Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991-09-03 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session . ~iC VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 1:00 PM AGENDA 1. Site Visit - Tupy Residence 2. Site Visit - Gasthof Gramshammer 3. Request for Funding -Vail Soccer Club, Inc. 4. Size of Bond Issue for Berry Creek 5th Bond Issue 5. Information Update 6. Other 7. Executive Session -Consultation with the Town Attorney regarding specific legal matters 8. Adjournment C:WGENDA.WS /L ~ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 1991 1:00 P.M. EXPANDED AGENDA 1:00 p.m. 1. Site Visit: Tupy Residence (1901 Chamonix Lane) Andrew Knudtsen Action Requested of Council: Prepare to discuss, at evening meeting, an appeal by neighbors of a PEC decision. (Applicant: Leon Tupy; Appellants: Marka Moser, Cynthia Steitz, Bruce Alien) Background Rationale: The applicant applied for a front setback variance for a proposed primary/secondary residence at 1901 Chamonix Lane. On August 12, 1991, the PEC voted 4-3 to approve the Tupy front setback variance request; the neighbors are now appealing the PEC decision. Staff recommended approval of the request since, in Staff's opinion, the variance criteria, specifically hardship, have been met. In the Council packet are: a) The Staff memo to PEC b) The letter of appeal from Marka Moser, Cynthia Steitz, and Bruce Allen c) A petition and letter signed by several neighbors d) A letter from the applicant e) A list of revised conditions reflecting the PEC motion Staff recommended approval of the request since, in Staff's opinion, the variance criteria, specifically hardship, have been met. 1:25 p.m. 2. Site Visit -Gasthof Gramshammer Andrew Knudtsen Action Requested of Council: Prepare to discuss, at evening meeting, call-up of the DRB decision approving a modified landscape plan for the Gasthof Gramshammer. Backaround Rationale: On August 7, 1991, the DRB voted 5-0 to approve a modified landscape plan for the Gasthof Gramshammer. The applicants do not intend to add any landscaping to what presently exists in the planters on the east and south sides of the buildings. On January 30, 1991, the DRB approved the ski storage locker expansion with an accompanying landscape plan. On June 19, 1991, the DRB approved a plan which allowed the removal of three (3) Aspen trees on the southwest corner of the Gasthof Gramshammer site. This approval was given with the condition that the applicants present an alternative plan, providing an adequate amount of landscaping to compensate for the three (3) trees which were cut down. The DRB believed that the existing landscaping was attractive and that the Gasthof Gramshammer did not need more landscaping to improve its appearance. 1 1:45 p.m. 3. Request for Funding -Vail Soccer Club, Inc. Fred Ammer Backaround Rationale: Pepi's Soccer Club is planning a trip to Austria and Germany October 1-18, 1991. The purpose of the trip is to maintain and establish new relationships with foreign soccer clubs, and to help promote Vail as a year round world class resort. This is the club's second trip to Europe; they will be playing the same teams as before. They have had the Heidenheim team in Vail as their guests. The club would like to take gifts to help promote Vail, specifically T-Shirts designed especially for this trip. Estimated cost: 6 games, 15 players each, @ $10.00/shirt = a request for $1,000.00. 2:00 p.m. 4. Size of Bond Issue for Berry Creek 5th Bond Issue Steve Barwick Action Requested of Council: Set the size of the bond issue for the Berry Creek 5th parcel. Backaround Rationale: Under the current Intergovernmental Agreement the Town of Vail will issue bonds related to the purchase and holding of the Berry Creek 5th parcel. Town Council needs to decide upon the size of the bond issue. The recommended minimum bond issue is $1.856 million (inclusive of issuance costs). The maximum bond issue is $2.49 million. 