HomeMy WebLinkAbout1980 Planning & Environmental Commission Agendas, Minutes & Memos July to Dec.PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
Monday, July 14, 1980, 3:00 P.M.
1. Approval of minutes of June 23, 1980.
2. CDS Enterprises - Lot line Vacation
Lots 1,2,3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd Addition
3. Conditional Use Permit to allow expansion
of the Municipal Building.
4. Study Session
a. Fare study of Vail Village
b. Review of Zoning Amendment changes
•
To be published in the Vail Trail July 11, 1980.
•
Minutes of the Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting.
Members Present
John Perkins
Gerry White
Jim Morgan
Sandy Mills
Dan Corcoran
Roger Tilkemeier
1. CDS En
July 14, 1980 3:00 P.M.
Council Member Present
Ron Todd
Staff Present
Dick Ryan
Jim Ryan
Peter Patten
ises - Lot Line Vacation -Lots 1,2,3, Block 7, Bighorn 3rd
Jim Rubin presented the memo. Duane Piper of Wheeler -Piper Architects
showed a plot plan. There was concern about the number of accesses.
Dan Corcoran asked if there could be only one access. Jim said that
his office didn't review the plan itself, and that the two driveways
would be discussed with the DRB.
Roger pointed out that the lot line vacations were all that they had
to consider at this time. John Perkins felt that these vacations would
be a good addition to this property.
Roger Tilkemeier moved to approve, John Perkins seconded. Unanimous vote.
2. Conditional Use Permit to 11.
a ow expansion of Municipal Building.
Dick Ryan presented a new rough sketch indicating the addition on
the west side of the building adjacent to the back wall of the Council
chambers. It extended west and north of the main building. He said
that it would abut the handicap ramp.
Gerry asked how close it would be to the property line. Dick answered
6 or 8 feet.
Gerry asked if it followed set -back regulations. Dick replied that there
were none. John wanted to know about the roof height. Dick explained
that the roof would follow the present roof line and that there would
be some storage under some portions, and cathedral ceilings in other
places, with a ladder to the storage. Sandy asked if the ladder met
the fire codes. Dick replied that it did.
Sandy asked if the Community Development Department was going to be
getting the area that they needed. Dick:.yes, about 1300'sq'. ft.
John Perkins wanted to know a budget estimate. It was estimated to
cost. about $35 /sq. ft.
Discussion of mechanical hook -up followed, and Dick explained there
would be only electric heat. Sandy showed concern about parking impact,
and it was explained that there would be no new persons added to the
staff. Most of the PEC members expressed displeasure of such a rough
sketch.
PEC MEETING July 14, 1980 Page two
40 Gerry asked where the library would move, and Dick replied, "Across
the hall. Bill would move into the Com. Dev, space, and the police
into Bill's office." Gerry asked if this expansion would be large
enough to solve the needs in the future, and Dick replied that it was.
Roger wanted to know if they had considered using partitions such as
Herman Miller office furniture instead of walls. Dick answered that
he had worked in an office with Herman Miller partitions and that
the sound carried right over with no privacy. John added that it was
very expensive as well.
Discussion of the door into the lobby area followed. John felt that
despite the rough drawing that he could support it and that it shouldn't
be too expensive.
Motion by John Perkins to approve the conditional use permit, seconded
by Roger Tilkemeier. The vote was unanimous.
3. Approval of minutes of meeting of June 23, 1980.
Dan Corcoran moved for approval, seconded.by John Perkins.
It was decided that the next date being July 28, the date of the
golf tournament, and the one item, Christiania Lodge, could be
carried forward, that there would be no meeting on the 28th.
There is to be a work session on the 4th of August and the next
regular session on August 11.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:30 for a work session on fire study
and zoning amendment changes.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION..
• AGENDA
August 11, 1980
1. Approval of minutes of July 14, 1980.
2. Lot 13, Bighorn Terrace
Addition variance.
3. Study Session
Discussion of Major Amendment process to the Vail Village
and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan
•
To be published in the Vail Trail August 8, 1980.
MEMORANDUM
• TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 8/7/80
RE: GRFA Variance Request for Paul Curfman to Allow Construction
of 281 square feet for an Addition on Lot 13, Bighorn Terrace
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to enlarge the Northeast side of his unit No. 13
at Bighorn Terrace to allow additional dining room and kitchen space.
The applicant feels the area existing for food preparation and consumption
is inadequate in relationship to the sleeping facilities. Also, other
additions of this nature have taken place., some of which have negative
impacts on setbacks, etc. at Bighorn Terrace,.and the propsed addition
will have none, according to Mr. Curfman.
Unit 13 is located on a lot of approximately 1888 sq. ft. Under current
zoning in the MDMF Zone, this allows 660 sq. ft. of GRFA. The existing
unit contains about -764 sq. ft. of GRFA and the proposed addition consti-
tutes another 177 sq. ft. Thus, we find the application is actually
• for a GRFA Variance of 281 sq. ft., or .42% of the allowable GRFA, as
opposed to the application for a ill sq. ft variance. These numbers
are according to maps and drawings the applicant has submitted.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the
requested Variance based upon the following factors:
The relationship of the requested.variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity:
This variance request would not have negative effects upon other struc-
tures. However, we would like to present a brief overview of the history
of variance requests within Bighorn Terrace so that the PEC can have
a complete look at this factor:
0
DATE
.77
VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN TERRACE SUBDIVISION
TYPE OF
AM'T OF
STAFF
PEC
APPLICANT
REQUEST
VARIANCE
RECOMMENDATION
ACTION
Benysh GRFA
130 sq ft
Appr.
Appr.
Setback
8'
Appr.
Appr.
May 78 Rowe GRFA 473 sq ft Denial Appr.
Setback 7.5' Denial Appr.
July 78 Alder GRFA 75 sq ft Denial Appr.
Setback 8' Denial Appr.
Aug 78 Turnbull Setback 7' Appr. Appr.
The staff .feels that, as with the other GRFA variance requests after 1977,
this would be a granting of special privilege. The applicant has not demon-
strated sufficient reasons relating to hardship which warrant this variance.
The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution of
20 ulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public .facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
No negative impacts are foreseen with the exception that the proposal would
bring the building to within 10' of Columbine Way.
FINDINGS:
khe Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
efore granting a variance:
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal ,interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends denial, as.we are of.the
opinion that this would be granting special privilege and would set precedent
for other MDMF zone homeowners to greatly increase the size of their units
beyond zoning restrictions. We would remind the PEC that one of our goals
is to reduce density and bulk in the Gore Valley.
•
otection
r c�
town i
b o x 1 o o • v a l I , c o l o r a d o 8 1 6 5 7 • 3 0 3 - 4 7 6 - 5 6 1 3
Planning Commission
Vail, Colorado 81657
July 21, 1980
To whom it may concern;
This letter is being sent in regards to my conflagration
study presentation to your group July 14, 1984.
During the conversation following the presentation of the
tape, I gave certain examples in answer to questions; specifically
using the Red Lion Inn. Due to the seeming confusion and obvious
misinformation arising from my use of said example, please let
me clarify a few points.
The management of the Red Lion Inn has been more than cooperative
• with the fire department in meeting all current fire codes and in
their willingness to upgrade the entire facility as needed.
Although faced with inconsistencies in. design, none of these
areas are a present fire hazard, and all new addition work will be
built with total fire and life safety protection in mind.
I am sorry for the misunderstanding caused by what I now realize
to be a poor example amid discussion.
If there are any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate
to call.
JS /js
r�
u
Sincerely,
James G Spell
Communications Officer
Vail Fire Department
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department, Dick Ryan
SUBJECT: Zoning Regulation Amendments
There will not be a study session on the zoning amendments
on August 4, 1980. Town Council has requested a joint
meeting scheduled on August 19, 1980 to discuss the changes.
L�
�J
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
Monday, August 25, 1980 3:00 P.M.
1. Approval of minutes of August 11, 1980.
2. Exterior Modification to the Lionshead Gondola Building.
3. Setback variance to build a deck on Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village
7th Filing.
4. Christiania Lodge Parking Variance to allow a 2800 square foot
addition.
S. Vail Associates Conditional Use Permit to place temporary structure
on the upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980 -1981 ski season.
6. Setback Variance to build an addition onto an existing residence on
Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1.
7. Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to
construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100
square foot manager's apartment addition to the East of the
Village Center D Building, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
1st Filing.
8. Special Development District request for Lot 1, Block 3,
Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3.
(The Owner has requested that this item be tabled to the
September 8, 1980 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting.)
To be published in the Vail Trail on Friday, August 22, 1980.
•
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 25, 1980 3:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
Ed Drager
Dan Corcoran
Gaynor Miller
John Perkins
Jim Morgan
Roger Tilkemeier
COUNCIL PRESENT
none
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Jim Rubin
Dick Ryan
Betsy Rosolack
1. Approval of minutes of August 11, 1980.
Dan Corcoran moved to approve the minutes, seconded by Ed Drager,
vote was unanimous.
2. Exterior Modification to the Lionshead GoAdola Building.
Jim Rubin presented the project as explained in the memorandum and
stated that the staff recommended approval. B. J. Britton, owner of
A Place on Earth, showed drawings and described the snow piled high
in the winter in front of the building. He mentioned that the two store
fronts were conceptual, that there were no tenants as yet. Discussion
followed concerning the fact that the barrier in front of the building
separated the building from the mall, and that it was so wide that it
lacked people perspective. It was felt that this modification was needed
for the Lionshead commercial exposure. Dan Corcoran moved to approve,
subject to the conditions noted in the staff report, Ed Drager seconded,
the vote was unanimous.
3. Setback variance to build a deck on Lot 1, Blk 8, V.Villa e 7th
Jim Rubin presented the project and, after explanation, stated that
the staff recommended denial because no hardship existed. Eileen Schilling
explained the drawings further, and pointed out that a neighbor (Davis)
was given a variance to extend a deck and build a garage. Further,
neither of her neighbors objected, and the other.owner.of her
duplex wrote a letter requesting that Eileen be allowed to build on
the West in order not to intrude on his privacy. She pointed out that
the reason the deck was not proposed for the.back was to.save the trees
there, and because the site was steep. Discussion followed about the
fact that there is no neighbor to the West because it is an avalanche
area, and will never be occupied, therefore won't impact anyone.
Roger Tilkemeier moved to approve this variance, John Perkins seconded,
and all voted for approval except for Jim Morgan who abstained and Ed
Drager who voted against approval because he felt no hardship existed.
4. Christiania Lodge Parkin2 Variance to Allow a 2800 SQ Ft Addition
Peter Patten presented the request explaining that it was not in CCI.
Paul Johnston mentioned that there was a past parking agreement betweem
the Christiania Condos, the VA, and Chateau Christiania. Roger Tilkemeier
PEC Minutes - 8/25/80 - page 2
said that he wasn't aware of any agreement with the Christiania Condos,
but that the agreement was with the Christiania Lodge, VA and the Kendall
residence. Paul added that only one space has been deeded to one condo.
He went on to explain that the units he wanted to convert were very
small and also that 3 units had only showers. The plan was to reduce
9 units to 6 larger units, thus improving the guest rooms, and change
2 units on the ground level to housekeeping quarters and storage. John
asked if a parking variance was needed. Others did not see the need
for a parking variance, expecially in light of the fact that there may
be a letter verifying the parking agreement. Peter and Dick felt that
it may be good to give a parking variance so the applicant wouldn't
have to come back again. Others felt that since Paul wasn't under a
time duress, he didn't need a vote now. Ed Drager moved that considera-
tion of the Variance be postponed, and Roger T. seconded. The vote
to postpone consideration was unanimous.
5. Vail Associates Conditional Use Permit to place temporary structure
on the Upper Golden Peak Tennis Courts for the 1980 -81 ski season.
Peter Patten presented the study and mentioned that it was the same
request as last year, and the staff recommended approval. Discussion
followed about the parking stalls cut into the bank illegally, and the
fact that the parking stalls had been there 2 or 3 years. Tom Harned
said it was VA's intention to fix up the bank beyond the parking, and
that the parking was supposed to be for the race personnel.. Request
was for one year at a time, until such time as VA will build permanent
facilities for Small World. Tom had a letter from Pat Dodson indicating
an agreement with the Recreation District.
Dick Allis of Manor Vail spoke to say that they were not basically opposed
to the structure, nor to Small World, but was concerned about the amount
of traffic and the speed of some of the traffic in that area. He also
mentioned the impact on his parking. He asked for a speed bump. Gerry
White felt that the Council would read these minutes and receive the
comments. Dick felt the need for some sort of trade -off since he let
the Ski Club use 4 parking spaces. He felt that it was the only part
of Vail that has retained the character that Vail started out to be.
Dan Corcoran moved to approve the conditional use permit subject to
the conditions noted in the staff report. Ed Drager seconded, and the
vote was unanimous with Roger T. abstaining.
6. Setback Variance to build an addition onto an existing residence
on Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1.
Peter Patten presented the staff findings and the staff recommendation
of denial. Mark Donaldson showed photos of various sides, saying that
the projected addition would impact the site the least. The discussion
that followed questioned the reason for putting the garage in that position
or in that place, and it was generally felt that the garage could be
moved a little to keep it within the setback.
0 Ed Drager moved for denial, seconded by Roger Tilkemeier, and the vote
for denial was unanimous.
PEC Minutes - 8 -25 -80 - page 3
7. Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct
a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's
apartment addition to the East of the Village Center D building, TraCt C,
Block 5E, Vail Village 15t Filing.
Jim Reuben explained the proposal and Fred Hibberd pointed out that
when the building was constructed, all traffic to the Village Center
was supposed to enter through the ramp from E. Meadow Drive. The ramp
was too steep, and so was,not used. Proposed is a one story commercial
space and a manager's apartment on, second,.floor.
Jim Reuben was asked if the plan conformed to the Urban Design Plan,
and he said that the Urban Design Plan dealt with one story but it could
be stretched to deal with a 2nd story. The height was discussed and
the view plane was examined, and the fact that in 1974 a 22 space parking
variance was granted in exchange for the landscaped area which is the:
proposed site of the new building. Hibberd stated that he found it
difficult to keep the area. watered, and was continually picking trash
up from it, and felt that it did not work. Part of this Land would be
dedicated to an exclusive bus lane.
Cecil Dodson, President of Village Center Buildings A,B, and C spoke.
He felt that the 2nd story would cut off the view corridor for 2B, 3B,
and 2C, 3C, 4C to the North side. He expressed support of the concept
of pedestrianization, and the lst story (even though the lst story would
cut off his own view), He felt that even more important was the impact
on the view corridor to the South. He felt it was good to eliminate
. the entrance with the ramp. Support was for the commercial space,
not the second story.
More discussion about the impact of the 2nd floor followed, with Dick's
suggestion that perhaps changes be made in the plans,. especially in
light of the fact that the Urban Design Plan deals with only one story.
More discussion followed concerning the need for employee housing in
the core.
Back to the plan and the Urban Design Plan calling for one story addition
and one small pedestrian park. Gerry felt that any change from that
Plan called for redesigning of the Urban Design Plan.
Ed Drager proposed that this was a major change to the DGPlan. There
was no second. Jeff Winston had written comments on the plan that were
read. The fact that it is one of the major entrances to the Town and
therefore should remain one story was pointed out by Gerry. Discussion
followed concerning keeping the addition one story on the North, and
1/2 story on South. Jim Morgan suggested that photos be taken. Fred
Hibberd stated that he didn't want to make major changes to the UD PlAn
and was willing to go to.-one story and skip the residential part.
Ed Drager moved that the request be tabled until Sept. 8, seconded by
Roger and the vote was unanimous.
0 Roger moved that the last item ( #8) concerning Lot 1, blk 3, Lion's Ridge #3
be tabled to Sept 81 seconded by Dan Corcoran, vote was unanimous.
Moved that the meeting be adjourned, 2nd by , unanimous.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
. FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 8/21/80
RE: Parking variance request for Paul Johnston to add a 2,800 sq
ft addition to the Christiania Lodge located on part of Lot D, Block 2,
Vail Village lst Filing, in a Public Accommodation (PA) zone district.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Christiania is re- arranging and adding floor space in their lodge.
No additional units are being created, just larger units and some office
space for internal operations of the lodge. Building height is being
raised in certain places, but not so as.to negatively affect view corridors
or to violate zoning retractions
The parking situation for the Christiania has been the problem in the
study of this proposal. Parking facilities for the Christiania exist
in two locations: A gravel lot across the street (Hanson Ranch Road),
and a small area West of the Lodge. Complications arise when the parking
requirements for the Christiania Condominiums, located East of the Lodge,
are figured in, because they also use the lot across the street from
the Lodge.
•
in the last few days, questions over the amount of parking spaces which
the condos have a right to in the lot have arisen. If, as presented
by Mr. Johnston, the condos have a right to only one spot per unit,
no parking variance would be needed by the Christiania Lodge for their
addition. The Lodge is 3 spaces short when the new addition is figured
in along with the normal allotment given to the condos according to
zoning (15 spaces). There are 9 condos existing, so if they only have
rights to 1 unit, the Lodge makes up 6 spaces and needs no variance.
The Staff is requiring written proof of the parking arrangement with
the condos before the waiving of the variance is granted.
The memo is being written, and PEC is considering the matter under
the assumption that, at the time of the hearing, no written agreement
is produced. The 3 space variance would be subject to the $15,000
fee.
•
Christiania - 2 - 8/21/80
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
. Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
the requested Variance based upon the following ,factors:
Consideration of Factors
•
•
of the Municipal
approval of
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity:
Vail Associates has indicated their possible desire to construct
a lodge on the existing gravel lot. As a potential use., parking
for the Christiania complex would need to be taken, care of at that
time in a sufficient manner. The Planning Staff is not aware of
any major existing parking problems in this vicinity.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati-
bility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to
attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege:
We feel that quality lodge space is an important goal for the Town,
and that, in actuality, no additional generation of cars may result
from this proposal. The number of units is not changing, and this
is an important factor in determining the potential for increased .
parking problems. Also, the architect has made a new proposal for
arranging the parking spaces in a more space -- efficient manner to
accommodate more spaces in the existing lot. Our opinion is that
no special privilege would result in approving the request.
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:
As stated above, no effects upon distribution of population is foreseen
because the number of units is not..beirsg increased. No compounding
of parking problems in the Village is foreseen with the granting
of this variance.
4. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance:
The proposal is not located in CCI, and thus is not subject to review
by the PEC under the Village Desgin Guide Plan. The exterior alterations
will go to the Design Review Board if the Planning and Environmental
Commission approves the parking variance.
Christiania - 3 - 8/21/80
FINDINGS:
• The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for the reason that the strict or
literal interpretation and.enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
U
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT .
DATE; 8/19/80
RE: Addition of a 4,000 square foot building east of Village Center
Building D, located on a part of Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
First Filing requiring both a Density Control Variance and an
Exterior Modification Approval.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
PROPOSAL
The Village Center is located in a Commercial Core II District,
so, although it is located adjacent to Vail Village, it will be reviewed
under the Vail Village and Vail. Lionshead Design Considerations. It'
is, however, included in the Vail.Village.Urban Design Guide Plan,
and will be reviewed by that plan.
The proposal is for a 4,000 square foot building located to the
East of Village Center Building D (on top of the covered parking).
The 4,000 square feet is to consist of 2,900 square feet of ground
level commercial space and a second level 1,100 square foot manager's
apartment.
This proposal must be reviewed under two separate processes: Density
Control Variance and Exterior Modification. The Density Control Variance
is needed for the 1,100 sq ft manager's unit, since the Village Center
is currently in excess of both its unit and its square footage standards.
In looking at the past history of the Village Center Building,
there was a 22 parking space Variance granted by the Town Council by
Resolution Number 12, Series of 1974. The 22 space variance was granted
in exchange for a landscape plaza, which is the proposed site of the
new building. We, therefore, have determined that this request, if
approved by the Planning Commission, will also have to go to the Town
Council for a Resolution amending Resolution No. 12, Series of 1974.
STATISTICS
Total Land Area = 65,299 sq ft
Total No. of Units Allowed: 37 units
Total No. of Units Existing: 62 units
GRFA Allowed: 52,239 sq ft
GRFA Existing: 65,038 sq ft
Commercial Building D: 5,160 sq ft
•
U
Village Center Bldg D - 2 - 8-19 -80
A.* EXTERIOR MODIFICATION REVIEW
COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010
The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a
mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments
in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core II District
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain
the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site
development standards. The Commercial Core District 11 is intended to
include sites for residential dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty --
five dwelling units per acre.
The proposed addition does comply with the purpose section by creating
another building which would be clustered.with the existing development
and would actually create a more unified development. The present land
scaped area to the East of Building D is and has been an eyesore and will
never function properly as either useable or aesthetic open space.
COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSI-
DERATIONS
1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan
Number 21 of the East Meadow Drive Sub -Area Concepts describes a one
story addition of similar size to the.one proposed in this request. The
proposed addition does have a second story (where the manager's unit is)
but this second story would help to block the larger building behind it
which is also specifically mentioned in Number 21. We feel that the
general intent of Number 21 is being followed by this request.
2. Urban Design Considerations
a. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will enhance the
pedestrian experience by making the scale of the buildings a more
comfortable one for the person walking between the Transportation
Center and Crossroads. Another part of this proposal is to work
with the Town in the Construction of a pedestrian walkway along
the South side of Village Road. This will greatly enhance the area.
b. Vehicle Penetration: A service and drop -off area should be
incorporated into the new design.
C. Streetscape Framework: This proposal will vastly improve
the pedestrian experience.
d. Street Enclosure: This building addition will improve the
street enclosure situation by reducing the impact of the larger
building in the background.
e. Street Edge: The Street Edge will become slightly more regular
which, in this case, will enhance the pedestrian experience.
f. Building Height: The two level proposal is well under the
allowed building height.
g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal.
h. Sun shade changes: Not significant.
Village Center Bldg. D - 3 , 8/19/80
3. Zoning Code Considerations
• The 4,000 square foot addition generates an additional parking require-
ment of approximately 11 spaces, which cannot be accurately determined
until more specific floor plans are submitted. The commercial part of
the parking requirement would be assessed at .$3,000 per space, the resi-
dential at $5,000 per space.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the commercial part of the proposal as the
proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Urban Design
Guide Plan of Vail Village and the Design Considerations for Vail Lions -
head with the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail.Village.
In addition, agrees to dedicate the land necessary for the exclusive
bus /pedestrian lane if determined by the Town as the appropriate
design solution for this area.
B. VARIANCE REQUEST REVIEW
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon Review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Muni-
cipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial
of the requested Variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or po-
tential uses and structures in the vicinity:
The current Village Center complex is 25 units and 12,800 sq ft over
what is presently allowed. The only type of Density Control Variances
that we feel is acceptable is for bona fide employee housing. We
question if an 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment is bona fide employee
housing.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com-
patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
We feel that a 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment would not be consistent
with the intent of the Ordinance and could be considered a 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.
None of these items are affected by this request.
Village Center Bldg - page 4 - 8 -19 -80
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
There are no other pertinent factors.
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci-
fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unneces-
sary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally
to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of ther properties in the same district.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested
1,100 sq ft manager's apartment. Our suggestion would be that the
1,100 square feet be divided into two smaller units that are used
solely for long term employee units.
•
� r
i
VILLAGE
CENTER
_W
August 20, 1980
The Town of Vail Planning Commission
Vail Re: Village Center Retail
Colorado Shops Addition
Dear Members of the Town of Vail Planning Commission,
This letter is to give information concerning the proposed
addition to the Village Center Retail Shops.. The planned
addition will be constructed on a portion of the covered deck
east of the existing Village Center Shops.
The history of this deck goes back to April of 1974. At this
time, plans were approved by the Town of Vail under Resolution
• Number 12, 1974 to construct a landscaped plaza area in lieu of
22 parking spaces, which would have been required on the deck.
As part of the 1980 Vail Village urban design plan, commercial
expansion is being proposed according to the plans being pre-
sented. In addition, I will be making land available to the
Town of Vail for the pedestrian loop on the north side of
Village Center, and for the town bus route on the northeast
section of the Village Center property,
These changes will most likely require an amendment to Resolution
Number 12 series of 1974. The intention here is to still provide
a landscaped plaza area. The plaza itself will contain planters
on the southeast side of the plaza, The concrete section of the
deck will be covered with paver bricks. And in the center of the
plaza will be additional planters to round out the landscaping..
All of the changes mentioned above are an effort to make improve-
ments according to the urban design plan, which should result in
a more pleasing and a more functional answer to the area,
Sincerely,
Fred Hibberd
Village Center
Commercial Shops
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: August 21, 1980
RE: Expansion of Lionshead Gondola Building
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
PPnPORAT.
The Lionshead Gondola Building has requested an addition of approximately
500 square .feet of commercial space on the North side mall level of
the existing Gondola Building. The addition is a 9 foot extension of the
building from the Place on Earth on the East to the Corporate Office en-
trance of the Gondola Building on the West. Part of this request is also
to convert the existing space East of the Corporate Office entrance from
offices to commercial. The entire commercial expansion proposal would
be on private property.
COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010
The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a mixture
of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments in a clustered,
unified development. The Commercial Core II District is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the
•permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain the desirable qualities
of the District by establishing appropriate site development standards.
The Commercial Core District is intended to include sites for residential .
dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty - five dwelling units per acre.
The proposed commercial expansion fully complies with all aspects of the
Purpose section.
COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE.PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERA-
TIONS
1. Sub -area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan
Item 19 of the Vail Lionshead Urban Guide Plan encourages the building's
expansion and the conversion of the office space.'into commercial use.
This proposal does exactly that.
2. Urban Design Considerations
a. Pedestrianization: One of the major problems noted during work -.
shops on Vail Lionshead was that many store fronts were recessed
back into the buildings. The proposed addition will enhance
the pedestrian experience by making the scale of the front of
the building a more exciting and interesting one for the person
walking through Lionshead.
•
Lionshead Gondola Bldg - 2 - 8/21/80
2. b. Vehicle Penetration: NA (service is still at rear of building)
. c. Streetscape Framework: This proposal -will add some variety and
interest to the Lionshead Streetscape, something greatly needed.
d. Street Enclosure: This building extension will improve the street
enclosure by reducing the amount of space between the Landmark and
Gondola Buildings.
e. Street Edge: The street edge will become slightly more irregular
which tends to enhance the pedestrian experience.
f. Building Height: The one level proposal is well under the allowed
building height.
g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal.
h. Sun shade changes: Not significant.
3. Zoning Code Considerations
Approximately 500 square feet of commercial space could be added
with the proposed store front expansion. Until a final plan
for each store is submitted, it is difficult to determine the
exact parking requirement. The applicant would be required to
pay the parking fee established by Town Council of $3,000 per
parking space.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends approval as the
proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan (reinforces more activity and interest along
the Lionshead Pedestrian Mall).
