HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - DecemberPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 12, 1982
1 .15 pm Site visits
2:00 pm
1. Approval of minutes of June 28, 1982 meeting.
2. Request for exterior alteration and modification for One Vail Place to
allow exterior seating on the east side of the building for le `Petit Cafe.
Applicant: Elliot Alport
3. Request for conversion of 19 apartments to condominiums at the Inn at West
Vail. Applicant: James Barry Craddock, d /b /a Craddock Development Company.
4. Request for approval for conversion to time - sharing for Ipanema Condominiums.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation
5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CC2 District in accordance
with Section 18.26.045 for conversion of a two -space parking area in the
Village Center Condominiums to retail use. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
6. Request for a conditional use permit in a Public Use District in accordance
to allow the construction of 2 batting cages in Ford Park immediately south
of the new restrooms. Applicants: Steve Buis and Town of Vail.
7. Request for several amendments to the Vail Municipal Code redefining the
term "Family, ", adding definitions of "hostel" and "rooming house" and providing
that no single family or two - family dwelling shall.be used in whole or in
part for short term rental as accommodation units, a rooming house or a hostel.
Applicant: Town of Vail
8. Request for amendments to the parking chapter of the Vail Municipal Code
to clarify wording, revise certain parking requirements and regulations and
to amend the definition of Floor Area and to include a new parking require-
ment for employee housing projects. Application is in accordance with
Section 18.66.100 -- 18.66.160 of the Vail Municipal Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
9. Request for an amendment to Sections 18.26.045 (A) and 18.24.065 (A) to remove
the words "outdoor patio." This takes the adding or removing of outdoor
patios out of the Urban Design Guide Plan process with regard to PEC approval
requirements. Applicant: Town of Vail
n
u
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
• July 12, 1982
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Jim Viele
Peter Patten
Will Trout
Peter Jamar
Dan Corcoran
Jim Sayre
Scott Edwards
Larry ESkwith
Diana Donovan
Betsy Rosolaek
Later:
COUNCIL REP
Duand Piper
Jim Morgan
Bill Wilto
The meeting was called to order by Dan Corcoran, chairman, at 2:00 pm.
1. Approvalof minutes of June 28, 1982.
Viele moved and Trout seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 in
favor of approval.
2. Request for exterior alteration and modification for One Vail Place to
allow exterior seating on the east side of the building for le Petit Cafe.
• pplicant: Elliot Alport.
Peter Jamar explained the request and added that still to be received was approval
in writing.by One Vail Place_ condominium association, otherwise the staff was
recommending approval with the three conditions listed. After discussion,
Viele moved and Edwards seconded to approve the request with the three conditions
and on condition that a letter be received from the One Vail Place condominium
association. The vote was 4 -0 in favor with Trout abstaining.
3. Request for converion of 19 apartments to condominiums at the Inn_ at West
Vail. Applicant: James Barry Craddock, d /b/a Craddock Development Co
Jay Peterson asked to table until July 26. Trout moved and Edwards seconded
to table. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling. (Piper arrived.)
4. Request for approval for conversion to time sharing for Ipanema Condominiums.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, asked to table to July 26. Donovan
moved and Trout seconded to table. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling.
0
PEC IJ 2/82 -2-
• 5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CC2 District in accordance
with Section 18.26.045 for conversion of a two -space parking area in the
Village Center Condominiums to retail use. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
Peter Patten mentioned that they had just visited this site and explained the
four conditions the staff felt should apply if the request were approved.
Fred Hibberd stated that he had no problem with conditions 2 or 3 but questioned
#4. Patten explained that there had been a number of spaces designated when
the building was constructed, (fewer than would be required now), and if any
of these parking spaces were converted to retail, a parking fee must be paid.
Donovan wondered.if there was anything to prevent all of the parking spaces from
being converted to retail, and Patten stated that a parking variance would be needed.
Hibberd explained that no parking spaces were designated for the condominiums as
opposed to the retail space, and that he did not want to mark the two spaces as
such. Trout moved and Piper seconded to approve the conversion with the 4 conditions
as listed, but #3 would read, "The ramp spaces must be painted and designated as
parking spaces." The vote was 6 -0 in favor of approval.
6. Request for a conditional use permit in a Public Use District to al.l.ow the.
construction of 2 batting cages in Ford Park immediately south of the new
restrooms. pp icants: Steve Buis and Town of Vai
Peter Jamar showed the site plan and a plan of the batting cages. Discussion
followed concerning the fact that the structure was high (started 4 feet above
the ground), the fact that there was a sewer easement underneath it, the suggestion
was made that the structure could be a temporary one.
Steve Buis explained that there had to be a slope for the balls to roll back down
to a collection point. Pat Dodson of the Recreation Department answered questions
concerning the management of the cages, stating that the town would enter into
an agreement with the owner as to hours, etc. He felt that the concession would
generate dollars for the recreation department, and that the cages would alleviate
the need for batters to have room to practice without using too much space.
When asked about the sewer line, Dodson stated that they were not locked into that
site. Corcoran replied that the application was for that specific site. Dodson
stated that the concession had to be put up soon, or the season would be nearly
over. Trout asked if the structure could be a temporary one with possibly canvas,
sleeves and pipes. Dodson answered that he had done that with certain tennis courts,
and found that the life expectancy of the material was cut_about_in half as opposed
to leaving the fences up. Buis added that one reason for starting the building
4 feet above ground was for security reasons.
There was more concern voiced regarding the permanency and the height of the structure.
Buis stated that if he were to lower it, a concrete slab would be required, and
that the design was as attractive and functional as he could make it.
Trout moved and Piper seconded to.table the item and request the applicant to resubmit
with an alternative structure. The vote was 4 -2 with Corcoran and Donovan against.
0
. PEC 7/12/82 -3-
• 7. Request for several. amendments to the Vail Municipal Code redefining the term
"family," adding definitions of "hostel" and "rooming house" and providing
that no single family or two-family dwelling shall be used in whole or in part
for short term rental as accommodation units, a rooming house or a hostel.
Applicant. .'own of Vail _._...
Jim Sayre led the discussion and explained the staff's position that.the definition
of family should not be revised from the last meeting. Edwards felt that Section
18.58.310 should be left in.the ordinance to put teeth into it, but he felt that
the town should not dictate the number of people who could live in a dwelling,
because if they create a nuisance it can be handled through the other town ordinances.
He added that he didn't feel the government should.tell. who could live in,a_ private
dwelling. Trout agreed. Discussion followed as to how the town could enforce
the use of a single family or two - family dwelling as a rooming house or.a hostel.
Bill Wilto felt that the definition of a family as stated was unenforceable, and
that the town shouldn't discriminate against.renters vs owners. Patten emphasized
that everyone uses his ORFA or square footage to the limit, and that intensity of
use was the concern of the staff. He added that unless the zoning code.could be
tightened up with definitions, the town was handcuffed in enforcement of situations
like the one on Forest Road. He added that about 50% of the laws were used on
a complaint basis only, and that the staff had received many calls complaining
about numbers of people in units, that it was the staff's duty to protect the integrity
of the zoning code.
Sayre added that it would be a good idea to also get the rental. agencies to enforce
the code. More discussion followed concerning stating the number of people allowed
• in the code. (Jim Morgan joined the meeting.) Donovan emphasized that visitors
to Vail did not show Vail the same respect that long term residents did, and she
was concerned about the meaning of short term and long term. Eskwith felt that
the meaning.of "short term" should be spelled out. Sayre felt that it meant less
than 30 days.
Wilto suggested that the commission approve the request with a list of concerns
and send it to the Council. Eskwith replied that the-town-was in the middle of
a lawsuit and was being kept in abeyance until the town could decide the issue.
The definition of "family" followed. Also discussed was whether or not to change
the number from 10 to 12 persons maximum per dwelling unit.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to leave in the definitions of "hostel" and
4'roar6 ng house" and change the definition..of "- family " . as stated here below.
The vote was 6 -1 with Edwards against. Edwards felt that the Town of Vail was
interfering in individual family concerns, and that the definition of "family"
he.was not in agreement with.
The final wording was:
18.04.110 Family
Family means: a. An individual, or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, exluding domestic servants living together in a dwelling
unit used as a single housekeeping unit, or b. A group of unrelated persons
not to exceed two persons per bedroom plus two persons with a maximum of
12 persons per dwelling unit.
•
• • PEC 7/12/82 -4-
8. Request for amendments to the arkin cha ter of the Vail Municipal Code
to clarify wording, revise certain parking requirements and regulations and
to ampnd the definition of floor area and to include a new parking requirement
for employee housing projects. Applicant Town �of- Vail.
Peter Patten explained that he had sent to the American Planning Association
for information on parking standards and the enclosed changes were the result.
Trout moved and Piper seconded to recommend to Council the changes suggested
by the staff in Sections 18.52.010, 020, and 030. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
After more discussion, Piper moved and Trout seconded to approve 18.52.080 8 and
18.52.080 C, and to approve 18.52.080 F with the addition of the wording, "or
berm" after the words "A wall or fence" in the last sentence.
The vote was 5 -1 with Donovan voting against and Morgan out of the room.
Trout moved and Piper seconded to approve the change in 18.52.090. The vote
was 6 -0.
Section 18.52.100 had many different sections to be discussed. Trout moved and .
Morgan seconded to state that the parking requirement for single - family or two -
family dwellings be: 22 spaces per dwelling unit with one space enclosed.
The vote was 3 in favor (Trout, Morgan and Piper) and 4 against. The motion failed.
Edwards moved and Donovan seconded to approve the section as stated in the memo.
the vote was 3 in favor, 4 against. The motion failed.
• Morgan moved and Viele seconded to have the parking requirement read "Two spaces
per dwelling unit" without having any enclosed parking required. The vote was 4
in favor, 3 against (Edwards, Trout and Piper). The motion passed.
In paragraph A there seemed to be much dispute. Discussion revolved around the
definition of bedroom, with uses of rooms, and of GRFA. The final motion put by
Piper and seconded by Edwards was: If GRFA is 500 .square -feet or .less, 1.5 spaces
per dwelling unit. If GRFA is 501 to 1999 square feet, 2.O spaces per dwelling
unit, and if GRFA is over 2,000 square feet, 2.5.spaces per dwelling unit.
The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
In paragraph B, Trout moved and Piper seconded to pass as stated in memo. Vote
was 7 -0 in favor.
In paragraph C, Trout moved and Piper seconded to pass as stated in memo. Vote
was 7 -0 in favor.
In paragraph D, there was discussion about ratio. The final motion by Trout
and seconded y Edwards was to leave as in the memo. Vote was 5 -2 with Corcoran
and Viele opposed.
Paragraph E and Paragraph F were.discussed. :Trout..moved.and_.Edwar.ds seconded
to leave E as is and change F to 1.0 space per 250 square feet of floor area.
The vote was 6 -1 with Viele feeling the vote was being inconsistent.
�EC. 7/12/82 -5-
Paragraphs G and H had the words "more restrictive" rather than "greater" in the
motion to pass them by Trout and seconded by Morgan. The vote was 7 -0.in favor.
Para ra h I was next with Trout moving and Piper seconding to accept the change
recommended by staff. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
Par -- agra_ph J was deleted with a motion by Trout,.seconded by Edwards. Vote was 7-0.
Paragraph K after discussion was passed to read 1.0 space per patient ped plus
1 space per 150 square feet with a motion by Trout, seconded by Piper. Vote was
6 -1 with Edwards against.
Recreation uses were discussed, and it was felt that the Town needed to place parking
requirements on Recreational facilities whether public or private.
Donovan moved and Trout seconded to have a new Paragraph.J to:read:. .Recreational
uses, public or private: Parking shall be required, amount to be determined by
the Planning and Environmental Commission. The vote was 6 -1 in favor with Viele
against, with the feeling that the ordinance should be more explicit.
18.04.120 Floor Area changes were discussed. Piper moved and Donovan seconded to
accept the definition as presented by staff. The vote was 4 -3 with Corcoran,
Viele and Morgan voting against.
. 9. Request for amendment to Sections 18.26.045 (A) and 18.24.065 (Ai to remove
the words "outdoor patio." This takes the adding or removing of outdoor patios
out of the Urban Design Guide Plan process with regard to the PEC approval require-
ments.
Jim Sayre explained that the staff became aware of the fact that since outdoor patios
ought to be encouraged, it.would be beneficial to be able.to bring pat.i_os..up..:for
review at any time, rather than only in November and May. The staff was recommending
the elimination of PEC review since decks and patios are contained within the Archi-
tectural /Landscape Considerations in the Urban Design Guide Plan and therefore need
only be reviewed by the Design Review Board. The enclosure of outdoor patios and
decks would still be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
Donovan stated that she felt that the Planning and Environmental Commission should
still review outdoor patios. Viele and Piper agreed. Donovan pointed out that
the Design Review Board would not have the power to deny a patio if it felt that
the patio was not a good idea. Corcoran added that if a restaurant were to plan
to add a patio, the planning process would have taken place over a period of time,
and therefore perhaps the twice a year process was alright. Morgan felt that the
DRB was arbitrary in its decisions and that there needed.to be more adherance to
the guidelines.. He added that he would like to see specific guidelines drawn up
that the Design Review Board would have to follow similar to those of the PEC.
It was suggested that patios be.reviewed.anytime of year, but be left with the PEC.
Patten requested to table the request. Trout moved and Piper seconded to table.
The vote was 7-0 in favor.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:05.
r
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 8, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for a conditional use permit to allow the construction
of two batting cages in Ford Park
Applicant: Steve Buis
I. THE PROPOSAL
Ford Park is located within the Public Use District, the purpose of which
is to provide sites for public and quasi -- public uses. The applicant proposes
to place 2 coin operated pitching machines along with a platform and mesh enclosure
to the south of the existing restroom facility in the park. (See site plan.)
The applicant will enter into a lease agreement with the Town.to operate the
facility on Town property.
Any recreational or public use located in the Public Use District other than
public parks, playgrounds, open space, bike paths, and seasonal structures must
be issued a conditonal use permit.
The proposed facility would cover an area of approximately 2,800 square feet
• and would be 16 feet in height. In granting a conditional use permit in the
Public Use District the Planning Commission shall prescribe development standards
for each project in relation to setbacks, height, site coverage, landscaping
and site development, if applicable. The parking requirements shall also be
prescribed for each project by the Planning Commission and Town Council.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
In accordance with the criteria for review listed in Section 15.60.060, the
Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional use
permit based upon the following factors:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
One of the development objectives of the Town is to provide recreation facilities
which meet the needs of the community. The Town of Vail Recreation Department
has stated that this activity would compliment the existing facilities at Ford
Park and will enable the softball players to acquire greater proficiency in
batting skills.
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 project will be an asset to the recreational needs of the community.
0
r
Batting Cages -2- 7/8/82
The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience; traffic flow and control, access, maneu-
verability, and removal of snow from the street and arkin areas.
The facility will probably not generate any significant parking traffic or activity
in excess of the current traffic to and from the.park. Most of the use of the
facility is projected to be during softball activity at the fields. The current
parking situation is far from ideal. However, the proposed facility will not
significantly increase the problem.
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 surroun in
uses.
The facility will enhance the character of.the softball fields and park by providing
another recreational amenity. Care should be taken, however, by the Design
Review Board to ensure that the appearance of the batting cages and any related
signage will be in harmony with the park setting. The use of landscaping may
be desirable to mitigage any negative visual aspects of the structure.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the
proposed use..
III. FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall make the following findings before.granting a
conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the pruposes
of the district in which the site is located;
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it
would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity;
3. That the proposed use will comply with each of the applicable provisions
of this title.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the conditional
use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. That the applicant enter into a
of Vail for a period correspond
permit; and
2. That the conditional use permit
permit shall be reviewed by the
year period should an extension
revocable lease agreement with the Town
ing to the issuance of the conditional.use
be granted.for a period of one year. The
Planning Commission at the end of the one
be desired.
°
~
! �
y
/
'
/
�
�
'
'
�
�
'
'
/
/
,
/
^
/
�
'
--_�
~~~~
r
./
/
'
/
/
"
'
y `
`
�
'
/
/ �
'
/
/
-
.'-m
�A
MEMORANDUM
is
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 8, 1982
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request in the CC2 Zone District for the Village
Center Building. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
PROPOSAL
The Village Center Building contains retail space on the street level of East
Meadow Drive. One of the stores is Kidsports. They wish to expand their operation
to the next lower level to install a ski repair shop. Currently, the expansion
space is a 2 -car parking and storage area. To replace these 2 spaces it is
proposed to use the old ramp which is now closed in because of the recent addition.
There is very little aesthetic- type concern. involved in evaluating the proposal
because the expansion space is existing, and the customers will not be allowed
to enter from the lower level.
COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.25.010
The commercial core 2 district is intended to provide sites for a mixture of
multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered; unified
development. Commercial core 2 district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
urban design guide plan and design considerations 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 proposal expansion fully complies with all aspects of the Purpose Section.
COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. Sub -area Concepts of Urban Design Guide Plan
No sub -area concepts are involved.
2. Urban Design Considerations
a. Pedestrianization: Because customers won't be allowed to enter from
the new lower level, pedestrianization won't be affected.
b. Vehicle Penetration: Occasionally, a service vehicle may have to enter .
the parking garage to drop off or pick up something, but no significant
changes in vehicle penetration will occur.
0 c. Streetscape framework, street enclosure, street edge, building height,
views and sunshade changes: No effect upon these factors is foreseen.
•
Village Center -2- 7/8/82
3. Zoning Code Considerations
The 2 space trade off on parking is allowed and does not negatively affect
the parking situation at the Village Center. No ceiling on retail space
exists in this zone district, so the addition is allowed. The use proposed
is permitted on basement level in CC2.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of this proposal.
The proposal has no negative effects and does not create a parking problem.
Conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Before a building permit is issued the office conversion on the southwest
corner of the parking garage must be totally converted back to 2 parking
spaces.
2. No customer ingress /egress will be allowed through the garage (except
for emergencies)
3. The ramp spaces must be painted and designated as parking spaces
4. The applicant must pay the appropriate fee into the Town's parking fund
for the square feet of retail expansion.
r
y.:
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE : July 8, 1982
RE: Request to add outdoor Patio at Le:Petit Cafe, One Vail Place
Applicant: Elliot Alport
I. PROPOSAL
The proposal is to utilize an area of approximately 795 square feet in front
of lecPetit Cafe and the Vail Associates lift ticket sales windows for the
purpose of outdoor dining during the months of .June through October.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010
The commercial core 1 district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture
of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environ-
ment. The commercial core 1 district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types
of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the
Vail Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe
site development standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance
and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting
on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the
building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the CC1 zone
district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Vail Village Design Guidelines state that "dining decks and patios,
when properly designed and sited, bring people to the street and generally
contribute to the liveliness of the street." The use of the area in front
of the cafe and the VA ticket windows for outdoor dining during the summer
months will contribute to the liveliness of Wall Street and therefore will
be in compliance with the Design Guidelines.
IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The Vail Village Design Considerations cite several common characteristics
of successful decks /patios in Vail. These characteristics are:
-- direct sunlight from 11:00 to 3:00;
-- elevated to give views into the pedestrian walk;
-- physical separation from pedestrian walk in the form of a planter
• le Petit Cafe -2- 7/8/82
One Vail Place
The Petit Cafe proposal contains several of these characteristics and
also is sited well in terms of views of the mountain and pedestrian activity.
The staff feels that the use of the area will be an enhancement to upper
Wall Street during the summer and will be an asset to the Village.
V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS
This proposal meets all Town of Vail zoning regulations.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
outdoor dining area with the following conditions:
1. That there be no preparation of food outside of the building.
2. That the tables be confined to the area defined on the site plan; and
3. That the applicant provide the town attorney with information indicating
ownership of the easement upon which the tables are to be situated
and provide the town attorney with the owner's permission in writing
to�use the easement or evidence that conclusively indicates that
the proposed use is not inconsistent with the pruposes of the easement.
•
t" MEMORANDUM
•
T0:
Planning and
Environmental Commission
FROM:
Department of
Community Development
DATE: July 8, 1982
RE: Amending the Exterior Alterations or Modifications procedure in Commercial
Core I and Commercial Core II to remove the requirement that the adding
or removing of an outdoor patio shall be subject to review by the
Planning and Environmental Commission
Background
Both the Vail Village and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations state
that dining decks and patios contribute to the liveliness of the street and
provide a richer pedestrian experience than if the streets were empty. In
other words, outdoor dining areas ought to be encouraged throughout the Village
and Lionshead if properly designed."
The staff believes that the addition of outdoor patios should be reviewed by
the Design Review Board only and not by the Planning Commission. Within the
Urban Design Guide Plan, decks and patios are contained within the Architectural/
Landscape Considerations and therefore ought to be reviewed only by the Design
Review Board. A positive impact of eliminating the PEC review is that this
would enable a person wishing to apply for the addition of an outdoor dining
area to do so at any time throughout the year rather than only in November or
in May. This would make it easier for an applicant to go through the Urban
Design process and thus hopefully promote more outdoor dining. The enclosure
of outdoor patios and decks would still be reviewed by the Planning Commission.
The Proposal_
The proposal is to amend the following sections of the zoning code:
1) Section 18.24.065, A and Section 18.26.045, A currently read:
Exterior alterations or modifications -- Procedure.
All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCl or CC2
shall comply with the following procedure:
A. The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed
,floor area or outdoor patio or the replacement of an existing building
shall be subject to review by the planning and environmental commission
as follows: ....
A
0 As proposed to be amended they would read:
•
patio -2- 7/8/82
Exterior alterations or modifications -- Procedure
All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI or CC2
shall comply with the following procedure:
A. The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed
floor area or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject
to review by the planning and environmental commission as follows:.....
Staff Recommendation
The Department of Community Development staff recommends approval of the
amendment. We feel that the change will be a positive one for the Urban
Design Guide Plan process.
•
•
n
LJ
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 9, 1982
SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.04.110, definition of family
The Planning Commission at their last meeting expressed some concern over the
definition of family because it did not contain any provision for guests of
the owner of a dwelling unit. The staff, after discussion of possible altern-
tives, decided that the definition should not be revised. To'exempt guests
from the regulation would open a loophole which would weaken the zoning code.
An owner of a dwelling unit who is in violation of the code could easily claim
that he (or she) is simply housing non - paying guests. The facts surrounding
such a situation would be difficult to ascertain.
The staff has also decided to amend the recommendation concerning prohibiting
rooming houses and hostels (see memo of June 22nd). We feel that Section
18.58.310, "No single or two - family dwelling shall be used in whole or in
part for short term rental as accommodation units, rooming house, or hostel,"
is unnecessary because the zoning code as it stands implicitly prohibits hostels
and rooming houses. For if a use is not specifically permitted in a zone,
it is prohibited. Rooming houses and hostels are not listed as conditional
use or permitted use in any zone. Section 18.06.020, Paragraph B, states
that:
The permitted uses, conditional uses and accessory
uses in the particular districts shall be deemed
to be exclusive uses for those districts, and any
use not specifically permitted as a permitted use
is prohibited unless a determination of similar
use is made.....
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Thus the staff recommendation reads as follows:
To amend the definition of family to read:
18.04.110 Family
Family means an individual, or two or more persons related by
blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living
together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit,
or a group of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons per
bedroom, plus two persons with a maximum of ten persons per dwelling
unit.
Family -2- 7/9/82
To add sections concerning rooming house and hostel:
18.04.185 Hostel
Hostel shall be deemed to be a facility intended for short term
rental with features including simple dorm or sleeping rooms for
cooking, meeting, recreational and educational use.
18.04.285 Rooming House
Rooming house shall be deemed to be a facility intended to provide
minimum housing accommodations arranged primarily for sleeping,
and which may include a private bath, but shall not include any
kitchen equipment such as refrigerator, sink or cooking device.
The language prohibiting rooming house and hostel is already within the code.
Any provision exempting guests from the regulation would encumber the enforce-
ment of the law by providing a large loophole.
� r
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: June 22, 1982
SUBJECT: A request to amend Section 18.04.110, definition of Family, to
add Sections 18.04.185 and 18.04.285 which would define hostel
and rooming house, and to add Section 18.58.310 which prohibits
accommodation units, rooming houses and hostels in single and
two family dwellings. Applicant: Town of Vail
BACKGROUND AND STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
At the present time, the definition of family reads; "Family means an individual,
or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, excluding
domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping
unit, or a group of not more than four unrelated persons - living together
in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit."
This is a very conventional definition. A majority of municipalities through
the state and.nation are using similar definitions. It is'designed to protect
low density, family - oriented neighborhoods where, in the words of Justice
Douglas, "Yards are wide, people few, and motor vehicles [are] restricted."
• When applied to Vail, however, this definition is unrealistic and impossible
to enforce. Short term rental agencies are routinely booking more than four
unrelated persons into short term rental units. Employees often violate
the ordinance in order to reduce the burden of rent. For years Vail, and
other resort towns around the nation, have lived with this unrealistic definition
without a problem.
But problems have arisin in Vail. Last year complaints were received from
a neighbor that a duplex was housing thirty to forty people on a short term
basis. The neighbor complained of parking and noise problems. Vail needs
an ordinance which is realistic and enforceable in order to stop such abuses.
THE PROPOSAL
I. FAMILY
The request is to change the zoning code so that density per dwelling
unit will be limited to a family unit or a group of unrelated persons
not to exceed two persons per bedroom, plus two with a maximum of ten
persons per unit. The two per bedroom plus two figure is the result
of a survey of short and long term rental units. The survey indicated
that the base occupancy of rental units does not normally exceed two
persons per bedroom, plus two in the living room. Also, there are very
few dwelling units which have more than five bedrooms --thus the limit
of ten persons per unit.
Definitior f Family 6/22/82 -2-
A bedroom is defined in the Uniform Building Code as an area not less than
70 square feet, which has egress, natural light and ventilation.
II. ROOMING HOUSE AND HOSTEL
One of the issues which arose from the discussions of family is whether
the Town of Vail should protect the residential character of the single
and two - family zone districts. One of the items mentioned in the joint
Planning Commission -Town Council meeting of March 26, 1982 was that language
should be incorporated into the code which would prohibit renting out bedrooms
to different groups of people within a dwelling unit, particiularly in
the low density residential zones. The language prohibiting rooming houses
and hostels in single family and duplex units are intended to fulfill this
request.
III. PARKING AND ENFORCEMENT
Two final issues arose during discussions about family: Parking and the
enforcement of the revised regulations. The Department of Community Development
will seek the cooperation of the short term rental agencies and the Vail
Resort. Association to inform Vail's guests of the proposed regulation.
The rental agencies will be informed that if the Town staff discovers a
violation, the code will be enforced. Also, the Department will ask the
rental agencies to inform their customers to bring as few automobiles as
possible to Vail during their vacations and tell them how many autos the
• site can handle (i.e. "you cannot bring more than two-cars in your party
during your stay ").
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development_ recommends a revision of the current
definition of family, which includes a family related by blood or marriage
or a group of not more than four unrelated persons, as well as recommending
new definitions for Hotel and Rooming House as follows:
18.04.110 Family
Family means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together
in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit, or a group
of unrelated persons not to exceed two persons per bedroom, plus
two persons with a maximum of ten persons per dwelling unit.
0
Definition c -amily 6/22/82 -3-
•
The language defining hostel and rooming house appears below:
18.04.185 Hostel
Hostel shall be deemed to be a facility intended for short term
rental with features including simple dorm or sleeping rooms for
cooking, meeting, recreational and' educational use.
18.04.285 Rooming House
Rooming house shall be deemed to be a facility intended to provide
minimum housing accommodations arranged primarily for sleeping, and
which may include a private bath, but shall not include any kitchen
equipment such as refrigerator, sink or cooking device.
The language prohibiting hostels and rooming houses in single family and duplex
dwellings would be placed in the supplemental regulations:
18.58.310 No single or two- family dwelling shall be used in whole or in part
for short term rental as accommodation units, rooming house, or hostel.
This language is more realistic than the current definition. The language pro-
hibiting rooming houses and hostels in single family and duplex units would protect
residential areas from the abuses that Vail experienced last summer. We feel
that this will be an equitable solution to the existing problem.
•
s
•
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 8, 1982
SUBJECT: Revisions to Chapter 18.52 - -Off Street Parking and loading
Proposed are revisions to this chapter of the zoning code. The main changes
deal with a new provision for compact -size parking spaces, eliminating reference
to driveway grade requirements (dealt with in the Design Standard section of
the Subdivision Regulations), increasing the number of spaces in a lot before
interior landscaping is required, requiring one covered space per unit in SF,
R, and R P/S zones, increasing parking requirements for residential units (in
some cases) and adding several new categories of uses which will have a specific
requirement.
Most of the revisions are based upon a study of parking ordinances throughout
the country. We will explain in greater detail each new and revised requirement
at the meeting on Monday.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the revisions
to the Off- street Parking and Loading Chapter of the zoning code. We feel these
revisions will greatly improve our parking requirements and generally bring them
up to date (the current-ones were written in 1973). In comparing our ordinance
with others around the country it appears that in many areas our ordinance is
a good one. However, some of our requirements are insufficient and complicated,
while the list of specific uses needs expanding. The proposed changes should
solve these problems.
Changes are noted in brackets on the
following pages:
388/434
435
437
438
439
305 -b
741
T .
ZONING
comply with Section 18.40.100, time requirements. (Ord..
50(1978} § 9 (part).}
Chapter - 18.52 -
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Sections:
18.52.010 Purpose.
18,52.020 Applicability.
18.52.030 Existing facilities.
18.52.040 Additions or changes.
18.52.050 Construction and maintenance.
18.52.060 Parking —Off -site and joint facilities.
18.52.070 Standards.
18.52.080 Parking --- Standards. ,.
18.52.090 Loading — Standards.
18.52.100 Parking -- Requirements schedule.
18.52.110 Parking — Schedule applicability.
18.52.120 Credit for multiple use parking facilities.
18.52.130 Loading — Requirements schedule.
18.52.140 Loading — Schedule applicability.
18.52.150 Credit for multiple -use loading facilities.
18.52.160 Exemptions.
18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces.
18.52.180 Variances.
18.52.010 Purpose.
In order to alleviate progressively or to prevent traffic
congestion and shortage of on- street parking areas, off - street
parking and loading facilities shall be provided incidental to new
FA CONVERSION TO A NEW USE structures, enlargements of existing structures ornew s
WHICH REQUIRES ADDITIONAL sa- '-- - _..:.._..g dW@11iRg 14144S, ,,, ....r. �f, ,,1 units' P48 ti
PARKING UNDER THIS CHAPTER,] The number of
parking spaces and loading berths prescribed in this chapter
shall be in proportion to the need for such facilities created by
the particular type of use. Off - street parking and loading areas
,
(Vail 4 -15 -74) 388/134
•
are to be aesignea, rnainLaineu imu ui —la—u u, u ,.u... .. .
will ensure their usefulness, protect the public safety, and,
where appropriate, insulate surrounding land uses from their
impact. In certain districts, all or a portion of. the parking spaces
prescribed by this chapter are required to be within the main
building in order to avoid or to minimize the adverse visual
impact of large concentrations of exposed parking and of
separate garage or carport structures. (Ord. 19(1976) § 12
(part): Ord. 8(1973) § 1.4.100.)
18.52.020 Applicability.
Off- street parking and loading space shall be provided for
[CONVERSION OF USES WHICH REQUIRES any new building, for any addition or enlargement of an
ADDITIONAL PARKING UNDER THIS existing building or for any dwolling
SECTIONS units,
new se.
r •,• *• (Ord. 19(1976) § 12 (part): Ord.
i 8(1973) § 14.200.)
18.52.030 Existing facilities.'�''
Off - street parking and loading facilities used for off Atreet
parking and loading on the effective date of the ordinance
codified in this title shall not be reduced in capacity to less than
the number of spaces prescribed in this chapter, or reduced in
[OR NUMBER] "areaAto less than the minimum standards prescribed in this
3 chapter. (Ord. 19(1976) § 12 (part): Ord. 8(1973) § 14.201.)
18.52.040. Additions or changes.
For additions or enlargements . of any existing building or
change of use that would increase the total number of parking
spaces required, the additional parking shall be required only
for such addition, enlargement or change and not for the entire
building or use. (Ord. 19(1976) § 12 (part): Ord. 8(1973) §
14.202.)
18.52.050 Construction and maintenance.
Ail off - street parking and loading facilities required by this
435
•
,I
chapter shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the minimum standards for such facilities prescribed by this
chapter, and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or
other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the
facilities in accordance with -the intent of this chapter, except
for temporary periods of short duration in event. of heavy or
unusual snowfall. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.300.)
18.52.060 Parking—Off-site and joint facilities.
All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter
shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are
required, provided that the town council may permit off -site or
jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred
feet of the use served. Authority to permit off -site or joint
parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by
this title to be located within the main building on a site, but
may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior
to permitting off -site or joint parking facilities, the council shall
determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities
and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities
will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as useable and
convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use,
and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly
concentration of parked cars. The council may require such
legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified
operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the
continuation of such facilities, including evidence'of ownership,
long -term lease, or easement. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400.)
18.52.070 Standards.
The standards set out in Sections 18.52.080 through
18.52.100 shall govern the design and construction of all
off - street parking and loading facilities, whether required by
this chapter or provided in addition to the requirements of this
chapter. Minor adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this
chapter may be authorized by the zoning administrator if
consistent witlr generally recognized design standards for
off - street parking and loading facilities, (Ord. 8(1973) §
14.500.)
436
Y ¢`
F
u..e..M......_:.. -. "..... ... .- ....,.o- H_1.va v.�+�.:,.: �., - z..- .... -_- .. .. .. c.:..a .. b.r�.ss..:c:.. - e.,...�.... ......::�- �ex._,.�.. ,Jn+.r•aaiui�€,.��i�...vet� __..�.... -.
.. ...__1 •
,I
chapter shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with
the minimum standards for such facilities prescribed by this
chapter, and shall be maintained free of accumulated snow or
other materials preventing full use and occupancy of the
facilities in accordance with -the intent of this chapter, except
for temporary periods of short duration in event. of heavy or
unusual snowfall. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.300.)
18.52.060 Parking—Off-site and joint facilities.
All parking and loading facilities required by this chapter
shall be located on the same site as the use for which they are
required, provided that the town council may permit off -site or
jointly used parking facilities if located within three hundred
feet of the use served. Authority to permit off -site or joint
parking facilities shall not extend to parking spaces required by
this title to be located within the main building on a site, but
may extend to parking spaces permitted to be unenclosed. Prior
to permitting off -site or joint parking facilities, the council shall
determine that the proposed location of the parking facilities
and the prospective operation and maintenance of the facilities
will fulfill the purposes of this chapter, will be as useable and
convenient as parking facilities located on the site of the use,
and will not cause traffic congestion or an unsightly
concentration of parked cars. The council may require such
legal instruments as it deems necessary to ensure unified
operation and control of joint parking facilities or to ensure the
continuation of such facilities, including evidence'of ownership,
long -term lease, or easement. (Ord. 8(1973) § 14.400.)
18.52.070 Standards.
The standards set out in Sections 18.52.080 through
18.52.100 shall govern the design and construction of all
off - street parking and loading facilities, whether required by
this chapter or provided in addition to the requirements of this
chapter. Minor adjustments of the dimensions prescribed in this
chapter may be authorized by the zoning administrator if
consistent witlr generally recognized design standards for
off - street parking and loading facilities, (Ord. 8(1973) §
14.500.)
436
Y ¢`
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING
18.52.080 Parking — Standards.
` Standards for off - street parking shall be as follows:
A. Location and Design. Parking spaces, aisles and turning areas
shall be entirely within lot lines and shall not encroach on
any public right -bf -way. No parked vehicle shall overhang
any public right -of -way. Except for parking facilities serving
single- family or two-family residential dwellings, or parking
facilities accommodating less than four cars, off - street
B. Size of Space. Each off- will areas shall be designed so that it will not be
street space shall be not necessary for vehicles to back into any street or public
less than 9 feet wide by right -of -way.
h 1 e�kess
19 feet long, and if enclosedB.
and /or covered, not less
than 7 feet high. An exceptioe
to the size of space shall
be allowed for compact spaces
C'
in lots with more than 15
spaces. In this case, up
to 25.percent of the spaces
may be 8 x 16 and the compact
spaces shall be clearly marked,
as such.
b
E.
F.
Each off - street parking space s a�1
than nine feet wide an on , and if enclosed
re , not less than seven feet high.
Accessways. Unobstructed and direct accessways not less
than ten feet or more than twenty feet in width shall be
provided from off - street parking to a street or alley.,
,way grade of less than eight percent is recomment
and n rive of more than twelve percent stop, e � i be
permitted. riveways in excess of eight perce grade not
exceeding twe ercent grade must be roved by the
department of pub ' works. In tJltNMMF, HDMF, PA,
CSC, CC and C di .cts, d ' es of more than eight
percent must be heated and ed.
The heating system st be Arable and in use when
weather conditions ictate. Drainage Mall not adversely
affect adjoini properties. In multiple- ily, public
accommo ion and commercial districts, the to width of
all ve ular accessways shall not exceed one foot fo `ry
ee feet of lot frontage, or average width of the lot.
Aisles. Aisles of adequate widtl► for convenient and easy
access to each parking space shall be provided, affording
unobstructed vehicular passage between each parkin=g, space
and one or more accessways. This requirement. inay be
waived only during such times as valet parking is operated in
lieu of self parking.
Surfacing,. All parking areas shall be paved and provided
with adequate draiiiage facilities. '
Landscaping. Not less than ten percent of the interior
surface area of unenclosed off- street parkins areas
437
6
I
V
1
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING
containing] Jor more parking spaces shall be devoted to landscaping. In
addition, landscaped borders not less than ten feet in depth shall be provided
at all edges of parking lots containing more than [ 0 parking spaces. Landscaped
borders not less than fifteen feet in depth shall be provided at all edges
of parking lots containing more than thirty parking spaces. A wall Cr fence
not less than four feet in height of the same architectural style as the building
may be substituted for the landscaped border, Subject to Design Review Board approval -'
G. -Surface Runoff Control
Adequate measure for the control of surface runoff shall be provided. Such
measures may include, but are not limited to: Infiltration galleries, detention
and settling ponds, sand traps, grassed waterways. The Community Development
Department shall establish and maintain a list of such control measures. Where
required by Section 18.54.050 A (8) (c) infra evidence of an approved NPDES
discharge permit, or in lieu thereof, a "no discharge" plan shall be presented.
(Ord. 37, 1980)
18.52.090 Loading -- Standards
Standards for off- street loading shall be as follows:
A. Location. All off -sire t loading berths shall be located on the same
lot as the use served, tut not in the required front set -back Off- street
loading berths shall be provided in addition to required off - street parking
and shall not be located within accessways.
B. Size. Each required loading berth shall be not less than twelve feet wide,
twenty -five feet long, and if enclosed and /or covered, fourteen feet feet
high. Adequate turning and maneuvering space shall be provided within the
lot lines.
C. Access. Accessways not less than ten feet or more than twenty feet in width
shall connect all loading berths to a street or alley. Such accessways may
coincide with accessways to parking facilities. (Ord 8 -1973)
18.52.100 Parking --- Requirements schedule
Off- street parking requirements shall be determined in accordance with the
following schedule:
Use Parking Requirement
Single- family or two - family dwelling Two spaces per dwelling unit
[with one space enclosed per unit
minimum]
Multiple - family dwelling or lodge
A. Dwelling unit
•
438
If GRFA is 500 square feet or less:
.1.5 space per dwelling unit
All other dwelling units up to 4
bedroom: 2 spaces per dwelling unit
Four bedrooms or more per dwelling unit:
.5 spaces per dwelling unit
2 t
r�
U
r �
LJ
Us e
B. Accommodation unit
C. Medical and dental offices
D. Other professional and
business offices
E. Banks and financial institutions
(i.e. savings and loan)
F. Retail stores, personal services
and repair shops
G. Eating and drinking
establishments
H. Theaters, meeting rooms, convention
facilities
1. Quick - service food /convenience
stores
J. Churches
K. Hospitals
L. Any use not listed
18.52.110 Parking--Schedule applicability
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING
Parking Requirement
F F 1.0 space per unit
.
space per each 150 square
feet of floor area
1.0 space per each 250 square
feet of floor area 'j
1.0 space per each 200 square
feet of floor area
1.0 space per each 300 square
feet of floor area
1.0 space per each 8 seats, based
on seating capacity or building
code occupancy standards,
whichever is greater
1.0 space per each 8.seats, based
on seating capacity or building
occupancy standards, whichever
is greater
1.0 space per 200 square feet
floor area
1.0 space per 4 fixed seats
1.0 space per patient bed
Parking requirement to be determined
by Planning and Environmental Commissi
Where fractional requirements result from application of the schedule, the
fraction shall be raised to the next whole humber. (Ord. 50- -1978)
439
ZONING
18.52.120 Credit for multiple use parking facilities.
Where a single parking facility serves more than one use, the
total parking requirement
for all uses may be reduced in
accordance with the following schedule:
Total Requirement
Permitted Reduction
Determined per
to Determine Multiple
Section 18.50.100
Use Parking Requirement
I to 100 spaces
No reduction
101 to 200 spaces
2,5 percent
201 to 300 spaces
5.0 percent
301 to 400 spaces
7:5 percent
401 to 500 spaces
10.0 percent
501 to 600 spaces
12.5 percent
601 to 700 spaces
15.0 percent
701 to 800 spaces
17.5 percent
801 to 900 spaces
20.0 percent
901 to 1,000 spaces
22.5 percent
. Over I,000 spaces
25.0 percent
(Ord. 8(1973) § 14.603.)
