC members were in
favor of the request as proposed, excluding the EHU'S, and asked how the applicant
wished to proceed.
Jay Peterson stated that he felt that he was being penalized for attempting to locate
employee housing units on this site.
Diana Donovan suggested that a possible condition ol approval could be "that the
three common areas will become employee housing units by the time of building
permit if the change to the code is approved."
Kathy Langenwalter suggested that a time period such as nine months be attached
to the condition of approval.
Shelly Mello stated that June 1, 1993 would be a reasonable time period.
Jeff Bowen made a motion to approvo the requests.for variances for setbacks and
parking in the front setback be approved with the condition that the three employee
housing units be denied. Subject to the applicant providing three employee housing
units when the Town of Vail modifies the zoning code to allow the employee
housing unit GRFA to be taken out of common area or the applicant shall apply for
an SDD to allow the three employee housing units. The applicant shall complete 1
one of the above to allow for the three employee housing units by June 1, 1994. I
Town staff is directed to process the code change before June l, l gg4. He added
that the applicant must grant easements for drainage, snow storage. and roadway
per Public Works' reguest. Greg Amsden seconded the motion.
Kathy Langenwalter rephrased the motion as follows:
The PEC is in favor of the proposal as it exists except for the area lor the three
employee housing units and that an amendment to the zoning ordinance is
necessary to allow for the common area being used as GRFA by June 1 , 1994 or
the applicant request an SDD to allow for the three employee.housing units. She
added the requirement that the garage for Unit 1 be removed from the front
setback.
Diana Donovan added that the four evergreen trees on the northwest cqrner of the
site are to be protected on-site during construction and should be replanted as soon
as possible.
A 7-0 vote approved this request.
Planning and Environmontal Commirlion Minutor
Deoember 13, 1993
f .-'
,Nl
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
ilEilORANDUII
Planning and Environmental Gommission
Community Development Department
December 13, 1993
construct three di,elling units and three employee housing units located at 44
Willow Place/Lot g, Block 0, Vait Vittage tst Fiting.
Applicanb:
Planner:
Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson
Shelly Mello
I. DESCFIPT|ON OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
The applicant is roqu€sting a series of variances to construct frre+family dvelling uniF and
three employee housing units on the property listed above. The proposed site plin includes
three individual garages, with two garages accessing from Willow Road and one driveway
from Vail ROad. The variances are n€oessary for the following:
1. A 10 foot building encroachment into the 20'north (front) setback and a 10 foot
building encroachment in the 20' east (side) seback;2. D€ck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (kont) and east (side)
setbacks; Roof overhangs will encroach a maximum ol 4 feet further into the
setback than the specified building encroachments a 7 foot roof overhang in the
selback is also prop6sed at the entry of Unil #1. Roof overhangs are allowed
to encroach 4 feet into setbacks by zoning. Decks are proposed to encroach a
maximum of 4 additional feet into north setback and 2 additional teet into the
side setback.3. A 6 foot maximum encroachment into the north (front) setback lor a garage;4. Parking to be located in the 20'front seback both at grade and in garages
along Wlllow Road and Vail Road. For he purposes of zoning, the staff wilt
consider both the nonh and south side of the property, as tront setbacks
because aooess is being taken from both sides of thC bt.5. A density variance to allow for the use of common area atr GRFA for three
permanently restricted employee housing uniF which are simitar to Typs lll
units;
Gurrently, a non+onformlng residence is located on the site. The existing building
encroaches 12 feet into ths 2o-foot front setback on the north and I feet-6 inches into the 20-
foot side setback on the east. A total of 851 square leet of the existing building fooprint
encroaches into the setback. Approximately 1,036 squar€ feet of he proposed building
lootprint would encroach into the setbacks. The existing building will be completely
trl
demolished and replaced by the proposed multFfamily project.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Lol siz€: 0.29 rras or 12,6i12.4 Equare leet
Zoning:
Site Coverage:
Densily:
GRFA:
Pa*ing:
Heighl:
landsce6ing:
High Densily Mutli-Family
Erbtinq
3,029 sq. ll.q 247"
unarailable
Alorcd\Requit€d
6,947 sq. ft.
or 55%
7,578 rq. fi.
i
,/ 35% ot allowod GRFA
,, or 2,852 sq. tt.
20 loot on all sido3
15 loel lor d€ck
5' abovo grade
11 spaces;
1
o
Prooosod
4,678 sq. fl. or
377o
7,531 3q ft. f're r|a ket txlits +
t,se.L.C. ff. EHU'8 s$,regsq. lt.
Jl,l?*.'rEHU -?-7+t
361 sq. n.
10' norlh
20' soulh
'10' easl
5' north
10'east
9 ggragB spaoes
6 al grad€ - 15 spac€s
4 leEl
4,725 sq. fl. minimum"
ot 37.5v"
I'n'
1 1'-6',
2 surface
north
soulh
east
wogl"
,.,."
b€lovv
8,889
or 7tr,
ilt.
landscaping does not
There is no wost
Willow Clrcle Sub Area #2
"ln most cases, the levels of development throughout this sub-area greatly exce€d
what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family). Gross residential
floor area ratios (GRFA) range from .6 to 1.3, with an average of 1.01. With the
exception of one parcel, all properties within his sub-area ars develgped at, or over,
their permitted levels of development. As such, there is litte development pot€ntial left
This site is specififally addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEG should consider
the Master itan'dgodts and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerptsthe Master Plan'{goals and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerpts
specify the goals,"and objectives and sub-area conoepts for this site.
I rfr. I cgP y
\4q
Atnt^ "z
o&P
demolished and replaced by the proposed multi-family project.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Lot size: 0.29 acres or 12,632.4 squate feel
Zoning: High Densily Multi-Family
Existinq Allowe€f\Required Proposed
,<1, Sits coverags: 3,029 sq. ft. 6,947 sq. ft. 4,678 sq. ft. or( {- o( 24Y. or55% 37%
0l: Densny:
Q( GRFa:unavailable
AK Dwellins Unils: 1
fftQommon Area: o
11'-6' eesl
wesl"
1TLOecX Selbacks: 4'norlh
7,579 sq. tl. 7,531 sq. tl. free markel unils + -,1,213 sq. tt. EHU's = 8'744 sq' n )
-fu3+3Typefll EHU=e f-
35% ol allowed GRFA 361 sq. tl.
or 2,652 sq. ft.
10' easl
15 foel for deck 5 north
5 above grade 10'eas1
,, tr Building S€tbacks: I' north 20 feel on all sides 10'nonh
U ts - 20' soulh 2o'soulh
,rV'Parking:2 surface 11 spaces;I garage spaces
75% enclosed or I spac€s 6 at grade = 15 spaces
df, H"ist.r'below 48'44 leel
6(bndscaeins, :,88s,,.sq.
ft. :/jff. ft. 4
!3i t]:^ minimunrl *
' LandscaFing doss nol include al-grade decks or driveway.
" There is no wqsl selback becaus€ lhe front and rear sElbacks come logelhor in a point creating a lriangular shaped lot-
III. RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC should consider
the Master Plan's goals and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerpts
specify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concepts for this site.
Willow Glrcle Sub Area#2
"ln most cases, the levels of development throughout this sub-area greatly exceed
what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family). Gross residential
floor area ratios (GRFA) range from .6 to 1.3, with an average of 1.01. With the
exception of one parcel, all properties within this sub-area are developed at, or over,
their permitted levels of development. As such, there is little development potential left
. in this sub-area"
il2-3 Wlllow Clrcle lnfill
This conc€pt rafers to the applicant's site:
'Presently this is the only proporty withln tho sub-area that ls not dwslop€d lo, or
above, existing density allowances. While sllght increases in resldential density may
be considered in the re{evelopmant of this parcel, the shape of th€ lot may seriously
hinder the potential for GRFA greater han what is permitted by existing zoning.
Adequate landscape Quflers betwgon this parcel and Town roads and adjacent
propertiss should be maintiained through the redwelopment of this Property.
Struchrred parking would be n€oossary for any additional lorel of development.
Specialemphasis on 1.2, 3.1, 5.1,5.4.
Goal fi Encourage the hlgh quellty redevelopment whlle pr€ervlng the
unQue archltoctural scale of the vlllage In order to su3tain lts
reme of communlty and lden$ty.
Objective 1.2 Encourage tre upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
. commercialfacilities.
Goal ttl To recognlze 83 a top prlorlty the enhancemont ol the walklng
erpsrisncs throughout the vlllage.
Obiectlve 3.1 Physically improve the existing pedestdan ways by landscaping and
other improvemsnts.
Policy 3.1.1 Private developmeht projects shall incorporate streetscape
improvements, (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting' and
seat areas) along adjacent pedsstrian nays.
Goal #5 Increage and lmprove the ctpaclty, eftlclency and aGthetlcs of the
transportation and clrculatlon system throughout the town.
Obiective 5.1 Mest parking demands with public and private parking lacilities.
Objective 5.4 lmprove the strestscape of circulation conidors throughout he Village.
IV. CR]TERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon rwiew ol Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Gode, the
Community Development Department recommEnds denlal ol the requested variance based on
the lollowing factors:
A.Gonsideration of Factors:
1. The relatlonshlp of the requgsted varlance to other exlstlng or potential
usss and structurcs In the vlclnlty.
Setbacks
The surrounding area is comprised of high density multi-family proJects with the
exception of the subject single family site. Seback encroachments exist on a
numtier of properties adjacent to the proposal. Thgse projects include Tie
Wiliows, niva ifiOge South, Riva Ridge North, and Riverhouse. Bishop Park, to
the north of the proposal, is an sDD and has minimum setbacks ol5 leet in
cartain areas of the project adjacent to Wllow Road. Decks and underground
parking tor the Bishop Park project also encroach into the front and side
setbacks.
The statf is concerned with the applicants' proposed encroachments into
setbacks lor the building on th€ north side as they relate to the building mass
adjacent to Willow Road and ths adiacent properties. Th€ staff believes that as
pr6posed, the building mass is too great and will have unacceptable impacts
upon tne pedestrian experience along willow Road. we feel that while the
pioiect is simifar to Bishop Park, which ug€s 3 variety ol ridge heights adjacent
io tiVittow Road in order achieve a pedestrian scale, the proposed building mass
in this area still needs to be reduced and terraced. The staff feels that the
eaves should be lowered as well as the ridge height for the areas within the
setbacks and adjacent to the Willow Road and Vail Road.
The ridge heights ol the Bishop Park structures vary with the maximum being
4g tt. high. The eave lines vary from 16 leet to 35 feet accordingly directly
adjacenl to Willow Road. This project is not proposed to exceed a height of 45
te6t. fte buitding ranges lrom2-112 to 3-1/2 siories in the setback. The
proposed eave lines range from 28lo 42 feet adjacent to willow Road, The
staif recognizes the applicants'development right to build up to 48 feet, but
feels thatihe hsight of the building in the setback should be reduced to 1-1/2 to
2 stories and, at a minimum, the eave lines lowered to bring the building to a
more pedestrian scale and reduce the mass along Willow Circls and Vail Road.
The staff also believes that the deck encroachments on the north setback
should be minimized. section 18.58.060 of ths Municipal code allows the
following:
"Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features
projecting from a structlre at a height of more than five feet
above ground level may proiect not more than five feet nor more
than one-half the minimum required dimension into a required
setback area, or may project not more than five feet nor more
than one-forth the minimum required dimension into a required
distance between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a
higher elevation may extend over a lower balcony or deck but in
such case shall not be deemed a roof for the lower balcony or
deck. (Ord. I (1973) 17.203.)"
We believe that very limited relief if any is wananted for the deck
encroachments proposed on the Wllow Road side of th€ proiecl because the
decks could be reconfigured minimizing the encroachment into tho setbacks.
The applicant proposes to remove all ol the existing tr€es on the site.
Currently, lhere are four large mature sprucs tr€€s on the west end ol the
property and two on the north side of the existing building. The stall would like
to see the applicant maintain this existing vegetation on he wost end by
redesigning the proposed building fooprint for the project. We feel that it is
important to maintain this matur€ vegotallon which will provlde a landscape
buffer lor the corner of tre propefi. By adjusting the building design and site
plan to protect thsse tre€s, a landscape buffer will be created at the intorsection
of Vall Road and Willow Road.
The appticant is also proposing to plant tour neu, tress at the corner of Vail
Road and Willow Road which the staft feels is positivo. Willow Road will ba
nanowed athe interseciion and the landscaped area will be extended to the
west which will minimize the opportunity for tratfic to enter thE Willow Circle
area from the west. This will decrease the amount of asphalt in the area.
Densitv
The use ol common area lor GRFA for three employee housing units will not
impact to any great degree the existing or potential uses of the sunounding
properties. while the stafl is unable to support a density variance for this
roquest, we recognize that the employee housing units of this type are a priority
for the community.
Parkinc in the Front Sotback
The applicant is proposing to locate a portion of the required parking in the front
setback both at grade and within the proposed garages. The safl believes that
the proposed parking ptan will adversely effect the character ol the
neighborhood becausg ol the two driveways along Wllow Road and one along
Vail Road. Due to both safety concems resulting from three curb cuts lor one
property and visual impacts ot the propos€d threo brick paver drivsways, staff
suggests that there should be a single access point to an errclosed parking
stucture and if surface parking is proposed, it should be located oul of the front
setback and be screened heavily by landscaping. Another option may be to
design one €gress and one ingress ofl ol Willow Road to allow for one way
traffic circulation. This would result in nanower driveways (15 fegt instead of 20
leeg.
2.
The Public Works Deparlment will require that only at grade lanGcaping (grass
and planting beds) be plac€d within 7leet ol tho edge ot asphalt along Willow
Road to allow for snow storage and maintenance along Vail Road. Public
Works is requesting a 5 foot road improvements and a 10 foot drainage
easement. The applicant has agreed to hese requests. Unfortunately, due to
the location ol the building and the area being used for parking, the resulting
area available for trees and shrubs along Willow Road and Vail Road becomes
very limited. In addition, the vertical landscaping must be limited in order to
provide proper site distances necessary lrom each driveway.
The VailVillage Master Plan specifically states that "#2-3 Adequate landscape
buffers between this parcel and Town roads and adjacent properties should be
maintained through the redevelopment of this property.' Also, Objective 3.1
and 5.4 encourage landscaping to improve the pedestrian experience along
circulation conidors in the Village. Statf leels the proposal does not meet this
objective on the north and south sides of the project.
The dcgree to which rgliel from the strict and literal lnterpretataon and
entorcement ot a specified regulatlon is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to
ettain the obleciives of this tltle wlthout grant of speclsl privllege.
Setbacks
The development of this site is limited due to the lot size and unusual lot
configuration. There are 20' setbacks on each side of the property. Vail Road
also encroach€s onto the lot on the south side of the property. Goal #1 -
Objective 1.2 of the Vail Village Master Plan state, "Encourage the upgrading
and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities." The
redevelopment ol this site is positive for the Willow Circle area. The staff
recognizes that some relief from the setback standard will be necessary to
achieve this goal. However, we find that the massing of the north side of the
building should be minimized. The 10 foot setback has th€ potentialto be
acceptable if changes are made to the building to reduce the mass and scale ol
the building in this area. However, given the current design, staff believes the
request is not compatible with adjacent properties.
Densitv
The statf recognizes that the applicant does have common area available.
While, the staff feels that employee housing unib are a benefit to the
community and supports the concept, the issue is that, in stiaff's opinion, the
density variance process is not an appropriate zoning tool to allow for this
request. Another alternative would be to use a portion of the allowed GRFA for
the employee housing units.
As requested, the applicant proposos to use the allowEd common area for ttree
permanently restricted employea housing unib each having GRFA ranging from
36 square feet to 4'tl0 squar€ feet. The Vail Village Master Plan states that the
development ol this site is very limited. The Vail Village Master Plan stiatos
under Objective 2 - 3, 'While slight increases in residential density may be
considered in the redevelopment of this lot, the shape of the lot may seriously
hlnder the potsntial for GRFA greater than what is permitted by sxisting
zoning."
GRFA and common area in multi-family buildings are counted as follows:
"8. Within buildings containing more than tuvo allowable' dryellings or accommodation units, the following additional
areas shall be excluded from calculations as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking
requirements.2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spacas
are common spaces and that the total square footage of
all the followlng spaces shall not exceed thirty-five
porc€nt of the allowable GRFA permitted on fie lot.
a. Common halhrays, stiainrays, elEvator shafts 6nd
airlocks;b. Common lobby areas;c. Common enclosed recreational facilities;
d. Gommon heating, cooling or ventilation systems'
solar rock sloraga areas, or other mechanical
systems. Square footage excluded from the
calculation as GRFA shall be the minimum square
footags required to allow for the maintenance and
operation of such mechanical systsms;B. Common closet and storage areas, providing
acc€slr to such areas is from common hallways
only;f. Meeting and convention facilities;
S. Offics space, provided such space is used
exclusively for the managemenl and operation of
on-site facilities.
Any square footage which exceeds the thlrty-five percent
maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA.
3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or
threlling unit not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five
squarg feet, providing such unit has direct access to he
ouUoors.
4. Overlapping stainrays within an accommodation unit or ,
dyvelling unit shall only be counted at the lowest level."
Parkino in the Front Setback
All of the projects in this area have structured parking below grade with the
exception of the Willows which has above grade structured parking lo the north
of their existing buiHing. As proposed, this project will have individual garages
with three driveways, two along Willow Road and one on Vail Road. The 20
foot wide drivenray cuts along Willow Road will have negative impacts on the
streetscape of the area. In addition, th6 inability to landscape along the edge of
fte road due to visibility and roadway requirements, tris solution becomes
unacceptable to the staff.
The two garages off of Wllow Road will be located within the front setback as
witt the two at grade parking spaces. Previous applications for the development
ol this site included structured parking partially below grade which had a single
access point. The staff linds that while we supported he variances for parking
in the front setback under the prwious scenarios, that this proposed parking
scheme has negative implications on the streetscape of the area and
compromises the salety of the site, lt has been the policy ol the Town staff to
minimize road cuts on properties. We find that a variance for this type of
parking is not appropriate as proposed.
The efiect of the requested rrarianc€ on light and air, dlstrlbution of
populatlon, tEnspoilation and trafllc facillties, publlc iacllltlgs and
utilities, and public safsty.
Setbacks
The shading of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways
appears fiat it will be extensive because of the bulk of the building located
adjacent to the street. The statf feels that the building should be terraced in
order to both reduce lhe shade impact as well as bring the building down to a
more pedestrian level.
DensiW
There will be no impact on any of the criteria as a result of this portion of the
request.
Parkino in the Front Sehack
The Town Engineer does not support fie proposed parking scheme due to the
safety implications. lf driveways and parking in the front setback are approved
for the north and south side of the project, then the landscaping which could be
placed along Vail Road and Willow Road would be minimal due to the
importance ol allowing for visibility from the driveway. The staff linds that this
l.
;e1i"ff :ffiisl?r,l'ffi ll:^3Td,'.fl:"Ji:ff iffi ff"nf lr"*"
have concems about the amount of pavement and traffic circulation on the
north side of the property.
B. The Plannino and Environmental Commission shall make fie followlno findlnos belore
orantino a variance:
1. That th€ granting ol the variancs tvill not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistsnt wlth he llmitations on other properties classilied in the same
district.
2. That the granting ol ths variance will not b€ detdmentral to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in $e
vicinlty.
3. That he variance is wananted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcEment of the specified regulation
would result in practicaldiflicufi or unnscessary physical harGhip
inconsistent with he objectives ol this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance hat do not apply generally to
other propertiss in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enlorcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners ol other
properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMTTIENDATIONS
The statf is unable to recommend approval of any of the requests. We find that, as proposed,
the mass of the building along Wiltow Road in the setback will have significant impacts on the
sunounding area. Should th€ mass of the building be reduced, by lowering the height of the
portion of the building in the setback and removing building area, particularly in the aea of the
four trees at he intersection of Vail Road and Wllow Road, the staff believes that the 10 foot
setback may be acceptable.
The statf leels that allowlng for the use of common arealor GRFA for any q/pe ol unit
including restricted employee housing would be a grant of special privilege under our Zoning
Code. Due lo a hck of physlcal hardship, it is difficult to support any type ol density variancs
even though we commend the applicant tor trying to accommodate EHU's into the project. A
more appropriale process for this type of request would be an SDD request. Because this site
can provide lor its pa*ing and due to the location of the site, we find hat while we cannot
support a dEnsity varianca for the units, that it could be an appropriate site lor employee
housing as long as the building mass and bulk, acc€ss, and landscaping issues are
ddressed.
.I
The staff is also unable to support the request for parking in the front setback. As proposed,
both enclosed and two at grade parking would be located in fie front setbacks. While
previously we supported a variance lor the parking in the lront setback for this site, the
application provided lor stuctured parking substantially below grade with a single access
point. We flnd that the introduction of thrEe driveway cuts and garages, for this project would
negatively ampact for the sunounding area both visually and in terms of safety, as discussed
previously in this memo.
Should any portions of this request be approved, he Public Works Department has requested
that the applicant grant easements for drainage, snow storage, and roadway encroachments
for this property as a condition ot the approval for his project.
Fc\memcval:on | 0.25
10
o f'#^TD
aa ^^lgr '-0 i1r,-7,13
Retum to
INTERDEPARTI'ENTAL REVIEW
I
pRoJEcr: l-WfffV -'{h"DATE SUBMITTED:
DATE OF PUBLIC HEABING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
/4.2-*--1 l2 dij
Date: /Z < 2)
l?D ,1,,a72tz6.-/ - 4t; r 44-
ft-/.<:zo.-r' "€--/)
/-4 G-d-Reviewed by: .z-'
/)
Comments: ) .Zor.S 7,-r../.1 ./S
-z4t-,/. 76' ,a-'< al''<:.
s'e7/: tz*y' 4!'<-'
V/c'e''^'//<<-x-'aJ' /-,2 z^-.zeJz*;;zoJ I
:) /,ttsz- /'": zry t/r''l- P 'z''t>?:a'i7o"z '/
/z/'L Rt/P/ ' 'z'/zz '2"'z '2"'-zc'/
.iid llrUe
$
!