A condition of approval is that the applicant agrees to participate
in and not remonstrate against a special improvement district if
and when formed for the Vail Lionshead area. Some improvement after
construction of the building expansion should take place along the
mall area. The applicant must do mall improvements to ensure there
is safe and adequate access to the building and for the pedestrian
walking on the mall.
n
. MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 8/20/80
RE: Side setback Variance request for H. L. Rhoads on lot 34,
Filing 1, Vail Meadows
DESCRIPTION OF.VARIANCE REQUESTED
This lot is zoned Residential and has a 1600 sq ft single family home on
it. A gravel driveway exists on the far eastern boundary of the lot. The
applicant wishes to construct a 2 -car garage in the area where he presently
parks his cars. A 475 sq ft expansion to the-house-will be constructed
at the same time as the garage. The 2-car garage would require a 5'
setback variance. The nearest neighbors are 150' to the east.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the
requested variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the.vicinity:
There would be no negative impacts on surrounding properties, be-
cause of the large distance between the existing house and the neigh-
bors to the east, and due to the single story nature of the building.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or 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:
We feel that the granting of this variance would constitute a
special privilege because no true physical hardship is demonstrated.
The only reason the variance is needed is to allow a double garage
versus a single. The house was constructed when East Vail was in
Eagle County. The driveway was built too close to the east property
line. We sympathize with the applicant that this is a harmless
. variance, but also feel that he is subject to present Town regulations.
` Rhoades - 2 - 8/20/80
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:
No effects are foreseen upon these factors.
FTMnTMf"-C
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
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.
That the variance is warrented for one or more.of the following reasons:
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
• The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We feel that because a homeowner wishes to build a 2 -car garage requiring
a setback variance as opposed to a 1 -car garage with no variance, is not
sufficient reason, under the criteria set forth for a variance, for granting
this request.
•
Under
the present regulations, we
find no evidence of the physical hardship
which
must be proven for a setback
variance.
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:
No effects are foreseen upon these factors.
FTMnTMf"-C
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
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.
That the variance is warrented for one or more.of the following reasons:
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
• The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We feel that because a homeowner wishes to build a 2 -car garage requiring
a setback variance as opposed to a 1 -car garage with no variance, is not
sufficient reason, under the criteria set forth for a variance, for granting
this request.
•
I
MEMORANDUM
• TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN
DATE: 8/20/80
RE: Conditional Use Permit request by Vail Associates
to allow a temporary mobile unit on the upper tennis courts at Golden
Peak for the 1980 -1981 ski season.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
This is a re- application of a conditional use permit granted on
October 5, 1979. The mobile unit is used to house the Small World Nursery.
Screening will be the same as last year by the existing green wind screens
on the tennis court. Again, no evening use of the facility is proposed.
It is our understanding that no damage to the courts resulted from last
season's use.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following
factors:
Consideration of Factors:
. l.Relationship and .impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town:
No relationship or impact on development objectives exists.
2.The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans-
portation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities and public facilities needs:
The nursery is an important facility serving the public to allow adults
to go skiing without worrying about obtaining a private baby sitter.
3.Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control., access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas:
Visual impact will be negligible. No complaints as to traffic congestion
have been registered with the Department of Community Development.
4.Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation
to surrounding uses:
No negative effects are foreseen.
n
. Small World - 2 - 8- 20--80
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
to the proposed use:
There are none.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional
Use Permit be Approved based on the following findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes
of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties .
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this ordinance.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDATION
We recommend approval, as we feel the nursery performs an important func-
tion for the Town and the ski area. We haven't received any input in-
dicating any major problems with the functioning of the nursery during
the last ski season. East of the bus turn - around at Gold Peak, there
were some illegal parking stalls cut into the bank. This area should
be restored and landscaped, and no parking should take place in this
area. This would be the only condition of the approval recommendation
by the Community Development Department.
The Recreation Board has reviewed the request and has no problem with
the proposal.
r�
MEMORANDUM
i
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT - PETER PATTEN
DATE: 8/19/80
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR LIONSRIDGE CONDOMINIUMS
LOCATED ON LOT 1, BLOCK 3, LIONSRIDGE SUBDIVISION, FILING 3.
APPLICANT: GORMAN /WHITNEY DEV. CO. /SMF PROPERTIES - A JOINT VENTURE.
ARCHITECT: HAVLICK- HUGHES- GILLILAND, SACRAMENTO, CALIF.
BACKGROUND
Upon annexation of Lionsridge, it was agreed that this parcel would
be subject to preliminary approval procedures for Special Development
Districts. Thus, the proposal must go before the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission and Town Council for their approval before forwarding
to the Design Review Board.
Also, at the time of annexation, a density restriction of 48 units
and MDMF Zone District development regulations were applied to the parcel.
Thus, GRFA, site coverage, parking and other requirements and restrictions
. have been determined using the MDMF Zone District.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
East: Vacant parcels zoned R P/S
West: Buffer Creek Subdivision (Eagle County zoned Residential Suburban
Medium)
South: Vacant parcel of 1.8 acres owned by applicants
North: Vacant land with steep topography and cliffs
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL STATISTICS
Site Area Buildable No. of Units GRFA
(acres) Site Area Allowed Allowed (sq ft)
7.27 3.79 48 57,760
PROPOSED: 40 56,900
Average GRFA /Unit = 1394 sq. ft.
Average building height allowed = 35'
of if it proposed = 30.4'
•
•
•
Lionsridge - Page 2 - August 19, 1980
PARKING: Total Spaces Required, 76;
" " Proposed, 80;
SITE CONDITIONS
Covered Spaces Required, 38
it *' Proposed, 80
The site faces south and is located below the Lions Ridge cliffs
at the far western boundary of the Town, on the north side of 1--70. Existing
vegetation consists of scattered aspen trees with native grasses and brush.
Slope on the site ranges from 10% or less in the southern portion of the
parcel, close to the road, to over 50% on the northern portion. The exact
slope of the area of proposed development has not yet been determined,
because the applicant has not submitted a site - specific certified topo-
graphic map. Most of the units are proposed to be situated on the lower,
flatter portions of the site. However, some of the units on the extreme
eastern and western areas may be on 40% slope, and the certified topo
will either confirm or deny this.
A potentially hazardous rock fall condition from the cliffs above
the site has been mitigated. A soils and geological report has been sub-
mitted, and subsequent correspondence has confirmed that the hazard has
been mitigated through scaling and blasting. The report does recommend
that annual inspections take place to make sure the rocks do not begin
to break loose again.
SITE PLAN
The applicants are proposing 40 units accessing off one street,
with units on both sides of the street. Two accesses from Lions Ridge
Loop are proposed. Units are individual townhouse -type attached in rows
of four. Parking is provided by two -car garages with each unit with 8
guest parking spaces scattered throughout. Other guest parking could
take place near trash enclosure areas and on private driveways.
The proposal is for 8 units under the allowable, but only 860
square feet under the allowable GRFA.
STAFF COMMENT AND RECOMMENDATION
In mid- April, another developer and architect submitted a proposal
for this parcel. The proposal was withdrawn at the last minute due to
financial complications in the purchase of the property. The site had
been studied in depth at that time. Several development concepts were
examined including a townhouse arrangement similar to the one proposed
and a concept where 5 -7 units were within a single building (resulting
in.a total of 6 buildings on the site).. This architect chose the latter
scheme because the overall impacts upon-the site would be significantly
less.
TTT e negative impacts of_the townhou
proposed by this applicant are:
1. Aesthetically, the viewer will see a
• with virtually no break as one views
2
concept on this parcel, as
very long "wall" of buildings
the parcel.
Development of all the buildable area of the site resulting in little
to no useable open space or amenities.
3. Extension of units into steep slope areas on the east and west sides
of the site. This results in large cuts into the hillside and is
environmentally and aesthetically displeasing.
Lionsridge - page 3 - August 19, 1980
0
4. Access to individual units uses up the site and results in difficult,
steep driveways.
In conclusion, the Department of Community Development recommends
denial. We feel a more innovative and creative site.design can be found
to work with the site in a superior manner than that which is proposed.
More sensitivity to the impacts of hillside development, visual impacts
and project open space and emenities is required. L",
•
0
S
MEMORANDUM
is TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 8/20/80
RE: Setback Variance request for Lot 1, Block 8, Vail Village 7th Filing
Applicant: Eileen Schilling
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The variance request is for a deck addition that extends to the Western
lot line. The current two -- family residence previously, in 1971, received
a setback variance for the structure so that it could be built within 3
feet of the lot line. The reason that the variance was granted at that
time, was to save trees on the rear of the lot.
The deck addition is in conjunction with the extension of the living room
across the existing front porch. This extension was within the confines
of the existing building, so it did not need any variance and has actually
been given a Staff Approval to proceed. There was a clear understanding,
however, that the approval was only for the living room extension and in
no way included the deck.
The lot directly to the West of the subject lot is owned.by the Town because
of an avalanche path which crosses it. This lot will never be built on
and is too steep for use as open space.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the
requested variance based upon the following factors:
l.The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity: The deck extension will have no
impact on any existing or potential structure in the immediate area.
2.The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati-
bility and uniformity of treatment among.sites in the vicinity or to
attain the objectives of.this title without grant of special privilege:
We cannot find a specific hardship in this case. The proposed location
of the deck is probably the most suitable place to put it on the site,
but we question if this is a sufficient reason to grant this request.
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: The proposed deck extension will have no
impact on the above factors.
. Vail Vill 7th, Lot 1, Blk 8 - 2 - 8/20/80
4. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
• to the proposed variance: There are no other factors deemed
applicable.
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
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 districtl
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improve-
ments in the.vicinity,
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified reg-
ulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION:
The Community Development Department recommends denial of this request on
the basis that a sufficient hardship does not exist in this case. There
is no question that the deck addition will have absolutely no impact on
surrounding uses, especially since the property to the West of the subject
property will never be built on. We, however, still feel that the hardship
and special privilege issues.have to be adequately addressed and cannot
be in this situation.
•
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
August 11, 1980 3 :00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
Sandy Mills
Dan Corcoran
Roger Tilkemeier
Ed Drager
none
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Dick Ryan
1._ Appggyal_ of M,j,au:Les of duly 14 , ,1980 . meeting.
Dan Corcoran moved, Gerry White seconded, unanimous approval.
2. Lot 13 Boghorn T rr ge Addition Variance,
Peter Patten presented memo and described request, and explained
that denial was recommended. Paul Curfman showed drawings, and pointed
out that there existed another addition similar to the addition he
wishes to add. He further remarked that the lots were very small,
and that the subdivision was zoned MDMF after the area was built,
for, in his opinion, lack of a better zone. He .felt it placed unfair
limits on residents' ability to adapt.
Ed asked the distance between buildings. Paul said there were
431. He felt that the lack of sufficient kitchen space should be
considered a hardship. The bedrooms accommodate 4 people. Paul
felt that the request is consistent with the other 4 variances listed
on the chart in the memo, and that he wasn't applying to increase
the number of dwellings per acre. He felt the coverage limit unfair
and repeated his feeling about why he thought the area was zoned MDMF.
Sandy asked what was preventing him from extending the kitchen
without a diningroom area. Paul said it was already too crowded in the
living room. Roger observed that those units are minimum. He felt that
if something is being done to make employee housing more livable, it
U
s ould be approved, and that that was the reason behind the other approvals
in that subdivision, and that there have been so many changes, that this
was just one more.
Gerry wanted to know where
since it was owner inhabited.
housing, and that he shouldn't
it employee housing. Gerry di
designed as cracker boxes, and
could see no problem with it.
annexation. Peter: about 10.
it says it will be used for employee housing,
Roger felt his own house was employee
have to rent from someone else to make
sagreed. Roger felt that since they were
since this would began improvement, he
Ed asked how many had been expanded before
Ed Drager moved that the variance be approved, and Roger seconded.
Vote: For, 2 (Ed and Roger) Against, 3 Gerry, Dan and Sandy.
The motion was defeated.
In the discussion that followed, Sandy stated that she didn't feel
• that we could make zoning changes based upon the number of people living
in a unit. Rather than expanding, fewer people should live there.
PEC Minutes - August 11, 1980 - page two
Dan added that he remembered the Sandstone 70 units being small
and someone wanted to enclose a deck even smaller than this. Gerry felt
. that a 42% variance was unacceptable, and repeated the idea of expanding
the kitchen in the interior. He pointed out that the down zoning that
had been accomplished made the request unacceptable.
Paul felt that it wasn't realy a 42% variance, because a Grandfather
clause existed since the units were already there when zoned. Gerry
said that the Grandfather clause does not exist in regard to variances.
Ed pointed out that the deck addition was adding one more room, and Dan...
said that this was also one more room.
Paul said that they were speaking of precedent setting, but variances
are settled case by case. Gerry: Correct. This particular case is un-
acceptable. Roger felt that if there wasn't any adverse impact, it would
be arbitrary to not approve it. Gerry felt that precedent setting
was a fact that should have an effect on the decision, and that since
zoning applies throughout the Village, there would be a certain amount
of precedent setting in this case.
3. Discussion of Amphitheater at Ford Park.
John Dobson described the fund raising to date, and stated that in
order for the fund raising to be really successful, that they would like
to grade the park this fall, so that.people could see some actual progress.
He explained that George Eisenhower, a consulting firm has designed the
accoustics and Bill Ruoff the basic plan stage,ete. He wants to apply
• for a Condition use for the open stage with a tent for an interim period.
Gerry asked about vehicular access to the park, and then parking .
in general was discussed. Gerry then asked each member of the board for
their feelings. They were generally favorable, but felt it was important
to see the plans, the methods of solving parking,.traff ic,. and suggested
Dobson apply for Conditional Use and go through regular procedures.
Sept 2 was set as good time to meet for this purpose.
4. Request for a letter to Forest Service with respect to Livery Stable.
Roger said he'd like to get a letter from the PEC with respect to
the operation of the livery stable and its completion addressed to the
Forest Service. He intends to operate on an annual permit. The Forest
Service, before issuing a permit, would like to have input from the Town.
Roger wants to complete the building or moving of barns from Dowd Junction
as presented last spring, and wanted the PEC to encourage completion
this fall. Until he gets a permit, he felt there was no point in developing
a plan. Sandy wondered if the approval for the stables was for one year.
Discussion followed about traffic, campers, intersection. Gerry felt
we could proceed with a letter and give unanimous approval.
0
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
SPECIAL MEETING
Tuesday, September 2, 1980 3:00 P.M.
Ford Park Amphitheater
South of Tennis Courts
To be published in the Vail. Trail, August 29, 1980.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
MINUTES: OF .SPECIAL: MEETING
September 2, 1980 3:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Ed Drager Peter Patten
Dan Corcoran Jim Rubin (part of the time)
Roger Tilkemeier Betsy Rosolack
Gaynor Miller
Jim Morgan COUNCIL PRESENT
John Perkins none
Conditional Use Permit request by Vail Ford Fund to allow the construction
of an amphitheater in Ford Park, a Public Use District.
Ed Drager called the meeting to order in the absence of Gerry White.
Peter Patten presented the information in the staff memorandum.. He
stressed the staff's concern with the parking and restroom problems.
He spoke of the use of the Transportation Center in the Gerstenberger
• study, and felt that more study needed.to be done. He also emphsized
the need for a central scheduling system.
Bill Ruoff, architect for the project showed drawings and explained
them, adding that the amphitheater would be funded by the Vail Ford
Fund, but would be owned an Inaintained by the Town. There are 927
fixed seats in the primar_ or which the accoustics are correct. When
the green seating is added, there is a maximum of 2500 seats.
John Perkins was concerned about the methods to be used to control those
who come without paying. Ruoff said that eventually there would be walls
and landscaping that would handle the problem.
Dan Corcoran asked if the construction were to be done in Logical stages
based on funds. Fred Meyer of the Ford Fund explained the funding
and Bill Ruoff said that the project will be done in a step by step
process that will be usable at any point in the construction. Each stage
would improve the facility, but not be necessary in order to use it.
Discussion followed concerning the sewage and how it would be carried.
Ruoff mentioned two possibilities, one of which would use a lift station,
and that he had been meeting with Ernie Freggiaro and the Town about
this, and that the Town was looking to budget this next year.
Parking, traffic and transportation were a great concern to the members,
Peter repeating condition #2 of his memo, and others wishing to see the
G,erstenberger study before voting on this permit. John Dobson mentioned
that the parking of 1,000 people for the Rita Cooledge concert this sum-
mer was not a problem, and that there was not only no special parking
provided, but that the Lionshead East parking lot was not available.
Minutes of PEC Special Meeting - 9/2/80 - 2
Discussion followed about using the soccer field for parking, using
regular bus service, and the fact that many will be walking along the
Manor Vail access. A sidewalk along the Frontage Road was felt to
help discourage parking there. Conflicts between the soft ball games
and early evening concerts was discussed.
Rich Caplan came in and said that the Town would charge fees to cover
the cost of maintainance, and stressed that the Town would have a
Ford Park schedule. Further, that the Town is constructing a practice
field at Matterhorn that would relieve the Ford Park fields.
The multi - purpose use of the amphitheater was explained, and also
the working of the canopy onto tension cables, the shedding of rain
and the fact that the sight lines of the people in the green seating
would not be obstructed.
More concern about parking was expressed, with Jim Morgan's comment
that the existing parking problem should not prevent this project from
going ahead. Others felt that we should know how we were going to
handle the parking before approval of the project. John Eberle was
called in to answer questions about busing. He felt that the bus system
was flexible within bounds. Four to five buses could handle a large
crowd if the peak rush could be spread out over one hour before and one
hour after each concert. But, past experience showed that the buses
were blocked by traffic. He felt that paths should be lighted to encourage
walking. Also, he mentioned that in an average summer, the parking
structure was only half full.
iSound considerations were also discussed: nuisance plus the fact that
some people could listen from the ball fields or tennis courts. The
fact that the theater sound was controlable and that some performances
Were to be used without amplification was mentioned.
Dan Corcoran felt that the solutions to the water, sanitation and
parking problems should be shown, following the Town's ordinances.
Rich Caplan said that the Town could give a letter of intention to build
restrooms on the site and the necessary sanitation facilities to handle
this. After much discussion about the need for this assurance and the
need for further study of parking facilities, Dan Corcoran moved
for approval of the Conditonal Use Permit requested by Vail Ford Fund
to allow the construction of an amphitheater in Ford Park, with the
condition that the staff will administratively approve or will receive
a letter that the Ford Fund has approval of water and sewer from the
Water and Sanitation District.and that they would continue to work with
the staff on the parking. Roger Tilkemeier seconded, vote was
unanimous. (5 -0 Jim Morgan left before the voting)
The Ge-stenberger study was to be mailed to the members.
The meeting adjourned at 5 :00 P.M.
• TO:
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: August 28, 1980
RE: Conditonal Use Permit request by Vail Ford Fund to allow
construction of an amphitheater in Ford Park, A Public Use
District.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The amphitheater would be a facility constructed and utilized by
the Vail Institute and dedicated to the Town upon completion, to
hold musical, theatrical and other entertainment events. The facility
will contain a stage, dressing rooms, prop construction and storage
areas on the stage level. The basement level will include offices,
dressing rooms, practice areas, restrooms and an orchestra pit. Nine
hundred permanent seats will be built with leveled -off grass seats
behind them, and a grass bank to the very rear. An automated roll-
out cover for the permanent seating is also part of the facility.
Access and parking is the major issue. The transportation center -will
be emphasized as the main-parking facility. Shuttle busses to Golden
Peak and walking should form the means of access to the amphitheater.
• The existing foot path through Manor Vail's property should form the
Major access. Of course, the Golden Peak, soccer field and Ford Park
parking lots will be utilized, also. Access from the Frontage Road
should be discouraged.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following
factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town: One of the objectives of the Town is to increase cultural oppor-
tunities for both the resident and visitor. The amphitheater would
perform an extremely valuable contribution toward that end by providing
a truly high quality facility for entertainment performances.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs:
The proposed facility would definitely begin to diversify the offering
• of facilities at Ford Park, enhancing its use.
Public restrooms for this and other Ford Park users should be installed
as soon as practical, definitely no later than completion of the amphi -...
theater.
FORD PARK AMPHITHEATER MEMO - 8/27/80 - page 2
Effect u on traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
• maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas:
The major issue concerning the amphitheater has been how to avoid traffic
congestion, where to park and other access - related questions. Allen
Gerstenberger produced a parking and transit study.for the amphitheater
in April of 1979. He outlined his major recommendations at that time,
including the dual - access (Frontage Road and southerly routes), both
of which he was instructed to consider_ In all but the once -a -year huge
crowd situation, the staff feels strongly that the Frontage Road should
not be utilized as either a parking area or pedestrian access for the
amphitheater. The safety and congestion problems along the Frontage
Road are presently obvious during athletic events at the park. These
problems would intensify during amphitheater.events and in no way should
be encouraged to worsen. A central scheduling system must be provided
to avoid concurrent scheduling of athletic and amphitheater events.
The best solution at this time, we feel, is to publicize and introduce
incentives to get people to park at the Transportation Center. From
there, they may either walk or ride the special shuttle.bus to Golden
Peak, where the foot path to the amphitheater can be found near Manor
Vail. Aesthetically pleasing signage can be installed to make the
route easily found. Also, people parking at the soccer field can easily
get to the facility via a path near the Nature Center.
Gerstenberger's report points out the undesirabilities of Frontage
• Road parking and the need for major re- alignment and a sidewalk if
this is to be considered. We feel all practical steps should be taken
to highly discourage any such use and to avoid costly improvements.
Thus, we feel a single ticket booth should be provided on the western
side of the amphitheater, rather than have an inviting acess with a
ticket facility to the North, inviting people in from that side.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the pro osed use is
to be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in
relation to surrounding uses;
The proposed use would increase use of the Ford Park area, especially
in terms of pedestrian traffic and hopefully not in regard to vehicular
traffic. Avoidance of scheduling athletic and amphitheater events
at the same time will greatly aid in reducing negative impacts upon
the area. Moreover, the behavior of patrons of the amphitheater will
be the determining factor upon such potential negative effects such
as parking at the structure, trash disposal and orderly ingress and
egress.
The design of the theater seems to fit very well with its public park
location. Minimal permanent seating is provided and works well with
the "green" seating toward the rear (which blends in nicely with a
park setting).
•
` FORD PARK AMPHITHEATER - 8/29/80 - page 3
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems a plicable
to the proposed use.
We feel signage and incentives as outlined in the Gerstenberger parking
report are key elements in achieving the smooth workability of the
amphitheater. Further specific study and cooperation are needed to
ensure potential problems of congestion and safety hazards are avoided.
The environmental iM act re ort:concernin the ro osed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56:
No environmental impact report is required.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional
Use Permit be approved based on the following findings and conditions:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes
of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this ordinance.
The following are conditions of approval:
1. We highly recommend one ticket booth oriented to pedestrians ap-
proaching from the South and West.
2. Methods be studied and implemented to encourage Transportation
Center parking and bussing or walking from there to the facility
using the Golden Peak Facility for busses and the existing foot
path to the amphitheater via the Manor Vail access.
3. Public restrooms be provided before public use of the amphitheater
begins.
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
September 8, 1980
Work Session
2:00 P.M. Meet at Village Center Building D to look
at revised proposal for Village Center.
Public Hearing
3:00 P.M.
1. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior
Modification to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial
space and a 1,100 square foot manager's apartment addition.
2. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification
do to allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop
Building.
3. Vail Village Inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow
this unit to be used as a real estate office.
4. Garden of the Gods Club, rezoning from Public Accommodation
(PA) to High Density Multi- Family (HDMF).
�1
LJ
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
AGENDA
Monday, September 8, 1980
3:oo P.M.
1. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior modification
to construct a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100
square foot manager's apartment addition.
2. Lot 1, Block 3, Lion's Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 3,
approval of Special Development Plan for Lions Ridge Condominiums.
3. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification
to allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop Building.
4. Vail Village inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow this
unit to be used as a real estate office.
5. Garden of the Gods Club, Rezoning from Public Accommodation (PA)
to High Density Multi- -Family (HDMF) .
•
To be Published in the.Vail Trail, Sept. 5, 1980
n
u
•
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gaynor Miller
John Perkins
Gerry White
Dan Corcoran
Ed Drager
Roger Tilkemeier
Jim Morgan
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Minutes of September 8, 1980 Meeting
STAFF PRESENT
J im Rub in
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT
Ron Todd
The meeting was called to order by Gerry White.
1. Approval of minutes of August 25, 1980.
Roger Tilkemeier corrected the minutes saying that he had abstained
in the vote on the Lionshead Gondola building, making the vote on that
6 -0, with one abstention.
Roger also felt that he had voted in favor of item # 6, a setback
variance for Lot 34, Block 1, Vail Meadows Subdivision, Filing 1.
That vote would then be 6 -1 in favor of denial.
John Perkins seconded: the motion.for.adjtournment for:.that.meeting.
Ed Drager.mored these minutes be approved subject to the above changes,
Roger Tilkemeier seconded, the vote was 7 -0 in favor of approval
2. Approval of minutes of September 2, 1980 meeting.
Dan Corcoran moved these minutes be approved, Ed Drager seconded,
and the vote for approval was 6 -0. Gerry White abstained.
3. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village lst Filing
Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification to construct
a 2,900 square foot commercial space and a 1,100 square foot manager's
apartment addition.
Jim Rubin presented the staff memorandum stating that this .item had been
postponed until the second floor was redesigned. He felt that perhaps
it should be postponed another 30 days to permit a look at the bus and
walkways.
Discussion followed suggesting two concepts: The inclusion of a second
story with a smaller foot print, or a one story with a larger foot print.
Some felt that it may be better not to discuss this now, since they would
have to go back in 30 days to see what Jeff Winston of Gage Davis Associates
had planned.
Gerry White felt that in all fairness to the applicant, he was entitled
to find out the commission members' reaction to the plan.
PEC Minutes - 9 -8 -80 page 2
Fred Hibberd said he'd like to hear the comments on either of the two
proposals, and commented that the 2 story was actually 1 -1/2 stories.
40 He added that, for the record, they might want to wait to see where the
bus route.would. come in.
•
•
Jim Rubin stated that the Urban Design Guide Plan used one story as a guide.
Discussion of height followed, and Fred felt that there was an inaccuracy
in the Urban Design Guide Plan outline of Building D. He repeated the
idea that they wait until the bus route was known.
John Perkins added that there would be high vehicular traffic on this
corner, and that might influence their decision.. J.
Comments from the members:
Jim Morgan: I feel that the original presentation was a better transition
in roof line.
Ed Drager: If the guide lines suggest one story, I feel we should stay
with the guide lines. If the applicant wants something larger, I feel he
should say why it should be larger.
Dan Corcoran: I prefer the first presentation without the top floor and
with a larger open area.
John Perkins: I favor the first presentation, but I'm.not sure if I favor
it without the 2nd floor or not. I can approve of it vertically, but without
knowledge of bus routes, etc, we don't have all the pieces to make a decision.