18.52.130 Loading — Requirements schedule.
Off-street loading requirements
shall be determined in
accordance with the following schedule:
'
Use
Loading Requirement'
Multiple- family dwellings
One loading berth for uses up to
with over 20,000 square
100,000 square feet gross resi-
feet gross residential
dential floor area, plus one
floor area
additional berth for each 50,000
square feet gross residential floor
area in excess of 100,000 square
feet.
(Vail 4- 15.79)
440
•
council as a condition of the
conditional use permit, but not
less than the comparable
requirement prescribed above.
n
One loading berth, plus addi-
OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING
tional berths prescribed by the
Use
Loading Requirement
distribution of goods
Lodges with over 10,000
One loading berth for uses up: to
square feet total floor
75,000 square feet total floor '
18.52.140 Loading -- Schedule applicability.
area, including accessory
area, plus one additional berth for
shall be raised to the next whole
uses within the lodge
each 25,000 square feet total
floor area in excess of 75,000 ,
441 (Vail 2-81)
square feet.
Professional and business
One loading berth:
offices, banks and financial
institutions with over 10,000
square feet total floor area
Retail stores, personal ser-
One loading berth for uses up to
vices, repair shops, eating
10,000 square feet total floor
and drinking'establish-
area, plus one additional berth
ments, and all other
for each 5,000 square feet total
commercial or service
floor area in excess of 10,000
uses with over 2,000
square feet.
square feet total floor
area
Any use listed as a
Loading facilities requirement
conditional use
to be determined by the town
council as a condition of the
conditional use permit, but not
less than the comparable
requirement prescribed above.
Any use not listed, if
One loading berth, plus addi-
such use required the
tional berths prescribed by the
recurring receipt or
town council upon determination
distribution of goods
of need.
or equipment by truck
(Ord.. 8(1973) § 14.701.)
18.52.140 Loading -- Schedule applicability.
Where fractional requirements result from application of
the schedule, the fraction
shall be raised to the next whole
number. (Ord. 50(1978) § 10
(part).)
441 (Vail 2-81)
is
}h
:n
.....,. _ __ -i.. -. .. -. ... s. s..,........�.. ,. .._,'..::, ..._a::.......:....:a. _...�.....: _u. ._,,..:. ,'_..._ x.i�lLt✓f J'vw _r....t-
ZONING
18.52.150 Credit for multiple use loading facilities.: .
Where a single off - street loading facility serves more than
one use, the number of off - street loading berths may be reduced
in accordance with the following schedule:
Total Requirement
Determined per Reduced Requirement.
Section 18.52A30 With Multiple. Use
1 berth I berth
2 berths I berth
3 berths 2 berths
4 berths 2 berths
5 berths 3 berths
6 berths 3 berths .
7 berths 4 berths
8 berths 4 berths
9 or more berths 5 berths
(Ord. 8 (1973) § 14.703.)
1.8.52.160 Exemptions.
A. The town council by resolution may exempt certain areas
from the off - street parking and loading requirements of this
chapter if alternative means will meet the off - street parking
and loading needs of all uses in the area. Prior to exempting
any area from the off - street parking and loading require-
ments, the council shall determine the following:
I . That the exemption is in the interests of the area to be
exempted and in the interests of the town at large;
2. That the exemption will not confer any special privilege
or benefit upon properties or improvements in the area
to be exempted, which privilege or benefit is not con-
ferred on similarly situated properties elsewhere in the
town;
3. That the exemption will not be detrimental to adjacent
properties or improvements in the vicinity of the area to
be exempted;
4. That suitable and adequate means will exist for provi-
sion of public, community, group or common parking
facilities; for provision of adequate loading facilities and
(Vail 2-31)
442
for a .system for distribution and pickup of goods; and
for financing, operating and maintaining such facilities;
and that such parking, loading and distribution facilities
shall be fully adequate to meet the existing and pro
jetted needs generated by all uses in the area to be
exempted.
B. Within any area exempted from on -site parking and /or
loading requirements, property owners or applicants shall
be required to contribute to the town parking fund, hereby
established, for the purpose of meeting the demand and
requirements for vehicle parking. At such time as any
property owner or other applicant proposes to develop or
redevelop a parcel of property within an exempt area
which would require parking and /or loading areas, the
owner or applicant shall pay to the town the parking fee
hereinafter required prior to the issuance of a building
permit for said development or redevelopment.
1. The parking fund established in this section shall .
receive and disburse funds for the purpose of con -
ducting parking studies or evaluations, construction of
parking facilities, the maintenance of parking facilities,
the payment of bonds or other indebtedness for parking
facilities, and administrative services relating to parking.
2. The parking fee to be paid by any owner or applicant
shall be determined by the town council provided in
no event shall it be less than one thousand dollars per
space, and in addition, that owners or applicants
similarly situated shall be treated equally. If any payor's
funds are not used by the town for one of the purposes
specified in subdivision l above within five years from
the date of payment, the unused portion of the funds
shall be returned to the payor upon his application.
3. In accounting for the funds expended from the parking
fund, the finance department shall use a first in /first
out rule.
4.. If any parking funds have been paid in accordance with
this section and if subsequent thereto a . special or
general improvement district is formed and assessments
levied for the purpose of paying for. parking improve-
ments, the payor shall be credited against the assess-
ment with the amount previously paid.
(Ord. 47 (1979) § 1; Ord. 8(1973) § 14.800.)
443
(Vail 2.81) ;
ZONING
18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces.
A. No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respective
agent or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict
the use of any parking space, spaces or area to any person
other than a tenant, occupant or user of the building for
which the space, spaces or area are required to be provided
by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the town except
as may be specifically provided in this section.
B. Parking space, spaces or areas may be leased by the owner,
occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with
the following:
1. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns,
occupies or manages ten or more private parking spaces
located in commercial core 1, commercial core 2, high
density multiple- family, public accommodations or
special development zone districts and provides
sufficient parking for use by employees may apply to
the zoning administrator of the town for a permit to
lease private parking spaces.
2. Application shall be made on a form provided by the
zoning administrator and upon approval of the
application by the zoning administrator a leasing permit
shall be issued with or without condition as determined
by the zoning administrator.
The zoning administrator may request that an applicant
conduct a parking utilization study to determine the
difference between the average capacity of the lot and
the peak day utilization, and such other information as
may be necessary for the proper consideration of the .
application,
4, The applicant shall submit with the application a
proposed lease agreement to be reviewed by the zoning
administrator.
S. The proposed lease agreement shall be for the period of
not less than one month nor greater than ten months
from the effective date of the ordinance codified in
this section,
6. No applicant shall be permitted to lease more than
twenty -five percent of the parking spaces which are the
difference between the average capacity of the lot and
(Vail 2-81) 444
�J
,
j
j
3
;i
i
�i
i
i
18.52.180 Variances.
Any parking variance which is granted by Chapter 18.62
of the Vail Municipal Code shall be required to contribute
into the town's parking fund, as set forth in Section 18.52.160
exemptions. (Ord. 50(1978) § 11.)
{
OFF - STREET PARKING AND LOADING
1
the peak day utilization as determined by the zoning
administrator. .
7. No applicant who is operating a private parking area
charging an hourly fee therefor on the effective date
of the ordinance codified in this section shall be. eligible
a for approval of his application,
8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this
title may not be satisfied by the leasing of space from
another person under the provisions of this section.
j 9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or
building manager who has leased spaces to others to
provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see
that the leased spaces are used and occupied in
accordance with the lease agreement.
(Ord. 31(1977) § 1.)
,
j
j
3
;i
i
�i
i
i
18.52.180 Variances.
Any parking variance which is granted by Chapter 18.62
of the Vail Municipal Code shall be required to contribute
into the town's parking fund, as set forth in Section 18.52.160
exemptions. (Ord. 50(1978) § 11.)
18.04.110 Family.
' "Family" means an individual, or two or more persons related by blood, marriage,
or adoption, excluding domestic servants, living together in a dwelling unit used
as!.a single housekeeping unit, or a group of not more than four unrelated persons
" living together in a dwelling unit used as a single housekeeping unit. (Ord. S 1973)
MEASURED FROM THE INSIDE OF EXTERIOR WALLS, AREAS SPECIFICALLY
18.04.120 Floor Area. DESIGNED AND USED FOR MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO OPERATE THE
/ BUILDING WILL BE EXEMPT,]
"Floor area" means the sum of the gross izontal areas of all floors of
a building,
-tea . tiiquseable areas
anal not including areas designed for parking or loading
within the building.
l 1
th
18.04.130 Floor Area, Gross Residential.
Gross Residential Floor Area is defined as the total floor area within the enclosint
walls of a structure, including all habitable areas, greenhouses, indoor recreational
facilities, and storage areas with a ceiling height of greater than si.,t, (6) feet six
(6) inches, excluding the following: Crawl spaces, attic areas without a ceiling
height of greater than six (6) feet six (6) inches, solar heating storage areas, mech-
anical areas, and areas designed for parking and loading. Overlapping stairways shall
only be counted at the lowest level.
For Single Family and Two Family
space with a maximum of 2 spaces
There shall also be a maximum of
square feet given for air locks.
garage, the mechanical areas or
Area (GRFA).
Residences, a -mmximum of 300 square feet per vehicle
per dwelling unit will be allowed for enclosed garages.
50 square feet given for mechanical areas and 25
Any square footage over the maximum for either the
it locks will be counted -SGross Residential Floor
For buildings containing more than 2 dwelling units, an additional G.U-A of up to 20%
of the allowable GRFA on the site shall be ailoi•red for common corridors, common stairway:
comrson hallways,- common closets, lobby areas, and enclosed common recreational facilitie:
Anything in excess of this 20% will be deducted from the GRFA allowed on the site.
18.04.140 Grade, Existing
The existing grade shall be the existing or natural 'topography of a site prior to
construction.
18.04.150 Grade, Finished
The finished grade shall be the grade proposed upon completion of a project.
(Ord. 37 1980)
18.04.160 Habitable.
"Habitable" means any area designed for slecz,ing, living, cooking, dining,
meeting or recreation as applied to floor area. (Grd. S 1973)
18.04.170 Height
The distance measured vertically,
is more restrictive), at any given
or to the highest ridge line of a
305 ,76
from the existing grade or finished grade (whichever
point to the top of a flat roof, or mansard roof
sloping roof. (Ord. 37, 1980)
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
me July 26, 1982
1:30 pm Site Inspections: Ipanema, Christy's, Lion's Pride
3:00 pm
1. Appr6val of minutes of meeting of July 12, 1982.
2. Request for approval of conversion of 19 :apalrtments at the .Inn at West Vail.
Applicant: James Barry Craddock, d /b /a Craddock Development Company
3. Request for approval for conversion to time - sharing for Ipanema Condominiums.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation
4. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCII District in order
to expand the first floor shops in the.Lions.Pride.Building. Applicant:
Steve Sheridan
5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District in order to
remodel the second floor office space for Christy Sports in the Plaza Lodge
Building. Applicant: Christy Sports
6. Request for conditional use permit in order to construct a temporary winter
time enclosure over one -half of the Lodge at Vail swimming pool.
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
7. Request for amendments to the municipal code section 17.40.075
Condominium Conversion - -Lodge and Accommodation Units to clarify wording and
to reflect the original intent of the ordinance. Also an amedment to section
18.22.020 Permitted Uses in the Public Accommodation District to make it clear
that only units without kitchen facilities (i.e. accommodation units) will be
allowed in the PA District. Applicant: Town of Vail
Published in the Vail Trail July 23, 1982
APPROVED
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 26, 1982
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Will `Trout
Peter Patten
Diana Donovan
Dick Ryan
Dan Corcoran
Jim Sayre
Jim Viele
Peter Jamar
Kluane Piper
Larry Eskwith
Jim Morgan
Betsy Rosolack
ABSENT COUNCIL REP
Scott Edwards Bi Wi to
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Dan Corcoran at 3:10 pm.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of July 12, 1982.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 5 -0 in
favor. (Trout out of room)
2. Request for approval of conversion of 19 apartments at the Inn at West
Vail. Applicant: James Barry Craddock, d /b /a Craddock Development Co.
Peter Patten explained that Ordinance 28 was an emergency ordinance because
. Apollo Park had converted employee apartments to timesharing in 1978 and the
ordinance was quickly drafted afterward. Patten said that the Inn at West Vail
was the first proposal to come through since Ordinance 28 was passed. He showed
a plan of the 19 apartments on the 4th and 5th floors and explained that there
were also two accommodation units on the 4th level that would remain.as such
as a condition of approval. He added that the units to be converted had never
been long- termed.
Morgan wondered if some other lodge with employee housing could change the
employee housing to nicely rental and then ask to condominiumize. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicant explained that there were.stili.79 accommodation.
units in the lodge. Corcoran stated that the condo map was two years old, and
that the intention to condominiumize was on the two year old map made for the
county. Donovan expressed concern that this would be precedent setting. Eskwith
stated that the ordinance now being considered would state-where conversions could
take place.
Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve the condominium conversion at the
Inn at West Vail per the staff memo dated 7/21/82 including the two conditions
of approval. The vote was 4--1 in favor with Morgan voting against, and Corcoran
abstaining.
� 4
PEC -3-- 7/26/82
4. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCII District in order to
. expand the first floor shops in the Lion's Pride Bui -ding Applicant: Steve
Sheridan - -- - -
Jim Sayre reviewed the memo explaining the sub -area concepts involved. Alan Tafoya,
representing Ruoff Wentworth, the architects on the project, showed plans and eleva-:
tiobs. Corcoran reminded the members that the actual facade would be considered
and discussed by the Design Review Board. Trout, nevertheless, stated
that he felt the design was poor. Donovan pointed out that in this case there was
a fine line between the decision of the PEC and the DRB. She felt that the elevations
should have been presented showing the second floor, as the appearance of both floors
together would influence her decision. Tafoya felt that a pedestrian mall was created.
Donovan disagreed, and felt the effect was a negative one. Corcoran agreed.with
Donovan in that there was a closing off of the mall space. .Viiele asked about the
overall design plan for Lionshead and was told that a bond election was in the works
for the next spring to complete the =improvements in Lionshead. Jamar pointed out
that there were not plans for that building, but that Study Area #5 would go into
effect, meaning that this building would eventually be torn down. Tafoya stated
that this was to be an interim measure. Viele questioned the life of the building
and hesitated to approve a stop gap measure. Tafoya answered that it would depend
on when Bob Lazier could afford to implement Study Area #5.
Tafoya stated that the shop owners were willing to spend the money to improve their
stores. Piper felt that it was important not to look at the changes as though they
were interim only, for many so- called interim measures in flail were still standing.
Morgan felt that the parking fee should be paid by the._ landlord, and Corcoran-,replied
• that that was something that could be settled between the landlord and the tenants.
Donovan was opposed to the request, because it totally closed off the openings between
buildings. Tafoya replied that as one approaches.the building, one's attention
is drawn to the shapes. One sees the concrete wall, cars, and trash.
Piper moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request as per the staff memo dated
7/20/82 with the condition that the applicant will not remonstrate against a special
development district if and when one is formed for Vail Lionshead. The vote was
2 in favor, and 4 against. The motion failed.
Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve in concept the request for presentation
to the Design Review Board and then indicate to the Design Review Board several
concerns of the PEC.
Corcoran replied that it was not in the realm of the PEC to suggest specific
design . changes. Patten agreed and pointed out that the PEC had to act on the specific
proposal, and that it there were any significant changes, the applicant.had to re-
apply, and that also the applicant could ask to have the request tabled. Wilto
agreed with Patten.
The vote was 1 -5 to deny the approval with Trout in.favor.
•
PEC -2- 7/26/82
3. Request for approval for conversion to time-sharing for Ipanema Condominiums
. Applicant: Daymer Corporation
Peter Patten reviewed the time sharing regulations adopted by the TOV in 1980 and
explained that-�the regulations stated that only in HDMF zone district could there
be timesharing. He explained that at Ipanema there would be interval ownership
which meant that an actual deed passed hands, and that each time share sales packeage
would contain five weeks. He listed the amenities available at Ipanema and explained
that there had been a realistic budget proposed. Patten also mentioned that occupancy
rates recently surveyed in Vail averaged 54% for hotels as apposed to 86% for interval
ownership. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that Ipanema was set
up for intensive use and that it also had many.recreatibnal amenities intended
for the luxury condominiums. He felt that the time share would spread out the use
and bring more people into the town in the off season. He explained that in interval
ownership, each owner would be paying for the expenses of the whole building.
Corcoran read a letter from the Villa Cortina opposing the conversion, then answered
the opposing statements saying that the Ipanema land was the result of an exchange
with the Fire Protection District, and was..never:on.land owned by the Town, that
there had never been a height variance granted, and that this request was not a
variance request. Donovan expressed concern with the method of ... marketing that is..
often used in time sharing and wanted to control the marketing with a condition
of approval and also wanted a condition added that Ipanema could not lease any
more parking spaces. Viele questioned allowing this up zoning when up zoning wasn't
allowed on the lot next door (Byrne). Patten answered that this was not considered
. up zoning because neither greater GRFA nor additional units were being added, and
that further, this was the zone in which time - sharing was allowed, and in this case
would make for more effective utilization of the existing units.
Viele' ' 'felt that there was inconsistency in wanting more intensive use in this building
becau he felt that the commission had voted against projects in the past because
more intense use was involved. Peterson explained that in this case the facilities
were already in place, but they would be more fully utilized. Viele stated that
it just seemed inconsistent. Piper felt that Viele's position was well taken because
increased use would mean increased activity. Patten reminded the members that
each request would be considered on a case by case basis, and that this request
seemed well suited to time - sharing, and that no neighbors would be affected,
since there was nothing but blank wall facing the, neighbors to the west excepting
fora balcony on. the top floor.
Discussion followed concerning whether or not use could be zoned, and Eskwith assured
them that it could. Donovan repeated that one. of the conditions should be that
none of the 5 remaining surface parking spaces could be leased out.
Morgan moved and Trout seconded to approve the conditional use to allow time - sharing
at Ipanema per the staff memo dated 7/20/82 including conditions numbered 1 thru 8
after consideration of the factors on page 2 of the memo and with two additional
conditions - -that the marketing program be approved by the staff and none of the
remaining parking spaces be leased out. The vote was 5-0 in flavor, Corcoran abstaining.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the request for a minor subdivision as
• stated in the staff memo dated 7/20/82. The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Corcoran
abstaining.
•
•
APPROVED MINUTES PEC -4- 7/26/82
5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District in order to
remodel the second floor office space for Christy Sports in the Plaza Lodge
Bui ding. Applicant: Christy Sports
Peter Jamar went over the memo with the commission, and added that although the
applicant wasn't doing anything encouraged in the Urban Design Guide Plan, they
were also not doing anything against it.
The use of the room on the west side was discussed, and Ray Story explained that
it would hoid.a table for lunches for the employees. Piper and Viele stated that
they saw no problem with the proposal. Donovan objected to further enclosing
Hill Street, since it was already small and narrow. Corcoran stated that he was
always opposed to enclosing decks. He added that the Plaza Lodge Building had come
in 6 or 7 times with small changes, and wished to see one overall plan. Story
agreed, but added that the lessee would contine to propose changes indefinitely
until the owner finds it economically feasible to comply.
Brad Henry, manager of Christy Sports, stated that he was not creating an obstacle.
Corcoran replied that the addition further closed down the space on Hill Street
until it would become unattractive to walk thru. He added that the owner of the
Plaza Lodge building had stressed in previous applications that this was a very
busy street. Story replied that the Urban Design Guide Plan points out that the
canyon -like effect could contribute to, the streetscape in certain areas and that _
it was not necessarily negative.
Piper moved and Trout seconded to approve the application per the staff memo dated
7/20/82. The vote was 4 to 2 with Corcoran and Donovan against. The measure
passed.
6. Request for conditional use permit in order to
time enclosure over the Lodge at Vail swimming
struct a temporary winter
1 Applicant: Lodge Properties
Jim Sayre explained the request and the two sets of conditional use criteria. Ed
Drager, representing the applicant stated that originally the applicant had planned
to use a bubble they already owned in Italy,.then found that that was not feasible..
Now they wanted to change their application to have a bubble over-all-of the 0ool...
Eskwith questioned whether the applicant was asking to amend the application. Sayre
stated that he would like to see the application be resubmitted with -the changes.
Patten agreed and added that the staff had studied the application from the stand-
point that the bubble would only extend half way over the pool in reviewing the
views from public spaces. Many of the members felt the same way, and after much
more discussion of this point, Drager asked to have the application tabled until
the August 9, 1982 meeting.
Morgan moved, Trout seconded to.table till August 9 at the applicant's request.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling.
PEC -5- 7/26/82
0
0 7. Request for amendments to the municipal code Section 17.40.075 Condominium
Conversion - -Lodge and Accommodation Units to clariU wording and to reflect
the original intent of the ordinance. A so an amendment to section 18.22
Permitted Uses in the Public Accommodation District to'.make it clear that
only units without kitchen facilities i.e. accommodation units will be
allowed in the PA District. Applicant: Town of Vail.
Eskwith described the changes, and asked for input. Jay Peterson felt that
CCI and CCII should be treated the same as the PA district. Viele felt the
ordinance was an over reaction, and Eskwith pointed out that it' brought about
because of statutary request. Patten explained that the staff felt the
need for a comprehensive revision. Eskwith mentioned that he wanted to make
more changes and get more input and asked to table the item until August 9.
Trout moved and Morgan seconded to table the amendment recommendation until
the August 9 meeting. The vote was 6 -0 in favor of tabling.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:55 pm.
is
� 0
MEMORANDUM
. TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 21, 1982
SUBJECT: Condominium Conversion request for 19 units at the Inn at West Vail.
Applicant: James Craddock
THE REGULATING ORDINANCE.
On Septeber 5, 1978 the Town Council passed Ordinance 28 which regulated condominium
conversions. The ordinance was a direct result of the Apollo Park project
which converted apartments housing locals to timesharing. Because of other
imminent conversions, the ordinance was quickly drafted and passed as an emergency
ordinance.
Since adoption of the ordinance,there. have been no conversion proposals to
the Town. Currently, there are three proposals either already applied for
or which will be applied for in the near future.
The ordinance (Chapter 17.40 of the Vail Municipal Code) calls for a myriad
of submittal information and contains many requirements for conversions to
comply with. Among the submittal information is: The proposed condominium
documents; a building inspection report; occupancy and rental statistics; ownership -
type proposals; how site work will be brought up to TOV standards; how current
building code will be met; a computation of building permit fees if it were
a new project with a requirement to pay this amount minus the original fee;
and a preliminary public subdivision report. Specifically outlined in the
ordinance is the criteria by which the PEG is to review the proposal:
17.40.080 Action on Preliminary Ma
(a) At the hearing on the preliminary map,
the Planning Commission shall consider whether the pro-
posed conversion is consistent with the following hous-
ing goals of the Town of Vail:
(1) To encourage continuation of
social and economic diversity in the -Town
of Vail through a variety of housing types.
(2) To expand the supply of decent .
housing for low and moderate income families.
(3) To achieve greater economic balance
for the Town of Vail by increasing the number
of jobs and the supply of housing for people
who will hold them.
(b) The Commission may require that a rea-
sonable percentage of the converted units be reserved
for sale or rental topersons.-of moderate income.
Inn at West „Vail -2- 7/21/82
i(c) The Planning Commission may deny the
tentative or preliminary map upon finding that:
(1) Based on the information required
by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy rate for
rental housing, tenants will have substantial
difficulty in obtaining comparably priced
rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below
five percent (5 %) based on the most recent
Town survey shall constitute a housing emer-
gency situation.
(2) The ratio of multiple family rental
units would be reduced to less than twenty -
five percent (25 %) of the total number of
dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd
Junction,-east to-the base of Vail Pass, with
no replacement_rental housing being provided.
THE PROPOSAL
The proposal is to convert the upper two levels of the Inn at West Vail from
dwelling units used for tourist occupancy and owned by the hotel to individually-
owned condominiums not required to be open to the tourist market. The conversion
creates 19 condominiums of 1204 square feet GRFA each for a total converted
GRFA of 22,876. This will leave 79 accommodation units as is, with a total
approximate GRFA for A.U.'s of 26,702 square feet. Two accommodation units
on the fourth level (where the first level of the condominiums will be) will
remain as such through a condition of approval. No structural changes wil.1.
berequired to do the conversion.
The Inn at West Vail has been experiencing low occupancy rates and feel this
step is necessary to preserve the hotel rooms (without kitchens) on the second
and third levels as hotel rooms. The units have not been long- termed,.and
thus no tenant displacement will occur. Only the specific units designated
on the fourth and fifth levels will be condominiumized.
A process of appeal from an administrative interpretation concerning the lodge
room conversion ordinance applicability on this project has already taken place.
The proposal wi11 not have to comply with this ordinance as it was ruled that
the intent of the regulation was aimed only at accommodation units (wihout
kitchens.).
11
Inn at West Vail -3- 7/21/82
CRITERIA EVALUATION
1. Encourage continuation of social and economic diversity in the Town of
Vail through a variety of housing types.
The proposal, in all likelihood, will not subs
of the units. It is unlikely these units will
primary residence (taking them totally off the
because there will still be a full -scale hotel
these units. Thus, we don't see a significant
before and after conversion.
tantially change the use
be marketed and sold as
short term rental market)
operation going on all around
change in the housing types
2. To exaand the subaly of .decent housina for low and moderate income families.
For the reasons stated above, these units would not be suitable for long-
term rentals to employees.
3. To achieve greater economic balance for the Town of Vail_by increases
the number of jobs and the supply of housing for peiple who will hold them.
The proposal is not creating any new jobs and, thus, is not generating
a need for employee housing.
4. Relates to 17.40.080 (c) (1), (2): Again, no tenants are being displaced
and no long term rental.units are being removed.
• STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Deveilopment Department recommends approval of the condominium
conversion proposal for the Inn at West Vail. Obviously, the purpose of the
ordinance is to eliminate or mitigate the effects of losing housing for moderate
income and employee. personnel. This proposal does not go against those objectives
as it is only going from a hotel - managed short - termed unit to an individually -
owned condominium under a similarly managed rental program (most likely).
Conditions of Approval
I. The two existing accommodation units on the north end of the fourth
level must remaih as-such and cannot-be connected to the adjacent
dwelling'units. The condominium reap shall reflect this.
2. The building official's report on the building must be satisfied
before the final condominium map is approved.
�J
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 20, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
to enable Christy Sports.to expand their office space on
the second floor of the Plaza Lodge building by approximately
138 square feet.
I. THE PROPOSAL
Christy Sports proposes to expand their second floor office space by a total
of 138 square feet by enclosing two small existing balcony decks, one on the
south side of the building and the other on the west.side (see attached site
plan).
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
. the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture
of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environ-
ment. The Commercial Core 1. district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of
buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail
Village urban design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site develop-
ment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation
of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways
and public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the CCl zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN GUIDE PLAN
A. Pedestrianization
No impact
B. Vehicle Penetration
No impact
C. Streetscape Framework
The proposal will not have any significant impact upon the pedestrian
ways. The visual interest of the building will be somewhat diminished
due to the elimination of the relief that the open decks offer. however,
the building will retain visual interest.
Christy Sports -2- 7/20/82
D. Street Enclosure
. The change in the massing of the building will not have any major
effect upon the street enclosure of either pedestrian way.
E. Street Edge
Due to the many facade lines on the building currently in the areas
proposed for expansion and the fact that even with the expansion many
recesses, jogs, etc. remain, the visual interest of the building
and the impact upon the street edge should not dramatically change.
F. Building Height
No change.
G. Views
The proposal has no impact upon any view corridors.
H. Service and Deliver
No impact.
I. Sun /Shade
The change in the massing of the building will not significantly
affect the shadow pattern or use of the areas surrounding the Plaza
Lodge.
IV. zONINGCCODE CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant will be required to pay the applicable parking fee into
the parking fund for one space at the time of receiving a building permit.
V. STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the office
space expansion. We believe that the expansion will be in compliance
with the purposes of the Commercial Core I zone District and the Urban
Design Guide Plan.
•
i
•
w
Z
k�
Q
r�
to -V
0
-CHRIS SED 5
i
,4
1
l
I
;y
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 1982
SUBJECT: Application to erect an air - supported structure to be used as a
winter -time enclosure over half of the Lodge at Vail swimming pool.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail, Inc.
The Lodge at Vail is returning with the same proposal that they submitted at the
last meeting on July 26. The staff recommendation remains the same and the memo
dated July 15 is enclosed.
U
S
Ll
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 15, 1982
SUBJECT: Application to erect an air- supported structure to be used as a winter-
time enclosure over half of the Lodge at Vail swimming pool.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail, Inc.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:
The project is essentially a bubble to be placed over half of the swimming pool at
the Lodge at Vail. The dimensions of this structure are approximately 40 feet
by 50 feet by 15 feet high. This is a seasonal recreational strupture which will
be erected the week prior to Thanksgiving and will be removed the week following
ski season each year. The bubble is a white, translucent, vinyl .coated polyester.
PROCEDURE
Planning Commission review of this project
in the conditional use chapter of the code,
Design Guide Plan- -the bubble is classified
not count as enclosed floor space. Section
structure as:
is subject to the criteria outlined
not the criteria outlined by the Urban
as a temporary structure which does
18.04.290 defines "seasonal-use or
A temporary covering erected over a recreational emenity, such as a swimming
pool or tennis court, for the purpose of expanding their use to the cold weather
months. Such seasonal covers may not be in place for more than seven consecutive
months of any twelve -month period. For the purposes of this title, a seasonal
use or structure shall not constitute site coverage and shall not be subject
to building bulk control standards. Any seasonal use or structure shall require
a conditional use permit...
Since a seasonal structure is not subject to bulk control standards, such as enclosed
floor area, it is not subject to the Vail Village Design criteria. however, the
Commercial Core I district does list several special conditional use criteria in
Section 18.24.070. These criteria are listed.below.
CONDITIONAL USE CRITERIA
I. In considering an application for a conditional use permit within Commercial Core I
district, the following development factors are applicable:
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I district
The bubble has no direct influence on traffic.
t
Lodge Bubble -2- 7/15/82
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I
This project will not reduce or increase traffic in the Commercial Core.
C. Reduction of non - essential off- street parking.
No influence.
D. Control of delivery, pickup, and service vehicles..
No influence.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians.
The bubble is not adjacent to any major pedestrian way.
F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in Commercial
Core I district so as to maintain the existing character of the area.
The bubble will not interfere with the various commercial, residential and
public uses in the Village. The bubble will allow a recreational use to be
continued throughout the year.
G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape design
in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character of the area.
The quality and design.of the bubble should be carefully reviewed by the Design
Review Board. Also, the continued quality of this structure over the years
will depend on maintenance procedures. The applicant should not allow the
bubble to deteriorate.
H. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the.environnient of
Commercial Core I district.
The bubble will not produce any odor, dust or smoke. The mechanical
systems which support the air supported structure are fairly quiet.
II. The conditional use criteria, as outlined in Chapter 18.60, should also be used
tot,evaluatb the pool bubble.
Upon review of Chapter 18.60, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based on the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the town.
The code has provided for seasonal recreational structures as long as they
meet the conditional use criteria. A properly designed pool bubble will enhance
the amenities of the Lodge.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities,_ utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, utilities, I
schools, parks and recreation faci-ities, and other public facilities and
public fbci itiesineeds,
The bubble willl have slight to negligible influence.on the above factors.
4
•
•
Lodge Bubble -3- 7/15/82
• r
Effect; upon traffaic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera-
i it.v, and removal of snow from the street and Darkina areas.
Lodge maintenance crews will have to periodically remove snow from the
perimeter of the bubble.
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 Lodge bubble will be fairly inconspicuous. On three sides it will be sur-
rounded by the Lodge, and faces the rear of .the Lazier Arcade on the fourth
side. The bubble will be visible from the Village Plaza; but the bubble will
be tucked away so it will by no means dominate the views from the plaza.
If Harry's Bar is built, the bubble will-be entirely screened from the Plaza.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use..
LURIM7 WIlYluIN,MA Kohl
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.
The staff recommends that one stipulation be attached to the conditional use
permit:
1. That the structure will be erected the week prior to Thanksgiving and
will be removed the week following ski season each year.
r
�J
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 20, 1982
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit and'Minor Subdivision request to allow a time-
sharing use at Ipanema Condominiums.
Applicant: Daymer Corporation
TOWN OF VAIL TIME- SHARING REGULATIONS..
The Spring of 1980 saw the first time - sharing regulations adopted by the Town.
The ordinances, in general, called time - sharing as a conditional use in the
HDMF, PA, CCI and CCII zone districts, required disclosure statements and regis-
tration of projects and required persons selling time - sharing to obtain a license
from the Town. Subsequent ordinances in the Fall of 1980 removed time- sharing
as a conditional use from the PA, CCI and CCII zone districts and prohibited
mixing time - sharing units and whole -owned condominiums in the same building.
This left the HDMF zone district the only one possible to locate a new time-
sharing project in the Town.
0 THE REQUEST
Ipanema Condominiums are located in the HDMF zone district and are proposing
to go to an interval ownership project. This means that each owner of a week
will actually have a deed to the property for that period of time and as such,
it is a transferable piece of real estate. The other basic form of time- sharing
is called right -to -use, where a buyer purchase's only the legal right to occupy
the unit for a specified time period., and ownership of the building is maintained
by an individual, partnership or corporation. Ipanema contains 9 luxury condominiums
of 16,090 square feet of GRFA with a whole floor of the building (comprising
about 22% of the floor area of the total building devoted to common facilities.)
The project's amenities include a ski locker room, lounge and bar, saunas with
changing and restrooms and a glass enclosed pool with outdoor deck area. Also
constructed is an office area of 460 square feet proposed to be used for general
administration of the project. There is ample parking provided with 18 spaces
(2 per unit) in an underground garage with 5 unenclosed extra spaces at street
level. The proposal is to market the project 5 weeks at a time. In other words,
a purchaser will be required to buy a package of 5 weeks of time with the weeks
split, 2 in the winter, 2 in the summer and 1 "shoulder" season week.
The application submitted includes a complete and realistic budget recognizing
the large increase in costs associated with time- sharing including maintenance,
management and replacement /repair of amenities, unit furnishings, etc. Some
•
Ipanema -2-- 7/20/82
of the reasons expressed by the applicant for approving the request are that
the proposal will: cause higher occupancy levels and full use of existing facilities,
promote Vail as a resort by attracting a larger number of people to the community
(word of mouth advertising); lessen the cost of a Vail vacation while still
attracting a "high quality" guest; provide for excellent management and maintenance
of the building and grounds; and that the building contains a sufficient amount
of recreational and common facilities for interval ownership.
REQUEST FOR MINOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL
The regulations call time -- sharing a subdivision proposal. This proposal involves
less than four lots and is a minor subdivision. There are no special criteria
by which to judge a time - sharing project as a subdivision. The regulations
simply provide that an approval for such a subdivision must be obtained. The
submittal requirement for this is simply the proposed condominium plat and related
controlling documents. The pros and cons of the actual proposal will be outlined
in the conditional use section of this memorandum.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town
A. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE:. Provide high.quality guest accommodations for
Vail's visitors.
B. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Attract "high quality" guests in large numbers
to Vail.
C. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Efficiently utilize existing facilities and
accommodations (i.e. high occupancy) throughout the year.
D. DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE: Public and private sectors work together to
create an affordable vacation experience for the guest.
The interval ownership proposal for Ipanema specifically addresses and fulfills
all the development objectives listed above. The Ipanema project is brand new,
completed late in 1981. No units have been occupied, and the units, common
areas and grounds are of an exceptionally high quality. Proposing to time-
share such a project provides an opportunity for many more vacationers to have
an enjoyable Vail experience.
A highly reliable independent studyl of time - sharing throughout the country
has shown interval owners to possess high.levels of income, education and occu-
pation. They have prepaid for their accommodations and come with money to spend.
At this point in Vail's history, it would seem.to be prudent to attract such
personnel to as great a degree as possible.
l Interval
Ownership Case Studies,
Volume I, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Incl
.
for the
American Land Development
Association, November, 1980.
n
U
•
Ipanema -3- 7/20/82
Occupancy rates for time - sharing tend to run about 80% throughout the year.
This is higher than a hotel and much higher than a luxury condominium used as
a second home. The reason time - sharing produces higher occupancies is that
if an individual or couple owns only a week or two of property, they will certainly
either use it themselves or rent it rather than let it sit vacant and waste
their vacation investment. The higher quality interval ownership projects attract
higher quality purchasers, who, studies have shown, tend to use their own weeks
rather than rent or exchange for another resort. A study conducted by the staff
on Sanibel Island, Florida showed that local businessmen believe..the large number
of interval projects there have helped their shoulder season business.2
Lastly, the national economic situation has finally shown its effects on Vail.
The real estate market is depressed because interest rates exclude even people
of high income from purchasing a whole -owned condominium in Vail. With this
in mind, we must provide for vacation opportunities and continuing community
investment at a new, affordable level. Time sharing is one method of providing
such an opportunity.
2. Effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities and public
facilities needs.
The relevant items here are transportation facilities, utilities, parks and
recreation facilities, and other public facilities. The interval owners (as
a whole) at Ipanema will increase the demand for public transportaion with regard
to the Town bus system. There's no doubt that the interval owners will utilize
the bus stop which is a half - block from their living unit. But, the location
of Ipanema actually makes it more convenient to walk to-the Village lifts and,
thus, will not over -crowd the buses in their peak times.
Interval ownership at Ipanema will more efficiently utilize the public utilities
which have been installed, but should.not in any way over - burden the systems.
Time- sharing requires a higher degree of recreational facilities in its projects.
Time- sharing is a vacation plan -- people purchase to reserve vacation accommodations.
Vacationers are extremely active people,.and they require recreational amenities
to meet their needs. In this case, Ipanema's developer provided a very high
level of recreational amenities and common areas for its originally planned
intention of whole- owned condominiums. The existing facilities should be able
to meet adequately the needs of the interval owners if they are well maintained.
The proposal will also create a higher demand for other public recreation facilities
such as golf, tennis and ice skating. These activities all generate user fees
for their respective public owners or lessees and should not over - burden the
existing facilities.
2 . "Report on Time Sharing Field Study on Sanibel Island, Florida, Peter Patten,
October 22, 1980.
•
•
Ipanema -4- 7/20/82
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 streets and parking areas.
One of the most negative effects of time - sharing has proven to be the parking
and congestion problems which on -site marketing practices create. Because
interval ownership creates about 48 times the owners that whole -owned condominiums
do, the marketing of the project is extremely intensive. Considering one.
in 10 prospective purchasers actually buy (a.figure generally experienced
on Sanibel Island), a seller may have to attract almost 500 people per unit
before he sells that unit out. The obvious problems created, especially
on weekends, are shoddy off -site "huckstering" practices (teenagers soliciting
guests at stores and parking lots offering free gifts for a tour of the
project), hard -sell real estate practices and an unmanageable on -site parking
problem created by prospective purchasers. Compounding the parking problems
are recent practices of offering any interval owner of a project use of
its facilities and amenities at anytime of the year.
The Ipanema proposal mitigates, to a degree, some of these problems. Ipanema
will offer only a package block of weeks as described earlier. Thus, a
buyer must purchase a minimum of 5 weeks rather than 1, reducing by five-
fold the problems just mentioned. This means that there will be only 10
owners per unit with a total of 90 owners. This still means that 900 prospective
buyers may have to be shown around the property before it's sold out. There
will be conditions of approval to eliminate the potential problems of on-
site parking congestion. Also, no "year- round" amenity memberships will
be allowed.
Traffic volume will be increased, but the location of the project mitigates
any negative potential problems. No residential area traffic will be increased
as a result.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
T—ocated, Including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
the surroundinq uses.
The scale and bulk of the building exists and will not be changed with this
proposal. The character of the surrounding area is predominantly compatible
with a time - sharing use. To the north is the Holiday Inn -- obviously used
on a similar basis only to a much higher degree of intensity. To the east
is the Vail Fire Station containing some employee housing and Villa Cortina
Condominiums. The Villa Cortina is used on a weekly -type basis and as such
is compatible. The fire station has 5 parking.spaces on Ipanema's property
which are leased. Enforcement of no parking for Ipanema's "customers" must
be strict. To the west is a duplex lot currently approved for a new structure
to be placed on it. The impacts on this use will be lessened by the design
of Ipanema - -there are no west - facing outside decks on the building except
for the penthouse level. This deck is a:52 feet above grade and should
not impact the residents of the duplex. The time - sharing use should not
create any unsolvable problems with respect to the character of the area.