2:20 p.m. 5. Information Update 6. Other 7. Executive Session - Consultation with the Town Attorney regarding specific legal matters 8. Adjournment C:VIGENDA.WSE 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Planning and Environmental Commission FROM: Community Development Department DATE: August 12, 1991 SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for the Tupy Residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision/1901 Chamonix Lane. Applicant: Leon Tupy _ Planner: Andy Knudtsen I. INTRODUCTION Since the previous Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting on July 22, 1991, the applicant has modified the proposal. At the previous meeting, the applicant agreed to table the request, due a staff concern regarding the parking calculations. The applicant has revised the proposal by adding a fifth parking space in front of the primary unit. The architect has also reduced the size of the primary unit, and eliminated any encroachment of the primary unit into the front yard setback by shifting the building to the west. The secondary unit remains as the PEC saw it previously. As a result, the request continues to be fora 6-foot encroachment into the front yard setback. The format and content of this memo is similar to the one presented to the PEC on July 22. Any changes which have been made in the design have been discussed in the memo where appropriate. In addition, a section has been added to specifically address the neighborhood concerns discussed at the previous PEC hearing. II. DESCRir 11ON OF THE VARIANCE REOUES i ~li The applicant for the variance, Leon Tupy, is planning to construct aPrimary/Secondary residence on this site. The lot is located at the southwest corner of Buffehr Creek Road and Chamonix Lane. Approximately 50% of the lot is designated as the 100-year floodplain, since Buffehr Creek runs through the property. The structure the applicant is proposing continues to be "pie-shaped," reflecting the available site area which can be developed. At the narrowest portion of the developable area, the house is 16 feet wide. - The applicant is proposing a 14-foot front yard setback, where 20 feet is required. As the PEC was concerned about the amount of encroachment into the front yard setback at different portions of the building, staff has identified each area specifically. The site plan provided at 1 the end of this memo has six setbacks identified, lettered A-F. Each letter represents a different part of the building, with a different setback. Beginning with letter A on the south side of the building, there is a 20.5-foot setback measured to the second story overhang. Letter B identifies a 19-foot setback to the entrance of the primary unit on the first floor. Letter C identifies a 17.7-foot setback to the second story overhang over the southern garage. Letter D shows a 15.5-foot setback to the second story overhang over the northern garage door. Letter E shows a 14.5-foot setback measured to the third story projection over the entrance to the secondary unit. Letter F shows a 14-foot setback measured to the deck of the secondary unit. The worst case scenario of each of these different setbacks is the deck of the secondary unit. The 14-foot setback proposed in this area results in a 6-foot encroachment into the 20-foot required setback. There will be no encroachment into any of the other setbacks, including the 30-foot Buffehr Creek stream setback. The applicant has designed a 4-foot roof overhang, and a 5-foot cantilevered deck, which will encroach into the stream setback; however, the zoning code allows for minor encroachments such as these. These encroachments will not be located in the 100-yeaz floodplain. III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS Lot Size: 18,255.9 sq. ft. Zoning: Primary/Secondary Residential Allowed Proposed GRFA Primary 2,870.1 2090.9 Secondary 2055.1 1614.3 Total 4925.2 3705.2 Site Coverage 3,650.3 sq. ft. 2,279 sq. ft. Height 33 ft 32.8 ft Setbacks North-Side 15 71 South-Side 15 15 East-Front 20 14* West-Rear 15 80 * Requested variance IV. NEIGHBORHOOD CONCERNS A. There were several neighbors at the previous PEC hearing who expressed concern about various aspects of the proposal. Staff would like to identify each concern and discuss it. The first is parking. The pazking requirement for this development is a total of 4.5 spaces. When pazking calculations result in a 2 fraction, such as 4.5, staff rounds it up. As a result, the total pazkin~ reauirement is 5 spaces. The requirement is based on the primary unit having approximately 2,100 sq. ft. and the secondary unit having approximately 1,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. The pazking requirement is based on size of the structure, not number of bedrooms or dens. The applicant has met the five space requirement by locating one space within each of the two garages, two spaces between the face of the gazage door and the property line, and a fifth space perpendiculaz to the driveway. All of the parking is contained on the property and does not use any of the public right-of--way. There is 20.5 feet between the face of the garage door and the property line. B. Sorne neighbors were also concerned about the mass and bulk of the structure. The applicant has designed a structure of approximately 3,700 sq. ft., about 