Gaynor: I agree with Jim and John, the orignal plan is the most
aesthetic and can be worked out. I can't commit to a decision, but the
stepping down of the roof seems less stark.
Roger Tilkemeier: I prefer the first to the second plan. It is not as
abrupt. We should wait to see where the bus routes come.
Gerry: I feel that the original Urban Design Plan with a story added to
it is Amy choice. Until we know what is needed for busses and walkways,
we can't make a decision.
Fred Hibberd requested that the item be tabled until the October 13
meeting.
John Perkins moved that the item be tabled until October 13 at the request
of the applicant. Roger Tilkemeier seconded. The vote was unanimous, 7--0
in favor of tabling.
4. Cyrano's, application for an Exterior Alteration and Modification to
allow an addition onto the existing Gondola Ski Shop building.
Jim Rubin presented the staff memorandum and the staff recommendation
with the three conditions as stated in the memo. Jerry Greven of Cyrano's
showed plans and elevations. Jim Rubin stated that it was nonconforming
in that it covers more of the site than presently allowed. He added that
the site - coverage requirement Qan be,supercedea if the change is
a positive one. He added that the staff feels that the patio in the back
is a positive contribution since it is on the South, and that the area
REC Munites - 9 -8 -80 page 3
for which it is proposed is not now very aesthetic.
• Parking spaces were discussed, and Jerry was reminded that more spaces
may be required (the payment for them) .
The Northwest corner of the building was felt to be an eyesore and that
Mr. Colombo must address this part of the design. Members were unhappy
with the visibility of the trash dump and the parking space.
Gaynor Miller moved that the commission approved the addition of 120
square feet with the staff recommendations included. Roger seconded
this, and the vote was 7 -0 in favor ofthe application.
5. Vail Village Inn, Unit 128, Conditional Use Permit to allow this unit
to be used as a real estate photo gallery for Century 21 Real Estate Co.
Jim Rubin presented the staff memo and explained that the staff recommended
denial because of the 50 parking space deficiency existing now and because
to approve could add to the congestion in an already congested area.
Discussion included the fact that the 3rd phase would bring the parking
spaces into conformance, but that it was unclear when or if the 3rd phase
would be built. The applicant, Van Ewing stated that this office would
not generate any additional auto traffic, and that parking was provided
for this unit now..He added that his employees would park in the parking
structure. Mention was made of Mike Palmer's office and that it was not
to generate auto traffic, but that 1 or 2 cars daily..were.ticketed there.
Motion to deny for the reasons outlined by the staff was made by Dan
Corcoran, seconded by Jim Morgan. Vate was unanimous, 7 -0.
6. Garden of the Gods Club, zone change request from Public Accommodation
(PA) to High Density Multi-Family (HDMF) .
Jim Rubin presented this and mentioned that 'there had been ohanges- 'since
the, memo had . been written. One sleeping unit would be removed & ..made' into
a manager's apartment. All changes would be interior with the possible
exception of a couple of windows.
Gordon Pierce, ardhitect for the project, stated that there would be fewer
people, fewer cars, no restaurant, and that each unit would contain extremely
small kitchens. The owner was requesting the change because financially
the private lodge would not work out.
Roger T. mentioned that a lodge was favorable in the commercial core,
and compared the situation in Lionshead where there are few lodges in the
core, and that condo owners tend to stay in more. The building is in a key
location. The feeling of some of the members was that it could.be changed
to a public lodge.
Gordon Pierce stated that this was not in Lionshead, but in an area where
there is already a good mix of different uses. This was a small private
club made into a few apartments. He felt that the commission wasn't con-
sistent, that this was down zoning, and felt that it was a good move on the
Town's part.
PEC Minutes - 9 -8 -80 - page 4
Gerry felt that the need for accommodation units was important in a resort.
that the number of accommodation units was what made a resort work.
. Ed Drager felt that if they were changed to condo units, the accommodation
units would be lost forever. Dan pointed out that there was a difference
in down zoning and change of use. More discussion of the effect of removing
accommodation units not being good for the town, John Perkins did not
agree with the others. He felt that this was a special request that
did not quite fit as P.A. units as they are presently used. He felt
that if it were changed to condominiums, the number of people would be
lessened who would have an impact. He also felt that the Town has no
option to gain public accommodations.
Gerry White disagreed, and mentioned that he had had 4 people come to
his lodge from the Garden of the Gods requesting lodging accommodations.
Others suggested that it be changed from the private club to public lodging
to keep the use consistent with the zone district.
Gordon wanted to know how the Town could object'to down zoning, and the
answer seemed to be that it was the use that was objected to, not the
down zoning, and that these units would not serve the public.
Roger Tilkemeier moved to recommend to the Town Council that the zoning
change of the.Garden of the Gods from Public Accommodation to High Density
Multi- family be denied because lodging units are vital to the well being
of a resort community. Dan Corcoran seconded this. The vote was 6 -1
with John Perkins voting against denial.
Gerry told the applicant that this would be brought to the Council
on September 16. Ed Drager moved that the staff send a memo to the
Council explaining the commission's position, Roger Seconded this, and
the vote was 6 -1, John Perkins against the idea.
Gordon requested a copy of these minutes.
More discussion of the item followed. Gerry felt that to grant the
change would set a dangerous precedent. Any hotel could be converted
to a private club, and then converted into condominiums.
Ron Todd felt that Gordon did have a point with regard to inconsistencies
in Town actions. He felt that if there had been real concern that this
could happen, the time to show it would have been at the time that the
applicant asked to be a private club.
John moved to adjourn and Dan seconded. Unanimous vote. The meeting
adjourned at 4 :45 p.m.
is
•
r1
LJ
•
MEMORAN11UM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 9/4/80
RE: Conditional use and
Enterprises, Inc. to
Inn to allow a real
Estate Company.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Parking Variance request for Ewing - Bachman
convert Unit 128 in the Vail Village
estate photo gallery for Century 21 Real
Unit 128 was previously used as a lodge room and is now used as
storage. It is located directly East of the Swiss Hot Dog Company
with the entrance being on the blank wall just East of the Hot Dog
Company's entrance. The proposed use (as described in the accompanying
letter) is for a real estate photo gallery with only one employee.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.600, the Department of Community Development
recommends Denial of the Conditional. Use Permit based upon the following
factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and im act of the use on development objectives of
the Town.
We feel that this is the wrong location for a Real Estate Gallery
because we believe that the Real Estate Gallery will generate automobile
traffic and that the Vail Village Inn parking lot by this location
is too congested at the present time.
The effect of the use on la ht and air, distribution of 2opulation,
trans ortation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
This use should have no effect on the above factors.
Effect a on traffic with articular reference to congestion,
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow
and control, access, maneuverability, and removal of snow from
the street and parking areas.
There is a 50 space parking deficiency at the Vail Village Inn until
Phase III is constructed. We feel that this definitely results
in a deficiency of parking for the Village Inn complex, and that
approval of this application will aggravate the problem.
•
n
L J
Century 21 - 9/4/80 - page 2
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use
is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the ro osed
use in relation to surrounding uses. - -
The proposed use will actually improve the appearance of this corner
of the building, by replacing a blank wall with windows and a doorway.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
----- - - - - -- - --
to the proposed use.
There are no other factors deemed applicable.
The environmental im act report concernin_q the
an environmental impact report is required by
Not applicable.
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
> osed use, if
)ter 18.56.
The Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional
Use Permit be denied based on the following findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes
of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the
site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable pro-
visions of this ordinance.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recommends denial, because
we feel that the photo gallery will generate automobile traffic.
We also feel that, especially in this location, the existing parking
problems are serious enough that new uses should not be allowed
until the necessary underground parking facilities are provided.
PARKING VARIANCE
We feel that the parking variance is inconsequential, and that the
real decision should be made under the Conditional Use application.
If the Conditional Use request is approved, we feel that the Parking
Variance is not a separate issue, and therefore should also be approved.
If the Parking variance is approved, a payment of $250 (.05 space
x $5,000) would have to be made into the Parking Fund.
A ,
•
•
€ Io f{
i l iiE l�
REALTY OF VAIL, INC.
2271 North Frontage Road - West
Va0, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -4721
(303) 629.9341
TO: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
FROM: VAN EWING
DATE: 4 September 1980
RE,: Application for Conditional Use Permit and Parking
Variance for Vail Village Inn Building # 5 Unit # 128
Pursuant to your request for a written narrative on my intended
use of the space above referenced, I wish to create a real estate
photo gallery at this location. This gallery will duplicate the
gallery which I now have and will retain at my corporate head-
quarters in the Chamonix Center Building at 2271 North Frontage
Road West in West Vail.
This newly created gallery will provide a "Walk -In" location for
my customers who are located in the Village. These customers
will now be able to utilize the Town of Vail bus systems or walk
to this location and view a photo display of the properties I
have available. This space will be staffed by only one of my
agents who will park in the parking structure, take the bus to
work, and stay at this location for the entire shift, only making
appointments with customers and not "touring" from this location.
The bulk of my business will continue to be conducted from my
Chamonix Center location and again, this new location will only
be a photo gallery.
The prior use of this space was a lodge unit at the Vail Village
Inn and the unit has been rendered unserviceable to them now be-
cause it is located at the service entrance to the Phase 2 remodel.
As a lodge unit, this space had 61/100th's of a parking space allo-
cated to it. As a photo gallery, the town would require 66 /100th's
of a parking space, or a net difference of 5 /100th's of a space for
which we would need a variance. As a lodge unit, the allocated par-
king space was in frequent use. Asa photo gallery, the traffic will
be foot traffic or bus traffic and the allocated parking space will
not be used, thus assisting in the relief of the existing parking
condition at this location.
My intended remodeling
I feel will enhance the
continuity of the paver
Village Inn Plaza.
plans also call for a brick paver patio which
aegt:hetic quality of this area and add to the
patio's which now exist throughout the
Each Office is Independently Owned and Operated
REALTOR°
w
Page 2
In conclusion, I feel that the conditional Use Permit and
Parking Variance should be granted so that 1 can remodel and
up- -grade the existing area, add to the landscape and patio con-
cept that exists throughout the Vail Village Inn Plaza as well
as the Town of Vail, add a "Walk -In" facility to this area of
town, thus relieving the parking load and being located so that
T can monitor the use of this parking lot and assist in the con-
trol to the mutual benefit of my business, the adjacent businesses,
the Village Inn Plaza, and the town of Vail.
Sincerely yours,k
r
P. VAN EWING III
Owner /Broker
I
•
�J
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNINC AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JAMES A. RUBIN
DATE: 9/4/80
RE: Zone Change request for Garden of the Gods Club from Public
Accommodation (PA) to High Density Multi- Family (HDMF)
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST:
The request is to convert the Garden of the Gods Club from a private
club to a condominium project. As part of this request, 8 Accommoda-
tion units would be converted into 4 Dwelling (condominium) Units
and the small restaurant facility and two employee sleeping areas
on the first floor would be converted into another Condominium Unit.
Two other employee sleeping areas on the first floor are intended
to remain in that use.
The history of this matter is that in July of 1976, the Planning
Commission and the Town Council approved a Conditional Use Request
to convert the Valhalla Lodge into a Private Club. The only condition
of this approval was that the small restaurant facility be limited
to a seating capacity of 80 people.
STATISTICS
A. Number of Units
1. Existing
16 Accommodation Units
4 Employee sleeping rooms
Penthouse Unit
2. Proposed
9 dwelling units
2 employee sleeping rooms
1 penthouse unit
3. Allowed HDMF
12 dwelling units
B. GRFA
1. Existing
12,871 square feet
2. Proposed
13,292 square feet
3. Allowed
13,208 square feet
•
•
� Garden of the Gods Memo - 9/4/80 - page two
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this
request with the condition that 84 square feet of GRFA be removed,
either from an Employee Sleeping Area, or from one of the Dwelling
Units, so that the requested changes would completely comply with
the High Density Multi- Family District requirements.
This request is in fact a Down Zoning in that the Public Accommodations
Zone District has a higher denisty factor (.80) than High Density
Multi- Family (.60). This request would not be considered spot zoning,
because there is about an equal amount of HDMF and PA in that area.
HDMF properties include the Row Houses, Vorlaufer, All Seasons, Vail
Trails East and West, and the Texas Townhouses. PA properties include
the Rams -Horn, Tivoli, and the Christiania. The Villa, although zoned
PA, is Condominium use and should be zoned HDMF.
There is one remaining question, which is whether or not the Garden
of the Gods Club should be considered.a Lodge. If it is determined
to be a Lodge, when it would have to comply with Ordinance No. 24,
Series of 1980, which retricts the number of days that an owner can
use his unit, and requires the Lodge to provide the same services
that it presently provides. Our recommendation is that since it is
a Private Club, open to members only, and not open to the general
public walking off of the street, that It would not be considered
a Lodge.
•
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: September 10, 1980
RE: Revisions and corrections to Garden of the Gods.Club
rezoning memorandum
Several mistakes were made in the Memorandum to the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission dated September 4, 1980 on the Garden of the Gods Club
Rezoning Request. There were also some revisions to the original plans,
which address some of the concerns stated in the Department's Recommendation.
These changes were all discussed at.the Public.Hearing before the Planning
and Environmental Commission.
In the first paragraphs under Description of Request, the 8 Accommodation
Units should be changed to 12 and the 4 Dwelling Units should be changed
to 6. Also in the first paragraph, the last sentence should be changed
to state that one of the two other employee units would be removed with
the other one being converted into a Manager's Apartment.
In the Statistics section, under Number of Units Existing, the 16 Accommo-
dation Units should be changed to 12. Under the Proposed, the 8 dwelling
units should be changed to 7 and the 2 Employee Sleeping rooms should
be changed to I Manager's Apartment. Under the GRFA, the Proposed should
be changed to read 13,110 square feet. This would put the GRFA under
what is allowed in the HDMF Zone District, so that the request would
completely comply with the HDMF District requirements.
TO: TOWN COUNCIL
. FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: September 10, 1980
RE: Planning and Environmental Commission REcommendations on Garden of
the Gods Rezoning Request.
The Planning and Environmental Commission by a 6 -1 vote (John Perkins
opposed) recommended denial of the Garden of the Gods Rezoning Request from
Public Accommodations (PA) to High Density Multi - Family (HDMF). Their
vote reflected very strong feelings that the Public Accommodations zone
should not be diminished and that Lodge rooms were a vital part of the
Vail community. They furthermore stated that the Garden of the Gods
previous change of use to a private club should have no bearing on this
request. Their recommendation was that the Gardens of.the Gods Club,
if anything, be converted back into a Hotel /Lodge use.
John Perkins felt that it wasn't presently being used as a lodge, so
that the requested change would not be removing existing lodge units.
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ JAMES A RUBIN
RE: Exterior Alteration Request for Cyrano's Restaurant
A. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
Cyrano's Restaurant is requesting the addition of approximately 120
square feet of enclosed floor area. Cyrano's has taken over the
street level space previously occupied by the Ski Connection. The
added space would be on the West side of the building where there
are stairs that go up to Cyrano's Restaurant.
The street level space will become a cocktail bar /appetizer area
with the stairway on the interior leading up to the second floor.
The entrance into the bar and restaurant will be through the existing
entrance into the Ski Connection space.
Although the Planning and Environmental Commission is only specifically
reviewing the floor area addition. there are several other exterior
changes being contemplated. First of all, there will be a major
facelifting of the front of the building which will consist of a
more symetrical window layout and a greater number of windows, and
the transformance of the current front porch into a landscaped patio
area. Another change will be a redesign of the area to the east
of the building so that it works better for deliveries and trash
removal. A third change is the addition of a ground level patio
in the rear of the building. One other minor change is the redesign
of the mechanical equipment storage areas on the roof.
B. STATISTICS
1. He _ght
Allowed: 60% of site coverage under 30 feet
40% between 30 -40 feet
Proposed: 100% under 30 feet
2. Density Control
No GRFA
3. Site Coverage
Allowed: 80% or as.otherwise stipulated by Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations.
Actual: The present building is non - conforming with the
only change being the addition of the rear patio. The rear
patio addition should enhance the.rear of the building and
meets the general intent of the Design Considerations for
Vail Village.
Cyrano's Memo - 9 -4 -80 page 2
4. Landsca2ing
Allowed: No reduction in current landscaping.
Proposed: The only reduction is the rear patio, which we
feel is a good location for a patio and will enhance the
area.
5. Parking
Parking cannot be addressed until more detailed floor plans
are presented. At that time, any additional parking require-
ments will necessitate payment into the parking fund. As
far as exterior parking is concerned, there is one space allowed
to the East of the building, and we will require a better
control system to make sure that only one car is parked there.
6. Other Statistics
Existing Restaurant: 2,250. square feet
Existing Ski Connection: 2,900 square feet
Proposed Addition: 120 square feet
C. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION
. 1$.24.010 Purpose
The_ Commercial Core I District is intended to provide sites and
to rlra.intain the unique character of the Vail Villa ye Commerc_ial.
Areas )vj_th_ -_its mj.:�_ture of IodeLc-ti -_and coznmelrci�LI establishments iL.
a ?rcdw) I ma te.y]_ c destri�a.n environment. The Commerci 1 Core I
Di,str iict is _ aatet.ded to ensure adequate lip-ht , aj.x._o��r� a(Le
annddotiler amen ifj.es appropriates to ihc_p,c emitted_ �y�eh_.of bui1- dir_.,o
and uses. The District re Rtil.atioas i.n accordance witi, the Vail_
Vil.l,_w,e Llrb ri De_si_ ��ri,.i .Garrido Plan and Design Considc r. ation��cr. Ucc 'be
site development t f_anclards that--are intended to ensure the main ---�
temmee .lnc:��rescrvati.c�ti of the tight�_�� ..eIisl.e_rfd are ^:1����inents of
bit7l.cl n cd(-strx,tn_ways and lie eeinvays and to
on.;ure con l=ima :Lon of building_- scale and refiit �ctur l a:L�i tiiees'
1:11at St:.irL�;ui_sil the ViA.I.rc- c_-�._. -
We feel that both the change in use and changes proposed to the
exterior of the building are very positive ones and meet the
intent of the Purpose Section.
0
•
•
Cyrano's - 9/4/80 - page 3
D. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS
1. Sub Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan
There was no specific designation at this location.
2. Urban Design Considerations
a. Pedestrianization: This will be enhanced by eliminating
the dangerous outside stairs and by improving the facade
of the building.
b. Vehicle Penetration: No impact.
C. Streetscape Framework: This will be enhanced by the
planned improvements to the front porch areas by the
addition of planters and brick pavers, and the potential
for this space to be used as a sma.11.outdoor seating area.
d. Street enclosure: No impact
e. Street Edge: The existing stairway creates an alley
type effect. This will be improved by the proposed ex-
tension of the building.
f. Building Height: No impact
g. Views: No impact
h. Sun /Shade: No impact
3. Zoning Code Considerations..
a. Parking: The change of.use from Retail to Restaurant
does increase the parking requirement. This will be
determined on the receipt of more detailed floor plans.
4. Architectural and Landscape Considerations
This proposal substantially complies with the specifics of
the Design Considerations. These matters will be more specifi-
cally discussed during the Design Review Board Review.
Cyrano's - 9/4/80 - page 4
E. RECOMMENDATIONS:
. The Department of Community Development recommends approval of
this request with the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate
against a special improvement district if and when formed
for Vaal Village.
2. The applicant revegetates along the West side of Mill Creek
and will work with the Town to decide on an appropriate location
for a Pedestrian Path going from Seibert Circle to the Pirate
Ship Park area.
3. Some material changes be made on the front patio area. These
will be discussed with the Design Review Board.
•
•
•
•
�J
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 13, 1980 3 :00 P.M.
1. Approval of Minutes of September 8 meeting.
2. Miskell greenhouse addition
Lot 2, Blk 2, Vail Village 13th
3. Village Center Building D, Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
lst Filing, Density Control Variance and an Exterior Modification
4. Covered Bridge Store
New shop on 2nd floor
5. Gart carport and entry addition
Lot 12, Blk 7, Vail Village lst
6. Andy Norris
Amendment to height requirement for SD 4
7. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances
Height, Density and Water Quality
8. Assign member to DRB meetings.
Published in the Vail Trail Friday, October 10, 1980
r-]
n
U
•
MINUTES. .OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
MEMBERS PRESENT
Gerry White
John Perkins
Dan Corcoran
Ed Drager
Roger Tilkemeier
Gaynor Miller
Jim Morgan
Monday, October 13, 1980 3:00 P.M.
COUNCIL MEMBER
Bill Wilto
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Jim Rubin
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by Gerry White. Dan Corcoran moved the
minutes of the Sept 8 meeting be approved, seconded by Ed Drager.
5-0 in favor (JIm Morgan and Gaynor Miller hadn't arrived yet).
2. Miskell greenhouse addition, Lot 2, Block 2, Vail village 13th,
setback variance request.
Peter Patten presented the staff's feelings as written in the memo mailed
to the Commission, recommending denial. Whitney Miskell distributed more
information including a letter from the neighbor to the east approving
the greenhouse. Dan Corcoran felt it would be a positive addition to
a very plain East side of the house. John Perkins. said he was the original
designer, and although he would abstain from the vote, agreed with Dan.
Roger T. moved that the variance be a pro ed, Dan seconded it. The .vote
was 3 in favor, l(Gerry) against. Gaynor abstained, since he did not hear
the discussion.
3. Addition to Village Center Building D, requiring both a Density Control
Variance and an Exterior Modification Approval., Revised Proposal.
Jim Rubin said a survey had been completed to see if the proposal
would interfere with the bus lane, and explained the differences in this
proposal. He pointed out the 5 conditions listed in the memo that the
staff wanted to see implemented if approval was granted. He felt that
the plan was in basic conformance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations. The 2 smaller units
that were regested by the staff in the original proposal were discussed.
Cecil Dodson, president of Village Center Condominiumn Association, Bldgs
A,B & C questioned approval of twice the square footage as proposed in
the Urban Design Guide Plan. Dick Ryan replied that the Urban Design Guide
Plan did not dictate exact plans, but was.a guide only. Mr. Dodson protested
the two stories, but stated that he approved the improvement of the area.
John Perkins felt that the massing helped to make the transition from one
story to the present two story building. Mr. Dodson asked if it was worked
within the Urban Design Guide Plan. Gerry White replied that the °UDGP
provided the guide. Dick added that Jeff Winston had reviewed this proposal
presented the first time, but not the 2nd one. John P. questioned the
landscaping of the area to the east, and if the owners would work with Jeff
oA that. Fred Hibberd replied he would, adding that the lst plan had the
same footprint, then he tried to please others by changing the elevations.
In doing so, one owner had to exchange h:.i,s view for additional space.
pec - 2 - 10/15/80
Fr
40 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
0
ed Hibberd's statements
he wasn't looking for
he'd like to continue
the bus lane does enc
work well and he will
agrees with this
agrees with this
on the 5 conditions were:
a condo to market
to to work further with Jeff_ Winston
roach onto his property, but it and the walkway
dedicate the necessary land for them
Ed Drager didn't agree with having a second story, since a 1 story.was
shown in the UDGP. John Perkins stated that the design cannot be set
at the scale of 1" =200', nor square footage specified. Gaynor Miller felt
that in working with Fred for 1 -1/2 months, that this was a much better
design and that it would blend in very well, adding that the Town needs
buses and walks and a compromise should.be made. Roger T. added that the
location was very visible and that when the commission had visited the
site that they had agreed that a one story building didn't look right
at that location. Gerry agreed and stated that he felt it was in keeping
with the UDGP.
Roger moved for approval subject to the 5 conditions in the memo, John
seconded. Vote was 4 in favor, 2 against..(Dan & Ed against).. Jim abs
since he didn't hear the full discussion.
4. A Conditonal Use Request for the Covered Bridge Store to allow the
conversion of one aprtment form Residential to Commercial.
Jim Rubin summed up the memo, stating that the staff was in favor of
approval, for the reasons stated in the memorandum. Ed Drager asked how
one could say that there is no way one can keep people living in the
core area- -did that mean no one wanted to live there? He felt it was
inconsistent with the prior case where the staff is insisting that an apart
go in to make something look better because people will want to live there.
Jim Rubin felt that the apartments were in two different locations.
This one is right across from 2 night clubs with more commotion at this
location.
John Dobson stated that Bridge Street is a heavily traveled area in Vail
Uses of this type have been granted. In the early days, it made sense,
but doesn't now to any where near the degree. Gorsuch, the Bank building,
etc. have done the same thing. There are perhaps two long term spaces
in the core, and precedent has been established. Long term has not
worked out. Dan Corcoran .then added that the Town is being
sued by a property owner who considered just the opposite, that his proper-
ty was quite valuable, namely the tower over.the Rucksack. They certainly.
wouldn't want that conversion. He stated that he was on the Planning
Commission when the conversion came through with the apartments that
used to be above the Liquor Store and he opposed that.
John Dobson asked if conditionaluses were granted to the Ore House Building,
the Cyrano building, or for Gorsuch. He repeated that the precedent
had been established and that long term housing simply does not work
out in that area as it once did. He read the purpose of the CCI zone
district.
Jim Rubin reiterated one „statemgnt that John D had made, that there
are no controls that would require those units to be long term. John
could rent them out short term.
PEC - 3 10/15/80
Gerry White stated that the history of downtown Vail had been one of
both granting and denying use for just this kind of thing. There is
the concept of horisontal zoning that was dealt with a long time ago
in an effort to keep the mixture in the downtown area. He stated that
the was much more conversion to commercial space on every level, with
talk of the Gashof Gramshammer being converted to commercial space
throughout. He felt that this was a sort of death knell for the core
area. He felt very strongly that commercial space should be on ground
level and the second level should be residential.
Bill Wilto mentioned that one prior conditional use was granted because
it was felt that no one wanted to live there, but the fact was, the
renters enjoyed the apartment, so it was suitable for some. "Not
desirable housing" he felt was incorrect.
There was some talk of asking John to restrict John Dobson's other
apartment to employee housing if this conditional use were granted,
but it was felt that conditional use had nothing to do with employee
housing, and John felt also that that rule should have been applied
to others as well, if the commission was going to expect it of him.
Gaynor Miller moved to approve the request, John Perkins seconded
it. Gaynor voted for it, but the other members voted against, so the
vote was 2 -5 against.
5. Lequest for a front setback variance for Jerry Gart to construct
a carport on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst.
• Peter Patten presented the material from the staff, and recommended.
denial. Steve Boyd, the contractor for the project, explaining that
the owner wanted a covered parking area where he now had gravel parking,
that was encroaching 61or 7' onto the setback. John Perkins felt that
to deny this didn't make sense, and discussion followed about whether
it was better esthetically to permit a garage to hide the cars completely.
John moved to grant the variance as long as a garage was constructed,
seconded by Roger. The vote was tied with Dan abstaining. John,Roger,
and Jim Morgan for, Gaynor, Gerry and Ed against.
Roger moved to deny the carport, seconded by Gaynor.