R
$
I
z
)
IF
{s
$$
J
1
I
rl
I
I
I
:
I
)t;*t'b$
nbll
Yg
t,$
TE
$1
t
,\
\
It
t+s(
h'6
H'i
.14
i!ltti'o
nY
t*?6
$[
P1
v
'1
r).J
=3
/<iz: /,
p
...F..rt!aql._i
I
IF{l lil rilr rjiir
t'
a oD.q€ lt.nrrltll l.rll ' qn^ |||/|I l.oll '6 l-l
3CV'Id /t101llm tt
rliliilililr
a\
I
l\o
++
,lt Jt!lt rlJtl-)l
tl
tl
ll
riF
lllt ':.i
Wry
[+
ry
{,$
, f , ? ti*|ll
'tt|tFlr -! rr r_r!;! irr rvrllr|l, II
', lq' w,14
,,W,'lla.n, fl"r*- / l-r**n ,,/
' Tes*#&aw\)
W1/7r<-, nL+t da.d"Q
fur.* V'lrF
tA/Le2
Da.0dan- or- Nl ?l+v
'G,co
,frpn^-; -t-
r:/ '|
va'rad''z ry(h /^^ w, T**,
f,dt-1rw,,t o - furyy Prrtk,
.,\AL'. (bMrLt ^r1rt*42r6n'zf q {4h-{s-q l],(A& -/i t+vtllk,
\J '.-.-_,/ | n, U U/.^ d' +^rilrfT.^ //\^ ha+
'
brral diwry, o
?Ah^-?r,rhv,r,^ BL - Null^ ftrr"d v,tie
] ant*t'ttt Nr'd
'' Irlll qryAt', ^',at
dc- t
/v(t W,tu\
ftlkwtlL-oe,.ax,8tA tul b0-" - hL ElU, A' ,Wr@. "*X &,,-fu Largdlw.
W h0 I'a^H unfu/1"-r1 'J
,
Uu /W qtarav frWT*bYu*'w,)
YA\-
)
M-#*Ymq
Iffiwffi' ^nT1+ ^lfrtr\,^ffirWh., ,l tt^td ,A*l eult^nrr- l
A q)At"-\'ftnOrt- q ,v\fuaLfi ']-, ry /w{h".-WgilO"9,
ha4 ; 4o*,,'"-.to1,' @npn*o4*^ A"r"*Pr^r.-^tf| ,lPrn'dca'4 iorrtlr.,,ra - olt ,
<h-, ^ ^ ..,.. ^t,t rt
| |
Tana*1 fu"t')"'4
AArt*A,,- OV^ V/ ryvo1U* JAanl*ur' ^t1 ta#gpa*^ .,
6notttry^tr',pAv, 4wlay- - Ua-ufffr W)rc-l ,l0lio n4*v,n9,
'E - nrl ,.- \-/ 'J#UW- AAl--.^rr"lr Fll-,, , t
'-,{KIU\
%--Y'
#rlawn- W r^/l
?n0{urt* U"k- no
ry
"rl d)
tvsutbi
^e1
lo4fr;*
ry
\wr'\,,.&'"f.L
- =ffir4 wv',ej.r@, &r'r-'
@ sk ''/
1-0
+wfb*4
F\i
S^T'Y
rnr' -r
\s^ss
\)F.
fo
NoV ?a ,93 11:11 P.S'IRCHITECTS - VRIL, co,
Urilt One:
Unit Two:
Unit Three;
Totd GRFA
Totrf common Arjl te# g@ st ;:_llj\\ Total GRFA + Emp. Units + Comrnon:
Garage ffi, 2,2+t el
t 4a).r'r.{'# strE Qpv-ERAcE'Eg I | '7 ?\
,tryt< a
Total Bulldlng Site Covcrege:
LEvelS
ufl2-aes st
--sf
Eg[ sl
4f wtLlow PtAcE
SGIUARE I.QOI'AGE TABLE
GRFA
Level?
lddl,o32 sf
It{zgl,+r+ sr
l35 7_-3_0 sr
3,182 sf
11/29/e3
Total
2,895 sf
2,4{19 sf
2,-019 sf
Z*t12P ct
433 sf
380 sf
4O7 sf
-3..6-9 sl
1.589 sl
gegast
2.247 sl
.[.802 ef
7,579.44 st
7_5Jnl sl
Z.-654rEL sf
7.654.L0 s!
e,947.82 gf
0,9tE.OqSl
2.652.8p gf
3$ta.gg.d
l0.306 rl
7q+o
4-6to
2ehl
Garage
Levet Levell
i(t1 t6r cl lo7fr't,011 st
l1o 18O3f,r1iL 845sf
-Wtgcel%lw-et
199 S P,oo"s S
.1 ,-r. >-
@
q5
1l
Employee Unit 1 4lD zt33 ef
Empfoyce Unit 2 41t S6O *
Empfoyee Unii 3 4H.nZ X
Common lMaan.y Vo1 960 $t
Allowable GRFA: .60 x.29 acres -
(3) Alrlocke; I x 20 Ef =
Allowable Site Covcrage:
.55 x .29 acres a
Allowablc Common Area:
.85 x 7,579.44 sf =
Total of Allowable GHFA pluc Common Area:
7,664 sf + 2,65e sl =
_arto
'751 |t6il
at o5
- t4,
15vlGc)
WVVI(
t-+ to -Lh
n17 )- 14
qvo I L4,
gv)- z
E?++ bh|
1,-+("(".
tt bh2-
P<o ?
ualft6+-\nL
_l\QvwL
l/r.ul:\,
-- iSa^.aS
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
October 25, 1993
A request for a worksession for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the
front setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the
development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be
located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicants: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson
Planner: Shelly Mello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
The applicant is requesting a series of variances to construct a four-family dwelling unit, with
partially below grade structured parking and one employee housing unit on the property listed
above. The variances are necessary for the following:
1. A 12 foot 6 inch maximum building encroachment into the 20' north (front)
setback and a 12 foot building encroachment in the 20' east (side) setback;
2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (side)
setbacks;.3. A 12 foot 6 inch maximum encroachment into the north (front) setback for the
underground parking structure;4. Parking to be located in the 20' front setback. For lhe purposes of zoning, lhe
staff will consider the north side of the property, adjacent to Willow Place, as
the front setback because access is being taken from this side of the lot.
5. A density variance for the use of common area as GRFA for residential units;
6. A density variance to allow for the use of common area lor an employee
housing unit;7. A 14% heated driveway which is 21"/o in excess of lhe allowable grade.* Roof overhangs will encroach a maximum of 3 feet further into the setback than
the specified building encroachments. Roof overhangs are allowed to encroach
4 feet into setbacks by zoning.
In addition, the applicant is asking to use the 250 additional GRFA allowance lor the multi-
family unit. Because the applicant is demolishing a single family residence, he would be
entitled to one 250-additional GRFA allowance if the applicant was adding the 250 square feet
to a single famity unit. A distinction with the applicant's request is that the 250 square feet
associated with a single family residence would be incorporated into a multi{amily project.
For multi{amily projects 250's can not be used to modify the exterior of a building. The staff
I
is researching whether or not it is appropriate to allow the 250 to be used under these
circumstances.
Gurrently, a non-conforming residence is located on the site. The existing building
encroaches 12 teet into the 2O-foot lront setback on the north and 8 feet-6 inches into the 20-
foot side setback on the east. A total of 851 square feet of the existing building footprint
encroaches into the setback. Approximately 1,147 square feet of the proposed building
iootprint would encroach into the setbacks. This does not count the portion of the garage
which is entirely below grade. The existing building will be completely demolished and
replaced by the proposed multi-family project.
It. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Lot size: 0.29 acres or'12,589 square feel
Zoning: HQh Density Multi-Family
Existinq Allowed\Required Proposgd
Site Coverage: 3,029 sq. tt. 6,923.9 sq. n. 4,478 sq. ft.
ot24V" cf55% 35.5%
Densily:
GRFA: unavailable 7,553 sq. ft." 8,527 sq. fl."
(974 sq. n. over allowgd)
Dweflang Units: 1 7 4+ | Typo lV EHU =4.33
Common Area: 0 35% ol allowed GRFA 1919 sq. ft.
or 2,643.5 sq. fl. (724 sq. fi. remaining)
Building Selbacks: I' north 20 feet on all sidEs 7'6" north
20' south 20' south
11'-6" easl 7'6" easl
Deck Setbacks: 4'north l5leet for deck 4'north
5' abwe grade 7'6' easl
Underground Pa*ing: None No parking 11 spaoes undeEround
allow€d in 20 fool
from selback
Parking: 2 surface 11 sPaces; 11 spaces underground
75% enclosed
Heighl: below 48' 48' 48'
Landscaping: 8,889 sq. ft. 3,776 sq. ft. 6,251 sq. ft. or 49.6%
d 7e/" or 30%
' Landscaping does not include al-grade decks or driveway.
" ThE applicant would propose lo use fte 250 - additional GRFA and the remaining common area for GBFA, lherefore lhe
allowable GRFA as proposed would be 7553 sq. ft + 724 sq. ft. remaining common area + 250 allowanco - 8527 sq. fl.
!
III. RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC shoulcl consider
the Master Plan's goals and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerpts
specify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concepts for this site.
Wiltow Circle Sub Area#2
"ln most cases, the levels of development throughout this sub-area greatly exceed
what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family). Gross residential
floor area ratios (GRFA) range from .6 to 1.3, with an average of 1.01. With the
exception of one parcel, all properties within this sub-area are developed at, or over,
their permitted levels of development. As such, there is little development potential left
in this sub.area."
#2-3 Willow Gircle Infill
"Presently this is the only property within the sub-area that is not developed to, or
above, existing density allowances. While slight increases in residential density may
be considered in the redevelopment of this parcel, the shape of the lot may seriously
hinder the potential for GRFA greater than what is permitted by existing zoning.
Adequate landscape buffers between this parcel and Town roads and adjacent
properties should be maintained through the redevelopment ol this property.
Structured parking would be necessary for any additional level of development.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.4.
Goal #1 Encourage the high quality redevelopment while preserving the
unique architectural scale of the village in order to sustain ils
sense of communiiy and identity.
Objective 1.2 Encburage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the village.
. Objective 3.1 Physically improve the exisling pedestrian ways by landscaping and
other improvements.
Policy 3.1.1 Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape
improvements, (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting, and
seat areas) along adjacent pedestrian ways.
Goat #5 Increase and lmprove the capacity, efliciency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the town.
Objective 5.1 Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities.
o
Objective 5.4 lmprove the streetscape of circulation coridors throughout the Village. '
'
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The PEC should consider the following Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail
Municipal Code when considering this project.
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to
attain the oblectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and Public safety.
B. The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followino lindinos before
qrantinq a variance:
1. That the granting ol the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
2. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other ProPerties in the same zone'
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
.v.STAFF CONCERNS
1. Setbacks
The surrounding area is comprised of high density multi-family projects with the
exception of the single family residence to the south of Vail Road. Setback
encroachments exist on a number of properties adjacent to the proposal. These
projects include The Willows, Riva Ridge South, Riva Ridge North, and Riverhouse.
Bishop Park, to the north of the proposal, is an SDD and has minimum setbacks of 5
feet in certain areas of the project. Decks and underground parking for the Bishop
Park project also encroach into the front and side setbacks.
The development of this site is limited due to the lot size and configuration. There are
20' setbacks on each side of the property. Vail Road also encroaches onto the lot on
lhe south side of the property. Goal #1 and Objective 1.2 of the Vail Village Master
Plan states, "Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities." The redevelopment of this site is positive for the Willow Circle
area. The staff recognizes that some relief lrom the setback standard will be
necessary to achieve this goal. At this time, the staff can only support the request to
locate the underground parking structure in the front setback.
The staff is concerned with the applicants' proposal for encroachments inlo setbacks
lor both the building and the decks. The staff believes that as proposed, the building
will have significant impacts upon the pedestrian experience along Willow Road. We
feel that the project is unlike Bishop Park, which uses a variety of ridge heights
adjacent to Willow Road in order achieve the pedestrian scale. In this proposal, the
building appears to be much more massive due to the scale of the elements and to the
lack of terracing as seen in Bishop Park. The stalf feels that the eaves should be
lowered as well as the ridge height for the areas with the setbacks and adjacent to the
roadways.
The statf also believes that the deck encroachments should be minimized. Currently,
the decks on the east side encroach 12 leet 6 inches into the setback and 16 feet into
the north setback. Section 18.58.060 of the Municipal Code allows the following:
"Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features projecting from
a struclure at a height of more than five feet above ground level may project
nol more than five feet nor more than one-half the minimum required dimension
into a required setback area, or may project not more than five feet nor more
than one-forth the minimum required dimension into a required distance
between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may
extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a
roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord. I (1973) 17.203.)"
We believe that very limited relief is warranted for the deck encroachments proposed
on either the Wllow Place (north) and Willows (east) sides of the project because the
decks could be reconfigured minimizing the encroachment into the setbacks.
The applicant has proposed to use a courtyard scenario down the center of the walk'
While this provides a wonderful amenity and visibility through the property which is
pos1fue, the proposed arched entry of the courtyard significantly adds to the mass and
bulk of the building. Should the applicant consider reducing or removing the entry arch
between the east and west portions of the building, the mass of the building could be
reduced considerably.
The ridge heights of thd Bishop Park structures directly to the north of this project are
48 ft. high. This project is not proposed to exceed the allowed maximum height of 48
feet. The staff recognizes the applicants' development right to build up to 48 feet, but
feels that the height of the building in the setback should be reduced and the eave
lines lowered to bring the building to a more pedestrian scale and reduce the mass
along Willow Circle and Vail Rd.
The shading of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways will be
extensive because the bulk of the building will be located adjacent to the street. The
staff feels that the building should be terraced in order to both reduce the shade impact
as well as bring the building down to a more pedestrian level.
2. Use of Common Area for GRFA
As requested, the applicant desires to use common area for both GRFA as well as for
an employee housing unit. The staff feels that the intent of the common area
allowance is not tor it to be used indiscriminately for GRFA and common area. The
statf recognizes that the applicant does have common area available to them, but we
do not feel that common area should be exchanged for GRFA. The staff feels that an
employee housing unit is a benefit to the project and that the applicant should consider
using a portion of the GRFA in order to provide this type of unit. A Type lV unit would
require a minimum of 200 square feet and a maximum ol 300 square feet.
As discussed in the Vail Village Master Plan, the development of this site is very
limited, The Vail Village Masler Plan states under objective 2 - 3, "While slight
increases in residential density may be considered in the redevelopment of this lot, the
shape of the lot may seriously hinder the potential for GRFA greater than what is
permitted by existing zoning."
GRFA and common area in multi{amily buibings are counted as follows:
'B. Within buildings containing more than two allowable dwellings or
accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be
excluded from calculations as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.
2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are
common spaces and that the total square footage of all the
following spaces shall not exceed thirty-five percent of the
allowable GRFA permitted on the lot.
a. Common hallways, stairways, elevator shafts and
o
airlocks;b. Common lobby areas;
c. Common enclosed recreational facilities;
d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar
rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square
footage excluded from the calculation as GRFA shall be
the minimum square footage required to allow for the
maintenance and operation of such mechanical systems;
e. Common closet and storage areas, providing access to
such areas is from common hallways only;
f. Meeting and convention facilities;
S. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for
the management and operation of on-site facilities.
Any square footage which exceeds the thirty-five percent
maximum will be included in the calculation of GRFA.
3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or dwelling unit
not exceeding a maxlmum of twenty{ive square feet, providing
such unit has direct access to the outdoors.
4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling
unit shall only be counted at the lowest level."
The staff does not feel that it is appropriate to allow for the use of common area for
GRFA because common area is intended to be used for the uses as listed above.
3. Use ol 250 Souare Foot Ordinance
The applicant wishes to use the 250 Square Foot Ordinance ("250') with the
development of this project. The staff recognizes that the applicant is entifled to a 250
due to the proposed demolition of the single family residence. However, we do not
feel that the 250 Additional GRFA Ordinance allows for the 250 to be put into a multi-
family building. lf the applicant were proposing a single family or duplex which allows
the 250 to be used for exterior modifications, this would be appropriate, but because
exterior modifications are not allowed with the use of the 250 in multi{amily buildings,
we feel that we cannot iustify the use of the 250 for this project.
4. Landscaoino
The applicant proposes to remove all existing landscaping on the site. Gurrently, there
are four large mature spruce trees on the west end of the property. The staff would
like to see the applicant maintain this existing vegetation by redirecting the proposed
site plan for the project. We feel that it is important to maintain this mature vegetation
which will provide a landscape buffer for the comer of the property. We believe that
the building design and site plan should be adjusted to accomplish a buffer at the
o
intersection of Vail Rd. and Willow Circle. At this time, the applicant has not submitted
a detailed landscape plan for the project. The staff will require that this be submitted
as part of the application and will be considered while reviewing the setback variance
requests.
The applicant is proposing a 3 foot wall along the perimeter of the project. The staff
feels that this is not in keeping with the Design Guidelines and encourages the
applicant to remove this from the proposal.
5. Public Works
The Public Works Department has requested that easements for drainage, snow
storage, and roadway encroachments be obtained for this property as part of the
planning process for this project. The Town Engineer does not support the pull-off
along Willow Circle or the request to allow a 14% heated driveway. The maximum
driveway allowed is 12/o heated,
pecvnemosUa6on I 0.25
rLt
u
d
\_
_1
+I\ll
Jt_l)to>l_,Nl rsrr[-
-9-
,
O
RetJm to
INTER-DEPARTMENIAL REVIEW
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL:
I l.ll 4r 4h- L,o\ 1)c""rzct'"'e'-\+ Ul4L' u- r
DATE OF PUBLIC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
PUBLIC WORKS
Revieured by:
comments: D Drilre_2o.- )
i/
Dare, /2/r/q3
wr-Jr tb. 10' + V*l
fto* sloy 5lr" lJ
Dq 4r*n 6Lb.
lro,-- E oF Fulu,- A
.J
+ F,,.s* ?a'
%or bss. trl*
Tri"6L lo'X /so'
E ,'A e;Jht
o^ l/* I
2,,*)
V o'*
lJ l,*
4
4
*L
J*tcl ,no. lflor2n^e,vl e s'^ a'J o'.]. o1 -il*-"
lln'4 bceklfi,v
lt ,+ t4 | O,*'ttts,
S.e- / acczss
3) fu-L oul Dr;w s o.r r-l ,' llo ,^r P.o* )
q * s4L+j co:,.4ta. &tL n*.r,I.t;1h to, !.c,../ av e rro^ hr+lcc^dg
fl ,Ju"^t sca. y i V ^^ii!?'
sl:"t'ti
7,
Otvzcs
fntL<
oH lk
Snaut *1rr"V e4te' *]
{ for..) c+>J nt U-l F*Jz,L
-
T T
A ?,,r-L l,' R oJ 1,6'/2''' i tt"//'>ut
Po^l uJ Tre-, oa *tL n*-ld
d O^/ 5/.u-J,no, ia -l-t- ro.,J s Jr^;^oy
24* *lt , y'k s/or.,- s.z,--.<z
*u, /J A. ins fo//cJ r1ou.) -
t / t/c'^
d furo c*Lt+ E/^t q ":,e
J
a) ?b1,. @ N! P"r.,-".J 77v.'{-i
?n' + l.i.l)t H,,-='l '
v) E*ln'", oA l/*- / Ro- s €acoveaw ?n, L,^,
,j v is; 1,, ,?'*"7i"> o+z fi.'v / [
enL,* , .r"
ttr
,---1.,^,
P-''c l5 *|ry l,
, D)
cr"*'l;V 4':- o^O'u*J ny &,^-^-,
ll) il*n 4".'est l-,-- hJ, //0, ,,, ,L [-. t Z ) UlaVT
tz) 5u,u.7 sL' lJ slu-., cu/ot'I j n"ur, *.
"" L o( lL,lt
(*.J . ( /-/r-, u,e,\ Wl LJ yVe, J. s,Jo zl*,,.J)
Srq
? ,-n
J
ADTACENT PROPERTY OWNERS
1. Biehop Park Condoniniun Association
63 Wlllos Place
VaiI , Colorado 8L557
Ipta 1 and 2, Block 6, Vail ViJ-lage First
2. George webBterc/o Boston Harbor Trugt Co., N.A.
{O Rowea Wlrarf, Suite 5OO
Boston, l.IaEaachusetts 02UO
3. Tha $ill-ows Condoninium Association
Box 759Val.l, CO 81658
lo/11q3- oori N,mr o-rf, .ql\.' tr laolqa- *il Sl-rf o-r-1. 'a?t \
+
I
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERW
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on October 25, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building. ln
consideration of:
1. 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 lntermountainl2SS4 Snowberry Drive.
Applicant: Millie Hamner, Chris and Mary BallPlanner: Jim Curnufte
2. 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, VailVillage 1st Filing.
Applicant: Paul GotthelfPlanner: Jim Curnutte
A request for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the front setback, and a
driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the development of a condominium
project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6,
Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson
Planner: Shelly Mello
4. A request for a worksession for variances for road grade and wall heights and a
major subdivision (Trapper's Run) to create thirty Hillside Flesidential lots to be located
on Lot 8, Block C, Vail Ridge and Lots 16, 19 and 21, Section 14, Township 5 Soutlt,
Range 81 West, generally located north of l-70 and west of the Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: John Ulbrich, represented by Gateway DevelopmentPlanner: Jim Curnutte
5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between VailVillage 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way.
{pplicant Vail Valley Medical CenterPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
t
6. A request to relocate the helipad to the west end of the snow dump located at 1309
Vail Valley Drive/an unplatted parcel located west of the Town of Vail shops and east
of the Spraddle Creek development.
