HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - June
~ 1984
~ INaEX PEC JAN TO MAY
January 9
EaWARDS, LO1' 3 BLK 5 BIGH4RIV 5th, frant setback variance , approved
GOLDEN PEAK minor sub, Va31 Associates, apprvved
TEMPORARY TTCKET 0FFTCE, LIONSHEAp, Vai7 Associates approved for one year
TR~ETOP5 EXTERIOR ALTERATION, approved with paving conditian
LANDMARK, #701, increase GRFA approved 3-2
January 23
CASCRDE UILLAGE OUTDOOR TENNIS COUR7'S , approved
HANDGUN RANGE CONDITIONAL USE, Po7ice Department approved to change zone ord.
COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN, approval as Vail's working document
February 13
~ LOT 6, SLK 1, V VIL.LAGF Sth, HALPERT tablecl t0 2/27
LOT 8, blk 5, V Vi11age lst, WYCHE approved
CREST NOTEL, request to convert to condaminZUms, tabled ta 2/27
RED LION DECK request to instaTl portabTe plexiglass wir?dows an west wall, denied
CYRANO'S enclosure of south deck, approved (overturned by Council later)
VALENTINO'S deck enclosure , approved (overturned by Council 7ater)
February 27, 1984
LOT 6, BLK l, V VILLAGE 8TH, HALPERT , tabled to 3/12
SONNENALP, new special deve7opment district, approved with conditians
COMMERCIAL CORE II, earlier deadline approved
CREST HOTEL, request to convert to condominiums, tabled to 3/12
March 12, 1984 -
L.OT 5, BLK 7, V VILLAGE 8th, HALPERT setback variance withdrawn
CREST H07EL, request to convert to condos withdrawn ~
UATL TOWNNOUSES, UNIT 11B, side setback variance ~
SUIVBTRD LODGE add GRFA and add one dwelling unit GRFA tab7ed
COIVCERI' HALL PLAZA add 4 dweiling units tabled t0 3/26
CRSCRDE VILLAGE review of new phase, informal
SONNENALP new special development district
~
+ 1984 PEC
MARCH 26
SONNENALP HOTEL SDq passed
CONCER7 HRI.L PLAZA add 4 dwelling units tabled to 4/23
VAIL RRCQUET CLUB TOWNHOMES tabled ta 4/9
LOT 12, BLK 2, VAII. VILLAGE FILTNG 13, WRNSEN GRFA variance denied, taken to
7C, tab7ed indefinitely
APRII. 9
VAIL RACQUET CI,UB TOWNHONEES setback variance, approved
SUNBIRD LODGE, GRFA variance, approved
VILLAGE CENTER BLDG G exterior alteration, approved
WYCHE, 7at 8, blk 5, V Uillage lst filing, den7ed
LODGE AT L.IONSHEAD, 4 tanits enc7ose balconies, denied
Et,MORE tabl ed
NAZARD REGS AMENDMENT approved
APRIL 23
CONCERT HALL PLAZA, ext alteratian denied
VAIL ViLLAGE iNN minor sWb approvecl
MAY 14
VAIL MOUNTAiN SCHOOL addition and rock fail barrier, approved
ELM4RE, LOT 3 VAIL VILl.AGE WEST #2, rezone from GN05 to P/5, appraved
~FIRST NRT'IQNAL BANK drive in Vail das Schone, tabled
STEPHENS MODIFIGATION TO FLOODPLAIN appraved and minar sub
MAY 29
FIRST NATIONAL BANK Ifail das Schone, drive in approved
WORK SESS ION SDD4 0,1 j` < <'`-`kY
KALKUS LOT 19, BLK 7 V VILL lst, setback variance enclase deck, approved
-REZONE I.OTS 7,8,9, BLOCK H VAIL das SCHONE #2, W & W approved
TREETOPS manager`s unit approved
P07'ATO WAGON appeal denied
PREL.IMINARY REVIEW OF EXT ALT, Ant1ers, Gondola bldg, VAIL 21(Canada's), Sunbird
P7anning and Environmental Commission
January 9, 19$4
2:00 pm Site Inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of meet7ng of December 12, 1983.