For denial were Jim, Gaynor, Gerry and Ed. John and Roger against
denial. Request denied.
6. Hei ht Amendment for S ecial Development District 4(SD4), the
Cascade Lodge.
Jim Rubin presented the matetal from the staff, and recommended approval.
He explained that the design seemed appropriate and that the increase
would only be one foot. Andy Norris showed drawings.
Roger moved for approval subject to the Planning and Environmental
Commission's granting of the Amendment to the Height Section of SD4.
Ed seconded, and the vote was 6 -0, unanimous, Dan abstaining.
•
•
PEC - 10 -15 -80 - 4
7. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances
Audience participation was requested first. George Boyer, Betty Thomas,
Mason Thomas, John Drywalker, Paula Lallier, Andy Norris, Stewart Brown,
Charlie Powers, Fitzhugh Scott, Joe Montana, Stuart Holland, Dean
Canada, and Kathy Warren spoke in opposition to the amendments. Their
concern dealt with the fact that they thought their property was being
devalued, some felt the decision was arbitrary, some felt a 40% slope
should be built upon. Sandy Mills took exception and stated that all
she could hear was "you are taking from me" instead of looking at the
desirability of these changes for the whole valley and being positive.
Afterward, the commission members stated their feelings:
Ed Drager: Many of these ideas have been discussed for a long time.
We must have done many things right.
Dan: As the document is now, I'm against not counting the 40 %. In
favor of new definitions of GRFA, for proposed changes in density control.
Jim: Height well taken care of, hillside development questionable.
GRFA not greatly changed, against not counting 40 %, for section IV.
John: Doesn't feel density control section needs to be changed from
what it is now. Height limitation have been scared of; footprint fine,
at one time had 30% as cut -off point, GRFA - careful -- sometimes
secondary unit would be cut down to be very small unit.
Roger: Our concern is to get a document to control visual impact,
we need more work done. However, I get concerned about all comments
on values. If one had bought property even 6 -8 months ago, one would
have experienced an increase in value. I agree that it is important
that values continue.
Gerry:. We are primarily dealing with space. I feel 40% slope should
not be omitted. I like GRFA. Concern about values.
Roger moved to table the meeting to October 27, John seconded it
Unanimous, 6 -0 (Gaynor had left).
Roger was selected to attend the DRB meeting on Oct. 15.
Ed moved and Roger seconded to continue the rest of the agenda until
the next meeting.
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 10/23/80
RE: Side Setback Variance request for Jim McDonald to move the building
envelope on site 15, Casolar Vail II
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The request is to encroach 5' into a 15' side setback. There is a 10'
utility easement constituting the remainder of the setback. The reason
for the request is to move away from the adjacent duplex to the east.
The exterior decks of the two buildings, without the variance, would be
5 feet apart, due to the proximity of the building envelopes. Thus, the
request is to allow some "breathing room" and privacy between the structures.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development_ recommends
approval of the requested variance based upon the following factors;
Consideration of Factors
• The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or_ potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
As described above, the building envelopes on this parcel are in close
proximity to each other. A settlement was recently reached with regard
to the width of the duplex to the east, the dispute being over the actual
size of the decks vs what the approved plans showed. The owner to the
east is cutting back his decks 4' to allow some room between the structures,
and this request is to move another 5' away. This allows some visual
lines through the density on this lot and aids in the reduction of a fire
hazard between the two decks. No structure will be built on the western
side.
The dearee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of_a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com-
patibility and _uniformity o_-f_treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the ob-iectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
We feel the physical hardship here is the insufficient distance between
structures and the granting of the variance is harmless and is an improve-
ment.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air_, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety._
There is a sewer Line 4' off the property line, 6' from the proposed
location of the building foundation. It's possible that, if the sewer
line needed work in that area there could be problems with the location
0
McDonald - 2 - 10/23/80
of the house. In the event the location of the foundation became a problem
due to the granting of this variance, the owner of the house would be
responsible for solving the problem.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
None exist
FTWnT1 aG-
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin
findings before arantina a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development feels there is a hardship involved
in this case, and that the granting of the variance has a positive effect
upon fire safety, privacy of the homes, and sight lines between the
buildings relieving the dense feeling one gets when viewing the lot.
Thus, we recommend approval with the following conditions:
If, because of the granting of this variance, problems occur with future
sewer line work in the easement, the owner of the structure on envelope
15 would be responsible for solving the problem in a mutually satisfactory
manner.
PUBLIC NOTICE
rNOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Sandstone 70 Condominium
Association has requested a Public Hearing to review the Conditional
Use Permit granted Vail Guides, Inc. occupying the Printery
Building. Application has been made in accordance with Section
18.60.020 of the Vail Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on November 10, 1980 at 3:00 PM
before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
Said hearing will be held in the Vail Municipal Building.
The application and information relating to the proposed change
is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular
• business hours for review or inspection by the public.
Jim Rubin
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980.
PUBLIC NOTICE
•
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Jerry Gart has applied for a
setback bariance in order to build a garage and entry on Lot 12,
Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing. Application has been made in
accordance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section 18...66.060
of the Municipal Code on November 10, 1980 at 3;00 P.M. before the
Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The application and information relating to the proposed change
is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during regular
business hours for review or inspection by the public.
L�
Jim Rubin
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980.
•
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 10/8/80
RE: TERMS OF OFFICES, ETC.
Ed Drager's term of office is officially over on 10/17,
and John Perkins has resigned effective 11/15. We have
advertised for applicants.
We need to appoint another PEC member to the DRB effective
immediately. John has attended these meetings since June.
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 8119/80
RE: Addition of a 4,000 square foot building east of Village Center
Building D, located on a part of Tract C, Block 5E, Vail Village
First Filing requiring both a Density Control Variance and an
Exterior Modification Approval.
Applicant: Fred Hibberd
PROPOSAL i
The Village Center is located in a Commercial Core II District,
so, although it is located adjacent to Vail Village, it will be reviewed
under the Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Design Considerations. It
is, however, included in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Man,
and will be reviewed by that plan.
The proposal is for a 4,000 square foot building located to the
East of Village Center Building D (on top of the covered parking),
The 4,000 square feet is to consist 90100 square foot manager's
square fe
level commercial space and a s econd level 1
apartment.
( This proposal must be reviewed under two separate processes: Density
Control Variance and Exterior Modification. The Density Control Variance
is needed for the 1,100 sq ft manager's unit, since the Village Center
is currently in excess of both its unit and its square footage standards.
in looking at the past history of the Village Center Building,
there was a 22 parking space Variance granted by the Town Council by
Resolution Number 12, Series of 1974. The 22 space variance was granted
in exchange for a landscape plaza, which is the proposed site of the
new building. We, therefore, have determined that this request, if
approved by the Planning Commission, will also have to go to the Town
Council for a Resolution amending Resolution No. 12, Series of 1974.
STATISTICS
Total Land Area = 65,299 sq ft
Total No. of Units Allowed: 37 units
Total No. of Units Existing: 62 units
GRFA Allowed: 52,239 sq ft
GRFA Existing: 65,038 sq ft
Commercial Building D: 5,160 sq ft
Village Center Bldg D - 2 -- 8- 19--80
A.' EXTERIOR MODIFICATION REVIEW
COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.26.010
The Commercial Core II District is intended to provide sites for a
41 mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges, and commercial establishments
in a clustered, unified development. The Commercial Core 11 District
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of building and uses, and to maintain
the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site
development standards. The Commercial Core District TI is intended to
include sites for residential dwellings at densities not to exceed twenty -
five dwelling units per acre.
The proposed addition does comply with the purpose section by creating
another building which would be clustered with the existing development
and would actually create a more unified development. The present land-
scaped area to the East of Building D is and has been an eyesore and will
never function properly as either useable or aesthetic open space.
COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSI-
DERATIONS
1. Sub -Area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan
Number 21 of the East Meadow Drive Sub -Area Concepts describes a one
story addition of similar size to the one proposed in this request. The
proposed addition does have a second story (where the manager's unit is)
but this second story would help to block the larger building behind it
which is also specifically mentioned in Number 21. We feel that the
( x general intent of Number 21 is being followed by-this request.
2. Urban Design Considerations
a. Pedestrianization: The proposed addition will enhance the
pedestrian experience by making the scale of the buildings a more
comfortable one for the person walking between the Transportation
Center and Crossroads. Another part of this proposal is to work
with the Town in the Construction of a pedestrian walkway along
the South side of Village Road. This will greatly enhance the area.
b. Vehicle Penetration: A service and drop -off area should be
incorporated into the new design.
C. Streetscape Framework: This proposal will vastly improve
the pedestrian experience.
d. Street Enclosure: This building addition will improve the
street enclosure situation by reducing the impact of the larger
building in the background.
e. Street Edge: The Street Edge will become slightly more regular
which, in this case, will enhance the pedestrian experience.
f. Building Height: The two level proposal is well under the
allowed building height.
g. Views: No views are impacted by this proposal.
h. Sun shade changes: Not significant.
Village Center Bldg. D - 3 , 8/19/80
3. Zoning Code Considerations
The 4,000 square foot addition generates an additional parking require-
ment of approximately 11 spaces, which cannot be accurately determined
until more specific floor plans are submitted. The commercial part of
the parking requirement would be assessed at .$3,000 per space, the resi-
dential at $5,000 per space.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the commercial part of the proposal as the
proposal specifically orients itself to the objectives of the Urban Design
Guide Plan of Vail Village and the Design Considerations for Vail Lions -
head with the following conditions:
1. The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail.Village.
In addition, agrees to dedicate the land necessary for the exclusive
bus /pedestrian lane if determined by the Town as the appropriate
design solution for this area.
B. VARIANCE REQUEST REVIEW
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon Review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Muni-
!. cipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial
of the requested Variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or po-
tential uses and structures in the vicinity:
The current Village Center complex is 25 units and 12,800 sq ft over
what is presently allowed. The only type of Density ControlVariances
that we feel is acceptable is for bona fide employee housing. We
question if an 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment is bona fide employee
housing.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com-
patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
We feel that a 1,100 sq ft manager's apartment would not be consistent
with the intent of the Ordinance and could be considered a 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.
None of these items are affected by this request.
•
1
Village Center Bldg - page 4 - 8-- 19--80
4. such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
There are no other pertinent factors.
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speci-
fied regulation would not result in practical difficulty or unneces-
sary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
There are exceptions theovariancecthatmdoanots conditions
apply
to generally
applicable to
to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of then properties in the same district.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested
1,100 sq ft manager's apartment. Our suggestion would be that the
1,100 square feet be divided into two smaller units that are used
solely for long term employee units.
ALTERNATIVE ZONING PROPOSAL CHANGES
1. The density control factors should be left the same
through the calculation of 30,000 sq. ft. for the Single
Family Zone and the two Two - Family Zones.
2. Change factor to .00 for square footage over 30,000.
3. Eliminate any reference to flood plain, snow avalanche zones
and 40% grades.
By making the above changes it would restrict the square footage
in the Single Family Zone to 4875 and in the two Two - Family Zones
to 5250. This would make the proposal fair and just to all
people. It would not absolutely wipe out some people and have
no affect on others. It is a proposal that all people can understand
both professional and unprofessional. It would be open and up front
iand no one could claim that they have been singled out.
It would also make it very easy for site owners, architects,
builders, Planning and Environmental Commission, Design Review
Board and the building department to understand, explain and
administer.
r�
} il ,
HOLLANDER & COMPANY, INC.
•
WHOLESALE DISTRIBUTORS
600 BROWN ROAD S'T'. LOUIS COUNTY
HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI 63042
October 1, 1980
CERTIFIED MAIL #197201
Planning & Environmental Commission
Box 100
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Gentlemen:
My name is Stuart Hollander and I am the owner of
Lot 7, 10th Filing, in the Town of Vail, Colorado..
S1 was recently informed by a notification from Mr.
James A, Rubin, with magnification on the subject from Mr.
Mason Thomas, an adjoining property owner, of a major change
in the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
0
TELEPHONE
314- 731 -4680
I wish to call to your attention how this change
would effect Lot 7, 10th Filing. The new proposal would limit
the size of the house to 2,000 sq. ft. in an area that is zoned.
1 and 2 family and surrounded by homes ranging in size from
5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. total. I doubt very much whether this
was the intent of the new proposal, however, I want you to know
this property owner's feelings on the proposed legislation.
We have been spending several weeks of each year in
Vail for approximately the last 16 years, and many years ago
decided that some day we would choose this area to build a
future home. We did not purchase the land for speculation and
we are not in the real estate business.- Several years ago we
purchased Lot 7, 10th Filing --- but only after assurances from
the prestigous Fitzhugh Scott Organization that there would be
no building problems on the subject lot. That, along with the
avalanche study documents, encouraged us to execute the sale,
We took all possible precautions prior to signing the sales
contract.
(contId)
•
U
•
Planning & Environmental Commission
October 1, 1980
Page #2
Now we find we did not take into consideration
the possibility of the Town of Vail passing an onerous and
capricious law primarily effecting those few property owners
who did not build prior to the inactment of said proposed law.
The financial losses that we would incur if this proposal is
passed would be very substantial.
Z will be present at the meeting on October 13,
1980, in the Town of Vail along with the other property owners.
i am also making preparations to take whatever legal action is
necessary to curb this type of injurious legislation.
SH:lwh
cc: Mr. Gary White
Mr. James A. Rubin
Mr. Mason Thomas
Sincerely,
Stuart Hollander
Executive Vice President
•
perly & Co.
the mark of extraordinary properties
October 3, 1980
REGISTERED MAIL
RETURN[ RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Jim Rubin
Zoning Administrator
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Rubin:
I received a notice of a meeting in Vail on October 13, 1980 relative to
a change in density control.
I am a half owner of property on Willow Circle. The address of my
property is 63 Willow Circle.
If any change is contemplated in that particular area that would prevent
building under the stipulations currently in effect, I wish to go on
record as being strongly opposed.
I will be in California on October 13 and unable to be at the meeting. I
would appreciate hearing from you if this area is to be chanced and if so,
what actions I should take to protest same.
Very truly yours,
Ken na rd P. Perry
President
KPP /mr
cc: Mr. Arthur G. Bishop
REAL ESTATE -INSURANCE • PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
101 SOUTH MADISON STREET • DENVER, COLORADO 80209 (303) 399 -7777
TO""WN and COUNTRY 'E-STATES I]]
REALTOR -
8 SELLEVIEW WAY
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121
761 -7117
October 5, 1980
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vaal, Colorado 81657
Re: Proposed Zoning Change
Lot 12, Glen Lyon
Two- Family Primary /Secondary Zone
Slopes in Excess of 40%
Dear Sirs:
We have owned Lot 121, Glen Lyon for approximately 2 years having
purchased it from Gore Creek Associates, the developer.
We chose Lot 12 over 5 other sites because of its unobstructed
view down the valley to the West. The site also has an almost
level area in a beautiful meadow near the street to build a
double and it gets the sun until It sets in the evening.
Out of the total 80 acres of the Glen Lyon property 40 acres
have been dedicated to the town of Vail as open space. The
development received final approval by the Town of Vail on
January 3, 1978. 20 lots are within the forested area. No dwelling
shall be permitted with more than 4200 GRFA and a double must
divide the 4200 GRFA 113 - 2/3 between the two units. Lots 30
and 31 have a moderate risk of wet snow avalanches while Lots 14,
15 and 16 have some risk of moving debris.
After studying an aerial topo of the forested lots which does
not seem to relate with our ground inspection., we found at least
6 lots which will be reduced below their presently allowable
4200 GRFA because of slopes in excess of 40 %. Our particular
lot could lose as much as 11000GRFA and be reduced to 3200 on
the basis of the aerial topo, but at this time we cannot be
sure since we do not have a special on site topo. These 40%
slopes are at the rear of the lots. It would have been very
easy to include this sloping_area in the designated open space
behind these lots at the time the land was designed. Instead -
these lot owners are now going to be penalized and hurt economically
if the 40% slopes are not counted in calculating GRFAA
We have purchased the WHOLE site and are paying taxes on the TOTAL
square footage of the site. It does not make sense to penalize
the buyers after the fact when the Town of Vail just approved
the plat on January 3, 1978. If you are concerned about 40%
. slopes, DO NOT ALLOW a developer to plat`, this part of the
ground into building sites and DO NOT ALLOW him to sell them
to the public.
1 TO';WN and Cou TRH' cEsTATEs 13
REALTOR'
8 SELLEVIEW WAY
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121
761 -7117
October j, 1980
Town of Vail, Planning and Enviromental Commission
Page Two
What really worries us is how is the general unknowledged
public going to know before the hearing on October 13, 1980,
whether his site has a 40% slope or more and whether or how
badly it will affect allowable GRFA. When you purchase a site the
seller does not have to furnish the buyer with a survey or topo
of the vacant lot. Most people have not walked their site to the
very back especially if it has a steep slope. People are most
interested in where the dwelling is going to be located, the view,
how much sun will shine on the site, the trees and other such
considerations. If you approve this change, you are not protecting
the public but you are penalizing them because the Town of Vail
allowed these areas to be platted and sold to the public.
Alot of study and thought has gone into the preparation of this
letter and we hope you will give it consideration since we feel
we are professionals in the business and we are very concerned
about the problems that this proposed change will create for the
unknowledged and especially absentee vacant lot owners.
Respectfully submitted,
MASON S. TH0114AS
Land Developer
Custom Home Builder
20 Years Experience in
Real Estate
BETT . THONUS
Real Estate Broker for 18 Years
•
0
� `TO"'GVN and COUNTRY
8 BELLEV[EW WAY
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121
761 -7117
October 5, 1980
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Sirst
ESTATES
Re: Proposed Zoning Changes
Lot 6, Vail Village 10th Filing
Two - Family Zone
We have owned Lot 6 for over five years having purchased the
building site from Vail Associates, Inc. We have always Looked
forward to the day when we would be in the position to build our
dream residence for our family of seven. We felt that we took
great care in selecting OUR future home site. Our lot is
affected by a high hazard avalanche area, slopes in excess of
40% and the new density control factors as follows:
HIGH HAZARD AVALANCHE AREA
Vail Associates, Inc. had an avalanche study done on the 10th
Filing before offering the lots for sale. The front 100 x 100
of our site is in the Snow Avalanche Hazard Zone II and is
buildable. The remainder of the site is in Hazard Zone 1.
Our site is 30,580 sq. ft. with approximately 10,000 sq. ft.
in Hazard Zone II. This proposed change would limit our GRFA
to 2,500 sq. ft. when it is now 5,279. This proposed change
denies us the same rights as our neighbors (Lot 4, 5 and 8
have enjoyed when building their residences.
Our neighbors' property value would also be adversely affected
by having two 2,500 residences (Lots 6 & 7) built among
residences of more than 5,000 sq. ft.
We would be penalized because we,have not had the opportunity to
this date to build our personal residence for our seven member
family.
The economic and personal loss that we would suffer would be
totally unreasonable and action would have to be taken by us.
SLOPES IN EXCESS OF0f
After inspection of our site it is possible that the rear
portion would fall into the 40% slope range.
113
REALTOR-
TO`-_WN and COUNTRY ESTATES 113
REACTOR'
8 BELLEVIEW WAY
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121
761 -7117
October 5, 1980
Town of Vail, Planning and Environmental Commission
Page Two
The description of zoning changes from Jim Rubin states, "The
purpose of these changes is to place an overall limit on the size of
structures and to reduce the size of structures on steep sites."
Why at this point in time pack out and penalize the people who have
already purchased a site with some 40% slope? This does not make
good sense.
In our case the residence would be built on the street in a 100 x 100
foot area of genial slope while the 40% slope is at the very rear
of the site.
Five years ago we bought and have paid for the WHOLE SITE. For
five years we have paid taxes which are based on the TOTAL square
footage of the site.
If you are concerned
something about it.
sites slopes of 40%
the public.
about 40% slope or more on a site then do
DO NOT ALLOW a developer to plat into building
or more and DO NOT ALLOW him to sell them to
You are trying to penalize the general and in most cases the
ignorant public AFTER THE FACT.
NEW DENSITY CONTROL FACTORS
We bought Lot 6 because the square footage of the site would
allow us to build a large enough residence to accomodate a family
of seven and still be able to build a double for business purposes
and be able to sell the other side. Your new factors would take
away 529 sq. ft. of GRFA and limit us to a single family dwelling
and thus hurt us economically especially since construction and
real estate are our businesses.
It is our professional opinion that the general public is not
aware of how this proposal will ACTUALLY affect them since
it is not clearly spelled out in. simple terms. Why not tell the
public in the explanations that they will be limited to 4375
GRFA if they own a single family site and 4750 GRFA if they own
a site in either of the two two- family zones? Why not tell the
public exactly what areas are now going to be included in the
GRFA that were not included before and how this will also reduce
their living, sleeping and bath square footage?
If your only concern is that some structures are visually too
large then you have other ways to control visual impression.
TO"--WN and COUNTRY ESTATES
8 SELLEVIEW WAY
LITTLETON, COLORADO 80121
761 -7117
October 5, 1980
Town of Vail, Planning and Environmental Commission
Page Three
Do this at the time that a structure is submitted to the
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD. DO NOT PENALIZE the remaining lot owners
because a few people have built visually unattractive dwellings.
Also, please remember that beauty is in the eye of the beholder
and it would be very hard to get all people to agree on what is
attractive to them personally and what is not attractive.
PLEASE do not penalize the few remaining lot owners for what a very
few have done. Do not down grade Vail and the present vacant
lot owners property values as you are also hurting the property
values in the whole town.
IT IS YOUR DUTY TO THE PEOPLE TO GIVE ALL THE PROPOSALS CAREFUL
CONSIDERATION AND BE SURE OF HOW THEY WILL ESPECIALLY AFFECT
THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ABSENTEE LOT OWNERS AND ARE NOT KNOWLEDGED
ENOUGH TO KNOW THE AFFECT OF THESE CHANGES. THESE PEOPLE
• TRUST THE TOWN TO ACT IN THEIR BEST INTERESTS AND NOT BEHIND
THEIR BACK.
Respectfully submitted,
MASON S. THOMAS
Land Developer
Custom Home Builder
20 Years of Experience in
Real Estate
113
REALTOR'
BETTY . THOMAS
Real Estate Broker for 18 Years
•
REAL ESTATE
Nationwide: 1- 800 - 525 -9293
483 West Lionshead Mall
ail, Colorado 81657
03/476 -1600
Denver Toll Free 534 -5025
•
October 6, 1980
Town of Vail Planning Commission
P.O. Box 100
Vail, CO 81657
20 Eagle Road
Avon, Colorado 81620
303/949 -4368
Denver Toll Free 893 -2403
I am gravely con -
ance. T am also
hased land in this
I find that they
feet their situation
Thank you for the considerations given to this letter and my concerns.
Sincvleehy,
O an S. Canada, GRI
Executive Vice - President
[qJ1 if 11 I ail] (1;Ndiii I
•
HOLLANDER & COMPANY, INC.
WHOLESALE 1)1.' ITRIBUTORS
600 BROWN ROAD ST. LOUIS COUNTY
HAZELWOOD, MISSOURI 63042
TELEPHONE
314-731 -4680
October 1, 1980
CERTIFIED MAIL #197201
Planning & Environmental Commission
Box 100
'.Gown of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Gentlemen:
My name is Stuart Hollander and I am the owner of
Lot 7, 10th Filing, in the Town of Vail, Colorado.
I was recently informed by a notification from Mr.
James A, Rubin, with magnification on the subject from Mr.
Mason 'Thomas, an adjoining property owner, of a major change
in the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
I wish to call to your attention how this change
would effect Lot 7, 10th Filing. The new proposal would limit
the size of the house to 2,000 sq. ft. in an area that is zoned
1 and 2 family and surrounded by homes ranging in size from
5,000 to 6,000 sq. ft. total. I doubt very much whether this
was the intent of the new proposal, however, I want you to know
this property owner's feelings on the proposed legislation.
We have been spending several weeks of each year in
Vail for approximately the last 16 years, and many years ago
decided that some day we would choose this area to build a
future home. We did not purchase the land for speculation and
we are not in the real estate business. Several years ago we
purchased Lot 7, 10th Filing -- but only after assurances from
the prestigous Fitzhugh Scott Organization that there would be
no building problems on the subject lot. That, along with the
avalanche study documents, encouraged us to execute the sale.
We took all possible precautions prior to signing the sales
contract.
(cont'd)
I t .
Planning & Environmental Commission
October 1, 1980
Page #2
Now we find we did not take into consideration
the possibility of the-Town of Vail passing an onerous and
capricious law primarily effecting those few property owners
who did not build prior to the inactment of said proposed law.
The financial losses that we would incur if this proposal is
passed would be very substantial.
I will be present at the meeting on October 13,
1980, in the Town. of Vail along with the other property owners.
T am also making preparations to take whatever legal action is
necessary to curb this type of injurious legislation.
0 Sti : lwh
cc: Mr.. Gary White
Mr. .lames A. Rubin
Mr. Mason Thomas
•
Sincerely,
Stuart Hollander
Executive Vice President
+ .
October 13, 1930
Town of Vail.
Department of Community Development
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Lot No. 15, Vail Meadows Filing No. 1
Gentlemen:
We received a public notice mailed September 26, 1980
that a public hearing is to be held October 13, 1980
concerning requested amendments to the Density Control
Sctions of the Zoning Ordinance. We have the following
objections:
1) Although agencies in the executive branch of
government are allowed to do business on le•3al hol- idays,
we question the validity of holding'a public hearing
on a legal holiday.
• 2) The proposed changes concerning lots with slopes
in excess of 40% appear to re unfarily directed at a
small percentage of lot owners with the effect of drasti-
.tally affecting their property values.
3) The arbitrary adoption and application of the
requested amendments could work'an extreme hardship on us.
4) We have been advised that additional amendments
will be considered at the hearing affecting lots with slope
in excess of 20%. We received no copy of that proposed
change, although it appears to affect.our lot.
We' request that a representat.iv.e of the planning commission
view our lot prior to the hearing and will arrive early
on October 13th for that purpose.
Sincerely,
arc
(Mrs.) Paul-EM. Lallier
,f
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: October 9, 1980
RE: Height Amendment for Special Development District 4(SD4),
the Cascade Lodge
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
This request is to amend the Height Section of SD4 to permit the
Cascade Lodge to have an average height of one foot greater than
the height allowed by SD4. Even though the advertized height was
for a 2.5 foot increase, the height has been reduced so that the
increase is only for an additional foot.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this
request. The uses, number of floors, and general shape of the building
have not changed since it was last presented to you. The height difference
• was caused by a change in the design of the roof.
The Design Review Board has reviewed the Cascade Lodge and has approved
the plans subject to the Planning and Environmental Commission's granting
of the Amendment to the Height Section of SD4.