Applicant: VailValley Medical Center
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
7. A request for approval of the Cemetery Management and Master Plan Report, for the
Town of Vail Cemetery to be constructed in the upper bench of Donovan Park located
generally southeast of the Matterhorn neighborhood and west of the Glen Lyon
neighborhood.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior alteration proposal for ihe Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeVPart of Lots B and
C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: Kristan Pritz
+'
THIS ITEM MAY EFFECT YOUR PROPERTY
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town of
Vailwill hold a public hearing in accordance with Section 18.66.060 of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail on December 13, 1993, at 2:00 P.M. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
In consideration of:
A request for variances for setbacks, density and parking in the front setback for the
development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at
44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
2.
3.
A request for site coverage, density and landscaping variances 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 1st Filing.
Applicants:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson
Shelly Mello
Rod and Beth Slifer
Mike Mollica
Juanita l. Pedotto
Andy Knudtsen
A request for a worksession to rezone a tract lrom Primary/Secondary Residential t0
Low Density Multi-Family, located at 2850 Kinnickinnick Road/more specifically
described as follows:
A parcel of land in the Southwest Quarter of Section 14, Township 5 South, Range 81 West of the 6th
Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence a brass cap set for a witness corner lor lhe West Quarter of said Section 14,
bears (North 29 degrees 28 minules 51 seconds West, 1073.08 teet Deed) (North 43 Degrees 15 minules
02 seconds Wesl,915.96 feel Measured); Thence North 74 d€rees 05 minutes l9 seconds East, 10.76
feet; Thence l8it.62 feet along the arc of a curve 10 the right which are subtends a chord bearing North 88
degrees 12 minutes 30 seconds East, 181.76 feel; Thence South 77 degrees 40 minutes 21 seconds East,
62.77 feel; Thence 147.43 feet atong the arc of a curve to the left which arc subtends a chord bearing
North 86 degrees 36 minutes 17 seconds East, 145.60 feet; Thence North 70 d€rees 52 minutes 55
seconds East, 406.55 feet; Thence 54.10 feet along the arc of a curve to lhe tight which arc subtends a
chord bearing SorJth 47 degrees 20 minules 37 seconds East, 44.20 feet; Thence South |4 degrees 25
minutes 50 seconds West, 110.51 feet;
Thence South 68 degrees 18 minutes g1 seconds West, 320.00 feet;
Thence North 19 degrees 07 minutes 05 seconds Wesl, 50.00 feet;
Thence South 77 degrees 48 minutes 41 seconds West, 160.18 feel;
Thenca South 10 degrees 53 minutes 33 seconds West, 36.48 feet;
Thence North 87 degrees 40 minutes 06 seconds West,337.72 feet;
Thence (Nonh 11 degrees 52 minutes 13 seconds Easl, 130.00 feel Deed) North 11 degrees 55 minules 31
seconds East, 129.75 feet Measured) lo the POINT OF BEGINNING.
Bearing from G.L.O. record for South half of Section line between Sections 14-15. (G.L.O. record South 01
degrees 30.2 minutes East) (South 01 degrees 38 minutes 32 seconds East Measured)
4. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior alteration proposal tor the Sliter Buibing, 230 Bridge StreeuPart of Lots B and
C, Block 5, VailVillage 1st Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: Kristan PriE
5. A request to relocate the helipad to the east end ol the Ford Park parking lot located at
580 S. Frontage Road EasVan unplatted parcel located between VailVillage 7th Filing
and Vail Village 8th Filing and a portion of the l-70 right-of-way.
Applicant: VailValley Medical Center
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
6. An appeal of a staff interpretation regarding a deed restriction limiting the use of a
crawl space at the Todger Anderson residence, located at 1175 Sandston'e RoacULot 1 ,
Block 1, Lionsridge 4th Filing.
Applicant: Todger Anderson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
2.
o p!!-t c$Pv
A request for a worksession for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the front
setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the development of a
condominium project and an employee housing unit to be located at 44 Willow
PlacdLot 9, Block 6, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicants:
Planner:
Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. Larson
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello stated that staff was uncomfortable letting the applicants use the
additional 250 GRFA for this prolect. She said that Tom Moorhead had stated that the
intent of the 250 Ordinarice did not allow the 250 to be used for exterior modifications
on multi{amily buildings.
He stated that they were attempting to explore different avenues for this project. He
stated that they are trying to open up the center part of this site and that they were
trying to follow the direction given on the previously submitted plans by Ned Gwathmey
which attempted to create common area for this site. He stated that they would like
feedback from the PEC concerning where to go with this project.
Kathy Langenwalter asked the PEC to focus on the five concerns that staff has listed
on Page'l of the statf memorandum.
Diana Donovan stated that she would like to see this project stay within the underlying
zoning. She stated that she was against the trees located on the west end of the
property being removed. She stated that the 250 could possibly be used for'an
employee housing unit if the applicant matched it from the allowed GRFA. Additional
GRFA for the employee housing unit could be allowed only if variances could be
avoided with this proposal.
Jay Peterson inquired whether common area could be used for the employee housing
unit.
Diana Donovan stated that any addition on this site will "look big". She did not feel
that common area should be used for the employee housing unit.
Jay Peterson stated that previous plans by Ned Gwathmey required setback variances
for the east and west sides of this site. He inquired whether this would be allowable
with the cunent proposal.
Bill Anderson stated that he agreed with Diana's comments concerning GRFA if most
variances could be avoided. He stated that he could see that a setback variance could
be necessary for the garage on the north side of the property. He stated that he felt
the building should be terraced to the south. He added that lowering the eaves could
visually help the proposal. He stated that he did not like the elevated walkway
between the two buildings.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commisslon
October 25, 1993
Tom Frye, the architect, stated that they were considering stepping up the building
mass away from Willow Place. He added that this was a difficult site.
Jeff Bowen stated that he agreed with Diana's and Bill's comments. He stated that he
feels that the building is too massive. He stated that he would like to see the ridge
lines varied. He stated that he did not feel that the open area would work with this
large of a building. Jeff said that he would like to see the large evergreen trees remain
on the site.
Jay Peterson inquired what the PEC's feeling was concerning the eastern setback.
Jetf stated that he felt that some relief could be granted for setbacks.
Dalton Williams stated that the previous plan was maxed out on mass and bulk and
setbacks. He feels that this proposal is a departure in the wrong direction. He felt that
this piece of property is too small lor the size of the building the applicants are
proposing. He stated that ths building needs to step up the mountain as well as west
to east. He added that he would like to see the large evergreen lrees saved and the
height of the building reduced.
Jay Peterson stated that they would like to use the setbacks to achieve the stepping
that could be involved wilh this site.
Dalton stated that some relief could be given for setbacks. He added that he would
like to see the applicants work with the site better.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that this was a difficult site that could be ditficult to build out
to what the zoning allowed. She said that she had a hard time justifying a hardship
concerning sehacks on the site given the plaza. She said that the building needs to
be stepped, the ridge line needs to be more varied, and that it should be higher on the
south side and lower on the north side to fit the scale of the two roads that it is
between. She said that she was opposed to removing the evergreen trees. She did
not feel that a variance for additional square footage could be used on this site. Kathy
added that it would be difficult to show that a hardship exists on the site to justify
variances.
Hank Caldwell, an adjacent property owner, said that the proposed mass and bulk of
the building would create problems for the Vail Road and Willow Road intersection. He
stated that he was concerned about the drainage for this site and that there have been
problems with drainage in the past. He said that he was concerned that this proposal
was too close to his property line.
Jay Peterson inquired whether Mr. Caldwell would be opposed to balconies being
located on the east side of the building.
Mr. Caldrvell stated that he did not personally have a problem with balconies on this
side of the project as long as they were done right.
Plannlng and Envlronmental Commlsslon
october 25, 1993
Rick Travers, representing Bishop Park, stated that he would like to see the mass of
the building move to the south, and the roof line be more varied.
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she did not want to see the building extended past the
existing foundation on the east side.
Jay Peterson inquired why they could not get additional GRFA in order to get an
employee housing unit for this project.
Diana Donovan stated that she felt that using common area for an employee housing
unit could be feasible.
Jetf Bowen stated that he was concerned about the 250. He added that he was
concerned with the employee housing unit because it increases the overall units of the
site from four to five.
Dalton Williams stated that it used to be that people used to do things that directly
benefitted the community and that this was no longer the case. He stated that he felt
that people should be more willing to contribute to the community when projects are
proposed in respect to employee housing.
Hank Caldwell inquired whether the proposed Chapel Bridge would effect the road
configuration for this site.
Kristan PriE responded that she did not believe that the bridge would effect the road
configuration and that the Public Works Department would work with the applicants.
3. A request to modify ths landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUPart of Lots B and
C, Block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth SliferPlanner: Kristan Pritz
Kristan Pritz made a presentation per the staff memo.
The applicant proposed to not build the planter and instead:
1. Planting one z-llzinch caliper aspen in the pocket park on the southeast
corner of the Covered Bridge;
2. Planting one S-gallon shrub and assorted perennials in the northern stone
planter adjacent to the bench along the west side (Bridge Street) of Russell's.
Both locations are on Town of Vail land.
3. The existing pofted plant be replaced with a year round shrub which will be able
Planning and Environmental commisslon
October 25, 1993 4
IIEIIORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Gommunity Development Department
FIL T C$P Y
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
October25, 1993
A request for a worksession for variances for setbacks, density, parking in the
front setback, and a driveway which exceeds the allowable grade for the
development of a condominium project and an employee housing unit to be
located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village 1st Filing.
ApplicanF: Frederick H. Larson, Dorothy H. Larson, Lawrence K. Larson,
Frederick A. Larson and Lance V. LarsonPlanner: Shelly Mello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOUESTED
The applicant is reguesting a series ol variances to construct a four{amily dwelling unit, with
partially below grade structured parking and one employee housing unit on the property listed
above. The variances are necessary for the following:
1. A 12 foot 6 inch maximum building encroachment into the 20' north (front)
setback and a 12loot building encroachment in the 20'east (side) setback;2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (side)
setbacks;"3. A 12 loot 6 inch maximum encroachment into the north (front) seback for the
underground parking structure;4. Parking to be located in the 20'front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staff will consider the north side of the property, adjacent to Willow Place, as
the front setback because access is being taken lrom this side of the lot.5. A density variance for the use of common area as GRFA for residential units;6. A density variance to allow for the use of common area for an employee
housing unit;7. A 14/o hsated driveway which is 21"/o in excess of the allowable grade.
' Rool overhangs will encroach a maximum of 3 feet further into the setback than
the specified buiHing encroachments. Roof overhangs are allowed to encroach
4leet into setbacks by zoning.
ln addition, the applicant is asking to use the 250 additional GRFA allowance for the multi-
family unit. Because the applicant is demolishing a single family residence, he would be
entitled to one 2so-additional GRFA allowance if the applicant was adcling the 250 sguare feet
to a single family unit. A distinction with the applicant's requ€st is that th€ 250 square feet
associated with a single family residence would be incorporated into a multi-family project.
For multi-family projects 250's can not be used to modify the exterior of a building. The staff
o
is researching whether or not it is appropriate to allow ttre 250 to be used under these
circumstances.
Gurrently, a non-conforming residence is localed on the site. The existing building
encroacires 12 feet into tne 2O-foot front setback on the north and 8 feet-6 inches into the 20-
foot side setback on the east. A total of 851 square feet of th6 existing building footprint
encroaches into the setback. Approximately 1,147 square feet of the proposed building
footprint would encroach into the setbacks. This does not count the portion of the garage
wniin is entirely betow grade. The existing building will be completely demolished ancl
replaced by the proposed multi{amily project.
o
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Exislino
3,029 sq. n.
o( 24Y"
unavailable
0.29 acres or 12,589 squa.e feel
Zoning: High DensitY Muhi'Family
' Landscaping doeE not include al{rade de€ks or diwway - -.' Th€ applicanl woutd propos€ lo Jee fie 250 - additional GRFA and lhe remaining common ar€a lor GRFA, th€refore the
allowable GBFA as propo."O *ould-b" iSSS .q. n + 724 sq. fl. renaining cornrnon area + 250 elbwanc€ - 8527 sq tl'
[.
Lot size:
Sile CoveragB:
Dsnsily:
Parking:
Heighl:
Landscaping:
2 surface
below tE'
8,889 sq. fl.
ot lio/o
Drr€lling Unils: 1
Common Area: 0
Building Selbacks: 8' norlh
20' soulh
11'-6" easl
Deck Selbacks:4' north
Underground Parking: None
Allored\Required
6,923.9 sq. ft.
or 55%
7,553 sq. tt, "
35o/o of allowed GRFA
or 2,643.5 sq. ft.
20 leet on all sides
15 leel lot deck
5' abovo grade
No parking
allowed in 20 foot
lronl setback
1I spsces;
75olo enclosed
.A'
3,76 sq. n.
or 30%
Proposed
4,478 sq. fi.
35.5%
8,527 sq. fi."
(974 sq. n. over allowed)
4 + 1 Typ€ lV EHU = 4.3:|
1919 sq. tl.
(724 sq. tt. remaining)
4' norlh
7'6' easl
11 spaces underground
'11 spaces undergrcund
48'
6,251 sq. ft. or 49.67o
7'8" north
n' south
7'6" easl
III. RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE VAIL VILUGE ilASTER PLAN
This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC should consider
the Master Plan's goals and objectives when reviewing this request. The following excerpts
specify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concspts lor this site.
Willow Clrcle Sub Arep #i2
"ln most cases, the levels of dovelopmont throughout this sub-area greatly exceed
what is allowed under existing zoning (High Density Multi-Family). Gross residential
floor area ratios (GRFA) range from .6 to 1.3, with an averagE of 1.01, With the
exception of one parcel, all properties within this sub-area are developed at, or over,
heir permitted levels of development. As such, there is little development potential left
in this sub-area."
#2-3 Wllow Clrcle Inflll
'Presently this is the only property within the sub-area that is not developed to, or
above, existing dsnsity allowances. While slight increasss in residential density may
be considered in the redevelopment of this parcel, the shape of the lot may seriously
hinder the potential for GRFA greater than what is permitted by existing zoning.
Adequate landscape buffers belw66n this parcel and Town roads and adiacent
properties should be maintained through the redevelopment of this property.
Structured parking would be necessary for any additional level of development.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.4.
Goal #1 Encourage the high quallty retlevelopment whlle preservlng the
unlque architeclural scale ot the village in ordsr to sustaln lts
seme of communlty and identlty.
Objective 1.2 Encburage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #l To recognize as a top priority ths enhancsment of ths walking
experlence throughout the village.
Objective 3.1 Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by lanpscaping and
other improvements.
Policy 3.1.1 Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape
improvements, (such as paver trealments, landscaping, lighting, and
seat areas) along adjacent pedestrian ways.
Goal #5 lncrease and lmprove the capacity, efliciency and aesthetics of the
tlansportation and clrculatlon system throughout the town.
Objective 5.1 Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities.
Objective 5.4 lmprove the streetscape ol circulation corridors throughout the Village. t
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The pEC shoutd consider the following Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62'060 of the Vail
Municipal Code when considering this project.
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other exFtlng or potential
uses and structures in the vicinlty.
2. The degree to which reliel from the strict and literal Interpretation and
enforcement of a specifled rsgulation is necessary to achleve
compatlbility and unlformity of treatment among sites In the viclnity or to
attali the oblectives of this title wlthout grant of speclal privilege.
3. The eftect of the requested varlanoe on light and alr, distribution ot
population, transportation and traffic facilities, publlc tacilities and
utilities, and public safety.
B. The plannino and Environmental Commission shall make the followino lindinos belore
orantino a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of gecial privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
Z. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretalion or enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with ffre objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable io the same site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other Properties in the same zone'
c. The strict interpretation or enlorcement of the specified regulation would
deprivetheapp|icantofprivi|egesenjoyedbytheownersolother
Properties in he same district.
v.STAFF CONCERNS
1. Setbacks
The surrounding area is comprised of high density multi{amily projects with the
exception of the single lamily residence to the south of Vail Road. Setback
encroachments exist on a number of properties adjacent to the proposal. These
projEcts include The Willows, Riva Ridge South, Riva Ridge North, and Rivsrhouse.
Bishop Park, to the north of the proposal, is an SDD and has minimum setbacks of 5
feet in certain areas of the project. Decks and underground parking for the Bishop
Park project also encroach into the front and side setbacks.
The development of this site is timited due to the lot size and configuration. There are
20' setbacks on each side of the property. Vail Road also encroaches onto the lot on
the south side ol lhe property. Goal #1 and objective '1.2 of the Vail village Master
Plan states, 'Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.' The redevelopment ol this site is positive for the Willow Circle
area. The statf recognizes that some relief from the setback standard will be
necessary to achieve this goal. At this time, the staff can only support the request to
locate the underground parking structure in the front setback.
The staff is concerned wifi the applicants' proposal for encroachments inlo setbacks
for both the building and the decks. The statf believes that as proposed, fie building
will have significant impacts upon he pedestrian experience along Willow Road. We
feel that the project is unlike Bishop Park, which uses a variety of ridge heights
adjacent to Willow Road in order achieve the pedestrian scale. In this proposal, the
building appears to be much more massive due to the scale of the elements and to the
lack ol tenacing as seen in Bishop Park. The stafl feels that the eaves should be
lowered as well as the ridge h€ight lor the areas with the setbacks and adjacent to the
roadways.
The staff also believes that the deck encroachments should be minimized. Currently,
the decks on the east side encroach 12 feet 6 inches into the setback and 16 fEet into
the north setback. Section 18.58.060 of the Municipal Code allows lhe following:
"Balconies, decks, tenaces, and olher similar unroofed features projecling trom
a structure at a height of more than five feet above ground level may project
not more than five leet nor more lhan one'half the minimum required dimension
into a required setback area, or may project not more than five fBet nor more
than one-lorth the minimum required dimension into a required distanco
between buildings. A balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may
extend over a lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a
roof for the lower balcony or deck. (Ord. 8 (1973) 17.203.)'
We believe that very limited relief is warranted for the d€ck encroachments proposed
on either the Willow Place (north) and Willows (east) sides of the project because the
decks could be reconfigured minimizing the encroachment into the setbacks.
The applicant has proposed lo use a courtyard scenario down the center of the walk.
While this provides a wonderful amenity and visibili$ through the property which is
positive, the proposed arched entry of the courtyard significantly adds to the mass and
bulk of the building. Should the applicant consider reducing or removing the entry arch
between the east and west portions of the building, the mass of the building could be
reduced considerably.
The ridge heights ot tne Bisnop Park structures directly to the north ol this project are
48 ft. high. This project is not proposed to exceed the allowed maximum height ol 48
feet. The statf recognizes the applicants' development right to build up to 48 feet, but
fe€ls that the height of the building in the setback should be reduced and the eave
lines lowered to bring the building to a more pedestrian scale and reduce the mass
along Wllow Gircle and Vail Bd.
The shading of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways will be
extensive because the bulk of the building will be located adjacent to the slreet. The
staff feels that the building should be terraced in order to both reduce the shade impact
as well as bring the building down lo a more pedestrian level.
2. Use of Common Area for GRFA
As requested, the applicant desires to use common area for both GRFA as well as for
an employee housing unit. The staff feels that the intent of the common area
allowance is not for it to be used indiscriminately for GRFA and common area. The
statf recognizes that the applicant does have common area available to them, but we
do not feel that common area should be exchanged for GBFA. The staff fsels that an
employee housing unit is a benefit to the project and that the applicant should consider
using a portion ol the GRFA in order to provide this type of unit. A Type lV unit would
require a minimum ol 200 square feet and a maximum of 300 square feet.
As discussed in the Vail Village Master Plan, the development of this site is very
fimited. The Vail Village Master Plan states under objective 2 - 3,'While slight
increases in residential density may be considered in the redevelopment of this lot, the
shape of the lot may seriously hinder the potential for GRFA greater than what is
permitted by existing zoning."
GRFA and common area in multi-family buildings are counted as follows:
'8. Within buildings containing more than two allowable drellings or
accommodation units, the following additional areas shall be
excluded from calculations as GRFA:
1. Enclosed garages to accommodate on-site parking requirements.2. All or part of the following spaces, provided such spaces are
common spaces and that the total square footage of all the
following spaces shall not exceed thirty-five percent of the
allowable GRFA permitted on the lot.
a. Common hallways, stairuays, elevator shafts and
airlocks;b. Common lobby areas;c. Common enclosed recreational facilities:d. Common heating, cooling or ventilation systems, solar
rock storage areas, or other mechanical systems. Square
footage excluded from the calculation as GRFA shall be
the minimum square footage reguired to allow lor the
maintenance and opsration of such mechanical systems;
e. Common closet and storage areas, providing access to
such areas is from common hallways only;f. Meeting and convention facilities;
S. Office space, provided such space is used exclusively for
the management and operation of on-site facilities.
Any square footage which exceeds the thifi-five percent. m.uimum will be included in the calculation ol GRFA.
3. All or part of an airlock within an accommodation or drvelling unit
not exceeding a maximum of twenty-five squars feet, providing
such unit has direct access to he outdoors.
4. Overlapping stairways within an accommodation unit or dwelling
unit shall only be counted al the lowest level."
The statf does not feel that it is appropriate to allow for the use of common area for
GRFA because common area is intended to be used lor the uses as listed above.
3. Use of 250 Souare Foot Ordinance
The applicant wishes to use the 250 Square Foot Ordinance ("250") with the
development of this project. The stafl recognizes that the applicant is entifled to a 250
due lo the proposed demolition of the single family residence. However, we do not
feel that the 250 Additional GRFA Ordinance allows for the 250 to be put into a multi-
family building. lf the applicant were proposing a single family or duplex which allows
the 250 to be used for exterior modifications, this would be appropriate, but because
exterior modilications are not allowed with the use of the 250 in multi-family buildings,
we feel that we cannot justify the use of the 250 for this project.