1,200 sq. ft. less than what the zoning code allows. The zoning code limits the secondary unit to 40% of the allowable GRFA, or 2,055.1 sq. ft. As the secondary unit is 1,614.3 sq. ft., it conforms to this regulation. C. Some neighbors were concerned about the floodplain and wetlands and the impact of the development upon those azeas. With these issues, the Town must rely on federal standazds. The Town does not regulate wetlands, nor does the Town regulate floodplains more restrictively than the Federal Emergency Management Agency (r~MA). Given that the applicant has shown that the 100-yeaz floodplain area will be unaltered, and given that the applicant has provided a letter from the Corps of Engineers granting approval for the• development of the site relating to wetlands, the Town is not in a position to further regulate these areas. D. Another concern dealt with the amount of traffic along Buffehr Creek Road and the safety problems which may arise with the development of this lot. Staff believes that the parking configuration is quite similar to the condominium building adjacent to this lot to the south. Staff acknowledges .that the additional trips created on Buffehr Creek Road from The Valley and Vail Point developments do increase traffic. However, staff believes the additional automobiles generated by this development will not alter the characteristics of the road significantly. In addition, the request before the PEC is for a front yazd setback. Staff acknowledges the lot has development potential, and that some automobile trips will be generated by the development of this site, regazdless of an encroachment into the front yard setback. E. Neighbors expressed concern about the requirement to improve the public right-of--way with curb and gutter. The Town of Vail Engineer has deleted this requirement from the proposal in an effort to maintain the existing drainage patterns as much as possible. The applicant will be providing a drainage swale at the edge of pavement to convey drainage from the north, past his property, 3 to the south. Staff has walked the area, and believes that this will be similaz to the existing drainage patterns, and will not alter them significantly. This approach has been approved by the Town of Vail Engineer. F. The last issue neighborhood representatives presented involved the issue of hardship. Some neighbors mentioned that the applicant knew about the site constraints when they purchased the lot, and therefore "hardship" is no longer applicable. Staff would like to point out that physical hazdships are attributed to physical property. Previous knowledge of a physical hardship does not alter the fact that it may exist. Staff will discuss the hazdship issue further under the criteria section. V. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested variance 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 neighborhood provides a varied context for this development. The adjacent property to the south and the property across the street to the southeast are condominium projects. Directly across the street to the east is a single family residence. The azea to the southwest of the property contains single family and primary/secondary residences. Lot 33 is located between this group of primary/secondary homes and the commercial and multi-family development which has been built along the North Frontage Road. Staff believes that the mass and bulk of the house is in line with the structures around the .site. The encroachment into the front setback will mainly affect people driving along Buffehr Creek Road. Staff would like to see additional landscaping planted in the front yazd, pardculazly in the front of the pazking azea. Staff recommends that an additional 3 spruce and 2 aspens be included in the front yazd to screen the pazking. Each of the setbacks adjacent to other lots do meet the zoning standazds. The applicant had the option of siting the house so that it met the 20-foot front setback standard, but encroached into the stream setback. Staff believes providing the full 30-feet adjacent to Buffehr Creek is positive, given the willows and 100-year floodplain. Staff understands from the architect that no willows will be removed. However, staff is concerned that during construction, 4 some may be excavated and removed. If, during the construction process, any willows must be removed, staff believes they must be replanted along the bank of Buffehr Creek. 