•
f
MJ MA - --
A
\/AFCI'. ITECT E URBAN DESIGN LAND PLANNING
GEORGE TROCKRISE,FAIA,AIP,ASLA ROBERTA.ODERMATT,AIA ROBERT C.MOUNTJOY,AIA
October 6, 1980
Mr. Jim Rubin
Zoning Director
Town of Vail
City Hall
Vail, Colorado 81657
Subject: Cascade Lodge, Vail
Dear Jim:
Enclosed please find two (2) sets of the revised Building Height Study for
Cascade Lodge (dated October 1, 1980) as you requested.
Note that the overall average building height is 52.0 feet. The zoning ordinance
allows 51 feet, 45 feet plus an additional 6 feet (bonus for 9,6/12 sloping
. roof).
Please advise me concerning the adequacy of the information shown.
•
Sincerely,
Thomas K. Yee
TKY /pw
cc: Andrew Norris
George Rockrise
File
405 SANSOME STREET, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94111 • TELEPHONE (415) 392 -3730
MEMORANDUM
• TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: October 9, 1980
RE: Amendment to Conditional Use Criteria of Zoning Ordinances
The Department of Community Development is suggesting the following
additional criteria for the review of Time Sharing requests. All Time
Sharing requests are required to go through the Conditional Use process
and are only allowed in the HDMF, PA, CCI and CCII Zone Districts.
The Department is also, at the request of the Planning and Environmental
Commission, initiating an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove
Time Sharing as an allowed Conditional Use in a Public Accommodations
Zone District.
18.60.060 Criteria - Findings
7. For any approval of a Time -Share Estate, Fractional Fee or Time -Share
License request, the applicant must show documentation that 75% of the
owners of existing units of a project agree in writing to the proposed
use.
TO
FROM:
DATE:
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT/ PETER PATTEN
October 6, 1980
SUBJECT: RESULTS OF RESEARCH ON TIME - -SNARING REGULATIONS
STATE LEVEL
The state regulations being adopted are, for the most part, concerned with
financial disclosures, regulation of sales practices and disclosures, regu-
lation of sales practices and classification of time sharing as a subdivision.
The ordinances Vail passed several months ago address these issures. Vai.l.'s
adoption of these ordinances was in response to the lack of State of Colorado
legislation being passed at their last session. Other states which have
adopted time sharing regulations or are considering them are Hawaii., Cali-
fornia, Florida and Nebraska. Of these, Hawaii's is the most stringent,
as they have experienced serious problems with underhanded sales practices
and a large amount of conversions from existing single -owner condominiums
to time sharing.
LOCAL LEVEL
*Some of the major resort towns in the country have adopted time sharing
ordinances. The first and most complete is the ordinance of Sanibel Island,
Florida. Similar to other local laws regulating time sharing, it deals
with zone districts where it will be allowed and conversion of units to
time sharing. Sani.bel's ordinance is unique, however, in one respect.
They require a minimum of 7500 square feet of recreational open space per
unit for either new or converted time sharing projects. The intention .
here is to relieve city recreational facilities somewhat from what Sanibel
defines as a "high impact" use.
Where Sanibel Island will now allow time .sharing only in "resort housing"
zones, Lake Tahoe has banned it from any residential zone as a result of
considerable opposition from the citizens of that community.
IMPACTS OF TIME SHARING
From my limited amount of research on this subject, the following are nega-
time impacts or potentially negative impacts which may or may not be best
addressed through conditional use criteria or another ordinance:
1. Conversion of existing condominiums to time sharing, expeci.ally when
the time sharing units comprise only a portion of the project, has
been identified in several areas as incompatible with a single owner_
use arrangement.
• 2. The cost of maintenance of a building and grounds may be higher on
a time sharing complex (as opposed to single owner units). It has
been reported that furniture, carpeting and other fur.•nighings must
be replaced more often in time sharing units. The implication here
is that a high level of maintenance and. management sr_rvi:ces must
be available on an on- -going basis for time sharing projects to ensure
their quality.
Z gr»oi fi r,I 7_] v ;1-1 N.awai_i . E' o Die, wlio hay';: unl_ is on a single - -owner l:''a sis
r
[wst.Yl.t,:; of Research on `i`a_xito-- ;h6ir-:i.rig Regulations :1.0•a6-£3
CONCLUSION
For Vail., at this time, I believe the most appropriate step would be to
regulate conversion of existing condominiums to time sharing. Hawaii
and Sanibel Island accomplish this through requiring the applicants of
such conversions to supply documentation of the condominium association's
approval. of the proposed use. Hawaii requires 1.00% of the condo owners
to approve the conversion, where Sanibel requires a confirmation through
existing condo declarations that time sharing will or may be created within
a complex. if, in Sanibel's case, such declarations are not provided,
an amendment•to the declarations stating that time sharing will be permitted
signed by all owners of units and all who hold liens on units will be
accepted.
The other recommendation at this tame, for Vail., is to determine what,
-if any, zone districts are appropriate for time sharing. In this manner,
we may restrict time sharing to what we feel are the most compatible areas
for it.
Since time sharing is a new phenomenon, there is very little that is really
known about it. Studies axe beginning or underway, but determining what.
r-i
is: really good or bad about the concept, or use, is only just begun. l:t �ere
is a feeling on the part of many locals and state officials that this
is a different concept that needs regulation because: of its high impact.
Definition of the- sper..if ic. problems as a result of such a high impact
use are foggy, at best. Maybe this feeling was summed up best by Mayor
Duane White of Sanibel. island when he addressed his Town Council, and
a packed house of citizen, and developers of time share projects on the
night they passed their pione.er ordinance:
"I question the impact on the quality of life on Sanibel. I'm
interested in building a quality community, not a resort. I
hope we're a commnunity first, not a resort first. I'm not for
stopping time sharing, but this is my home. I'm trying to re-
concile what's going to happen on this barrier island, and to
preserve its environmental integrity. You can't tell me that
7,500 families having a week of whoopee where we thought 150
families would be, doesn't have an impact."
J
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /JIM RUBIN
DATE: 10/9/80
RE: Revised Village Center Proposal
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The revised Village Center Proposal is very similar to the first Proposal.
The first floor is identical, showing 2,900 square feet of commercial
space. The second floor is what has changed. The new proposal shows
an 850 square feet apartment that will be used as a long term rental
unit. The second floor also has 200 square feet which is to be added
to Les Streeter's apartment in Village Center Building D. This addition
is to replace the window that the new addition will remove. The plaza
to the East of the new addition remains in a similar configuration to
what was presented in the First Proposal.
A survey has been done of the area which determined that the proposed
location of the building does leave enough room for the bus lane and
a walkway.
DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the revised
plan with the following conditions:
1. That a 20 year restriction be placed on the 850 square foot apartment.
2. That the applicant is responsible for all improvements:in the plaza
to the East of the proposed addition.
3. That the applicant dedicate the necessary land for the bus lane and
walkway.
4. That the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district, if and when formed for Vail Village.
5. That the applicant agree to work with the Town in the redevelopment
of the walkway along Village Center Building D and pay for those
improvements that directly benefit his commercial space.
We feel that the revised plan is in basic conformance with the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations.
- - -_. --may
L
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT /PETER PATTEN
DATE: 10/10/80
RE: Comparison of Slope Regulations between Town of Vail
and Eagle County
COUNTY REGULATIONS
The Zone District to examine is Residential Suburban Medium Density RSM
(most of West Vail is zoned this way). The minimum lot area per dwelling
unit is 8000 sq ft of buildable site area. In the County, buildable site
area does not include slopes over 40 %, geologic hazard areas(avalanche)
or 100 year flood plain. These areas considered unbuildable are subtracted
out of the total lot area in all zone districts.
To determine the number of dwelling units allowed (5.5 /acre maximum in
RSU), the County uses what they call the "500 rule ": After the
unbuildable areas are subtracted out of the total lot area, the average___
slope of the remaining area is calculated. This figure is multiplied
by 500 to determine the minimum amount of square footage of site area
required per unit. Here's an example:
30,000 sq ft of site area;
30% or 9,000 sq ft over 40% slope;
21,000 sq ft of buildable site area;
Average slope of the 21,000 sq ft = 20 %;
20 x 500 = 10,000 sq ft needed per unit;
21,000 sq ft buildable on site, so 2 units could be built
The formula works so that
zone. This means that if
would require 8,000 sq ft
for the district. Above
per unit. in Residential
is 30%.
the threshold slope average is 16% for the RSM
the slope of the lot is 16% average, the formula
of buildable area per unit, which is the minimum
L6% average slope, more buildable area is required
Suburban Low Density, the threshold percentage
The County does not, however, draw a relationship between floor area ratio
and slope in the RSM Zone. The factor remains .30 to 1.0 or 30% of the
total lot area, no matter what the size of the lot is. Thus, a 30,000
sq ft lot could have 9,000 sq ft of floor area put on it.
Finally, in regard to building on the slope itself, the County requires
special engineering reports, etc. on any slope of 30% or more which is
proposed to be built upon. This is a staff review and is not required
to go in front of any particular board.
VAIL REGULATIONS
Basically, we do not
slope, avalanche or
or more restrictive
change handout).
subtract out, in SFR, R. and R PIS Zones, any 40%
floodplain areas. The GRFA is calculated on a stricter,
basis than the County (the GRFA formula is in the zone
In regard to building on 50% slopes, we require extra engineering reports
similar to the County. Also, some design considerations of steep slope
development are considered at DRB meetings.
E
i MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 10/9/80
RE: Request for a front setback.variance for Jerry Gart to contruct
a carport on Lot 12, Block.Z, Vail Village 1st.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
This is a request to encroach 11' into the 20' front setback requirement.
The house is an older Vail house and is already violating setback require-
ments on another portion of the structure. There is existing off- street
parking on a gravel drive where the applicant wishes to put the carport.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community.Development recommends denial of the
requested Variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity:
No negative relationships would be created by this proposal.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve coaatibility
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special rivile e:
Again, the Department of Community Development feels there must be a hardship
demonstrated to grant a variance. There is no hardship in this case.
Because the house already violates setback regulations is not a hardship
to grant another variance. The off- street parking already is there, and
so there would not be any change in number of spaces available. There
are no existing regulations for this zone district which require covered
off- street parking.
The effect of the requested variance on light and airrdistribution of
population,_ transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety:
There are no effects.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
None
FTNnTWag
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the.public
P
Gart Carport - 2 - 10/9/80
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
is The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with :the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development can find no hardship to grant
this request, so we must recommend denial.
•
0
z
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: October 9, 1980
RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Covered Bridge Store to allow
the conversion of one apartment from Residential to Commercial.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:
The second floor apartment space is approximately 540 square feet. The
intended use is as a needlepoint shop with access through a new entreyway
to be shared with the Covered Bridge Store.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Upon review of Section 18.60.060the Department of Community Development
recommends Approval of the Conditional Use Permit based upon the following
factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and impact of the use of development objectives of the Town:
As is stated in the Application, the precedent for change of use of space
originally designed for long term residential in the Core area has been
.set by the Clock Tower Building, the Liquor Store Building, and the Ore
House Building. The reason for the requested change is the amount of
night time noise created by bars and restaurants in the immediate area.
We feel that this reason is a legitimate one, and that the precedent has
already really been established. There will be one long term residential
apartment that will remain on the second level of the Covered Bridge
Store Building.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facili-
ties, and other public facilities and public facilities needs.
There should be no effect on these factors.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parkin2 areas:
There should be no effect on these factors.
Effect-ul2on the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation
to surrounding uses:
The character of the area will not be changed by this change in use.
There are some minor modifications to the exterior of the building which
. will be reviewed by the Design Review Board. In our review of these changes,
we feel that they are positive improvements to the building and do conform
with the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to
the pro2osed use:
The environmental. Jimpact report is not required.
0
I
Covered Bridge Store - 2 - 10/9/80
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
aThe Department of Community Development recommends that the Conditional
Use Permit be approved based on the following findings:
the pro2osed location of the use is in accord with the purpg
nrainannp and thc- nurnoses of the district in which the site
located.
M
health, af ety, or welfare or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would campj3rwith each of the applicable provisions
of this ordiinanGe.
We feel that, unfortunately, the era of long term residential units in
the Core is coming to an end. We would like to encourage those units
still existing to remain, but do not feel that we should require them
to do so.
The one condition of approval would be that $2,280 be paid into the
Parking Fund. This is for the increase in the Parking Requirement due
to the change of use.
n
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: October 9, 1980
RE: Setback variance request for Whitney Miskell on Lot 2, Block 2,
Vail Village 13th Filing to construct a greenhouse.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
A 7.5 foot side setback is being requested to construct a greenhouse on
an existing deck. As allowed in the zoning ordinance, a deck was constructed
halfway into the side setback on ground level. However, structures are
not allowed on these decks or in the setback area, unless a variance is
granted.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends denial of the
re guested Variance based u on the following factors
Consideration of Facators
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity:
The nearest structure is to the East about 30' from the existing deck.
The property owner to the East has submitted a written approval of the
proposal. Thus, no structures would be adversely affected.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibilit
and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit y or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege:
There has been no hardship identified in this proposal. The applicant
wishes to build a structure in the setback area. We feel, because there
is an existing deck legally in the setback, that that has no bearing upon
the request. A hardship must be demonstrated for a recommendation for
approval. The granting of this variance would be a special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on li
population, transportation and traffic fac
and utilities, and public safety.
There are no effects on these factors.
and air, distribution of
ies, public facilities
•Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the pr02Osed variance.
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting _a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
Z _ -- -- --- .4 ---1- d-1, .4.1,.. l 4-4 a - ..d - i --- -- — d-1,or ------4-4 -- ^ I ncci -F i
Miskell greenhouse - 2 10/9/80
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive, the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development must recommend denial of this
request,as no hardship has been demonstrated.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 10/8/80
RE: TERMS OF OFFICES, ETC.
Ed Dr_ager's term of office is officially over on 10/17,
and John Perkins has resigned effective 11/15. We have
advertised for applicants.
We need to appoint another PEC member to the DRB effective-:
immediately. John has attended these meetings since Jti:az.e .
lie
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Deane L. Knox has applied
for a density control variance for Casolar II, a Resubdivision
of Lot A -7, Lionsridge Filing Number 1. Application has been made
in accordance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 27, 1980 at 3:00 p.m.
before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The application and information relating to the proposed
change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during
0 regular business hours for review or inspection by the public.
JIM RUBIN
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail, October 10, 1980.
r�
. PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that James and Tina McDonald have
applied for a setback variance in order to move the building
envelope on Site 15, Casolar Vail II, a resubdivision of Lot
A -7, Lionsridge Filing 1. Application has been made in accor-
dance with Section 18.62.020 of the Vail Municipal Code.
A Public Hearing will be held in accordance with Section
18.66.060 of the Municipal Code on October 27, 1980 at 3:00 p.m.
before the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
The application and information relating to the proposed
. change is available in the Zoning Administrator's office during
regular business hours for review or inspection by the public.
JIM RUBIN
Zoning Administrator
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Published in the Vail Trail, October 10, 1980.
-:w� �:,.
=� = _
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, October 27, 1980 3:00 P.M.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10/13/80.
2. Assign member to DRB meeting.
3. McDonald setback variance
Site 15, Casolar Vail II
4. Knox, density control variance
Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7 Lionsridge #1
5. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances
Height, Density and Water Quality
6. Amendments to Conditional Use Criteria
of Zoning Ordinances
LJ
Published in the Vail Trail, October 24, 1980.
.J
MINUTES OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
. MEETING Monday, October 27, 1980 3:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gerry White
Jim Morgan
Dan Corcoran
Gaynor Miller
Ed Drager
John Perkins
Roger Tilkemeier
Jim Rubin
Peter Patten
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL MEMBER
Ron Todd
1. Dan Corcoran moved that the minutes of the meeting of October 13,1980
be approved, seconded by Ed Drager. . In favor 5 -0 (John and Roger had
not yet arrived) .
2. Dan moved and Ed seconded the appointment of Roger Tilkemeier as
member to attend DRB meetings. In favor, 5 -0. Gaynor Miller said
he would be the alternate.
3. Side Setback Variance request for Jim McDonald to move the building
envelope on site 15, Casolar Vail II.
• Peter Patten presented the explanation of the memo mailed to the members.
Jim Rubin added that when the original Casolar subdivision was presented,
it wasn't contemplated that the decks would be so close together.
Mark Donaldson representing Jim McDonald explained that the building
envelopes are tight, and that the owner is willing to risk building
near the utility line. Discussion followed about how best to make
certain that future owners would also be responsible. A deed was felt
to be inappropriate by Brian O'Reilly, who felt that a recorded notice
of this variance would be more appropropriate.
John Perkins moved that the side setback
the staff reccommendation that the owner
for solving any problems that occur with
the easement, and with a recorded notice
the motion, and the vote was 4 -1 in favor
Dan and Ed abstaining.
variance be approved with
of envelope 15 would be responsible
future sewer line work in
of this variance. Roger seconded
r (Jim Morgan against and
4. GRFA VARIANCE for Casolar II - Deane L. Knox
Jim Rubin explained the memo and some of the very complicated events
that transpired over the past several years, adding that the request
was for a 2,447 sq ft var-i.ance.Deane Knox gave his point of view, adding
that in Phase I there was less density.than permitted, and that there
were 19 units instead of 20. Deane
and Jim disagreed abut whether or not the Town had given direction
on the amounts of GRFA. Also in disagreement was the vacation of lot
lines, whether or not Knox approved some of the duplexes, how aware
of the restrictions Knox was, etc. The applicant asked to have this
request tabled, and it was tabled by the PEC.
Ir
PEC - 2 10/27/80
5. Amendments to Zoning Ordinances Height,Density and Water Quality
Jim Rubin suggested that Section 11, Hillslae Development Guidelines,
. be removed from consideration, that it was better addressed in Design
Review Guidelines and that the Design Review Section would be rewritten
in the upcoming months to include the hillside regulations among other
changes.
Density Control B. (last page). Discussion of this section included
remarks by Stuart Brown, Scott Edwards, Mason Thomas, Dean Canada,
Stuart Hollander, Jim DeMartin, Mr. Carosel.li, Mrs. Thomas and Frank
McKibben, all of whom objected to it.
Using the "Proposed Changes to the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance" dated
September 25, 1984, the members decided that:
SECTION I. HEIGHT received unanimous approval.
SECTION II. HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES:
it was decided to use the existing Hazard Ordinance, but change the
slope in the Special Restriction Section from 40% to 30%.
SECTION III. GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA -- NEW DEFINITION
Approved as proposed with 6'6" head room rather than legal headroom,
and including allowing 25 sq ft air lock (not including it in GRFA).
• SECTION IV. OTHER CHANGES TO ZONE DISTRICTS INVOLVING PERMITTED AND
CONDITIONAL USES.
Unanimous approval.
SECTION V. WATER QUALITY RECOMMENDATIONS
Approved with following changes: C.7.a. and C.8.c. 5 acres shall
be changed to 2 acres, and paragraph D. B. 7. is removed.
SECTION IV. NEW APPEAL PROCEDURES
Unanimous approval.
SECTION VII A CHANGES TO DENSITY CONTROL
The vote to approve the revised GFRA factor as proposed was taken.
John Perkins had left just before the vote. The vote was 3 -3 with
Gerry, Jim and Gaynor voting against the proposal, while Ed, Dan and
Roger voted for.
SECTION VII B The PEC was presented with 4 options(see next page).
Six of the PEC members voted for Option B, with Ed Drager favoring
Option C.
PEC - 3 - 10 -27 -80
OPTIONS for Section VII B.
A. Proposed in Handout
1. Eliminate 40% slope, high hazard avalanche, and 100 year flood -
plain from affected lots before calculating GRFA in Single Family
and Two Family Zone Districts.
2. Lots with less than 8,000 square feet of buildable lot area
to be allowed 2,000 square feet of GRFA.
3. Allowed to build on 40% slope in accordance with Special Re-
strictions Section.
B. Existing in Current Zoning Ordinance
1. Parts of lots in single family and two family zone districts
in 40% slope, high hazard avalanche, and 100 year flood plain
are counted in calculating allowable GRFA.
2. No development allowed in 100 year flood plain or high hazard
avalanche. Development allowed on 40% slopes in accordance with
Special Restrictions section.
C. Proposed in Handout with Changes .
• 1. Same as A, except that maximum size of a unit allowed on a
lot affected by 40% slope, 100 year flood plain or high hazard
avalanch is changed from 2,000 square feet to either 3,500 or
4,000 square feet.
D. Proposed in Handout with Changes
1. Same as P, except that 40% slope areas, 100 year flood plain
areas, and high hazard avalanche areas would only have a 50%
reduction in calculating allowable GRFA.
•
PEC - 4 - 10 -27 -80
6. Amendments to Conditional Use Criteria of Zoning Ordinances
r18.60.060 Criteria - Findings
Peter Patten had just returned from a time -share study trip, and
stated that he had much to share later, but at the moment felt
very strongly that 100% of the owners rather than 75% (as stated in
the memo) should agree in writing to the proposed time share.use.
Ed Drager moved that this amendment be forwarded to the Town Council
with the 75% changed to read "100 % ". Dan Corcoran seconded, and the
vote was unanimous (6 -0).
The meeting adjourned at 7:05 p.m.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: October 23, 1980
RE: GRFA Variance for Casolar II
APPLICANT: Deane L. Knox
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
A copy of the description of the Variance being requested is enclosed.
The staff finds several discrepancies in this description that they
wanto to address.
1. The applicant was informed before Casolar II was approved that the
property line between lots A7 and A8 could not be vacated because the
two lots were in two different zone districts.
2. The request for approval of Casolar II never contained any reference
to the left over GRFA from Casolar I.
-� 3. The 1,400 square feet per unit was always considered as an estimate,
with a 40% slope study needing to be completed before the actual square
footage could be determined.
4. The Town Staff requested on numerous occasions that the Slope study
be completed so that the square footage could be determined. This Slope
study was not given to the Staff for over one year following the approval
of Casolar II. Because of the slope analysis not being complete, the
covenants for Phase II were never approved by the Town.
5. The applicant was fully aware that the slope analysis had to be com-
pleted. The Staff was never asked to figure the Square Footage. It was
finally done as a courtesy to Mr. Knox.
6. The Town Staff has recalculated the Square Footage on the Carling
Duplex and has determined that its Square Footage does comply with the
3,380 that was originally proposed.
7. Since the filing of this application, two more duplexes have been
approved by Mr. Knox with a GRFA of 3,380 square feet. This does leave
933 square feet for the remaining duplex site.
8. The staff believes that they have been up front in this whole sequence
of events. Even if the 1,400 square feet per unit (the pre slope analysis
number) is used, this would only permit the remaining unit to be 1,234
square feet. We, however, believe that the applicant was totally aware
that the final number would not be determined until after the requested
slope analysis was completed.
I
Xnox Casolar II - 2 - 10/23/80
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
.
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Communiity Development recommends denial of the
requested variance based upon the followinq factors.
Consideration of Factors
The r.elationshi2 of the re nested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity:
Under Town of Vail zoning, square footages of buildings are checked very
closely with no variations permitted.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interj2retation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve compati-
bility-and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attai
the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
An increase in allowable square footage in a multi - family zone would in
our opinion be a grant of a special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
o ulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities, -public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
There are no effects on these factors.
• Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
There are no other factors deemed applicable.
T? TMitT TNT(-'-q -
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
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. .
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or selfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
n
Knox Casolar II -- 3 - 10/23/80
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applica-
ble to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Community Development recommends denial.of this request.
We find the applicant's description to be in error and find no ground
for approving it.
AL
p - r +
Town of Vail
Jim Rubin Zoning Administrator
Town Council
Planning Commission
Casolar Project in Vail has run into a problem concerning the GRFA on
phase II. I would like to review the transistion of events for your
review.
1. In 1977 the town reviewed and approved the following.
A. "Envelope" concept for the Lion's Ridge Lots
A -8 and A -9, R.C. zoning.
S. Vacation of property line thus combining total
square footage and establishing a gross GRFA of
35,740 square feet or 1775 sq. ft. per unit
x 19 units (Exhibit A Toughill's note).
C. We established a plan of 9 duplex "envelopes" and
one single family envelope. However, we reduced
the 1775 GRFA per to 1690 GRFA thus picking up
an additional 85 sq.ft plus an additional 2015
sq. ft. GRFA or a total of 3630 sq. ft. of un-
used GRFA.
Please note the purpose of this plan was to combine this surplus GRFA
with Phase II (Lot A -7) to give us the necessary GRFA for the planned
eleven units of 1690 GRFA each (four duplex and one triplex). During
this term of the previous zoning administrator this was discussed. A
repeat of the same A -8, A -9, process was suggested for phase II. The
same review and suggestion was made by the incumbant 7.A. When we sub-
mitted the phase II plan in 1978. The R.C. concept in phase II, was
identical to phase I, was declared in the planning commissions minutes
of Aug. 22, 1978. (Exhibit B.)
The approval of Phase II was however not inclusive of the additional GRFA
from Phase I due the existance of the property line that we neglected to
vacate. This was brought to my attention by the Z.A. Because the zoning
of Lot A -7 is LDMF the GRFA was approved at 1400 GRFA per unit: (inclusive
of an estimated 40% slope area). We requested a slope study at that time.
In 1977 and 1978 the declaration and restrictive covenants were reveiwed,
changed, and finally approved by the town of Vail based on 1690 sq. ft.
GFRA per unit. We did not vacate the A -7, A -8, 9 lot line because of
numerous changes.
The town in a letter to Casolar and Transamerica suggested a final plan
be submitted when all changes such as envelope adjustments etc. are finalized.
In 1979 we were told verbally that Casolar II could not vacate the property
line to absorb the additional footage to reach our planned 1690 GRFA per
unit.
On June 4, of 1980, we finally received the re- evaluation of our long
awaited slope plan. We were reduced to approximately 1220 GRFA per unit
in Phase II, eight months from your receipt of plans by Richard's Engineering
. we responded with the letter of June 20, 1980. (Exhibit "E ").
Page 2
Last year we as well as the town approved 1690 GRFA for Phase II units.
. All zone check work sheets show the allowed GRFA as 1690 (Exhibit "F ")
approved by the town.
We now realize that town officials initially concluded that the zoning
on phase I and phase 11 were the same thus allowing the merger of the
two phases. This denial of the original direction given us by the town
has placed us in an extremely precarious position with our present owners.
Of the five envelopes
triplex with 1342 GRF,
questionable overage.
requested a 1690 GRFA
a reduced GRFA of 933
- 933).
in Phase II, two are
4 per unit and lot 14
Duplex lots 13 and
per unit allocation.
sq. ft. A reduction
in construction. Lot II, a
a duplex with 1690 plus a
15 are in planning stage and have
This leaves lot 12 a duplex with
of 2447 sq. ft. of GRFA (3380
At this writing most of the above is academic, but the factors must be
dealt with.
1. The project was approved for 1400 sq. ft. per unit and was the
enforced limit.
2. The town authority after an unreasonable delay further reduced
the GRFA. This followed town approval of two structures in
excess of the initial limitations.