4. Landscaoino
The applicant proposes lo remove all existing landscaping on the site. Currently, there
are four large mature spruce trees on the west end of the property. The statf would
like to see the applicant maintain this existing vegetation by redirecting the propbsod
site plan for the project. We feel that it is important to maintain this mature vegetation
which will provide a landscape buffer for the corner of the property. We believe that
the building design and site plan should be adjusted to accomplish a buffer at the
intersection of Vail Bd. and Willow Circle, At this time, the applicant has not submitted
a detailed landscape plan for the project. The statl will require that this be submitled
as part of the application and will be considered while reviewing the setback variance
requests.
The applicant is proposing a 3 foot wall along the perimeter of the proiect. The staff
feels that this is not in keeping with the Design Guidelines and encourages the
applicant to remove this from the proposal.
5. Public Works
The Public Works Department has requested that easements for drainage, snow
storage, and roadrrvay encroachments be obtained lor this property as part of the
planning process for this project. The Town Engineer does not support the pulFoff
along Willow Circle or the request to allow a 14% heated driveway. The mhximum
driveway allowed is 12h heated.
p€cvnemosva6on 1 0.25
w
S,
t
r{
,t. Ji,.,zio
rit'r:<r:>
,El:iljt!
,,F:.oi<
?rl
W.lloz
9 t t-v vvt t-t '\t I e/ ?-q9-7st / tLlxz'qq t zt\313--i
1120.11
l tz,rob k&
Wft^4or,- Are^
ltQ!l*1,
A {---,--, 1ur(hor"<({rrua.i ^, tJ 11.'"1't'levu . jE
?,, r t , , ^tLt L{ W' (' (g,L,.1t") r ftj,3(,- ti'7ia
*-t
?o,qE
loz' o t
l31,qq lq'I36
773, '7o :
4t ?tct ,1o
xzi,tz 713,Gz
{24,76r
Ovrif t
ll2l' */
lLlTq,ZD
1q(1, At
j$1, ' 7-zg, Sa
#q
,-,116.8
1 ll ,1s
oo
DEPARTilENTAL REVIEW
DATE OF PUBUC HEARING
COMMENTS NEEDED BY:
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPGAL:
+ *h N/ vr'ta*"u-6
FIRE DEPARTMENT
n ai.t:/Revlewed by: Z'Date:t'D <") 3
COmmentls: ) ,.ery,Z"nz-o 44d:/,'-e'J u,ut.azl ,7 2.-f a-z z. /49 Q,
7=t49
zl
fte,'4...<rr? J7s ;*''t'
4 2..,,aa.2', tj, StY' '
Z/r-.,2..47 L*., . L- /-z /oza.tr zz'a-
-/
*
3) ,zr)/ z*'Ee4 z, ,r. ^ j cn.2t I 5 iz- :'5'
'/
.aad lt JE
fi 'tt'1
W",v
nQ.V, "
, \\V.\)
]t ttcrl,-./-' l; /))t't'li'ii'-' ,'..,..'
I
I
-"1
i,
V
to " 2,lrl,Cui,h4
N I
= /aWA- UnQzw\ttj'+&ln.
44WILLOW PLACE
SOUARE FOOTAGE TABLE
GRFA
Unit One:
Unit Two:
Unit Three:
Unit Four:
Total GRFA
Common
Garage
Garage
Irvel Irvcl 1
134 sf 960 sf
I47 sf 651sf
1,483 sf
I'tvel2 Level 3
673 sf
705 sf
Total
2.716 sf r..-\
2,154 sf
1,483 sf
2.148 sf '
- 3.501 sf
:582sL
--?J15-st-
l0;lE3sf-
Vntu
949 sf
651 sf
:.
1.417 sf 731 sf
3,017 sf 2,109 sf II281 sf
1526st
3,716 sf
3,094 sf
156 sf
Total GRFA plus Common:
SITE COVERAGE
Total Building Site Coverac. @
ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCUI.AIIONS
Allowable GRFA: .60 x .29 acres : 7,579.44 sf
add GRFA 250.00 sf
(3)Airlocks + 75.00 sf
7.904sf
Allowable Site Coveragel. .55x.29 acres = 6.947.82sf.
--6J4&Q0sf
Allowable Common Area: .35 x7,829 sf* = --4Z4GL*7,579 +@[= 7,829sf
-2JtOstt_,no 0n 2O0
Total of Allowable GRFA plus Common Area:
7,904 sf + 2,740 sf = ____!Qf44$
?-te'13
i)-\\-_/_)-
&"J
T0ktl"l CrF |JFIII-
llisccllerpous Cedr
89-29-93 l3:68r t7
Receipt * 1343?5
ffccount lt CK * 5124
ERILEY, I{ffRRINGTTil, FETERsSI\UFRIM{CE
ftnount iendered )
Ircr Faid
810trr441336000
f,hange returned )
259.68
homt prid
254. B0
B, BB
TF|C$S( 1/ol.t
Vour cashier REflTHF
PLEASE MAKE
TOWN OF VAIL
D EPA RT;\{E}iT OF CO}I]VIIJNITY D EVELO P}TENT'
S,TLES ACTION FORI(
.. 75 souTH FRoNTA@-RoAD
*,",' !, yr ,(' l. Hihi"ii*]" f/:Fr".o,J onn/. 48
0l 00004t5{0 ZCi\E\C tu\D ADDRESS IlA.Ps
0l 0c00 424 I5 LTNIFO R\ { B UILDL'.-C C OD E
0l 0000 42.1r5 UM FOR\,I ]WEC H,A}'ICA L CO DE
UNIFOR,,\' FIRE CODE0l cr0c0J24t5
0t 0000 {24 t5 N,\TIONAL EL ECTRICA L CO DE . si0.00
0t 0000 {24 t 5
0l co00 .l t 513
OT1IER, CODE EOOKS
ELUE PRL{TS 6!YLA!1S)
0l 0000{2412 >:ER,OX COPIES / S'iUDIES
0t 00co 123?l PENAI.TY FEES / RE.1..-'SPECT]ONS
0l cr0c0.rt332 PL,L\ REVJE1V RE.CHECK FEE ISTO PER, HR,
0t coco 42323 OFF HOURS DiSPECTION FEES
0l 0000.il{ 12 CONT&\ CTO RS LI CE\S ES FEES
0r 0000{r330
SI6N APPLICAT]ON FEE.0t 0000 411t 3
0l 000041413 ADDITION^I. SICNAGE t;E IS].OO PER SO.IT.
0l 0cs0 424.{0 }TC ART PROJECT DONATION
0t 0cs04)331 PRE PAJD DESIGN REVIEW SOARD FEE
OI OOOO42412 I BUILDING-CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPUTER DT
*.01 0000 41010 TAX
01 0000 42371 rNvEsrrGATroN FEE (BUTLDTNG)
TOTAL DUE:
0t 00cr0!1330 . rsPEcL{LD
0l 00004t3
0t c\]00{t330
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
\
r,
f(
revLred L0/5/92 o
Appltcatlon Dat
PEC MEETING DAT
T
B.NAI'IE OF APPLICAITT', S REPRESENTATI\IE Jav K' Peteraon
ADDRESS 108 S. Frontage Road l,lest, ll3l7
m sEP 27 W3
*'q ft/vtax-
\,/
TPPITTCf,EION
'OR
r, \TIRI.f,I|SE, \ \M
Thls procedure is required for any proJect reguestlng dYvariance. The appllcatlon wlll ncjt be accepted until alli.nformation ls subnltted
A. NAttE OF AppLICaf.lT R:"^ld J. Byt"u & J.
ADDRESS 108 S. Frontagi.Road Wesr, ll3}7
Vail, CO 81657
Vai1, CO 81657
C. NAME oF OWNER(SL f-t-{pe or print)See title report & atEached letters
I
o!{NER (S) STGN4TURE (S)
ADDRESS
LOCATION OF
BLOCK 6
PROPOSAL:LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT
FILING Vail Vi1la e First
dqADDRESS
E.FEE s250.00 PATDJCK t_,BY
THE FEE IdT'SI BE PAID BEFORE THE CCMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENI WTLL ACCEPI YOUR PROPOSAL.
F. Stamped, addressed envelopes of the names of owners ofall property adJacent Uo the subject property INCLUDING
PROPERIY BEHIND AI.ID ACROSS STREETS, ANd A IiSt Of ThEir
names and maiLing addresses. THE APPLICANT WILL BE
F€SPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING ADDRESSES.
II. A pre-application conference wlth a planning staff member isstrongly suggested to determlne lf any additionalinfornation is needed. No appllcatlon will be acceptedunless lL ls complete (must lnclude all items requlred bythe zoning administrator) . ft is the applicant, sresponsibillty to make an appolntment wlth t,he staff to findout about, addltlonal submlttal reguirement.s.
III. PLEASE NOTE TIiAT A COMPI,ETE APPLICATION WILL STREAI4LINE THE
APPROVAL PROCESS FOR YOUR PROJECI BY DECREASING TIIE NUMBER
OF CONDTTIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PIANNTNG AND
ENVIRONMENTAI CoMMISSION (PEC) MAY STIPULATE. tLL
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAI MUST BE COMPLIED WITH BEFORE A
BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
FOUR (4) COPIES OF THE FOLLOWING MUST BE SUBMITTED:
A. A WRITTEN STATEMENT OF THE PRECISE NATURE OF THE
VARIANCE REOUESTED AIID THE REGULATION IDWOLIIED. TH8
STATEMENT MUST AISO ADDRESS:
1. The relat,ionship of t,he requested variance toother existing or potential uses and structures inthe vicinity.
D.
"QJ,q:
aq
l.
' - - =-'7-
se n ,xt La?mt -*
Tr
& Rssoc.
FREDERIG A. L.qRSOTt
LAWYB
NAtIONsIANr Atlr EAI{xtNo cl}rr!l uNrvElgltY DnIvE AT TlxAl AvlNUl
111 UHrVtSrIrY DEIVS E^ST ' ! UIt! tt0 ' coLLEC! trAlION' tlxA t 77t't
c!!EPlloNB (*otl ra6-6org ' tacStMlLE ({0t) l'5-5're
P.3
Torpnof Vail FAC6IMII,A
OPtsRATOR
thistanstilBisris a
eingleprBF
Friday, Septec$er 24+ 1999
te: tt4 WilIovt Roah V d, Color ailo 87557
Lot 9, Blo& 6, V ail Village E irct Elliry
To Whom Itlvlay Cottcutr
Bythirlcrtb I her"by give authmizatiorto Rctqrneto ma&eapplicatiurfu veriance
fsr the abovedessibed prcpertY.
$incecely,pffiwM,fr
kDKg(A. L.ARsoI''I
cqpy: F.H. Lareort
Itttl,il.t 'l;rf+
ctrFJ 77
-l--ll|,!r:.'
,93. LA|??An RON BYRNE g, nSS0C.
.! ;;; *. ",f u tsc'
IEE
?
?E I ?+B F. ttP.?.
P.s
*+qnrv
TtrTou,!oilVdl
14f.tllou tnA vdl @ 116f7
IlE
Ee
Id 9,Elool q vrfl Vllrlr ftrEf'ilbt
ltWhrEDf&YCscsa:
ty dil! ttE il hBt cvc qildll|dil D I[ &,tne o !rh) mlleltil futt|.n
lbr dr. rlst!dnlbl Ery*tt,
$nd'
****,r.*{,++*il$rtil*+++llt{rrt*+*iltG*t*i}tt*tt{tit+#t*{.t[{ltt+{'*+*ilillrF+++'lt'lt**{t:t++*.t'|t|}|ttl
TRfiHSBcTIOH REFgRTrft
*
*
*
*
{l
ri
#
NECEIVE
PH6E8 HOTESEHDE R
0t(
E6 E4? 5E;T 7E
l-ffiffi++++{t'|t+++*|tilt**#|*{txt*'}*+'fi!ftt'r+**{ttI'|.'|'*+tlx|*'|.***ill|+i+|$tIilt',
i. '!
SCHEDULE A
Our Order No. V19361-4
For Information only
- charges -
ALTA Owner Policy $5,759.00
$',;?3: 33
****WITII YOUR REI'fiTTANCE PLEASE REFER TO OUR ORDER NO. V19361-4.****
1. Effective Date: Auqust 09, 1993 at 8:00 A.U.
2. Policy to be issued, and proposed Insured:
frALTArr owner's Policy Lo-L7-92 $3,330,ooo.oo
Proposed Insured:
RON BYRNE
3. The estate or interest in the land described or referred to in
this Commitnent and covered herein is:
A Fee Sinple
4. Title to the estate or interest covered herein is at the
effective date hereof vested in:
FREDERICK H. LARSON, DOROTHY H. LARSON, LAWRENCE K. LARSON,
FREDERICK A. LARSON AND I"ANCE V. LARSON
5. The land referred to in this Connitnent is described as
follows;
I,oT 9, BLOCK 6, VAIL VILI,AGE, FIRST FILING, ACCORDING TO THE
RECORDED PLAT THEREOF, COI'NTY OF EAGr-,E, STATE OF COLORADO.
oALTA COI,II,TITMENT
PAGE 1
r'
SCHEDULE B.1
(Reguirements) Our Order No. V19361-4
The following are the requirenents to be complied with:
1. Paynent to or for the account of the grantors or nortgagors ofthe full consideration for the estate or interest to be
insured.
2. Proper instrunent(s) creating the estate or interest to be
insured nust be executed and duty filed for record, to-wit:
3. EVIDENCE SATISFACTORY TO THE COMPANY THAT THE TERUS, CONDITIONS AND
PROVISIONS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL TRANSFER TAX HAVE BEEN SATISFIED.
4. WARRANTY DEED FROM FREDERTCK H. LARSON, DOROTHY H. LARSON, LAWRENCE
K. LARSON, FREDERICK A. LARSON AND LANCE V. LARSON TO RON BYRNE CONVEYING
SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THE COUNTY CLERK AND RECORDERS OFFTCE REQUIRES RETI'RN
ADDRESSES ON DOCWENTS SENT FOR RECORDING! !
oALTA COMMITMENT
PAGE 2
ALTA COMMITMENT
SCHEDULE B-2
(Exceptions) our order No. v19361-4
The policy or policies to be issued wiII contain exceptions to thefollowing unless the same are disposed of to the satisfaction of
the Company:
1. Standard Exceptions 1 through 5 printed on the cover sheet.
6. Taxes and assessments not yet due or payable and special
asisessments not yet certified to the Treasurer's office.
7. Any unpaid taxes or assessnents against said land.
8. Liens for unpaid water and sewer charges, if any.
9. RIGHT OF PROPRIETOR OF A VETN OR LODE TO EXTRACT AND REMOVE HIS ORE
THEREFROU SHOULD THE SAIIIE BE FOI'ND TO PENETRATE OR INTERSECT THE PREXTIISES
AS RESERVED IN I'NITED STATES PATENT RECORDED JuIy 13, 1899, IN BOOK 48 AT
PAGE 475.
10. RTGHT OF WAY FOR DITCHES OR CANALS CONSTRUCTED BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE
T,,NITED STATES AS RESERVED IN I,NTTED STATES PATENT RECORDED July 13 , L899,
IN BOOK 48 AT PAGE 475.
11. RESTRICTTVE COVENANTS WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN A FORFEITI,]RE OR REVERTER CLAUSN,
BUT OMITTING RESTRICTTONS, IF ANY, BASED ON RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR
NATIONAL ORIGIN, AS CONTAINED IN INSTRI,I{ENT RECORDED August 10, 1962, IN
BOOK 174 AT PAGE 179.
12. EASEX'TENTS, RESERVATTONS AND RESTRICTTONS AS SHOWN OR RESERVED ON THE
RECORDED PI,AT OF VATL VILLAGE, FIRST FILING.
13. IIIILITY EASBIENT AS GRANTED TO Cor,IlfUNITY TELEVISIoN INVESTI.IENT, INC. IN
INSTRIIMENT RECORDED December L7, 1968, UNDER RECEPTION NO. 109773.
PAGE 3
ADDENDUU
I. PURPO8E
The purpose of the application is to request a side setbackvariance, a front setback variance, a parking in the front setbackvariance (for underground garage) and a GRFA variance for an employee
housing unit and for inclusion of 2oB square feet of common area into
GRFA. The variances are necessary. to allow the following:
A. A LZ foot six inch front setback variance for parking the frontsetback to allow underground parking.
B. A maximum front setback of 1"2 foot six inches as set forth on the
p1ans.
C. A GRFA variance of 6t7 square feet to all-ow an employee housingunit of 4O9 square feet and 208 square feet for regular GRFA.
D. A side setback of L2 foot six inches at the maximum on the eastside as set forth on the plans.
The roof and balcony overhangs are as set forth on the p1ans.
II. VAII, VTI,IJAGE I{A8TER PLAN
The site is specificalty addressed in the VaiI village Master Plan.The PEC should consider the Master P1an,s goals and objectives when
revieeting this request. The applicant feels that the request meets thegoal and objectives specified for this sub-area. The following excerptsspecify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concepts for this site.
Willow Circle gub Area #12
rrln most cases, the levels of developrnent throughout this sub-areagreatly exceed what is allowed under existing zoning (High DensityMulti-Family) . Gross residential fLoor area ratios (GRFA) range from .5to L.3, with an average of 1..01-. With the exception of one parcel (therrsubject Propertyrr), all properties within this sub-area are developedat, or over, their perrnitted levels of development. As such, there islittle development potential left in this sub-area.tl
#2-3 Willor Circle Infill
'rPresently this is the only property within the sub-area that is not
development to, or above, existing density allowances. While slight
increases in residential density may be considered in the redevelopmentof this parcel, the shape of the lot may seriously hinder the potential
for GRFA qreater than what is permitted by existing zoning. Adeguate
landscape buffers between this parcel and Town roads and adjacent
properties should be maintained through the redevelopment of thisproperty. Structured parking would be necessary for any additionallevel of developrnent. Special enphasis on L.2, 3.1-, 5.1-, 5.4.n
GoaI *1 Encourage the high quality redevelopment while preserving
the unigue architectural scale of the village in order tosustain its sense of cornmunity and identity.
obj€ctlv€ 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential
and conmercial faciLities.
coal *3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of thewalking experience throughout the village.
obj€ativ€ 3.1
Poll.cy 3.1.1
ObJectl.ve 5.1 Irnprove the streetscape
throughout the ViIIage.
II. CRITERIA AND ATNDINGS FOR THE VARIANCES
A. Consideration of Factors:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
Private development projects shall incorporatestreetscape irnprovernents, (such as paver treatments,landscaping, lighting, and seat areas) along adjacentpedestrian ways.
Gotl t5 Increase and improve the capacity, efficiency andaesthetics of the transportation and circulation systemthroughout the town.
Objectlve 5.1 Meet parking demands with public and private parkingfacilities.
of circulation corridors
the criteria andThe application in all respects neets
recommendations of the Vail ViIlage Master plan.
1. Tbe relationship of the requested varianc€ to otb€r eristlngor potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The surrounding area is comprised of high density nulti-farnityprojects with the exception of the single family residence to thesouth of Vail Road, which is the Subject Property. This projectwill be conpatible with the surrounding development. Setback
encroachments exist on a nunber of properties adjacent to theproposal . These projects include The Willows, Riva Ridge South,
Riva Ridge North, and Riverhouse. Bishop Park, to the north of the
proposal , is an SDD and has minimum setbacks of 5 feet in certain
areas of the project. Decks and underground parking for the Bishop
Park project also encroach into the front and side setbacks. Theridge heights of the Bishop Park structures directly to the northof this project are 48 feet high. Building heights do exceed 48feet on the north side of Bishop Park. This project does not
exceed the allowed maximum height of 48 feet.
Without the ernployee housing unit the proposed density for GRFAwill be .62 which is well before the average of L.0L for thevicinity. Unit densities of L4 units per acre is also well belowthe 25 units per acre allowed under zoning.
The Vail Village llaster PLan also states that slight increases indensity nay be considered.
2. Tbe degree to which relief fron the strict aDd literalinterpretation and enforcenent of a specified regulation is
neceEsary to acbieve conpatibility and uniformity of treatmeut
anong sites in tbe vicinity or to attain the objectives ofthis title without grant of special privilege.
As discussed above, the surroundingt properties have been grantedvariances for items similar to those being requested in thisproposal . The developrnent of this site is linited due to the lotsize and configuration. There are 20' setbacks on each side of theproperty. Vail Road also encroaches onto the Lot on the south sideof the property. coal #L and Objective L.2 of the Vail ViIIage
Master Plan states, rrEncourage the upgrading and redevelopment ofresidential and commercial facilitiestr. The redevelopment of thissite is positive for the Willow Circle area.
The project will complenent and enhance Bishop Park across thestreet by the use of similar colors, rnaterials and architecturalstyle.
Goal #g and Objective 3.1 are net by providing a sidewalk andIandscaping along Vail Road. The provision for a landscaped
courtyard plus a visual corridor through the project satisfies GoaI
f3, Objective 3.1- and Policy 3.1.1.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air,distribution of population, transportation and trafficfacilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
The requested variances wiII have no irnpact over what is allowed by
zoning on the above criteria. AII parking wiII be underground withno surface parking. The applicant will work with the Town
A.
regarding drainage, snow storage and roadway encroachments.
III. FINDTNGS
The grant of the variance will not constitute a grant of specialprivilege and aII properties in the area have been allowed
increased densities and setback allowances.
B. The granting of the variances wiII not be detrimental to the public
health safety or welfare, or naterially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity. The proposed variances will allow aproject which totalty conforms to the Vail Village Master Plan andwill conplirnent the surrounding properties.
C. The variance is warranted for
A. The lot presents a physical hardshipt and
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specifiedregulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the ohrners of other properties in the samedistrict. All properties in the area exceed density
refinernents and encroach into established setbacks.