Ipanema -5- 7/20/82
5. Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to
the proposed use.
• 6. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed, use, if an environ-
mental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56.
�J
No EIR is required.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use permit
and minor subdivision request 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 detr:i!mental 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.
FINDINGS
We feel this proposal
will be a benefit to the community by providing a high quality accommodation
facility for the kind of guest which the Town wishes to attract. The proposal
meets the requirements for a good interval ownership project in terms of design,
amenities and parking provisions. The location is also a good one for interval
in that a high level of transportation service will not be needed because one
can easily walk to either village and many Town facilities., etc. from the site.
This proposal has the potential to meet the development objectives of the Town
as outlined earlier in the report without creating any negative aspects..
Conditions of approval are as follows:
1. Marketing efforts
is not allowed fo
shall be directed
to the site. The
on -site marketing
by the Department
shall clearly indicate that parking at the project site
r prospective purchasers. Potential buyers and visitors
to drive to the parking structure and then walk or bus
applicant.may use an alternative method of eliminating
and visitor parking congestion if approved in writing
of Community Development.
2. Only the current (at any one occupants of the condominiums and their
legitimate guests may use the common areas of the facilities. No recreational
amenities memberships to either other interval owners at Ipanema or other
projects or the public in general will be allowed.
♦a
F, I
L
•
Ipanema -6- 7/20/82
3. The project must have an on- sitemaintenance /manager person available on
a 24 -hour basis at the time that the first interval unit is occupied.
4. Management and maintenance shall be provided substantially according
to the budget submitted for this proposal. Such budget is in memorandum
form from Paul Johnson to Jay Peterson dated June 15, 1982. Any significant
deviation from the provisions of the budget shall be required to be submitted
to and approved by the Department of Community Development.
5. The Ipanema project shall be marketed on the five week package as outlined
in this memorandum. Any significant deviation from this plan shall require
Planning and Environmental Commission approval.
6. Pursuant to Ordinance 36 of 1980, no mix of time - spring and whole -owned
condominiums will be allowed.
7. A minimum right of recission period for buyers shall be.72 hours.
8. No change to a right -to -use type project will be allowed. It must be
interval ownership.
J• 1
MEMORANDUM
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 20, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for exterior modifications for the Lion's Pride Building
in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Steve Sheridan
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
The project is to remodel.the facades of the ground level retail stores in the
Lion0i�s Pride Building. Three stores, Performance Ski, Charlie's T- Shirts, and
Vail Mountaineering, are increasing their enclosed floor space by moving their
store facades out a few feet towards Lion's Pride Court. Charlie's T- Shirts
and Vail Mountaineering are moving their store fronts out about six feet, and
Performance Ski is moving out approximately 18 feet.
I. SUBAREA CONCEPTS
The Lion's Pride court is mentioned in the sub -area concepts:
Court opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area
i reduced, relocated to about Lionshead Arcade Building.to.
provide screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out
of shadows into sunny area of court. Sculpture focal point.
The key phrase here refers to the flow of pedestrian traffic in relation to
shadows. The current store fronts are hidden away under the second floor balcony- -
the store windows are often veiled by shadows. The remodeling would take the
stare fronts at least part way out of the shadows.
II. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. Architectural Style
The Design Considerations state that the "challenge in Lionshead is to develop
vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contemporary archi-
tectural expression."
The project generally meets this controlling criterion. The design does
not.pretend to be a foreign architectural style, it creats visual interest
with the awnings and materials., and is oriented to the pedestrian.
2. The second design consideration encourages "a series of connected plazas...
occasionally linked by a malI..."
0 The application does not disrupt this pattern.
Lion's Pride -2-
3. The Guidelines also encourage "a sense of pedestrian scale..."
The Lion's Pride remodel will improve the pedestrian scale of Lion's Pride
Court by bringing the store fronts out from under the balcony and improving
the visibility of the store fronts.
4. The fourth criteria states that the service /delivery and parking corridors
in Lionshead should be preserved.
The application does not alter these items.
The remainder of the Lionshead Guide Plan, under the title, "Architectural
Guidelines," will be addressed by the Design Review Board. These items include
height and massing, roofs, facades, decks and patios, and accent elements.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan does call for such first floor
renovations as outlined in this project.
The leaseholders in the first floor stores will be required to pay a parking.
fee. This fee shall be paid before a building permit is issued. The
Town Council is in the process of reviewing the amount of the parking
• fee for the commercial cores.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the project.
The remodel will improve Lion's Pride court by making the shops more
visible and accessible to pedestrians and will improve the ambiance of
the court by adding accent elements.
C
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 9, 1982
02:00 pm Site Visits
3 :00 pm 1 . Approval of minutes of duly 26, 1982.
2. Request for conditional use permit in order to construct a termporary winter
time enclosure over the Lodge at Vail swimming pool. Applicant: Lodge
Properties, Inc.
3. Request for conditional use permit in order to obtain approval for
the sale of birds and mammals at the Mountain Tropics Pet Shop on lot 3
Block 1, Vail Das Schone #3. Applicant: Mountain Tropics Pet Shop:
Catherine G. Street.
4. Request for a variance for a two foot front setback variance on lot 28
block 1, Potato Patch in order to correct a survey error. Applicant:
Fox, Romrell, a Texas partnership.
5. Request for an exterior alteration and modification approval for the Covered
Bridge Store building on lots C and D, Blk 5 B, Vail Village 1st Filing in order
to fill in the northern part of the entry to the Snug store. Applicant: John,
Dobson
6. Request to amend Sections 18.24.020 (C), 18.24.030 (C), 18.24.040 (B),
18.24.065 (A) and 18.26.045 (A) of the Vail Municipal Code to change
. the process for an outdoor patio in CC.I and II to a conditional use permit
procedure which can be applied for year - round. Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Request for amendments to the parking chapter of the Vail Municipal Code
to clarify wording, revise certain parking requirements and to amend the
definition of Floor Area and to include a new parking requirement for
employee housing projects. Applicant: Town of Vail
8. Request for amendments to the municipal code section 17.40.075 Condominium
Conversion - -Lodge and Accommodation Units to clarify working and to reflect
the original intent of the ordinance.
C7
Published in the Vail Trail August 6, 1982
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 9, 1982
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Peter Patten
Duane Piper
Peter Jamar
Dan Corcoran
Jim Sayre
Will Trout
Betsy Rosolack
later
COUNCIL. REP
Scott Edwards
Bill Wil to
ABSENT
Jim Viele
Jim Morgan
The meeting was called to order by Dan Corcoran, chairman at 3:00 pm
1. Request for Conditional use permit in order to construct a temporary winter
time enclosure over the Lodge at Vail swimming pool'. Applicant: Lodge
• Properties, Inc. _ .._._,_
Ed Drager asked that this item be considered when Scott Edwards was in the room,
for he had been absent at the last meeting when it had been discussed originally.
Corcoran agreed to move this item back on the agenda.
2. Request for conditional use permit in order to obtain a roval for the sale
of birds and mammals at the Mountain Tro ics Pet Shop on Lot 3, Block 1,
Vail das Schone Filinq 3. Applicant: Mountain Tropics Pet Shop: Catherine
Street.
Peter Jamar told the board that the applicant was not seeking to sell cats or dogs,
only birds, gerbils, etc.
He said that all of the condominium owners in the building, as well as the adjoining
shop owners had been notified and that not one letter had been received in complaint.
Donovan moved to approve the conditional use permit per the staff memo dated 7/29/82
Trout seconded, but with the addition that any other non - vicious pets be allowed.
Donovan said that the neighbors had been notified only of the pets stated, not others.
Piper seconded the motion as Donovan stated it, and the vote was 4 -0 in favor.
(Edwards entered.)
3. Re uest for a two.,foot front setback variance an.lot 23, Block 1, Potato Patch
in order to correct an error. Applicant: Fox, Romrel , a Texas Partnership.
• Peter Patten explained that the error was discovered at the duplex subdivision
stage, so the building was already built when the error was discovered. He also stated
that new procedures would now catch such an error at foundation stage, and that the
staff could not recommend approval due to a simple error.
PEC -2- 8/9/82
• Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that he did not feel there
had been any impact on any neighbors by the error and granting the variance
would not be one of special privilege because of other setback variances that
had been granted. He added that granting the variance would not be detrimental
as stated in the second finding, and that there were indeed exceptions or
extraordinary circumstances that did not apply generally to other properties
in the same zone. Peterson pointed out that the Town now had.a built -in check
in the improvement survey required of builders after.the foundation was in
place.
Mark Donaldson, architect of the building, explained how the error had occurred.
Piper felt that the impact was minimal and reminded the board that it was
unlikely that this type of error -would be made in the future with the requirement
of improvement surveys.
Donovan moved and Edwards seconded to approve the two.foot setback variance on lot
28 as explained in the staff memo dated 8/4/82 on the basis of 18.62.0608, Criteria
and Findings, that there was an exception that did not apply generally to other
properties in the same zone. The vote was 4 -0 in favor, with Corcoran abstaining.
LJ
•
LJ
4.
PEC -3- 8/9/82
JiM:Sayre repeated the explanation of the memo for Scott Edward's benefit,
because Edwards had not been at the previous meeting. He added that the applicant
had gone back to his original proposal, to cover half of the pool with a bubble.
Sayre asked the commission to look especially at G.�. "Control quality of construction
..to maintain the existing character of the area. Sayre.stated that it was
the staff feeling that this area was isolated from pedestrian movement and was
topographically depressed as well.
He then discussed item H. "Effects of noise, odor,.." and added that the mechanical
area of the pool bubble would make noise, but that the staff had been assured
that there wouldn't be much noise from the mechanics, but that the staff recommended
that this be one condition of approval.
Ed Drager representing the applicant answered that since bubbles are expensive,
the Lodge was interested in maintainence of the.bubble, Bill Ruoff, architect
for the applicant added that a large percentage of noise from swimming pools
came from children running and shouting, and that the bubble would muffle that
noise. He mentioned that there was a condominium owned by Knoblock that would
be affected by the view of the bubble.
Ruoff added that with snow on the white bubble, it would not be noticeable in
the winter.
. Trout stated that he had no sympathy toward a bubble, but might possibly change
his mind if he knew that the other buildings proposed for the Lodge were going
to be built. He added that since Harry's Bar has not been built, people buying
ski tickets could view the bubble. Edwards was in favor of the bubble, feeling
that it would serve a function and was not very visible.
Donovan was confused by a statement made by Ruoff that people; would not be able
to continue to use the-alley. Ruoff compared the bubble at the Lodge to the one
at the Racquet Club in east Vail, but Donovan pointed out that this bubble would
be in Commercial Core I and would.be very.visible.from the Plaza. Ruoff stated
that it would be below the eye level of the second floor balcony railings.
A greenhouse type structure was mentioned and
Ruoff pointed out that the pool was on the north side of the building and would
not get much sun. Donovan felt that the bubble would have a very negative effect
on Commercial Core I.
Piper pointed out that one positive effect was that the bubble would be removed
in the summer. He felt that if the snow were allowed to pile up around the bubble
it would blend in well enough. Ruoff added that it was the Lodge guests who would
see the bubble. Corcoran agreed with Donovan that the bubble could be seen from
the Plaza and added that he would like to see the control of noise as one condition
of approval, but felt that CCI was not the place for a bubble.
Scott moved and Piper seconded to approve the request for a conditonal use permit
in order to construct a termporary winter time enclosure over half of the Lodge
pool as per the staff memo dated 7/15/82 with the one condition the staff suggested
and with two more conditions -Item G, Quality Control be added, and Item H, Complaints
of noise, would cause a review of the conditional use.
The vote was 2-3 (Piper and Edwards in favor). The motion failed. Ruoff was reminded
that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision.
•
•
PCC -4- 8/9/82
5. Public hearing in consideration of an exterior alteration and modification
in Commercial Core I to modify the front exterior to the Covered Bridge buildin
_s pecifically the Snug sho located on Bridge Street. Applicant: John Dobson
Peter Patten explained the memo and added a correction that the floor area would
be decreased rather than increased, and thus no parking fee would be required..
Bill Ruoff, architect for the project, showed site plans and elevations. He explained
that the upper level of the building would stay as it was, keeping the narrow gables.
He added that the width of Bridge Street would be increased, and that there would
be new steps down to the creek to replace the ones being removed.
Donovan felt that there was a certain amount of mirror image in the proposal, and
that some of the street interest was being lost because a very straight.line was
created and because of the widening of the road.
Ruoff stated that the Covered Bridge was too narrow to handle the pedestrian traffic
in winter and he would like to see it widened, and that he was merely making this
end of Bridge Street the same width as the rest of Bridge Street.
Piper stated that he felt the entrance to Snug was a very pleasing one. Ruoff answered
that the entrance was a confusing one for the shopper, and for that reason the shop
has never done well. Piper said that, still it offered relief in a way that is
often attained only by effort, adding that Pepi's storefront was now too streamlined.
Trout added that a great deal of thought about the stores across the street had
gone into approval of the building across the street, and he agreed with Piper.
Ruoff countered that the steps to the park as built were non - conforming with the current I
building code and unattractive. When the members were polled, they said:
Piper: I love the existing building, but the materials could,be improved.
Donovan: I can see other solutions to the.problem. There is confusion at the
entrance, can't see the Snug shop sign. One solution would be to put the
sign at right angles to the street.
Edwards: I feel that it is a hole, and I'm in favor of the concept.
Trout: My preoccupation is on the north end of the building.....
Corcoran: Have to abstain
Dobson asked to table the item until August 23. Donovan moved and Piper
seconded to table the hearing until August 23. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of
tabling.
6. Request for amendments to the municipal code section 17.40..075 Condominium
Conversion - -Lodge and Accommodation Units to clarify wording and to reflect
the original intent of the ordinance. Applicant: Town of Vail
Corcoran complimented Larry Eskwith for looking at the whole ordinance rather than
simply reacting to part of it. Eskwith explained the changes and Patten explained
•
U
PEC -5- 8/9/82
some of the reasons for the changes in connection with time sharing conversions,, etc.
Eskwith stated that there was concern not with the type of sale, but with the
availability of rental units to tourists.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the request for.the amendments to Section
17.40.075 per the revised ordinance. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
7. Request for amendments to
clarify wording, revise c
of floor area. Applicant
the parking chapter of the Vail Munici
rtain parking requirements and to amen
Town _of Vai 1 .
1 Code to
the definition
Peter Patten stated that the Town Council sent the parking revisions back to the
PEC on July 20 because the staff wished to change the way floor area was to be
measured. Included is a Aew definition called "Net. Floor Area" to be used in
calculating parking spaces. Trout suggested adding a phrase explaining that this
definition was to be used in calculating parking only.
Bill Wilto, speaking as a citizen, felt that for a single family dwelling, 2 parking
spaces were not enough. Trout agreed. Discussion followed as to whether or not
to require certain parking.spaces.be covered. Trout felt that the problem was
with the outdoor parking and suggested an increase in the number of spaces required.
Patten replied that the numbers used were the result of much study and changes suggested
by the PEC.
Edwards moved and Piper seconded to approve the changes as presented by the staff
with the addition of the phrase, "to be used only for calculating parking require-
ments" in the definition of net floor area. The vote was 4 -1 with Trout against.
The motion passed. Corcoran complimented the staff in.being flexible on the definition
of net floor area after receiving much feedback.
8. Request to amend Sections 18.24.020 (C), 18.24.030 (Q., 18.24.040 (B), 18.24.065
and 18.26.045 A of the Vail Munici ,1 Code to change the process for an outdoor
patio in CCI and II to a conditional use permit procedure which can be applied
for year-round. Town of Vail.
Peter Jamar explained that this had been discussed at the July 12 PEC meeting when
the staff had suggested that outdoor patios could go through Design Review only.
At that tame the PEC members expressed the feeling that they still wanted to have
the ability to review applications for the addition of outdoor patios in CCI and
CCII.
Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the staff request for the amendments
per the memo dated 7/29/82. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 6:00 pm.
. MEMORANDUM
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance for Romrell /Fox duplex located
on lot 28, block 1, Vail Potato Patch. Applicant: Fox, Romrell Partnership
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
A two foot front setback variance is being requested- -from 20 feet to 18 feet. The
applicant argues that there was an error made by the owner's architect in determining
the front setback and wqs not discovered by the surveyor. The violation was
detected when the house came in for a duplex subdivision approval. This duplex
was approved and permitted before the Town instituted the requirement of an improve-
ment survey before framing inspections are made. The portion of house encroaching
is a garage.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
i r r%.A a
Consideration of Factors.
actors:
The relationship of the requested varianc(
and structures in the vicinity.
other existim
or potential uses
The two foot encroachment is at least 8 to 10 feet below the surface of Potato
Patch Drive. On the west is VA's tract land where no development may occur,.and
the house on the east is not negatively impacted.. The home owner to the east
has written a letter saying he is not opposed in any way to the variance request.
Thus, there are no negative impacts caused by the encroachment.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessar. y to achieve compatibility and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives ot this
title :Mithout grant of special privilege.
The staff generally considers that one foot surveying errors are acceptable in
most cases. An error in excess of one foot requires a variance or physical correction.
The applicant has not argued any hardship which could justify the encroachment.
To simply grant the variance due to an error would be a special privilege, we feel.
Romrell /Fox -2- 8/4/82
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of poRulation,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
public safety.
There are no effects upon these factors.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
FTNDTNGS-
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 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.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested setback
variance. Although this is a harmless encroachment with respect to negative
impacts, we cannot recommend approval when the reason is a simple error. A
justifiable hardship must be demonstrated according to the criteria set forth
above.
0
s
I—]
40
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 29, 1982
SUBJECT: Request to amend Sections 18:24.020(C), 18.24.030 (C), 18.24.040(6),
18.24.065 (A), and 18.26.045(A).of the Vail Municipal .Code to change
the process for adding an outdoor patio in CCI and CCII to a conditional
use permit procedure. Applicant: Town of Vail
RAMR01INn
Both the Vail Village and the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Considerations state
that outdoor dining decks and patios contribute to the liveliness of the street
and provide a rich pedestrian experience. In other words, outdoor dining areas
ought to be encouraged throughout the Village and Lionshead if properly designed.
The staff went to the Planning and Environmental Commission at the July 12, 1982
meeting with a proposal to amend the zoning code to remove the requirement that
an application for the addition of outdoor decks and patios go through review
by the Planning and Environmental Commission only twice a year as do exterior
alterations which add or remove floor area in CCI or CC2. The reasoning behind
this request was the fact that outdoor decks and patios ought to be encouraged
as specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan and the current process made it difficult
to do so other than twice a year. The Planning and Environmental Commission tabled
the request, desiring to still have the ability to review applications for the
addition of outdoor decks and patios in CCI and CCII rather than having them reviewed
only by the Design Review Board.
The current proposal is to make the addition of outdoor decks and patios in
CCI and CCII a conditional use. Thus the zoning code would be amended as.follows:
1. Sections 18.24.020 (C), 18.24.030(0), and 18.24.040 (8) -- -Add as a conditional
use the addition of outdoor patios, and;
2. Sections 18.24.065 (A) and 18.26.045 (A) currently read:
Exterior alterations or modifications -- Procedure
All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI or CCII shall
comply with the following procedure:
A. The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed
floor area or outdoor patio or the replacement of an existing building
shall be subject to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission
as follows:...
Odtdoor patios -2- 7/29/82
As proposed to be amended they would read:
. Exterior alterations or modifications --- Procedure
All alterations of the exterior of an existing building in CCI or CCII shall
comply with the following procedure:
A. The alteration of an existing building which adds or removes any enclosed
floor area or the replacement of an existing building shall be subject
to review by the Planning and Environmental Commission as follows :...
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed
amendments.
L _J
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: July 29, 1982
SUBJECT: Conditional Use Permit application for Mountain Tropics Pet Shop
to enable the sale of birds and small mammals
Applicant: Catherine G. Street
BACKGROUND %DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Mountain Tropics Pet Shop located on the first floor in the Vail das Schone .
shopping center in West Vail has been in operation since the Fall of 1981.
The Planning and Environmental Commission has previously granted a conditional
use permit to enable the sale of tropical fish and pet supplies only. This
conditional use permit was granted November. 9, 1981, and at that time the PEC
instructed the applicants that they would need to amend the conditional use
permit should they wish to sell anything other than tropical fish and pet supplies.
The applicant now desires to sell. birds and small mammals such as hamsters,
gerbils, etc. They do not seek permission to sell larger species such as dogs,
cats or similar animals.
is 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 the development_ objectives of the Town
Small, specialized retail shops add to the variety of commercial opportunities
for the visitor and resident alike.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, trans ortation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other
public facilities and public facilities needs.
There are no effects on these factors.
Effect upon traffic with articular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuvera-
bility, and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
There is plenty of parking directly adjacent to the shop on the north side
of Vail Das Schone and in the main lot adjacent to the frontage road.
r1
LJ
r
Mtn Tropics -2- 7/29/82
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be located,
. inc uding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
The additional sales of birds and small mammals should not have any negative
effects upon the character of the area. All of the residents above the shop
have been notified of the proposal, and we have not received any objections
from them. All of the adjacent commercial shops have written in support of
the request. The shop has been maintained in a clean, quiet, and unobtrusive
manner, and the quality of the shop is expected to be maintained.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
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.
;7
•
•
•
9AZR ff.1L iWU
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRONT: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 1982
SUBJECT: Revisions to the Parking Regulations
On July 20th the Town Council sent the parking revisions back to the PEG because
the staff wished to change the way floor area was to be measured. We feel that
it would be beneficial to not count (for parking purposes) such areas as mechanical,
common hallways, common lobbies, common restrooms, stairways and elevators. These
areas are either necessities which do not.create a demand for parking or "amenities"
which should not be discouraged..
Storage space has been carefully considered by the staff. We conclude that it
should be included in calculating parking area due to conversion and enforcement
problems. As you know, we continually experience problems of storage space
(not counted as GRFA) being illegally converted to residential living area, Such
conversions are extremely difficult to detect and enforce. We fear the same
problems in retail and office buildings if storage space is not counted in
determining parking requirements.
The following is our recommendation for the revision of the definition of floor
area:
1. Section 18.04.120 - delete
2. New Section 18.04.135
18.04.135 Floor Area, Net
"Net Floor Area" is defined as the total floor area within the enclosing
walls of a structure not including the following:
1. Areas specifically designed and used for mechanical equipment to operate
the building;
2. Stairways
3. Elevators
4. Common hallways
5. Common lobbies
6. Common restrooms
7. Areas designed and used for parking
Common areas are spaces for which all tenants in the building contribute
toward the upkeep and maintenance thereof and are not used for employee
working areas.
L'
RECOMMENDATION.
The Department of Community Development
of net floor area and the remainder of
these revisions will significantly impr
them up -to -date and clarifying some are
of interpretation. The new definition
inclusion of common areas in office and
parking purposes those areas which crew
Parking -2- 8/4/82
recommends approval of the new definition
the changes to Chapter 18.52. We feel
ove the parking requirements by bringing
as previously open to a great amount
of net floor area should promote the
retail buildings while counting for
to a demand for parking spaces.
Enclosed please find a copy of the proposed ordinance.
� I W-1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
August 23, 1982
1 :30 pm
1. Approval of minutes of August 9.
2. Request for an exterior alteration and modification approval for the Covered '
Bridge Store building on lots C and D, Block 5, Vail Village ist Filing
in order to fill in the northern part of the entry to the Snug store.
Applicant: John Dobson
3. Request for a conditional use permit to- convert an e partment.to retail space
on the second floor of the Covered Bridge Building. Applicant:. John Dobson
4. Request for an exterior alteration and modification approval for Commercial
Core I for the Hong Kong Cafe to construct an addition on the south side of
the existing bar and restaurant. Applicant: Tom Gilbertson
5. Application for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial. Core I
for Cyrano's Building to enclose two decks and add a third floor condominium.
Applicant: Bud and Greta Parks.
6. Request for variances for GRFA, setbacks and site coverage in order to construct
an addition in an MDMF zone district at 4254 East Columbine Way.
Applicants: John and Debbie Odum
7. Request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core III zone district
to conduct outside auto emission testing next to.the Safeway store at 2151
North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Town of Vail
8. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60 to construct
a bus wash and fuel pump facility to the east of the existing bus barn located
at the Town shops in a PUD zone district. Applicant: Town of Vail
Published in the Vail Trail August 20, 1982.
r-
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL .CO_h1MISSION
August 23, 1982
1 :30 pm
PRESENT
Will Trout
Scott Edwards
Jim Viele
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Jim Morgan
1. Approval .of minutes of August 9.
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Dick Ryan
Jim Sayre
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL REP
Bill Wil to
The minutes were corrected to read "Ed Drager" instead of Bill Ruoff asked to
wait until Scott Edwards was in the room to consider the Lodge pool bubble.
Also corrected were the words Trout used to describe adding other pets to the
Mountain Tropics request. Trout had said "other non vicious pets."
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. Vote
was 4 -0 -2 with Viele and Morgan abstaining.
8. Request for a conditional use permit in accordance with Chapter 18.60 to
construct a bus wash and fuel pump facility to the east of the existing bus
am located at the Town shops in a PUD zone district. Applicant: Town
.f
Bill Andrews explained the need for expansion. Corcoran noted that the project
was fairly sheltered and not too visible. Andrews added that there would be
some cuts and that they would be reseeded. Morgan wanted to know if there were.
any other projects or activities at the bus barn that had not come through or
approval, and Ryan answered that there weren't.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the conditional use permit, The vote
was 6 -0 -1 in favor with Corcoran abstaining.
2. Request for an exterior alteration and modification approval for the Covered
Bridge Store building on lots C and D, Block 5, Vail.Villa a 1st Filir�q in
order to fil part of the entr to the Snu store.
Applicant: John Dobson
Dick Ryan reminded the board that this had been explained at the last meeting when
it was tabled. He added that he had spoken with several business owners in the
past few days, and that they impressed upon him that a safe entry into a shop was
desirable. Ryan used the Casino building as an example of making steps safer,
especially in the winter. He also added that some relief was proposed for the facade
of the Covered Bridge building to enhance it. John Dobson, the applicant, asked
the board if they had any problems with page 2 of the memo, and Piper and Donovan
objected to the staff's opinion on street edge. Barry Baker, the manager of the
Snug shop, explained that the snow plow pushed snow down into his entrance, and
also snow was brought into the recessed stairway by boots. In the summer, invalids
and children were often carried up and down the stairs.
PEC -2- 8/23/82
Dobson showed elevations and perspectives of the proposed remodeled building,
and repeated the remarks about the snow problem,.and added that the awning
was a problem with vandalism and blocking visibility. Ryan stated that Jeff
Winston of Gage Davis was working on the problem of the Covered Bridge width
and the north side of the Covered Bridge store building, considering reconstruction
of the bridge and the entry way onto Bridge Street from the bridge.
Comments:
Morgan: It would be better -to have the steps inside, but this is an improvement.
Piper:i: The steps now are stated to be a problem, but you are not eliminating steps.
I feel that the front as is is a strong identification to the Village, even more
than the Covered Bridge. This is the initial introduction to the Village, more
so than coming out of the parking structure.
Donovan: I feel the same way I did at the last meeting - -the windows are in the
same line, the rock wall will meet Pepi's rock wall. I feel the confusion could
be addressed with signage. When people walk into a landing, they know that there
is obviously more than one level. If they walk into one level, they may not know
that there is another level. I feel the streetedge is not good.on the proposal.
Viele: I'm in general accord with the staff's analysis of the proposal. It's
in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan and is an improvement in safety
and access. Would there be a change in the stairs to the creek? Ryan: There
would be temporary steps.
Edwards: My only objection is construction on Bridge Street. I like the new plan
better than the existing.
Trout: Are you changing the floor elevations in the inner space? Now there are
five steps down. You feel there is danger, but there are five steps up to an ex-
terior landing which doesn't alter the safety factors. Many famous-buildings
have this type of entrance, but the decision of the entrance for retail reasons
is not ours to make. I'm concerned about the landscaping of the area by Gore
Creek.
Ryan: It will be done with an overall upgrade of the area, but it won't be done
this construction season. Trout mentioned that at the last meeting, there was
discussion about remonstration against a possible improvement district for the
area. Dobson answered that it didn't make sense to say o.k. if I don't know the
details, but I am sure we can work.something out.
Trout stated that he was concerned with the town getting an easement or a right
of way for steps leading to the creek. Corcoran reminded him that the town did
not own the property by the creek. Ryan added that there would be steps to the
creek, but not on the Dobson property, and at present they would be temporary
until the improvement district was formed. Trout was.concerned about the cost,
and Ryan explained that the cost would be shared, plus the Town would share in
the cost as well.
Dobson felt that morally and politically it was not a good idea to ask someone
to agree to legislation he hasn't seen. "I will agree to participate in the type
of improvements the staff has recommended up to now."
Viele moved and Edwards seconded to approve the alteration and modification
to the Covered Bridge building as per the staff memo. Viele amended this to
say "without the staff conditions of approval." After discussion, the vote was
3 in favor, (Edwards, Viele, Morgan), 3 against (Donovan, Trout, Piper) with
Corcoran abstaining.
PEC -3- 8/23/82
After more discussion, Viele stated a new motion, that of approval of the alteration
as per the staff recommendation and conditions with number 3 modified to read:
3. That the applicant be responsible for the construction of new steps down to
the grassy landscaped area by Gore Creek, that the applicant provide
public access to the landscaped area, and that a landscape plan be submitted
for the upgrading of this area.
Edwards seconded the motion, and the vote was 4 in favor and 2 against (Donovan,
and Piper) with Corcoran abstaining. The motion passed.
3. Request for a conditional use permit to convert an apartment to retail space
on the second floor of the Covered Bridge Building. Applicant: John Dobson
(Edwards left)
Dick Ryan reviewed the memo and gave an update on the conversion of space in
Vail Village. He added that there had been a reduction in numbers of employee
units, but there was still a mix of residential and commercial.within the Village.
Dobson stated that because of noise, lack of access, etc. that the space was not
good for residential and listed buildings that had commercial space on the second
floor.
Trout and Viele stated that they were in agreement with the staff. Donovan felt
the use should stay as it was because the core was dead at nite, and the housing
was needed. Piper felt that there was no way to know whether or not there was
a need,for employee housing and that a survey should be done to find out. Morgan
felt that it should be used as employee housing, and that there was a need for this
type of housing in the valley wherever it may be, and that the Urban Design Guide
Plan did not encourage commercial when it deleted residential units.
Dobson stated that the record of the Town Council was never to turn down a request
like this and he wanted the same consideration. Morgan also disagreed with the
fact that there would be less traffic, stating that there would be more traffic.
Dobson agreed.
Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve the request for the conditional use
with the one condition of approval per the staff memo dated 8/18/82.
The vote was 3 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Morgan) with Corcoran abstaining.
4. Request for an exterior alteration and modification approval for Commercial
Core I for the Hong Kan Cafe to construct an addition on the south side of
the existing bar and restaurant. Applicant: Tom Gilbertson
Peter Patten showed sections, perspectives and an isometric of the proposal and
reviewed the memo. Gilbertson stated that he did not agree with.the condition of
participating in an improvement distract.
Duane Piper, architect for the project, described the addition adding that it
would give more life to the plaza.
. Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve the exterior alterations per the staff
memo dated 8/16/82 including the one condition. The vote was 3 in favor, none
against, with 3 abstentions (Piper, Corcoran and Donovan). The motion passed.
Corcoran reminded Gilbertson that he had 10 days in which to appeal the condition
of the approval.
PEC -4- 8/23/82
Bill Wilto, the Council representative, asked the board if they would give the
Council some direction concerning the conditions regarding the improvement
districts. Corcoran replied that this was one item he had planned to bring
up at the joint meeting on September 21.
5. Application for exterior alteration and modification in Commercial Core I
for C rano's Buil in to enclose two decks and.add a third floor con ominium.
Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks
Patten asked to have this item tabled until the meeting on September 13 because
the list submitted by the applicant of adjacent property owners to notify had not
been complete. He added that this was the last meeting under the rules of the 90
day review for exterior alterations.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to table this item until September 13 at which
time the applicant must be present with all required material, or this project
would be put into the next time slo . {the November review date }. The vote
was 6 -0 in favor of tabling.
6. Req nest for two variances: Setback and GRFA to make additions and improvements
To the residence located on lot 9, Bighorn Terrace. Applicants: John an
Debbie Odum.
Patten explained the memo and showed the plans and elevations. He added that
the:'condominium had twice as much GRFA as was.allowed, and that the lots were
. only 27 feet wide (though MDMF required 20' setbacks), adding that the buildings
were constructed while in the county and that the zoning was added when they were
annexed to the town, and then the project was subdivided into very small. lots, adding
to the complications.
Jim Manning, architect for the project, showed site and floor plans and elevations
and stated that the property was owned by 2 families each with 2 children, needing
one more bedroom, and that one child had Down's syndrome; requiring more supervision,
He added that since 1977, 5 similar proposals in this subdivision had been presented
to the board, 4 of which had been denied by the staff, and the PEC:had approved
all except for the Curfman request in 1980.
Patten agreed that 5 had been presented, but that they were not exactly alike.
Morgan stated that he tended to favor the variance, but where did one stop?
Piper mentioned that in rezoning in annexation, one reason is to bring some confor-
mity and continuity. He found it difficult to support any addition to GRFA over
that which is allowed. Specific to the airlock, he was in favor of this, since
it was encouraged, but that the stairway would add to the problem of snow removal.
Donovan agreed with Piper. Viele felt that imposing MDMF setbacks was a hardship
because if it were taken seriously, nothing could be built. It seemed unrealistic
to him to look at GRFA restrictions on such a tiny lot. Trout agreed with Viele,
with respect to snow removal, as did Corcoran. Corcoran was concerned with a
power line that ran above the dwelling and asked the applicant to determine
whether the power company had an easement for the line.
Patten mentioned that the town had received a letter from the secretary of an
organization that owned the common areas in favor of the proposal, but he was
speaking only for himself. Donovan stated that there were 3 condo associations
in the group of condominiums.
PFC -5- 8/23/82
After additional discussion concerning the total GRFA on the site if it were treated
as a normal "town- housed" project (the total GRFA was not known), the applicant
was asked if he wished to table the item for more study on his part. Patten admitted
that he had no idea what the GRFA would be if treated as a "town- house" project
because of lack of records. The feasibility of a study of any kind was discussed.
A poll of the members revealed:
Morgan did not feel the setbacks were any problem.
Piper wanted further study, because as it stood now he felt he could not approve
it.
Donovan approved of the airlock, was opposed to the front setback and the
bedroom setback.
Viele wanted to look at the project total with some meaningful numbers.
Trout agreed with Viele.
Corcoran wanted to look at the entire project in MDMF and also the building separations
Piper asked how they could look at the total GRFA when each building was on its
own individual lot. He felt that they should deal with the situation as it exists.
Manning asked the members how they would feel if there could not be a study of
the project as a whole.
Morgan said he would feel the same way unless it were found that the units were
over in GRFA.
Donovan stated that she didn't feel that she could approve the setback:encroachments
Viele felt that he might be willing to change his mind depending on the results
of the study.
Trout was concerned with the total GRFA.
Manning requested to table his request until September 13. Piper moved and Viele
seconded to table as per the applicant's request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
7• Request for a conditional use permit in Commercial Core III zone district to
conduct outside auto emission testing next to the Safeway store.
Patten reviewed the memo. Ruth Cogan, enviromental health officer, explained that
the test would be directly in front of the store, and that it would not impede
traffic, and that cars could go thru the test in 1 -1/2 minutes. Donovan moved
and Morgan seconded to approve the request per the staff memo dated 8/17/82.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Patten announced that on September 16, there would be a study of the subdivision
regulations.
The meeting was adjourned at 4:25.
I� TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Meeting of August 23 and special joint meeting with Council
on September 21.
The meeting on August 23 will start at 11:30 with lunch at the Lodge
followed by site visits to the Hong Kong Cafe and to the Odum addition.
Please note: On September 21 at 2:00 pm there will be a joint meeting
with the Town Council. The agenda has not yet been set.
� 0
•
f
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 19, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for a conditional use permit to construct a bus -wash
and fuel island facility at the Town shops. Applicant: Town of
Vail
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Town of Vail is proposing the construction of a bus wash /fuel island facility
to be located approximately 100 feet west of the existing administration building.
The bus wash facility is approximately 1250 square feet. This facility will enable
the Town's new 35 foot buses to be washed, as the present facility cannot accommodate
a bus of this length.
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:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
The Public Use District, in which this proposal is located, is intended to provide
sites for public buildings and grounds. The proposed addition is in compliance
with the development objectives of the Town.
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 facility provides an improvement in the ability of the Town to provide public
transportation.
Effect upon--traff i c with particular reference to conga
trian safet,yand convenience, traffic flow and control
ana removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
tion, automotive and pedes-
access, maneuverability,
The proposal will improve the traffic flow.through the bus barn and shop area.
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 realtion to surrounding uses.
0 The proposed use will be compatible with the surrounding area and buildings.
J
Bus Wash/Fuel Island -2-
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable _t_othe
proposed use.
The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 18.56,
No FIR is required.
FINDINGS
The Department of Community Development recommends that the conditional use permi-c
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.
s
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the proposal.
The proposal is compatible with the existing facility and will create no negative
impacts.
•
. MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 1982
SUBJECT: Public hearing in consideration of an exterior alteration and
modification in Commercial Core I to modify the front exterior
to the Covered Bridge Building specifically the Snug shop located
on Bridge Street
Applicant: John Dobson
I. PROPOSAL
The proposal is to remove the stairs that go down to the Snug shop to fill the
space in and to add a small amount of new floor area, new windows, and to provide
for a new entrance which would be a couple of steps.above street level.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION OF 18.24.010
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and maintain the character
` of Vail Village commercial area, with its mixtures of lodge and commercial establish -
ments and a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district
is intended to insure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance
with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe
development standards that are intended to insure the maintanance and preservation
of a ti.ghly clustered arrangement of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and
public greenways and to insure continuation of buildings, scale, and architectural
qualities that distinguish the Village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial Core I
zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Urban Design Guide Plan does not specifically deal with enclosing floor area
for the Covered Bridge Building. One of the desired goals of the Urban Design
Guide Plan was to enhance the commercial activity that takes place in the Village
and to insure safe and adequate access to stores and shops. The Community Development
Department considers that the proposal would allow people greater visibility of
the commercial activity and make the entry way rflare desirable into the Snug shop
and the Covered Bridge Store.
•
•
Covered Bridge -2- 8/4/82
IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
A.
Pedestrianization
Bridge Street currently is a predominant pedestrian way within Vail Village.
This section of Bridge Street is essentially vehicle free and is probably the
highest used pedestrian walk -way within the Town of Vail. As you come across
the Covered Bridge, this is the major entry way into the entire Vail Village
area,.and the proposed .improvements for the Snug shop and the Covered Bridge
Store should allow for easier access into the stores.
B. Vehicle Penetration
There should be no change by this proposal.
C. Streetscape Framework
The Streetscape framework would change somewhat by bringing out the store front
approximately four feet. There would be easier access for people to walk up
and window shop. The steps that are being proposed for remodeling with the
addition to the Snug shop would also be carried over to the Covered Bridge
Store which would improve entry ways into both shops.
D. Street £nclosu
There would be insignificant change by the small expansion of the Snug shop
along Bridge Street by this proposal.
E. Street Edge
By the new addition, there would still be variations in the building facade
to maintain visual image along Bridge Street.
F. Building Height
There would be no change by this proposal.
G. Views
No change by this proposal
H. Service and Deliver
No change by this proposal.
I. Sun /shade
The project would not change the sun /shade on public property.
J. Other Design Considerations
The design of the store fronts and steps are the responsibility of the Design
Review Board
P
Covered Bridge -3- 8/4/82
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
0 -
The parking fee would be due at the time of the building permit.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed addition
to Snug and the enhancement of the entryway into the Covered Bridge Store. We consider
that one of the major elements into Vail is the streetscape as you cross the Covered
Bridge and that continual upgrading of this area and enhancement of this area within
the framework of the Urban Design Guide Plan is a positive aspect to Vail Village
and the Vail community. The recommendation for approval.would include the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant agree to participate in and not remonstrate against
a mini - improvement district if one if formed for this section of Bridge
Street.
2. That the applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if one is formed for the entire Vail Village area.
3. That the applicant be responsible for the construction of new steps down to
the grassy landscaped area by Gore Creek, and that a landscape plan be submitted
40 for the upgrading of this area.
4. That the applicant agrees to allow for public use of the space and land down
by the Gore Creek area.