' 2. Request for afrant setback var7ance in order to construct a garage
1.6 feet inta the front setback area on Lot 3, BTock 5, Bighorn Fifth
Addition. App3icant: Scott A Edwards
3. Request for a minor subdivision involving three parcels of land in the
Golden Peak area--Tract F, Vai1 Vil1age 5th Fi1ing, Tract 6, Vail Village
7th Filing, and Parcel C, an unplatted parcei recently annexed to the
Town. AppTicant: Vai1 Associates
4. Request for an exterior alteratian in order to erect a temporary ticket
office near Chair 8 at 600 Lionshead Mall. Applicant: Vail Associates
5. Request for an exterior a1teration in order to bui1d a new retail plaza
above the parking structure at the Treetops Condominiums, Lat 6,
Block l, Vail Lionshead lst Filing. Applicant: Treetops Condo Assoc.
6. Request far an exterior alteratian in order to increase GRFA in Unit
701, Landmark Condaminiums, 610 West Lionshead Circle, Lat 1, Lionshead
3rd Filing. Applicant: l.onnie Wil1iams
I
~
I ~
i~
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 9, 19$4
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Dpnovn Dick Ryan
Duane Piper Petex Patten
Howard Rapson Tom Braun
Will Trout Betsy Rosolack
Jiar Viele
The meeting was ca11ed to order by Duane Piper, chairman at
3:OD pm. `
1., Approval af mfnutes of ineeting of ?ecember 12, 1983,.
Vi61e moved and Rapson seCOnded to approve the minutes and the
vote was 5-0 in favor.
2. Request for a front setback variance in order to co.nstxuct
, a garage 1.6 feet into the front setback axea on Iot 33,
Black 51 Bighorn Fifth AddiCion. Appl3cant: Scntt Edwards
Tom Braun explained the proposal and added that the applicant
should have come to the staff when he first encountered problems
' with granite outcroppings, The staff recommended denial becausa
~ they feYt that there was not unnecessary physicnl hardhip•
Scott Edwards, the applicant, explained that the whole lot was
~granite outcropp3ng and the whole foandatian had to be blasted.
He added that the binsting cnmpany stated that once t;bey did
blast, they would not come back tio chip away further, a''nd , during
the blasting the central stake moved. He said that.if it had
been brdught to his attention, he would have come to the PEG
at that time to ask for a variance. Edwards also said that
there was a large pine tree at the-back of the lot which prevented.
moving the house fUrther back. He felC that that there are
exceptions or extraozdinary circumstances or conditions applicable
to the site of the variance that did not apply generalYy to
other properties in the same zone.
Piper asked Edwards how much tolerance he had allowed, and Edwards
replied he discovered he had 12"•
Tro.ut moved and Ra son seconded to a rove tihe var3ance re uest
cit3ng that the granting of the variance would not constitu`te
a grant of spec,ial privilege inconsistent with other, propexties
in rhe same district 'and wotild not be detrimental ta public
; ealtn, safety or welfare or materiall injurious to ro erties
in the vicinity.
~
i
PEC 1/9/84 -2-
Trout added that there were exce tions ar xtraordinar circumstances
or conditions applicable to the site of the variance Lhat i
not app y generally to other propert3es in tihe same zone and
added thati the PEC had previousl given a similar variance on
the Ru ex properky about 1-1/2 years ago. The vote was 5-0
in favor of the variance.
3. Request for a minor suhdivision involving three arcels
o.f land in the Golden Pe k area--Tract F, Vail Vi- age
th Filing, Tract B, Vai1 Vi11a e 7th Filin and Parcel
C an un latted arcel recentl annexed to the Town. P -
cant: Vai1 Associates
Feter Patten said that the Town CounCil had approve-d final re-zoning
on the three parcels and this was the last step in the PEC's
involvement in the project. He added khat the staff felk that
the proposai met the review criteria of Sectian I7.16.110 and
recommended approval. Bob Parker, representing Vail Associates,
w3shed ko have the record state that the size of the parcel
was 49.835 acres.
Vfele moved and Aonovan seconded to apprave, the- re uest er
the stiaff inemo. The vote was in avor.
4. Reqvest for an exterior alteration in order to erect a
, tem orar ticket affice near Chair 8 at baa LionSfiea mall.