It
TOWN OFVAIT
FIL E COPY
75 Sortb Frontagc Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
t0t -47 9 -21 3 I I 47 9 -21 39
March 15, 1993
Departmcnt of Commrnity Dcoclopmcnt
The Towermarc Corporation
c/o GwathmeylP ra|l Architects, P.C.
1000 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, CO 81657
RE: A request tor tront, side, and rear setback variances and a variance to allow parking in
the front setback for the construction of a triplex, located at 44 Willow Place/Lot 9,
Block 6, Vail Village First Filing.
Dear Ned:
Enclosed is a copy of the minutes of the September 14, 1992 Planning and Environmental
(PEC) meeting at which your client's variance requests wers approved. The attached copy of
the meeting minutes will serve as a record of this approval.
Please note that the approval of these variances shall lapse and bec-ome void if a building
permit is not obtained and consfuction is nol commenced and diligently pursued toward
completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted has not commenced within two year
from approval (September 14, 1992). lf approval of these variances lapse, an application
must be resubmitted for reconsideration by the Community Development Department staft and
the PEC.
lf you have any questions or comments regarding this information, please do not hesitatg to
contact me at 303/479-2138.
Enclosure
7
4 \',,rtE coP y
Westin Resort\Tri County Cable Vision
Andy Knudtsen
I
le€t th€.rce N 52 5029' E 48.70 fe€t; lhenco S 37 0931' E 9.60 feet; lherce N 52 50'29' E 80.00
t€et; thence S 37 09ts1' E 36.40 fo€r; thonco N 52 50'29 E 21.30 tget; therrcE S 37 0931'E
220.02 feet to Gore Cr€ek; thence tho following lour courses along Gore Croek: (t) S 49 2636' W
76.45 f€er; (2',1 522.31'36'W 124.47 le6ti (3) S 53 3736'W 119.34 f€€l; (4) S 6s 3136'W 14.s8
te€t; th€rrcs departing Gore Creek N 32 5930'W 141.47 teeri thence N 57 25'3O W 124.02 fesl;
thence N 37 0931' W 116.45 feet to the polnt ol beglnning, cor aining 1 10,200 square te€l or 2.49
acres. mote or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
Andy Knudtsen presented the request with a summary of the staff memo pointing out
the conditions of the staff memo as:
1. That the applicant rsmove all plywood screening that encloses the underside of
the deck on the west side of the building and remove the miscellaneous items
stored under the deck at this time;
2. That the applicant revegetate the slope around the satellite dishes and deck
area with native grasses;
3. That the applicant provide a landscape plan to the DRB which provides a
minimum of 12 shrubs to be located around the satellile dishes and 3 spruces
and 5 aspens to be located along the deck area in locations that will not block
satellite transmission signal lo the dishes. This landscaping should be
coordinated wilh the landscaping proposed for the Cascades.
The color was discussed as acceptable as black or white (to match the building) and it
was decided that the color choice could be left to DRB. Lynn Johnson explained that
the angle of the dishes would not protrude from beneath the decks, with the first dish
being flush wilh the opening and the second dish being angled 5 degrees in a
southwesterly direction. He said that he prefered two 12' dishes but that he could get
by with one 8' and one olher dish at 10' in diameter.
Dlana Donovan stated that shrubs should not be junipers and that they should be 4-5'
in height when planted (5 gallon). Spruces to be planted would have to be 6' min. in
helght with the aspen being acceptable as 2' caliper.
Dalton Williams moved to approve the request, with Greg Amsden seconding the
motion. The PEC voted unanimously 6-0 to approve the request.
t,A requ,gsuoralroiit, side, and rear setback variances and a variande=td-altorryarkiO
inthe front setback for the construction of a triplex, located at 44 Willow Place/Lot g,
Block 6, Vail village First Filing.
P|jNNIITIG AND ENVIRONIIENTAL OOIIMITiSION IIEENNG
Scplemb€r 28, 1992
\
Applicant: Towermac CorPoration
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello presented the requests summarizing the staff memo clarifying the area of
deck encroachment which was driving the need lor one of the requested variances.
The variances were explained as necessary to allow:
1. A g-foot 6-inch maximum building encroachment into the 20' north (front)
setback and a 10{oot building encroachment in the east (side) sehack;2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (side)
setbacks;'3. A S-foot S-inch maximum encroachment into the south (rear) setback for the
underground parking structure;
4. The underground parking structure entrance will encroach a maximum of 12-
feet 3-inches into the north (front) setback;
5. Parking to be located in the 20' front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staft will consider the north side of the property, adjacent to Willow Place, as
the front setback because access is being taken lrom this side of the lot.
' Roof overhangs will encroach a maximum of 3 feet further into the setback than
the specilied building encroachments. Floof overhangs are allowed lo encroach
4 feet into setbacks by zoning.
Shelly further explained that stalf does not support the deck encroachment in to the
east setback, the NW corner, or into the north setback.
The general consensus of the Board was that ihe decks were the only issue. The
Willow owners (Henry Caldwell) agreed with the building positioning and asked that a
substantial amount of trees be planted for screening between the two properties.
" Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt comfortable with the proposed deck in front,
and that no walkway should be in front of the proposed building, and that no more
encroachments should be permitted in the front setback (more than the building).
Dalton Williams stated that the back deck should be chopped off and that the amount
of the encroachment of the front decks on Unit 1 should match the other side. Greg
Amsden agreed with Dalton on the deck issues.
Jeff Bowen likes lhe proposed project as is, but will agree with Dalton about the deck
encroachment issues.
A vote was taken regarding the decks: 2-4 in lavor of Dalton's suggestion of chopping
ths one in back off flush with the building and the deck in front to be brought out to
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONM ENTAL COMIIISSION TEEnNG
September 28, 1992
-.r/ b
match the deck on the opposite side;
Drainage was discussed and it was brought out that it would be addressed by Public
' Works, the applicant, and The Willows. Dalton further suggested that the area be
curbed and guttered. The representative form Bishop Park did not feel that lhe buffer
in front was appropriate.
Dalton Williams motioned for approval per the staff memo:
1. To include larger evergreens between the buildings,
2. To shorten the back deck to be even with the building,
3. To make both decks 3'-6' and to make the right side balcony extend in fronl to
be even with the opposite deck, and
- 4. To ensure the drainage is addressed by easemenl.
Jeff Bowen seconded the motion with a 6-0 vote to approve the request per the
discussion.
6. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition to the residence located at
Lot 1, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing8025 Booth Falls Road.
Applicant: William and Julie EsreyPlanner: Mike Mollica
Mike Highland represented the owners (Esrey's) and asked that he request be table
indefinitely due to the fact that the owner would like to attend. The general consensus
of lhe Board was that a time limit be placed on the tabling or else the request
withdrawn due to the Public Notice filing procedures and the added expense as. explained by Mike Mollica. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to table the request untilthe
first meeting in January of 1993, with Dalton Williams seconding the motion. A vote of
6-0 unanimously approved the tabling.
7. A request for a variance from Section 17.28.330 to allow a residential driveway lo
exceed the maximum slope permitted. Lot 14, Block A, Vail das Schone Filing No.
1\2369 Chamonix Lane.
Applicants: PaulM. SandsPlanner: Mike Mollica
TABLED TO OCTOBER 12
PIANNING AND ENVIRONIIENTAL COMIIISSION MEEnNG
S€ptember 28, 1992
tl r
: \'' -:
8. A request for a wall height variance from Section 18.58.020 to allow for the
construclion of two retaining walls located in the front setback whicfi exceed 3 feet in
height,located on Lot 10, Block B, VailVillage Ridgel2692 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Hanns Weimann and The Town of Vail
Planner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin presented lhe request, explaining the safety concerns of the Town
regarding the strability of the hillside beneath Cortina Lane as well as for the Weimann
residence.
Diana Donovan stated that the landscaping should not be junipers, but should include
ptants such as salisberry and choke cherry with adequate root systems.
Dalton Williams motioned to approve the request per the staff memo and Diana
Donovan's suggestion of the landscape change, with Jeff Bowen seconding the motion.
A vote was taken and it was unanimous 6-0 to approve the request with he afore-
mentioned condition of native plants being used on the terraced areas.
9. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge StreeUParl of Lots B and
C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth SliferPlanner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed the staff memo with the Board. Ned Gwathmey, representing the
applicant, asked that the request be considered. Kathy Langenwalter motioned to
deny the request because the planter was an important part of the exterior alteration
and site @verage variance granled by the PEC. The planter should be built as
originally proposed gg modified to decrease the height and allow stucco to be used; to
be completed by Thanksgiving 1992. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion, with an
unanimous vote 6-0 to deny the request as submitted.
10. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18.57 Employee Housing tor the Town of
VailZoning Gode.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
TABLED TO OCTOBER 12
11. Discussion of recommendations regarding PEC meetings made at the recent Speak Up
Meeting.
PI.ANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL @MIIFSION l|EEnNG
SGplembar 28r 1992
.a.' i:',,o
12.
Kristan Pritz reviewed he Speak Up meeting with the PEC members pointing out that
it was brought up that the PEC meetings are taking too much time, and that the
meetings need to be limited to summaries of the memo and briefer discussions so that
the members of the public did not have to sit through long discussions that did not
concem them.
A request for a variance from Section 17.28.330 to allow a residential driveway to
exceed the maximum slope permitted. Lot 16, Vail Potato Patch\782 Potato Patch Dr.
Applicant: Andrew DalyPlanner: Shelly Mello
TABLED TO OCTOBER 12
A request for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village, to amend the
development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in area A, described as
lollows:
That part of lho SW 114 NE 114, S€ction 12, To,vnship 5 South, Range 8l West ol th€ Slxth
Princlpal Meddian, Torvn ol Vail, Eagle County, Cobrado, described as tollorys:
Beglnnlng at a polnt on tho south€rly rlght-of-rvay line of lnterstat€ Higtnvay No. 70 whence an lron
pin with a plastlc cap marking the c€nt€r ol said Section '12 b€ars S 33"10'19'W 1447,03 tget;
lhonce along sald southerly righl-of-way linE two cqjrses
1) N 52050'29' E 229.66 t€el
2) N 74.38'1f E 160.70 fe€l;
th€nce d€paning sald sorrthsrly right-ot.way line N 88.45'57' E 138.93 feel; thence S 40'45'14'W
94.32 t€€l; th€nce S 18. 18'36' W 54.08 teeu thEnc€ S 01"2136'W 205.02 le€t; th€nc€ S
1?07€6'W 110,25 t€€t; thence S 28"28'36'W 164.48 te€t; thencs N 40 o17'04'W 211.16 f6et;
thenc€ N 49"42'56' E 97.80 f€et; thence N 37.09'31'W 95.59 te€t; th€nce S 52'5029'W 55.10
leet; thence 69,48 feel abng the arc of a non-langent curv€ to the left havirE a radius ol 65.00
teet, a cenlral angb ot 61014'42' and a chord that bears N 58. 55'53' W 66.22 feet; lhence N
37oO9'31'W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beglnnlng, County ol Eagle, State of Colorado; and
th€ Corn€rston€ parcel d€scrib€d as follotys:
Bulldlng C Site
That part ot lhe SW 114 NE 114, S€ction t2, Tornship 5 South, Range 81 West ol the Sixth
Pdrcipal Moridian, Town ol Vail, Cdrnty of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as lollors:
Beginnlng al a polnl on tho east€rly line of a non-exclusive easement for ingress and egress krnwn
as Westhaven Drlve recod€d In Book 421 al Page 651 in lhe otlice ol th€ Eagle County, Colorado,
Glefi and Recorder whence the cer or of said Secdon 12 b€ars S 38€4"3'1 , 1,168.27 teet;
thence abng sald llno of Wes'thav€n Ddve N sflt:l'4'l'E 14:1.92 t€et; lhence depadng sald llne of
Westhaven Drlv€, 132.24ieet along the arc ol a non-tangent curvs lo lhe lsft having a radlus of
55.00 t€€t, a central angle of 13704530'and a chord that bears N 4f11'46"E 102.61 t6et; thence
N 52"5029'E 65.24 t€et; th€nc€ S 37"0931'E 95.59 t€€l; thence S 49"42'561i1/ 97.80 teet; th€nca
S 40'17'M'E 24.12 f€et; thenco S 52"50'29'W 213.86 fe€t; rhence N 37"0931'1 , 105.76 te€t to
lhe tr)int of beglnnlng containlng 0.6848 acr€s more or lEss.
PLANNING ANO ET.I\IIRONIIE1{TAL COIIIIISSION ilEENNG
Septembor 28, 1992
13.
e o
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustraquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings.
Planner: ShellY Mello
TABLED TO OCTOBER 12
The minutes form the PEC meeting of September 28, 1992 were discussed and with three
changes, the minutes were approved.
As there w€Ni no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:02 P.M.pulled back
somewhat.
, .r. i
t .. .q
I
PU\NNING AND ENVIRONIIENTAL COIIIIITX3ION TEENNG
S€ptembcr 28, 1992
)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
a
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Deparnnent
September 28,1992
A request for front, side, and rear setback variances and a variance to allow
parking in the front setback for the construction of a triplex, located at 44
Willow Placellot 9, Block 6, Vail Village first Filing.
Applicanu Towermarc Corporation
Planner: Shelly Mcllo
I.DESCRIPTION OF TIIE VARIANCES REOUESTED
The applicant is requesting a series of variances necessary to construct a 3-family
dwelling unit, with partially below grade structured parking, on the Foperty listed
above. The variances are necessary to allow the following:
l. A 9-foot Ginch maximum building encroachment into the 20' north (front)
setback and a lO-foot building encroachment in the east (side) setback;
2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (side)
setbacks;*
3. A S-foot 3-inch maximum encroachment into the south (rear) setback for the
underground pa*ing structure;4. The underground parking structurc entrance will encroach a maximum of 12-
feet 3-inches into the north (fron| setback;
5. Parking to be located in the 20' front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staff will consider the north side of the propeny, adjacent to Willow Place, as
the front setback because access is being taken from this side of the lor
* Roof overhangs will encroach a maximum of 3 feet further into the setback
than the specified building encroachments. Roof overhangs are allowed to
encroach 4 feet into setbacks by zoning.
Currcntly, a non-conforming residence is located on the site. The existing building
encroaches 12 feet into the 20-foot front setback on the north and 8 feet-6 inches into
the 20-foot side setback on the east. A total of 851 square feet of the existing
building footprint encroaches into the sctback. Approximately 1,138 square feet of the
proposed building footprint would encroach into the sctbacks. The existing building
will be completely demolished and replaced by the proposed multi-family project.: r
tr.ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
lot size 0.29 aqes or 12,589 square feet
Tnning High Density Multi-Family
Existing
Site Coverage 3,029 sq. ft.
or 24Vo
Density
GRFA
Dwelling Units
Building Setbacks
Deck Sctbacks
Underground
Parking
Parking
Height
Landscaping
unavailable
I
8' north
20' south
11'-6" east
4'north
None
2 surface
below 48'
8,889 sq. ft.
or TOVo
AllowedReo.
6,923.9 sq. ft.
or 55Vo
7,553 sq.ft.
7
20 feet on all sides
15 feet for decks
5' above grade
No parking
allowed in 20 foot
front setback
8 spaces;
757o enclosed
48',
3,776 sq. ft.
or 307o
Proposed
5,215 sq. ft.
or 4l.4Vo
7,553 sq. ft.
3
10'-6" north
14'-9" south
10' east
4',
13'
6'
north
south
east
enclosed
8 spaces;
1007o enclosed
48',
6,059 sq. ft. or
or 487o
m
* Landscaping does not include at-grade decks or driveway.
RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTTVES OF TI{E VAIL VILLAGE MASTER
PLAN
This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC should
considcr the Master Plan's goals and objectives when reviewing this request Staff
finds that portions of the request meet the goals and objectives specified for this sub-
area. The staff feels that the proposed development is in line with the Vail Village
Master Plan. The following excerpts specfy the goals, and objectives and sub-area
2
o
conoepts for this site.
Willow Circle Sub Area #2
"In most cases, the levels ofdevelopment tbroughout this sub-area greatly exceed what
is allowed under existing zoning (Iligh Density Multi-Family). Gross residential floor
area ratios (GRFA) range from .6 to 1.3, with an average of 1.01. With the exception
of one parcel, all properties wittrin this sub-area are developcd at, or over, their
permittcd levels of dcvelopmenr As such, there is little development potential left in
this sub-arpa."
#2-3 Willow Circle Infill
"Prresently this is the only property within the sub-area that is not develo@ to, or
above, existing density allowances. While slight increases in residential density
may be considered in the redevelopment of this parcel, the shape of the lot may
seriously hinder the potential for GRFA gr€ater than what is permitted by
existing zoning. Adequate landscape buffers betrveen this parcel and Town roads and
adjacent properties should be maintained through the redevelopment of this properry.
Structured parking would be necessary for any additional level of development.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5.4."
-) Goat#t
"::fl##1"::f::fr:i,;,i;:!::mry':*,:{:':,:::x*v
'lnique
community and identity.
Objective 1.2 Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and
commercial facilities.
Goal #3 To recognize as a top priority the enhancement of the walking
expeience throughout the village.
Objective 3.1 Physically improve the existing pedesnian ways by landscaping and
other improvements.
Policy 3.1.1 Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape
improvements, (such as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting, and seat
areas) along adjacent pedestrian ways.
Goal #5 Increase and improve the capaciry, eficiency and aesthetics of the
transportation and circulation system throughout the town.
Objective 5.1 Meet pa*ing demands with public anGprivaie pa*ing facilities.
Objective 5.4 Improve the streetscape of circulation corridors throughout the Village.
TV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of the Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal
Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of a portion
of the requested variance and denial of the remainder of the request based on the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The surrounding arca is comprised of high density multi-family projects with
the exception of the single family residence to the south of Vail Road. This
project will be compatible with the surrounding development. Setback
encroachments exist on a number of properties adjacent to the proposal. These
projects include The Willows, Riva Ridge South, Riva Ridge North, and
Nvertouse. Bishop Park, to the north of the proposal, is an SDD and has
4
-)minimum setbacks of 5 feet in certain areas of the project. Decks and
underground pa*ing for the Bishop Park project also encroach into the front
and side setbacks. The ridge heights of the Bishop Park structures directly to
the north of this project are 48 ft. high. This project is not proposed to exceed
the allowed maximum height of 48 feet.
Staff believes that some relief from the setback requirements is warranted. The
staff believes that the building encroachments have been minimized. The staff
supports all of ttre variance requests except those which would allow decks to
encroach into the setbacks more than that which is allowed by Section
18.58.060 of the Municipal Code. This section states:
"Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar unroofed features
projecting from a structure at a height of more than five feet above
ground level may project not morc than five feet nor more than one-half
the minimum required dimension into a required setback arca, or may
project not more than five feet nor more than one-fonh the minimum
required dimension into a required distance between buildings. A
balcony or deck projecting from a higher elevation may extend over a
lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for
the lower balcony or deck. (Ord. 8 (1973) L7.203.)"
We believe that no relief is wilranted for the deck encroachments proposed on
either the Willow Place (north) urd Willows (east) sides of the project because
the decks could be reconfigured so that no variances are needed.
On July 24, 1992, the PEC reviewed this item in a work session. The staff
raised a number of concems, one of which dealt with the landscape buffer
along Vail Road. In response to the staff and PEC concerns, the applicant has
removed the three pathways from Vail Road to each unit. A single access
pornt, to be shared by the Willows and this project, has been proposed- In
regard to the Vail Road landscaping, the staff would suggest that the applicant
consider additional evergreens to increase the density of the landscaping. This
landscaping will also need to be a minimum of 7 feet from the edge of the
pavement in order to accommodate snow removal.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
cnmpatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the
vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of
special privilege.
As discussed above, the surrounding propenics have been granted varianccs for
items similar to those being rcquested in this proposal. The development of
r.
.l
this site is limited due to the lot size and configuration. There are 2O' setbacks
on each side of the property. Vail Road also encroaches onto the lot on the
south side of the property. Goal #1 and Objective 1.2 of the Vail Village
Master Plan states, "Encourage thc upgrading and redevelopmcnt of residential
and commercial facilities." The redevelopment of this site is positive for the
Willow Circle area. The staff recognizes that some relief from the setback
standard is necessary to achieve this goal.
3. The effect ofthe requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities' public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
There will be no impact on any of the above criteria- The shadow and shading
of this building on adjacent Foperties and public roadways will be limited
becausc the bulk of the building will be located towards the center of the
property. No surfacc parking is proposed. The Public Works Departrnent has
requested that easements for drainage, snow storage, and roadway
encnrachments be obtained for this property as part of the planning process for
this project. The applicant has agreed to work with the Public Works
Deparunent to addrcss these concerns.
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a gmnt of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be derimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a- The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would rcsult in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or exEaordinary cilcumstanccs or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
rcgulation would deprivc the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district. :
B.
3.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff supports the applicants rtquest for the following variances:
1. A 9 foot 6 inch building encroachment into the front (north) setback;
2. A lO-foot building encroachment into the side (east) setback;
3. A 5 foot 3 inch encroachment into the rear (south) setback for
underground parking;
4, Encroachment of the parking structue entrance 12 foot 3 inches ino the
front north setback.
5. Parking in the front setback.
Wc believe that the granting of thc above variances will not bc a grant of special
privilege, and that the size of the lot presents a physical hardship. We believe that the
request meets the Findings 1,2, and 3a and c in Section IV (B) of this memo.
The staffdoes not support the applicant's request to allow 2nd story decks on the
north and east elevations to encroach more than that what is allowed by Section
18.58.060 of the Municipal Code. We feel that there arc other locations for decks
which would not require the approval of a variance. The decks on Willow Place to
the north and on the existing Willows project to the east would not provide a suitable
buffer as described in the Section 2-3 Willow Circle Infill of the Vail Village Master
Plan.