LJ
I•
� is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for a conditional use permit to conduct automobile
emissions testing in Commercial Core III
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The proposed activity is to conduct an auto emissions test for a period of three
days each year next to the Safeway store in Commercial Core III. This activity
is conducted jointly by the Town of Vail Environmental Health Department and the
Colorado Department of Health.
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:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
No impact.
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 auto emissions testing is designed to make the public aware of the pollutants
emitted by automobiles and to determine the amounts of pollutants emitted by each
vehicle in an effort to reduce air pollution within the valley.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and pedes-
trian safet y and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabilit y,
and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
The activity will take place in the Safeway parking lot during the summer months
and will not have any negative impact upon the above.
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 impact.
r
It Auto Emissions -2- 8/16/82
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed use.
The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 18.56.
No EIR required.
FINDINGS
The Community, Development Department 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.
• STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The staff recommends approval of the auto emissions testing. The testing is
conducted by the Town of !pail Environmental Health Department and the Colorado
Department of Health, and therefore no advertising or sales of products.will be
involved.
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 16, 1982
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration request to expand the Hong Kong Cafe toward
the south. Applicant: Tom Gilbertson
I. THE REQUEST
c Proposed is to expand the upper level of the Hong Kong Cafe (the greenhouse
bar area) to the south out to the existing rock wall. This has been a somewhat
"forgotten" area as the existing patio is,well below grade and is not a desirable
outdoor space. The addition would add about 626 square feet of floor area.
New restrooms, a food preparation area and an additional exit are planned,
as well as seating for about 20 people. The exterior design of the addition
will be similar to the existing business. The sunken effect of the expansion
area allows the addition to possess a low profile and unobtrusive presence.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010
The commercial core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture
of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environment.
The commercial core I district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings
and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban
design guide plan and design considerations prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural
qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section for Vail Village.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
A. Pedestrianization
This area is not pedestrianized - -no change.
B. Vehicle Penetration
No change in ongoing vehicle penetration for deliveries, etc. will occur
as a result of this proposal.
Hong Kong -2- 8/16/82
C. Streetscape Framework
The proposal may slightly improve the streetscape framework, as it will
make more interesting a portion of the north side of the plaza. A large
amount of landscaping exists between where the addition will.be constructed
and the plaza.
D. Street Enclosure
There is really no effect on street enclosure. However, the addition may
better define the plaza edge in this location.
E. Street Edge
The Hong Kong provides some relief in its scale from the large Lazier Arcade
Building. Furthermore, it is set back four feet from the eastern edge
of the Lazier Building, and this existing jog will remain.
F . Buildina Height
This is a very low profile one story addition, and it meets all height
requirements for Vail Village.
G. Views
No view planes, as designated in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan,
are affected.
H. Service and Delivery.
No significant changes are foreseen.
I. Sun /Shade
The proposal will actually improve access to sun as it takes away an unused
shady spot and creates a sunny indoor eating area.
IV. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATION
The proposal meets all CCI District regulations.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the expansion
for the Hong Kong Cafe. We feel this should be an improvement to an existing
"dead" space. The infill of this area should prove to be an attractive addition
to the edge of the Village Plaza. The following is a condition of approval:
1, The applicant agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a
special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village.
10
� 0 MEMORANDUMI
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 18, 1982
SUBJECT: A conditional use request for the Covered Bridge Store to allow
the conversion of one apartment from residential to commercial.
Applicant: John Dobson
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE :.
The second floor apartment space is approximately 640 square feet. The intended
use is for the Snug shop.
I. BACKGROUND
The Covered Bridge building in 1980 requested a conditional use permi.t,to
remove a residential unit on the second floor for the needlepoint shop. The
Planning Commission did not recommend approval of the conditional use request.
It was appealed to Town Council, and they voted to overturn the PEC-approval.
. In 1981 there was a request to remove three lodge rooms at Gasthof Gramshammer.
This was denied by the PEC and overturned at Town Council.
In 1982 there was a request at the Casino Building to add three residential
units, and this was approved. In addition, a new unit was approved for the
Ore House.
As the PEC can see, there have been units added and removed in Vail Village
over the last two years. As in the 1980 Covered Bridge Building and Pepi's
request, the staff supported the removal of the unit and lodge rooms.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
Upon review of Section 18.60.060, 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:
Over the years there have been residential units removed to permit additional
commercial expansion. Recently as noted in the background section, four
40 new residential units have been approved. The staff considers that as long
rM
Cov Brdg Cond Use -2- 8/18/82
as we continue to have the mix of residential and commercial within Vail Village,
• the removal of some residential units for commercial expansion is desirable. The
Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan recommends additional commercial expansion,
and the parking fee provides for an incentive to promote commercial expansion.in
Commercial Core I. The staff considers that the proposal is consistent with the
development objectives of the Town.
III. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of popu lation, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, arks and recreation facilities, and other u is
facilities and public facilities needs.
There should be no effect on these factors.
IV. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, au
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access
and removal of snow from the street and parking areas:.
There should be no effect on these factors.
:omotive ana
maneuverabilit
V. The 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:
There should be no change by this proposal.
VI. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 18.56. — __._....�..�
0 Not required.
VII. Commercial Core I Factors Applicable
A. Effect on vehicle traffic on Commercial Core I district:
Possible reduction by not having people coming to unit.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I district:
Possible reduction of traffic.
C. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking:
Possible reduction.
D. Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles:
The space will be used by the Snug shop, and additional deliveries.will probably
not be required by this addition.
E. Development of public spaces to be used by pedestrians:
No new spaces developed or proposed by this proposal
. F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public uses in CCI
so as to maintain the existing character of the area:
See numbers I and II.
f
Covered Brdg C. Use -3--
G. Control quality of construction, architectural design, and landscape
design in commercial core 1 district so as to maintain the existing
is character of the area;
No change
W. Effects of noise, odor, dust, smoke, and other factors on the environment
of commercial core l district.
No change.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the conditional
use request. Changing of use from residential to commercial is consistent
with the recent action of the Town Council, the policy board of the town
of Vail. The staff considers that the balance of residential and commercial
does not dramatically change by this proposal.
One condition of approval would be:
1. The applicant will pay the parking fee for the change of use.
Before a vote on the agenda item, the PEC shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accordance with the purposes of
the district in which the site is located;
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity;
3. That the proposeduse will comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this title.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
0 September 13, 1982
2 :00 pm Site visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of August 23.
2. Application for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District to
enclose two decks and add a third floor condominium at Cyrano's building.
Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks
3. Request for variances for GRF'A and setbacks in order to construct an addition
on lot 9, Bighorn Terrace. Applicants:,. John and Debbie Odum
4. Request for an amendment to the municipal code to disallow the review of
an application by Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission
if the application is substantially similar to one reviewed within the
previous year. Applicant: Town of Vail
5. Request for exterior alteration and modification in CCII District for shop
expansion along Lion's Pride Court on the first floor.
Applicant: Steve Sheridan
is 6. Request for amendments to the municipal code to revisb�submittal:regu- Tations
for outdoor display and outdoor vending. Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Request for setback variance in order.to construct a greenhouse that would
encroach 10 feet into a required side setback at Garden of the Gods Club.
Applicant: Mrs. Albert G. Hill
8. Request for a setback variance in accordance with Section 18.62 of the
Vail Municipal Code to extend -a, single family dwelling 8 feet 9 inches
into the north (front) setback on lot 45, Vail Village West,. Filing No. 2,
1956 Gore Creek Drive Applicant: David Lawrence Irwin
C]
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 13, 1982
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Will Trout
Dick Ryan
Diana Donovan
Peter Patten
Dan Corcoran
Peter Jamar
Duane Piper
Jim Sayre
Jim Viele
Betsy Rosolack
later: COUNCIL REP
Jim Morgan Ron Todd
ABSENT
Scott Edwards
Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm.
1. Aperoval of minutes . of meeting of August 23 1982.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the minutes of August 23. Vote was 5.0.
so2, Application for exterior alteration and modification in CCI District to enclose
two decks and add a third floor condominium at C rano's, Applicants: Bud and
Greta Parks.
Dan Corcoran explained that five letters had been received from adjoining property
owners in opposition to the project.
Peter Patten gave some background on the Cyrano's building and reviewed the memo.
Jim Colombo ., architect °for the project made the board familiar with various com-
ponents of the request, He added that making the Cyrano's building higher made
the building come closer to the height of the Gold Peak House, He stated that
the applicant was interested in keeping as much transparency as possible along
Seibert Circle and Hanson Ranch Road.
He showed with transparencies how the building would look when the glass roof
and walls were in place. The windows and roof were to work electronically, and
could be taken off completely in the summer. He explained that the third floor
was set back to retain the two story feeling of the building. Colombo pointed
out that only 1/2 of 1 window on the east side of the Gold Peak House was blocked
by Cyrano's proposal, and that there are 4 or 5 other windows on the same wall
that were already blocked.
Corcoran read a letter from Rick Haltermann, Managing agent from Arthur Bishop
and Company, manager for, :the Mill Creek Court Building, stating that as long as
the ordinances of the Town of Vail were adhered to, -the Mill Creek Court Building
Association did not have any objection to the proposal.
PEC 2- 9/13/82
Jack Curtin, representing himself and Mrs, Cortlandt Hill.spoke and mentioned
that at one time there were 2 residences on the second floor which were changed
to the restaurant and one of the reasons given was that residences did not
work in that space, Curtin pointed out that Cyrano's had not finished landscaping,
and that cars still parked on the east side, He added that there was a great
possibility that the sliding walls and roofs would become frozen shut and would
remain shut on the south deck, He asked why a model hadn't been required to
be shown in the proposal. Curtin also maintained that until the view corridor
review was made, there should be no curtailment of existing views. He felt
that it was difficult to hide the fact that there was a 3rd floor, that the
building as it was now could be charming if it were cleaned up, that a 3rd floor
would block 4 or 5 windows that lit and ventilated hallways in the Gold Peak
House. Curtin felt that there would be increased traffic because of more people
in the larger restaurant and additional people in the condominium, especially
if the condo were rented out. He added that it would shade the stream considerably.
Curtin's last remarks were that the applicant should be asked to finish what
they have started before being granted further approvals.
Kit Cowperthwaite, representing Jack Whitehead, owner of the Red Lion Condominium,
said that it was Mr. Whitehead's presence and acts, after purchasing the condo,
that dissolved a law suit between Mrs. Hill and the Town of Vail, He added
that'Mr, Whitehead stood to lose 40 -50% of his view of Vail. Mountain with the
addition of a 3rd story, Couperthwaite read section 18.24.065 A3 of.the code and
felt that it was not being complied with.
Viele felt that more information was needed. Piper felt that the view corridor
should be pursued more, that the previous items that had been approved should
be completed before granting further approvals. He felt that leaving Cyrano's
at two stories allowed excellent relief of spaces,. Piper was concerned that
the deck enclosures be extremely transparent - -90% transparent as was presented,
Donovan felt that the alley seemed to be a catch,all,.that there was a definite
loss of light to the Gold P House, that there was a moral obligation on the
part of Cyrano's not to add the 3rd floor, because of past documented action of
Mr. Parks, and.that with fogging up, there would be little transparency to the
enclosed decks, that the difference in the.,heights of Cyrano's and the.Gold Peak
House was interesting7,that no project of Cyrano's to date had been completed,
and that the street enclosure with the -3rd floor was overwhelming. She added that
a larger restaurant created more deliveries, especially of perishables.
Corcoran agreed with Jack Curtin in that the presentation by the applicant was
lacking compared with other applicants.
Columbo pointed out that even with the 3rd story added, that there was still
a great difference in height between Cyrano's and the Gold Peak House, that
there would be more activity generated in Seibert Circle and Hanson Ranch Road,
that the applicant would agree to all 5 conditions, and added that there had
never been a ri.ght to private views. He added that it was -hard to,;see. the view unless
one were 'in the Clock Tower area. He explained that the windows would not frost
up because they would be of 1" or 1z." Thermopane, and the heat from the inside
should mel.t any snow on the top immediately. Columbo said that a.model would
•
PEC -3- 9/13/82
be no problem to make, but that it should have been brought up when the applicant
applied for the approval.
Jim Morgan arrived.
Patten, replying to some of Curtin's remarks, stated that the.staff did not
state that there would not be any impacts, He added that the enclosed decks
would add to the activity in the core area. There had been complications concerning
finishing the area to the east of the building., but that there was now an agreement
that it must be finished by October 1.
Ryan stated that the request must be dealt with under the current criteria..
He added that the front deck would have to be completed by June 1, 1983,
Corcoran moved and Donovan seconded to deny the request, Corcoran stating that
that he did not feel that this presentation was as detailed as others in CCI, and
that he did not feel a 3rd floor condo was appropriate in that area when the very
strong argument was used that it didn't work when the conversion was made on the
2nd floor. "I think those 2 areas alone are strong enough for my motion, and I
reiterate the items listed by Curtin: The vote was 3-2 (Trout & Piper) to
deny with Morgan abstaining.
Curtin asked why the view corridor review hadn't been finished, and Ryan answered
that the legal staff was not confident with the procedure, that it would not
stand up legally. He added that this was one of the subjects to be discussed
at the joint meeting on Tuesday, September 21,
• 3. Request for variances for GRFA and setbacks in order to construct an addition
an 1 of 9, B iT o n terrace. T Appl icants : Join and De D ie 0 um
Patten explained that the request has been revised since the last meeting, in
that the request now was for only the airlock on the west side and to expand
the front deck to the south.
Jim Manning, representing the applicants, showed site plans. Discussion followed
concerning snow removal and storage.
Morgan moved and Viele seconded to approve the variance request for the setback
for the airlock as well as the setback for the front deck. The vote was 3-3
with Morgan, Viele and Trout in favor, and Donovan, Corcoran and Piper voting
against. The motion did not pass.
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to approve the variance request for the airlock
only as per the staff recommendation. The vote was 6-0 in favor., The applicant
was reminded that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision to Town Council.
Piper and Patten left at this point.
r 1
LJ
.�, PEC -4- 9/13/82
4, Request for exterior alteration and modification in CC.II District for shop
expansion_ along� Lion's �Pride Court on the first floor. Applicant: Steve 511eridan
Jim Sayre reviewed the meeting of July 26 when the applicant first appeared
with the request. He explained that some.of the objections at that meeting
had been met- =the elevation of the complete building was now presented and there
was now some variation in the facade.
Allen Tafoya, of the Ruoff - Wentworth Architects office, presented the new drawings
and explained that Performance Ski was adding only 282 square feet. He added
that he felt that enclosing the area behind Bart and Yeti's with a gate was
an asset, for the gate would hide many items and trash that were stored there.
Trout objected to the tightness of the corner space, and the inability to see
the buildings beyond the court.
Viele moved and Morgan seconded to approve the request as presented in the memo
dated 9/7/82. The vote was 4-1 (Trout against) in favor. The motion passed.
Jim Sayre reminded Tafoya of the parking fee that would be assesed the addition
of square footage at Performance Ski.
6. Request for a setback variance in order to construct a reenhouse that would
encroach 10 feet into a required side setback at Garden of the Cods Club.
ppplicant: Mrs. Albert G. Hill
Peter Jamar showed the site plan. Frank Payne of Beck and Associates, contractor
for the applicant, showed drawings and photographs of the proposed area. He
IS explained that there was already an existing deck over the area proposed to
be a greenhouse, but that the greenhouse would extend a little beyond the deck.
He added that the building was substantially below in GRFA, and that the new
addition would have little impact on adjoining property owners.
Donovan felt that there was no hardship demonstrated and Viele agreed.
Morgan moved and Trout seconded to approve the request for a setback variance
and cited the reason that 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 vote was 3 in favor, 1 against (Donovan) and Corcoran abstained.
Ryan pointed out that other buildings weren't enjoying the same privilege of
building in setbacks. Corcoran felt that perhaps there should be broader
criteria to determine a variance from hardship.
6. Request for amendment to the municipal code to disallow the review of an
application by Design Review Board and Planning and Environmental Commission
if the application is su stantial. semi ar to one reviewed within t e revious
year. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Jamar explained that there had been a number of instances where an applicant
had re- applied for some type of approval with the same application that had
previously been denied. Morgan felt that perhaps one year was too long a time
frame, that they were dealing with rights -- -the public had a right to re-apply.
Jamar said that the legal staff had reviewed the amendment.
PEC -5- 9/13/82
Trout had the same reaction the Morgan had concerning the time element and suggested
perhaps 2 or 3 months. Jamar pointed out that this amendment did not prevent
appolicants from appealing. Ryan added that this amendment was the result of
direction from Council. Morgan felt that it was overkill. Viele felt that there
were getting to be too many regulations. Donovan generally was in favor of the
amendment, She pointed out that the Covered Bridge building was another exampla
when the applicant asked to table his request until the next meeting when one
of the absent board members would be there, Corcoran added that another example
was the pool bubble for the Lodge at Vail. Viele answered that that was the
right of the applicant.
Morgan moved and Viele seconded not to recommend the zoning amendment to Town
Council. The vote was 3 -2 (Corcoran and Donovan against) in favor of not
recommending the amendment to the Town Council.
6. Request for amendments to the municipal code to revise submittal re ulations
for outdoor disp ay and outdoor vending. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Jamar explained that the Arterial Business District was not included, but
that it may be at a later date. He added that the crossed out items were not
needed in the amendment because vending stands were not allowed, kiosks were
covered in the sign ordinance, and accessary outdoor dining terraces were covered
by conditional uses. Awning and windbreaks were addressed in the Urban Design
Guide Plans. The question was raised as to penalties imposed upon zoning code
violations, and Ron Todd referred to Section 18.66.025.
Ryan explained that this amendment would cut down the time it would take to
is get approval, It becomes a staff situation, Viele asked about the time element_
and Jamar replied that there was not time involved, rather a location question,
and the permit was issued to the lessee with the property owner's approval,
The discussion which followed concerned whether or not it was a good idea to
have a new ordinance, whether it was costly to ask for an improvement survey,
(it was decided that most buildings have improvement surveys), whether the Town
could merely include this information in business licenses.
Jamar suggested that perhaps the regulations could be included as a part of-an
application for a business license or license renewal.
Ryan suggested tabling this item for further study.
Viele moved and Trout seconded to table the request until September 27. The
vote was 4 -0 in favor (Morgan had left).
Corcoran asked the members to look at the memo Dick had written on ways to
speed up the meetings and make additional suggestions at the next meeting.
He suggested meeting a half hour early to discuss this.
Corcoran felt that attendance was important at each meeting and staying until
the meeting was over was also important.
Ryan reminded the members of the joint meeting on Tuesday, September 21 and
Betsy asked which members could go to the NWCCOG meetinj on Oct 15 & 16.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:00.
.w1
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FRONT: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 7, 1982
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration and modification request for Cyrano's to
enclose two second level decks and add a third story condominium
Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks
I. BACKGROUND
In the summer of 1979 Cyrano's requested to enc
they are again requesting to enclose. At the P
denied 3 -2 due to the size of the expansion, th
set for future expansions of a similar nature,
expansion would have on changing the character
outdoor dining areas and increasing congestion.
lose the same decks as
EC on July 10 they were
e precedent that it would
and the effect that this
of the area by eliminating
The Planning and Environmental. Commission decision was appealed to Council,
but the applicant changed his mind and proposed to only enclose the front
deck (facing Hanson Ranch Road). The Council remanded it back to PEC, which
approved the front deck enclosure with the condition that the enclosure
be constructed so that the side windows are removed in the summer to provide
the same summer space and appearance that is there today. Another condition
required the awning to remain to retain the color and movement when the
wind comes up and the awning flutters.
As the current proposal does not meet these conditions (they wish to permanently
enclose the deck), the previous approval does not apply, and we should treat
this as a totally new proposal.
II. THE PROPOSAL.
The proposal entails enclosing the 480 square foot north deck as a structural
component of the building.
The south deck of 1000 square feet is planned to be enclosed with retractable
greenhouse windows to retain the ability to make it an outdoor deck throughout
the year. Also proposed is the addition of a third story to the building
which would consist of a dwelling unit of approximately 2,300 square feet.
The applicants wish to enclose the north deck to make it an indoor space
due to the small time period throughout the year when it can be used as
an outdoor eating area (due to its north orientation), -They wish to "green-
house" the south deck to allow it to remain functioning as an outdoor deok.
when weather allows (glass would be removed) plus to be able to use the
deck in the winter when weather is not conducive to eating outdoors. The
third floor dwelling unit would be set back from Hanson Ranch Road to attempt
to retain the building's two story feeling from that perspective.
Cyrano's -2- 9/7/82
III. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I
The Commercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its mixture
of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environ-
ment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air., open space, and other amenities appropriate to the.permitted types of
buidings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail
Village urban design guide plan and design consideratians prescribe site
development standards that are intended to ensure.the.maintenance and preserva-
tion of the tightly clustered arangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian
ways and public greeways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale
and architectural qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial
Core I zone district.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
A. Sub -area Concebts
Concept 8: "Mill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creek. path
completes linkage from Pirate Ship Park and mountain
path to Gore Creek Drive."
Since physically there is no area to keep the path totally on the west
• side of the creek,,the path must be constructed partially (southerly
113) on the east side with a bridge over the creek, The construction
of this path will be a condition of approval, The staff will work with
the applicant for proper placement and construction of the path.
Concept 10: Seibert Circle. "Feature area paving treatment. Relocate
focal point (potential fountain) to north.for better sun
exposure (fall /spring), creates increased plaza area and
are the backdrop for activities. Separated path on north
side for unimpeded pedestrian route during delivery periods."
A condition of approval will be that the applicant agree to participate
in a mini - improvement district for this project.
B. Pedestrianization
No change in pedestrianization will occur as a result of this proposal.
C. Vehicle Penetration
Vehicle penetration into
result of the residents
eries, etc.
0 D. Streetsca a Framework
the'Village will be slightly increased as a
of the condominium dropping off luggage, gro-
The streetscape framework is predominantly unaffected because the changes
would take place above street level.
if
Cyrano's -3- 9/7/82
E. Street Enclosure
From the perception of a pedestrian walking down Hanson Ranch Road, the
street enclosure will not be significantly increased. The north wall
of the proposed dwelling unit will be 20 feet south of the property line
along Hanson Ranch Road and about 40 feet from the center of Hanson Ranch
Road. Thus, by setting back the third level away from the major pedestrian
flow, the street enclosure is not negatively affected. The Urban Design
Guide Plan labels a 1.12 (height of building) to l (width of street) street
enclosure ratio as the most comfortable. Because the Hanson Ranch Road
pedestrian will be conscious of only the two story building height which
now exists, the street enclosure would remain about the same as it presently
is,18.5 to 38 or about 1/2 to 1. As one views the building from upper
Bridge Street, the third level's impact will be evident, but definitely
not overwhelming.
F. Street Edge
Street edge is unchanged with the proposal.
G. Building Height
The proposal meets the new building height requirements for Vail Village
as follows:
1. Allowed: Up to 60% of the building (building coverage area) may
be built to a height of 33 feet or less.
Proposed: 63% of the building to be under 33 feet
2. Allowed: No more than 40% of the building (building coverage area)
may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than 43 feet.
Proposed: 37% of the building to be higher than 33 feet, but not
higher than 43 feet
H. Views
TFere is a minor view plane originating from Gore Creek Drive just east
of the Mill Creek Bridge which looks southwest toward Vail Mountain.
This view plane goes over the western half of Cyrano's and over the
Gold Peak House. Because the Gold Peak Douse is so much larger and taller
than Cyrano's, the minor view will.not be affected by the proposal. Even
after the third story is added to Cyrano's, the Gold Peak House's roof
height will be 16 feet more than Cyrano's.
I. Service and Delivery
Service and delivery frequency should not increase for the restaurant
operation due to the proposal. The two decks to be enclosed are currently
eating areas during at least a portion of the year.. Internal adjustments
with regard to more kitchen and storage space are planned and will be neces-
sary.
•
Cyrano's -4w 9/7/82
Service and delivery efficiency will be greatly improved with the current
construction of a trash enclosure and.paved driveway on land leased from
-.he Town to the east of the building. Delivery_ trucks will be allowed
to use this new driveway to get off Hanson Ranch Road and allow a vehicle
free pedestrian experience. A new delivery walkway into the building
is included in the trash enclosure driveway project. A locked gate and
chain will prevent any vehicles except trash pickup and delivery trucks
to access the new driveway.
Once constructed, the dwelling unit should not negatively impact the
number of service and delivery vehicles entering the core area.
J. Sun /Shade
Enclosing the north deck has no effect on sun /shade factors. The green -
housing and ability to retract the windows on the south deck preserve
the accessibility to the sun in that location. — ` - -- - ---
Because the third story is designed to both set back from the north face
of the building and to match the existing roof pitch of the north portion
of the building, it should not increase the shade on Hanson Ranch Road.
This type of design is specifically encouraged in the Sun /Shade section
of the U.D.G.P. Furthermore, the Gold Peak House already serves to screen
public rights -of -way from the sun during the afternoon hours.
V. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS
1. Uses - all proposed uses are permitted on their respective levels
in Commercial Core I.
2. Density+ Control - Buildable site area = 4,462 sq ft
Allowable GRFA = 3,569 sq ft
Proposed GRFA = 2,364 sq ft
3. Coverage - no change
4. Landscaping - no change
5. Parking and Loading - The applicable fee will be paid into the parking
fund.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the exterior
alteration and modification proposal for Cyrano's. If adequate visual trans-
parency is provided in the enclosure of the north deck, it should serve
to increase year -round activity on upper Bridge Street. The Design Review
Board should carefully review the project to see that this is accomplished.
V
•
•
n
Cyrano's -5- 9/7/82
In conclusion, the design of these additions has been sensitive to existing
conditions and responsive to the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan.
The resulting massing and scale of Cyrano's should make the currently
awkward transition between the Gold Peak House and Cyrano's somewhat more
comfortable. Conditions of approval are as follows:
1. This approval is valid only if the improvements to.the.street level
front deck and retaining wall are constructed (as per approval granted
September 8, 1980) by June 1, 1983.
2, The owner agrees to participate in and not remonstrate against a
special improvement district if an when formed in Vail Village.
3. The greenhouse enclosure of the south deck must be removed completely
during the time period from June 15 to September 15 of each year.
4. The owner agrees to participate in a mini- improvement district if
one is formed for Seibert Circle.
5. The approval is valid for a period of no more than 3 years after
final approval is given.
6. The applicant must construct the Mill Creek walking path connecting
Hanson Ranch Road and the existing bike path south of Cyrano's. This
includes construction of a bridge across Mill Creek.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Revised Odum variance request
The Odums are revising their request for variances to remodel their unit
at Bighorn Terrace. Proposed now is to add only the airlock on the west
side and to expand the front deck to the south. This will require a
setback variance on those two sides of the unit. The proposal to add
more GRFA to the unit has been dropped. The airlock is about 25 square
feet, which is not counted as GRFA according to the definition of that
term.
Enclosed is the previous memorandum for your reference. Our recommendation
remains the same, that the setback variance for the airlock be approved,
but that the one for the front deck be denied in that there is no hardship
demonstrated.
n
U
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for two variances: Setback and GRFA to make additions and im-
provements to the residence located on lot 9, Bighorn Terrace.
Applicants: John and Debbie Odum
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants wish to remodel their townhome in the Bighorn Terrace project in
East Vail. This is an older deveopment built in Eagle County, and subsequently
annexed to the town. At some point in the past, the project was subdivided so
each unit had its own individually owned lot. The lots were created so that they
weren't much larger than the actual footprint of the unit itself, creating many
very non - conforming lots. Thus, when an owner at Bighorn Terrace wishes to alter
his unit with additions, ;he will always require variances from the Medium Density
Multi- family District standards.
In the past four years, the staff has been consistent (with one exception).in
recommending denial of such applications at Bighorn Terrace. This application
is the fifth in that time period. As the PEC knows, the applicant must show a
physical hardship which would not be a. grant of special privilege to obtain a
variance.
This request is to install a new airlock, expand an existing outdoor deck on.the
south side of the unit, fill in with a small amount of additional floor area the
northeast corner of the unit and add an additional bedroom on the second floor.
Also included is an interior remodeling to adjust the space to the current needs
of the residents.
To accomplish the remodel, the applicants need variances for GRFA (to add the
bedroom and another small area), and setbacks iexpand the deck muro , tha;i halfway
into thy: front setback and the two ground level additions).
The applicants request that the airlock on the west side be 1.75 feet from the
property line (a 18.25' variance) and that the northeast corner addition be one
foot from the property line (a 19 foot variance). They wish to add 122 square
feet of GRFA (this includes 25 square feet credit for the airlock) which would
make the unit 622 square feet over the allowable in MDMF. The lot is a total
of 1560 square feet and is 27 feet wide at the widest place. The lot allows 546
square feet of GRFA. There is 1039 square feet existing.
0
Odum -2- 8/17/82
ti
The applicant is basically arguing that the existing MDMF zoning requlations are
aimed at an entirely different type of development, that the law is inconsistent
with the character of this neighborhood and, therefore, should not be interpreted
in a strict or literal manner. We've received one letter from a member of the
Bighorn Mutual Recreation and Sanitation District (owners of the common areas
of Bighorn Terrace) expressing no objection to the.proposal as long as the immediate
neighbors are notified.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The variance requests should not have any negative effects upon other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity. In fact, the.improvements could
have a positive effect upon the aesthetics of the development in that such improvements
seem to have a spin -off effect within the project.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified re ulaton is necessary to achieve compatibili.ty and uniformit
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
wit out grant of special privilege.
We will address this in two segments: One dealing with the airlock addition,
and the other with the extra GRFA.
The staff feels that because airlocks serve an energy conserving function, because
25 square feet of airlocks are not counted as GRFA, and because they are basically
encouraged in the zoning code due to the above, that the airlock addition variance
should be granted (setback).
The other two setback variances requested, for a small portion of the front deck
and fbr the northeast corner addition should not be granted as there has been
no hardship demonstrated.
The GRFA variance is requested to allow two families to be able to have enough
room to use the residence at one time. The staff feels this is a self- imposed
hardship and not sufficient cause for granting a variance.
The effect of the requested variance-.on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public.
sa
There are no significant effects on these factors.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposal.
•
s
Odum -3T 8/17/82
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 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 recommends approval of a setback variance
for only the airlock proposed. We recommend denial of the remaining variances
because no physical hardship has been demonstrated and because the front deck
could be improved without bringing it further to the south into the setback.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 8, 1982
SUBJECT: New regulation regarding the ability to resubmit a similar application
to the staff or any review board of the Town,
Because we've had a number of instances where an applicant will re-apply for
some type of approval from DRB or PEC with the same application that had previously
been denied, the staff feels it is necessary to disallow such occurrences. Such
re- applications waste the time of both staff and the review board and most of
them are done simply to "badger" the review board or to attempt to get a more
receptive board the second time around due to the absence or presence of specific
members. This circumvents the intentions of a fair, impartial public hearing
process and reduces the productivity of the staff.
Thus, the staff recommends that we add the following section under the Administra-
tion chapter (18.66) of the zoning code:
18.66.200 Disallowance of Similar Applications
The Town Manager and /or Zoning Administrator shall disallow accepting any applica-
tion which requires any Town of Vail approval which is substantially similar
• to an application which has been denied within the previous calendar year. However,
if an applicant submits an application following a denial which specifically
addresses and responds to the reasons for which the application was denied,-
the application shall be allowed to go through the applicable approval processes.
F_ 1
LJ
i
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 7, 1982
SUBJECT: Application for exterior alterations for the Lion's Pride
building in Commercial Core II. Applicant: Steve Sheridan
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED PROJECT
This application has been revised since the Planning Commission meeting of
July 26, 1982. Performance Ski is moving out approximately 16 feet. Charlie's
T- Shirts is putting in a bay window, Vail Mountaineering is proposing no changes
to their facade. Performance Ski is enclosing approximately 300 square feet.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II
This section reads:
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. Commercial Core IT district in accordance with the
Vail Lionshead urban design guide plan and design considerations 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 stan-
dards.
This application generally meets the purposes of the Commercial Core II
district.
II. SUB -AREA CONCEPTS
The Lion's Pride court is mentioned in the sub -area concepts:
Court opened to free access to Lionshead Court. Planting area
reduced, relocated to abut Lionshead Arcade Building to provide
screen buffer for restaurant and force traffic flow out of
shadows into sunny area of court. Scuplture focal point.
The key phrase here refers to the flow of pedestrian traffic in relation
to shadows. The current store fronts are.hidden away under the second floor
balcony- -the store windows are often veiled by shadows. The remodeling would
take the store fronts at least part way out of the shadows. The Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan does call for such first floor renovation and expansion
to permit greater visibility for commercial activity.
11
Lion's Pride -2- 9/7/82
III. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. Architectural Style
The Design Considerations state that the "challenge in Lionshead is to
develop vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale within a contem-
porary architectural expression."
The project generally meets this controlling criterion. The design does
not pretend to b a foreign architectural style, it creates visual interest
with the awnings and materials, and is oriented to the pedestrian.
2. The second design consideration encourages "a series of.connected plazas..
occasionally linked by a mall..."
The application does not disrupt this pattern.
3. The Guidelines also encourage "a sense of pedestrian scale..."
The Lion's Pride remodel will improve the pedestrian scale of Lion's
Pride Court by brining the store fronts out from under the balcony.
and improving the visibility of the store fronts.
4. The fourth criteria states that the service /delivery and parking corridors
in Lionshead should be preserved.
The application does not alter these items.
• 5. This application does increase the visability of commercial activity
in Lionshead.
IV. DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The facades have been changed in the current plan in order to come into closer
conformance to the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and to address some
of the concerns of the Planning Commission. The Guide Plan calls for recessed
entrances -- Performance Ski exhibits such an entrance. The Planning Commission
was also concerned with maintaining the character of individual store fronts.
This concern has been addressed by adding a large bay window to Charlie's
T- shirts.
One other concern was voiced by the Planning Commission: that the expansion
of Performance Ski would enclose a.00sitive space - -the distance between the
Lion's Pride building and the Lif thouse. This enclosure has not changed
in the current application. This change will screen the rather unkept
alley between the Lifthouse and the parking lot to the rear of Lion's Pride.
The remainder of the Lionshead Guide Plan, under the title, "Architectural
Guidelines," will be addressed by the Design Review Board. These items include
height and massing, roofs, facades, decks and patios, and accent elements.
C
0
C
Lion's Pride -3- 9/7/82
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Pay the applicable parking fee for the commercial expansion.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the project.
The remodel will improve Lion's Pride court by making the shops more visible
and accessible to pedestrians and will improve the ambiance of the court
by adding accent elements.
MEMORANDUM
toTO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 2, 1982
SUBJECT: Amendments to the zoning code to provide criteria and procedures
for reviewing the outdoor display of goods in the CCI, CCII, CCIII.,
and Commercial Service Center Zone Districts
The proposed amedments contained within this memo relate to the displaying of
products outdoors by merchants within the Town. The regulations include areas
within the Commercial Core I, CCII, CCIII, and Commercial Service Center Zone
districts. The regulations are intended to provide the opportunity for commercial
display to take place outdoors and to ensure that the display is conducted in
a safe;�orderly and aesthetically pleasing manner. The proposed amendments are
a result of the realization that the outdoor.display of items, if conducted properly,
can enhance pedestrian oriented commercial activities.
The proposed amendments also remove wording contained within the CCI and CCII
zone districts pertaining to outdoor patios, vending stands, and awnings which
conflict with the Urban Design Guide Plan and recent amendments to the code.
As you will recall, we recently made the condition of outdoor decks and patios
a conditional use in CCI and CCII. The proposed amendments would read as follows:
Commercial Core I
18.24.190 Location of business activity.
A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections 18.24.020
through 18.24.050 shall be operated and conducted entirely within
a building, except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas
and, subject to approval by the zoning administrator, [THE OUTDOOR
DISPLAY OF GOODS], vending stands, klosks, outdoor
- tevr-aee-s,-
ZIMW
11 W4119
18.24.192 Outdoor Display -- Permit Required
The outdoor display of items shall be subject to issuance of an outdoor
display permit by the zoning administrator. Application shall be made
on a form prescribed by the zoning administrator and described in detail
the manner in which the outdoor display will conform to the following
requirements:
•
Outdoor Display -2-
A. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly
in front of the establishment displaying the items and entirely
upon the establishment.'s own property.
B. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets cannot
be obstructed by outdoor display.
C. There shall be no signage allowed in conjunction with the outdoor
display other than permitted within Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
18.24.194 Outdoor Display -- Permit Issuance and Findings
After review of the application, the zoning administrator may issue an outdoor
display permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the require-
ments of this chapter. The permit may be subject to such conditions as
the zoning administrator deems necessary to guarantee operation of the
outdoor display in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and
compatibility with other uses in the vicinity The zoning administrator
shall deny the application if he finds that the proposed use will not
conform with the provisions of this chapter, or would be injurious or
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity.
18.24.196 Permit revocation
A. An outdoor display permit may be revoked by the zoning administrator
. if it is determined that the provisions of this chapter or the limitations
prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated.
18.24.198 Outdoor Display -- Permit -- Appeal
Appeal of any action of the zoning administrator in connection with issuance
or denial of outdoor display permit or the conditions attached thereto
may be filed with the planning commission by any resident or property
owner within 20 days following such action.- In event of'appeal, the
planning commission, after receiving a report from the zoning administrator,
may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the zoning administrator.
Failure of the commission to act within thirty, days of the filing of an
appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the zoning administrator.
Commercial Core II
18.26.160 Location of business activity.
All offices, businesses and services permitted by Section -9,26.029- [18.26.030]
shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for
permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas, and, subject to approval
by the zoning administrator, [THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS.] vending stands
than twenty pereent of the building eavera-ge.
s
•
•
Outdoor Display -3-
18.26.162 Outdoor Display -- Permit Required
The outdoor display of items shall be subject to issuance of an outdoor
display permit by the zoning administrator. Application shall be made
on a form prescribed by the zoning administrator and described in detail
the manner in which the outdoor display will conform to the following
requirements:
A. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly
in front of the establishment displaying the items and entirely
upon the establishment.a:s.own.property.
B. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets cannot
be obstructed by outdoor display. .
C. There shall be no signage allowed in conjunction with the outdoor
display other than permitted within Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
18.26.164 Outdoor Display -- Permit Issuance and Findings
After review of the application, the zoning administrator may issue an outdoor
display permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the require-
ments of this chapter. The permit may be subject to such conditions as
the zoning administrator deems necessary to guarantee operation of the
outdoor display in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and
compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. The zoning administrator
shall deny the application if he finds that the proposed use will not
conform with the provisions of this chapter, or would be injurious or
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity.
18.26.166 Permit revocation
A. An outdoor display permit may be revoked by the zoning administrator
if it is determined that the provisions of this chapter or the limitations
prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated.
18.26.168 Outdoor Display -- Permit -- Appeal
Appeal of any action of the zoning administrator in connection with issuance
or denial of outdoor display permit or the conditions attached thereto
may be filed with the planning commission by any resident or property
owner within . such action. In event of appeal, the
planning commission, after receiving'a report from the zoning administrator,
may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the zoning administrator.
Failure of the commission to act within days of the filing of an
appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the zoning administrator.
Outdoor Display -4-
Commercial Core III
18.27.120 Location of Business Activity
All permitted and conditional uses by 18.27.020 and 18.27.030 shall be operated
and conducted entirely within a building,-except for permitted loading areas
and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by
a conditonal use permit, [AND SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR,
THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS.]
18.27.122 Outdoor Display-- Permit.Required
The outdoor display of items shall be subject to issuance of an outdoor
display permit by the zoning administrator. Application shall be made on
a form prescribed by the zoning administrator and described in detail the
manner in which the outdoor display will conform to the following requirements:
A. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly
in front of the establishment displaying the items and entirely
upon the establishment's own property.
B. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets cannot
be obstructed by outdoor display. .
C. There shall be no signage allowed in conjunction with the outdoor
display other than permitted within Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
0
18.27.124 Outdoor Display -- Permit Issuance and Findings
After review of the application, the zoning administrator may issue an outdoor
display permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the require-
ments of this chapter. The permit may be subject to such conditions as
the zoning administrator deems necessary to guarantee operation of the
outdoor display in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and
compatibility with other uses in the v1 cin'ity. The zoning administrator
shall deny the application if he finds that the proposed use will not
conform with the provisions of this chapter, or would be injurious or
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity.
18..27.126 Permit revocation
A. An outdoor display permit may be revoked by the zoning administrator
if it is determined that the provisions of this chapter or the limitations
prescribed as a condition of the permit are being violated,
18.27.128 Outdoor Display --- Permit -- Appeal
Appeal of any action of the zoning administrator in connection with issuance
or denial of outdoor display permit or the conditions attached thereto
may be filed with the planning commission by any resident or property
owner within thirty days following such action. In event of appeal, the
planning commission, after receiving a report from the zoning administrator.,
may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the zoning administrator.