; pplicant: Vail Associates.
Peter Fgtten said that the staff recommemded approval, but that
Lhere was ome canfusion as to the lengeh. He explained that
VA wanted the approval to be for sevexal years, and the staff
was in favor of this with the re€noval date of May 15 each yesr.
, - .
Bob Parker of VA added that VA would Iike the rem.oval date to
i be ,7une 1 of each year because af possible adverse conditions
such as deep snow or wet ground. Rapson said that he would
xather se,e an approva2 for jvst th'is year to see possible effects.
Donovan questioned w.tiethQr the protactive covenants a].lowed
a building at that.locat3on. Parker answered that he did nat
have an answer at that time, but that there were two other buildings
related to the lift already in the area. Donavan stated that
the acendments to the covenants state that only lift associated
structures could be built on the site. Dick Ryan pointed out
~ that the PEC did not deal with covenants, but was concerned
~ with zoning only. Piper interpreted it to be a private matter.
A£ker more discussion, Viele moved and Tr ut seconded to approve
I
~
PEC -3- 1/9/84
the request_ger_the stiaff inemo,_which was for one ear until
M a 15 1984 onl . They wouldyhave to-eome back to request approval for
ure `sears . e vote was 5-0 i ntavor. ~ 5. Request fox an exterior alteration in order to build a
new retail plaza above the parking structuare a t e Treetops
on ominiums, Lot 5, Bloctc 1', Vai1 L3onshead 1st Filiing.
A licant: Treetops Condo ssoc at on
Tom I3raun showed a site plan reminding the PEC that tiiey had
approved a rezaning of rhis property in August of 1983 from
HnMF to CCII. He reviewed the compliance with the purposas
of the CCII zone district, and vitih the Urban Design Guide P].an.
Braun felt that i.t was important for the pavers to extend acrass
East lionshead Circle to the parking structure and asked thar
this be a condirion of approval.
Aeter LOOmS, arch3tect for the applicant, questioned the durabilir_y
of the pavers with snow removal equipment and was told that
these pavers were sturdy and were to be used throughout the
new Lionehead Improvement I}istrict.
Trout questfoned whetiher the site plan had been changed since
~ it was presented for the rezoning which started a discussion
on the room all.owed f,or the buses. The site plan had.not been .
changed, and Dick Ryan explained that with khe new Lionshead
redevelopment plan, khe area would be chaaged to mak.e it easier
For the buses to maneuver. firout suppnrCed the proposal, Donovan
felt that \tbe building needed more "pizzaz" i.n order to attract
the atte+ntion of the taurist, but rhis could be addresssed at
DRB. Etapson questioned whether any studies had been made to
indicate that Lionshead needed more retail space, and Ryan replied
' that there had been raith indications that more retail shops
would be beneficial.
Trout moved to approve the request per the staff inemo. The
motion died for lack of a seeond.
Donovan moved an,d R8p5Di1 seconded to approve the reques.t.:with-.
the condition that the pavers b~e extended across, the street
to the Lf onshead parking structure. The vate was 4 -in_fav'or,
0 against, wfCh Viele abstaining.
I ~
~
~
i
I
I
PEC -4- • I/9/83
6. Request for an exterior alteration in order to iiicrease
GRFA in Unit 701, Landmark Condomin ums, Lot , oc ,
, aiI Lionshead Cfrcle, I.ot 1, Lionshead 3rd Filing. Applicant:
Lonnie williams
Dfck Ryan stated that there would be no exterior changes, but
that the increased GRFA was a xeal concern, and the staff felt
that this would be a grant of special privilege. Dana R3Ck1i,
architect for the project, stated that he felt that using the
' space as wanted was not a grant of special privilege, and that
rhere were only trao more units in Che Landmark who could ask
for a similar rrariance. He felt Williams had a specific hardship
and showed floor plans iadicating the location of a precast
structural wall which prevented the removal of the bathroom
to make the bedraom larger. He added that the furniture would
be built-in and that the owner did not rent his unit out.