Generally, the staff feels that this project will be a positive addition to the Willow
Circle area and that it is in conformance with the Vail Village Master Plan. Wc feel
that the proposed building design and materials arc compatible with the surrounding
area. We also believe it to be positive that the existing evergreens will not be
disturbed and that the parking is completely enclosed. We would ask the applicant to
consider additional evergreens along Vail Road in order to provide a more dense
landscape buffer.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Znning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
pq3pxi,li:'.;
lii;i
_.i !; !
Oi"'" o 9o9..1
6,=L7
$a
t1
U-lEsR
$g
KK
{[
{}2
o
Ftrz
s
Ji
it
{
-\2
Eil
\
At\l
o
s
I
\s| '..rii:t;i,. i'
I
ir\
,-\
I
I
I
I
t,
i
7o
o
1
I
IA;lrl
I$+
\LI
s
\-s
$N
1o
Ps\
$'
5
7
:=€ti I
"%
$ts
N
lr 6$
iK3
Rp
LN
\'
*q
*
\-
R
+
s7
,,(\.r\\
\'
ill
Ir
t
Y
II
I
//
{
a,
Wo,
ru1 .>/g
".'/ -/ ,' ,/
,o' " ,ro ,' ',' .,
lt./ro.
\\' , \
\)
!aFI
;rl
i
!n'
I
/\
,/i
I
I
I
I
I
\I
I
i,]flt-].S'--v:_ .i - r-i>
lXW
{/irt
17
\
i
ot-6
16
.sz
q2
E.
$
NZi
\,si
\:
kl
=l+Io+
3
r\s
s-
I
l
e
$
$
\I
//$
2E
$$
D)2S
\so
ov
t4o'-co
=
J",bKil*Nr*
Nss
F+s
&
0_
P
N
I
\
o
9
a
9t
7
J
v
r\-\S-sq-
B
at I
il :e
RO
ok
NR
\\)36
\
d
4
J
\.\. \c\_G
=\
tt
I
L-
K
={
*s\JZ
b*$)
I
*s
s2
5
fr
9.
a-
e
s
$
E
G\
-------.--...--__.-E
$5
H
$$-
2
\S,
$
L
.<u<
Ra\l-$2
N}--*-J
...>:
!:
Es
\*S
5 $R
'(
!-. r'L-G'.
x.. ) t.'l;n- '
..- _.._---.. 'ryltt_lJr5f Ft^lATtirN
I EeP+-a l,au 94H
6':-:E'
t-.; 1ri.-zf ' --- -
?r!!:r_ l!?..F!,
,..ry-:l:! -!3.r:l!:
Jt'1 . t ttD..L.- -rL- "j?--
:.-d|,+r
--
.
I
.l RtC'"n r:l i
Septenber L7, 1992
Plannlng and Bnvlronnental Connlsslon
Connunlty Derilopnent Departnent
Town of Yall
Va11, Colorado
0ur coronent,s 11stedwlth Ned Gwathroey,
son on the oornl'ng
randun prepared by
and a Beetlng ulthac 5.15 PM vlth' the
below are s result of an on slte roeetlng
Henry Pratt, D. Scott Ross and Jay Peter-of Septenber 14i a revlev of the aeno-
the ;Coronunity Developnent Departroent;the Plannl.ng DepartEent on Septeuber 14following .rpersons present:
and Envlronloental CororotssLonDLane Donovan
Plannlng
Kathy LangenwalterJeff BovenDalton 1,111llan
Coronunlt,y Developnent, Depar'tuent
Shelly Me1loKrtsten Prltz
Archl.tects
lied Gwathney
Henry Pratt
..Developer D. Scott Ross
, frou Tovernac
Our concerns are:
1) Deletlong of any balcoalee adJasent to our pro?erry(eaet faclng)
2) lfev strusture to be no closer to our propertythan the presrent
3) Snov ret,alners and guttere on rooi to prevent snovdunpl.ng.and vater run off onto the WtlIovs pioperty
4) qe have qqnslderabfl.e.r.reaervatl.one vlth respect to thedralnage problens of enov and vater frorn Vail Road dovnlnto the gully betveen the road and our parklng garage.lle belleve thls vater nust be collected and dralned
through a large,plpe run acroas the rear.of the 44 I'li11ovproperty anrl'lnto the storn sever of the nest end of that
74 WILLOW ROAD. P.O. BOX 759'VA|L. COLOMDO 8165&07s9
PHONE: (3m) 47&223tt . (800) 826.1224. FAX: (303) 47&5714
- Page tno -
propert,y.
5) In conjunction vith # 4 above the landscaping aE 44
Lrillow Road should. not stop at the property. 1lne
but continue onto the Willows property to conceal the
new drainage systen and mitigate the encroachnenL of
the proposed new building.
As ar sepaiate lsSrie''we suggest a pathway to Vail Road between
the two properties accessable to both the tlillows and 44 1.lill.ow
Road. Thls path to blend into the landscaplng and dralnage as
per #4 and #5 above.
Providing these amendments are met we believe that the project
is a welcorne addition'' to the Willovs circle area.
irle congratulate all parties involved.
We understand there will be other neetings of all parties
lnvolved to revler,t changes. Please let us knov of tine and
place.
Sincerely ,
. /,raM lrftn^{ft16*
Henry A. Caldwe11
Boarcl Menber
IIClnb
Nornan J. Holbrov
urtn e r
74 WTLLOW ROAD. P.O. BOX 759. VA|L. COLORADO 81658-0759
PHONE: (303) 476.2233 . (800) 826-1274. FAX: (303) 476-5714
MariJke Brofos
Gen. Manager
)
WILLOW PLACE--EW
SETBACK ENCROACHMENTS
Vail Road Parking
Tfillow Road Parking
East Side Parking
Vail Road Decks
Willow Road Decks
East Side Decks
Vail Road Building 2
Willow Road Building:
East Side Building :
5t_4rl
12'-4'l
101-2"
6tt12'-0" (10'-4t' at northwest corner)
12' -6r'
0"
g t -6tt10'-2" (at parking)
9 ' -8tr ( at upper level )
i...
RtC'"r $ -, I .: ,....r:-
Septenber 17, L992
Plannlng and Envl.r'onnental Connl.eelonConnunlty Dwetropnent Departnent
Town of Vall
VatL, Colorado
Our connents ll.steal below are a regult of an on slte neetingutth Ned_ Gvathuey, Henry Pratt, D. Scott Roes and Jay peterl
son on the uornlhg of Septenber 14; a revlen of the neno-randun prepared by the ConnunLty Developnent Departnenriand_a-Eeeting utth the Plannlng Departnlnt on Septenber I4at 5.f5 Pll vlth the followlng .'pereons Dressnr:
Plannlng and Envtronnental ConnleslonDl,ane Doaovan
Kathy LangenvalterJeff BowenDalton Ul11tau
Connunlty Developoent Departuent
Shelly MelloKrteten Prltz
Archltects
Ned Gvat,hney
Henry Pratt
..Developer D. Scott Rosefron Touernac
Our concerns are:
l) Deletlons of-any balconlee adJaceot to our DroDerty(east factng)
to our property
ro of to preyent anouthe Wtllowe pioperty
4) I'Je have qqneiderahle..- reaervatloos vtth respect to thedraLnage groblene of snon and vater frou itail Road dovnLnto the gully betneen the road and our parklng garage.Ue belleve thts vater uuet be collected and drilned -
through a large plpe run acroaa the rear of the 44 Willowproperty and lnto the storn sever of the uest end of,that
74 WILLOW ROAD. P.O. BOX 759 . VA|L, COLORADO 8165&0Z59
PHONE: (303) 47C2Z3|(!. (sOO) 826-1274. FAX: (S0O) 41€15714
2) Nen atructure to be no closerthan t,he Dreaent
3) Snov retal.ners aad gutters ondunplng and water run off onto
lf
- Page two -
property.
5) In conjunction with # 4 above the landscaping at 44
Ulllow Road should not stop at the property li.ne
but continue onto the tflllows property to conceal the
ner.r drainage systen and mitigate the encroachnent of
the proposed new bu11d1ng.
As ar sepaiirte lsside rwe suggest a pathway to Va1l Road between
the two properties accessable to both the l,llllows and 44 Wll1ow
Road. This path to blend lnto the landscaping and drainage asper #4 and #5 above.
Providing these anendnents 6re net we believe that the proJect
is a welcone addition' to the WllLovs clrcle area.
We congratulate al1 parties involved
l.'Ie understand there will be other tneetings of alL partles
involved to review changes. Please let us knon of tine and
place.
MariJke Brofos
Gen. ilanager
stncerelv'
^/ ,/ r.,,?46% llur,"narKl{6V llueW
Henry A. Caldnell-
Board Menber
Norman J. Holbror
0wner
74 WILLOW ROAD. P.O. BOX 759. VAIL, COLORADO 8165&0759
PHONE: (303) 476-2233. (800) 826-1274. FAX: (303) 476-5714
HC/nb
a fllt
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 14, 1992
coPy
Present
Jeff Bowen
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Dalton Wlliams
Applicant:
Planner:
Staff Present
Kristan Pritz
Miks Mollica
Andy Knudtsen
Tim Devlin
Shelly iiello
Jim Curnutte
1.Starting at approximately 2:20 P.M., a joint work session with DRB was held to discuss
a request for a conditional use permit for an addition to the Municipal Building to house
the Vail Police Department, located at 75 S. Frontage Road West (at the east end 0f
the existing Municipal Building).
A part of he Southeast 1/4 ol Section 6, Township 5 So.rh, Range 80 We6t of he Sixth Principal fr€ridian,
County of Eagl€, Stat€ of Colorado, more particularly descdbed as follows: Commencing al the Souhoast
corn€r of said Section 6, h€m,e Norrh 00 degrc€s 28 minubs 16 seoon& west and along h€ East lin€ of
sald Souheast 1/4 of said Seaion 6 72.75 t|e Easr line of said Souh€ast 1/4 ot said S€clion 6 72.75leet to
a point, EaU poht being 110.00 feet norlh€astorly from the souherly rlht-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6
aa me6ur6d at righl angles ther€tot thence North 79 degre€s il6 minubs I I second3 West and abng a lin€
parall€l to sait souttredy dght-of-way line 145.50 teet to The True Poht of Eeginning; th€nce North 16
degrees 08 minubs 47 ssconds Ea6t 78.00 leet; thence Nonh 58 degrses 08 minub8 35 soconds West
428.70 teet; th€nc€ North 56 degrees Ol minut6 ?9 seconds West 152.57 teet; thene Soulh ?7 degrees 42
minutes io seconds West 192.66 teet; henoo South 52 degrces 48 minutss 5o seconds East 36.32 leet to a
point, sai, point b€ing 1t0.0O teel north€ast trom sakl South right€f-way line ot U.S. Higtuay No.6 as
measur€d at right anglos thereto: th€nc€ Sou0| 79 dsgrees 46 minutgs 11 s€conds East and along a line
paralld to EaiJ South dght ot way lhe 585.56 f€€t b The True Point ot B€ginning.
Exoept that portion @nvey€d to th€ Board of County Commissioners of Eagle County, and the Dsparhenl ol
Highrvays, Stab ot Colorado by rule and oder reoorded January 5. 1971 in Eook 219 at Paoe 441.
Town of Vail
Mike Mollica
A site visit was made at which time the building footprint was staked out and a balloon
was raised to he ridge height of the building in three areas.
At the work session it was generally discussed that the mass of the building was not in
keeping with the theme of the Village, that the retaining walls should be terraced and
softened more to break up the wall heights, that the number of parking spaces may not
be adequate, and that the building height should be lowered and that the building mass
should be broken into different buildings, or redesigned. lt was also a concern of the
PEC hat the landscaping plan be carefully thought out. lt was the general @nsensus
that the building should be modified to incorporate all of the @ncerns mentioned.
I
The public meeting was called to order at 3:33 P.M. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A request for a work session to discuss a proposal to construct a modular telephone
cell site in the East Vail area.
Applicant: U.S. West\Cellular One\United States Forest Service
Planner: Andy Knudsten
Andy Knudsten presented the item to the Planning Commission, introducing persons in
the audience who were in attendance to discuss this issue. Representatives from
Cellular One, and U.S. West were present. The Board discussed their concerns and
listed their conditions as follows:
a. The access road that needs to be improved\constructed to allow mainlenance
vehicles to reach the cell site should be "finished' so that it can accommodate a
four wheel drive type of vehicle only. Constructing the road so that it can
accommodate concrete trucks (for construction purposes) or the average two
wheel drive type of vehicle may require cutting down trees and will result in an
unsightly, highly visible cut across the mountain side. The PEC recommended,
and the applicants agreed at the meeting, that all construction materials be air
lifted into the site.
b. The PEC recommended using four towers at this cell site. By increasing the
number of towers from two to four, the tower height could be reduced between
15 and 30 feet and the amount of antenna structure on the towers could also
be reduced. By using two towers, the PEC understood that a triangular
superstructure was required on each tower. By providing four towers, this
superstructure could be replaced with a cross bar. The PEC believed that this
change would reduce the visibility significantly.
c. All components of this cell site should be located outside all geologic hazard
areas, such as avalanche runs.
d. All components of the cell site should be located in areas that do not preclude
an expansion plan by the Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District.
The Town understands that the District is looking at relocating the water tank in
this area. The new location is intended to be located outside hazardous areas
and be somewhat larger in capacity.
The Forest Service will have the final approval or denial decision. Given that the site
is outside the Town boundary, the PEC did not approve or deny the request. They
directed staff to write the Forest Service and the County and provide these comments
to the other agencies.
2.A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4, Cascade Village, to
amend the development plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A, as
described as follows:
That part of he SW l/.1 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 W€st of the Sxt| Principal
MerlJian, Town of Vail, Eaglo County, Colorado, described as follows:
B€ginning at a point on he souherly right-ot-way line of Interstats Highway No. 70 whencs an iron pin wifi a
plaslb cap maddng tle center ot eakl Section 12 bearB S 3it'1o19'W 14,17.03 te€t; lh€nc€ along said
sanhely rightol-way lin€ two cources
1) N 52'50'29' E ?29.66 f€et
2) N 74'38'17" E 160.70 fsst;
thence departing said souherly right-ot-way fine N 88"45'52 E 138.93 f€€t; thence S.lo'45'14' W 9t1.32 fs€t;
thenc€ S 18' 1836'W 54.08 feet: trence S 01'2136'W 205.02 fs€l; therE€ S 12'0736'W 110.25 legt;
thenco S 28"28'36' W 164.€ leet; thence N 40 '1704'W 211.16 fset; hene N 49'42'56' E 97.80 feet;
thenoe N 37"09ts1'W 95.59 feet; henca S 52.50'29'W 55.10 reet; thenos 69.48 teet along the aro ol a non-
tangent curve to he left having a radius ol 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61'14'42' and a chord lhat bears N
58' 55'53' W 66.22 te€t; hence N 37'09'31' W 118.50 feet To The True Point ol B€ginning, County ol Eaglo,
Stato ot Colorado; and the Comerston€ parcel descibed as follows:
Buildng C Slite
That part ol he SW 1/4 NE t/4, Secrion 12, Township 5 Sourh, Range 81 West of th€ Sirh Principal
Meridian, Torvn ol Vail, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point on lho easteriy line of a non-sxclusive easement lor ingr€ss and egress known as
Wedthav€n Drive recorded in Book 421 at Page 651 in the otlico of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and
R€corder wh€nos he center of said Section 12 bears S 38'34'43,w 1 ,168.27 leet thenoe along said line ol
Wesharen Drivs N 52'43'41'E 143.92 leeti hence departing said line of Wesharen DrivE, 132.2,f teet along
lh€ arc of a non-tangent curvg lo th€ lefi having a radius of 55.00 leet, a cen0"al angle of 13i"45'30'atd a
cfiord that b€ars N .12'11'rl6'E t02.61 teet: thence N 52"5O29'E 65.24 leet; h€nce S 37"0931'E 95.59 fEet;
thence S 49'42'56'W 97.80 feet: thence S 40o17'04'E 24.12laeli th€nca S 52'50'29'W 213.56 foet; ftenca N
3709'31'W 105.76 fe€t lo lhe pdnt ot b€ginninE oontaining 0.68i18 acr6 more or less.
Applicant:
Planner:
MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal Savings
Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello presented this item to the Planning Commission. The originalsite plan
was presented showing the original approvals of locations and styles of buildings,
roots, walklvays, parking, and setbacks. Shelly explained the proposed Scenario 1
and Scenario 2 tor the Cornerslone proiect. Shelly delineated the four departures from
the original approval, and the three concerns of the staft: DU's vs. AU's; amount ol
commercial space and the relationship of public areas of Cornerstone to existing public
spaces. Parking requirements and loading lacilities were discussed as a concem of
the PEC. Mixed use parking credits were discussed. lt was the general consensus
that no parking credits should be granted to €ither project. Ned Gwathmey, architect
for the project, suggested that the parking requirements be considered separately for
the two projecF, since there will ultimately be two separate owners and that projects
should be considered on their own. Kathy Langenwalter recommended that the
applicant work with the same heights as originally approved for Waterford and
Comerstone. Oher fian a concern for density, Kathy Langenwalter believed that the
architecture of the proposed project is similar to original approval, however, the ends of
the buildings need attention, and that the roof should possibly tie in with the
Convention cent€r. As well, Kathy Langenwalter felt another employee unit should be
3.
added to the proposal.
Diana Donovan stated there is a need to examine how the entire proiecl works in
respect to the mix of uses, designs, parking, etc. She explained that the original
concept of the area was to have lodge rooms for the Conference Center. lt was
further discussed that the building mass lor Waterford needed to be reduced. The
heights of the buildings as stated by the applicant (65') ditfered from the aclual
drawings which have a height of 78 ft. Shelly Mello pointed out that the Ordinance
states the buildings are to be 61 ft. Ned Gwathmey agreed that the buildings would be
lowered in height.
Kathy Langenwalter added that the bike path and the landscaping lor Waterford needs
to be designed similar to the existing Westin Complex treatment. The question ol
parking credits was raised. Ned Gwathmey stated that the HDMF criteria are
acceptable. Diana Donovan read Greg Amsden's concerns which included parking
considerations; architecture still needs refinement; and what is the focal point of the
entry?
Jeff Bowen discussed concems of too much development on too little land. He
expressed concern about the bulk and mass being too large tor the property size as it
relates to parking and access. Jeff Bowen went on to point out that the Westin is no
longer a single project. What would rent, what would sell, and the economics of the
proposal should be considered so that the project would be successful.
Kathy Langenwalter said she is not concerned with the economic issue, but the
landscaping, architecture, and parking, Fred Otto, representing MECM, said that 11
units have been sold and that they are optimistic that the project will be successful.
Dalton Wlliams said he likes the project in relation to the Frontage Road but that the
creek side is not as attractive. He said that he believed that residential units are
appropriate at Waterford. Kristan Pritz read Sherry Dorward's commenls, representing
the DRB. She liked the Waterford project and felt thal Cornerstone should make a
connection with the creek at the southeast comer of the building with landscaping and
public spaces, and that the first floor should incorporate a restaurant to add activity to
the pedestrian space between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone.
A request for a work session for front and side setback variances and a variance to
allow parking in lhe tront setback for the construclion of a lriplex located at 44 Willow
Road/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Towermarc
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello presented the request to the Commission, with Ned Gwathmey, the
architect, and property representatives and owners of adjacent properties in
attendance. lt was the general consensus of the Board that the proposed structure
was an improvement and architecturally acceptable. The setback issues were
unanimously agreed lo be of concern. The PEC stated that no encroachment into the
rear setback adjacent to Vail Road would be acceptable. Encroachments along Willow
4.
Circle also needed to be pulled back. Landscaping needed to be addressed along Vail
Road, Willow Road, and the east side of the building. lt was requested that the
pedestrian access from Vail Road to the project be consolidated and gates and
columns be minimized. The adjacent property owners unanimously stated that their
concems were that the drainage needed to be studied and managed, the deck on the
Willow Road side needs to be reduced in size, and that during construclion, the site be
kept neat and construction materials be contained properly. For the next PEC
meeting, the staff stated that the decks, the building, and sehacks would need to be
staked.
A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the addition of bay windows at
Gotthelf's Jewelry located at 122 East Meadow Drive\Block 5-E, Vail Village Fhst Filing
(Village Center Shops).
Applicant Fred Hibberd
" Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica presented this item to the Commission and it was discussed whether to
have flat or sloped tops to the bays. Sid Schultz, the applicant's architect, stated he
would review the design further and present it to the DRB for their approval. Jetf
Bowen motioned to approve the request, with Dalton Williams seconding. lt was
unanimously voted 4-0 to approve this request per the statf memo.
A request for a variance from the parking standards for paving to allow for a gravel
parking lot located at the ABC SchooN149 N. Frontage Road, an unplafted site
commonly referred to as the Mountain Bell site, north ol 1-70 and west of the Main Vail
1-70 interchange.
Applicant: The ABG School, Inc, represented by Holly BukacekPlanner: Shelly Mello
.. Kristan Pritz presented this request to the Commission. The future proposat for the
possibility of an employee housing project on the site gives reason to extend the
condilional use for three years, however, not to approve a variance. Kathy
Langenwalter motioned to approve the request, wiih a second by Dalton Wittiams. R
unanimous vote 4-0 denied the variance and a second motion by Kathy Langenwalter
to extended the conditional use, with a second by Jeff Bowen, was approved by a vote
of 4-0 based on the statf memo.
A requsst for a work session to discuss a setback variance to allow an addition to the
residence located at 716 Forest Road/Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing.
Applicant Charles AckermanPlanner: Tim Devlin
Tim Devlin reviewed this work session item with the Commission. The applicant
explained revlsed plans from those that were reviewed in the staff memo that would
enclose portions ol the existing deck already under roof. The request is for a 6 foot
side setback encroachment. lt was discussed and the general consensus was that it
was an improvement over the original variance request. Staff believes that the
5.