Failure of the commission to act within ninety days of the filing of an
appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the zoning administrator..
Outdoor Display -6-
Commercial Service Center
18.28.160 Location of Business Activity
All permitted and conditional uses by 18.28.030 and 18.28.040 shall be operated
and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted parking and
loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be
unenclosed.by a conditional use permit, and subject to approval by the zoning
administrator, the outdoor display of goods.
18.28.162 Outdoor Display -- Permit Required
The outdoor display of items shall be subject to issuance of an outdoor
display permit by the zoning adminstrator. Application shall be made on
a form prescribed by the zoning administrator and described in detail the
- manner in which the outdoor display will conform to the following requirements:
A. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly
in front of the establishment displaying the items and entirely
upon the establishment's own property.
B. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets cannot
be obstructed by outdoor display.
C. There shall be no signage allowed in conjunction with the outdoor
display other than permitted within Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
0 18.28.164 Outdoor Display -- Permit Issuance and Findings
After review of the application, the zoning administrator may issue an outdoor
display permit if he finds that the proposed use will conform with the require-
ments of this chapter. The permit may be subject to such conditions as
the zoning administrator deems necessary to guarantee operation of the
outdoor display in accordance with the requirements of this chapter and
compatibility with other uses in the vicinity. The.zoning'administrator
shall deny the application if he finds that the proposed use will not
conform with the provisions of this chapter, or.would be injurious or
detrimental to other properties in the vicinity.
18.28.166 Permit revocation
A. An outdoor display permit may be revoked by the zoning administrator
if it is determined that the provisions of this chapter or the limitations
prescribed as a condition.of the permit are being violated.
18.28.168 Outdoor Display -- Permit -- Appeal
Appeal of any action of the zoning administrator in connection with issuance
or denial of outdoor display permit or the conditions attached thereto
may be filed with the planning commission by any resident or property
owner within thirty days following such action. In event of appeal, the
planning commission, after receiving a report from the zoning administrator,
may confirm, reverse, or modify the action of the zoning administrator.
Failure of the commission to act within ninety days of the filing of an
appeal shall be deemed concurrence in the action of the zoning administrator.
Outdoor Dislay -6-
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development staff recommends the proposed amendments.
The proposed changes will delete unnecessary language f rom.the zoning code
and provide for a uniform procedure by which to control the outdoor display
of items. A copy of the proposed application form for the outdoor display
is attached.
0
46
10
DATE
APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR DISPLAY PERMIT
NAME OF BUSINESS:
LOCATION:
NAME OF CONTACT PERSON:
PHONE:
PRINT NAME OF PROPERTY OWNER:
AUTHORIZATION OF PROPERTY OWNER (SIGNATURE):
APPLICANT'S STATEMENT FULLY DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY
INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING SPECIFICS:
1. Fully describe the type and nature of the display.
2. Approval of property owner.
3. A certified improvement survey showing building location with ties to
property corners.
4. A site plan showing the proposed location of the display and the relationship
to property lines, sidewalks, streets, building entrances and exits,
and loading areas.
APPLICATION IS:
El APPROVED D DENIED
Conditions of approval /reasons for denial:
Zoning Administrator
Date
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 3, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for setback variance in order to construct a greenhouse that
would encroach 10 feet into a required side setback at Garden of
the Gods Club.
Applicant: Mrs. Albert G. Hill
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to construct a greenhouse of approximately 160 square feet
adjacent to the northwest portion of the Garden of the Gods club. The proposed
addition would encroach 10 feet into a required 20 foot side setback. (See
site plan.) The Garden of the Gods Club is located in the Public Accommodation
Zone District. The applicant believes that the variance is "justified in .light
of the fact that other adjacent buildings currently are using space that violates
the setback limitations far more than our minor variance would allow." (See
attached letter.)
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Find in s Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code
the Department of CommunI.Fy —Development recommends denial of the requested
variance based upon the fol lowin2. factors_
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The proposed greenhouse addition would be located approximately 30 feet away
from the nearest structure on the Villa Valhalla site to the west of Garden
of the Gods Club and ten feet from the common property line between the two
buildings. The Villa Valhalla would be the only building affected by the addition.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforce-
ment of a s ecifie re ulation is necessary to achieve com atibi ity and uniformi
of treatment amon sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this
title without grant of special privilege.
One of the development objectives of the Town is to prevent the overcrowding
of land with structures. One of the tools to carry out this objective is the
minimum setback requirement imposed within each zone district. All new development
�. or additions which have been constructed since the adoption of the zoning code
Garden of Gods -2- 9/3/82
49 in 1973 have had to comply with the setback requirements or be granted a
variance based on exceptions or circumstances which would make it difficult
to construct improvements upon the "buildable" portion of the lot. The zoning
code states that structures which were constructed prior to the adoption
of the zoning code that do not conform to setback requirements may be enlarged
provided that the enlargement fully conforms with setbacks. Garden of the
Gods Club building.was constructed in the 1960's and does encroach into several
setbacks on the north, south, and west portions of the property. The fact
that the building already encroaches into these setbacks and that other structures
within the Town are nonconforming in terms of setbacks is not sufficient
reason to grant a variance. It should be pointed out that the distance between
the east side of the building and the property line varies from 80 feet
to 30 feet.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu �
lation, transportation and traffic facilities, eublic facilities and utilities,
and—public safety.
No impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed 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
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 incon-
sistent 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.
is
Garden of Gods -3- 9/3/82
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Department of Community Development staff recommends denial of the
requested setback variance. The granting of the variance would constitute
a grant of special privilege because there are no extraordinary circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site which would justify the need to encroach
into the setback.
•
•
,,� • 0
• p
801K
D
AND ASSOCIATES, INC, PO. Box 1413 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 827 -5960
August 16, 1982
To: Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission
Fm: Frank Payne
Re: Proposed greenhouse addition, Garden of the Gods Club, Lot K,
Block 5-A, Vail Village 5th Filing
Gentelmen:
On behalf of Mrs. Albert G. Hill, we are requesting a variance
to zoning regulation 18.64.050A, regarding enlargement of existing non-
conforming buildings and their required set- backs. The proposed greenhouse
addition on the west side of the building would encroach on the required
set -back line approximately ten feet as indicated on the site plan.
We are asking for a variance that would allow this encroachment
based on the following factors:
A. The living space provided by the addition is similar to the
use of other adjacent buildings within the vicinity.
B. The minor variance being requested grants no special privilege.
It seems that in the interest of achieving compatibility and
uniformity of treatment, the variance would be justified in
light of the fact that other adjacent buildings currently are
using space that violates the set -bads limitations far more
than our minor variance would allow.
Therefore, because we feel that the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of regulation 18.64.050A would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
We hope that you will see fit to grant the required variance.
Sincerely,
M-2
Frank Payne
Beck & Associates, Inc.
fp /km
-0
Designers /Builders -Construction Managers
"lit t.ocatittn CertiflCate, wan prepared for - - -
t'li.ii ft in MI n
l.it, alai that it to mr. to tic relt,ed upon
or ether future iWroveftont llucs.
nt.m on Lite above deMcrlbed prsrcet on thus .
except nTility cannert it'll S, are entirely -
pt as shown, that there Are no encroach- -
reveaents un any adjulning premises, ex-
pparent cvideuca or sign of .srty easeseent
rcet, except as noted.
bannie Corcoran
Colorado L.S. 1827
GORE CR��K '
91�L /T RAIL
\ A
/ J
G�
V S7cWIY
/ pe / t7 r $T 41CYlJiQE
/ o
t"'
•
C
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 27, 1982
1 :15 pm Site Inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
Approval of minutes of meeting of September 13, 1982.
1. Request for a variance to the parking regulation to construct parking
for a duplex which would encroach into Town of Vail right -of -way located
on lot 4, block 2, Intermountain subdivision. Applicants: Dave and
Nancy McGoldrick
2. Two variance requests for Breakaway West to move the existing parking
spaces along Lionsridge Loop partially onto their own property.
Applicant: Breakway West Condominium Owners' Association
3. Request for a setback variance to extend a single family dwelling 8 feet
9 inches into the north (front) setback on lot 45, Vail Village West
Filing #2. Applicant: David Lawrence Irwin
4. Request for amendments to the municipal code to revise submittal regulations
for outdoor display and outdoor vending. Applicant: Town of Vail
C
•
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
PRESENT
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Will Trout
PRESENT FOR SITE INSPECTIONS
Corcoran
Donovan
Piper
ABSENT
Morgan
Viele
Edwards
September 27, 1982
3:00 pm
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Dick Ryan:
Peter Jamar
Jim Sayre
Larry Eskwith
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL REP
Ron Todd
The meeting was called to order by Dan Corcoran, chairman.
The minutes of the meeting of September 13, 1982 were discussed, and Diana corrected
them to read: "because of past documented action of Mr. Parks" to her discussion
of Cyrano's on page 2 of the minutes.
Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the minutes as corrected. Vote 4 -0.
Patten stated that since the first two items on the agenda dealt with parking
on Town of Vail right -of -way, he wished to have Larry Eskwith talk with the members
before discussing the -items.
Eskwith said that the general view is that abutting property owners cannot use the
public right -of -way for their exclusive.parking, that the PEC did not have the
power to allow anyone this right, and that this was not a variance procedure.
He added that this right could only be given by the Town Council.
Patten then stated that the PEC would need assurances by both Breakaway West and
McGoldricks that they would not restrict their parking spaces, but that they would
allow anyone to park in the spaces that were on or partially on Town of Vail
property. With more questioning, Eskwith said that restricted parking was allowed
on private property providing it was posted to comply with town statutes.
After more discussion, it was decided Breakaway West should go first to Council,
then to PEC, but that the McGoldrick request could be considered. The McGoldricks
were not requesting the exclusive use of parking on the Town right -of -way, while
Breakaway West was.
PEC -2- 9/27/82
1. Request for a variance to the parkinq regulation to construct parking for
a du lex which wu d encroach into Town of.Vailright-of-way located on
. of 4, Bl,ock , Intermountain su i ivision. Applicants: Dave & Nancy McGoldrick
Peter Jamar showed the site plan and explained that there were at present 5 parking
spaces which currently encroached upon Town of Vail right -of -way.
•
John Perkins, architect for the project, stated that he could see no problem
changing the wall to make it two or three smaller walls, though it would be
more expensive. Ron Todd pointed out that a de facto variance was already given to
the McGoldricks - -it was a non - conforming use - -the request makingi:it less non - conforming.
Discussion of moving the parking spaces centered upon the fact that they would
be made less non - conforming and would reduce the congestion of the street.
Eskwith explained that the County had given the applicant the parking rights
for the 5 existing spaces, but that the PEC could not grant two additional spaces.
Perkins asked to remove the request for the two additional spaces.
Donovan moved and Trout seconded to approve the construction of a multi- level wall
within the front setback area, each level not to be over 6 feet high, and to approve
the parking with a maximum of 5 spaces to encroach upon the public right -of -way
for lot 4, Block 2, Intermountain. The vote was 3 in favor, 0 against, with
Corcoran abstaining.
2. Two variance requests_ for Breakaway West to move the existing parking spaces
along _Lionsrid e Loo partially onto their own property. Applicant: Breakaway
West Z -on ominium Owners` Asociation
After more discussion concerning whether or not Breakaway West should first go
to the Council, Piper moved and Donovan seconded to table this item until the next
PEC meeting after the applicant has been to the Council meeting. Vote was 4-0
in favor of tabling, (See discussion at the beginning of the meeting.)
3.
7
8 feet
#2.
Corcoran disqualified himself from the meeting temporarily and turned the chair
over to Piper. Jim Sayre showed the site plan and survey. He reviewed the memo
and explained that in August the Town had received more geological information
from Lincoln DeVore.
Jay Peterson, representing Irwin, stated that he did not agree with the staff's
description of the problem; and felt that the staff had not done a fair job. He
added that he felt that Irwin had been punished by the press. Peterson
responded to "The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses in the vicinity" by stating that there were few projects that were
not in the front setback in the area. "The degree to which relief from the
strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity among sites in the vicinity
or to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special privilege"
Jay read and responded by- repeating- -the fact that there were many other buildings in
the front setback in the neighborhood .'He added that the house was in the best location
PEC -3 9/27/82
and that as many trees as possible were saved. He felt that the central issue
was not as stated in the memo, but was the criteria set forth in the ordinance.
• Peterson read letters from surrounding property owners who did'not object to the
placement of the Erwin house. Under "Findings" he stated that since so.many
of the neighboring buildings were in front setbacks, it was not a grant of special
privilege, that the variance was warrented for all three reasons listed in the
memo. and asked that the variance be granted.
Corcoran, speaking as part of the audience, pointed out that a precedent would
not be set by granting the variance, as each request is considered on a case by
case basis, He empasized that he felt strongly that the method used was wrong,
but that the letters of the neighbors should be taken into account.
Piper requested further speakers' comments be.specific.to the matter at hand.
Marie Claire Veers, a neighbor felt the request should be treated as a variance
request. Irwin apologized to the PEC for his forgery of the survey. Trout asked
to see the locations of the other properties that were also in the front setback.
Donovan stated that she was on the DRB when this house came in, and felt at that
time if the survey had been correct, it could have been designed to fit within
the setbacks. She felt that it was appropriate to consider this application as
a new application with,no building existing on the site, that no trees should
be unnecessarily removed, but there were many more than 4 trees in back. Donovan
added that crowding of the street must be prevented due to parking problems and
snow removal as they relate to public safety. She felt that the house could have
been designed to miss the trees and still retain the slope if the survey presented
to DRB had been correct and the problem addressed and in fact the accuracy of the
front setback was questioned on the DRB site visit. Donovan pointed out that the
hardsh -ip was self imposed for which she could not give a variance.
Trout asked if the Town had requested the DeVore report, and Sayre replied that
they had. He added that it was a fairly speculative letter, without much detail.
Trout pointed out that the letter mentioned that the cutting or further cutting
of the slope may reduce slope stability on this and adjacent lots, Sayre replied
that one could build on metastable slopes with proper: engineering and proper
site planning. Steve Patterson, Building Official for the Town, stated that in
his opinion, DeVore's letter was talking about general conditions, but was not site
specific, and even if it were site specific we would have to ask for further geotech-
nical studies as the town has done in a couple of other instances.
Patten pointed out that because there are some properties in the neighborhood that
are nonconforming was not a reason to grant a variance to this property. Piper stated
that soil stability was not a hardship,.since a structure could be designed with
proper construction. He was pleased that trees had been saved, but pointed out that
the retaining wall had surely severed roots of several trees now standing. Piper
felt that the impact to the neighborhood was minimal.
Patten stated that the board must treat this request as though the house weren "t
there, then look at the variance criteria.
n
U
PEC -4- 9/27/82
Trout felt that it was difficult to state the issue as though the house were not
there,.and that except for the circumstances under which it happened, he supported
a variance.
Jay Peterson stated that in order for the house foundation to be a retaining wall,
one would have to dig four feet deeper, and go back another four feet, in addition
to having a steeper driveway. Patterson said that several months ago he would have
agreed with Jay, but since beginning the library building had seen other ways of
construction.
Trout moved and Piper seconded to approve the front setback on lot 45, Vail Village
West #2, reading the following findings: That the granting of the variance would
not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitation on other
properties classified in the same district, that the granting of the variance would
not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity, and that the variance was warranted
because 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.
The vote was 2 in favor and 1 (Donovan) against, with Corcoran disqualified as stated
earlier,
Trout stated that it should be pointed out that the staff did exactly what they are
directed to do in their job, and that they had presented their information in an
objective way, and Piper agreed and added that the board could then explore the gray
. areas.
4. Request for amendments to the municipal code to revise submittal regulations
for outdoor display and outdoor vending. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Jamar explained the changes that had taken place since the last meeting. After
further explanation and discussion, Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve the
recommendation to Council for the amendments. The vote was 4,-0 in favor.
Trout moved and Donovan seconded that Donovan be appointed to the DRB board for
October,•,November and December.. The vote was 4 -0.
Discussion followed concerning the changed format which was used at this meeting.
Patten stated that he had felt frustrated, because he couldn't refute some of the
false allegations made, and because the PEC stated their feelings before the
staff had had a chance to have some feedback, some rebuttal. That it was important
that the board not take at face value statements made by the applicant. Piper pointed
out that they really weren't following the format. Corcoran felt that each person
should have a chance at rebuttal at some point.
•
0 MEMORANDUM
September 21, 1982
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department /Dick Ryan
SUBJECT: How to have an effective meeting for the Planning Commission
At the last meeting the Planning and Environmental Commission made a half
way attempt to implement the steps noted below. Are we going to have an
effective and efficient meeting or continue to have meetings that ramble on?
I would still recommend the following. Do you agree, want to change, or have
other suggestions?
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Introduction of item by chairperson
Presentation by staff
Presentation.by applicant
Comments and questions by public
Comments and questions by Planning Commission
Response by applicant
Response by staff
Planning Commission action
At the end of the last meeting, Dan asked that everyone come a half hour early
to :the next meeting with suggestions. This will be after the site inspections,,
and before the meeting at 3:00.
11
OF-
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 22, 1982
SUBJECT: Amendments to the zoning code to provide for the allowance of the
outdoor display of goods in the CCI, CCII, CCIII, and Commercial
Service Center Zone Districts
At the last Planning and Environmental Commission meeting the staff proposed a
procedure for the outdoor display of items by shops which included the requirement
of obtaining a permit prior to displaying the items. The Planning Commission
felt that it was necessary to merely set guidelines for the outdoor display and
then enforce those guidelines on a case -by -case basis rather than requiring a
permit for everyone displaying goods outside their shops. The staff agrees that
this is a better approach since it is a minority of the shops which do cause the
problems. The remainder of the amendments which remove conflicting wording
regarding decks and patios remain the same.
. Commercial Core Ii
18,24.190 Location of business activity
A. All offices, businesses, and services permitted by Sections 18.24.020
through 18.24..050 shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building,
except for permitted unenclosed parking or loading areas and [THE OUTDOOR
DISPLAY OF GOODS], , and aeeessery eutdoor dining
terraces.
.
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front
of the establishment displaying the items and entirely upon the establishment's
own roperty. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and streets
shall not be obstructed by outdoor display.
Commercial Core II
18.26.160 Location of business activity
A. All offices, businesses and services permitted by Section 9.26,020 [18.26.020]
shall be operated and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted
unenclosed parking or loading areas and [THE OUTDOOR.DISPLAY OF GOODS.]
vending stands, s
aR area nQt greater than twenty pereent of the build4ng coverage.
49
-2- Outdoor display 9/22/82
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front
of the establishment displaying the items and entirely upon the establishment's
own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exists, driveways and
streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display.
Commercial Core III
18.27.120 Location of Business Activity
A. All permitted and conditional uses by 18.27.020 and 18.27.030 shall be operated
and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted loading areas
and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be unenclosed by
a conditional use permit [AND THE OUTDOOR DISPLAY OF GOODS.]
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front
of the establishment displaying the items and entirely upon the establishment's
own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and
streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display,.
Commercial Service Center
18.28.160 Location of Business Activity
A. All permitted and conditional uses by 18.28.030 and 18.28.040 shall be operated
and conducted entirely within a building, except for permitted parking and
loading areas and such activities as may be specifically authorized to be
unenclosed by a conditional use permit and the outdoor display of goods,
B. The area to be used for outdoor display must be located directly in front
of the establishment displaying the items and entirely upon the establishment's
own property. Sidewalks, building entrances and exits, driveways and
streets shall not be obstructed by outdoor display.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development staff recommends the proposed
amendments. The proposed changes will delete unnecessary language from the
zoning code and provide for a uniform procedure by which to control the
outdoor display of items.
A
r
IYIRYL110 1 1 0�
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 22, 1982
SUBJECT: Variance requests for Breakaway West Condominiums to relocate
14 existing parking spaces. Applicant: Breakaway West Condominium Assn.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
There is a parking problem going on between Vail Run owners and tenants and
Breakaway West. They are both claiming rights to the 14 existing spaces located
totally in the Town's right -of -way. In turn, Breakaway West wishes to relocate
the spaces so they are 5 feet on their property, They also wish to claim rights
to these spaces for their exclusive use as a result of the relocation. This
absolutely cannot be done, as they would still be utilizing TOV (public) property
for their parking.
With the realization that the spaces remain public, we will proceed with evaluating
the requested variances. One variance is for parking in the front setback in
the Medium Density Multi - Family Zone District, the other for parking on Town
is right -of -way. This area has always been a "bottleneck" of sorts for TOV plowing
operations, as the right -of -way is narrowed approximately 18 -20 feet to allow
for this parking. The spaces were counted in Breakaway West's parking requirement
to meet Eagle County standards when originally approved. The applicant feels
the request is justified because it will alleviate a dangerous situation at the
intersection.
Obviously, the present situationis totally non - conforming as is the proposal.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code
tie De artment o ommunit Develo ment recommends approval of the re uested
v arian oebased upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in t e vicinity._
This area has been a perpetual snow plow problem for years due to these parking
spaces being totally on right -of -way. Moving them 5 feet to the east will give
that much more room for the plows, The existing shrub and tree in the area to
be parking must be relocated or preserved as is.
•
Breakaway West -2_ 9/22/82
The Je eee.to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement o a specified ranegu ion is necessary to o ac ieye com_patifiili
uni ormity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objE
of this title without grant of special privilege.
and..
ves
The physical hardship on the site is that there is virtually nowhere else to
locate parking, and the applicant is improving a poor situation which exists.
The effect of the requested variance on 1i ht and air, distribution of population
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
Dubl is safety.
The proposal should be a benefit to public safety, as it broadens the right -
of -way by 5 feet.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the p_r_oposed
variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
rantln a var,aance:
. 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 following reason:
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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the relocation
of these parking spaces toward the east. The proposal should improve snow plow
operations and traffic safety by widening the useable right -of -way. However,
no restrictions on the use of the spaces can be made -they are still public
property.
3
•
Breakaway West -2_ 9/22/82
The Je eee.to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement o a specified ranegu ion is necessary to o ac ieye com_patifiili
uni ormity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objE
of this title without grant of special privilege.
and..
ves
The physical hardship on the site is that there is virtually nowhere else to
locate parking, and the applicant is improving a poor situation which exists.
The effect of the requested variance on 1i ht and air, distribution of population
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
Dubl is safety.
The proposal should be a benefit to public safety, as it broadens the right -
of -way by 5 feet.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the p_r_oposed
variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
rantln a var,aance:
. 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 following reason:
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.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the relocation
of these parking spaces toward the east. The proposal should improve snow plow
operations and traffic safety by widening the useable right -of -way. However,
no restrictions on the use of the spaces can be made -they are still public
property.
•
•
is
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 23, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for variances to allow parking to encroach upon the public
right -of -way and' to construct a wall within the front setback in
excess of three feet in height on lot 4, Block 2, Vail Intermountain
Subdivision. Applicants: Dave and Nancy McGoldrick
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants propose to move 5 existing parking spaces which are currently almost
entirely upon the right of way of Larkspur Lane further back onto their property
in an attempt to relieve a congestive situation along Larkspur Lane. The applicants
also wish to add two additional spaces to the north of the existing spaces. (See
attached site plan.) The zoning code states that parking spaces "shall not encroach
on any public right of way." The movement of the spaces further onto the lot also
involves the construction of a new retaining wall to support the parking area since
the level of the street is approximately 12' -15' above the lot, The zoning code
phohd bits:the construction of retaining walls in excess of 3 feet in height within
the front setback or in excess of 6 feet in height on any portion of a lot. The
height of the wall is proposed to be approximately 12 feet high.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon- review of Criteria and Findin
the De artment of Communit y Deve o
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
Is, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
Ment recommend approva of the requested variances
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and — structures in the vicinity.
The movement of the parking spaces further onto the lot will definitely have a
positive impact upon the roadway and adjacent structures by reducing congestion
along the street. The parking will still partially project onto the right of way
but will be out of the traffic flow into which it currently projects. We do not,
however, support the addition of the two new spaces proposed. We feel that an
improvement of the existing situation is a benefit to the site and surrounding
structures, but that the two proposed additional spaces only add to what was a
poor site plan to begin with.
The height of the wall in this location is virtually necessary to support the parking
area. The staff believes, however, that it would be possible to include a smaller
wall as a planter in front of the proposed wall to help screen and lessen the impact
to adjacent properties. Other properties within the same vicinity have utilized
McGoldrick -2- 9/22/82
this technique successfully, and we feel that it could be used in this location
without being a hinderance to snow removal.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a s ecified regulation is neces,sary to achieve compatibility and uniformity
of treatment among sites in t e vicinit y or to attain the objectives of this title
without grant of special privilege.
The proposed parking variance will be a definite improvement to the site by promoting
greater safety along the roadway and by providing a more workable relationship
between the site and the road. We are not recommending that the two additional
spaces be added.
The topography of the lot and the location of the existing structure upon the site
would make it difficult to improve upon the existing parking situation without
constructing a wall or walls in excess of three feet in height. The intent of
the regulations regarding wall heights is to minimize the visual impact upon adjacent
properties. The site and the proposed wall are visible to the neighboring houses
and condominiums and should be treated in some way to lessen its visibility. The
staff recommends that a variance be granted to allow the 12 foot high wall to be
constructed in two 6 foot steps so that planting could be provided within the area
between the two steps at a height of 6 feet above grade,
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and pu> is
safety.
. _ w
The movement of the existing parking further onto the lot will provide for greater
safety and ease of snowplowing along Larkspur Lane.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
0
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findin s 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
McGoldrick w3- 9/22/82
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incon-
sistent with the objectives of this title,
iThe 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 staff recommends approval of allowing
the existing parking to be moved further onto the lot, but encroach a small amount
onto the right of way as proposed. We do not recommend approval of the two new
spaces. We also recommend that a variance be granted to allow a wall in excess
of three feet in the front setback, but not at the height of 12 feet as requested.
We recommend that a second wall be constructed to form a planter in front of the
main wall. This wall should not exceed six feet in height. Therefore, the exposed
portion of either wall will not be in excess of six feet in height.
•
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE:
September 22, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance for Lot 45, Vail Village West
Filing No. 2, to allow an encroachment of 8.7 feet into a required
front setback. Applicant: Dave Irwin
BACKGROUND
The events leading to the requested variance are listed in chronological order
below:
8/5/81 Following the Town requirement for a stamped topographic survey prior
to development, Dave Irwin submits plans to DRB for his single family
residence on lot 45, Vail Village West, Filing Number 2. The submitted
site plan and topographic survey is apparantly stamped by Steve Reiner,
a soils engineer working for Intermountain Engineering, The DRB, after
expressing some concern that trees be saved on the lot, approves plans
. for the residence. The building permit is issued 8/20/81.
8/24/82 A site improvement survey is submitted to the Town, as is required on
all new construction before a framing inspection is granted. There
are a number of discrepancies between the original survey and the site
improvement survey. After consulting with Intermountain Engineering,
it is discovered that Irwin forged the title block and stamp of the
survey submitted to DRB. The site improvement survey illustrated that
the residence is 8.7 feet within the setback,
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED:
The applicant is seeking a variance from Section 18.13.060 which requires a twenty
foot front setback in the Primary /Secondary zone district. The house is now
11.3 feet from the front lot line; a variance of 8.7 feet is requested.
The applicant states that the variance is warranted in order to avoid cutting
trees in the back of the lot and to avoid making a deeper cut into the hillside.
L�
Irwin -2- 9/22/82
• CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Consideration of .Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
in� e vicinity. '�
The adjacent lots to both the east and west are vacant, The Ptarmigan Townhouses,
which are directly across the street from lot 45, and the Hamlet, which is west
of lot 45, are projects built under County regulations; their setbacks would not
conform to current Town of Vail setback regulations. Behind.lot 45 is lot 4, Highland
Meadows Filing 2. Lot 4 is vacant.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regu ation is necessaT to achieve compatibility and uniformity
among sites in the vicinit y or to attain the objectives of this title without 2rant
of specia privilege.
It would be a special privilege to grant a variance in this situation. Given the
proper engineering and design a residence could have been built on this lot without
a variance. To grant this variance, particularly after the house has been built,
would be to treat this site preferentially. If the owners of lots 44 or 46 wished
to obtain a variance they would be fully expected to apply for a variance before
the structure is built. To grant this variance would be to grant a special privilege.
All new residences in Vail should be designed to fit a particular site with respect
to vegetation, topography and zoning regulations. It should not be a consideration
that the house is there and argue economic hardship to move it to the proper position
on the lot. The central issue becomes, "Can a house be designed for the site which
fits the vegetation and topography and still meet setback requirements ?" The staff
believes that this can be accomplished on this lot.
The effect of the r�ecuested variance on light and air, distribution of o ulation�
transportation and traffic facilities, pu is facilities and ut hies and pub -Tic
safety.
It should be mentioned that a part of lot 45 is located in geologic high hazard
zone. Lincoln Devore's August 16, -1982 report entitled Geologic Hazards Investigation
and Subdivision Evaluation, classifies lot 45 in two hazard zones: "W' and "5`
on a scale from 2 east hazardous) to 7 (most hazardous). The bulk of the structure
sits on an area classified as "W' or "moderate to gentle slopes above permanent
ground -water table of Gore Creek." "5" is listed as "metastable slopes." Metastable
are characterized by steep to very steep slopes and "accelerated creep." If the
structure were moved back eight feet it would be placed further into the class "5"
area. There are engineering solutions to construction on such metastable slopes.
Again, construction can take place within the required setbacks without a variance.
(See attached sketch.)
• Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable to the proposal,
Irwin W3- 9/22/82
. 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 limitation 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 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
The Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance.
With proper design and engineering a house could.be designed which fits l'n to the
required setbacks. To grant this variance would be a special privilege: Other
applicants in the neighborhood will be required to stay within their setbacks
unless a physical hardship is demonstrated and a variance granted before construction
takes place.
To grant the variance would also set a poor precedents -the manner in which the
residence on lot 45 came to be where it is cannot be tolerated by the Town.
Nor has a physical hardship been clearly demonstrated by the applicant. The geologic
hazards can be mitigated by engineering measures; the nearest tree is ten feet
away from the rear of the residence, At most, three mature trees would Possi bly
be removed by moving the house back 8 feet. The foundation of the house could
be used to secure the slope rather than the existing tie retaining wall. By using
the foundation as a retaining wall, deep cuts into the hill will not be necessary.
Such a procedure is recommended by most local architects with experience with
building on steep slopes.
is
tr�
Lincoln DeVore
1000 West Fillmore St,
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80907
(303) 632 -3593
Horne Office
Town of Vail
Planning Department
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail,, CO 81657
Attn: Jim Sayre, Planner
Re: Lot 45, Vail Village West
Filing No. 2
Dear Mr. Sayre:
September 17, 1982
At your request, the following presents a discussion of the
existing construction on Lot 45, Vail Village West, Filing No. 2,
in relation to Lincoln- DeVore's recently completed geologic
hazard investigation and subdivision evaluation for the area.
The following discussion is based on this geologic hazard
investigation, a review of the field notes applicable to the
Lot 45 area, our recollection of site conditions during the field
investigation conducted for the August 16, 1982 report, and con-
versations with yourself on September 17, 1982.
The field investigation for the Vail Village West, Filings No. 1
and 2 area covered in the Lincoln- DeVore August 16, 1982, report
was conducted on or about August 4th of 1982. According to our
recollection and field notes, a structure was in the process of
being constructed on Lot 45 at that time. Grading on Lot 45 had
essentially been completed, and the exterior framing and
construction of the residence had also been essentially
completed. At the rear of the structure, an excavation was
noted, which consisted of a vertical cut in the slope ranging
from about 3 feet to a maximum of about 5 feet high. At the time
of the August, 1982, mapping, it was noted that materials exposed
in the excavation consisted of either debris slide or colluvial
materials, and that the cut was unretained. I personally made a
trip to the Town of Vail on September 15, 1982, for the purposes
of attending a symposium. During my visit to Vail, I drove
through the Vail Village West, Filing No. 2, area, and glanced at
the Lot 45 construction. At that time (based on a passing glance
at the site), it was noted that a timber or railroad tie
retaining or crib wall was present at the excavation in back of
the residence. The state of construction (whether it was
finished or in the process of being built) could not be deter-
mined based on my glance at the lot.
Colorado Springs, Colorado Pueblo, Colorado Grand Junction, Colorado Glenwood Springs, Colorado Evanston, Wyoming
Lot 45, Vail Village West, Flg. #2
September 17, 1982
Page -2-
-- -- __
According to the mapping accomplished as part of the August 16,
1982, geologic hazards investigation and subdivision evaluation,
Lot 45 is underlain by slopewash materials, debris slide
materials, and terrace materials. A possible landslide encroaches
upon the extreme southeast corner of the lot. The northerly
(front) portion of the lot has been mapped as lying within a
Hazard 2G and 3A Classification zones. The southerly and north-
westerly portions of the lot are mapped as Hazard Zone 5. The
extreme southeast portion of the lot is mapped as Hazard Zone 6.
it is our understanding from conversations with yourself that the
structure was constructed too close to the road, and that the
required building setback established for this lot had not been
maintained. It is our understanding that you are processing a
request for variance for the newly constructed residence.
Other than the inspection and mapping conducted as part of the
August 16, 1982, report, Lincoln - DeVore has not made a site
inspection of this lot for purposes of this letter.
Lincoln -- DeVore has not been provided with any information
regarding construction or investigations on this lot. No plans,
soils reports or other construction information has been reviewed
by Lincoln- DeVore.
Based on the information available to us, the general construc-
tion procedures in this particular topographic and geologic
setting would probably be to set the building as close to the
road as possible, to maximize the amount of fill placed at the
toe of such slopes and minimize the cuts into such slopes. Based
upon our recollection of construction on the site and conver-
sations with yourself, it appears that the structure has been
built on a small fill pad elevated above Gore Creek Drive, and
that a relatively low cut has been produced in back of the struc-
ture. This is the type of construction which probably most suits
this particular lot. it should be noted, however, that the
effect of the fill pad and backslope cut in relation to stability
of the site can not be determined based on the limited infor-
mation available to us. The basic question to be answered is:
should the building setback variance be approved allowing present
construction to exist as located, or should the variance for the
setback be disapproved and the building moved to the south or rear
of the lot. It is our understanding that the request for variance
involves an approximate 8 -foot distance. If the setback variance
were denied and construction was forced to move southward (into
the slope), a higher cut would be necessary in order to provide
the same backyard width. Unless this higher cut were specifi-
cally designed as a buttress (and the existing cut for that
matter), the cutting or further cutting of the slope may reduce
slope stability on this and adjacent lots. With this in mind, it
would appear to Lincoln - DeVore that approval of the variance to
r
0
•
•
Lot 45, Vail Village West, Flg. #2
September 17, 1982
Page -3-
allow the structure to be set forward as much as possible away
from the slope would be the better option. Without more detailed
investigation into soil properties, slope stability, geology,
etc., the effect of present or future construction on this lot
cannot be evaluated by this Laboratory.
If you should have any questions or require clarification of
information included in this letter, please feel free to contact
Lincoln- DeVore at any time.
Respectfully submitted,
LINCOLN- DeVORE TESTING LABORATORY, INC
ASS°
woo. 4
By: Jo W. H m elrei , c
Pro essi nal Geolo ist 1 4,51 � e
10 ado Spri gs O ice
o •
6
FMS S\oP o
• Lr�e eoo® eIN °QOmo eO
Revi wed y: Mart' F. Essigmann, P.E.
JWH /lab
�L ./��� is -� -�� f/✓ ��l�L��'i.������ � � . ��' �..oz�•
'Al
e� -�" '.iv l..Y•G /F t� if g'r�� /•_e.*�" �•��i 4� ".
•
MATTHEWS & ASSOCIATES
Landscape Architecture, Planning & Reclamation
kbx 3567 Vail, Colorado 81658 (303) 476 -0815
September 9, 1982
Town of Vail
Vail,, CO.
Dear Sir:
On September 8, 1982 I visited Lot 45, Filing 2,
Vail Village West at the request of Dave Irwin to see
if I agreed on the placement.of the house closer to the
road in order to save the large conifers on the south
side of the house.
In my opinion and in the opinion of Nick Adams, a
landscape architect with my office who was with me, the
saving of the very large trees would certainly be very
pleasing to the neighborhood and in no way should they
be cut down for any reason, for they are irreplaceable.
Care should be taken at this point to see the disturbed
roots are properly pruned and the trees fed to make up
for the minimal root loss.
When the Design Review Board, of which I am a member,
looked at this site, I remember my main concern was in saving
the trees that now stand.
in closing I should state I am very impressed with
the minimal construction damage to the south side of this
home.
Very Sincerel
Richard T. Matthews
RTM:amh
•
ay
o Cc7 h a», Lt �, �..,I �tm c an n '.
hcwc t, v
V
4�6- (66`7
1905 W Comte. OuAl A -
u�D, (�oPe1�u�Po
•
elf
•
4
N
VA
DAVID I RWI N
Lot 45
VAIL VILLAGE WEST, FILING # 2
Vail, 28 August, 1982
Gentlemen,
I feel, that the house and design of David Irwin does fit
the site, It does not in anyway interfere with my home
or interest. The house would facilitate cutting four more
large and beautiful trees if it had to be moved back eight
additional feet and I feel this is not netcemary,
I have watched Dave work very hard on his home for
a year now, spending most weekends and hSlidays all by himself.
He has given all he has to have this house. I truly hope it will
remain where it is, because it will be a great compliment to
the rest of the neighborhood,
.7
Sicerely
qa ,
9 A xt, tu.;, L
•
•
0
•
PTARMIGAN TOWNHOUSE ASSOCIATION
VAI L. COLORADO 81657
pa
044
` c
ruz
0
I
r�
U
t
September 10, 1982
Town of Vail
Planning Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
PRLMRTEER Re: Variance Request for Lot 45,
Vail Village West
RERL ESTRTE LTD.
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am the owner of Unit No. 23, Ptarmigan Townhomes, which is
across the street from Mr. Irwin's new home. Because of the
location of several large trees, I would ask that the Planning.
Commission grant the requested variance. The granting of the
variance, in my opinion, would not be a grant of special
privilege to Mr. Irwin, and not granting the variance would
work a hardship on Mr. Irwin and the rest of the neighborhood
by the unnecessary removal of several trees.
Sincerely,
r Jan Taylor
P2kmateer Rea I Estate
s you a hand. W...,
Offices: Vail National Bank Building, Suite 303
108 South Frontage Road
Post Office Box 207
Vail, Colorado 81657
Area Code 303 / 476 -4606
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 11, 1982
' W 12:00 Site Inspections
1:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of September 27, 1982
2. Request for a front setback variance in order, ;to construct a garage on
Lot 21, Vail Meadows Filing #1, 5042 Snowshoe Lane. Applicant: Virginia
—_ - -__ and Thomas LeRoy.
3. Variance.request to move parking spaces along Lionsridge Loop partially
onto their own property.
Applicant: Breakaway Test Condominium Owners' Association
4. Request for variances to construct a single family dwelling on lot 12,
block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. The first variance is to encroach
approximately 5 feet into the required 50 foot setback from the centerline
of Gore Creek, the second is to construct the house 8.5 feet over the -33,,
foot height limitation..Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb
5. Application for a conditional use permit for Vail Guides to operate a
service yard for vehicles at the Old Town Shops at 890 South Frontage Road
Applicant: Vail Guides, Inc.
6. Request to amend the permitted use section of the Arterial Business
District to permit radio and television broadcasting studios and other amend-
ments to clarify wording in the Arterial Business District.
Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Request to amend the Subdivisions Regulations of the Town of Vail, Title
17 of the Vail Municipal Code, Applicant: Town of Vail
Published in the Vail Trail October 8, 1982.
71
U11
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 11, 1982
1:00 pm
PRESENT
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Jim Morgan
Duane Piper
Will Trout
Jim Viele
PRESENT FOR SITE INSPECTION
Dan Corcoran
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
ABSENT
Scott Edwards
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Jim Sayre
Jenny Bell
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
Ron Todd
Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 1:15 pm.
1. Approval of minutes of meeti nq of September 27, 1982.
One correction made was the reference Peterson had made to the staff regarding
the Irwin request. With that correction, Trout moved and Donovan seconded to approve
the minutes. The vote was 5--0 (Morgan had not yet arrived.)
2. Request for a front setback variance in order to construct a garage on lot 21
Vail Meadows Filing #1, 5042 Snowshoe Lane. Applicants: Virginia and Thomas LeRoy
Peter Patten reviewed the memo and stated that the staff recommended approval of
the variance because of the physical hardship. Piper was concerned about soil tests.
the garage is in the moderate avalanche zone. Donovan felt that four garage doors
might be imposing. More discussion followed concerning whether or not the garage
could be placed further back from the road.
Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve the front setback variance with a zero
setback variance. The vote was 6 -0, unanimous approval.