2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege. Staff believes that approval of this request would not be a grant of special privilege. Because Buffehr Creek divides this property, and leaves a relatively small amount of the lot that is developable, the site has a physical hardship which staff believes justifies a variance from the code. The total site area is 18,255.9 sq. ft. and approximately 50.0% of the lot is in the floodplain. The floodplain divides the property through the middle, leaving 1,245 sq. ft. on the west side and 7,874.2 sq. ft. on the east side for development. Of the area on the east side, only 2,473.6 sq. ft. is located out of required setbacks. Given the relatively small size of area to develop, staff believes that encroaching into one setback, specifically the front setback, is reasonable. As staff mentioned in the discussion of the neighborhood concerns, prior knowledge of a site constraint does not alter the fact that it affects the developability of a lot. The Tupys may have known about the way Buffehr Creek affects the amount of developable land on this lot before they purchased it; however, they did not have a guarantee of variance approval. To staff, the issue is not about previous knowledge of the hardship, but if one exists on the property, and if the applicant has responded to it with a reasonable design. Staff believes that, in this case, the 6-foot encroachment is reasonable. 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. Staff believes that the proposal will not negatively affect the issues listed above. Drainage will be handled with a gravel Swale in an effort to maintain the existing drainage conditions as much as possible. 4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposed variance. One issue staff is concerned about is the wetlands on the site. The applicant has contacted the Army Corps of Engineers regarding the potential impact on the wetlands, and the response from the Corps is attached to this memo. In their response, the Corps simply stated that, because the applicant does not plan 5 to disturb the soil around the wetlands, a Department of the Army permit is not required. The Corps does encourage the applicant to protect the stream bank from erosion by leaving as many of the willow stems and root stalks as possible. The architect has said that none of willows will need to be removed, and staff believes that, in conjunction with the advice from the Corps of Engineers and in an effort to preserve the willows, the applicant should place a construction fence around the wetlands prior to any excavation in order to preserve and protect the willows and cottonwoods during construction. If any are removed during construction, the applicant is responsible for transplanting them on site on the bank of Buffehr Creek. B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findinss before Qrantin~ a variance: 1. That the granting of 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 int:,~t,~,,tation 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 int:,.r.etation or enforcement of the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the request, finding it meets the variance criteria as addressed above. In addition, Findings 1, 2, and 3(b) are met, in staff's opinion. Specifically, Finding 1 is met as the granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special privilege, as 6 the physical hardship of the floodplain, 30-foot stream setback and existing willows are factors which justify a deviation from the code standard. Finding 2 is met, in staff's opinion, as the proposal does not affect public health, safety or welfare. ' Staff believes that finding 3(b) is met, as the floodplain is an extraordinary circumstance of the site which is not generally found on other properties in the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the variance with the following conditions: 1. Prior to submitting a DRB application, the applicant shall revise the landscaping plan to include 3 additional spruce and 2 aspen to screen the parking. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall install a construction fence to protect all existing willows. The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity shall cross. 3. Immediately after the foundation is constructed, the applicant shall submit a survey to the Community Development Department showing that the construction conforms to this approval and that the structure will not encroach into the front yard setback more than 6 feet. 4. During the construction process, any willows or other trees which must be removed, must be transplanted on site on the bank of Buffehr Creek. 