The bAard members discussed the fact that this was a rIifficult
decision to maice. Viele feYt posftive toward it in light of
' the recent approval of 70,000 square feet for Golden Peak.
bonovan felt rhat they did not have the tool's to approve, and
i~ did not have contral over whether or not the unit wonld then
be sold, but ac3ded khat much additonal GRFA 3s bootleg-ged.
Trout movad and Viele seconded to ap rove the re uest as_ resented
; because the granting would not const3tute special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties in the
same building, that it would nat be detrimental to the pu zc
hea7.th, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to ro erties
~ or improvements in the vicinity, and was warranted ecausc the~
strict or 1i.teral interpretation would result in ractical dif-
I fiCUlt . The vote was 3 in .£avor with 2($apson and Donovan
against. S '
I
~
MEMORRNDUM
TQ: P7anning and Environmental Cammission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 4, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for minar subdivision to combine Tract F, Vail Viilage 5th
FiZing, Tract B, Vai7 Village 7th F7ling and a recent1y annexed unplatted
parcel into one parceT for the GoTden Peak Redevelopment praject.
Applicant: Vail Associates
BACKGROUND
On December 20, 1983 the Town Council approved Ordinance 45, Series of 1983
an second reading which gave final re-zoning approval to Vai7 Rssociates on
the three parcels nated above. The last step in the PEC's invo3vement with
the project is ta abandon the property lines dividing these three parcels so
that they become one. lhis wiTl bring the site into conformance with the manner
in which the Ski Base/Recreation District ts written. The single parcel wi17
represent 48.872 acres, more or less.
R£VTEW CRITERIA
. Section 17.76.110 af the Subdivision Regu7ations outlines the criteria for
reviewing major or minor subdivisions:
17.16.110 PEC Review Criteria
The burden af proof shali rest with the applicant to show that the application
is in comp7iance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and other pertinent regu1ations that the PEC deems app7icable.
Rue consideration shail be given to the recommendatiflns made by public agencies,
utility companies and other agencies consulted under 17.16.090. The PEC
sha17 review the applicatian and consider its appropriateness in regard to
7own of Vai7 po7icies re7ating to subdivision contro7, densities propased,
reguiations, ordinances and resolutions and ather applicab7e documents, environ-
mental integrity and compatibi7ity with surrounding 3and uses,
Most of these criteria were discussed in the rezoning/development p7an approval
process. We feel that the proposal meets these criteria.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the minor subdiv7srton
for these three parcels. This is the final approval required for a project
which will definitely be a community benefit.
.
• MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 4, 19$3
SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration fn Commercial Gore iI to canstruct
a temporary lift ticket sales structure. Applicant: Vai7 Associates
RE UES7
7he request is far a temporary ticket bui7ding ta be relocated from Beaver Creek
(existing building) to the base of Chair 8in CCIi. The building is 99 square
feet and has rough sawn cedar siding and shake shing7es. VA feels the facility
is needed to help relieve congestion at peak times at the Gondola ticket w7ndows.
Long ticket windaw lines have been identified as a problem in recent Winter
Qua7ity surveys in Vail.
CRZTERIA EVALUATION
The prnposal is consistent in purpose and in meeting urban design considerations
of the Urban Design Guide Plan for CCII. The bu7lding is a small attractive
• one which wiil not interrupt pedestrian flow (7t probably will improve pedestrian
f7ow in this area).
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Deveiopment Department recommends approval of this exterior a1teration
request for CCII for the period of January 1984 through May 75, 1984 only.
~
• MEMORANDUM
T0: Plann3ng and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community aeveiopment Qepartment
DATE: January 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for an exterior a7teration in order to bui7d a new retail
plaza above the parking structure at the Treetops Condominiums
Applicant: Treetops Candominium Associatian
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On August 76, 1983, the Town CounciT approved a rezoning of the Treetops Condo-
miniums from HDMF to CCII. The request to rezone this property was from the
Treetops Condominium Association to allow for the construction of 8,000 square
feet af commercial space above an existing parking structure. In addition
to the commercial space, the additian would inelude a manager`s office, storage
and laundry areas, trash disposal, and mechanical equipment for the building.