3. Variance request to move parking spaces along Lionsrid e Loop partially onto
property owned By Breakaway West.. Applicant: Breakaway West Condo Owners
Peter Patten reviewed the memo and added that the Council in a work session explained
that it was not a town policy to lease parking spaces. He stated that the staff
was in favor of the request in order to alleviate traffic congestion. Morgan ques-
tioned exclusive use of the parking spaces. Patten answered that Breakaway West
could not have exclusive use. Piper felt that there was no real benefit to the town
to grant a variance which would lessen the landscaped area.
John Perkins, representing Breakaway West, stated that an additional five feet
for traffic would be an improvement to a dangerous situation.
Trout moved and Morgan seconded to approve the relocation of the parking spaces
5 feet onto Breakaway West's property. The vote was 5 -1 in favor.
Patten stated 1 shrub and a tree should be replanted.
PEC 10/11/82 -2-
4. Request for variances to construct a single family dwelling on lot 12,
Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. The first variance is to encroach approximately
5 feet into the required 50 foot setback from the centerline of Gore Creek.
The second is to construct the house 8.5 feet over t e 33 foot eig t limitation.
Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb
Peter Jamar presented the staff memo and explained that there were two variances
requested, and that they ought to be treated as separate items. The first variance
requested by the applicant was a five foot variance into the required 50 foot setback
from Gore Creek. Jamar explained that the "building envelope" upon the lot was
quite restrictive due to the configuation and the setback requirements. He explained
that variances for similar situations had been granted to adjacent properties in
the past, and that the encroachment would not be creating any impact upon the creek
which the ordinance was designed to protect.
Piper moved and Donovan seconded to approve the setback variance. The vote was
5 -0 in favor of approval with Corcoran abstaining. Viele had left on emergency.)
The second variance request was a height variance to allow the structure to be built
8.5 feet above the allowable height limitation of 33 feet. Jamar reviewed the staff
memo and explained that the staff was recommending denial because there was no
hardship experienced nor any positive result from granting the variance. He said
that the staff did believe the applicant's desire to have a 12/12 roof pitch was
not sufficient reason to grant the variance. Much discussion followed concerning
the height of the structure in relationship to the adjoining structures.
John Perkins, representing the applicant, stated that the lot was a "hole" due to
the fill which was placed under the structures adjacent to the site. Ron Todd, who
was the council representative, stated that he felt that possibly the variance was
warranted because of the small portion of the site which could be built upon, and
that possibly going higher with the structure to gain more GRFA was a good solution.
Jamar stated that there was no useable GRFA in the area of the house which violated
the height requirement. After more discussion regarding the intent of the height
requirements, the method of calculation, and the relationship of the structure to
the neighboring houses, P er moved and—Donovan seconded to allow a height variance
of 4 feet rather than the 8.5 requested.
Perkins questioned why the commission would only grant a 4 foot variance and
requested that the item be tabled until the next meeting so that he and the staff
could have measurements taken to determine the relationship between the proposed
house and adjacent structures. Viele. moved and Piper seconded to table until 10/25/82.
The vote was 5 -0 in favor with Corcoran a staining.
5. Application for a conditional use permit for Vail Guides to o erate a service
yard for vehicles at the Old Town Shops. .App icant: Vail Guides, Inc.
Peter Jamar explained the memo and stated that the staff recommended approval of
the conditional use permit. He went through the proposal and explained that all
vehicles would be parked along side and behind the building on the lower level,
basically out of sight. He said that because of the nature of the scheduling of
the vehicles coming and going from the site, the staff did not feel that any traffic
PEC 10/11/82 -3-
problems would be created. Jim Rea representing Vail Guides said that the same use
at the Texaco site had not been a problem, and that he did not forsee any problems
at the old Town Shop site.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the conditonal use permit. The vote
was 9-0 to approve with organ abstaining.
6. Request to amend the permitted use section of the Arterial Business District
to permit radio and television broadcasting studios and other amendments to
clarify wording in the Arterial Business District. Applicant: Town of Vail
Patten explained that the only substantive change is to add studios and to clarify
horizontal zoning.. Morgan asked why there was a proposed amendment if the circula-
tion plan had not yet been approved for the ABC. Patten explained the difficulty
in coming up with an access plan and the lack of interest on the part of the other
property owners. .
Piper moved and Donovan seconded to amend the zoning code as per the staff memo
dated e vote was in favor with organ abstaining.
7. Request to amend the Subdivision Regulations of the Town of Vail, Title 17
of the Vail Municipal Code.. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten explained the changes. After much discussion, Trout moved and Donovan
seconded to approve the changes which included all of Chapter 17 with the
40 exception of section 17.28. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
is
LJ
•
•
MEMORANDUM
T0: planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 6, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for variances to construct a single family dwelling on
lot 12, Block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. The variances requested
are: 1) A request to encroach approximately 10 feet into the
required 50 foot setback from the centerline of Gore Creek; and
2) A request to exceed the allowable height limit of 33 feet by
a distance of 8.5 feet. Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The first variance requested is to allow an encroachment into the required 50 foot
setback from the centerline of Gore Creek. The zoning code allows decks projecting
from a structure at a height of more than five feet to encroach into a required
setback not more than five feet nor more than one -half the minimum required setback.
In this case the five foot figure would be the most restrictive. The. applicant
proposes to construct a residence with a deck that projects 10 feet into the 50
foot setback, thus requiring the five foot variance (see attached site plan).
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings
the Department of Community Develo m
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code
t recommends approval of the requested
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
and structures in the vicinity.
)otential uses
The lot upon which the applicant proposes to build is 11,602 square feet in site
area and is zoned Two Family Residential in which lots of less than 15,000
square feet allow one dwelling unit. This lot is affected not only by the normal
20 foot front, 15 foot side, and 15 foot rear setbacks, but also the 50 foot setback
from the centerline of Gore Creek. These setbacks result in a "building envelope"
of an average of 45 feet x 45 feet. The applicant proposes to construct a dwelling
covering approximately 1000 square feet or 8% of the lot.
Due to the constraints upon the lots along the.creek in this area, setback variances
have been granted to adjacent properties. The dwelling to the west of the property
was granted a setback variance when it was constructed, and the dwelling to the
east has a deck which encroaches a few feet into the 50 foot stream setback.
The intent of the 50 foot setback is to preserve the quality of the stream bank
Gottlieb -2- 10/6/82
and land adjacent to the stream, and the encroachment of the dick supported by four
supports will not , have any impact which would be detrimental to the adjacent pro-
perties or the creek.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessar ,y 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.
Because adjacent sites have been treated in a similar manner, and because the stream
bank and adjacent property will not be impacted to any great extent by the encroach-
ment, the granting of the variance will not constitute the grant of a special
privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, pu lac facilities and utilities and public
safes_
No significant impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
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 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 regulations
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department staff recommends approval of the setback
variance. The lot is subject to a very restrictive building area, and considering
the amount of the lot which will remain free from building, the small encroachment
is negligible.
Gottlieb -3- 10/6/82
IT. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The second variance requested is to exceed the allowable height of 33 feet by
8.5 feet. The height of a structure is measured vertically from the existing
grade or finished grade (whichever is more restrictive) to the highest ridge
line of a sloping roof. In this case, this would make the height of the proposed
structure 41.5 feet above the existing grade. The structure would be 38 feet
above finished grade. due to the applicant's desire to place the building upon
2 -4 feet of structural fill. The applicant requests the height variance due
to the fact that he would like the structure to have a 12/12 roof pitch and would
like to build upon the fill.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code, the
tment of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance
sed upon the followinq factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
an structures in the vicinity.
In requesting the height variance, the applicant argues that his lot is in a
hole due to the adjacent houses being constructed upon fill. Upon inspection
of these sites, it appears that they have been constructed upon some fill. The
lot to the west is naturally higher in topography, and the grade beneath the
structure is approximately 6 feet to 8 feet above the elevation of the applicant's
lot. The house was built under previous zoning regulations which measured height
using an averaging system and sits between approximately 30 feet and 35 feet
from the finished grade. The house to the east was constructed under the current
regulations and even though it was constructed upon 4 feet to 5 feet of fill,
the height of the structure does not exceed 32 feet above the existing grade
of the site. The height regulation'was changed'in 19,80 from the ,average.system
and specified that the distance will be calculated specifically from existing
or finished grade in order to eliminate excessive heights of structures. The
intent is to construct the buildings in relation to the topography of the site.
The excessive height of this structure would not produce a workable relationship
between this structure and other structures within the vicinity.
The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and eff6
a'specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati i ity and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this
tit e wit out grant of special privilege.
The granting of the variance would constitute the granting of a special privilege
and would not be necessary to achieve compatibility or uniformity of treatment
among sites in the vicinity nor to attain the objectives of the zoning code.
The reason that the applicant prefers this type of architecture is not reason
enough to grant this variance. Other properties in the vicinity have had to
comply with height regulations, and to allow a structure to be built 8.5 feet
higher than allowed does not provide any benefit to the neighborhood or community.
•
Gottlieb -4- 10/6/82
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and utilities, and
110 QUA safety.
No significant impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance.
FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environrr3ental Commission shall make the follor, iing i�lndings before
granting_a_var_iani_e_
That the granting of the variance will not constiture a. grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the some 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 regulations
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
doThere 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 regul-ation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of _at4 r' properties
in the same district. �J
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the requested
height variance. The height regulations can be met upon the applicant's lot
with no problem, and the granting of the variance would constitute the granting
of a special privilege which would have no positive results and would instead
result in a structure inconsistent with other previously built or potential
structures.
•
�Yel _
�1
1` c �� WIC z;
Ira
[�,n -- - - -_ x � _ ��a -, rte•.. �� .- _tea -- € � � /�
Ar
P 3
j� 11
' � �._,• ors -� �'1� I � x>
f r� �.•rr ,r,,� rte' Y^ � l�_ -. - -�- � llyy-
MEMORANDUM
40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 30, 1982
SUBJECT; Front setback variance request to build a garage on lot 21, Vail Meadows
Filing No. 1. Applicant: Virginia and Thomas LeRoy
RArWAMimn
On June 14, 1982 the PEC denied a variance to the hazard regulations for the LeRoys
to construct a garage in a high hazard avalanche zone on the southwest corner of
his lot. Mr. LeRoy now proposes to construct the garage on the northwest corner
of his lot, but this requires a zero front setback due to avalanche, topographic
and drainage conditions on the lot.
The proposal is for a 4 car garage to be located on the front property line (0 setback)
which would be almost entirely buried into the hillside on the southeast corner.
He proposes to place the garage in a blue hazard avalanche zone which will require
investigation as to avalanche mitigation measures to be taken.
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. �..
The garage should not have any negative impacts upon surrounding structures or uses.
The depreee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment amok sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
without grant of special privilege.
There definitely are a number of physical hardships on this lot which mandate a
garage in the proposed area. The structure cannot be built on the south half of
the lot because it is all high hazard avalanche. The garage cannot be moved off
the street too far because there will be grade problems, and the driveway will be
too steep. The lot also contains a high water table which affects the location
of the garage. Due to these physical conditions, the granting of the variance would
not be a special privilege.
C
LeRoy -2- 10/4/82
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of population
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities, public facilities and
public safety.
There will be 21 feet from the front of the garage to the edge of pavement which
should allow sufficient room for snow removal. Some utilities may have to be re-
located. This will be studied in more detail at the DRB level.
Such other_ factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
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 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 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
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
variance. We feel this proposal is the best solution for the difficult site.
•
r
n
U
•
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 6, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit for Vail Guides to operate
a service yard for vehicles at the Old Town Shop
Applicant: Vail Guides, Inc.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Vail Guides requests a conditonal use permit for the lower floor and lower parking
area of the old Town shop to be used as a "storage and maintu ance facility for
approximately thirty vehicles. The area will also be utilized to store and dispense
fuel for the vehicles.
-GM'1'ETUA A14D fiNb- I{dGS-
Upon review of Criteria and Findin
Department of Community Developmen
based Upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
, Section 18.600 of the Municipal Code, the
recommends annroval of the'reauested permit
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
The arterial business district is intended to provide sites for service facilities.
The old Town shop.is well suited for the intended purpose.
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.
No significant impact.
Effect upon traffic with particiular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access, maneuverabili
and removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
The area proposed to be used as the service yard has adequate space to park the
vehicles and is located such that there should not be any problems with traffic
congestion or pedestrian safety.
Vail Guides -2- 10/6/82
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 proposed use is located between the new treatment plant and a service station.
The proposed use should not be detrimental to the character of the area.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the proposed
use.
The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use;, if an environmental
impact report is rewired by Chaptdr 18.56.
None required.
FINDINGS:
The Community Development Department 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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit. The proposal meets
the criteria of approval and is appropriate for this location. The parking of
the vehicles to the rear of the building will screen them from public view. The
historic use of the building has been similar to this type of operation, and we
feel that the location and configuation of the site lends itself to this type
of activity.
C7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 4, 1982
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to amend the permitted use
section of the Arterial Business District to permit radio and television
broadcasting station and to clarify wording in the zone district.
Applicant: Town of Vail
The Planning and Environmental Commission and the Town Council recently approved
the new Arterial Business zone district. There are a couple of changes recommended
to clarify what the intent of Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
is regarding uses and also to add a new permitted use- -radio and television broad -
casing studios to the zone.
Under permitted uses, retail uses were to be permitted on a conditional use only
on the first (street) level. To clarify, there are two changes recommended.
I. To restate Section "B" under permitted uses. The current wording is as follows:
B. Retail stores and establishments deemed to be generally accessory and /or
supportive of office uses with a limit of 8,000 square feet of floor area
for one retail business use. Retail uses shall only be permitted on the
is first (street) level. The following retail stores and establishments are
permitted:
Art supply stores
Bookstores
Drug stores and pharmacies
Florists
Newsstands and tobacco stores
Stationery stores
Suggested wording to clarify the intent is as follows:
A 1. Retail stores and uses noted in B,C, and D are deemed to be generally
accessory and /or supportive of office uses with a limit of 8,000 square
feet of floor area for one use. The uses in sections B, C, and D are
only permitted on the first (street) level.
B. Retail stores and establishments including only the following:
Same list as before - -no changes or additions.
II. In the section on conditional uses, the wording for uses G through A.A. .
should state that these uses are permitted only on the first (street) level.
The paragraph currently reads as follows:
�J
•
•
Arterial Business -2- 10/4/82
The following conditional uses are listed as such due to their potential
individual and cumulative impacts of generating traffic in the arterial
business district. These uses may be appropriate in the artertial business
district and will receive review under the provisions of Chapter 18.60 with
specific emphasis upon the criteria of traffic generation:
New wording for this paragraph would state:
The following uses shall be permitted on the first floor or street level
floor within a structure subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit
and are listed as such due to their potential individual and cumulative impacts
of generating traffic in the arterial business district and will receive
review under the provisions of Chapter 18.60 with specific emphasis upon
the criteria of traffic generation:
III. Also recommended is adding a new permitted use under professional and
business offices and studios. The new use would be "radio and television
broadcasting studios." Several other commercial zones have this as a
permitted use.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 2.5, 1982
12:45 pm Site Inspections and review of view corridors
2:00 pm Review Subdivision Regulations -- Design Standards (Bring your copy)
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Request for height variance in order to build a single family dwelling
on lot 12, block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb.
2. Request for a setback variance in order to construct two garages for 2 autos each
which would encroach 18 feet into the north (front) setback on lot 3, Block G, Vail
Das Schone Filing No. 2. Applicants: Pat Dodson and Leonard Vogelaar,
3. Request for a setback variance for a ground level deck on lot 1.7, %B1 ock 1
Resubdivision of Tract E, ,Vail Village 11th Filing, -2865 Aspen Lane.
Applicant: Jan Eric Strauch
4. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to redefine
"Gross Residential Floor Area" and to add a new section, 18.04.368 defining
"Storage Area." Applicant: Town of Vail
5. Request to amend Section 13.04.360 of the Municipal Code to revise the definition
of site coverage to include all areas under enclosed space. Applicant: Town
of Vail.
6. Request to remove Section 18.64.090 (B) of the Municipal Code requiring regis-
tration of non- conforming uses. Applicant: Town of Vail
7. Request to amend the view plane section of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan: Design Considerations to designate only several major view corridors
to be protected. Applicant: Town of Vail
Published in the Vail Trail October 22, 1982
i1-
r-
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
October 25, 1982
PRESENT
Jim Morgan (absent from site inspection)
Will Trout
Diana Donovan
Dan Corcoran
Jim Viele
Duane Piper
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Jamar
Betsy Rosolack
COUNCIL REP
Ron Todd
Dan Corcoran, chairman, called the meeting to order at 3:15 pm. The board had
first gone on site inspections and then discussed the Design Standards with Bill
Andrews.
1. Request for height variance in order to build a single family dwelling on
lot 12, block 2, Gore Creek Subdivision. Applicant: Bernard Gottlieb
Peter Jamar explained that a. setback variance had been granted for this property
at the last meeting, but that the height variance question had been tabled until
this meeting. He added that the staff had studied the request further, and that
the staff still recommended denial of the height variance.
John Perkins, architect for the applicant, explained that the height of the dwelling
to the east was 89.2 feet, the height of the dwelling to the west was 90.4 feet,
and the height of the second dwelling to the west was was 98.2 feet. He showed
a topo and site plan and stated that the site to the east had approximately 6 feet
of structural fill and the site to the west had 7 -14 feet of structural fill.
He stated that he would like to use structural fill, then build to 38 feet, possibly
4 -5 feet higher than the house next door. Perkins added.that because of lot 12's
smaller footprint, he was forced to use a two story design. The staff pointed out
that this request would actually be 9 -10 feet higher than the adjacent structures.
Perkins also stated that he might possibly change from a 12/12 roof .to a 9/12.
Discussion followed concerning whether a change in design could be considered,
and it was decided that the design must remain as it was originally presented,
for to grant a variance in height without knowing what would be built was not
appropriate. Perkins stated that he was now asking for a 5 foot variance to build
that particular building, and would stay with that design. He showed a model of it.
And explained that he could lower the building by 4.5 feet by eliminating fill.
Much discussion followed concerning elevations and amount of fill involved if the
variance were granted. Finally, it was decided that if a 5 -1/2 foot variance were
granted, the height would be 96 feet,at an elevation of 8196.0.' Piper felt that
the problem was with the architectural design,not the site. Jamar restated'i.the.staff
position recommending denial.
Viele moved and Morgan seconded to allow a 5 foot height variance, bringing the ridge
hei ht to 96.0 feet. The vote was 2 in favor and 3 against Trout, Donovan and Piper
with Corcoran a staining. The motion was defeated.
GOTTLIEB -2- 10/25/82
Trout moved and Viele seconded to approve a variance that would allow the ridge not
to exceed 8195.0 95.0 feet at the ridge point. After more discussion, Trout added
an amendment to read "as per house design as submitted to us." Jamar explained that
the staff would still recommend denial of this motion because of the fact that by
granting this height, it would eliminate the possibility of using fill, which was
the original intent of the applicant's request.
The vote was 3 (Morgan, Viele, Trout) to 2 (Piper, Donovan) with Corcoran abstaining..
The motion passed.
2. Request for a setback variance in order to construct two garages for 2 autos each
which would encroach 18 feet into the north front setback on lot 3, Block G,
Vail Das Sc one Fi ing No. 2. :.Applicants: Pat Dodson and.Leonard Vogelaar
Peter Jamar reviewed the memo, adding that conditions should be that no vehicles could
park behind the garage doors because they would be encroaching onto the road, and
that the garages should be constructed at.the same time.
Vogelaar showed photos, elevations and floor plans. He added that they would put
up "No Parking" signs. It was discovered that one parking space would be lost, making
the spaces total 9 when the garage was in place.
Discussion followed concerning egress from the bedrooms, and Piper felt he would like
to see more homework done on the design.
Trout moved and Donovan seconded to table the item until until November 8. The vote
. was 5 -0 in favor. Mor an out of room.
3. Request for a setback variance fora ground level deck on lot 17, block 1,
Resubdivision of Tract E, Vail Village llth Filing, 2865 Aspen Lane.
Applicant: Jan Eric Strauch
Peter Jamar explained that the deck was constructed without a variance and without
a building permit. Strauch stated that the deck was a continuation of a project for
which he did have a building permit. Jamar explained that this was not the case,
that there was no building permit issued for the deck or any plans ever reviewed by
the staff prior to the deck's construction, and that it was in violation of setback
requirements.
Strauch showed a site plan and explained that there was no way to complete the stairs
without the deck, and that the deck was the only place from which one could get into
the sun. Trout felt that the board was dealing with a structure, not merely the deck.
He added that if Strauch were given the variance, the neighbor would also have to
be given a setback. variance.
Morgan moved to approve the variance, but there was no second.
Strauch asked for consideration of an economic hardship, but Corcoran explained that
the board could not consider economic hardship per the town code. Trout suggested
getting a deed restriction from the neighbor, and Jamar explained that if Strauch
were granted the variance, the neighbor could argue that he 'would be deprived of privi-
leges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district, as could any
other property owner in the same district.
GOTTLIEB -3- 10/25/82
Donovan moved and Piper seconded to deny the variance request as per the staff memo
dated 10/20/82. The vote was 4-1(Morgan) with Corcoran abstaining. The motion was
denied.
Corcoran reminded the applicant that he had 10 days in which to appeal to Council.
4. Re nest to amend Section 18.04.130 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to redefine
"Gross Residential Floor Area" and to add a new section, 18.04.368 defining
Storage Area.'. Applicant: Town of Vail
Jamar explained that the part of the public notice dealing with "storage area" had
not be published, and so only the GRFA definition could be dealt with at this time.
After much discussion, it was decided to wait until the meeting of 11/8 and discuss
both parts of the requested change.
Piper moved and Viele seconded to table this item until 11/8/82. The vote to table
was 6 -0, unanimously in favor.
5. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to revise
the definition of site coverage to include all areas under enclosecT space.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Jamar explained that without this definition, there were abuses such as cantilevers
which resulted in the structures actually occupying more of the site than the regu-
lations intended. He showed photos of one home which demonstrated the abuse.
Piper moved and Viele seconded to approve the definition of site coverage as follows:
• 18.04.360 Site Coverage
Site coverage shall be deemed to be any portion of a site covered by buildings,
including portions of a site located below enclosed space and /or cantilevered
enclosed space; site coverage shall also include any portion of a site covered
by balconies, stairs, decks, walkways, driveways, or other structures covered by
a roof.
The vote was 6--0, unanimously in favor of the approval.
6. Request to remove Section 18,64:90(6) of the Municipal Code re uirin re i.stration
of non conforming uses. Applicant: Town of Vail
Jamar explained that registration currently was required, but that since most buildings
in Vail were non - conforming in some way, it would probably require one full time
employee to monitor the registrations. He added that site plans, construction plans,
and assessor's records were available so it would not be too difficult to calculate
the destroyed building.
Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request to remove Section.18.64.090(B).
The vote was 6 -0, unanimous to ���� _....,_.......,.,
7. Request to amend the view plane section of.the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan to designate only several mayor view corridors to be protected. Town of-Vail
0 The staff requested to table this item to 11/9. Viele moved and Donovan seconded
to table and the vote was 6-0 to to e.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm.
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 20, 1982
SUBJECT: Proposed revised wording to the view section of the
Urban Design Guide Plan -- Design Considerations
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views
of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders
of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference
points. Certain building features are also important character features,
orientation references and visual focal`points. .
The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated on the
View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan)
and photographically documented (photos on file in the Community Development
Department). However, the view corridors depicted on the maps and in the photo-
graphs should not be considered exhaustive: There are obviously many other im-
portant views too numerous to map. When evaluating a development proposal, first
priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views
from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not.
The views designated to preserved originate from either major pedestrian
areas or public plazas. They are views of the ski mountain, the Gore Range
or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which
were selected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance not only
from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points to help
the guests determine their location. And, of course, looking east from the Vail
Village area one views the dramatic Gore Range providing some of the most beautiful
scenic views anywhere.
The official photographs of the view corridors and focal points contain the area
to be protected. No encroachment will be allowed inside (above) the line.
To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should include a visual
impact analysis. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic
overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation techniques. A
means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be
required by the zoning administrator.
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height
or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and, if necessary, revised.
A
4i
I
T0:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
•
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
October 14, 1982
Change in the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area specifically
(1) eliminating the allowance of an unlimited floor area in dwelling
units labeled as storage area with 6'6" ceiling height or less and
(2) allowing a credit of 200 square feet for storage areas in each
dwelling unit.
After the last joint meeting of the Town Council and PEC it was determined that there
was a problem in the present definition of GRFA.
The proposed amendments to the definition.of Gross Residential Floor Area
are aimed at eliminating a gross abuse of the current definition:and method
of calculating GRFA. The definition now allows an unlimited amount of area
within a dwelling to be exempt from calculation as GRFA provided that the
ceiling height of the area is less that 6'6" and is designated as storage.
The abuse of the definition occurs when large areas are designed within a
dwelling and a suspended ceiling is hung at a 6'6" height. The suspended
ceiling is removed after a final Certificate of Occupancy is issued by the
Building Department,and the area is converted to living area. The major
problems with the conversion are that living and sleeping areas are being
occupied without having proper building code requirements (exits, ventilation,
etc.), and the extra space within the structures adds additional bulk to the
buildings. In one case, as much as 3400 square feet was added to a duplex
in this manner.
The proposal is to give a credit of 200 square feet per unit for storage areas.
This figure was derived at by reviewing plans for existing houses occupied
by residents of Vail and by consulting local architects. It is. important
to note that most dwelling units designed for local residents and by local
architects have not abused the 6'6" ceiling height and have in many instances
not even utilized it. Instead, most residences have been designed with storage
areas of full ceiling height and thus counted .within the total GRFA.
Under the new definition, an area up to 200 square feet designated as storage
will not be counted as GRFA. This new credit would be in addition to the
credits now given for garages (600 sq. ft.), mechanical areas (50 sq. ft.),
and airlocks (25 sq. ft.). The staff feels that the proposed revision to
the definition will curtail the abuses that we are currently experiencing.
The proposed wording is as follows:
18.04.130 Floor Area, Gross Residential (GRFA)
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is defined as the total floor area with
the enclosing walls of a structure including all habitable areas, greenhouses
and indoor recreational facilities, excluding crawl spaces, attic areas with
a ceiling height of five (5) feet or less, solar heating storage areas,
mechanical areas and areas designed for parking and loading. Overlapping
stairways shall only be counted at the lowest level.
"I"
.cr
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1982
RE: Request for front and side setback variance to construct a garage on
Lot 3, Block G, Vail Das Schone Filing 2. Applicants: Pat Dodson
and Len Vogelaar.
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REOUESTED
The applicants are requesting an 18 foot front setback and a seven foot (7)
side setback variance to construct two double car garages. Currently, there
are ten (10) paved spaces to the north of the four -plex. They wish to
cover four (4) spaces and leave six (6) open. The garage would be approximately
17 feet from the existing edge of pavement and would be 19 feet in length.
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:
rConsideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
The garage is well designed with respect to the existing house on the property.
The area to the north of the house is used now as a surface parking area,
so there will be no change of use. Construction of the garage should not
negatively affect any existing or potential structures in the vicinity.
The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
en orcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compati ili
and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
0 UR ectives of this title without grant of special nrivi. eqe.
West Vail has an abundance of similar surface parking situations such as
this: There are very few garages in this area which results in a lot of
visible cars in parking areas. On top of the negative visual aspects of
a lack of garages in West Vail, are the situations where many parking
areas are unpaved and located on Town right -of -way. These conditions often
result in problems with snowplowing.
The staff feels that garages should generally be encouraged in the West
Vail area. Setback variance requests for garages will be numerous in our
annexed areas as, in many cases, there was either less . stringent setback
49 requirements in effect or simply poor site planning standards applied.
k
Dodson- Vo9elaar 10/21/82
Page 2
We believe an attractive garage designed to complement existing houses which
is responsive to snow removal operations and the overall site, can be a
great benefit to the community. The hardship involved is basically due
to topographic conditions. The garage cannot be located elsewhere on the
lot.
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 Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and visited the site
with regard to snow removal. They have no problems with the 17 feet between
the garage and the edge of pavement for snow removal purposes,but they are
very concerned that cars might park in front of the garage in the right -
of -way, which would definitely be a problem.
The planning staff shares that concern and wishes to make it very clear
that there shall be absolutely no parking in front of the garages on the
right -of -way. Some signage to this .effect may be helpful as well as
towing any cars found to be there. This would apply year - round.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance.
is FINDINGS:
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before arantin2 a variance:
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
variances. Garages should be encouraged in Vail as they are definitely
a site improvement, if they are planned and designed well for the site.
Previously the Planning Commission has granted variances for garages to
improve the views and aesthetics along streets within Vail.
•
0
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL, COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1982
SUBJECT: Removal of Section 18.64.090 (B) of the zoning code to eliminate
requiring registration of non - conforming uses. Applicant: Town
of Vail.
Section 18.64.090 deals with the restoration of non - conforming uses in
the case of destruction. Paragraph A of this section states that one can
build back a non - conforming use or structure if destroyed as long as the
construction is commenced within one-year of the destruction and diligently
pursued to completion. It also requires that current fire and building
codes be applied to the new construction.
Paragraph B of the section reads as follows:
�istration of non - conforming uses, structures or sites is required to be
submitted to the Community Development Department. The owner or representative
must submit sufficient information to insure if the use, structure or site
can be reconstructed to the original plan. Minimum information submitted should
be a site plan, a floor plan, use of structure, parking layout and landscaping.
The registration shall be made no later than two years from the effective date
of this ordinance or effective date of annexation into the Town of Vail, whichever
is more restrictive.
This provision was passed in late 1981 to ensure that what the owner wanted
to build back was actually existing before destruction. Every single
non - conforming use and or structure in the Town, would be required to submit
all these plans and drawings. The PEC knows how many regulations are
encompassed in the zoning code. What paragraph B is saying is that if you
are in violation of any provision of the zoning code, that you must register
to be able to reconstruct. With the number of structures which were either
built in Eagle County or under previous Town zoning regulations, this
would encompassea tremendous number _of_ buildings in Town.
The staff proposed at the September Council /PEC joint meeting, that we eliminate
this section due to the large number of non - conforming buildings within Vail
would require a great deal of staff time and paper work. The amount of time
to do this work in relation to potential problems does not seem like a good use
of time. In addition, there is no guarantee that the nonconforming building
that has a problem would be registered, since this is not required.
We recommend approval of the elimination of this paragraph.
�.
0,01 91.1riFeW
0 TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: October 18, 1982
RE: Request for a setback variance to allow a deck to extend
2 feet further than the allowable deck setback on lot 17,
block 1, resubdivision of tract E, Vail Village 11th Filing.
Applicant: Jan and Gail Strauch
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants request a variance to allow a deck which has been
constructed on the south side of their duplex to encroach 9.5 feet
into the required 15 foot rear setback. The zoning code allows decks
within five feet of ground level to project a distance 7.5 feet into
the rear setback and therefore the request is for a 2 foot encroachment.
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
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing_ or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The encroachment of the deck into the setback impacts basically only one
adjacent property. The deck encroaches upon the setback adjacent to the
common property line of the Strauch /Cadmus duplex and the Hodge /Byrne duplex
which is located to the south of the deck. Patricia Hodge, the owner of the
north half of the adjacent duplex, has written a letter in support of the
variance request. The deck sits 5.5 feet from the common property line.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to achieve com atibiii
and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
obJecti ves Of this title without grant of special privilege.
The granting of the variance is not necessary to achieve compatibility and
uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity, does not attain the
objectives of the zoning code, and would constitute the granting of a
special privilege. One of the primary objectives of the zoning code is
to prevent the overcrowding of the land with structures. Setback requirements
are one of the basic development standards designed to prevent overcrowding
by specifying a distance between the property line and a structure in which
nothing is to be built. The zoning code provides that structures such as
Strauch 10/20/82
M
Page 2
41 decks may encroach a certain amount into the required setback, in this
case 7.5 feet. In this case the granting of the variance would be contrary
to the objectives of the setback requirements and would not be the result
of any practical difficulty, unnecessary physical hardship, or extra-
ordinary circumstances or conditions. The setback regulations should be
adhered to unless any of these conditions exist. In this case they do not.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
o ulation, transportation and traffic facilities', public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The requested variance would result in the overcrowding of the site with
the structure.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
ro osed variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findin s
before grantinq a variance:
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 thi's title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances of 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 RECOMMENDATIONS
The Department of Community Development Staff recommends denial of the
requested variance. There are no factors which warrant the granting of
the variance and the result of granting the variance would be contrary
to the stated objectives of the zoning code. There are no positive results
in allowing the encroachment, there is no hardship, and the applicant would
be granted a special privilege that other owners in the district would not
enjoy.
0
9
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 22, 1982
2 :00 pm Site Inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. A request for a conditional use permit at the Vail Lionshead Gondola Building
in order to enlarge and continue a major arcade on the basement level.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc. .5--o
-
2. A request for a rear setback variance of 14 feet in order to build a two
family residence on lot 18, Block 1, Potato Patch Filing fl.
Applicant: David K. IYIrr 1--3 — 6 "-x s
3. Request for amending Section 17.20 of the Vail Municipal Code "Design
Standards." These are standards and procedures governing infrastructure and
utility improvements in Town. Applicant: Town of Vail
4. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Municipal Code to revise the definition
of site coverage. Applicant: Town of Vail. �]
5. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Vail Municipal
"Gross Residential Floor Area" and to add -a new section,
"Storage Area." Applicant: Town of Vail
U
Published in the Vail Trail November 19, 1982.
Code in order to redefine
18.04.368 defining
4
Y
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
0 November 22, 1982
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Will Trout Peter Patten
Jim Viele Peter Jamar
Diana Donovan Jim Sayre
Gordon Pierce (lst time) Betsy Rosolack
Jim Morgan
COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVE
PRESENT FOR SITE INSP. Paul Johnston
Will Trout
Jim Viele
Gordon Pierce
Jim Morgan
Jim Morgan called the meeting to order at 3:00 pm.
1. A request for a conditional use permit at the Vail Lionshead Gondola Buildin
in order to enlarge and continue a major arcade on the basement -level. Applicant:
Vag ssoclates, Inc.
Jim Sayre reviewed the conditions of approval of the conditional use permit issued
the arcade on May 24, 1982 which included concern about noise, supervision and the
fact that the conditional use was originally to be reviewed in May 1983. He explained
that the staff had two stipulations in the present memo: that a full time attendent
be on duty within the game room itself during the hours of operation, and that in
the case that severe problems develop, the PEC reserve the right to review the permit.
Rick Sackbauer, representing Vail Associates, stated that he felt Vail Associates
had done a good job supervising the previous summer without a full time supervisor,
and that there would be two places to get change as well as a change machine within
the arcade. He added that it was possible for someone in the basement to know immed-
iately if there were a problem in the arcade.
Peter Patten stated that one requirement for the West Vail arcade was that there
be a full time attendant and added that VA was doubling the size of the arcade which
would make it the same size as the West Vail arcade.
Dean Liotta of This Wicked West stated that he felt that the arcade was good to have
in the Gondola building. Doris Alport and Ron Silber of le Petit Cafe stated that
they were in favor of the arcade, and hadn't been bothered by any noise. Charles
Campbell, vending manager for VA stated that.some of his people would be in the
vicinity all day long and could supervise.
Trout stated that he would be nervous about making an exception as far as a full
time supervisor was concerned. He added that the arcade was going into its first
winter season. More discussion followed concerning signs, and supervision, with
Sackbauer and Campbell stating that there was always someone in the vicinity of the
arcade. Trout added that because of the possibility of drug trafficing, a full time
supervisor was necessary.
11/22/82 PEC 2
Sackbauer suggested trying to have the arcade throughout the Christmas season without
a full time supervisor, and then coming back in January to see how the board felt.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the rtqnestfor a conditional use permit
at the Vail Lionshead Gan ola Building with a full time attendent on duty at all
times within the game room itself during ours of operation an the PEC would reserve
the right to review the permit in case of Pr6blems concerning _oitering, littering,
vandalism, drug abuse or disorderly conduct as stated in the staff memo dated 11/15/8
The vote was 5 -0 unanimously in favor.
2. A request for a rear setback variance of 14 feet in order to build a two family
residence on lot 18, Block 1, Potato Patch Filing #1. Applicant: Irish /Bartl it
Peter Patten showed site plans and explained that the applicants wished to encroach
to within one foot of the rear property line in order to preserve the trees in the
north section of the lot and to optimize the views from both units.
Tom Briner, architect for the project, reiterated Patten's statements, and discussion
followed concerning both views and trees. Some felt that after visiting the site,
it appeared that there were just as many trees in the area where the residence was
proposed to be built. Briner responded that he also wanted to place the building
so that the driveway would be the shortest and least steep. Donovan stated that
she did not feel view was a valid reason to give a variance. Viele felt that it
was beneficial to the public to push the house to the east. Morgan read a letter
from the neighbor to the north who had no objections to the location of the building.
Patten stated that he had met with Bob Poole of the Forest Service and showed him the
site plan. Poole said that it was too close and asked that the house not be built
so close. Patten stated that he then asked Steve Patterson whether or not it was
possible to build a foot away from the lot line and stay off of the Forest Service
land, and Patterson doubted that it could be done. Briner said that if necessary they
would hand dig. More discussion followed .
Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the setback variance.re uesting that the
a l'cant red ect the Forest Service concerns. The vote was 2 (Viele & Pierce in favor
and 3 against. The motion failed.
Morgan reminded Briner that he had 10 days in which to appeal to Council.
Morgan told the staff that he would be interested in having another meeting with or
without the Council to discuss procedures with variances. Patten answered that it
was the intention of the staff to look at variance criteria to see if changes were
needed.
3. Request for amending Section 17.20 of the Vail Municipal Code "Design Standards."
Applicant: Town of Vail.
Bill Andrews of the Public Works presented changes to the Design Standards section
of the subdivision regulations. 'Discussion followed concerning slope of private drives,
design of bike paths, erosion control, bonding, and stipulating whether or not to
include language in the document stating that a professional engineer review plans
for subdivisions. Patten explained that putting the stipulation into the document
" 11/22/82 PE'C 3
didn't make sense, that this was an internal personnel matter.
Pierce moved and Donovan seconded to approve the Design Standards for recommendation
to Council as per the memo from`.Bill Andrews dated. 11 /22/82 wit the,sug2ested changes
as noted by Andrews. The vote was 5 -0, unanimous approval.
4. Reauest to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Municipal Code to revise the definition
of site coverage.
Peter Jamar reminded the board that the tape of the previous session had been listened
to, and that the vote had been 6 -0. Jim Sayre reviewed the current definition of site
coverage, some situations that had come up, and applying the new definition to
some plans. He read the current definition and stated that the staff wanted a definition
that jibed with the definition of "building."
Discussion followed concerning overhangs, roof structures, enclosed space, and that
fact that site coverage was a means to control bulk. One concern voiced by Donovan
was whether or not the control should benot allowing infringment into setbacks. Jamar
felt that that would restrict creativity even more, for many people were using part
of their setbacks. Pierce wanted to spend more time on the definition with the
staff. Trout discussed a difficulty obtaining sufficient space on one floor building
and his displeasure regarding counting'some.architectural features as site coverage.
Jim Sayre pointed out that the DRB could not ask to cut the scale of a building down
if it conformed to zoning regulations.
After more discussion, Morgan moved and Donovan seconded to table the item until the
next regular meeting._ The vote was 5 -0 to table.
5. Re nest to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Municipal Code in order to redefine
"Gross Residential Floor Area" and to add a new section, 18.04.368 defining
..storage Area.°
Peter Jamar presented the memo explaining that there had been considerable discussion
of this item during the last two PEC meetings. He added that the staff believes that
the proposal as written is the most efficient in dealing with the problems of.bul.k
and abuse of the current definition and method of calculating GRFA. Morgan felt that
most people did not care what happened underground, and Pierce responded with the
statement that many times a bedroom would be added illegally.with many more people
living there, and that it could not be monitored. Morgan objected to the size of the
crawl space, particularly on a hillside, and Pierce stated that a hillside could be
considered a hardship. Trout's concern was with the area left over when using a
steeply pitched roof, and also asked for an increase in the size of the airlocks.
Jamar reminded the board that their job was to look at the community as a whole, not
individual projects. Patten said that the staff had looked at the item exhaustively,
talked with many people, and studied other ordinances. They found that the majority
of other communities have FAR and count everything. He added that Vail has chosen
to take a different track by excluding from count. those things felt to be good for
Vail.
0
•11/22/82 PEC 4
The higher density zoning areas were discussed, and then other means of figuring
GRF'A was talked about. Viele and Morgan expressed displeasure with the 5 foot limit
on crawl space. Peter repeated that there was gross abuse of the 6'6" storage.
Donovan stated that she was discouraged with the fact that the board was only looking
out for their own interests, not those of the whole town.