5. Prior to issuance of a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall secure a revocable right-of--way permit in order to construct the one to two foot walls in the right-of-way. c ~pec~nemos~tupy2.812 7 i. MEMORANDUM TO: Tupy File FROM: Andy Knudtsen DATE: August 13, 1991 ~ SUBJECT: PEC Conditions of Approval f; r::~ j:•a fir,., f 'r%:r•~ :r+r: F ~ '."rn~ •i •:4 r,. ~.iY i-~ ~ ice: iiiiiiiifA'F.Liii:~ ~iiiiiiYwiiiiii ~vii•:: r:::::::: i::::: r: i:::::::::::::::::. r/r :f f / r r / I . rr. . 'i~ ~ r1 ~ r/ f ..l r r r..rii/.li,:,:,rfr::.•r.'r..'•.'•:::::>:.'••;;;.::. i:.:`r'-S'S;:: . ~///1//:.///. ~~/f./rr. ii~~rr / : :;.:;:::r:::::::..:::::::.~.~::: I:: :1.. .rr: %.::r.. r.l.F f~if~/rux:rr.i•.:. ryrr;ri'F?":'.~.. fx:::::::.{.::4:ii::: :::v.....:.r'.w:.. n...{ .:.....v.....: ......r...~....r......r~ ~v::.:..:.. J...:.... f... ....r.nn........ m•••V: x v.....:.........::.ri:•:•:•i;:;:::•:' Kr; x. r.: . . f~:..:::... ...:n::::. . .............................iccttro-';r.{uCoaa'~'+"{v:!.ta..........n.r.r/r.L:'..............................,...::•:.x:.;:::.... :v:.::.~.: .:t:....... ,................:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::ti::.. .~.::....n rnv.....u..u....•.... .v:.~.•::::.i4iiiiiii?i:~i:S 1. Prior to submitting a DRB application, the applicant shall revise the site plan by: a. Shifting the fifth parking space to the west to allow a planting strip between the parking space and the property line. b. Planting a combination of evergreen and deciduous bushes and trees around the parking area to screen it from the public. c. Removing all landscaping retaining walls, bushes and trees from the right-of- way. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall install a construction fence to protect all existing willows. The fence shall establish the boundary which no construction activity shalt cross. 3. Immediately after the foundation is constructed, the applicant shall submit a survey to the Community Development Department showing that the construction conforms to this approval and that the structure will not encroach into the front yard setback more than 6 feet. 4. During the construction process, any willows or other trees which must be removed, must be transplanted on site on the bank of Buffehr Creek. 'I ~C"D AUG201991 August 16, 1991 Vail Town Council 75 South Frontage Road ` Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Council Members: j i On July 22, several property owners in the Buffehr Creek neighborhood went before the Vail Planning Commission and expressed our opposition to a variance request. This variance would grant a 20 foot front setback on Lot 33 in the Buffehr Creek Resubdivision purchased by Leon Tupy. With discussion and neighborhood input, this issue was tabled until August 12, the next planning meeting. Again, at this meeting, several owners who were notified by the Town as to this variance affecting our properties, showed up to again oppose this request: At each meeting, we had 13 owners opposing the request, however, the vote of the commission was 4-3 approving the variance. Attached are copies. It was suggested at that time that we could appeal this matter to you, the town council, as the vote was close, and we feel very strongly about increased safety hazards with this approved variance. Looking at their drawings, we feel their building can be done within the given parameters without a granted variance. The plans need to be pushed back a bit and re-do the party wall, as a result, no variance is needed, resulting in lesser safety hazards. With the approved variance, putting the house 6 feet closer to the road, "uses" are also pushed 6 feet closer to the road. There are numerous dwellings being built up Buffehr Creek Road in the Valley area, up at Vail Pointe townhomes, along LionsRidge Loop, as well as many construction vehicles utilizing this route. Presently with Town of Vail buses making a right onto Buffehr Creek from Chamonix, the turn is a very wide one. With a vehicle approaching Chamonix to make a left turn, it is impossible when the bus is there. The approaching vehicle must stop, back down .and start again in many instances. Even if a bus were not there to hamper upward vehicles, cars slip and slide and swerve while attempting to get up Buffehr Creek Road. If the proposed primary/secondary building were in its original setbacks, we feel a higher safety factor would exist for everyone--traffic from both ways. In addition to the above, the landscaping that is proposed is in the right of way area and may also cause a visual handicap--not only to the proposed parking for this residence(s), but may also be a visual hazard to vehicles up and down the street--not being able to see the cars pulling out of the driveway. Consideration should also be given in this area with the