6.
concerns in the memo had been addressed. The applicant was directed to amend his
request per the new drawings for the September 28th PEC meeting.
7. A request for a site coverage variance to allow an addition lo ths residence located at
Lot 1, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing/3025 Booth Falls Hoad.
Applicant: William and Julie EsreY
Planner: Mike Mollica
This item was tabled, at the applicant's request, until the September 28,1992,
meeting. The vote was 4-0 for approval of the tabling.
8. A request to amend the development plan at the Gold Peak ski base to allow the
addition of two ski tows located adjacent to the Vail Associates Children's CenteA498
Vail Valley Drive\as well as the Golden Peak tennis courls\Tract B Vail Village,
Seventh Filing.
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presented this request to the Commission with the representative Joe
Macy. Andy Knudtsen presented pictures of the poma and a magic carpet at
Breckenridge. ln attendance were also Mr. and Mrs. Brown and Mr. and Mrs. Higbie,
adjacent property owners. Discussion was held regarding the planting ot trees to
screen the lift from the Brown's and Higbie's residences and to add access for the
Higbie's to ski to their residence. Joe Macy agreed to plant two spruce for the Browns
at their designated location. Jeff Bowen made the motion and Kathy Langenwalter
provided the second, and the Planning Commission approved the request with a 4-0
vote. The conditions of approval which were placed on the proposal are as follows:
a. Prior to the operation of the poma lift for the 92-93 ski season, the applicant will
plant two 7 foot tall spruce trees in locations specified by Mr. Brown, the
adjacent property owner.
b. The previous approval for the Mighty Mite shall become void upon approval of
this request.
c. The base terminal of the poma lift shall be moved 76' south from the location
shown on the engineer's drawings, dated 7\28\92 drawn by Tramway
Engineering.
d. The applicant shall plant several tall bushes and install a fence around the top
platform of he magic carpet so that it will prevent children from accidenfly
skiing down the berm on the north side. The applicant shall provide approval
from Manor Vail regarding the bushes and fencing to be constructed at the top
of the berm, stating that Manor Vail approves of the additional material.
e. The applicant shall apply material to the side of the magic carpet other than
"indoor-outdoor" carpeting. The material to be used on lhe side shall be
approved by DRB. The PEC recommends a material such as cedar siding, if it
would allow proper mainlenance and operation of the lift.
f. The applicant shall provide a letter to staff from the manufacturer of the
conveyor belt stating that any unintended use of the lift, sucft as jumping on it,
will not be damaging to the lift or potentially injurious to an individual.
g. The PEC recommends that the DRB consider the "Long lsland" color of
carpeting (a tan\lcrown color) for the surface of the plattorms and deck area 0n
either side of the conveyor belt.
9. A request for a conditional use permit and setback variances to allow construction of a
, ski tow at the Lionshead base area located on Tracks D and B, VaiNLionshead First
Filing, south of 520 E. Lionshead Circle (Lionshead Center Building).
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presented this request to the Board. Joe Macy represented Vail
Associates. A brochure of the magic carpet was presented by Mr. Macy to show what
the magic carpet looks like. General discussion was held concerning covering the
sides for protection of the equipment and to improve aesthetics. A motion by Kathy
Langenwalter and a second by Jeff Bowen, voted 4-0 to approve your request to
amend the Development Plan. The conditions of approval are as follows:
a. The applicant shall provide a regrading plan of the area for statf and DRB
review and approval. The grading plan should address the pedeslrian skier
bridge, ensuring that access to that bridge is not blocked by any of the
regrading plan. All grades shall be less than 2:1 slope. The grading plan shall
: be redesigned so that the ground is flush with the conveyor belt on the nortt
side of the tift.
.' b. The applicant shall provide written approval from all utility companies, stating
that the proposal is not in conflict with any use of the easement.
c. The applicant shall apply material to the side of the magic carpet other than
'indoor-outdoor'carpeting. The material to be used on the side shall be
approved by DRB. The PEC recommends a material such as cedar siding, il it
would allow proper maintenan@ and operation of the lift.
d. The applicant shall revegetrate the ground, up to the east side of the Chair 8
terminal, prior to the operation of the lift.
10. A request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expansion to an
existing residence, located at 4238 Nugget Lane\Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: W.C. and Carol Smail
11.
Planner: Shelly Mello
Kathy Langenwalter presented this issue to the Commission stating that the house is
under contract and that the request is really made by the Connollys. General
discussion of garage sizes was held and the impact on the surrounding area. lt was a
general consensus that the garage size was not of concern, however, that existing
landscaping and trees be preserved by fencing, and if any existing aspens are lost as
a result of the construclion, that they will be replaced with two 3" - 4' caliper aspens.
As well, if the large aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, then the parking
space will be enlarged to meet the Town's standards and new vegetation as indicaied
in condition 1 will be added. Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request except for
#3 restricting the size of the garage. Dalton Williams seconded ihe motion. The PEC
voted unanimously lo approve the request 3-0-1 with the above conditions, with Kathy
Langenwalter abstaining.
Diana Donovan stated that with lhe conections to the minules that the minutes to the
August 24, 1992 PEC meeting were approved. A motion was made by Jetf Bowen to
approve the minutes as corected. Dalton Williams seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimously.
As there was no furlher business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:16 P.M.
Dccvr nui..\09t4g
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SIIBJECT:
MEMORANDI.JM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
September 14,1992
A request for a work session for ftront urd side setback variances and a
variance to allow parking in thc front sctback fq thc construction of a triplex
locaed at 44 Willow Road\I-ot 9, Block 6, Vail Village Fint Filing.
Applicant Towermarc CorporationPlanner: Shelly Mello
L DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REOIJESTED
The applicant is requcsting a worksession to review a r€quest for a series of variances
necessary to construct a proposcd 3-family dwelling unit with partially below grade
structured parking on the property listed above. The variances are necessary to allow
the following:
1. Building encroachments into the 20' north (fron$ and east (sidc) setbacks;
2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (side)
setbacks and;
3. Parking to be located in the 20' front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staff will consider the north side of the property, adjacent to Willow Rd-, as the
front setback because access is being taken from this sidc of the lot.
Currently, a non-conforming residence is located on the site. The current building
encroaches 12 fcet into the 20 foot setback on the north and 8 feet-6 inches into the
20 feet setback on thc east. This building will be completely demolished and replaced
by the proposed multi-family project.
The memo is organized in the following manner:
1. Summary of Zoning Considerations;2. Related Goals of the Vail Village Master Plan;
3. Pneliminary comments relating to the variance criteria and;
4, Staff Issue and Concerns.
tr. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Irt size: 0.29_acres or 12,589 square feet
Tanrng: High Density Multi-family
Allowed\Reo. Prooosed
Site Covcrage 6923.9 squarc feet 5215.0 square feet
(ss%)4t.4%
Density
GPFA &% or 7,553 sq.fr 7553 square feet
Units 7
Building Setbacks 2.4 fent on all sides 12'-6" north
20' south
l0' east
Deck Setbacks 15 feet for decks 4' no'rth
S'above grade 13' south
6' cast
Underground No parking allowed 8'-6" north
Parking in 2,0 foot front setback
Parking 8 spaces, 75Vo enclosed 8 spaces, 100% enclosed
,
,'
Height 48'
Landscaping 3776
or 3O7o
48'
6059 sq. ft. or
48%*
* Landscaping does not include at grade decks or driveway.
Iu. RELATED GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF TIIE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER
PLAN
This site is specifically addressed in the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC should
consider these goals and objectives when rcviewing this request. The staff fecls that
in general, the proposed development is in line with the Vail Village Master Plan.
The following exoerpts specify the goals, and objectives and sub-area concepts for this
sie.
2
'Willow Circlc Sra Arca#2
"In irost cascs, thc lcvcls of dcvclopmcnt throughout this subarea grcatly excced what
is allowsd undpr cxisting zoning (Iligh Dcnsity Multi-Family). Gross rcsidcntial floor
arca ratios (GRFA) rangc firom .6 to 1.3, with an avcragc of 1.01. With thc cxccption
of one parccl, all propcrtics within this sub-arpa arc developcd at, c orrcr, tbeir
Pcnnircd lcvcls of dcvclqmenL As such, thcrc is lirlc dcvclopmcnt potcntial lcft in
this subarpa"
#2-3 Willow Circle bfill
"Prresently this is thc only property within the zub-arca that is not dsvclopcd to, c
abovc, cxisting dcnsity allowances. While slight incteases in residential dcnsity
may bc considcrcd in thc redcvclopment of this parcel, the shape of thc lot may
scriously hindcr tlrc porcntial fc GRFA gFearcr than what is pcrmiued by
cxisting zoning. Adcquatc landscape buffers bctwecn this parcel and Town roads and
adjaccnt pro'pcrtes should bc maintaincd through the redevelopment of 0ris pmperty.
Structured par*ing would bc rcoessary fr any additional lcvel of dcvclopmcnt"
Spcciat cmphasis on 12, 3.1, 5.1, 5.4."
Goal #I Encowage tlu high qualtty redanloptturx while presening tu uniqru
archiuctural scale of tlu village in order to swtain in sense of
con zluritl and identity.
Objective 1.2 Encourago thc upgrading and redcvclopment of rpsi&ntial and
o
commcrcial facilities.
To recognize a:t a top priority the enluncement of tlu walking
experierce throughout thc village-
Physicatly improve the existing pedesrian ways by landscaping and
other improvements.
Increase and improve tlu cqacity, fficiency and aestlutics of the
trawportation and circulation system througlwut the town.
Meet parking demands with public and private parking facilities.
Impmve the stectscape of circulation corridon troughout the Village.
ry. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
:In reviewing variance r€quests, the PEC must consider the Cbiteria and Findings, in
Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code and basc all approvals or deniali upon
the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship ofthe requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
a. Buildine and Parkine Setback Issues
Tbe surrounding area is comprised of high dcnsity multi-family projects with
the exception of the single family residence to the south of Vail Road. This
project will be compatible with the surrounding development setback
encroachments exist on a number of properties adjacent to the proposal. These
projects include The Willows, Riva Ridge South, Riva Ridge North, and
Riverlpuse. Bishop Park to the north of the proposal is an sDD and has
minimum setbacks of 5 feet in certain areas of the projecr Decks and
underground parking for Bishop Park project also encroach into the front and
side setbacks.
Staff believes that some relief from the setback rcquircments is warranted,
however, we believe that these encroachments should be minimizcd as much as
possible. We would ask that the applicant consider pivoting the building to the
south slightly and/or possibly reconfiguring the mass of the buitding to
decrease the amount of encroachment along Willow Drive. The
undergrounding of the parking is positive and encroachments for this type of
structure have been allowed on the adjacent property.
Goal #3
Objective 3.1
Goal #5
Objective 5.1
Objective 5.4
b. Dock Setback Issues
The suff would likc to scc tbe decks meet the setback standads currcntly
allowed by Section 18.58.060 of the Municipd Code. This section statcs:
"Balconies, docks, terraccs, and other similar unrmfed features
projccting from a stnrcturc at a height of morc than fivc fcet above
ground level may project not morc than frve fcet nor mrc than one-half
the minimum rcquired dimension into a required sctback arca, or may
projcct not mor€ than fivc feet nor more than one-forth the minimum
rcquired dimension into a required distance bctwcen buildings. A
balcony or dock projecting from a higher elevation may extcnd over a
lower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be docmcd a rooffor
thc lower balcony or deck (Oril 8 (1973) 17.203.)"
We believc thc decks can be rcconfrgured so that no sctback varianccs are
needed.
2. The degree to which relief from the stric.t and literal interprctation
and enforcenrent of a specified regutation is necessary to aclrieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the
vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of
special privilege.
As discussed above, the surounding properties have been grantcd variances fc
items similar to those being requested in this proposal. The development of
this sirc is limited due to the lot size and configuration. There are 20' setbacks
on each side of the property. Vail Road also encroaches onto the lot on the
south sidc of the property.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
Therc will be no impact on any of the above crieria The shadow and shading
of this building on adjacent properties and public roadways will be limited
because the bulk of the building will be located towards the center of the
property. No at grade parking is proposed. The Public Works Department has
rcqucsrcd that eascments for drainage and roadway encroachments be obtained
for this properry Bs part of the planning process for this projecr
Thc Plannine and Envircnmental Commission shall make the following
findines bcforc srantine a variance:
B.
l. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a gnnt of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classlfied
in thc same disricr
2. That the granting of the variance will not be denimental to the public
health, safety o'r welfarc, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or mor€ of the following reasons:
a. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variancs that do not
apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
c. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the qpecified
regulation would deprive the applicant ofprivileges enjoyed by
the owners of other propenies in the same district.
V. STAFF CONCERNS AND ISSI.]ES
The staff is concerned with the following elements of this request:
l. The extent of the proposed building encroachment on north side ofproperry
adjacent o Willow Road. The staff believes that by pivoting the building and
relocating portions of the building mass, the enffoachment of the building into
the side and rear setbacks could be minimized. We also feel that the
encroachment of the partially underground strucnred parking into the frront
setback is acceptable.
2. The deck encroachments along Willow Road and Vail Rd. should be eliminated
in order to maintain a buffer benveen the public roadway and the building.
3. The provision of adequate landscaping along the east property line adjacent to
The Willows is important in order to mitigate the encroachment of the
proposed building. Landscaping along the north and south sides ofthe project
is also critical. It would be helpful to saff to have a better idea of the specific
planting materials that are proposed for these areas.
4. The site development, ie. walkways, steps, fences and pillars, along Vail Road
should be minimized.
5. By incrcasing the "clippcd gables", the appearance of the mass of the building
' could bc decrcascd- Although ttris docs not impact the dcgree of
encroachmcnL the staff fecls that this effort should be made to minimize thc
mass of the ovcrall building.
The staff fcels that in gcneral, this project will be a positive addition to the Willow
Circlc arca and that it is in confmrance with the Vail Village Master Plan. We fccl
that the proposcd building dcsign and materials are compatible with thc surrounding
area givcn stafs suggcstions. We also believe it to be positive that the existing
evergr€ens will not bc disnrbcd and that the parking is complercly encloscd-
nqi6-b|@rJ(D
Fe8; E EFl $Fe- 5o1 I Ot AEi FPg I.,E
s; e$ 5$ ;r EH EF
at
0)
t-
ctl
'a
..2
UJ
wsffi$ n0
+
,S
c52+
n\t\ \
$+
$4
\q
.<--
J
F\
o\
lar!
OJ
rV
\-
\J')
1K
.-.=l
rJY-.YN
\-v
r\r\)
cS
\m
oo3.co
=
5a$ \-/-r S 3FJ?zFL_&J
t-{
o+|.rVOZ
+
JJT
\-
vaf
\Ns
I
r'1ttjl:lr{
I
I
I
+-I
N)oZ+
o
'o
\
\\) j
)-j
.AV
.')
f,
cv
q_
I1-
\$
IIJ\L
{ri'
< li
\\.t\J-
o
IJ
J
-J
1
/ili ..
,e -,.,/'"' '/,//
h-g
,tfr
\t)
z)
turl
s NJ
F3
t'
ffi+'-t^
F--l-SI
\J2
+
J/ i"/ ,i
.t /t
/ ;l
/ r.'
!
t ,'i/,/ ',,j
tnY. .:'
v\
st
"/)
I'+D i
\:\ i
is\ I\-J: i,$R\ it\) -! I+ t.iil- -Jt I'a'?1in VJ Z-'iz <i'v .\ >i,u :+ \Ll ,3 Eg,
--/:
7__ _. ..
i,
!!.
trlr
i).-,. \
i
t.
lin\:!i-\
=leLi(b-
Sp
<rr
\,s
,A\-/
t
f
f
t
I--{
yl
lu4,l
ull,JI
rl-
{.
\)
l
0
I
I;-rl-r I.trl
i\ll
ril ti
l ltfT-l-r\"I.|j
'./) I
e!-eLo-, #r:- .-.
-
lliJt{,, ,!o tL
v' :Lt1! t!-
J
uHlf - 3
N,Rf I,I ELEVA,TIAN
f!rl- ! -491!-
-91
-.
Ei&A11aqR!s1-o1..a'.o-
__ r,r!Jft'S.l5t CL,- .-.. - -
'r{tI- l ._r sal!,
---cl.;t.F:t-
LJlJI1.' :!D. F!,-:ffi#'"
tt.t lat.
t6ti ?!.
tA--I ELEVATIoN
)rtt1- | t zt-1-
'-. ' LZ'-;'
urJrT-3
'., ' gbai:aa -
( IA PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning and Environmental Commission ot 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 14, 1992, at 3:00 p.m. in the Town of Vail Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for a setback variance to allow for a new garage and an expansion to an
existing residence, located at 4238 Nugget Lane/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant:
Planner:
W.C. and Carol R. Smail
Shelly Mello
2. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD#4, Cascade Village, to
amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel, described as follows:
That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right-of-way line of lnterstate Highway No.
70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12
bears S 33o10'19" W 1447.03 feet;thence along said southly right-of-way line
two courses
1) N 52'50'29" E 229.66 feet
2) N 74038'17' E 160.70 feet;
thence departing said southerly right-of-way line N 88'45'57' E 138.93 feet;
thence S 40'45'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 18' 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S
01o21'36'W 205.02 feet;thence S 12"07'36'W 110.25 feet;thence S
2802836'W 164.48 feet;thencs N 40'17'04'W 211.16 feet;thence N
49o42'56'E 97.80 feet;thence N 37"09'31" W 95.59 feet; thence S 52o50'29'
W 55.10 feet; thencs 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61"14'42'and a chord that
bears N 58' 55'53' W 66.22 feet; thence N 37"09'31" W 118.50 feet To Ths
True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado; and the
Comerstone parcel described as follows:
Building C Site
Thal part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West
of the Sixth Principal Meddan, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, State of
Colorado, described as follows:
.
Beginning at a point on the easterly line of a non-exclusive easement for
Ingress and egress known as Westhaven Drive recorded in Book 421 atPage
651 in thE offics of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk and Recorder whence
the center of said Section 12 bears S 383443'W 1,168.27 feet; thence along
said line ot Westhaven Drive N 52o49'41'E 14t1.92 feet; thence depading said
line of Westhaven Drive, 132.24 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to
the left having a radius of 55.00 leet, a central angle ot 137o45'30' and a chord
that bears N 42'11'46'E 102.61 feet; thence N 52"50'29'E 65.24 feet; thence S
37o09'31'E 95.59 feet;thence S 49'42'56'W 97.80 feet;thence S 40'17'04'E
24.12feet; thence S 52'50'29'W 213.66 feet;thence N 37'09'31'W 105.76 feet
to the point of beginning containing 0.6848 acres more or less.
3.
4.
A request for a minor exterior alteration to allow for the addition of bay windows at
Gotthelf's Jewelry located at 122 East Meadow Drive/Block 5-E, Vail Village First Filing
(Village Center Shops).
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
Applicant:
Planner:
MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Shelly Mello
Fred Hibberd
Mike Mollica
Town of Vail
Mike Mollica
A request for a work session for a conditional use permit for an addition to the
Munlcipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end ol the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeast 114 ol Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said
Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the
Easl line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line ol said
Southeast 1/4 of said Section I72.75 feet to a poinl, said point being I 10.00
feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11
seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right-of-way line
145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; hence North 16 degrees 08
minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West
192.66 teet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet
to a point, said point being 110.00 teet northeast from said South right-of-way
line of U,S. Hlghway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto;thence South
79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South
right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle
County, and the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by rule and order
recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
5.A request for a site cov€rage variance to allow an addition to the resldence located at
Lot I, VailVillage 13th Filingl3025 Booth Falls Road.
-2-
. Applicant: William T. and Julie C. Esreyr '.. Planner: Mike Molica
6. A request for a setback variance to allow an addition to the residence located at 716
Forest Road/Lot 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
Applicant: Charles AckermanPlanner: Tim Devlin
7, A request for a work session for an exlerior alteration and setback variance for the Vail
Lionshead Center Building located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/S2O E.
Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Oscar TangPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
8. A request to amend the development plan at the Gold Peak base to allow the addition
of two ski tows located adjacent to the Vail Associates Children Center/498 Vail Valley
Drive/Tract B Vail Village, 7th Filing.
Applicant Vail Associates, represenled by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
9. A request for a conditional use permit and setback variances to allow the construction
of a ski tow at the Lionshead base area located on Tracts D and B, Vail/Lionshead
First Filing, south of 520 E Lionshead Circle (the Lionshead Center Building).
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe MacyPlanner: Andy Knudtsen
I* 10. A request for front and side setback variances and a variance to allow parking in the
lront setback and wall height variances to allow the construction of a triplex located at
44 Willow Road/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Towermar CorporationPlanner: Shelly Mello
11. A request for a variance from the parking standards for paving to allow a gravel
parking lot located at the ABC School/149 N. Frontage Road.
Applicant: The ABC School, Inc., represented by Holly BukacekPlanner: Shelly Mello
12. A request for a work session to discuss a proposal to construct a modular telephone
cellsite In the East Vail area.
Applicant: U.S.WesUOellular OneAJnited States Forest Servlce
-3-
/
{
. Planner: Andy Knudtrsen
13. A request for a wo*sesslon on lhe prposed 19921993 ErMronmentarl Work Program.
Staff: RussellFonest
Susan Scanlan
The applloatons and Informdon about the proposals are avallable for publlc revbuv ln tte
Community Development Department offfce.
Tontn of Vail
Community Developrnent Department
Publlshed In he Vail Trall on August 26, 1992.