Donovan moved and Pierce seconded to approve the amendment to sent it to Council as
written in the staff memo ate 11/16/82. The vote was 3 in fa.vor, 2 (Vie le & Morgan)
against. The measure passed.
LJ
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Request for rear setback variance for lot 18, block 1, Potato Patch
Filing #1 for a new primary /secondary duplex. Applicants: David K.Irish
and Fred Ba rtl i t
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants wish to construct a new duplex home on this triangular shaped lot in
Potato Patch. The wide part of the triangle contains an area which is fairly heavily
wooded, which they wish to preserve. To move the house away from the existing trees
means pushing it into the rear setback, adjacent to National Forest Service land.
The applicants wish to encroach to within one foot of the rear property line. Siting
of the house in this manner also optimizes the views from.both units, especially
to the west (down valley). Moreover, the applicants argue that preserving the many
trees existing on the wide, or northerly portion of.the lot allows a significant
buffer zone between the existing house on lot 17 to remain intact.
0 CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findii
the Department of Community Devel
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
Is, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
)ment recommends approval of the requested variance
The relationship of the requested variance to.other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
The location of the house in the southerly, or narrowest,.part of the lot allows
a significant stand of trees to remain to the north of the house to buffer between
the proposed house and the one on lot 17 as well as optimizing views from the residence
to the west. The one foot distance from Forest Service land could be a problem
during construction in attempting to keep all construction activities on private
property, but this will be a condition of approval.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
,of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and un�it
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
without grant of special privilege.
The purpose section of the Variance Chapter (18.62.010) states that: "A practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship may result from the size, shape or dimen-
sions of the site.... from topographic or physical condition on the site...."
The staff believes that the shape of this lot in combination with the majority of
trees being in the widest portion of the site, point toward a hardship which would
not result in a special privilege if the variance were granted.
•
0
•
Irish 11/17/82 2
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 negative effects on these factors are foreseen.*
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
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 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 following reason
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.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
variance. We feel there exists some hardships on this site which warrant locating
the house in the area proposed, without it being construed as a special privilege.
However, we share the Forest Service's concern that all construction impacts and
activities remain on lot 18 and do not encroach on Forest Service land. Thus,
the following is a condition of approval:
That a snow fence be constructed on the property line common to lot 18 and National
Forest land to keep construction activity off of the public land::
b
MEMORANDUM
40 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 17, 1982
SUBJECT: Revision of site coverage definition
There has been some misunderstanding concerning the definition of site coverage.
The question seems to be whether roof overhangs over structures, such as sidewalks
or driveways, would be counted as site coverage. The staff would like to clarify
the definition by adding the phrase "excluding roof overhangs" to the second sentence.
18.04.360 Site Coverage
Site coverage shall be deemed to be any portion of a site covered by buildings,
including portions of a site located below enclosed space and /or cantilevered
enclosed space; also counted in site coverage are those portions of a lot which
are covered by roofed structures, such as roofed decks, walkways, balconies, stairs,
or driveways. Roof overhangs or eaves are excluded from the calculation.
It might be worthwhile to emphasize the last paragraph of the staff memo of
October 21 , 1982:
The new definition is not a radical change over the current one. Most of the
new projects in town are designed in a conventional manner: Enclosed and roofed
space is over a foundation wall. The new wording of site coverage will mainly
stop those designers who wish to skirt the town's regulations by incorporating
large cantilevers into their plans.
(See attached memo of October 21st.)
•
9
is
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: OCTOBER 21, 1982
RE: Revision of the definition of site coverage in the zoning code
so that it will include all enclosed space and structures which
are covered by a roof. Applicant: Town of Vail.
The current definition of site coverage (Section 18.04.360) of the code reads:
"Site Coverage" means the portion of a site covered by buildings,
excluding roof or balcony overhangs, measured at the exterior walls
or supporting members of the building at ground level. (Ord.8,1973).
This section is intended to limit the portion of a site covered by buildings.
In the single family and duplex zones, for example, the site coverage is
limited to twenty per cent of the lot. For steeply sloping lots the site
coverage is limited to fifteen percent of the lot. Typically, site coverage
rarely becomes a constraint to development in the residential zones, usually
the allowed GRFA is stacked up into two or three stories and not spread
out over the lot. However, on small lots site coverage sometimes becomes
a constraint.
In the past year the intent of site coverage has been abused. The regulation
has been abused by a few architects by designing large cantilevers -
cantilevers which support both living space and large roofed decks. Under
the current definition these cantilevered spaces are allowed due to the
language of the site coverage definition: "...measured at the exterior
walls or supporting members of the building at ground level." In one
case, the result of cantilevering is a massive residence which is out of
scale with the residences on the surrounding properties. The staff believes
that a rewording of the definition is necessary so that the intention of
the zoning code can be carried out here are limits to the amount of
building which can be built on a site, and that portions of the lot be
dedicated to open space.
The proposed wording is as follows:
18.04.360 Site Covera
Site coverage shall be deemed to be any portion of'a site covered
by buildings, including portions of a site located below enclosed
space and /or cantilevered enclosed space; site coverage shall also
include any portion of a site covered by balconies, stairs, decks,
walkways, driveways, or other structures covered by a roof.
[" - J * -
I
•
18.04.360 10/21/82
Page 2
This definition will be consistent with the definitions of "building"
and "structure." These definitions are:
18.04.040 Building - "Building" means any structure having a roof
supported by columns or walls, or any other enclosed structure, for
the housing and enclosure of persons, animals, or property. (Ord.8
(1973) 1.600 (part).)
18.04.370 Structure - "Structure" means anything constructed or erected
with a fixed location on the ground, but not.including poles, lines,
cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities of public
utilities, or mailboxes or light fixtures. At the discretion of the
design review board, swimming pools and tennis courts may be exempted
from this definition. (Ord.8(1973) 1.600 (part).)
The new definition will help to tie the regulations into a consistent and
logical form. Both the definitions of building and site coverage will
share the common concept of "enclosed space."
The inclusion of structures which have roofs within the definition of site
coverage is also consistent with the intent of the regulation: To limit
the amount of building mass covering a site. Roofed decks, balconies,
driveways and other structures add to the mass of a building. Note. that
structures not covered by a roof, such as open balconies and decks, are
not included in site coverage. Interior courtyards, which are open to the
sky are also not included in the site coverage definition, nor are roof
overhangs over landscaped areas.
The new definition is not a radical change over the current one. Most of
the new projects in town are designed in a conventional manner: Enclosed
and roofed space is over a foundation wall. The new wording of site coverage
will mainly stop those designers who wish to skirt the town's regulations
by incorporating large cantilevers into their plans.
MEMORANDUM
Is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: November 16, 1982
SUBJECT: Proposed change in the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area and
the addition of a definition of storage area.
There has been considerable discussion of this item during the last two PEC meetings,
and the staff has carefully considered the suggestions and comments of the Commis-
sioners. However, the staff believes that the proposal as written is the most efficient
in dealing with the problem it is designed to solve and is consistent with the
Town's objectives concerning the safety and welfare of the citizens of the Town.
The proposed amendments to the definition of Gross Residential Floor Area are aimed
at eliminating a gross abuse of the current definition and method of calculating
GRFA. The definition now allows an unlimited amount of area within a dwelling to
be exempt from calculation as GRFA provided that the ceiling height of the area
is less than 6'6" and is designated as storage. The abuse of the definition occurs
when large areas are designed within a dwelling at a 6'6" ceiling height and the
area is later converted to living area. The major problems with the conversion
are that living and sleeping areas are being designed without having proper building
code requirements (exits, ventilation, etc.), and the extra space within the struc-
tures adds additional bulk to the buildings. These problems would still exist if
the Town were to adopt a regulation which exercised no control over below grade
or underground space.
Under the new definition, an area up to 200 square feet designated as storage will
not be counted as GRFA. This new credit would be in addition to the credits now
given for garages (600 sq. ft.), mechanical areas (50 sq. ft), and airlocks (25
sq. ft.). Storage space would also be available in crawl spaces and attic areas.
The new definition defines crawl spaces as being a maximum of 5 feet in height,
will not be included within the GRFA calculation, and specifies that any attic space
with a ceiling height less than 5 feet shall not be calculated as either counting
towards the storage credit or GRFA totals.
The proposed wording is as follows:
18.04.130 Floor Area, Gross Residential (GRFA)
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) is defined as the total floor area within the
enclosing walls of a structure including all habitable areas, greenhouses and indoor
recreational facilities; excluding crawl spaces, attic areas with a ceiling height
of five (5) feet or less, solar heating storage areas, mechanical areas and areas
designed for parking and loading. Overlapping stairways shall only be counted
at the lowest level.
11
GRFA 11/16/82 2
The following areas shall not be included in the calculation of Gross Residential
Floor Area for each allowable dwelling unit located within the SFR, R or R P/S
zone districts:
1. Enclosed garages of three hundred (300) square feet per each
vehicle space with a maximum of 2 spaces per dwelling unit;
2. Mechanical area not exceeding a total of fifty (50) square
feet;
3. All or part of an airlock not to exceed twenty -five (25)
square feet;
4. Storage areas not exceeding a total of two - hundred (200)
square feet.
Any square footage in excess of the maximum credit allowed in 1 through 4
above will be included in the calculation of Gross Residential Floor.Area.
For the purpose of determining ceiling height within an attic area, the ceiling
height shall be calculated as the distance between the top side of the structural
members of a ceiling and the underside of the structural members of the roof
directly above. (An attic area which is created by construction of a roof
by truss -type members will be exempted from calculation provided that the
trusses be spaced no further that thirty inches (30 ") apart.) A crawl space
shall be defined as an area where the distance between the surface of the
earth and /or floor system, and the underside of the structural member(s) of
the floor directly above does not exceed five (5) feet and is accessible by
an opening not to exceed nine (9) square feet in area.
For buildings containing more than two (2) dwelling units, an additional GRFA
of up to twenty percent (20 %) of the allowable GRFA on the lot shall be allowed
for common hallways, common closets, garages, stairways, lobby areas, and common
enclosed recreational facilities. Any square footage in excess of the 20% credit
will be included in the calculations of GRFA.
A definition of storage area should also be added to the list of definitions
within the zoning code:
18.04.368 Storage Area
A storage area is an area within a dwelling unit which is designed and used
specifically for the purpose of storage and is not required by the latest
edition of the Uniform Building Code to provide either light, ventilation,
or any code requirement in its function or existence.
MEMORANDUM
DATE: November 15, 1982
SUBJECT: Review of conditional use permit for the Gondola II Arcade.
Applicant: Vail Associates
Description of Proposed Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
On May 24, 1982 Vail Associates obtained a conditional use permit to operate a major
arcade in the basement of the Gondola Building. Approval was for a summertime opera-
tion of 16 machines. Vail Associates now wants to expand their arcade so that it
will total 30 machines and be a year -round operation. It is because of these changes
in the conditional use permit that this matter is before you today.
Instead of reviewing the conditional use criteria (see attached memo of May 18,
1982), compliance with the stipulations placed on the conditional use permit will
be evaluated. (Also see attached letter from Vail Associates dated October 26,
1982.)
1) Noise level: The wording of the staff memo was changed at Planning Commission
to: "The noise level of the amusement devices should be in compliance with
Town of Vail Noise Ordinance." No violations of the Town ordinance have been
reported, nor have any complaints been received concerning the noise of the
machines.
2) The second stipulation reads:
The arcade should be properly managed. The management should not allow loitering,
littering, vandalism or disorderly conduct on or in the immediate vicinity of
the arcade by the clientele of the arcade. The arcade should be supervised
by a responsible attendent at all times during the hours of operation.
Note in Rick Sackbauer's letter of October 26, 1982 that supervision of the
arcade was handled by an employee of the bike shop. No attendent was on duty
at all times during hours of operation. This has led to the problem of lack
of change for the machines, as is outlined in the letters from A Place On Earth
and This Wicked West. There was also one incident where someone tried to break
into the machines, and the police were called. A full -time attendant could
solve these problems.
3) The third stipulation is that the conditional use permit be granted for a period
of one year to May, 1983. Given the current review of the application, the
staff is of the opinion that there is no need for Vail Associates to return
to the Planning Commission in May.
LJ
TO:
Planning and
Environmental Commission
FROM:
Department of
Community Development
DATE: November 15, 1982
SUBJECT: Review of conditional use permit for the Gondola II Arcade.
Applicant: Vail Associates
Description of Proposed Amendment to the Conditional Use Permit
On May 24, 1982 Vail Associates obtained a conditional use permit to operate a major
arcade in the basement of the Gondola Building. Approval was for a summertime opera-
tion of 16 machines. Vail Associates now wants to expand their arcade so that it
will total 30 machines and be a year -round operation. It is because of these changes
in the conditional use permit that this matter is before you today.
Instead of reviewing the conditional use criteria (see attached memo of May 18,
1982), compliance with the stipulations placed on the conditional use permit will
be evaluated. (Also see attached letter from Vail Associates dated October 26,
1982.)
1) Noise level: The wording of the staff memo was changed at Planning Commission
to: "The noise level of the amusement devices should be in compliance with
Town of Vail Noise Ordinance." No violations of the Town ordinance have been
reported, nor have any complaints been received concerning the noise of the
machines.
2) The second stipulation reads:
The arcade should be properly managed. The management should not allow loitering,
littering, vandalism or disorderly conduct on or in the immediate vicinity of
the arcade by the clientele of the arcade. The arcade should be supervised
by a responsible attendent at all times during the hours of operation.
Note in Rick Sackbauer's letter of October 26, 1982 that supervision of the
arcade was handled by an employee of the bike shop. No attendent was on duty
at all times during hours of operation. This has led to the problem of lack
of change for the machines, as is outlined in the letters from A Place On Earth
and This Wicked West. There was also one incident where someone tried to break
into the machines, and the police were called. A full -time attendant could
solve these problems.
3) The third stipulation is that the conditional use permit be granted for a period
of one year to May, 1983. Given the current review of the application, the
staff is of the opinion that there is no need for Vail Associates to return
to the Planning Commission in May.
LJ
Gondola II Arcade
Page 2 11/15/82
is STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the renewal of the
Gondola Arcade conditional use permit with two stipulations:
1) That a full time attendent be on duty within the game room itself during hours
of operation.
2) In the case that severe problems do develop at the arcade -- loitering, littering,
vandalism, drug abuse, or disorderly conduct- -the Planning Commission reserves
the right to review the Gondola Arcade conditional use permit.
U
r]
•
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: May 18, 1982
SUBJECT: Conditional use application to install a major arcade in the
basement of the Gondola II Building in Lionshead.
Applicant: Vail Associates
DESCRIP710N QF--TROPOSED USE
Vail Associates wishes to establish a major arcade in the basement of the
Gondola Building beneath Frasier's bar. The proposal is to house 12 amusement
devices in the space. (See attached sketch,)
.Corsi derati on of factors:
Relationship end sm�act of, the.,use on development objectives of the town,
If the arcade is managed properly. , the use will not contradict the development
objectives of the town, which call for the "harmonious development of the town"
and enhance "its established character as a resort,"
The effect qf' the use bn,l i0t,
fa &i I ttres,; -- �i ;t'�s, sc40ol�s,�
puT�l'ic a,ciI itie an4 • ubl is lac
air digtrihiiti
S.
F��aaop�uul�aation, trans ortation
�a� c hies,, an of eFirr
The arcade will not substantially influence the above.
VfpctR-pon tr�ffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
�_,_�, -_ t-._ .
:destriansafet and convey fence,, traffic fow and control, - access, maneu-
erabi11-ty,l'an removal of snov,�from the, street. an ar in areas.
The arcade should not substantially increase the demand for parking in the
Lionshead parking structure,
%ffect "u `n\the character of •thi \4rba in which the ro osed use is to be located,
u in ate scale and u -k• of t e\ proposedku e in re I .at ion to surrounding
u s•e s .
The arcade will be below grade and will have no frontage on a public way, street,
mall or walkway. The arcade itself is surrounded by restrooms, storage and
staircases.
The success of the arcade will depend on the effectiveness of the management
of the Gondola arcade. The management should ensure that their clientele is
well supervised.-that the noise of the arcade does not disturb the shop owners
within the Gondola Building, and that littering and vandalism do not take place
as a result of the arcade.
5/19/82 Gondola Arcade 2
Subh other fad q� and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed use.
The \qnri-ronm ^ 1�
lmp c tnep i s
Not applicable.
STAFK_R OOMMENDATI1`�id�
t, re ort,concernin the proposed use if an environmental
Fe, 9 Fv C Ka- ptea 8.56.
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.
\�CONDI LONS OF APPROVAL
The staff recommends approval of the conditional use with three stipulations,
including noise control, proper management, and that the conditional use permit
be granted for a.period not to exceed one year from the date when the conditional
. use is approved. These stipulations are similar to those placed upon the game
arcade in the West Vail Mall. If the arcade does prove to be a good neighbor
to the other commercial stores within the Gondola Building and Lionshead, the
renewal of the conditional use permit should be reviewed in a favorable light.
Thus.:-the staff recommends the following stipulatio.nsbe placed upon the conditional
use permit:
1, The noise of the amusement devices should not disturb other tenants within
the Gondola Building.
2. The arcade should be properly managed. The management should not allow
loitering, littering, vandalism or disorderly conduct on or in the immediate
vicinity of the arcade by the clientele of the arcade. The arcade should
be supervised by a responsible attendent at all times during the hours
of operation.
3. The conditional use permit should be granted for a period not to exceed
one year from the time the conditional use is granted. The applicant
should return to the Planning Commission in the month of May, 1983 for
review of their conditional use.
•
' � J
J'
f
J
• S
W II
CN 4
- s
s
i
i Q
11 a.
R V � rye
r rim � 4
i
J
r^r
all Food Services, Inc.
October 26, 1982
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Commissioners:
At your May 24, 1982 Planning and Environmental Commission
Meeting you approved a request concerning the Vail LionsHead
Gondola Building on Lot 4, Block 1, LionsHead Filing #1, in
Commercial Core II in order for the applicant, Vail Associates,
to install a game parlor in the basement level. The approved
request was for a Conditional Use Permit in accordance with
Section 18.60 of the Vail Municipal Code for a major arcade.
At that time Vail Associates wished to establish a major arcade
IS in the basement of the Gondola Building beneath Frasier's Bar.
The proposal was to house twelve (12) amusement devices in the
space. (See attached..dket.ch)
This operation proved successful not only for Vail Associates
but also for the surrounding property owners as it brought ad-
ditional revenues to the businesses in the entire LionsHead
Gondola Center. Vail Associates proposes to continue this
major arcade, better utilizing the existing space with thirty
(30) machines.
In the attached May 18, 1982, Memorandum from the Department
of Community Development to your Commission the staff recommended
approval of the Conditional Use with three stipulations. Those
stipulations are listed below with our response as we see it
for the future.
1. The noise of the amusement devices should not disturb other
tenants within the Gondola Building.
(Response) As per the attached letter from businesses
proximate to the arcade, noise was not a problem. Vail
Associates will decrease the volume in all machines to their
lowest possible level in order to assure that noise does not
disturb other tenants.
•
Rox 7 V0, Colorndr.) 81 ",11 7. ,303 %4 IT °,!. ?
1'1 ,lip , ,-, .,:i ._,_t?1]i1lC ll� l k l.iiii', SJO11
October 26, 1982
Page 2
2. The arcade should be properly managed. The management should
not allow loitering, littering, vandalism or disorderly
conduct on or in the .immediate vicinity of the arcade by
the clientele of the arcade. The arcade should be super-
vised by a responsible attendant all times during the hours
of operation.
(Response) Supervision for the major arcade was handled by
a Summer Mountain employee who's primary responsibility was
the bicycle and skate rental shop located beneath the Gondola
stairs. This location was not proximate to the arcade. Vail
Associates realizes that the major problems from the point
of view of the proximate business owners were those of
change and supervision. in order to alleviate the change
problem as well as provide better supervision for the arcade
Vail Associates will have both available at the LionsHead
Exchange located in the lobby of the LionsHead Gondola Center,
The Candy Store, located to the south between the arcade
and the cafeteria as well as the vending office (supervision
only), located adjacent to the west. -The LionsHead Exchange
will remain open from 7:30 a.m. until 7:00 p.m. daily. The
Candy Store will be open from 8:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m.
daily. The vending office is staffed between 7:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m. daily. Having supervision by three responsible
attendants at all times during the operation as well-as a
change machine and two separate change outlets will alleviate
the concerns. Additional signage will direct problem customers
to our areas.
3. The Conditional Use permit should be granted for a-period
not to exceed a period of one year from the time the Condi-
tional Use is granted. The applicant should return to the
Planning Commission in the month of May, 1983 for review of
their Conditional Use.
(Response) Vail Associates will comply with this stipulation.
As we prepare for Summer Mountain, 1983 we must include proper
management for the summer operation of the arcade.
cc: Paul Golden
Dean liotta
B.J. Britton
•
Sincerely,
Rick Sackbauer
Director, Vail Food Services
le
x
U' ✓''� /�.- i�=� 47 ,��] �5 �'%2 UDC. -�".S' � .,�.• w/ IC �
} 1
r:
:..► GAL rtj� T"� NAL-PEL -TK; s U�� a�z-�► -�.v �-rr
r
7cJ Aj-2� 1"/ /7-h )iCJ�r2
f��-1- �lJ/TIC15 —T7-/ vvljc.c�� 1�iAl�.fJr�i� J r�rc- �ICt —� ,4NtJ
e-a/�v ei�n��G��, . �1 v.ti- � � tL�' TNT � I�e..� � � h �,�r -•- 7%d�
�� Lam. � L/ �5 � ;7�.� : •�..% � /� �...� �� oT' ����:�>✓► s i �'c� ��
t-P- , U"I 0� E /` 1/ c- HJAJ�S � 1�IC tiJ STTOJ``i 4vt'r-'
�1iy -t�
T0
Wo,,LT-> Nq-t- j3-i=L A A>Jr7 7T \, 4S, � 1-Y
,
f +lEro� �5
k
�l�✓C.�l�� -L ti f n
I�ZA c� � �► �2r3�,
--}: } �"��§',as9,?r'tl�p'�'�W � xi�� °'/yI'?t'4' �„ :« n -� 5 •a i �ru y. rt ti, . t Pa °�. 'k #':'l��u r .ri } �, �u, r °�� Sa f K ', ` ' • 1 e" - �g n's
aty '>" „y.. �+. gfT'�`Wy�` 4, � 4 x a .. ,� Irk•;. 'tk * i � ,+^. � s a i : i t,,4.' S, - -�
', Y� j' i -A_2j {F � J •�4 _ M Y A .� I J' =%1 ➢ ykx�u 5
t '<>ti�.. F'J�m ��nn �..n- rt .late r � ,� f. � zy t 4 r, e '. 2 I ,,. � _'f ..• � 4 �, F,'M1r' -�
'W x
S f �
.'Y-s ,a FAKzt.yy�j .u�?;,,c�.rc �� � +fir'' r rt � -r � .� �< � � �� �•`� '� �E; w fi�:c ,�� , � .:': � ��'s r r'r' a�: ,, �, „�'Y ;�'r�'Er. "" ,�;,
�§ E 7 �>p,C i �' °M#w � '� -... ..t � � -: saw 7 5'a� •# _.. � � e �wi. -,+ �z 'a ,� ,� '�' � �
r .q�w. 7A�%.? � r.. d �.� � � w 'r,.�� er.- F, -�.•s+ } �A s'`:wa�
f" DATE: PRIORITY
F THIS WICKED WEST INC. � _� L � , '2 y ❑ URGENT!
R Lodge Promenade /Lionshead Gondola Building FILE NO. ❑ SOON AS POSSIBLE
O Box 1143
M VAIL, COLORADO 81657 ❑ NO REPLY NEEDED
IIIATTENTION:
$VBJECT:
III- ....... .. .. - ___ _.... „.. .. .... -. .. -_... ...- .......
T � i�-� ..... ...... .
a
Ir .. .. .......:
DATE O IEPLY: ( TT0
— tc,
p �" R-1
vc
y j —FLY)— X
I VVV
SIG ED
• -!.' .. .`:._ w'.�•^.Sja.wt W+tt•',i -ee•�.
�.G,-�r
(:�,rar..'r, -S �: 51 Y� `5 ti•..y�•3.af YF r,
-
.:+-� ' I..•..•�.-- ��„t��- �� .��. f r„ r _f' } + -.4 _i.l��i3 `. ,r i`rsF�� {A ! i•� �(�Ci s�l - �+. - r ��t T; 1_. r'5�. `
' ..O 4 mow} - y_Cp -«' .?' , . \\ •:l r r � '' .- _ �- •+.r T a ,# �!, i� r, �,. '>7
. t ;;�f,r�,'..1_, 'i.`- K:�.i�`4r •. _.... 3h' -rw .._,__ .. `I_4,y � r , �. '
1 • •
i t irilf..i.; '`.1 �yr '> - r _ ''�--'^- « _ _ ti 1 ' •:riLx;.Y� §e'S "' tit ,.,r�.��;..
,� ` t }- i~f r�.• '�.•. .1 -YJf•, SP1�L`+!T'�ii �h
+ •yI ti r' ' 4' }.A Ir• - ,��,�f R I'`=�!'�, °` '.4f w t' -.' �1 t - �t :'• C
r° � 'M...- n•m��f dr_�-- '�c_�r.- �,,.�.�sr.srt - ,...wi,.+.mr,a
•f'r. ;' .•,, _ _ ,i.{ ,�-y t'-.-- .- "- }�'7,Si'xr�"''..JL'"'T"'r_i �iT'R;;7{{,, L:�" u 'xrt�.s'vs.- .'rhraci i`I
T �
coo Y � w,; ;�:� r. f t : , v➢ .. �• ;.1 1r ;1! r'r � ,1111 ^,� Fr'`,`,`.' :.�':r•4
-e r .:e a` -�, i •" s. 1 r 'F i':ii ,� ..F-.11 "�....I;r7. C1'a " !'rr �'1'i�t'I.Y rGl�l}' ,lii: rrl'I ,'S n-�I.`��
'x n.r,•}`.' � r .�`�fl-.'.f,.s. !'1T.'{ t;ciedJ � Ir 7 I•rC'"4.�}�T,"�'.rrf s4- I/tjtZ'1"��.�rl
�L. r xK, r - �r �". �rT `�'�. -��� lF- ~ .rc • D x{�t� 1��� FFH.rvs'�t1S.42n�2ylY r l Y l r .•�.^-�,.'[ixc .: rP, � -�(1
- +-''� -�:c _ ' ��' -= Inf',,r _1-ia t' - ��.�..,.1?- '•�oa.x'•�.dro_ 1 �:1;'s- --,�^:�•,'��`_�'�T�;fr� j
Fx,etV T r.'sl•
"�'C.'• �tJ `�, Y S ..fy{ ' t -�1_ I "T4'TMi' - r1. i` Ir'k l :txt��. ` '6`""`...•
� 3 ti t'�J r-ti 'u ' -. I.�I i ..: 1 � _.'I; `t ylr� ' _'i � bra 1`^•� 41Tv � •'t�r:"2 rttir �f' ti
. N , i •• :l �1 ' Ci' �' vl r : I - ' "`=• r- I r _'ire"'e'r.0 6•'i97f =-+! 7 ua-
rx so•. rr•:t L,i.t,
l } r
•h }� rr. ,. i _Tt}� „ a..° iv oz•c>h:' -.i. -. 1l- jS':L - ..nvlq'}st' i
Ism- --
"''r.� � :o µ "�.�] s`4� ,.:� t �M�f� -w.x - C�z: i �r a�.'�t' 7',-- 4 • �"'n;w �ounR�L -��' • I� _ _ - - t�� F� -�;'ii
EASY il•;LS :_y -�+�i _ v+i _ *' •i+ =.7. tonc, _- r4.: 'Fe,6Ar' -4czr - - I�jlt. -j��? - _�S.:l'::;, -
r '� 1 •. x- .. . 4_ i ' --'zx¢ sloolLh.wrvz- T t;rr ^__ -_ r( 1.
5' .•t:' }�
spoil
'�1.. ira htAx�'r. ,�' ! = � . �bork I " �} � Tvr}¢ti e`er' '?T' � . � " � 7Y 1 �'•
s�A•4: off i2 :,r' ti'"_'tL
:,Lkr: r..Pfrh\c...•Ter 1{�y.g a -� f�45: -� b' ti r2� Yr.d -y_ rr�7- 1 �1, ' ' x T ,.4x n,. -
• i _ �I,LLY .._� aL":..ir'i � i1-.1 a L. . � ' _(• �1. r
_.` a ��'�>; Y":''�j•� r�'L'.�t'- =w�`r' � . V.�- .- -I•�,i �� � !•. .x_ I.1, c' rr �'ir' vI 1,!'. "i \�r; ""+., f ,- 4 wr�rt'.' L
- wo..el +.�w.v , n3".a_.ai.` ,r 1.. �aZ _ •Vt `'-i.J :� ,J �:. s1 -k l�'•1�f r, `r��) _ :..�
t J
1(a; rt. �l '•.��.���aL��`�•�__ ^_..jV.� -�C r � I -�� f .7] -,i � 'I 1 1. 4 �r i� �1 ,�iY: l�°�[ - � i�1✓ ,1 � }±J:
.,`;,,:}:.y„ -,,,,1 �f -,.,� ;; I •,- ' ` I'7 �, -: 1S t �-�-1 h � �y�.1 F:ri`t�a b.....,� fff i jr�1�'' v'" f . t� :' r�r= t S•-f •,� (/r,L�[
. { r_ Iu•� � ! r �
, r r ' F . 5ow v - >.vY,�� L---� -� r �Fli l_ -_' R� , p��.':• l :� d� u�
li. 1: i7 jx? -via, yy f{ ,lo, t �1
:�ak fL�.- �aii�JL .•"��'••!��1._ffi 'S' -+lt IL•'G' -qtr '{, if- -- �� :�
�t1 .i'it "� { � !• ...__'_.�� 4 �- ...�- �T�'r! -•�.- : - 1 �. , ' %f_ `,3 - IFS S I Cy
•J y� r�tt - G, '� 4i'. r Ra �� }y- �, ti�Ld�DU{laR. Q.��R (.DHTAdwj .] l � t -� { f - _ •.�_ a ', ;'
tM lr.•�f ^�jr: =7 r'. 7� '4. • T � ',. r t \ s_ _ +; ; _
4 I '4L, rotes gncaE vm+ a :•
Yrrt r�`•5 � ��fL�J �'1 ' , d� '�;F Lca!N• r4 � 'I � r �' .f
...�. -. �... ._... ':. r_: Y. \. - _ 'z s � F+ - ., , _ • 1. L . -; = ( ( r
.:K fUr.ouhii.� =iA.�i .'.Is2 t .... a jl'. tl ; I�17 e1 I�' rl4' I{•1Y r � y- • "�'
'�+IKt+safr mod:: Yr: �+'•i'r�. - �'•.� �`r+j,r c 1 ! \! � 1� It,.' :ti 2 ;. - -,ia' �s'
t = 1 1•� . lY .!. _Y -.G I,1� ,II � EI.I�I.Ji���lli�
SIAM
- _
,rr�� CO• ''k .. +�•S- ',-(''{•gNL1 "J`- "t1 ..•Y' 'Irl' :rl '..�' -� Y'r1,
'+.+- .woc+4 f� n...s�G� r^'r11'..•r ,' �•FTrt7 �f`..LS� �I.'rY ',!rt +_+-,+ti -r a t�r.4 1 I *n.....r .' i 1f `.i'I '"".`t'+ -'}• SS; ' .i - - ""�^ . r.� id , ::
sCww.rni4r5.J •. t
. :_ nt - '-• -o - r - -«-.�
_ r r I r ' Px }'� I,<✓ l �_ -. awl r '1r 11 T. ��N� rl� �II•�1 'ti (�l C. 1 'r { I, '11 1 4 ,• I•of.= }. � ' r[ ' I !r}I �� 1� f ,�- � ��`ubur*rr�vG.t y � j
f- f11��iCa' 1i 1f. !9 �`' 1! 'I,, rll 4,f•' Ix�s1x.l _' I i n' 1 r@ i [-0J_FiT[ICr!IT� YIL'll S
,1 •'} X111 I.f.� f .l�I I , 11 k_1 _ ..�'�•]! is I I.I f
�' `1�a_ `�- Yi��t�.. 1 tl'j 3M�,ICi_ i t r -.• _.._....� r1�1 11 f ^ylrtn 1 13r
fr •+e�.sa t tf • I : I . � I -fsll: ti..e' I ! -Y Y . ti �
�'•�i �. � � .r•_"'1• t.t,;?� -i�-1 'i. i '�: I = ,f,.::.:..,....-. F�,'.vi�'r��'� ,�,'� I� ^ice y %aso-`�I��'i '�!`�•
-,�' lJi,�_J�I * 1_• _ r,r .'a' �• q' -1 1:.1'•�e, 1 {I i It�,7�j(1 .. i Irj,IfF 1 I' '. _ I - }+ -.r �iL+c.:pNER uI
(___.i F-
1 -I.
. r.,r.•..; _ar > 11 --` T rct,„'�, ' !n'- IJ` ]Q' A" �;r�(D' -w I ( a • S
_•�-.. `' -'�'i; '�� } '� r :.�� ?�:�• ,`ti s. 11 -•�� - _ - - ftrj:iy�l I•_ _.� t 1 1 � �-- __Y -'-T = ✓ - - - -i i_ �-
:'•�S:,i' 1 !fY '�k�t -:,•: �-'- ;i F C �-- .... .'�.•II•',r };i^]IsNII �+�4i ; °.12+.�t•.'yx� �_
'r. r.. .fl •r ,'.e,
! `�r r ` � 4 � T.. ?' • r•: ! �-:1 ('- iri�l�O__'T'R`- `�4KA'Ttdt}' ri i / ' a=? =' ..�. _ (�...- t ,
1Jl�, l� �(.'r%r• � ,c •� r�L: j' i�zu,+�cY nLErl>;;- �f� -1.LO� I •� �r; Airy^ � ,� ' '
.� i jI i -: �w,� ..j� r.' ,� � «- {r L I c :�,�- .- ,- _- ....�_...� mra,r•�!j {� rl' `SZ a:cll•r�1' 1
1 .L.i ,_� �t :i -��• � ; �'• " rl•ry^^�x}rfrs.•.u. - - L....,1 - .. -i ='+ 1.,� r { �, r' , - �- x
- - . _ _ � •' :�L_'µl' ' ..ter II - �,
.l ' - l r f .• :-.. ! `F . j t. -7•+>t ' j '' 1 iTn�64' � � lei• k = 1 _ T f.
t S � :i V uY.sl
t
- tal } •�:� `iI� N .•> _.�`�. '.� J - :f'- I -} Tc:r rx�-� 1 ,
• � .fv^ � d,�,•a l;C: -171.f :r - i I •f. t °_ 14 �'-�T. '.I- l�r , p
1.YO6.L CIE J nY [?z71G �. :. 4 � • �! 4;{.F7 ELLI`:" ll _ _ i . _ I ..J. ,- ` � .r.:rl- i.� ` �•_�' • • ; � �`��'� ROL2' ' Yi `
rL ��.. M-'tL�T� ;'}� 4•If �I. 7J.�1' - � l,'• � - i,� - i �.11 �,. '•.� '� 1 r'E 7;.., L.a-1 D,+TS �!
=i [.t- EtEJ-M [5,t �. '.= r'.^•'r. /` •�?';. ,7,- 'rf.lY.^ _ �. 1._ � - •ci__...� � - 'r' t{[ {1 '. i'`!'1�'1..��� J ,_ - �E = +' l
3 4
•--�. _ .�. yG�- iv.'M4..1 •� '' r ~�.,,�,' -".'I ;' __ - - .r - •1�Ili lS j'if,iai ",•4, 1.`v?/ J1• ,'.` = :.r.l^; - •�,VCi ._
_ �'{ X'AK'.l_."- � ^f'/!'� ^'y!n- 4,y1 %. }x.41.1 ?:'.,'`I'_r! .. __�.� ! �- L r��'Irrr f''rl �l. y,'.i .', �.- .:�•''`.t .. f. �..,. ... .. � � . � •.f ..
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 8, 1982
1-18",
12:30 pm Field trip to CCI to review view corridors
1 :30 pm Subdivision Regulations review with Bill Andrews (bring your copy)
3:00 pm Public Nearing
1. Approval of minutes of October 11 and October 25.
2. Request for a front and side setback variance in order` to construct two gar-
ages for 2 autos each which would encroach 18 feet into the north (front)
setback on Lot 3, Block G, Vail Da.s Schone Filing #2.. Applicants: Pat
Dodson and Leonard Vogelaar.
3. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to
redefine "Gross Residential Floor Area" and to add a new section, 18.04.368
defining "Storage Area." Applicant: Town of Vail
4. Request to amend the view p1l,ane section of the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan: Design Considerations to designate only several major view
corridors to be protected. Applicant: Town of Vail
40
Published in the Vail Trail November 5, 1982
k
� r
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
November 8, 1982
PRESENT
Will Trout
Diana Donovan
Dan Corcoran
Jim Viele
Duane Piper
Jim Morgan
PRESENT FOR SITE VISITS
Will Trout
Diana Donovan
Dan Corcoran
Jim Viele
Duane Piper
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Jim Sayre
Betsy Rosolack
1. ADDroval of minutes of October 11 and October 25.
On page 2 of the 10 /11 minutes, Viele had moved and Piper had seconded item 4.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the minutes of 10/11/82 with the
corrections including the fact that Viele had returned for this vote.
The vote was 5- 0(Morgan out of room).
. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve as written the minutes of 10/25/82.
The vote was 5 -0 (Morgan out of room).
2. Request for a front and side setback variance in order to construct two garages
or 2 autos each on lot 3, Block G, Vail Das Sc one 2. Applicants: Do son /Vogelaar
Peter Patten stated that this item was being withdrawn from the agenda and would be
republished because it was found that there was also a need for a site coverage variance.
3. Request to amend Section 18.04.360 of the Vail Municipal Code in order to redefine
"Gross Resi entia Floor Area" and toad a new section, 18.04.368 efinin
"Storage Area." Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Jamar explained the abuses that had ensued with the 6'6" storage not counting
as GRFA and the problems of bulk with the old definition. He added that the credits
for airlocks, mechanical areas and parking would remain the same. He felt that it
would be easier to administer.
Morgan felt that the 4 foot crawl space was too small. Corcoran suggested changing
it to 5 feet. Morgan's concern was with hillside sites. Morgan suggested.a 6 foot
allowance. Peter Patten counteeed with the fact that there would be gross abuses with
a 6 foot ceiling. Viele asked if they were excluding uninhabited space below grade,
and Morgan didn't feel that there should be any concern with space below grade.
Discussion followed concerning possibly excluding space below grade in GRFA. Piper
felt that the basic document was ok with the possible exception of changing the ceiling
PEC 11/8/82 -2-
height. Trout was concerned with the attic space left from steeply pitched roofs.
Safety of space below grade was discussed as well as the difficulty in monitoring it.
Piper moved to approve the definition as in the memo with' the addition of a number
S. "Uninhabitable space occupiedentirely under existing grade" and changing the
height of the crawl space to 5 feet. Donovan seconded, but added that she had concern
with the definition of uninhabitable because it would be easy to label anything unin-
habitable on the plans.
Patten said that the definition of uninhabitable would have to be tied to the
definition in the UBC. Piper added: "Uninhabitable as defined the the 1979 UBC."
More discussion followed concerning whether or not to state a percentage below grade,
a percentage above grade, and whether to state a maximum % above grade.
Donovan withdrew her second to the motion and Viele seconded the motion. The vote
was 3 in favor Viele, Morgan, Piper and 3 against Trout, Corcoran, Donovan
Donovan felt that theyiwerd caught up in bulk and creating unlimited living area
underground with too many loop holes available.
Corcoran.felt,the definition was too complicated. Piper suggested changing the crawl
space height to 5 feet.
Morgan moved to table the item until the next meeting. Corcoran stated that it could
not be tabled after a vote.
Donovan moved to approve the definition as-presented with the elimination of the words
an /or_ floor system" -and changing the height of crawl_ space to 5_'feet. -P_ipgr_ sec onded.
• The vote was 2 in favor (Donovan, Piper) and 4 a ainst.
Morgan moved to reconsider the item at this meeting. Trout seconded. Vote was 5 -1
Donovan against).
Morgan moved and Trout seconded to table the item and request rewording by the staff.
The vote was 5- Donovan against). The item was tabled.
4. Request to amend the view plane section of the Vail Village Urban_Design Guide
Plan: Design Considerations to designate only several major view corridors to
be protected. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten showed photos of the view corridors listed in the memo. Corcoran felt
that it should be specified as to where the photos were taken from. Focal Point #2
was eliminated and two additional views were added: 8. Red Sandstone peak from
the Village Plaza and 9. Top of Village Plaza looking southwest.
Trout moved and Corcoran seconded to recommend to Council the views listed with
direction to the staff to include lan ua a which would protect the views from develop-
ment outside of the CCI Zone District.