proposed road improvements consisting of curbs and gutters. Moreover, there is no doubt, and we've all experienced high snowfalls and the snowbanks created along Buffehr Creek as well as other streets. With the variance granted, the house being 6 feet closer to the road, and snowbanks creating an even greater hazard, we foresee problems. i I i a_•/ 1~ i We have lived in this neighborhood many years, from 12-25 years to be exact and we know how it is in the winter and how difficult Buffehr Creek road can be for motorists. Considering the closeness of this vote, it's severity to safety and maintain a safer road, we ask you, the. town council, to re-evaluate the planning commission's decision, consider; the safety concerns involved, and reverse the decision of the Planning Commission. We are definitely not opposed to a structure being built on this lot--in fact, we welcome a new home within the neighborhood, however, a home without a granted variance which would not create safety hazards for our neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Respectfully, - 17 O ~X ~S jl~~.I/,2ri~ Gd/Q~- / U cc: Vail Planning Department i i FROM:MERRILL LYNCH HOULDFJ2 TO~ 3034792157 AUG 28, 1991 10~57AM P.02 I I 133o Timber~.ane Boulder, Co. 80,~Oy. August 27, lggl Vail Town Counc3]. 75 South Frontage Road val.]., Co. 8657 Dear Coune~.l Member: On August 12, the Va~.1 P1ann~.ng Comma.B~s~.on approved our request for a variance i.n the from setback on Tot 33 in tho BuffQhr Creek Rosubdi.visioz~. Three neighbors are asking you to reverse that decision. Wo would like to arespond to theix 1ettEr. Aster our request was tabled at the July 22 P.E.C. meeting, primari~.y due tc~ the location of a guest park-- . ing apace, our arch~.teet red~si~gned the structure. In respansQ to the concerns of thQ neighbors oppo$ing our requsst~ the total. square footage was reduced. The front of the buildingg was rsdes~.glied and pushed back so that only a third o£ the foundat~.on along Buffeter Croak Road wou7:d necaes3tate a varianeQ. The variance was granted for 4 feet--not 6 feet as stated ~.n the letter from the three neighbors. ThQ Va3.:~ k~la.nn~.ng bapartment heal aug~ Bested we request a vaxianco on the street setback rr~thax~ than the creek a3 do,which has 34 foot setback require- ments. The landscape was moved within the property line. The latter from the three ne~.ghbors incorrectly States that i.t is in the right of way area. Additional~.y~ the landscape north of the bu~.lding was pulled back to E1~.m- inate any visual. :,~a~ard for Chamox~~.x Zane tirafiic turn- ing on to Buffeter Creek I?oad. The points ra~..sed ~.n Paragraph 5 are not affected by eithe:^ the grant~.ng of the variance or the building cif tho house itself.. Aug! 1~ letter fram ne~.ghbora.. After discussing proposed xaad ~.mprovements cor~r~.sting of curb and gutters with the Vail Planning Depaartment, it was dec~.ded a gravel swa7.e would beat handle water run off w.tthout creating a prob~.om ix: the parki»g area of the adjacent condominium. A Des3.gn keview Board member comp3.imentad our archi tact on a rooflf.ne ,that shows consideration, of the ne~.gh- bors. zn spite of severe restrictions on the lot due i FROM~h~rcnILL LYNCH BOULDER 70~~ 3034?9215? AUG 28. 1991 10~58AM P.03 I j i:o 30 foot setbacks Pram a creek runn3~ng thrQUgh the lot, we have designed a structure that. will bc~ an attz~aet~.ve plus tq th® ne3.gklbprho4d. The build~.ng is substanta~ally sma~.ler than a~.low©d for a lot of 'that size. We have given careful cons~.deratian to safety questions rai~sod by tha neighbors in the redesign of tho sturcture and in tho landscape design. We request that you uphold the dec~..aion of the Vai.~. p~anhing Comm~.ssion to grant thQ variance. Leon and T have owned a. residence at Vail da$ Schone . for sa.x years and have ra~ddcn the bus around the C}~a- roonix--Buffehr Creek Road carnnr many, many times during the ski. season. We can honestly say that we da not see how a house on that lot would reduce the safety factor. Si. axely, f Leon and Judy T y Ownexs of Lot 33, Butfehr Creek RBt~ubdiv3.s~.an f I ir~l:~l ;~~n~ ~,1~JJ~ August 12, 1991 ! i Vail Planning Commission c/o Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Vail Planning Commission, This letter is a follow-up to our Letter of July 22, relating to a request for a front setback variance for the Tupy residence, Lot 33, Buffehr Creek Resubdivis~o~, 1901 Chamonix Lane. As we have been residents in this particulars"for several years, knowing this area well, we request that the variance NOT be granted due to the following reasons. We remain concerned with a greater SAFETY ;hazard