3. The town has ignored the limitations it has granted on both
GRFA catagories and granted approvals of sturctures in excess
of the limitations.
4. The town further approved one triplex and four duplex lots.
The net results of the last site has been squeezed down and
is impractical to use as a duplex site.
5. Therefore, the entitlement of site 12 as a duplex has been
taken away from Casolar by the arbitrary granting of excess
floor area in total disregard of the limitations.
We have planned within Casolar a small non - sprawling community with
dedicated recreastion area, a solar concept, and a larger common area.
We don't believe that our request is unreasonable and beg your indulgence
to consider this variance.
n
LJ
:1
0
Orr A.)
7 7
-71
--5�
X/C
. 0
-7 7
Miti utes -PEC
August 22, 1978
pg. G
1 M, 7 14L 131,
C01-1,Jna and feels the lot is too close to the creek.
C
)?d Drager then questioned whether there should be a streamside
setljri.cl.•
1{oger Tilkemeier felt that to ansyrer all the questions
brollf" 1i, up today this matter should be tabled until the next
re,,11] s,,r•l.y scheduled meeting. His Uotion is to table
thv )t,t: Bank of Vail request for a Conditional Use Permit and
Par(tJ.r1(, Variance until the Planning & Environmental Commission
,Ile C,4J.r1(, scheduled for September 12, 1978. Gerry White seconded
itla Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to table this matter.
7,he 4th item.on the agenda, Wedel Inn -- Rezoning from
Public Accommodation to CCl has been withdrawn by the applicant.
The Commission requested that item number six be
discussed at this time. Casolar Vail II - R_ equest for Resubdivision
of l,ot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing 1. --
Deane Knox and Harold Engstrom were present to speak to
the Commission. They explained their proposal which is basically
U townhouse concept. Their proposal is for 2,400 sq. ft. duplex
lots and one 3,200 sq, ft, triplex lot. The units will be 1,400
sq. ft. GRFA and the density meets the Zoning Ordinance requirements
urt stated by Jim Rubin. Their access will be from Sandstone Road
and Vail View Drive. The covenants have architectural controls.
Ron Todd made the ?lotion to approve Casolar Vail II request
for Resubdivision of Lot 7, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No, 1
uK It is in accordance with the cluster housing concept and
hiu, been recommended for approval by the Department of Community
D'U'Velopment. Gerry White seconded the Motion and the Commission
voted unanimous approval.
Item 5 on the agenda was then discussed. Cooper -- L'ots
and 20 -2 (Resub. Lot 20) Bighorn Subdiv, request for
���:�t.zor� oaf lot line between these t��o lots.
The owner wants'to.work with this site as a whole.
are two Residential Cluster sites, 9 units are permitted
t�..� C- 11 "Icr is putting only 7 units on the site.
il'lle 'Conlmission asks for the owner's reasoning on this request.
Vxpl.ained during discussion that it may be more feasible
IIIfl ilt o the lot line making one single site so that they
i "111y have to have one driveway for access to the project.
7s
11oted that the plan is to save trees on the site by arranging
i dings around the existing trees_ The Design Review Board
pv% i" 'Ill'oved this plan. The Commission feels the plan as a single
�t
Is a good idea and gives the project more flexibility.
__ li0111'er Tilkemeier made the Motion to approve the vacation
L`
town a
box 100
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -5613
June 2, 1980
Deane Knox
1 Downing Street
Denver, CO S+E"
Re: Casolar II Square Footage
Dear Deane:
department of community development
This letter is to let you know what square footage still
remains for Casolar II, and how we are allocating it. If
you desire to have it allocated differently, please let me
know.
Lot Area
Slope over 40%
Net Developable
GRFA Factor
GRFA Used
Carling
Kintzing
TOTAL GRFA remaining
TOTAL Units remaining
TOTAL GRFA per unit 1,220 1)
Unless we hear differently rom you, this is the square
footage per unit that we are using for zoning purposes.
5� It( &. ('v V"IT -v
53,753 square feet
3,485 (per Richards Engineering 9- 20 -79)
50,3$4 square feet
.30
7,759
3,732
4,02'
7,321
-6-
Sincerely,
4
.James A. Rubin
`� Zoning Administrator
1
•
•
%(S11
Jim Rubin
Zoning Adminiotrator
Box 100
vail, d0 31657.
June 20, 1930
Dear Jim,
Thank you aTteruraraportoan0asnu�er ;ofhitemsrp z am
etill concern your
1. The maximum GRFA as de:.±Lnated in our declarRtion is
maximuat difasecf.I smendmentoto Phase�Ildoes notOstato
maximum. ph
rjZFA but relates to Phase z.
sn . f't. )
2. .,'e approved Cari`n{- on maxfn.url iscr to cY which � will
GRFA, and there seeds to be a discrepancy
pursue with Carling. .
3. As you may recall, we were to be allowed a g-ross lot
(Phase I & 11) area since we have an over abundance of
square footage on 1 ha.se T and since all three lots
have been combined into one project with i.nterconnectinR-
roads throughout the project. As you brought to my
attention, there is s difference in zoning between
embining.
A.-71 A -8 and A--9 ohich would disallow any
I would like to requeot a�study and possible varice
pp ncedto
thin problem as sae wrOta the dgclaration by
the tzAn and of course sold the lots on that basis. Also# :
pleaso notd that part of the I ;e slope was excavation from the
road that has been rerlovad. Should we review' the Richard's
Engineering report? ,
I will be up Friday, June 27th an3 will stop by to review
possibilities with you.
=. 4
1
I '
4 1
Doane L. Knox
DLK/la - ;'
C?
Env i ronm,nta I /Ha zards: Avalanche
Flood Main
S1 Ope
6 c,,-O (,--
Zoning: A;,)pro%/e(1/Disc11 jP1'Ov('d-, Date:
ZO: 11 L 111 TI,
cl
T=—X4A1 5 r-
for
SM %
[,/S MINE
D) STIZI C TS
Jon
Legal Description: Lot
Block
ing 0
Omer r
Or
Archi feet
Zone Dis'l-Tict
Proposed
U
Use
Lot Ai-(.!a
Height Allwdud
301 Proposed
Setbacks: 1-1-011,L-Required H'
Proposed
Sides.-Required -15'
Proposed
Rear -Required 15'
Proposed
I.,!aterccurse-required
Proposed
GRFA: Allowed
Propot-led �—
�����- t!'J --
GITA: Primary Al I ov.lcd
Primary Proposed
Secondary Al I owed
Secondary Proposed
Site Coverage: Al I a-,jed
Proposed
tandscap,hig Required
Proposed
PdrI, ing Required
Proposed
Slaps Pex-mitted
Slope zlctuz�,_J_
Env i ronm,nta I /Ha zards: Avalanche
Flood Main
S1 Ope
6 c,,-O (,--
Zoning: A;,)pro%/e(1/Disc11 jP1'Ov('d-, Date:
0
� 0
7,
-) iU
� e �, u
�7.�
�IZsb
2
-------------
0
� 0
7,
-) iU
� e �, u
I
NO of V
box 100
nail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -5613
November 4, 1977
Mr. Deane Knox
800 Washington
Denver, Co, 80203
office of the town manager
Re: Lots 8 and 9, Block A, Lionsridge Filing No. 1
Dear Deane;
This is to confirm that all zoning and subdivision requirements have been
met for the proposed Casolar project, The Planning Commission and Town
• Council have approved the vacation of the property line and easement be-
tween the two lots; however; the plat must be filed with Eagle County.
Design Review Board has given conceptual approval for the entire project
and final approval for Phase I. Each phase will require final approval
from Design Review Board,
The project may be condominimized or townhoused so long as the land is
not further subdivided. A townhouse approach may divide the land directly
under a unit if the balance of the land is held as a common element.
If you have further questions, please contact me.
Sincerely,
DEPART T OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
na S. Toughill
Zoning Administrator
•
�a
f . 500 : st L 's--: „tt rcv::;uc Tel. 837 -1091 Dcnver, Colorado 60203 1
:1i ;', ;;o,: T 71. E :.:I. 831 -7G13 Der,vcr, Colo,-;,:;o 30203
Av. Va „iarta 1:;03 -202 ici. 25 -93 -97 Guadalajara, Jai., i iexico
- i
_ :, c,,ora Juluapan, Ltd.
•
� 0__ I
Ms. Diane Toughill
Town of Vail
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Diane:
36 tt
April 6, 1978
i
-7
Attached you will find a check for $100.00 and a plan
of the Casolar Del Norte site.
I would like to outline briefly the events leading up
to this application for variance. In 1977 we had received
conceptual approval of the entire project from Design Review
Board based on a condominimized or townhouse approach (attached
copy)-
In reviewing the concept both with Transamerican Title,
lending sources, and Council, a problem arose as to just what
is the prospective buyer receiving.' How is he protected
and what are his limitations?
Using the townhouse concept we developed site locations
that we shall call Envelopes. The Envelope was to be the
site which the buyer was allowed to design and build a struc-
ture. He was given six months to submit plans. After approval
a survey was to be provided to establish the parimeters of
the foundations and finally, a deed issued showing what the
buyer really bought. (Attached declaration and restrictive
covenants).
The problem's that have been created by this form are as
follows:
1. The purchaser of a site does not really own anything
until submission and approval of plans. This may
take considerably more time than six months.
2. Title corlpanies will not insure title until survey.
Therewore,e purchaser is unprotected during the
interim.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 24, 1980 3:00 p.m.
STUDY SESSION: 2:00 p.m.
1. Continue discussion of activating a study area and amendment to the
Vail Village and Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
2. Discussion of horizontal zoning for Vail Village & Vail Lionshead.
REGULAR SESSION: 3:00 p.m.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 11- 10 -80.
2. Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit
(Printery Building)
3. Knox, density control variance
Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge #1
• 4. Request for Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of a proposed new
library building on Lot 5, Block 1, a Resubdivision of Lot 1, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 2nd Filing, (by the Dobson Ice Arena).
5. Request for an Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to remove time -share estate units,
fractional fee units and time -share license units from the Conditional Uses section
in the Public Accommodations Zone District.
a
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
46 Monday, November 24, 1980 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Gerry White
Gaynor Miller
Roger Tilkemeier
Dan Corcoran
Duane Piper
Scott Edwards
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT
Ron Todd
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 11- 10 -80.
Gaynor moved to approve minutes, seconded by Roger. The vote was 2 -0,
all of the others abstaining.
2.Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit.
Peter Patten explained that there was no memo, and that the letters
received from the Sandstone 70 condominium association, and from Vail
Guides, and copies of the original Planning minutes and memo explained
the problem. He added that excessive vehicles and not adhering to the
Ororiginal agreement by Vail Guides not to store any vehicles there, seemed
to be the major problem.
Jim Rea, owner of Vail Guides, Inc., addressed the Commission to point
out that until he received a copy of the letter from Sandstone 70 to
the Planning Commission, he had not been aware of any problem. He admitted
that sometimes there had been too many vehicles, and that he planned
to modify the employee manual and make clear that this is not to happen
again. He explained that drivers park to come in to get their instructions,
perhaps 10 -15 minutes.
Bill Pierce, President of Sandstone 70 Condos read from the letters and
minutes that Peter referred to, adding that the vehicles block the South
access. He stated that Sandstone's agreement eith the Printery Building
was that 9 parking spaces was for the Printery from 8 -5. Ted Martin,
an owner in Sandstone and a Vail fireman stated that the number of vehicles
from Vail Guides presented a problem with fire access.
Dan Corcoran added that some of the Vail Guide vehicles had been observed
parking on the Frontage Road as well.
Several commission members suggested that the two parties should get
together to try to solve the problem themselves. Bill and Jim agreed.,
and Bill Pierce asked to have the matter tabled until January 12 when
they would bring back a mutual agreement containing conditions agreed
to.
Roger T Moved that the issue be tabled,,..Dan seconded it, and the vote
was 6 -0, unanimous.
w
>.A NOTES
REGULAR MEETING
ir
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL APRIL 18, 1978 page three
The next matter for Council consideration was a request from Vail Guides, Inc. for
amendment to the Printery Building conditional use permit to allow a business office.
r Mayor Slifer introduced Jim Rea who explained the need for the amendment, to allow his
l offices to exist in that building. There was a brief discussion regarding traffic and
parking. The Council clarified that permission would be granted only for an office to
exist and that no storage of vehicles could take place and that only one taxi could be
present on the premises at any time. Councilmember Heimba c moved to approve the
amendment; Councilmember Palmateer seconded the motion; all present voted in favor and
the motion passed.
There uas a five minute break in the meeting
The meeting reconvened at 9:40 pm for a discussion regarding the proposed latest Vail
Incorporation. Mayor Slifer introduced Dick Gustafson and covered the background leading up
to the current discussions between the West Vail Community and the Town of Vail. Dick
Gustafson then explained the process of the West Vail Association in examination of the
alternatives and their efforts to negotiate a merger with the Town of Vail. He stated the
considerations to be 1) The districting of the new town area 2) The sales Tax Question and
what effects there would be in the food area, and 3) The Bonded Indebtedness_ questions.
He further explained the process of the Association since the last meeting with Council and
stated that the members of the Board of the hest Vail Association had voted unaminously to
incorporate and stated that he hopes a compromise could be made with the Town of Vail since
both groups had a common goal for consolidation of the Valley.
C There was a lengthy discussion regarding the bonded indebtedness legalities and the
consideration of consolidation or merger and what would happen to the Home Rule Charter.
Larry Rider stated that lie believed there were too many obstacles for consolidation to
be a viable alternative. The discussion continued covering questions regarding which
items would be negotiable, what the voter qualifications would be, the trust of the
community and valley residents for the Town Council and Town Staff, which alternatives
would be fair and acceptable to all parties involved. Mr. Gustafson restated that he
hopes the Council and the Association will be able to work toward a solution. Mayor Slifer
thanked the group for coming and discussing the matter publicly and pledged to continue the
negotiations with the Association.
0
The next matter for Council consideration was the presentation to
petitions requesting the continuance of the Bighorn and Sandstone
Slifer accepted the petitions and stated that as soon as the revers
a decision would be made regarding the service for the spring and
was a general discussion regarding what the alternatives might be.
requested ferry Minger to have Bob Manzanares put together figures
service and pledged to have an answer for the riders at the next
Council of citizen
bus service. Mayor
ues have been examined,
summer months. There
Councilmember Donovan
for a l imi ted, . or commuter
meeting.
There being no further business for the Council, Councilmember Donovan moved to adjourn;
Councilmember Wil to Seconded; All present voted in favor and the motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 10:50 P.M.
ATTEST:
MAYOR
Page 4.
MINUTES
PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION 4/11/78
ADhigh hazard rock fall, and he also feels that a third geologist should be hired
to do another study. Diana Toughill stated that the staff agrees with these
conditions and others in Larry Rider's statements,
After further discussion, Pam Garton asked whether this really
is the best: useage of this site, that perhaps by putting the 60 units
on-one end of the site would create an unbalances; look to the situ, and do
we really want to lock ourselves into site development that may r,4:,t be ideal.
The architect then questioned whether there would be that much
reduction to the Site as described by Ron Todd, Diana Toughill stated that
anything over 40% slope and high hazard rock fall will be deducted from the
buildable area and it reduces allowable GRFA and number of units.
The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request to rezone
Lots 1 -6, Block C, Lionsridge t=iling No, 1 from Residential Cluster (RC) to
Medium Density Multiple- Family (i51DMF) subject to the following conditions:
1.) That the employee housing units would be developed upon terms and conditions
mutually acceptable to the Town and applicant, provided, however, that the
applicant would receive no more than 60 Building Permits for construction
of the condominium dwelling units unless and until such an agreement as to
the employee housing units had been entered into with the Town of Vail; and,
2,) Conditional upon the proportional reduction of buildable land area from
normal slope and high hazard rock fall; and, 3.) Conditional upon vacation of
Vill all lot lines. This Motion seconded by Roger Tilkemeie•r. The vote was (6)
members in favor with (1) member, Sandy Mills, opposing, This Motion carried
and they will now go before Council.
Vail Guides, Inc. Request for amendment to Printed Building Conditional
Use Permit to allow use of west portion of bu'ildin fok a business office.
Chairman Drager had to leave to attend another meeting and
Gerry White chaired the rest of the meeting of the Planning Commission.
The next item on the agenda, Vail Guides, Inc., request for amendment to Printery
Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of west portion of building for
business office. dim Rea, owner of Vail Guides, Inc., addressed the Commission
and assured them that no vehicles will be stored on site, just spaces for
his employees during the day, and a taxi will be parked there off and on between
runs.. He will have 2 to 3 employees possible, but most of the time there gill
be only one employee there using a parking space,
Scott Hopman asked Mr, Rea where he was planning on parking his
fleet; Mr. Rea answered that he doesn't really know at this time, he may be
able to use Gold Peal: going through Vail Associates, Inc. He added that the
Sandstone Condominium Association has approved the use of the office space in
the Printery Building.
The Motion was made by Ron Todd to approve the request for amendment
to the Printery Building Conditional Use Permit to allow use of the west portion
of the building for a business office subject to the recommendations by the staff
that no on site vehicle storage will be allowed. Roger Tilkemeier seconded the
Motion and the Commission voted unanimously to approve.
•
Sandstone 70 Con' domninium Association
P. (]. 33ax :1.706
Vail, Colorado 81657
October. 1.4, 1 -980
Vail Planning Commission
'own of Vail
Box. 1.00
Vail, Co 81 -657
Dear. Commission Members,
on behalf of the Sandstone 70 Condominium Association,
I request that a formal hearing of your board be held to
review the Condition Use t'ermit granted Vail Guides, Inc.
several. years ago. Vail. Guides, Inc. occupies a portion
of the Printery building located at the northwest corner
of the North Frontage Road and Red Sandstone Road in the
Town of Vail. The Printery building shares a -total of 7
parking spaces with the Sandstone f'0 Condominium Association
with mutual. consent. The seven parking spaces are for use
of all customers and employees of the Printery building and
are intended for normal passenger 'vehicles.
At the time that the Conditional Use Permit was granted
Vail Guides, Inc., we felt that the operation was small
enough to be compat -lble with the residential character of
our rxe. ' ' hood. Due to apparent growth of Vail. Guides
Inc. and the elaboration of their services, we feel_ that
the use is no longer compatible with the residential
character of Sands-tone 70 Condominium Association for the
fol-lowing reasons:
A. The number of vehicles controlled by Vail Guides often:,
exceeds the number agreed to for the entire Printery
building. building and
B. The parking spaces shared by the Printery g
pied by Vaal Guides Inc.
Sandstone 70 are customarily occu
outside the ?,ou rs agreed to .
C. In Fact, access to Sandstone 70 through our south parking
access is of-ten, blocked by vehicle-s controlled by Vail
Guides, Inc.. This is bath an inconvenience and a clanger.
in that this access is often closed -to emergency.,. vehic:l_ec,
as well as vehicles owned by persons residx; in Sandstone
70 Condominiums.
D. V011cles -such as buses, over.l.y l r ;e limasixzes ,saris, trucks,
sides,; Inc: p area
Find other equ i-pn�era t carrtrol. led by Va s.l C _ .
often parked on our property. These with isles .remain beyoraci
f .
agreed upon hours 9 obstruct access., prevent v.is:cia1. ob
structions for use oI' our d.ri.vcway and are'
one�70- Condobminii:m
with 'the resi- dential. character of Sandstone 7
Association. � given above I would again request your
For the reasons
to this matter at your cat "'Ost conveni enc e . -
would 1 i i{ e resolution of this matter before winter. arr'i-ves
i�r f
- _.andstone 70 Condominium Association
�- _-- -- -_-- --- _..�._ -- ._�. ----- — F.- O. Box 3.206
Vail; Colorado 81657
I am looking forward to hearing from you soon.
-Respectfully .yours,
r
William Pierce
President
827 -5677
cc: Mayor, Town of Vail
Mown Man,.ger, Town of Vail
Zoning Administrator, Town of Vail
0
TO PLANNING COi•t,1ISSION
• FRUi1 KPARTM NT OF COMMUNITY . DEVELOPMEN ,
DAVE 10 April 1978
REF Vail Guides Inc. Application to Amend Conditional USE,
Permit _ Priqjjgry Building.
Jim Rea has applied for an Amendment to tile, existing Conditional
Use Permit at the Printery Building. He proposes to use Viestern
por t i on of the bui l di nq as office space foj° Vail Guides, In =P .
BeforLh acting on a Condi ti o'nal Use Permit application, the
Plann ing CoMi ssi on shall consider the fol l owi nq factors with respect
to the proposed use:
Relationship and impact; of the-use oil developrlent; ol.jectives
of the Town. r
The existing office space in the Printe
Building does not seem to have a detrimental effect on the
residential neighborhood. Use of the subject space as
outlined in the letter of April 6, 1978, seems to be in
_ keeping with other office uses in the building and with
the residential character of the neighborhood.
2.) The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, scia ool s ,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities,
and public facilities needs, we foresee no adverse effects
_ on these factors..
3,) The effect upon traffic, with particular reference to
con�]c- �stion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
traffic flow and control, access, -q aneuverability, and removal
of snow from the streets and parking areas. The.appployee
states that each permanent employee (estimated 3 ei�lployees)
will need a parking space during business hours, plus one
parking space for a taxi cab also during business hours.
As a condition of granting the Conditional Use PoriSait we strongly
recommend that no storage of Vail Guides, Inc. vehicles be allowed
on the site either during business hours or at night.
4.) The effect "Pon the character of the area in which the proposed
use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the
proposed use in relation to surroubdinrg uses. See item no. I
above.
r,,) Such other factors and criteria. as the Commission docas ppl i cab l e
to the proposed use. if mobile radios are to be used as part
of the operation, visible ant (ennae should not be a i Mowed on the
building.
' ngs before
I ie P1 anni ng Comm followllg find
. granting a Conditional Use Permit.
1.) That the proposed location of the, use is in accordance with the
f Page 2
`
MEMORANDUM
PLANNING
COMMISSION 4/10178
f
purposes of this title and the purposes of the-District
in which the site is located. See Item No. l under criteria
and findings.
pt
2.)
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
i
under which it would be operated or maintained will not
be detrimental to the public health, safety:, i }i welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or i Hip ro—vements in the
vicinity.
3.)
That the proposed use will comply with each o f the applicable
provisions of this title.
The
Department of Community Development recommends approval of
the amendment
to the Conditional Use Permit with the provision that no' ...
�.
on -site
vehicle storage be allowed. '.
•
I•
VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 186
VAIL, COLO 81657
DEAR MEMBERS:
C�Ilj I
APRIL 6, 1978
Scenic Jeep T Ips I
VAIL.. GUIDES, INC. WISHES TO APPLY TO AMMEND THE CONDITIONAL
Limousine
USE PERMIT ON THE PRINTERY BUILDING IN THE LIONSRIDGE AREA
AS TO PERMIT VAIL GUIDES, INC _. USE OF THE WESTERN. PORTION
Servicu
OF THAT BUILDING AS OFFICE SPACE. _.
VAIL GUIDES, INC., IS IN- THE TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS' AND --
PROVIDE=S YEAR ROUND TAXI SERVICE IN VAIL. AND TO ALL OTHER': ".
PARTS OF THE STATE. IN ADDITION, IN THE SUMMERS
GUIDES OPERATES A SIGHTSEEING AND TOUR BUSINESS, AND IN
Breakfast, Lunch
THE WINTER, A LIMOUSINE SERVICE BETWEEN VAIL AND DENVER
Dinner Cookouts
STAF'LETON AIRPORT. THE INTENDED USE OF THE PRINTERY
BUILDING BY VAIL GUIDES, INC., WOULD BE AS OFFICE USE ONLY.
WE ANTICIPATE, DEPENDING ON THE TIME OF YEAR, ONE TO THREE:,
FULL TIME EMPLOYEES USING THE SPACE DURING NORMAL BUSINESS
HOURS. WE ANTICIPATE DURING CERTAIN PERIODS OF THE SUMMER-'--.-
AND MINTER, THE OFF=ICE WOULD BE OCCUPIED FROM APPROXIMATELY
TrorscbackPlaing
7 - :00 A.M. UNTIL 8:00 P.M.'
IN SO FAR AS PARKING IS CONCERNED WE ANTICIPATE THAT EACH
OF THE PERMANENT EMPLOYEES MAY REQUIRE PARKING SPACE DURING
THE DAY, PLUS SPACE FOR PARKING ONE TAXI CAB DURING THE LAY.
WE DO NOT ANTICIPATE THAT THE AREA WOULD BE USED FOR GENERAL
PARKING. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT-THE GENERAL STORAGE OF
Fishing
VEHICLES IS POSSIBLE IN THIS OR ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREA
WITHIN VAIL.
IN SO FAR AS TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED, VIRTUALLY ONE HUNDRED
PERCENT OF OUR RESERVATIONS ARE MADE BY TELEPHONE. WE DO
NOT EXPECT OUR USE OF THIS SPACE TO ATTRACT SUBSTANTIAL,
Elk11unting
ADDITIONAL TRAF=FIC TO THE AREA. THERE WILL OF COURSE BE
THE TRAFFIC NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ANY OFFICE OPERATION.
HOWEVER, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT THIS WILL CAUSE A PROBLEM
OR HARDSHIP FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE AREA.
Ski Bobbing
F. 0. Boy. 1474 a Fail, Colorado 81657 0 303/476 -5337 o PUC 10492 PU'C 7321
_ ...... _. __.. _ .. ...: .� .. ... -.+ w .- .....� ._.. ..... a ....a.-- ..w.�.a . -.. ... <_..�..- tea._... ..t......._. :�:. k. ��..a 4r.. �.. •.r aas...�m4a..w a.....1._r......
3
ON THURSDAY, APRIL G, 197, I MET WITH THE BOARD .OI~ D I RECTORS
OF THE SANDSTONE 70 CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION; WHO VOTED TO
j SUPPORT THE ABOVE REQUEST.
IN SUMMARY, WE BELIEVE THAT OUR USE OF THE PRINTERY BUILDING
CONSTITUTES AN ACCEPTABLE USE FOR THE SPACE AND ASK THAT
THE PRESENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT BE AMMENDED TO ALLOW1 US TO
OCCUPY THE WEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING. �
RESPEc- rFULLY . YOURS,e
JAMES B. REA
VAIL GUIDE INC.
JBR /LN
CC
ii
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Construction of a library
building South of the John Dobson Ice Arena.
DESCRIPTION OF USE:
Proposed is a library building containing 16,170 square feet of library
uses and three employee housing units. The library design was selected
by Town Council last January, and the Council, Town Librarian and architects
have been refining interior plans and exterior materials for the past
few months.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Upon review of Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the Department
of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use request
based on the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationshi and impact of the use of develo ment objectives of the Town:
• The site where the library is proposed was one of the three or four areas
studied for this use a couple of year ago. At that time, it was determined
the site across from the Dobson arena was the best location. The library
use will be on one level with the employee housing units at the lower
level to the west.
0
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and Rublic facilities needs.