Trout and Morgan wanted the tapes of the previous meeting heard to determine if they
did vote in approval of the definition of site coverage. (The tapes were reviewed, and
both Morgan and Trout had voted in approval. Morgan moved and Trout seconded to ask
the Council to table cons i derat iron .af the site coverage definition. The vote was
4 -2 Donovan and Pi er against -._ The motion passed.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 20, 1982
SUBJECT: Proposed revised wording to the view section of the
Urban Design Guide Plan --- Design Considerations
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its identity. Views
of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features, etc. are constant reminders
of the mountain environment and, by repeated visibility, orientation reference
points. Certain building features are also important character features,
orientation references and visual f ocal"pdints.
The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated on the
View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design Framework Plan)
and photographically documented (photos on file in the Community Development
Department). However, the view corridors die icted on the maps and in the photo-
graphs should not be considered exhaustive. There are obvTopsly many other im-
portant views too numerous to map. When evaluating a development proposal, first
priority should be given to an analysis of the impact of the project on views
from pedestrian areas, whether designated or not.
The views designated to preserved originate from either major pedestrian
areas or public plazas. They are views of the ski mountain; the Gore Range
or the Clock Tower. The views of the ski slopes and of the Clock Tower which
were selected to be preserved were chosen due to their significance not only
from an aesthetic standpoint, but also as orientation reference points to help
the guests determine their location. And, of course, looking east from the Vail
Village area one views the dramatic Gore Range providing some of the most beautiful
scenic views anywhere.
The official photographs of the view corridors and focal points contain the area
to be protected.. No encroachment will be allowed *ns4d- (above, the line.
To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals shoulinclude a visual
impact analysis. This analysis could be in the form of sketches, photographic
overlays, photographic touch -ups, models, or other simulation techniques. A
means of demonstrating in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be
required by the zoning administrator.
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances in height
or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and,, if necessary, revised.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 5, 1982
SUBJECT: Listing and verbal description of proposed view corridors and focal points
NO. DESCRIPTION
1 This view occurs from two steps above the photograhic point on the south
side of the Vail Transportation Center. The view is significant in that
it contains the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower as focal points, but
also is one's first view of the ski slopes as one comes out of the Trans-
portation Center.
2
This is a significant view because it allows one to see the ski slopes
from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the ticket and lift
facilities in the Village.
3
View number 3 allows one to view the Gold Peak ski slope area from the
top of the steps connecting Wall Street and the Village Plaza.
4
This is a view of the Gore Range from an area just south of the Village
Plaza where it meets Hill Street. The viewer can see the Gore Range
as he walks east on Hill Street.
* 5
This is a view of the Gore Range from Hanson Ranch Road just east of
the Mill Creek Bridge.
* 6
This view is actually the third in a series with views 4 and 5 the first
two. It is from Hanson Ranch Road looking east to the Gore Range.
%
This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in the Village.
area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from the Gore Creek Drive
between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and the Gore Creek Plaza Building.
The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view.
FOCAL POINTS
1 The Clock Tower is a focal point in this view taken from the Mill Creek
Bridge on Hanson Ranch Road.
2 The Clock Tower providesan orientation reference point from this location
on the Willow Creek Pedestrian Bridge over Gore Creek.
* The development potential for intrusion into these views is located outside of
the Commercial Core I Zone District, and thus, outside of the jurisdiction of
the Urban Design Guide Plan. Some amendments would be required in zoning or
in the Guide Plan to be able to protect these views.
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 13, 1982
1:45 pm Site visits
2:45 pm Preliminary review exterior alteration of LionsHead Gondola building
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of November 8 and November 22
2. Request for front and side setback variances and a site coverage
variance to construct two garages on lot 3, block G, Vail das Schone
Filing No. 2 Applicants: Patrick Dodson and Leonard Vogelaar
3. Request for an amendment to Section G Views and Focal Points of the
Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan -- Design Considerations to include
language which protects views whose deterioration could be caused by
development outside of the Commercial Core I Zone District.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. Request for an amendment to the official zoning map of the Town of
Vail to impose zoning on parcels recently annexed to the Town in the
eastern Matterhorn area. :Applicant: Town of Vail
5. Request for a side setback variance to construct a garage on lot 1,
block 4, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Andy Andrikopoulos
•
r Planning and Environmental Commission;
December 13, 1982
PRESENT (ALSO FOR SITE INSPECTIONS) STAFF PRESENT
Will Trout
Diana Donovan
Jim Viele
Dan Corcoran
Duane Piper
Gordon Pierce
ABSENT
Jim Morgan
Peter Patten
Peter Jamar
Betsy Rosolack
1. Approval of minutes of November 8 and November 22.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve` the minutes of November 8. The
vote was 5 in favor, 0 against, with Pierce abstaining.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the minutes of November 22. The
vote was 5 in favor, 0 against, with Corcoran abstaining.
(Trout left on an emergency call.)
2. Request for front and side setback variances and a site coverage variance
to construct two garages on lot 3, block G, Vail das Schone Filin No. 2.
40 pp scants: Patrick Dodson and Leonard Vogelaar.
Peter Patten reviewed the facts which included that this had come before the
PEC on November 8. It had since been discovered that a site coverage variance
was needed. Pat Dodson showed elevations and explained that he and Vogelaar
had satisfied the concerns of!the building department regarding egress from
the bedroom windows. A description of the carport followed, and Corcoran also
asked about the number of spaces being used for the two garages. (5)
(Trout returned.)
Patten stated that a major concern of the Public Works department was that some
restriction be made so that no cars could be parked in front of the garages, and
thus block traffic and snowplows. He suggested that one restriction could be that
signs would have to be posted stating something like "No Parking -Fire Lane ", and
the owners would have to control. Trout wondered if there were a building code
that covered this, and Donovan suggested requiring garage door openers so that
cars would not be parked in front of the doors while they were being opened..
Pat Dodson stated that the cars would not be in the road, merely the right -of-
way, but he added that he would be more than happy to install garage door openers.
Viele asked if this had gone thru the Board of Appeals, and Vogelaar said that
unofficially the Board of Appeals has seen no problem with the definition of
carport.
Piper moved and Pierce seconded to approve the request for a site coverage variance.
The vote was 5 in favor, 0 against, with abstaining,
Viele moved and Trout seconded to approve the request for setback variances per
the staff memo dated 12/6/82. The vote was 5 in favor, 0 a ainst, Corcoran abstained.
I0
n
U
0
PEC -2- 12/13/82
3. Request for an amendment to Section G Views and Focal Points of the Vail Villa
Urban Design Guide Plan—Design Considerations to include language which protects
views whose deterioration could be cause by development outside of the Commerc_ia
Core I zone District. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten explained that some views from CCI look toward Gore Range and that
the PEC had requested the staff to include some language to protect those views.
He added that after discussion with Parker of VA, Vail Associates would like some
time to study th -is, and requested the item be tabled until the first meeting in
February (2/14).
Trout moved and Piper seconded to table this item until February 14, 1983. The
vote was 6 in favor, unanimous, to table:
4. Request for an amendment to the official zoning map of the Town of Vail to
impose zoning on parcels recent annex-e-d to the Town in the eastern Matter-
horn area. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten showed maps of the area and of the surrounding property and the existing
zoning. Corcoran read a letter dated Dec. 9 from Jim and Ann Charles concerning
the unsafe roads, and the cars left on the lot across from Fall Line. Corcoran
added that most of the clutter did appear to have been removed. As far as the
roads were concerned, he stated that they were not dedicated. Patten stated that
this was part of the purchase of the Elmore property, so the roads were on TOV
property. Corcoran reminded the board that this was not pertinent to the memo
under discussion.
Velma (Kirsch) Saunders, one of the property owners, spoke at length explaining
why she felt that parcel C should be zoned LDMF and parcel F should be zoned RC
(she felt that this was more of a transition from the surrounding properties).
She did see a discrepancy in zoning the Matterhorn Inn (parcel E) RC, when in fact
there were 11 units, and it was unlikely there would be fewer than 11 in the
future.
Saunders made a strong statement concerning the number of cars allowed the tenants
at Fall Line and wondered if the Town in their agreement with Morcus could limit
the number of cars at Fall Line.
Corcoran pointed out that the proposed zoning also took into account the present
County zoning. Saunders stated that she understood that the County zoned "Resource"
those parcels they could not make a decision on, expecting people to come in and
ask for certain zoning.
Patten explained that the staff was concerned with bulk as well as number of units,
and that the Matterhorn Inn (parcel E) was a low building and that the parcel to
the of it (parcel F) was screened from the Matterhorn Inn by a grade change
making Parcel F relate more to the Matterhorn lot.27. He added that another thing
to be considered was that Parcel F could be divided into 2 lots, each of which
could have 3500 GRFA.
PEC -3- 12/13/82
Saunders stated that if GRFA were the concern, could more units be built if they
• were small units (and added that there was a demand for small units). Patten
answered I'no", that he was talking of type, that Parcel F related topographically
more'to.P /S zoning on the west.' Saunders stated that if parcel F were zoned RC,
she would be glad to do a small, unobtrusive one story building.
John Siverly, one owner of parcel D, angrily stated that he had not been contacted
and objected to the inference in the memo.that he had built 5 units instead of 3. Patten
explained that when the property was being studied, it belonged in the County,
and Jim Rubin said that he would talk with Siverly, and asked Patten not to, since
the County was the keeper of the records. Patten added that he felt that in any
annexation of County property, that it was important to work with the County.
Pierce asked Siverly how many units he had on his property, and Siverly said that
Pierce could come and see. Corcoran stated that if the staff had made a mistake,
they would be more than willing to change the error. He added that having been
on the site that day, it did appear that there were 5 units, and asked Siverly
how he felt about the zoning proposed. Siverly replied he had no problem with
the proposed zoning.
Wolfgang Mueller, the other owner of that parcel. mentioned that after one year
illegal units would be legal. He felt that their parcel should be zoned LDMF.
Suzanne Hertzog, a resident of the Matterhorn subdivision expressed her concern
about the road and encouraged the staff not to allow more density. She said that
just because a unit was built for sale, it was possible that it would not sell,
and in that case the unit would become another rental and renters did not have
the concern that owners did. She showed pictures to the staff and the board
of the area.
Ella Knox next.said(' that orginally her house was surrounded by single family houses,
which were changed into 2 and 3 apartments each. She asked the board to think
of Vail not just of Matterhorn, and not to increase the density.
Alice Parsons, owner of several of the annexed parcels, also stressed the need
for several small units for employee housing. She added that a bulldozer could
change the topography of property and result in the allowance of more units. She
felt that parcel C should be zoned LDMF.
More discussion followed concerning the traffic and roads in the area. Viele felt
cbntern about the traffic problem and felt that the staff had done a reasonable
job in proposed zoning. Piper voiced approval of the proposal, Donovan basically
agreed with the staff, and added that property values would dictate who would live
on the property, and felt that fewer kitchens would result in fewer people. Corcoran
stated that a future connection to the east thru Glen Lyon wouldn't occur, and
so the traffic problem would be a continuing one. He added that in trying.to calculate
the size of property by looking at the metes and bounds, only one parcel closed,
making it difficult to determine the size of the properties.
Parsons stated that it was not the number of kitchens that determined the number
• of people, but the number of bedrooms, that every individual would like to be by
himself, but could not afford to and so shared lodging with others. She added
that there was no traffic problem in Pitkin Creek Park, so it was the type of people
that made a difference.
PFC --4- 12/13/82
as stated in the staff memo of December 9, j "g ".,th -e- proposed zoning to Town Council
Donovan move an Piper seconded to recommend
82. The vote was 5 -0 with Trout��
abstainin for lack of sufficient information
Patten told the audience that this would be brought to the Council meeting of Jan-
uary 4, 1983.
5. Request far a side setback variance to construct a garage on lot 1, block 4,
Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Andy Andrikopouios
Peter Jamar showed the site plan and reviewed the memo.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, said that the memo covered any points
he would add. Viele asked if any other variances would be needed -- Pierce replied
that there would not. The size of the garage was discussed. Donovan stated that
from the discussion while they were at the site, she wondered if the garage were
one or two stories. Pierce replied that it was one story. Trout felt that the
request was consistent with the zoning objectives. More discussion followed.
Viele moved and Trout seconded to approve the variance. The vote was 4 -0 in favor
with Corcoran and Pierce abstaining.
Patten explained that in the packet each member received was a memo concerning
condo conversions that he was asking the board to study per a request from the
Town Council. The existing ordinance (28 of .1978) was included in the memo.
He added that there would be a full discussion with the Council early in 1983.
I
r
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: December 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Zoning of recently annexed parcels in Matterhorn area
Applicant: Town of Vail
� 0
The chart below represents existing and proposed statistics and zone districts for
the 7 parcels of property which were annexed in November. Following the chart is
a written description of each parcel's status as well as reasoning for our zoning
proposals. Attached please find a map for your reference.
PARCEL FORMER EXISTING APPROX APPROX EXIST PROPOSED TOV MAX
.CTY ZONING NO. UNITS EX GRFA NO ACRES DU /ACRE TOV ZONING DENSITY
Park Meadows Resource 33 ? 1.0 33 HDMF (25 du /acre)
(1 du /35 ac)
Fall Line RSM 54 43,000 1.52 35 HDMF (25 du /acre)
(5.5 du /ac)
Parsons /Sanders Resource 0 0 1.0 0 RC 6 du /acre
(North)
Parsons South Resource 0 0 1.0 0 RC 6 du /acre
Siverly /Mueller RSM 5? 5,070 .5 10 RC 6 du /acre
Matterhorn Inn RSM 11 ? .5 22 RC 6 du /acre
Condos
Parsons /Sanders RSM 0 0 .86 0 R P/S 2 -4 units
South
A. PARK MEADOWS
Park Meadows is a condominium complex with 33 different property owners listed by
the Eagle County Assessor's office. It is predominantly short - termed and was con-
structed in the late 60's before County zoning. Since the density is higher than
any zone district we have, we propose to zone it HDMF, which allows 25 units /acre
(our closest density to what's existing). Thus, Park Meadows will be come legal
non - conforming in the HDMF Zone District.
B. FALL LINE
The Fall Line apartments were constructed in the mid -60's previous to County zoning.
There are 54 apartments and approximately 43,000 square feet of floor area existing.
The building is used for employee housing for the Marriott's Mark Hotel and owned
by Kaiser Morcus. The density is over 35 units to the acre and so we propose HDMF
zoning because it is one closest density to what's existing.
•
•
•
Zoning Annexed Areas -2- 12/9/82
A condition of approval for the Marriott's Mark Phase III Addition project is as
follows:
"An agreement between the owner and the Town be worked
out to ensure the continued availability of the employee
housing units for the project's employees for eight
years. In addition, the Planning and Environmental
Commission will review the project in eight years to
see if it warrants extension."
Such an agreement has not been reached as of yet, but the staff has scheduled a
meeting with the property-owner to accomplish these restrictions. Thus, Fall Line
will continue to serve as an employee housing facility for at least eight more years.
C. PARSONS /SANDERS -NORTH AND PARSONS SOUTH
These are the two vacant parcels making up a 2 acre piece of property across the
street (to the south) from Fall Line. Alice Parsons and Velma.Sanders proposed a
rezoning for this property from Resource to RSM in Eagle County this past summer.
It was felt by the Town that this and the other enclaved parcels in the area should
be under Town of Vail jurisdiction. Thus, the ensuing annexation.
The staff has studied the zoning for this property at length. We feel that the existing
adjacent densities to the north warrant a multi- family zone for this parcel. In
keeping with a reasonable lower density multi - family zone, we feel Residential Cluster
is appropriate. RC would allow this property to develop in a clustered fashion
and leave more open space, which is compatible with the surrounding public park use.
An RC zoning designation would allow 11 or 12 units, depending on the exact parcel
size of these two lots.
D. SIVERLY /MUELLER
The County issued a building permit on April 13, 1978 for this property to alter
a single family residence into a triplex. Upon site inspection, the staff believes
there are at least 5 units now existing. We recognize as legal only 3 units and
this fits into the Residential Cluster Zone District density of 6 units /acre. We
are currently working with the County planning department and the property owners
to get this situation resolved.
E. MATTERHORN INN.CONDOMINIUMS
The Eagle County Assessor's office lists eleven property owners in this building
and there appear_ to be 11 units existing. This structure was also constructed before
County zoning and thus, its high density. We should note that even though there
are eleven units on about a half of an acre here, that the building is very low profile
(one story) and unobtrusive. The units appear to be quite small and thus this project
doesn't have the impacts which one would experience with an eleven unit townhouse -
type development. We recommend RC for this parcel (creating a legal non - conforming
use) so that this area is consistent in zoning with the parcels to the north.
Zoning Annexed Areas -3- 12/9/82
F. PARSONS /SANDERS SOUTH
. This parcel is approximately (measured by a planimenter by the staff) .86 acre. It
has some slope to it on the south side,.but it is uncertain (without further informa-
tion) whether or not the sloping portion is within the lot's boundaries. The staff
has taken a close look at what the most appropriate zoning for this parcel is. We
consider that there is a need to accomplish a transition from the multi- family parcels
to the north and east of this property to the predominantly primary /secondary duplex
nature development to the west. Indeed, physically this parcel relates more to
the west (primary /secondary zoning) than to the northeast (proposed residential
cluster). Thus, we feel Residential Primary /Secondary is the most appropriate zone
for this parcel.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends.approval of the zoning as outlined
above. We feel this proposal both legitimately recognizes the existing densities while
protecting the primary /secondary nature of the existing Matterhorn neighborhood.. The
zoning allows for upgrading of existing buildings and grounds without allowance for.
adding units or floor area to these structures. Of course, any new development proposals
must follow the Town's Design Review Guidelines and, as a result, will be strictly
reviewed with respect to the efects on adjacent properties and land uses.
0
•
C)o 18f 00 //V
�A
UU
N V
10
lu
,P
K t lu
O
rk j
Vj,-. ". ? > "t J'A A-'
I F ! i
I, i
5e 51 "W f, -OX,
_3 7.
.34 a
111Cff 4. 'c9l4l'e'St)Al-5
431.46'
IZ3- 00'
L ct:),
V cD /,Vnkl A ,
43f.4:5'
130. 00
. ,5 4 ,
7,44 'fr- /e7 74
fog. 5 t,
f ��+ � \ �G��ING F. MUG`LG.ET �
141
A4-IC,- 1-. -AA��^.1-5
A.
A107-iff3:
1. 7r-"e 0
4655 e
r
MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 8, 1982
SUBJECT: Variance request to construct a garage partially within a side setback
on lot 1, block 4, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Andy Andrikopolous
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant requests a side setback variance of 12 feet for the purpose of construct-
ing a garage. The applicant states that due to the configuration of the property
and the location of the existing house which was built in 1967 it would be difficult
to add a garage in any other than the proposed location. (See attached site plan.)
The required setback is 15 feet and thus the garage would sit 3 feet from the property
line.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of .Communit y Development recommends approval of the requested variance
ase upon the fo owing actors:
Consideration of Factors:
40 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures :in-the vicinity.
The requested variance will have very little impact upon adjacent properties and
structures. The property directly adjacent to the proposed garage site is owned
by Vail Associates and is utilized as a part of the golf course. The area between
the fairway and the garage is heavily wooded and separated by a change in grade.
A positive impact will be the enclosure of automobiles currently left uncovered.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a s ecified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibilit and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
without rant'of special privilege .
It has been the policy of the staff and of the Planning and Environmental Com-
mission to attempt to encourage garages. In several instances setback variances
have been granted in order to meet this goal. The zoning code states that the purpose
of a variance is to lessen practical difficulties inconsistent with the objectives
of the zoning code. The code also states that a practical difficulty may result
from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures
upon the site. In this case the configuration of the lot and the location of the
existing house limit the possibilities for locating the garage upon the site. The
proposed location would have the least impact upon the neighboring house, existing
vegetation, and the grade of the site. No negative impacts are expected from the
setback encroachment.
•
TO:
Planning and
Environmental Commission
FROM:
Department of
Community Development
DATE: December 8, 1982
SUBJECT: Variance request to construct a garage partially within a side setback
on lot 1, block 4, Vail Village 7th Filing. Applicant: Andy Andrikopolous
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant requests a side setback variance of 12 feet for the purpose of construct-
ing a garage. The applicant states that due to the configuration of the property
and the location of the existing house which was built in 1967 it would be difficult
to add a garage in any other than the proposed location. (See attached site plan.)
The required setback is 15 feet and thus the garage would sit 3 feet from the property
line.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of .Communit y Development recommends approval of the requested variance
ase upon the fo owing actors:
Consideration of Factors:
40 The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures :in-the vicinity.
The requested variance will have very little impact upon adjacent properties and
structures. The property directly adjacent to the proposed garage site is owned
by Vail Associates and is utilized as a part of the golf course. The area between
the fairway and the garage is heavily wooded and separated by a change in grade.
A positive impact will be the enclosure of automobiles currently left uncovered.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
a s ecified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibilit and uniformity
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
without rant'of special privilege .
It has been the policy of the staff and of the Planning and Environmental Com-
mission to attempt to encourage garages. In several instances setback variances
have been granted in order to meet this goal. The zoning code states that the purpose
of a variance is to lessen practical difficulties inconsistent with the objectives
of the zoning code. The code also states that a practical difficulty may result
from the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures
upon the site. In this case the configuration of the lot and the location of the
existing house limit the possibilities for locating the garage upon the site. The
proposed location would have the least impact upon the neighboring house, existing
vegetation, and the grade of the site. No negative impacts are expected from the
setback encroachment.
•
-' Andrikopolous -2- 12/8/82
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 impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
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 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 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
would deprive the applicant of privileges
in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
enforcement of the specified regulation
enjoyed by the owners of other properties
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested variance.
The addition of garages has been seen as a positive improvement to the appearance
of the Town and has been encouraged. The location of the proposed garage makes
sense from a site planning standpoint and has no negative impact_ upon adjacent
properties or structures.
40
0 TO:
F9.95Iu0
DATE:
MEMORANDUM
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
December 6, 1982
SUBJECT: Site coverage and front and side variance requests to construct two double
garages on lot 3, Block G, Vail Das Schone Filing 2. Applicants:
Leonard Vogelaar and Patrick Dodson
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants wish to build two double car garages in their front setback area.
They have a parking area currently in this area consisting of 10 parking spaces
and wish to take 5 of these spaces for a garage. The variances needed are 7 feet
on the west side setback, 18 feet in the front setback and a site coverage variance
of 494 square feet.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of Community Development recommenifs approval of the requested variance
a ed upon the fol 1 owi na factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
The garages as proposed are located as best they can be on this small, steep lot.
There should not be any harmful effects on existing or potential structures in the
neighborhood.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal inter retation and enforcement
of a specified re u ation is necessar to achieve com ati i it .and uniformit
of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title
without grant of special privilege.
West Vail has an abundance of similar surface parking situations such as this. There
are very few garages in this area which results in a lot of visible cars in parking
areas. On top of the negative visual aspects of a lack of garages in West Vail,
are the situations where many parking areas are unpaved and located on Town right-
of-way. These conditions often result in problems with snowplowing.
The staff feels that garages should generally be encouraged in the West Vail area.
Setback variance requests for garages will be numerous in our annexed areas as,
in many cases, there was either less stringent setback requirements in effect or
simply poor site planning standards applied.
•
•
•
Dodson -2- 12/6/82
As for the site coverage variance, the area.proposed for a garage is currently an
asphalt parking lot with existing bedrooms underneath. Thus, no landscaping is
being removed, only the site of parked cars.
We believe an attractive garage designed to complement existing houses which is
responsive to snow removal operations and the overall site, can be a great benefit
to the community. The hardship involved is basically due to topographic conditions.
The garage cannot be located elsewhere on the lot.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
uti'T t -es, and_1b'1_ is safe.
The Public Works Department has reviewed the proposal and visited the site
with regard to snow removal. They have no problems with the 17 feet between
the garage and the edge of pavement for snow removal purposes,but they are
very concerned that cars might park in front of the garage in the right -
of-way, which would definitely be a problem.
The planning staff shares that concern and wishes to make it very clear
that there shall be absolutely no perking in front of the garages on the
right -of -way. Some signage to this effect may be helpful as well as
towing any cars found to be there. This would apply year- round.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
variance.
FINDINGS:
sed
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 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.
♦ r
0 STAFF RECOMMENDATION
-0
Dodson -3- 12/6/82
The Departmenti of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
variances. Garages should be encouraged in Vail, - -as they are definitely a
site improvement if they are planned and designed well for the site. Pre-
viously the Planning Commission has granted variances for garages to improve
the views and aesthetics along streets within Vail.
•
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: December 9, 1982
SUBJECT: Study of Condominium Conversion Ordinance Revisions
In conjunction with the re- writing of the subdivision regulations and design standards,
the Council has requested the condominium conversion regulations be addressed now
rather than in 1983 when the whole code is reviewed. They requested it be done now
subsequent to the planning staff's comment that the regulations were confusing as
they exist and, therefore, require some revisions. They felt that this should be
accomplished at the same time the remainder of Title 17 was re- written.
In researching the various existing regulations of different municipalities, we have
discovered a wide range of stringency levels in these regulations. Condominium conver
scion ro�ulations are designed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the future
occupants and general public; to protect the consumer purchasing a unit; and probably
most importantly to protect an existing stock of low to moderate income (or employee)
rental housing. Conversion of apartments to condominiums can cause negative impacts
in a community by displacing existing tenants who can only afford to rent with a
higher income purchaser. This can result in not only a decrease in the number of
employee housing units, but can cause extreme hardship to the former tenant who now
must find housing elsewhere.
For Vail, the issues of condominium conversions and employee housing are intricately
tied together. There are a great number of rental units, which serve to meet our
empoyee housing needs. The conversion of these to condominiums with high sales prices
may negatively affect our ability to adequately house both seasonal and permanent
residents. Thus, we as a governmental agency with the ability to control the rate
and conditions put upon conversions must look closely at where our policy should
fall in regard to the extremes between leaving it totally up to the private sector
and rent, sales and lease term restrictions as conditions of approval.
The staff wishes to initiate discussion on condominium conversion restrictions.
Enclosed please find the existing ordinance which we use for condominiums and condo-
minium conversions. It is also found in Section 17.40 of the Municipal Code. Note
that we have recently revised the lodge conversion section and that is not part of
our present effort to revise Section 17.40. The staff also proposes that regulations
for condominium conversions be a part of the Community Action Plan effort in conjunction
with the development of policies on employee housing.
We will have a full discussion of this item at our joint meeting with the Council
the first part of 1983.
• ORDINANCE NO. 2-9
Series of 1978
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION
OF A CHAPTER 17.40 RELATING TO CONDOMINIUMS,
CONVERSION OF RENTAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS
OR NON- RENTAL UNITS; SETTING FORTH DEFINI-
TIONS, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
AND PRELIMINARY MAP, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
FINAL MAP AND PARTIAL MAP, SPECIFYING
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
CONVERSION AND SPECIFYING THE TYPES OF
SECURITY THAT THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE FOR
IMPROVEMENTS; STATING THE DETAILS REQUIR-
ING THE IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDI-
NANCE AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 4.11 OF THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION
TO THE FOREGOING
WHEREAS, the Town has not previously regulated or
controlled condominium developments, but the Town Council is
of the opinion that the building of condominium units and the
conversion of rental units to condominiums has the potential
`1
for adversely affecting the'public ~health, safety and welfare;
WHEREAS, the decreasing availability of rental units
has become an increasing problem within the Town of Vail;
WHEREAS, in particular, the availability of low and
moderately priced rental housing has been declining within the
Town of Vail until now the lack of housing for low and moderate
income residents is at a crisis point;
WHEREAS, the increasing lack of availability of low
and moderately priced rental units for residents has resulted
in the following impacts to the community:
(a) The population of the Town of Vail is changing
significantly and dramatically with employees of private and
public enterprises being forced to live out of t "he Town of Vail
c
�
• ORDINANCE NO. 2-9
Series of 1978
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 17
OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION
OF A CHAPTER 17.40 RELATING TO CONDOMINIUMS,
CONVERSION OF RENTAL UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS
OR NON- RENTAL UNITS; SETTING FORTH DEFINI-
TIONS, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TENTATIVE MAP
AND PRELIMINARY MAP, REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
FINAL MAP AND PARTIAL MAP, SPECIFYING
PROCEDURE FOR REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED
CONVERSION AND SPECIFYING THE TYPES OF
SECURITY THAT THE TOWN MAY REQUIRE FOR
IMPROVEMENTS; STATING THE DETAILS REQUIR-
ING THE IMMEDIATE ENACTMENT OF THIS ORDI-
NANCE AND DECLARING THIS ORDINANCE TO BE
AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
SECTION 4.11 OF THE CHARTER OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL; AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION
TO THE FOREGOING
WHEREAS, the Town has not previously regulated or
controlled condominium developments, but the Town Council is
of the opinion that the building of condominium units and the
conversion of rental units to condominiums has the potential
`1
for adversely affecting the'public ~health, safety and welfare;
WHEREAS, the decreasing availability of rental units
has become an increasing problem within the Town of Vail;
WHEREAS, in particular, the availability of low and
moderately priced rental housing has been declining within the
Town of Vail until now the lack of housing for low and moderate
income residents is at a crisis point;
WHEREAS, the increasing lack of availability of low
and moderately priced rental units for residents has resulted
in the following impacts to the community:
(a) The population of the Town of Vail is changing
significantly and dramatically with employees of private and
public enterprises being forced to live out of t "he Town of Vail
1*
Ord.
(b)
Page 2
Public and Private enterprises have found it
increasingly difficult to get and keep employees because of
the lack of local low and moderately priced rental housing.
(c) The effect of converting rental housing units
to condominiums has been to remove from the market housing
for residents and in place thereof, to provide transient hous-
ing for short -term rental to visitors or interval ownership.
.(d) The loss of employee housing has had the impact
of removing from the Town of Vail residents that are necessary
to provide leadership and support for the Town.
WHEREAS, the Town Council is of the opinion that in
order to lessen the impact of rental conversions on the Town
of Vail and to protect the public health, safety and welfare
of the residents of the Town of Vail that a review process is
required to control rental conversions;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL
OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Title 17 of the Vail Municipal Code is
amended by the addition of Chapter 17.40 to be entitled "Con -
dominiu_ms and Condominium Conversions" which will read as
follows:
17.40 CONDOMINIUMS AND CONDOMINIUM CONVERSIONS
17.40.010 Purpose
This ordinance has been adopted in accord-
ance with the provision of the Local Government Land
Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as found in C.R.S.
29 -20 -101, et. seq. as more particularly spelled out
in C.R.S. 29 -20 --104 to regulate condominium develop-
ments which may result in significant changes in the
population of the Town of Vail and to control the
impact thereof on the Town of Vail and the surround-
ing areas. The Town of Vail finds that this ordinance
is necessary for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare to accomplish the following purposes:
Ord.
Page 3
• (c) To protect from unnecessary eviction
the residents of rental units being converted to con-
dominiums, and to assist these residents in meeting
their future housing needs.
(d) To preserve a reasonable balance in
the owned vs. rental housing mix and to maintain the
supply of low to moderate income units available in
the Town of Vail.
(e) To monitor the supply of low to mod-
erate income units so that the Town may take measures
to avoid a worsening housing crisis.
17:40.020 Definitions
The following definitions shall apply to
the interpretation of this Chapter:
(a) By -Laws: By -laws as used in this
Chapter shall refer to the by --laws of the unit owners'
association or corporation.
(b) Condominium Unit: Condominium unit
means an individual air space unit together with the
interest in the common elements appurtenant to such
k • unit.
(c) Community Apartment: Community apart-
ment is defined as a development in which there is an
undivided interest in the land coupled with the right
of exclusive occupancy of an apartment located therein.
Community apartments sha U be subject to the same
restrictions and conditions set forth herein for con-
dominium units.
(d) Condominium Conversion: Condominium
conversion is defined as the development or use of the
land and existing structures as a condominium project
regardless of the present or prior use of such lands
and structures, and regardless of whether substantial
improvements have been made to such structures.
(e) Condominium Project: Condominium pro-
ject is defined as the entire parcel of real property,
including all structures thereon, to be divided into
two or more units for the purpose of constructing or
converting existing structures to condominium units.
(f) Declaration: A declaration is an
J instrument recorded pursuant to the Statutes of the
State of Colorado and which defines the character,
duration, rights, obligations, and limitations of
condominium ownership.
(g) Individual Air Space Unit: An indivi-
dual air space unit consists of any enclosed room or
rooms occupying all or part of a floor or floors of a
building of one or more floors to be used for residen-
ord.
. 17.40.03f7 Prelimina�Map
Page 4
All proposed condominium projects shall
submit the preliminary map, containing the informa-
tion and requirements specified in Chapter 17.16 of
this Title 17, as may be applicable to the proposed
condominium project. In addition to that informa-
tion, the preliminary map for the condominium project
shall include;
(a) A map showing all common areas and
usages of the building and grounds, and plans for
the interior division of the building showing hori-
zontal and vertical boundaries of all units.
(b) A copy of the declaration applicable
to the condominium project.
(c) A copy of the 'by -laws, The by-laws
shall contain the information required by the Condo-
minium Ownership Act of the State of Colorado. All
condominium projects shall comply with this require-
ment.
17.40.040 Final Map
-� The final map for the condominium project
shall contain all information required by Chapter
17.16 of this Title 17 as the same may be applicable
to the condominium project. In addition, if there
are any restrictive covenants, conditions or res-
trictions other than specified in the declaration,
they shall be filed concurrently with the final map.
17.40.050 Review Procedure
The review procedure for condominium pro-
jects and condominium conversions shall be in accord-
ance with the procedures for subdivisions as speci-
fied in this Title 17.
17.40.060 Conversion to Condominiums
In addition to any other applicable require-
ments contained in this Chapter, condominium conversion
projects shall comply with Section 17.40.080 through
17.40.130.
17.40.070 Additional Requirements - Condominium
Conversions
The applicant proposing to make a con-
dominium conversion shall provide the following
documentation with the preliminary map:
(a) A condominium conversion report
from the Town of Vail Building Inspector on the
condition of the building, listing all building
code violations, fire code violations and rebated
vinlat_inn,; whir_h Ar[r, +-r. 4-1-.o 1,.,,,14_1,
Ord. Page 5
(b) A report of the proposed conversion
including the following information:
(1) Length of occupancy of present
tenants.
(2) The household composition of
present tenants.
(3) Current rental rates; whether
rents include or exclude utilities; date
and the amount of last rental increase.
(4) A summary of the proposed owner -
ship of the units, if the units will be
sold as time -share or interval ownerships;
the approximate proposed sale price of
units and financing arrangements to be.
provided by the applicant.
(c) Plans and descriptions showing how
the following will be performed:
(1) All site work shall be brought
up to current Town of Vail standards unless
-� a variance therefrom.is granted to the appli-
cant by the Town Council in accordance with
the variance procedures of this Title 17.
The Town Council may, if it deems necessary,
require additional parking facilities to
meet requirements of owners and guests of
the condominium units.
`1
(2) Corrections of violations cited
in the condominium conversion report by
the Building Inspector.
(3) Condominium projects shall meet
current Uniform Building Code requirements
for heat and fire detection devices and sys-
tems.
(4) Condominium projects shall have
public utilities independently metered to
each unit; water may be on a common meter
if appropriate agreements are included in
the covenants, declarations, conditions,
and restrictions_
(5) All applicable taxes, fees or
charges for water, sewer, recreational amen-
ities, or other services that would be pay-
able to the Town for the project if it were
being constructed new rather than being con-
verted, shall be paid by the applicant prior
to approval of the conversion. The applicant
shall be credited in the amount equal to the
corresponding fee, tax or charge that was.paid.
to the Town of Vail when the building was
I- - , i I
. Ord.
Page 6
(1) To encourage continuation of
social and economic diversity in the Town
of Vail through a variety of housing types.
(2) To expand the supply of decent
housing for low and moderate income families.
(3) To achieve greater economic balance
for the Town of Vail by increasing the number
of jobs and the supply of housing for people
who will hold them.
(b) The Commission may require that a rea-
sonable percentage of the converted units be reserved
for sale or rental to persons of moderate income.
(c) The Planning Commission may deny the
tentative or preliminary map upon finding that:
(1) Based on the information required
by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy rate for
rental housing, tenants will have substantial
difficulty in obtaining comparably priced
rental housing. A rental vacancy rate below
five percent (5%) based on the most recent
Town survey shall constitute a housing emer-
gency situation.
(2) The ratio of multiple family rental
units would be reduced to less than twenty -
five percent (25 %) of the total number of
dwelling units in the Gore Valley, from Dowd
Junction east to the base of Vail Pass, with
no repjacement_rental housing being provided.
17.40.090 Preliminary Public Report
(a) No later than five days after the filing
of an application for conversion, the applicant shall
notify the tenants of the proposed condominium conversion
and report to the Planning Commission at its public hear-
ing, the approximate number of tenants desiring to con-
vert to condominium ownership.
(b) Existing tenants shall be notified of
the proposed sale price. Each tenant shall have a ninety
day non - assignable option to purchase their unit at this
preliminary market value. The "preliminary market value"
shall be a fair market value for the unit, and if the
Planning Commission determines that the preliminary market
value was too high, the application may be denied.
17.40.100 Final Map
The final map to be filed by the applicant
shall contain the information required by Section 17.16.
130 relating to subdivisions as the same may be appli-
cable to the condominium project. In addition to that
information, the applicant shall obtain the following
. . . t- - rI1-A ._.44 -1, 4-V. F ; I 1 min-
Ord.
. 0
E
Page '7
17.40.110 Final Map Apprayq
No final or partial map shall be approved
until the certification required in 17.40.100 is
obtained.
17.40.120 Subdivision Public- Report
The subdivision public reporf shall state
that Wes are subjec l to occupancy by the existing
Lenant Zor ninety (g0) days from the date of issuance
of said report.. Within five (5) days of issuance of
Lhe sobdivi:sion public report, the applicant: shall
notify the tenants of the fallowing:
(a) The date of issuance of the report.
(b) The right of occupancy specified above.
(c) That no repair or remodelling will
begin until at least thirty (30) days after the date
of the issuance of the subdivision public report, or
We date of notification, whichever is "Later.
Copies of ;paid notices shall be filed w3.`i: ).
Khr wi,nument of Community Development at the time
tho notice is yiven to the tenants. zn the case of a
noDvary on project consisting of four parcels or less,
the ai�pika.nt shall meet this requirement within five
(5) days of the approval of the final map.
17.40.130 Improvement Security
The Planning Commission and the Town Council
may require a security to be posted by the applicant
which shall consist of one or more arrangements which
the Council shall accept to secure the actual cost of
construction of such public improvements as are required
by the ordinances of the Town of Vail. The .improvement
security may include any one or a combination of the types
of security or collateral listed in this paragraph, and
the applicant may substitute security in order to release
portions of the condominium project for sale. The types
of collateral which may be used as security are as follows.
(a) Restrictions on the conveyance, sale or
transfer of arty unit within the condominium project as
set 7ar'th on the final map.
(b) Performance of property bond.
(c) Private or public escrow agreement.
(d) Loan co mni_tmont.
(e) Assignments of receivables.
( {) Liens on p? aperM
► Ord.
Page 8
cost of construction of the improvements.: The amount
of security may be incrementally reduced as subdivi=
sion or condominium improvements are completed.
17.40.135 Exemptions
The terms of this ordinance shall not apply
to developments or structures of two units.
17.40.140 Applicability
The terms of this ordinance shall be appli-
cable to condominium projects that are commenced or
converted after the effective date of this ordinance.
Section 2. Emergency. The Town Council finds that an
emergency exists for the following reasons:
(a) The decreasing availability of rental units has
become an increasing problem within the Town of Vail.
(b) In particular,.the availability of low and moder-
ately priced rental housing has been declining within the Town of
F Vail until now the lack of housing for low and moderate income
residents is at a crisis point.
(c) At least one large project, Apollo Park, and _other
smaller projects have been sold or are to be sold shortly, and the
rental units will be removed from the moderate and low income ren-
tal market to be sold as condominiums or time -share units. The
Loss of these units to moderate and low income residents will push
a crisis situation to the emergency level.
(d) The rate of conversions of rental units will esca-
late upon the notice of this ordinance.
Therefore, based on the above, the Town Council finds
and is of the oninion that an emergency exists, that this ordinance
is immediately necessary for the protection of the public health,
safety and welfare, and the provisions of the within shall take
full force and effect immediately as an emergency ordinance in
accordance with the Charter of-the Town of Vail.----
_ � r
Ord. Page 9
it would have paASed this ordinance, and each part, section, sub-
section, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the
fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences,
clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
r INTRODUCED, READ AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE, APPROVED,
AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL, this 5th day of September,
fi
s
1978.
Mayor
ATTEST:
/�% r��41t
Town Clerk
ADOPTED AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE•- first reading only.