should this variance be granted. Buffehr Creek Road is becoming a High traffic road. Vail Pointe Townhomes has already built at least 8 new residences, with a foundation for four more townhomes. The Valley addition is presently under construction with three more townhomes, and one single family. Dirt work has also begun with 8 new Homes to be built up Buffehr Creek Road. Buffehr Creek is a speedway for moat people as they don't adhere to the speed limit nor the atop sign at Buffehr Creek and Chamonix Lane. There is an even greater concern during the winter when the road is particularly icy and snowpacked. This traffic doesn't even include the town buses or school buses which utilize tl~e road daily. SAFETY concern during the winter with regards to snow removal. With the request for a front setback variance, the building would only be closer to the road. We believe there would be an increased safety hazard when the Town of Vail snowplows clear the road. SAFETY concern with regards to parking, as well as sufficient parking. We remain to have a concern if the variance is approved with regards to the proposed road improvements with curbs and gutters. If approved, the house would only be even closer to the future road improvements, again, presenting a safety concern. Lastly, we wish to express our concern for the "hardship" case that the Tupy's have presented. As Mike Mollica of the Planning Department confirmed at the July 22nd meeting, Mr. Tupy met with him months prior to purchasing Lot 33 and knew full well the lot size, setback requirements, etc, and that variances would be needed to build a larger edifice. As Mr. Tupy was aware of this fact, we do NOT feel this is a hardship at all, and request that hie variance be denied and that building is done within the parameters given without the variance. It is also very presumptions to. have plane drawn and assume variance approval ie forthcoming. 1. U,.~e q, e inn. aG.. A~9f'X~~ _P ~ ii lq/~,~~a~~c~. A'/~s¢ --~i~_.._Q p~iG,7_' , i 9G 9 C~;.,.s~,~~ x k'~, 1~.: roS3 <-c ~r fr/G.t~d'' ~d I g£s5 ~^E-e~~ C~aEt~ P~ V~L . . ~~~rn~~.~ /,~6~ .rte z~c ~ (oa.~,~L~~) ~ .r~, c LX~~ ~,w--, ,yam V~.;,~ rte, 3rr,s3 ;i i i July 22, 1991 II I Vail Planning Commission c/o Town of Vail j 75 South Frontage Road Vail, Colorado 81657 i Dear Vail Planning Commission: Responding to your notice of possible negative impact to our properties relating to the front set-back variance requested for the Tupy residence located in the Buffehr Creek Resubdivision, 1901 Chamonix Lane, we are hereby requesting that the variance not be granted due to the following reasons: 1) SAFETY ISSUE with regards to the increased volume of traffic on Buffehr Creek; school buses, Town of ,Vail buses, completion of Vail Pointe townhome expansion, along with The Valley expansion--with the building encroaching into the 20' setback requirement to the road we foresee an increased safety hazard. 2) With the proposed Town of Vail road improvement, similar to Red Sandstone Road and the Chamonix Chalets area with curbs and gutters, we feel the set back variance should not be allowed. 3) Upon purchasing said property, purchasers were fully aware of lot size as well as set back requirements, therefore, we do not see a hardship, and again request that this variance be denied. i Respectfully, ~ D~ ~t2x.lc., /t GrN G- ~ ~d ~ y r ~ gY /,~,,~L ~-a2 Calms va~l, Ca. 8/~S~ ~ g 5 ~~e h r C~~ ~ ~ C~ ~9s rep I ~ G~J ~i~s~ (/Q;~ co ~16s7 ~ j ~ ' s ' REC'~ AUG 2 3 199 Cdtru,~~, 9~ia-ic. VAIL SOCCER CLUB , INC . 3 TQ ~ (~.S ~ 53 Imo. = ~ P.O. BOX 5030 la KfitZ ~iG~L~' ~06~i5~ `~~og~ AVON, CO 81620 (00 7a U @ ~ 31 ~ : X300 - August 22, 1991 Mr. Ron Phillips Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: Pepi's Soccer Club is planning a trip to Austria and Germany October 1st through the 18th. We will be playing games in Mittersill (Blizzard Factory), Kitzbuehel (Austria), Heidenheim (Germany) and Oberstdorf (Germany). The purpose of the trip is to maintain and establish new relationships with foreign soccer clubs. This is our second trip to Europe (prior trip was in 1986) and we have played the same teams before. We have also had the Heidenheim team as our guests in Vail. This trip will help to promote Vail as a year round world class resort. With the establishment of two high school soccer teams and The Gore Valley Youth Soccer Club we feel it to be very important to have these European connections. This will open up opportunities for our youth teams to travel or host foreign visiting youth teams that we are playing. We would like to take gifts to the six teams that would help to promote Vail, specifically would like to take T-Shirts, designed especially for this trip.' We are asking you for some financial help to purchase these shirts. If you have any other ideas or financial help with this endeavor we would welcome your suggestions. Sincerely, CQG~ ~.,~.