There should be no effect on these factors.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation
to surrounding uses;
The library building is a low profile structure that will look like a
landscaped area from the north.
Effect
anul euesLrlan saiezy ana convenience, 'Crarric riow aria control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas:
Parking for the staff of the library and employee housing units will be
provided east of the Dobson Arena. People who will use the library have
the opportunity to use the bus service that has a bus stop directly in
front of the library, walk to the library or park at the new Lionshead
Parking Center.
FROM:
Department of
Community Development
DATE:
November 21,
1980
RE: A Conditional Use Request for the Construction of a library
building South of the John Dobson Ice Arena.
DESCRIPTION OF USE:
Proposed is a library building containing 16,170 square feet of library
uses and three employee housing units. The library design was selected
by Town Council last January, and the Council, Town Librarian and architects
have been refining interior plans and exterior materials for the past
few months.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Upon review of Section 18.60.060 of the Zoning Regulations, the Department
of Community Development recommends approval of the Conditional Use request
based on the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationshi and impact of the use of develo ment objectives of the Town:
• The site where the library is proposed was one of the three or four areas
studied for this use a couple of year ago. At that time, it was determined
the site across from the Dobson arena was the best location. The library
use will be on one level with the employee housing units at the lower
level to the west.
0
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities schools, parks and recreation
facilities, and other public facilities and Rublic facilities needs.
There should be no effect on these factors.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to
be located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation
to surrounding uses;
The library building is a low profile structure that will look like a
landscaped area from the north.
Effect
anul euesLrlan saiezy ana convenience, 'Crarric riow aria control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas:
Parking for the staff of the library and employee housing units will be
provided east of the Dobson Arena. People who will use the library have
the opportunity to use the bus service that has a bus stop directly in
front of the library, walk to the library or park at the new Lionshead
Parking Center.
IPEC - Library - 2 - 11 -21 -80
PINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Community Development Department recommends that the Conditional
Use Permit be approved based upon the factors stated above. The building
does fit into the environment surrounding the site. In addition, this
site has been determined as the future library site for Vail. .
U
J
Snowdon and Hopkins Architects
•
'Gore
2a1 creek Drive 303 476 -•2201
P.O. Box 1938 Vail, colorado 81657
November 4, 1980. THE TOWN
OF VAIL LIBRARY
11/4/80 -s.f.
Library
Adult
Fiction and Non Fiction
2300•s.f. _
Reference Cbllection/Desk
14QO s.f.
Audio Visual Collection/Desk
500 s.f.
Card Catalogue
575 s.f.
Periodical Display and Reading.
• 600 s.f.
Adult Reading
1.025 s: f .
Study Room
140 s . f .
Periodical Storage
300 s.f.
General.Circulation /Desk
675 s.f.
gyAing
60'!§,'.f .
7575-s.f..
Children
Cbllection
1000•s.f.
Reading and Project Area. &
500-s.f.
Story.Telling Area
Children Librarian /Lounge
.770 's f .
2270 s.f.
Staff Areas
Librarian Office
160 s.-f.
technical Services
760 s.f.
Staff mom
740 's: f. .
Book Storage
.-1q0.:§' ; f..'.
S.- .
'IGrAL; LIBRARY
11, 695 s.f,
Cbm-amity Rooms
2 roar /525 s . f:
1050 s . f .
1 room
3a0 s : f . �
1400 s.f.
EMloyee Units
2 units /437.5
875 s :f.
S
1 unit
400'8 :f:
1.275 s . f .
r
Miscellaneous Areas
`± Mechanical. 500 S .' f .
Custodial 50 s . f .
Entry /Restrooms /Gbrridor
1800 S.f,
WIM BULDING 16,170 s . i.
s
•
U
� Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive 303 47 6-2201
P. O. Box 1998 Vail, Colorado 81657
November 40 1980
THE TOWN OF VAIL LIBRARY
Library
Adult
Fiction and Non Fiction
Reference Collection/Desk
Audio Visual Collection/Desk
Card Catalogue
Periodical Display and Reading
Adult Reading
Stud Room
Periodical Storage
General Circulation /Desk
Typing
Children
Cbllection
Reading and Project Area &
Story Telling Area
Children Librarian /Lounge
Staff Areas
Librarian Office
Technical Services
Staff Roam
Book Storage
TOTAL LIBRARY
CbMMmity Rooms
2 rooms /525 s.f.
1 room
Ehployee Units
2 units /437.5
1 unit
11/4/80 s . f .
2300 s.f.
1400 s.f.
500 s.f.
575 s.f.
600 s.f.
1025--s :f.
140 s.f.
300 s, f .
675 s.f.
7575-s.f.
1000 -sif.
500 s.f.
770 ' s. :.f ,
2270 s.f.
160 s.f.
760 s.f.
740's f.
S. 1.
11,695 s.f.
1050 s.f.
'350'8.f.
1400 s.f.
875 s.f.
'400's :f:
1275 s.f.
Program s.f.
3570 s.f.
500 s.f.
500 s. f .
450 s.f.
650 s.f.
380 s.f.
306 s.f.
300 s.f.
520 s.f.
.. .tea
�011M- M
700 s.f.
460 s.f.
1400 s. f .
200,s.f.
500 s.f.
750 s.f.
'250 's :f:
1700 s.f.
11,700 s.f.
1000 s.f.
1000 s. f .
U
Miscellaneous Areas
Mechanical 500 s.'f.
Custodial 50 s.f.
]Ent y/Restrooms f Cbrridor
1800 s.f.
Ewim BUILDING 163,170 s.f.
250 s.f.
250 s.f.
"1000'9:f.
1500 s. f .
130310 s.f.
•
U
0
n
NN r
box 100
WJ1, 00101- aclo 81057
(303) 476 - 561,1
d(cpartment of community devc ),-Iliont
MP!.MORhNDUM
TO: Larry Rider, - Larry Eslctaitll., Rich Caplan, Dich� Ryan
and Jim Rubin.
FROM. Peter Patted
DATE,: Onto))er 22, 1980
St713J3 G'.t': . Report on Time Sharing Field StUdy on Sanibcl Island, Flor -d a
F3RIEF _BACKGROUND OF SAZ` IBEL :ISLAND
Sani.bol is a harrier island off the southwe ,,t coast of Florida
in the Gulf of Mexico. The unique tropical environment consisting
of ..Lush vegetation, white sand beaches, eery abundant .wildlife and
souse of the world's best sholling makes it an extremely beztutiful
and appo al.:i"ng place.
Opened to dovoiopmen.t pressures as a X-esult of coz:struction
of a callso- ay in .1.963, t-he resort industry quickly recognized the
j.mmrnse potential of the quiet, low key, island. S_imilczr to Vail.,
t11e island aevolopc�d slowly at firs t. I�.,Ilch to the dismay of the
existing residents, the island grew rapidly in the 70',,;. Hotels,
con(ioa1li_ni ap�--i- ri:.ments, single family homes and co)- imiercial development
made an :inipact on the ecology and serene c:nvironinenat. of .Sanibel :Island.
In 1_975, a lone time sharing development stood amongst: all the Other
kinds of construction.
In ro sponse to Ell]. the fast-paced resa.denti"al, commercial and
resort development, the ca.ty fa�-.laer-s and planners drew up some re ula-
t.loals in the late 70's. A strict_ co"mprull� nsi_ve Land Use Plan with
downzol- lirlg, couploEe Ti.th <-a Rato of Growth Ordinance (sim:i_]_ax to Boulder's;
has served to slow do\;rx1 the growth and coal. -urc? t c� c "�il.a1ity of no
development. In April of 1979, an amendment to the Plan was adopted
Which regulated t.imcl- sharing proposals. It was and probably still
i> the most strict muali.cip�ti. ord)
the country. .ncance regulating time sharing in
Time Share Study -"2
Today, Sanibel contains approximately 3,000 permanent residents
and 5300 dwelling units (every hotel unit represents a dwelling unit).
Much of the vegetation remains along with the wildlife with the aid
of a National Park Bird Refuge, constituting 50% of the land area
of the island. Beautiful one story low density residential areas
exist nicely adjacent to the resort housing areas which contain some
of the nicest vacation resorts anywhere..
WHAT TIME SRARING IS AND ITS RELATIONSHIP TO
Yffi_,;1SOLI,P_J_CA J_ ATTITUDES�ON SANIBEL_ ISLAND
The residents of Sanihej, both old and naw, dW not nocessarily
enjoy I 'all the now resort devulopment; They felt it wat vary damaging
to the natural environment and the quiet atmosphere of the island
(there is virtually no "night life" on the island). The development
continued despite the slow down under the new ordinances of the late
701s. And then--it seemed like it was all of a sudden...- -thorn was
a new concept in resort marketing whi6h could almost ensure year
around occupancy.
This now concept was an outgrowth of skyrocketing inflation
cauoinU rentals in vacation areas to go up and up each year, and
condominium sales prices going out of range of all but the affluent.
Moreover, there were tremendous amounts of money to be made in the
new scheme. The new idea was, of course, time sharing,
The two main kinds of time sharing are interval ownership and
right• to-use. An interval ownership project is one where the purchase
of a resort vacation home or condominium is made by the week, with
411
owner ,hip ,conveyance by decd in the save manner as a home or whole
condominium unit. This allows a buyer to own a piece of real estate
in a resort area for only a fraction of the whole unit costs Over
a period of years, the cost of an interval week is substantially
less than renting even nominal motel accommodations in today's in•
flationary market.
A right-to-use project leaves ownership in the hands
of a single individual br corporation, while the interval purchaser
purchases the right-to•use the accommodation for that week. These
are commonly referred to as vacation clubs and are often conversions
of hotels or motels which are not totally Successful (especially
in Hawaii).
My research in Florida was totally centered on interval owner. ship.
I encountered no right-to-use projects on or near the island. Thus,
the remainder of my report will deal with the ownership concept.
Briefly, interval ownership is no longer a new or small idea.
Ovor 300,000 American families are interval owners with over 400
locations throughout the country and a total. cajes voluine that miglit
exceed $1 billion in 1980. Major len6ing institutions are becoming
involved, and many high quality projects have been developed in the
finest resort areas in the U.S.A. In the near future, interval owner-
ship may well reach a dominance in the vacation/travel industry.
Time Share Study - 3
The reason interval ownership sells so well is because it allows
the buyer to use the conodminium only when he really wants to, and
to pay for only that time period. The owner has a rapidly appreciating
piece pf real estate, a (partially) pre--paid vacation, and an ownership
i.ntere.st: in the project.
There are two types of time sharing developments. One is a new
project, built and designed for interval ownership. The second is
convcrsions of hotels or condoinir iums to time sharing. All of the
project , except for one, on San.iibel T gland (there are 8 or 9 on Sanibel)
were bu i..7. t as o ,nnership projects. Hotel to interval ownership
��.0 3[ 'n' nearby Z i yey.,3 Flotels
par r.. 14 .t_ps are' ,I o:C7.Tm C..C.1 h _,tween thej.• , cn,,r ers and a
timo share co,:c_pany to tu7;:n. the uylit s into interval owner units with
total:I_y new furnishings and floor arrangements. Many hotels making
a marginal. profit will. turn. to interval as a way to revitalize and
realize a new high pro_C:i-t. margin.
Time sharing is a. vacation. use. 1t: is a year cIro—ond high occupancy
(8090u) resort use. People corrfe to their interval units to relax
and basically, vacation. Thus, the 1.0. projects are lively and used
int.ensivc:ly. Occupancy is high because people usually buy with the
ant.t .D. t- :i.r;r of u it, and, i t they dozy ' t use i t , ti1<:T17 rant it or
exchange it for a week at;. other interval resorts throughout the world.
'It is because of U,,.e i.ntenr,ive use that interval- is not compatible
with residential housing. interval should be located in an area suited
for resort housing. The conflict which an integrated (part 1.O. and
part resi..dont:i_al) project presents is an obvious one. A resident living
newt to a vacationer which changes each week or two of the year is
not a desirable arrangement.
Quality interval projects .sell to duality buyers. On Sanibel
Island, '.he, buyers are mostly betx %seen 4555 yesars old (household head)
making over $40,000 /year and owning two or more weeks. They come with
money to spend because their accommodations are prepaid. They support
restaurants, shop_, golf courses, etc. They also act like owners with
regard to enforcement of condo rules, maintenances of building and grounds
and managem(.�n-L- of the project. Thee follks are more than satisfied
with their purchases and most plan to buy more weeks (indication of
money to invest, not necessarily to use them), Further, most of the
owners ors Sanibel are using their weeks and not reque,st:i nq trades.
These characteristics are not necessarily reflective of i.nc a.stry•
wide owners who appear to be of an overall „lower quality" and may
be buying with the intent to exchange the week for another location.
Back to the Sanibel residents' react° -ons to this new concept.
It is so).uewhat. obv-ious that the :i.n-t:e.nsivc� and high occupancy c,harac-
tor.ista_c.,s of interval own {�rsh:i.p aye in di.#'e'ct conflict ,%7i.th the objective
of keeping Sanibel a qu.i.et:., uni_ntei- isi.vly developed. islai-.!d. Soma neutrals
on the :island call it the "TGM" attitude (T Got Mine) , which processes
the "keep out. newcomer" mentality. There � no questios3 of the number
• of newcomers when a building of 30 units has 1530 owners, using the
place on a year around. bassi -s.
Time Share Study - 4
The result of this conflict and dislike of continued resort growth
.
is the Sanibel Time Sharing Ordinance. Thu,, the motivation behind
the ordinance was not so much to intelligently control a:!-ic,l regulate
time sharing, but to stop it completely to eliminate the new vacationers.
THE CITY OF SANIBEL' S ST-MR 3.NC ORDINANCE
AND HOW IT WORKS
and L ?21:1..'tMs X7:1:, high
are i- .Jibe shcl..-C {-_d. uiaits, short term r�,,ntals in or
h.ol_eal units. However, to qualify as a high impact unit, it must contain
600 square feet or more. Units of high impact are restricted to a
resort bout:,.i,ncj zone and must meet open sptac (c standards of 7500 square
feet of on site recrea.tio.nal open space (I �,_oadly defined) for Each
1111ii;. It 3 ec trict s convC:1:sions to time s)1r3)_inq by requiring the con. do
declarations to show allowance of time share estates and requiring
all owners of units to agree to the conversion. Also, the zoning and
recreational open space requirement must be met. The ordinance also
:+"estr7.c'f:s 1::'.tC.`. sale of int.erva.l 1gC:c'S.s to c ri €'ina.I. .sa.lc s ofa.),.y (regulating
the continuance of proble.ii'- ;) Lic sa:l -e,, prac-Li-c es) .
Since the ordinance has be cn). passed, one new interval x>roject
of_ 9 unit.a has been approved. The proposal was 7200 square feet. :short
of the open space requirement, but agreements to construct a bicycle
path and contribute to a a_oad improvement ;project were, accepted as
a trade -,off. The conversion, section has not been effect.ive due to
the fact that it did not includc: smaller_ hotel rooms (cinder 600 sq.
ft.) as high impact units. So, one of the hotels containing no units
over 600 sq ft. proposed a conversion to interval. The project was
denied. on a scapogc,,at clause of not mco —ting the Coastal Construction
S e'rbac:k L i.ne. total7_y irrelevant to the application for a special use
permit.. The developer argued non -- conforming use (built under previous
setback regulations), but the Sanibel Planning Commission with their
dislike of interval. and its implications, denied the request. This
may end up in court.
At -the present time, ordinances are being drawn up to -eliminate
the 600 sq ft rule so t.hat hotel conversions will be stopped by not
meeting open space requirements, etc. and to not allow any development
(conversion is development) in violation of the Coastal Construction
Setback Lind. These, of course, are roundabout ways to pull the reins
even tighter on inte:r.val. ownership.
Most folk_ on the City's side feel the performance standards
of the o:c:d.i.riance are good and that provis.:i.on of on site recreational
amr_-�nit:i.es i_.s i.mpor_ t:ant. Also, zoning interval into a. rc-�sortl housing
zone was a. headed and positive mcas: ?re. Conversions cP" " also well
care. of by requiring :1.00% owner approval.. This eliminates the
possibility of mixed, or integrated projects, which everyone feels
is not goad.
.7
. Time Share Study - 5
Regulating bales to original weeks only puts a restriction on
sales practices, but this could go further. Putting a lid on the time
period for sales may be better and would eliminate the withholding
of a.couple weeks to continue resales and the intensive sales operations.
Restricting-the high level of traffic and parking generated by intensive
sales practices would also be needed.
in conclusion, we see that the Sanibel "pioneer" ordinance has
allowed a learning experience and that some positive examples of regulation
have, bean produced, oven if this was not n6cessarily tho intention
or-motivation bakind the reguJaWans.
POTENTIAL PROBLEMS OF TIME SHARING
1. MKINTENANCE Time sharing projects require a high level of
:3
maintenanc i ca_x�s 'daily basis because of the intensive use the f acilitie.
receive. Arcas which need constant attention are appliances, swimminr
and hot tub pools, air conditioners and other accessory items (bicycles,
sailboats). As with any other multi-family development, landscaping
and grounds need to be kept up. if a high level of maintenance is
not provided according to the need, times share projects could quickly
become in a state of disrepair and result in owner dissatisfaction.
The arringement kor providing maintenance is that the budget
is funded through annual fees charged per week. The projects I looked
at averaged between $150-185 per week annual fee which included taxes
• and per them charge. The developer then hires managers to work at
the project to make sure maintenance is kept up and that the place
runs smoothly. These fees are subject to increase eaQh year, but
so far have not increased greatly.
2. MANAGEMENT Closely related to high level maintenance is
the dire need for quality long term management of the entire project.
This is an extremely iyftportant factor because of the large number of
owners involved in a single development.
i encountered two different methods of management of interval
ownership projocts. The most common is to form a Board of .Directors
of 5 owners to make management decisions and to allocate the budget.
The board is aidcd by a back-up management company, usually a subsidiary
of the developer. While the Board of Directors makes the decisions
for the particular club, the management company coordinates special
events and vacation opporLunities for all the projects owned by that
developer. Problems which can arise out of this form of management
are an unresponsive Board of Directors, badause they don't have that
much of a stake in the project and possibly an insufficient budget
with which to provide maintenance and services. The budget is a critical-
factor. sufficient funds must be available for upkeep and club amenities
and services.
. Time Share Study - 6
Another major developer of interval ownership on Sanibel maintains
40 control of management of the project for 7 years beforo they turn it
over to the association. This qan be an excellent way to handle it,
As the developer creates a sophisticated company to manage and maintain
the entire project. This type of management retains developer interest
in the long-term, on going quality of the resort.
3. INTEGRATIONS
As mentioned earlier, the type of noe associated with time sharing
combine(I in close proximity to less intensive, wbole-owned condominiums,
is not desirable and definitely would be a pr6blem. Time sharing is
a vacation type of use, whereas condominiums are usually a residential
We or less intensive vacation use.
Larger projccts where different types of ownership are found
in different areas of the project are not detrimental. ' There is a
project of over 300 acros on Captiva Island (connected to Sanibel)
where interval ownership, whole-owned condominiums and a hotel exist
in separate areas of the development. Thore have not Open problems
with this arrangement Wcauso of the resort nature and use of the project
and the isolation of the different uses from each other.
4. IMPROPER ZGNING
Time sharing should not take place
resort housing. Tt definitely shouldn't
areas for residents, even high density z
condominium project was time sharing, it
pre-set criteria.
5, SALES-2PACTMES
in any area not designed for
be placed in any primary housing
ones. If the whole high density
would then have to meet other
Some resort areas. especially Hawaii, have experienced poor,
distasteful sales practices of agents trying to sell time share weeks.
Because of the number of buyers needed to sell out a project, an, in-
tensive and costly sales program must be developed. The problems come
1.
in the areas of solicitation on beaches, streets and shopping malls,
promises of free g ' ifts for sitting through a high pressure sales presen-
tation, and people buying because of the high pressure involved and
not being able to get out of it, other identified problems are excessive
traffic generated and on-site parking deficiencies due to the high
number of prospective buyers on perhaps a weekend, and finally, generally
sleasy operations. Sanibel's ordinance restricts sales to original.
weeks only, but some developers could get akound that by leaving several
weeks unsold, so that they can continue sales indefinitely (re sales).'
U
Time Share Study -- 7
6. CONVERSIONS
Conversions to interval can be a problem if the development is
not accomplished in a quality manner addressing the above concerns.
Most problems have been realized when "marginal" hotels convert to
make money. Shoddy developers converting to interval can be a big
problem and can give the industry a bad name. Hawaii has experienced
a lot of conversions from condos, apartments and hote:t.t` to right - -to --
use clubs which have attracted "lore quality" buyers and have caused
severe j ?7':C3b1C?.ms with :i.nt-tC?gr"at~J_C3-s, maintenance, manG:iCjE'.mL=nt and silos
BENEFITS TS 0IP TIME, SHARING
1 • LEVELS OFF SEASONALT mIE S OF
A Y V ^fi ST i 1A DE
Because use their
wC- E ns or rent them, {:::Lme
share projects s as e: full year around; This is good fog: business in
town and is a healthy step toward year around vitality of the resort
community.
2. ❑T_f_'RAi.T.i._ON OF W.. ,i }�
A w(Al_ done, well managed high quality time sha;c� project will
attract_ high income, responsible tourist-.s. They have prepaid their
accommoNtions and have money to spend--and they spend it. They have
more of a stake in the community than do hotel guests and they have
the pride of ownership toward their project.
3. EFFICIENT UTILIZATION OF fit.,_. OWC S
Many say that a condominium sitting empty
Dot goad for the community and not an efficient
services like sewer, water, electricity and the
themselves. The services and facilities, must be
ment to occur"--why not C f f is ie ntly utilize them?
4. PRIDE OF OWNERSETP
most of the year is
use of facilities and
buildings and grounds
provided for the develop-
The owner of even a week or two in an interval project has an
investment that they want to appreciate. '.i:'hey know that proper maintenance
and management of the project is the way to make the investment appreciate.
Thus, for the most part, they care about the development as an owner,
not as a renter of a hotel room who doers not have a stake in the project.
Time Share Study - 8
SUGGESTIONS 'aR REGULA1.140N_ :CDT VAIL
You may have concluded by now that my conclusion is that a high
quality time share project is a benefit to the community, the developer
and the owner.. The commodity is the limey. There's no question of the
widespread existence of shodJy, irresponsible developers out to make
the very big dollars to be made in the :i_nt:.e.r_val ownership industry. As
wi_t=.l; all other is evel opmen't proposal reviews, ?`..i:]e proper standards and
-;. urances U high qualitY need to be met. Va.-,._l has been i:_b c, for the
my s t. part, to acco;Zpl _ ` h this, and there l s no ;i: '.aeon why it cannot be
accomplished in the area of interval ownership, Any suggestions for this
regulation arcs as follows, and I would like to add that the country's
foremost "indopc.nd; nt" authority on the time shearing industry (the only
person or agency to conduct, a major survey of interval o wncra and the
indust:.ry :i.n. gonc;.ral) would concur with, these recommendations. I say
this be=cause I had the extremely fortunate opportunity to Ji sc.uss with
him on my field trap his conclusions from his extensive study, even though
it is not loot completed at this point in time.
The reasons for this have been well outlined alcove und need no
repetition. A strict prohibition of mixed pr6iects; can be accomplished
by rcqui.r i_ng all owners of a project proposed for conversion to agree
to the time share use for the entire building. Looking at the degree
of integrati_on within a project, my recommendation is tha.t mixing time
sharing and other uses should come no closer than totally indopenderi -t
t eparaLed areas and facilities within a single development. S don't
think there are any parcels of land remaining in the Gore Valley sufficiently
large enough to accormaodat.e <`a development wherein adequate separation
of the u,scs could be successfully accomplished.
. TICHTl'.Y RESTRICT CONVERSIONS
Conversions of "mafginal" hotel., have been identified as a problem.
Conversions should be allowed only wherry it is an entire lodge or condo
project, where the zoning is proper: and where on site recreational amenities
are adequate to serve the high level of demand. sales practices need
to be tightly regulated, also. The best tine share project is the one
planned, designed and constructed for time ~haring. However., good quality
conversions benefiting the Town, the developer- and the buyer can be accom-
pli_shod under strict controls.
3. RESTRICT ALES PRACTICES
Salsas operations ;:should, be restricted to on silo only and to
either a year's time period or 80% of the original weeks. Extra parking
should be provided during this time period to accommodate sales-generated
traffic. Enforcement and dealing with complaints should be strict and
immediate. We already have rules requir Ing the licensing of the sales
agents, but we need to have a buyer recession regulation allowing they
purchaser to get: out of the deal within a 3 or 4 day time peri.od. This
is necessary to prevent people from succumbing to high pressure sales
tactics and not having a way to get out of it.
•
•
•
Time Share Study - 9
4. WHEN REVIEWING TIME SHARE PROPOSALS ENSURE
Quhl'ITY TIiR(5UGH THE FOLLOWING AREAS
a. COMPETENT LONG TERM MANAGEMENT
Developer retention of management seivi&s May be the best form of manage-
ment for the first years of existence. This form of managcmont allows
less complexity in communication and dealing with problems and involvement
of a projessional management Agency trained in the fiel&
0. HIGH LEVYL MAINTENANCE
Adequate budgets to assure high level ma
on site to deal with daily problems on a
in the proposal. Possibly, the Town may
the exterior upkeep of the project. TO
of recreational facilities and amenities
impacts on site.
intenance must
24 hour basis
requize escra
servicing and
is important:
be'provided. People
should be included
q funds to guarantee
continued functionin(
Keel) the high
c. PROVISION OF ADEQUATE RECREXTIOWAL AME -IT.TES
A suggestion would be to relate amount of recreational facilities to
number of units. In other wordsr you need x number of tennis courts
per unit or x amount of swinning pool area per. unit. An additional re-
quirement could be included similar to Sanibel 's where the development
needs a certain number of square feet of recreational open space per
unit. Our present regulation of the Recreational Amanities Foe goes
a long way in addressing this concern, but we may have to study it to
see if inteival projects require a higher degree of recreational services.
& DESIGN AID CONSTRUCT FOR HIGH LEVEL MAINTENANCE
AND H.1 0C ........ ...
On Sanibel, they put the air 'conditioning units in. an easily accessible
area of the parking area underneath the residences There are only 4
units in a building in many of the projects to minimize the noise and
disturhince leveis of your neighbors. These types of considerations
should be addrcssed in an application for time sharing.
PROVISION OF TRANSPO r._T_ION IF REQUIRED, TO ZND FROM LIFTS
A shuttle bus system. operating at a high service level should be provided
so that it is convenient for the owners and so as not to adversely impact
our bus system.