A number of issues have been raised with respect to impacts from this development
on the Lionshead area. These were addressed by the Planning and Environmental
Commissian, the staff, and the applicant during the rezoning process. At this
time the proposal is to be cansidered with respect to campliance with the CCII
• zoning and the Vail Lionshead Design Considerations.
A. COMPLIANCE WITH 7HE PURPOSES OF THE CCII ZONE DZSTRICT
18.26.010 Purpose
The Commercia1 Core II district is intended to provide sites far a
mixture of multip1e dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in
a clustered, unified development. Commercia1 Core IT district in accordance
with the Uaii Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Des7gn Considerations
is intended ta ensure adequate light, air, apen space and other amenities
appropriate to the permftted types of building and uses and to mainta7n
the desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate site
development standards.
The Community Development Department considers this proposal to be in keeping
with the purposes of this zone district. The proposal wi13 provide mixed uses
on the site as we13 as better define the entrance to Lionshead. These will
both have a positive impact on the Lionshead area.
~
. Treetops 7/5/84 -2-
B. COMPLIANCE WITH VAIL LIONSHEAD URSAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
~ 1. Sub-Area Concepts (EAST MALL ENTRY)
a. Goncept 3
The proposai will contribute to a reduction in pedestrian crossings
through the service area (between the Lionshead entry and the
parking structure).
b. Concept 4
The addition of commercia7 space to the existing parking structure
will generally upgrade the approach to Lionshead.
c. Concept 6
Commercia1 expansion will strengthen the mall entry with improved
activity/pedestrian scale.
2. Architectura7 Guidelines
7he scale of this bui7ding is oriented to the pedestrian through its
size (ane story) and sloping roof.
~ 3. Urban Desi n Cansiderations
WhiTe this propasal is somewhat removed from the Lianshead Mall area,
the project`s architectural style is campatible with the types of design
faund in the Mall. The project is designed toward the pedestrian,
and visua1 interest wiil be enhanced by iight entering the arcade through
openings in the roof. OveralT, the project is in keeping with contemporary
architectural expression that is desired in the Lionshead area.
4. Raofs
The design of the roof is within the guideiines established by the
Lionshead Design Considerations. One area of concern 75 the passibility
of snow sliding off the roof onto pedestrians using the walkway adjacent
to the arcade.
5. Facades-Wa17s/5tructures
Materia7s for wa17s, muilions, and trim are consistent with these guidelines.
I
, • ~ Treetops 1/5/84 -3-
6. Facades - Tra.nsparencies
• The front facade of the building is made up of banks af windows divided
by mullions and structura1 supparts. VisuaT relief is accented by
the two recesses in the front of the building.
7. Decks and Patios
Neither decks nor patios are a part of this proposal.
8. Accent Elements
Seasonal pianters are the only accent eTements contained 3n this proposa1.
9. Landscape Elements
The following are questins and concerns regarding this proposa3's landscaping.
These will be addressed in greater detai7 by the Design Review Board.
Pavers
Pavers are the same as the type ta be used in the Lionshead Improvement
District. One of this project's key elements are impravements in
~ the walkway between Lianshead and the parking structure. Therefore,
it is important that the pavers extend across East Lianshead Circ7e
to the parking structure. The staff wou7d 7ike to see this as a
condition af approval.
WalkwaY
The walkway directiy across from the retai7 space nearly doubles
in width at one point. Th-is would be a fine location for benches.
planter5, or possibly some type of art wark. Uti7ization of this
space should be encouraged.
Retaining Walls/Street_Edqe_
These two elements should be consistent with edging and retaining
walls found in Lionshead.
Trees
The landscape pian shows both iocations and types of trees ta be
used on the site. 7here are questions cancerning the locations of
the blue spruce. Consideration should be given to iocating these
trees on the north side of the site so as to make them more visible.
•
,
~ . Treetops 1/5/84 -4-
~ C. ZONTNG CONSIDERATIONS
Uses
Limited to those uses permitted in CCII wYth the exception of bakeries
and confectioneries, delicatessens and specialty food stores, drugstores
and pharmacies, florists, newstands and tobacco stores, ticket and travel
agertcies, eating and drinking estabTishments.
Parking and Laad7ng
The required loading space is included in the p1an. The 8,000 square feet
of commercia7 space and the managers office would require a total af 28
additional spaces. Treetops will have ta cantr3bute to the Tawn parking
fund a fee which corresponds to this requirement.