Glp.d.er$r4e4 -+
o
- fiu,ruu.v.-
-Yn66
- ----- N'[!46 -oP,fl'trtuerA _a}d'4-
0ftU;g' 3
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
P1ace:
Present:
Re:
September 3, 1992
GPA Offices
SheIIy Mello
Ned Gwathmey
Wlllow Place - Variance for
copy to: Scott Ross (fax)
ShelJ.y MelloFile
Setback Encroachments
SheIIy related the current staff positlons on the proJectlnformatlon they have. Staff recommends the following:
1. The parking/pullout in the right of way be
removed.2. Materlals and guantities be added to the landscapedrawing.3. Parking encroach underground lnto the VaiI Roadsetback south of exlstlng parking place 4.4. Reduclng the encroachment on the northwest corner,especlally the deck. Ned polnted out that theview to the Gore ls irnportant to the owners;reduclng the encroachment will be studied;
removlng the balcony will be studled.5. IncreaEe the cllpped gable on the most westernelevation.6. Generally reduclng the encroachment on the north,
havJ.ng more rellef on the north elevatlon, whlehthe model helps explaln. possibly sllde the wholeproJect back toward Vail Road several feet.
Ned w11.1 dlscu'is wlth the olrners, work on the above, and deriverthe study rnodel to the Staff at 2:00 p.m., Septenber 4.
The foregolng represents my understandlng of matters discussedand decisions reached. If the lnterpretation of others varleE,please lnform us 1n writing.
Rt$$Ep
?\992
August 31, 1992
Ms. Shelly MeIIo
Town of VaiL Comnunity Developnent
75 South Frontage Road WestVail, CO 81657
Re: Willows Townhomes Project
Dear Shelly:
Please find attached a preliminary roof plan for the Willows
Townhomes project. I would like to note several items:
1. I have not shown the proposed gradj.ng because theexisting grade is the more restrictive at all points.2. Ridge elevations are to the top of the deck and thus donot include the finish roof material(s).3. It appears that we are well below the 48' limit. htereserve the right to raise the roof(s) up to that limit.
According to the survey, existing grade across the site ismostly flat at about Elevation 8151.5. The ridge of Unit 3 ishighest, at about Elevation 8195.0. This is 43,-6,, aboveexisting grade.
If you have any guestions or need further information, pleasecal1.
Sincerely,
GWATHMEY/PRATT ARCHITECTS, P.C.Ll /'/-
Henry R. Pratt, AfA
HRP/ad
Enclosure
IIr
II-I'IER - DEPART}IENIAL REVIEW
DA'IE SJBTilIT-IED
COMMENTS NEMED BY
BRIEF OESCRPNON OF THE PROPOSAI.:
lirouJ Y,,&ry rO / V^r( dratrvIZ
,oru,
Cornrnen ls:
t-zs '- ti 2-
fi rgt"'gtf- *' ([,ttrtC/
.sF.\Kl*". / .
we ':/
tySF'-,
leE"'it/''a c+.tl(
€r.
-f0 ry,Me
ll.llER - DEPARTILIENTAL REVIEW
r*orur* |i,/ i €1,,o-
DATE SLEMITIED:
COMT.IENTS ilEEDED
BRIEF OESCRIPIION
NIl\r
PUBLIC U/ORKS
OF THE PROPOSAI-:
tn {-ex \p /t,1[.rA-/ 617vr.t:9')
BY
Reviewed by
Cornrnents:
t ?de\ 6ne-rns , 0*:, of >o-i ntascJr'* /r;/ g,p ; -,,tt,^,?) ,..I,ILJ C,.nlours a ^ l^)sc"1f
i!:r
yla"^
*,+/^.f t/"-/ el.
Po,r(a;^i - t
- -rar
=
o 4uo cz 5'".' '*' t1^.r-1 . /'*"-'^d a^ z/, €,*n1..^
4r.r^,,t* u-,:r( a re7 v,nJ
'i7--E"hr
P*L- yi:'*-,'
o/-a.a!'*t
tztctlt l,.L- k'7* -
I
€crut 5 3 D AX tl,^S Un,.l s
s) .ean I ck L D),,rr,*,.1
2ro- &, ,^r/o 2 (ts^-{,.o^7
e) v4c.) €rc,roc.c(*.! oa :. ( .i^e, ,
'
,,^ s cL* up
), t^-kl,i:c; vr,!:,.;tr €ou^---) i, zo-d T*,*.nnts.gl ffen ,,u,r// ",noi -.;; -tr;ls A/^, h tu,.L-
W'l to* ) ,-.'la a\ 6 ,'h /,,,-,c .
I t
O ffu-d- 4t.-ow E?oruotr 0!/'!" !"{
@ V,.,ir,s-ry Anttt vwt^"f ,/S I LU' i(! - Sf-or nn yNvOV
Vr^t rJ.'rft ttl e ,''^b*S - MLd lD Y"\ut
Storrn wuJu'^f tn - 1.,.r;oYn'"ok pl N^ila gn'J'L
@ ln^Arl^^,r^ -ov g1n Va, I K[ rv..r,u\ YA ,;
*1 i"Y +o wY as " Ytlt't-c*t- [$
t4,r^-r rapr'*Y tO liot-tlunnr. % Tr^J\w ryl'-i'rh\. t&rd- dl q" 0,G! i W.
@ UtVr^."L nnzM . Lo -
Rad , ,.ros sl"to-,ni /.. \oi- 2r '
@ l&heA d,n@r arf - \Lul" {n( { ,
@ Var'nt', t t*rf 6r,.,.-^trf clrs&t!! {na-r(
a/\aA-D
@ \,soL e 5Y^v
@
T$hrhl oF rJFlIl-
l'liscel laeous Cash
Er8-16-92 11:58:36
Iten paid Brount paid
6188F641336866 258'BE
Change r*turned 3 tl' Br:t
THF|hI}< \/SIJ
Vour cashier JEHNIFEE
Eeceipt * 182155
Hscounts EK#4819
RE|$-0"6L|RTHi{E!"PRRTT\|IFR I RHCE
Ftmount tendered :? 256.88
i
.t
.,
i.
v
DEPARTT\{E}iT OF COMMTjNITY DEVELOP:IIENT
SALES ACTION FORM
p ,^*E/ftk
: TOWN OF VAIIT
0t 0000 4t540
0l c$0042415
0l 000042415
0l 0000124t5
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CODE0l 0000 42415
OTHER CODEB@KS0l 0000 '124:5
0r 0000 41543
XEROX COPIES / STUDIES0t 000042412
0l 0cr00 42371 PENALTY FEES / RE.NSPECTIONS
0l 0cr004!332
''O,1
PSVIFV RE.CHECK FEE IS4O PER HR.
OFF HOURS INSPECTION FEES
CONTRACTOR S UCE\S ES FEES0t co004l4l2
SI6N APPLICATION FEE
0l 00004r330
0l cs004t1)3
ADDMONAL SIGNAGE FEE ISI.OO PER SQ.FT.0r 000041413
lTC ART PROJECT DONAT]ON
PRE PAID DESIGN REVIE1V BOARD FEE0t 00001133t
1000041330
*
*
*
*
*
*
t
*
*
ed,.9lr[gL
PEC MEETING DATq ?, t4'?z,
IPPLICAEION TOR I VIRIINCE
I. This procedure is reguired for any project requesting a- -variance. The application wilt not-be accepted until all
infornation is submitted.
A. NAIIE OF APPLICANT Towermarc Corpora
ADDRESS 260 Franklin, Boston MA 02110
PHoNE-9.]J31EIf-
REpRESENTATM Gwathmey Pratt Architects
Frontaqe Road West, Vaj.l, Co 81657
47 6-11 47
NAI.{E OF
owNER (S)
ADDRESS
OvINER (S) (type
SIGNATURE (S o--t-<a*u,
350 Alna Real Drive Pacific
PHONE
D.LOCATION OF PROPOSAL:LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT-!-
o)Applicati"" o?e
1992
B.
c.
t.
NAI{E OF
ADDRESS
APPLICAI.IT' S
1000 South
272
BTOCK:L FTLING vail village First
: r^':1f ^,- n^-,r ^nn \r-ir Da=A 4.4, Vvl/h- N,
ADDRESS Corner Willow
FEE $25o.oo petollhfue< * tbt4 ev
THE FEE UUSI BE PA]D BEFORE THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTME}M WILL ACCEPT YOUR PROPOSAL.
A list of the names of owners of al'1 property aqjacent
fo ttre subject property INCLUDING PROPERTY BEHIND AND
AcRosS sTRiETsr-anb tneir mailing addresses' TltE
APPLICANT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CORRECT MAILING
ADDRESSES.
ENCL'OSED'
II.Apre-apPlicationconferencewithaplanning.staffmemberlsstiongri' suggested to determine if any additional
information is needed- No application will be accepted
unless it is complete (must i-nclude all items reguired by
ine zoning adrninistrator) . It is the applicant's
iesponsibifity to make an. appointment with the staff to find
out about additional submittal requirements '
III. PLEASE NOTE THAT A COMPTITE APPLICATION WIIL STREAI'{LINE THE
APPROVAL PROCESS TOF VOUN PNOJECT BY DECREASING THE NUMBER
OF CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL THAT THE PLANNING AND
EWTRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON (PEC) MAY STTPULATE' &
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE COMPLIED VIITTI BEFORE A
BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED.
FoUR(4)coPIEsoFTHEFoLLowINGMUSTBESUBMITTED:ENcLosED
A.AWRITTENSTATEMENToFTHEPRECISENATURE0FTHE
VARIANCE REOUESTED AND THE REGULATION INVOLVED. THE
STATEMENT MUST ALSO ADDRESS:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potentiaf uses and structures in
the vicinitY.
. ftfi
ust 17
B.
'' ol*i?'ii.!lo::r:1,:;'l*;*::;i:'l;'.'T
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
cornpatibility and uniformity of treatment amongsites in the vicinity or to attain the objectiv6s
of this title rrithout grant of special privilege.
3. The effect of the variance on light and air,distribution of population, transportation,traffic facilities, utilities, and public safety.
A. How your reguesL complies with Vaif's
Comprehensive Plan.
A topographic and/or improvement survey at a scale of
at least, ltt - 20' stamped by a Colorado licensed
surveyor including locations of all. existing
improvements, including grades and elevations. Other
elenents which must be shown are parking and loading
areas, ingress and egress, Iandscaped areas and utility
and drainage features. ENCLoSED
A site plan at a scale of at teast L" = 20' showing
existing and proposed buildings. ENCLOSED
All preliminary building elevations and floor plans
sufficient to indicate the dimensions, general-
appearance, scale and use of all buildings and spaces
existing and proposed on the site. ENCLOSED
A prelininary title report to verify ownership and
easenents. ENCLOSED
If the proposal is located in a multi-family
developmenL which has a homeowners' association, thenwritten approval from the association in suPport of theproject must abe received by a duly authorized agent
for said association. NOT APPLICABLE
Any additional material necessary for the review of the
application as determined by t.he zoning administrator.
For interior nodifications, an improvemenL survey and
site plan may be waived by the zoning administrator.
REQUIREMENTS
The Planning and Environnental Conmission meets on the
2nd and 4th Mondays of each nonth. A conplete
application form and all accompanying material (as
described above) must be submitted a ninimum of four
(4) weeks prior to the date of the PEC public hearing.
No incomplete applications (as determined by the zoning
administrator) will be accepted by the planning staff
before or after the designated submittal date.
AII PEC approved variances shall lapse. if construction
is not commenced within one year of the date of
approval and diligently pursued Lo completion.
rf this applicarion reguires a seParate review by any
Iocal, State or Federal agency other than the Town of
Vail, the application fee shal.l be increased by
$200.00. Examples of such review, nay include, but are
not limited to: Colorado DePartnent of Highway Access
Permits, Army Corps of Engineers 404, etc.
The applicant shall be responsible for paying any
publishing fees whicb are in excess of 50t of the
lpplication fee. If, at the applicant's requestr dnY
matter is postponed for hearing, causing the natter to
be re-published, then, the entire fee for such re-
publication shaLl be paid by the applicant.
c.
D.
E.
IV. TIME
A.
P
A.v.
B.
3:i:'Jfi:i:?-to.?;" iti ":;T"il : i ;ot;t!.= o'
oihtt issues which ma! have a significant impact on the
corrununity may require- review by consultants other that
town staif. -Snoufd a deternination be made by the town
st.ff that an outside consultant is needed to review
any application, Comnunity Development may hire. an
ouistbl consultant, tt shall estlmate the anount of
money necessary to pay hirn or her and this amount shall
be f6rwarded t6 the- Town by the applicant at the time
he files hls application with the Communlty Development
Department. upbn conpletlon of the review of the
ap-pttcatlon by the consultantr any of the funds
folwarded by Lne applicant for payment of the
consultant ;hich hlve not been paid to the consultant
shall be returned to the appllclnt. Expenses lncurred
by the Town in excess of the amount forwarded by the
aipltcant shall be pald to the Town by the applicant
within 30 days of notiflcation by the Town.
-v.t-_v
.08. 12. 92 03:20 PM XSLIFER AND CO PO?
fittn.:, -pgr.
VAIL VIIIAOE lgT FU.NTIO
Adbtd
Blr|rop Prrt Codunlntum Arsodsdol = . L1&4g.6,T1 -
63 Wtrlow Placc
vd, co t1657
(bctsVobrtor l35,El'tr1
o/o Borto llrftGThtrt Co. N-4"
40 Rilor X/h4 Stc. 5m
BoGoD, MA @110
Tbc Wlllorr Condoolduu Arcdadou L8' 86' Fl
8q759v4 co 81658
Rou $rac Ll, B7' Fl
285 Brldp Strset
Vrll, CO t16!t7
BZnuo r T psz
WILLOW PLACE - WRITTEN
VARIANCE REQUESTED AND
STATEMENT OF PRECISE
Ak"x
JM
NATURE OF
8-17 -92THE REGUIJAT INVOLVED
Propert
Zoning:
Lot ock 5, Vail Village First Filing,also
known as the Larson Residence, 44 Wil1ow
Site Area: 121589 Square feet or .29 acre
Regulation involved in Variance Reguest:18.20.060 Setbacks
The mininum setbacks, front side and rear shall
be 20 feet18.20.140 Parking and Loading...No parking shall be located in any reguj.redfront setback area.
Assuning that the WiIIow Road side is the "front", we would
request encroachments into that setback of:
Building
Decks
Parking
We reguest encroachments onthe Willows) of:
Proposed Existing12'-0" 11'-7"
16t-ott 15'-9"
12' -0" 20 '-0"
the east property line (adjacent to
Proposed ExistingBuilding 10'-5" 8'-4"Decks 13r-6tr NoneParking 10t-0" 20'-0"
We do not reguest any encroachment into the setback on the Vail
Road side.
A11 other conditions of the Ordinance can be met bv the enclosed
proposed design.
High Density Multifamily
RELATIONSHIP OF' THE REQUESTED VARIANCE TO OTHER EXISTTNG
POTENTIAL USES AND STRUCTURES IN THE VTCINITY
The existing residence is nonconformlng to the degree that we
are requesting: the present encroachment on the WiLfow Road
setback is 13 feet and the encroachment into the setback on the
east property line is 10 feet. The adjacent properties have
similar encroachments to the ones we are proposing: Willows
received a variance from the Willow Road setback for the
construction of an entry canopyi Bishop Park has a 7 foot
setback from WiIIow Road granted as part of the conditj.ons that
were taken in the formation of a Special- DeveLopnent District.
THE DEGREE TO WHICH RELIEF FROM THE STRTCT OR LITERAL
INTERPRETATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF A SPECIFIED REGULATION IS
NECESSARY TO ACHIEVE COMPATIBILITY AND UNIFORMITY OF TREATMENT
AMONG SITES IN THE VICTNITY OR TO ATTAIN THE OBJECTIVES OF THIS
TITLE WITHOUT GRANT OF SPECTAL PRIVILEGE
The model may indicate that a 20 foot setback per the Ordj.nance
would reduce the intimacy and scale of Willow Road as it exists.It seems that a literal interpretation and enforcement would
create an incompatibility. with the exception of Bishop Park,
the buildings in this neighborhood h'ere built prior to the
adoption of the ordinance, and have encroachments equal to orgreater than the proposed. The HDMF is extremely difficult to
accommodate on such a small triangular-shaped property with
acute angles.
THE EFFECT OF THE VARIANCE ON LIGHT AND AIR, DTSTRIBUTION OF
POPULATION, TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFTC FACILITIES, UTILITTES, AND
PUBLIC SAFETY
Light and air. The granting a variance will allow the applicantto build horizontally. The mass proposed is much lower than
allowed and lower than neighboring structures in the same zone
district, i.e., Willows and Riva South. The shadows and shading
is therefore less than allowed and less than surroundingproperties. The appJ-icant proposes to use some of the area
requested in this variance to provide underground parking for
1008 of the project as opposed to the required 75t.
Distribution of Population. The proposal is substantlally lessdensity than is allowed: Allowed 7.25 dwellings; proposed
three.
Transportation. It does not seem that granting the variance
will- effect the transportation.
Traffic Facilities. It does not seem that granting the variance
wil-1 effect the traffic, utilities and public safety.
HOW THE PROPOSAL COMPLIES WITH VAIL'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The property is addressed in the "Vaj.l village Master Plan",
specifically the Action PIan. Its use is to be Residential/
Lodqing infill. (See page 43).
Further on page 44 'rwill-ow Circle Inf ill":
"Presently the only property within the sub-area that is not
developed to, or above, existing density allowances. Wh1le
slight increases in residential density may be considered in the
redevelopment of this parcel , the shape of the 1ot nay seriously
hinder the potentiaL for GRFA greater than what is permitted by
existing zoning. Adequate landscape buffers between this parcel
and Town roads and adjacent properties should be maintained
through the redevelopment of this property. Structured parking
would be necessary for any additional Ievel of developnent.
Special emphasis on:1.2 Goal #1 Encourage the upgradi-ng and redevelopment ofresidential ....facilities.Physically inprove the existing pedestrian
ways by landscaping and other improvements.
Meet parking demands with public and privateparking facilities.
Improve the streetscape of circulationcorridors throughout the Village.
In summary, the proposal is in compliance with the specific
references to the property and the area discussed in the Master
PIan.
The hardship for development on this lot under its HDMF zoning
is created by the lot's triangular configuration, relatively
small area and acute geometry. Only 33t of the property is
rendered developable area with the 20r zoning setbacks.
Applicant is prepared to show the commissioners a lesser
footprint, more vertical solution which may comply with the
setbacks, but has a far greater impact on the neighborhood in
terms of scale and massing. We feel that the proposed solution
of low profile is a better edge/ transition between the existinghigher density projects and the residences on Beaver Dam and
Forest Road.
Other details of the proposal:
1 8.20.080 HeightAllowable: 45 feet maximum (from existing grade) for flat roof;
48 foot maximum for sfoped.Proposed: 48 feet at one ridge.
3. 1 Goal #3
5.1 Goal #5
5.4 GoaI #5
18.20.090 Density
Allowable: 7553 sguare feet.
60 sguare feet per 100 sguare feet of site area GRFA
Proposed: 7553 sguare feet.
Addltlonal allowable area: 2644
Proposed addltlonal area: 1300
18.20.110 Site CoverageAllowable: 55t of the site can be coveredProposed: 46t to be covered
18.20.130 Landscaping and Site DevelopnentAllowable: 30t shall be landscapedProposed: 45t
18.20. 1 40 Parking
Units in excess of 2000 square feet reguire 2.5 parking spaces
times three units eguals 8 parking spaces. Proposal is for themto be structured, i.e., underground.
266tV i ll,Y ]'lli
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
PIace:
Present:
Re:
August 11, 1992
Kristan's Office, Community Developnent
Kristan Prit,z
Shelly Mello
Henry Pratt
Ned Gwathmey
Wlllow Place - Pre-application Conference for
Varlance to Encroach lnto Setbacks
GPA reguested this pre-appllcation conference to review thesubmittals for the encroachments lnto the setbacks. Kristan and
She1ly pointed out that the process is not to relocate thesetback but to show which speclflc elenents encroach and tospecify ln the application plans. Further, Krlstan pointed outthat an additional part of the variance must be the encroachmentof the parking into the setback. The subject ordinance Is
18.20. 1 40.
Krl.stan pointed out that because the entrance to the parklng vras
on lfiLlow Road, that is the front.
The details of the project were pointed out and the Staff feltthat we have a case, and wlll look t,o get the completedappli eatinn.
The foregoing represents ny understanding of matters discussed
and decislons reached. If the interpretation of others varies,please inform us j-n wrlting.
EMG
Zaattg tnto,iB
CONFERENCE MEMORANDUM
Date:
Place:
PresenL:
Re:
Employee Unit.
must come out
The purpose of thls neetlng reguested by the Developer was to
inform Communlty Development of the plans for the property, to
show that the tot shape is a hardship and to ask dlrection ln
obtalning repri.eve from setback reguirernents on the north and
east property llnes. The exlstlng residence is not withln the
setbacks for HDMF and Kristan suggested that tt would be to our
benefit not to j-ncrease the nonconformity in the new plan, in
dlmensi.on or area.
All other known conditions of the ordinance will be met by the
new deslgn.
Krlstan felt that a variance for the setbacks was possible; it
did not seem necessary to forrn a Special Development Districtjust for the setback varlance.
Other details discussed:
,Iuly 29, 1992
Community Development Offices - Vail
Kristan Prit,z y'Oirector of ComrriuniLy Development
Scott Ross, Towermarc Corporation
Ned Gwathmey
Willows Place
Kristan stated that any employee unit areaof allowable GRFA. This issue could be
I
1.
addressed if the s.D.D. approach was taken.
2. Parklng. Krj.stan stated that it would be a positive point
In-EFconsideration of the variance to have all of the
parklng under structure rather than the required 75t. fn
any case, all of the reguJ.red parking nust be on the
property.
Conference ltenorandun - Wlllows Place
Page 2
lhe reeeptlon of the plan was posltive; the schedule for
appllcatlon gubmlttal le 17 August 1992.
The foregolng represents ny understanding of natters dl.scussed
and declilons reached. If the lnterpretation of othere varlgE,
please lnforn ua ln wrlttng.