Time Share Study -- 10
FINAL N0'J'L
This report, I k)elieve, represents an up --to-the - minute status
of interval ownership. The only reliable study is a two volume study
being conducted by Richard t. Ragatz Associates, . Inc. They are consul-
tants in vacation housing and recreational properties. Their client
is thc� 2-�mrr_J_can Land Ecvelopan.ent. Association.
vol.uInU I is a s{lr -vey of -1.0,000 owncrs of intce ry -.l ownership pro-
')..83 C1]_• >..fexent dc- ivk'I- OPTneMn -fk i, and re'sPor- e.s
3 =U)'fl il.�_l_ [)J: l�c�.:i.._!.. �.`i p7.GS71_'C t' i .Et t _, reC c'1'l'�..s.� b^e]., {;oi�tt�� t:'_ti._ec' and includes
an examinatic,n of tht:� �: r. .Lowing areas : co.a � tre3 experiences, i.c.�nc c s, demographic
characteristics, time sharing characteristics, consullier satisfaction,
future plans and use patterns. vollari1P TI, scheduled for publishing in
late Novewbta., is A ca.;c st.uvd:.ies of i1.�1�e sha. -e projects in terms of a
cost..- •l)( -:,n �fi.t analysis to the comRitiIrrity. 'J'hfr study looks at employment,
public costs and revenues, and time sharing -versus whole: - -owned condos,
motels and hotels. The locations of the developments being examined
are: san Diego; Park City, Utah; Maui, Hawaii and sa.nibc Island.
when. 1 .-- Zag'=.t:! �.�-t��.�.;.j znzT .11a"Libe..1 v:_f_iit:., he said
he could pi:zl_l. out. the stat:i_s,tics :i n volume
tor the �Zoc ] �7 ��.oua,taa.az ,ata.tc s
{repr_esent. i_ng 1000- ; 500 respondents) and provide such information as:
-what they spend on all vaca'`ion expenses, by season of year
-flow ownership pattern varies from week to week.
• -num)er of people owning weeks in the off-season
- amount spent in restaurants
volume I costs $180. 1 recommend we purchase it. If PEC and
Couaj4.3_1 wish more specific information., we can obtain it from Ragatz,
agency. volu -ale 'n should also be valuable, in regard to th,e. conmmunai.ty`s
outlook on time sharing. Mr. Ragatz reinforced my concerns about: time-
sharing, calling the three biggest problems= shoddy conversions, integra-
tions and selling practices. He also felt that a quality project: was
a benefit to the community and that the degree of sati_s'r=ac;tion of the
coiisilmer t ,,7a.s "unbelievably high ". He wra.s t.c)t ;,A.ly impressed with the
concept and had many positive feelings toward it i-f clone correctly. He
is a part time urban planning professor at University of Oregon Graduate
School.
This report has been only a summary of my research, and conclusions.
To go into further detail and to answer questions from staff, PEC and
Council ulembe s, Larry Rider has suggested an hour long work session
involving those parties. This would be a goad opportunity to attempt
to answer some of the questions which arise after reading this report.
C
Time Share Study
INTERVIEWS - SANIBEL ISLAND TIME SHARE RESEARCH
• 1. Neil Bowen, City Attorney, city of Sanibel, Oct. 15, 1980
2. 'Bruce Rogers, Director of Planning City of Sanibel, Oct. 15, 1980
3. Yeith Trowbridge, President, Captran, Inc., Oct. 15, 1980
4. DavA Bragan, Assistant Dircctor of Interval Owner Sales and Marketing,
Marlv2r properties-V.J.P. Kea! Estate, !no., Oct. Ax 1980
5. . Sandi Allen, Sales Manager, Intervul Realty, Inc. , a subsidiary of
Captran, Inc., Oct. 16, 1.980
6. Robert Duane, Associate Planner, City of Sanibel, Oct. :t_7, 1980
7. Chuck Faber, Realtor Associate, V.1-P, Inc. at Plantation Beach Club,
captiva Island, Oct. 17, 1980
8. Bob Gibson, owner, R D Liquor Store, Sanibel Tsland, Oct 17, 1980
9. Gwen Stephenson, reporter, island Reporter Newspaper, Sanibel island,
October 20, 1980
10. Michael B. Perceri, President, Marquis Hotels and Resorts, Oct. 20,180
11. Richard L. Ragatz, President, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc.,
Consultants in Vacation Housing and Recreational properties, Oct_
20, 1980
12. Marjorie M. Patten, former Assistant Manager, Sanibel Beach Club,
October 16, 1980.
� 0
k�•
,1..,0
MEMORANDUM
TO Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Deletion of time share estate fractional fee and time share
license units from the Conditional Use Section of the Public
Accommodation Zone District
At the request of the Planning and Environmental Commission, the staff
published to amend the Conditional Use Section of the Zoning Ordinance
to not permit time share estate, fractional fee and time share license
units in the Public Accommodation Zone District.
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 10, 1980
STUDY SESSION: 1 :30 p.m.
1. Discussion of activating a study area and amendment to the
Vail Village and Vail. Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
2. Discussion of horizontal zoning for Vail Village.& Vail Lionshead
REGULAR SESSION: 3:00 p.m.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10- 27 -80.
2. Knox, density control variance
Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7, Lionsridge #1
3. Gart Garage front setback variance
Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village 1st
4. Review of Vail Guides conditional use permit
Printerty Building
5. Presentation by Fire Department
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, November 10, 1980 3:00 p.m.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of 10/27/80.
2. Gart Garage Addition
Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village 1st
3. Vail Guides Conditional Use Permit
Printery Building
4. Presentation by Fire Department
•
Published in the Vail Trail, November 7, 1980.
•
•
•
is
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES
Monday, November 10, 1980
3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Gaynor Miller Dick Ryan
Ed Drager Peter Patten
John Perkins Betsy Rosolack
Jim Morgan COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT
Ron Todd
1. Approval of minutes of meetin of 10 -27 -80
After discussion about John Perkins' vote on part VII Density Control,
Gaynor moved for approval, seconded by John, and vote was 4 -0, unanimous
for approval.
2. Knox density control variance, applicant asked to table till the
meeting of November 24. John Perkins moved to table and Jim Morgan seconded.
Vote was 4 -0, unanimous.
3. Gart Garage front setback variance, Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst
Peter presented the memo and said that there still remains basically no
hardship, and that there was not much change from the first memo sub-
mitted for the October 13 meeting, recommending denial.
Jerry Gart explained that there were only 2 units in the building, not 3,
and that he was using it as a single family home. He added that there had
been a garage, but that the driveway was too steep and the garage had been
changed into the secondary unit. Mr. Gart described neighbors on either
side of his house who were closer to the street than his requested garage
would be. He felt that the garage would add to the appearance of the
house while hiding the trash.
Jim Morgan moved to approve the variance, and John Perkins seconded it. The
vote was unanimous, 4 -0 in favor of approval.
4. Vail Guides Conditional Use Permit Review Applicant asked to table till
the meeting of November 24. John moved to table, seconded by Gaynor.
Vote was 4 -0, unanimous.
Peter Patten thanked John Perkins for serving on the Commission and for
being such-a big help on the DRB. John was moving to Eagle -Vail and it
was his last meeting.
The meeting was adjourned at 3:35.
n
LJ
9
PEC - 11 -24 -80 -- 2
3. _Deane Knox density control variance, Casolar II Resub Lot A- 7,_Lions
ridge #1
The applicant asked to have this tabled again. Roger moved that this
item be tabled at the request of the applicant, Dan Corcoran seconded
it, and the vote was 5 -0, unanimous to table.
4. Request for Conditional Use permit to allow the construction of
a proposed new library building on Lot 5, Block 1, a Resubdivision of
Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing (by the Ice Arena).
Dick Ryan presented the memo, emphasizing the community room and the
employee units. Scott Edwards wondered if there had been any imput from
property owners to the east. Dan assured him that they were aware of
the library plans. Roger wanted to make certain that the Town officially
owned Tract D. Craig Snowden showed plot plans, elevations, floor plans
and sections, and answered questions. Craig explained that parking would
be in the lot next to the rink and in the West Lionshead Parking Structure.
Craig estimated construction could begin next summer or fall, but that
a public bond issue must first be passed. He also asked that he not
be tied down to a definite square footage, that fluctuations in the working
drawings could result in a 1 -2% change.
Roger moved the commission grant the conditional use permit as presented
in the staff memo with the provision of a 1 %--2% fluctuation, seconded
by Scott Edwards, and the vote was unanimous, 5 -0, with Dan C. abstaining.
5. Request for an Amendment to the Zoning ordinance to remove time-
share estate units, fractional fee units and time -share license units
from the Conditional Uses section in the
Accommodations Zone District.
Dick Ryan presented the memo, and asked if there might be other criteria
that should be considered. Peter felt that in interval ownerships, rental
units were important, and that rental units were built in, because many
people buy for investment purposes, and rent their unit out. Gerry White
was in favor of the proposal, for he felt concern about the availability
of units for the public on a nitely basis. Discussion centered on whther
or not there would be a less personal service if time sharing were involved.
The feeling about this seemed divided. Gerry pointed out that there
were very few buildings in the PA Zone.. Duane asked if there should
remain a renewal process.
Roger moved to recommend to the Council that the staff and the Planning
and Environmental. Commission do further study and come up with additional
criteria for time sharing in the PA zone. There was no second.
Dan moved to request an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance as stated in
the memo, seconded by Roger. Roger,, Gaynor, Gerry and Dan voted in
favor, Duane and Scott voted against. The motion passed, 4 -2.
Roger moved the meeting be adjourned, and Dan seconded it. Meeting was
adjourned at 4:45.
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT:Study areas and amendments to the Vail Village and Vail
Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
The Community Development Department has received a request to activate
study area #5 of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and to amend
area #13B on the Gore Creek Drive /Bridge Street plan of the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan.
Enclosed is a copy of the map and text for the specific areas on each plan.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, along with the applicants' rep-
resentatives and staff must now sit down and determine how the Town and
applicants' objectives can or cannot be achieved by activating study area
#5 in Vail Lionshead and #13B in Vail Village. The purpose of.the study
session is to start the discussion and determine how future meetings can
be productive to the applicants' representatives and the Commission.
For the study area in Vail Lionshead, the Urban Design Plan text states,
"Additional study areas to explore potential to: future upgrade second
mall entry, expand and intensity Lions'Pride Court, and complete pedestrian
connection to Gondola Plaza. Service /delivery functions essential to maintain,
as well as private parking."
The second area to consider is the alley between
Plaza Building. Number 13D in the text is noted
(covered) from Bridge Street to Village Plaza."
that is not in conformance with the Urban Design
have to be amended to permit the new use. Detai.
at this time.
C�
the Casino Building and
as "Mid -block connection
Proposed is a new structure
Guide Plan and would
Ls have not been received
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Review of Horizontal Zoning in Vail Village and
Vail Lionshead
Town Council has asked the Planning and Environmental Commission to
review permitted and conditional uses for Commercial Core I and II.
What needs to be reviewed is if any changes are needed for permitted
and conditional uses in the basement or garden levels., first floor
or street level, second floor, and above second floor.
Refer to the zoning ordinances for CCI and CCII.
The purpose of this part of the study session is to determine how
the Planning and Environmental Commission wants to approach this
matter.
U
•
Y
Vail, Cc.lo �•l: �� ,.
OCtnhBr" 70, 980 �:.� 5 t'...y,�: �.._i . yY .« 3034M3G i•..{ i ;
Mr,. Dick Ryan
Dcpr)rirrr(' r)1 of Con- irnuniiy Develoi m.ent
P. 0. Box 100
Val 1, '81657
Dear Mr. Ryon:
i
i
'
The purpose of this leiter is io inif-iate a joint study pro<yarrr >3eiv een ourselves
and the To�Nn of Vail for Additional study area .5 of the Vail 1_ionshead U: ban
i
Design Guide Plan:. It is 'our intent to work wiill the Town Council, Planning
and Environmental Commission and staff to jointly. review this problem _area,,
developa' program for impiovcnent, acid impltmesi+ adesign solu,fl i t #)cj# significantly
`upgi"cici es the visual Ers1p 7ct and visitor use of flee area
As we have discussed in meetings with yowl "self and Jeff Winston, we believe
a
that this should be a joins stud of the best uses of the property, both -fr6n ,-lie
l Y
owners viewpoint and the Town's, rather than the traditional method of owncr
ipresen
:anion and To'nvrr reaction, In line with the diagram, that was creuied on
i
July 17 in our office wiih you and Jeff, stie a €e submifiting some writtat� sfiudies
for file area. These studies tie in with what is being proposed for the POA t
i
Enir }% Park far the east entry, and the north side of .Vail 21
VAte find that we agree with most objectives of the Urban Design Guide Plan with
some exceptions to the parking criteria , We feel that as much traffic as possible
sl)auld be diverted to the parking structure and. only controlled larking s..pots -
should be provided from East L.ionshead Circle, This would help avoid congestion
E
and pe:destriar7/auto interference. i
Yours iggesiion is that we proceed with a joint study session with the P.E.C.
and our request is that you schedule this rneetinq}
We look fo Aurd to working with file to•.vn,oz this most important project of the
Vail f_ionshead Urban Design Guide Plart.
_ r
Sincerely,
.
Ken€'mil) S. \" /entworih
&chilc'cjs',, AJ A. `
RUOFf /\Ycntwor1h
KW /fd 1lrfliart ', itn)ff
• I.<:i sill r2 j- , 11'.. [ r, •�?f €f7
,IV
Preliminary Studies by Ruoff/Wentworth Architects 10 - -1 -80
•
Ti,e Vail Lionshood URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PUN
Sub Area Concepts
East Mall Entry
"(-,--)Additional study area to explore potential to: further upgrade second,
I ail entry, expand and intensify Hon's Pride Court, and ccx»pltto
�:.destriarz conrc-dion io Gondola -Plaza, Service %delivery funr,i1017s
essential to maintain, as well as private parking."
A. To analyze existing conditions we will fake these items one at a time.
1'. 'further upgrade second mall entry"
a. Over and above (pocket entry park) Vail Lionshead Urban Design
Guide flan. ,.
b, Presently an eyesore.
c, Intended as auto entrance shares use with pedestrians because of
• easy access to Gondola Plaza,
d, Close to caninercial areas but has no pedestrian activities.
7. ' "expand and inionsi y laon's Pride Court"
a, Only have control over one side of this courtyard.
b, Lion's Pride Court last stop on the trip to nowhere.
3, "canplete pedestrian connection to Gondola Plaza"
a. See item � 1 ( above ) .
b. No present reason for pedestrians except to get to soi-newhere else,
4. "Service delivery function essential to maintain as well as private
nrlci r�� .
a. Present delivery functio is create traffic problems and congestion.
b, Delivery functions and pc7rking traffic cross flow and inferfe:re with
pedcsfriar3s and cause. a bad experiarice.
c„ Many delive.ry fdncti ons care io outside or the special siudy district
I of 3
r
B, Possible solutions to previously lisied problems and goals of Urban Design
Guide Plan.
1. "further upgrade second mall entry"
a. Seperaie cuto entrance and pedestrians.
b, Develop or.ea west of propaseci "pocket park" to he rr ore tlu5n .
a parking lot.
c. Provide reason for people to use this entrance.
2. "expand and iniensi Lion's Pride Court"
a. Don't know how it coin be expanded.,
b, Change cxiaosure of Ufthouse ( 1st Bank ) canmercial
c. Adopt �17 Urban Design Guide Plan I jonsheod.
3. "Ccxnpete pen(strion connection to Gondola Plaza"
a. See itern rr 1 � (above) .
b, Upgrade stair" connections from pedestrian entry above.
c. Single eni-rance into porkirng from the east towards the northern edge
wiih pedestrian access near south edge.
d. Bury parking down 1 level fro,-n existing grade.
4. Service /delivery function essential to maintain as well as private
. �arkina."
o, Delivery functions could be improved by providing central loading
decks ❑nd delivery at propar levels with Out crossing pedestrian flow
and parking in access drives,
b parking essential tO rrlaintain but use of parking structure
would be inc)re appropriate for others.
I
c. See seperaie parking study.
P
2 of 3
• ConcIt,s €Otis:
a, The present condition is not acceptable for oe'sillctic, pedesirion
traffic, outamobile traffic, and ease of delivery and service reasons.
6, Surfoce E-x;rking is not the 1-)est use of t}-re area from on oesth( tip: view
nor prol:)ably frorrr a practical' nt with the adjaceni P>Drking
foci liiy cornpleiod.
G, Underground pocking for Lifthouse Lodge and Vail 21 should be
provided with access relocaied to northern portion of eas3 property Line
for sci?arotion from pedestrian activity.
d. A central loading dock should be proviaed (also underground) for
service to adjacc, ni. shops vrith its service routes held within the under
ground structure.
e, A pedestrian area should be consiructedat the present g.rode level
with reasons for pedestrians to be there ( ie, shops, restaurants, offices)
pleasant landscape, ect,
f . Entrance: to Lifthouse should be upgraded and mode more attror.. -rive:
with an easier auto access for regiistrailon, ur loading luggage, etc,
3of3
.i .
' -�
U
�
1
i ' ,f .
a•'
. .._
>S tin
.11
•
-�'
i r.
�
�-
-
-_. f� c♦ fie
'.
5
1
jt
AS"
wool .-r- ova
nn
01
A • 13
! 0 j rye
Yn
TOY A
41
ju
4p
ON
�ZZ
oil
-4-
1W
•
•
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development /Peter Patten
DATE: 11/5/80
RE: Request for a Front Setback Variance for Jerry Gart to construct
an enclosed garage on Lot 12, Block 7, Vail Village lst.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
This is a follow -up request from the PEC meeting of October 13,, 1980 when
the request was to encroach 11' into the 20' front setback to construct
a carport. The Planning and Environmental Commission first moved to
approve the request if a garage was built instead of a carport. This
motion failed by a 3 -3 vote with 1 abstention. The PEC then denied the
carport request with a 4-2 vote. This request is to contruct the enclosed
garage in the same location.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Code the Department of Community Development recommen_dsden_ia
requested - variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
Since the October 13 meeting, the Staff has contacted the previous owner
of the house, Roger Brown. As was suspected, Mr. Brown confirmed that
there had been a garage in the house, and he had enclosed that garage
to make it a rental unit, because the driveway steepness made the garage
inaccessible in the winter. He also stated that he belived there are
3 dwelling units in the house (there are only 2 allowed). Upon site
inspection, the driveway did not appear to be over a 6% grade.
The degree- to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve com-
patibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
We feel that no relief from the strict or literal interpretation of the
regulations is warranted in that the garage was converted to living space
previously, and that conversion precludes the granting of a subsequent
variance to put in a new garage.
�J
•
•
Gart - 2 -- 11/5/80
The effect of the requested variance.onlight and air, distribution_ of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities
public facilities and utilities, and public safety.
The proposal would have no effect
street because there is room for 4
This, number would not change with
would, however, "hide" from view 2
upon number of cars parked on the
cars in the driveway as it exists.
the construction of a garage. it
cars.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to
the proposed variance.
None.
The Planning and Environmental Commission.shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
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.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions appli-
cable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development feels that this request should
be denied. The house had a garage; the previous owner chose to convert
it to an apartment. To grant a variance for a garage now does not make
sense. Also, an investigation as to the number of units in the building
should be made.
Zi
SPORTS'
' 1 a SRI ES
UMP, -
. INS7E7'il7iONAL 14 5CIi00L ;
e V11i-10LESRLL JOBBER & IMPORTLR
� � '�� RETAIL
�:.
� � 'S SP()R7ENG GOADS
October 20, 19 0
MAIN STORE
"Sports Casite"
100D 8roadw" Y -
Denv 8G1 0122203
303 -
UPTOWN
303 16th Street
Denver, CO 80202.
303- 534-9925 T.cMn of Vail
nDe rel0F&1 Xlt
-Run
p ltdgC i
gRORA Ifa Ave. 75 South FrOT
C
i
Aurora, CO 84010 Vail r Colorado $117
303- 364 -3316
13 Ccnt�:lcmcal
CINDERELLA CITY rC�1PSt COr aroxrt SCtbB % ctCld ciE
SHOPPING CENTER Block �s �ictil �]1�.c3gC l.5tr
letter. is in xec; t 12 The 111MM:nt 7:eac
Shamrock Mall 7'11is .�.g80 .
701 W. Hampden construct 8 Cam+ QCtOiPS 9 r L �ir1d
Et,9lewnod, CO 80110 to dated 1 D �5 error In judCg1i1F. Xlt.
303 — /G1 4880 rep1Y to yOLlr nlrandLlm S aCGS x]1 the are�I
lack. of parking p Obviau ,ly
your Ij randl`nn r that due tod-t =h de a a],,),t aut -iaatic . you the
LAI;L-SIDE been led to be7 reLat :e to y
HOPPENG CENTER e variance would � let me '
266 Forest 1�ad
CYlronol.ogicallY
5801 W.4ath Ave. Df �Tftat7On VTDS ]_ncorrect•
Denver, CO 80212 my info. gC�t.
303 -433 -6442 C- 5LtrrOlJild]r1q rem rY objection � bad
ago- `I.`he f it at obi
❑ C 60 nays ac3 we were inforrf>ed
VILLA ITALIA Property t had Ito tlarage' ]clr �glth the
SHOPPING CEId I FR purchased p farm. - ' I also
7200 W. Alameda Blvd- j.-O the property it�elf Vass rD. rty.
Denver, CO 80226 . Steven Boyd. had been the Contractorj�47aof s p used to sending
303 934 GD24 I�r. V711CJ f�OTl2 the PRUSt rECE'Tlt 3 V co �rac or r s D� I'd that the
house, ent to c T'Vloy a
d about the q He a.Trform�ed W the
L1 rFMAN H1=IGHTS }�l1 -(, ]_t DenvO i x spoke to j�r. . Y
one up frcxT+ Laver . dur_ inch the winter. F, dr3..ve r that
SHOPPING CL-NTEB r, to be 115 d 1JPnealll the
� Wc3y
698 Peoria Sr. Wds W- O steep r durE directly OT13 -j
Aurora, CO 80D11 ( 1 Vc.vaay Welter P� C85 "t_e r a.T1d th, tl1E
3D3- 364 4601 SEWeY �71�]C S slid ou dOV7r1 so it would bE �• P rt vh..�-1-Cki WOtJld
it could not b. build a garage Or cart ade but Cover
roblem was to reduce i:he qf` necessary
PLAZA DE MONACO c;ojve the p cars. if nee -,
SKOPPINGck:NTER tO 3 , and. allow l�c� not Only �C)ur to x� -1X
6460 E. Yaffe Ave.insulate the p` 1Y as from freezi -'c.
Denver, Co 80222 the ai3.ve,r hq door and prEVe the Pis beneath
303-758 -24G'
we cDUld � �I�l1SS1.o1Z O
❑ �h made apps Y for and �o a
GART [1Ra5. SPORT
COUNTRY S1 OIZE 1Y U G' 110W
839 S. Gollecle at c1 later C7c�t£' 1n7e COUlc1 enC].pSe it
�c fact the v�rinter will be here '' D T �1DUld build t-11E- q q-
2 1ci a C�upart, t =eeJ iT) w3 dcned
rt. cot CO 30521 �g Irk case ht. G1e 1_avi,: already
30.3-221-42 IS k t. Gt�lh ara e if it woulr�. help Y
303- 512- 09GGDenver r11�.1 q� q Ct t1C CDrs DLit O a anted �^lE
stead of later. anal g , - car lane . tf a variance could qr
the Lira ve f rclm nne to two cars Of f the street-
13
GART Br1aS. SPORT Cat, as. Inany as S l�C
COUNTRY STOr1L uld then be able to g
Ar,Pahoc V'ill;uie co
2a5D Ars,p:Shov sr. INDUSTV
E3oukder,CO80302 j/� �} t �} FiV i PORTING O"
303 - 449-9022 -i1�� �f`1 V�Ry AWARD
GART / �S. i t II3
I"* ��✓ ilk
vl
,!}
�� �
=`
44a ; ".tck `ii I Tho ,SPOR'E'S CAS I l.E" . You vu
�'
INS
•
•
0
Town of Vaal
October 20, 1980
Page 2
:En reading your �rn�or -jndum T note that a. hardship mast be
dow)nstrated in order foe- you to grant this variance. Certainly
in my opas-licrn this falls jaatYai.a� the cxi tc�ri.a as ovt]_aned ire. your
menr]xand . I rni-ght add that the very first co rr�unicataon T had
with any of our neighbors was a note on one of our construction
employee trucks, signed by Barbara Parker, a neighbor aci.oss the
street, asking us to please not park at jLhat particular location
since they had five cars and recp.Ured every space. Add:i ti_onally,
there presea-itly exists our trash area in front of the house. This
area would be eliminated by being enclosed within the • gara.ge
structure-. When'the trash area is full it becomes somewhat
unsightly; the garage would certainly improve this sitivition..
T ��an not familiar with tt�e correct�roceclu�_e to acccattpli_ .�tx nay
goal and am at this time asking yoU to help me as to the most rapid
solution to my problem. I have fotuzd enough carpenters so the
structure could be built within a week, once permission is granted,
if there is any chance I can get this variance on a tijy��ly basis so
we r€kay still build it before the cold weather sets in.
Thank you for your consideration.
JC:d
1.0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, December 8, 1980
1:00 p.m. Review of Vail Village and Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plans
3:00 p.m. 1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 24, 1980.
2. Knox density control variance, Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7
Lionsridge 1.
3. Preliminary review session on applications received for
exterior alterations or modifications in Commercial
Core I and II.
In Commercial Core I:
Pepi Sports addition, Gordon Pierce, Architect
Sitzmark Lodge, Wheeler - Piper, Architect
Red Lion Inn expansion, Ruoff - Wentworth, Architect
The Lodge at Vail addition, Ruoff - Wentworth, Architect
Alley Project on Bridge Street, John Perkins, Architect
Casino Building addition, John Perkins, Architect
In Commercial Core II:
Lionshead Center Building Addition, Ron Todd, Architect
Lionshead Center Building Addition, Ron Todd, Architect
Lionshead Center Building Addition, Prentice Chan Ohlhausen,
Architect
Ul
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION MEETING
Monday, December 8, 1980 3:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Scott Edwards
Gaynor Miller
Gerry White
Dan Corcoran
Duane Piper
Jim Morgan
Roger Tilkemeier
Gerry White called the meeting to order.
STAFF PRESENT
Dick Ryan
Peter Patten
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT
Bill Wilto
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 24, 1980.
Dan Corcoran moved the minutes be approved, seconded by Roger.
Vote was unanimous, 6 -0, Jim abstaining.
2. Knox den-sity control variance, Casolar II, Resub Lot A -7,
Lionsridge 1.
The applicant asked to have this tabled for the third time. Dan
moved that this item be tabled at the request of the applicant,
Roger seconded, and the vote was in favor, 7 -0, unanimous.
3. Preliminary review session on a
alterations or modifications in
lications received for exterior
ommercial Core I and II.
The nine projects were reviewed with the applicants and comments
were made of the staff. Problems and concerns were expressed both
from the point of view of the Urban Design Guide Plan and from
the zoning regulations. Each applicant was informed of these
concerns.
The meeting was adjourned at 5 :45.