~-d,< < ~ C,tu,~c~ ~cu. l~s Fred Ammer I Team Manager (303} 949-.6361 y• kl •~N TENTATIVE ITINERARY PEPI'S SOCCER TRIP OCTOBER 1 - 18, 1991 OCT 1ST - TUESDAY Leave Denver via United Airlines OCT 2ND - WEDNESDAY Arrive in Frankfurt. Drive by private bus to Kitzbuehel, Austria. (6 hrs.) OCT 3RD - THURSDAY Recovery time A.M. Light practice. GAME #1 at 6PM. OCT 4TH - FRIDAY Drive to Mittersill (short trip). Tour of Blizzard Factory. SPM Game against Blizzard Co. Team. OCT 5TH - SATURDAY Drive to Munich (2 hrs. each moray). Watch FC Bayern, Munich play the • Stuttgarter Kickers. • ~ ~:.OCT 6TH - SUNDAY ~ RELAX. OCT TTH - MONDAY Hahnenkamm Hike OCT 8TH - TUESDAY Free time. 6PM Game #3 if available. OCT 9TH - WEDNESDAY Drive to Heidenheim by bus (4 hrs.) 6PM Game #4 against HSB at Alb-Stadium. OCT 10TH - THURSDAY Game #5 at~6PM if available. OCT 11TH - FRIDAY Free Day. OCR 12TH - SATURDAY Watch HSB play a regular league game. OCT 13TH - SUNDAY Free Dav. OCT 14TH - MONDAY Drive to Oberstdorf by bus (1 1/4 • hrs.) - Sonnenalp. OCT 15TH - TUESDAY OCT 16TH - WEDNESDAY Oberstdorf area. Additional 1 or 2 games if available. OCT iTTH - THURSDAY Return to Frankfurt. OCT 18TH - FRIDAY Return to Denver. R August 28, 1941 Tt~ : Town of Vail FYom: pail Soccer Club RE: Financial help for European Trip. Dear dd: We are planning to play six {b) games tahile we are an tour. Each team has about 15 players. 1Qp t-shirts @ $10.00 = $1,000. Thank you for youz' help in presentiing this request. Fred Ammer `R'eam Manager Z0'd £SZ96~6£0£ s1~al~y~an i aa.ald t ' REC'~ AUG 2 3 199# VAIL SOCCER CLUB, INC. P.O. BOX 5030 AVON, CO 81620 August 22, 1991 Mr. Ron Phillips Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Rd. Vail, CO 81657 Dear Ron: Pepi's Soccer Club is planning a trip to Austria and Germany October 1st through the 18th. We will be playing games in Mittersill (Blizzard Factory), Kitzbuehel (Austria), Heidenheim (Germany) and Oberstdorf (Germany). The purpose of the trip is to maintain and establish new relationships with foreign soccer clubs. This is our second trip to Europe (prior trip was in 1986) and we have played the same teams before. We have also had the Heidenheim team as our guests in Vail. This trip will help to promote Vail as a year round world class resort. With the establishment of two high school soccer teams and The Gore Valley Youth Soccer Club we feel it to be very important to have these European connections. This will open up opportunities for our youth teams to travel or host foreign visiting youth teams that we are playing. We would like to take gifts to the six teams that would help to promote Vail, specifically would like to take T-Shirts, designed especially for this trip. We are asking you for some financial help to purchase these shirts. If you have any other ideas or financial help with this endeavor we would welcome your suggestions. Sincerely, Fred Ammer Team Manager (303) 949-.6361 TENTATIVE ITINERARY PEPI'S SOCCER TRIP OCTOBER 1 - 18, 1991 OCT 1ST - TUESDAY Leave Denver via United Airlines OCT 2ND - WEDNESDAY Arrive in Frankfurt. Drive by private bus to Kitzbuehel, Austria. (6 hrs.) OCT 3RD - THURSDAY Recovery time A.M. Light practice. GAME #1 at 6PM. OCT 4TH - FRIDAY Drive to Mittersill (short trip). Tour of Blizzard Factory. bPM Game against Blizzard Co. Team. OCT 5TH - SATURDAY Drive to Munich (2 hrs. each way). Watch FC Bayern, Munich play the Stuttgarter Kickers. OCT 6TH - SUNDAY RELAX. OCT ?TH - MONDAY Hahnenkamm Hike ' OCT 8TH - TUESDAY Free time. 6PM Game #3 iP available. . OCT 9TH - WEDNESDAY Drive to Heidenheim by bus (4 hrs.) 6PM Game #4 against HS8 at Alb-Stadium. OCT 10TH - THURSDAY Game #5 at~6PM if available. . OCT 11TH - FRIDAY Free Dav. OCR 12TH - SATURDAY Watch HSB play a regular league game. OCT 13TH - SUNDAY Free Dav. OCT 14TH - MONDAY Drive to Oberstdorf by bus (1 1/4 hrs.) - Sonnenalp. OCT 15TH - TUESDAY OCT 16TH - WEDNESDAY Oberstdorf area. Additional 1 or 2 games if available. OCT 17TH - THURSDAY Return to Frankfurt. OCT 18TH - FRIDAY Return to Denver. August 28, 1991 To: Town of Vail mom: pail Soccer Club RE: k'inasxcial help for European Trip. Dear dd: We are planning to play six (b) games whsle we are on tour. Each team has about 15 players. 100 t-shirts @ $10.00 = $1,000. Thank you for youz help in presen'Cing this request. Fred Aamier Team Manager Z0'd £SZ96t~6£0£ sz~aa~y~an i aad~d