RECOMMENDATION
The Cammunity Deve7opment Department recommends approval of the Treetops P7aza
proposa7. The new retail space and better defined walkway wi17 have many positive
3mpacts an the entry to Lionshead. There are some concerns regarding landscaping
on the site. However, these can be addressed during the Design Review process.
The ane conditian of approval is that the uses in the commercial space be 7im7ted
ta those outlined in 4rdinance 26, Series of 1983.
I
~
r
MEMORANDUM
i
~
. T4 Planntng and Environmental Commission
FROM Community Development Aepartmenti
DATE Januarq 3, 1984
SUBJECT Frant setback variance request far l,ot 3B, B1,ock 5,
Bighorn 5th Addition. Appl.icant: Scott A. Edr„iar'ds
DESCBIPTION OF VARIANCE BEQUESTED
The applieant requests a front setbactc vaxiance of 1.6 faet
from the required 24 foot Front setback. This variAnce would
result in a setback of 1$.4 feet fram the front property Iix?e.
The applicant requests the variance due to an erroneously placed
control stake on the front property line and problems encountered
in excavating the fiite.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Cxiteria and Findings, Section 18.62,060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Cvmmunity Develapment reeommends
denfal of the requested variance based upan the following factors:
Consideration af Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other exfsting
or otential uses and structures in the vicinity.
This variance was requested after the property's site improvement
survey showed the fr'ont corner of the garage to be raithin the
: front setbacic. The garage i.s lpcated 1$.6 feet from the fronr
property line. This encroachment will have n4 sfgnificant impacts
on existing or potential uses in the vicinity.
The de ree ta which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
~ and enforcement of a s ecified re ulation is necessar tb achieve
com atihilit and uniformity of treatment among sites in khe
vicinity or to attain the ob'ectives of.this title without rant
o£ special privi_ege.
: The zoning code states that in order to prevent or to Iessen.
such practical difficulties and annecessary physical hardships
~ 3.ncons3stent with the qbjectives of the zoning code as would
result From strict or Literal interpretation and enforcement,
i variances fram certain regulations, svch as setback reqUirements,
may be granted.
~ ,
Edwards 1/3r$4 2
The zaning code states that in a practical difficulty or unnecessary
ghysical hardship may result from the size, shape, or dfinensions
of a site or the Iocation of existing structures therean; from
topographic or physfcal conditions on the site or in the immediate
vicinity. Cost or inconvenience to the applicant of strict
or ifteral compZiance with a regulation sha11 not be areason
for granring a variance.
The applicant has cIaimed physical hardship because af granite
outcroppings encounterea wh31e excavating on the site• While ,
granits outcroppings undoubtealy created problems in the construction
of this residence, it would appear the misplaced con~rol stake
was primarily responsibXe for the encroachment into the front
seeback. Any hardship invalved in this case has been self created
by the applicant.
The effect of the re uest_ed variance on light snd air, distribution
of population, trans ortaCion and traffic acilities ub13c
facilities.and ut3litiefi, and pub ic sa_ety.
- -
No impacr.
SUCh other factars and criteria as the commission deems a licahle
to the praposed variance.
FINDINGS The Plannin and Environmental Comm3ssion sha11 matce the fallowing
, findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance wrill not constitute agrant
of special privilege incansistent witih the limitations on other
properties class3fied zn the same d3strict.
, ThaC the granting of the variance will not be detirimental to
. the publ3c health, safety, or welfare, or m.ateriallq fnjurious
: ro propQrties or improvements in the vicinity.
~
I
i
~
~
I
• Edwards 1/3/84 3
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
~ The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulat3on would result in-practical difffculry
or unnecessary physical hardship incansistent with the
objectives of Chis title.
There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstancas or
conditions applicable to the site of the varianCe thar
do not apply generalZy to okher properties fn the same
zone.
The strict ox 1iteral interpretation and enforcement of
the specified xegulation would deprive.the applicant of
privileges enjoyed bq the owners of other progert3es in
the same district.
STAFFR~COMMENDATIONS
The Departmefit of Community Development staff recommends denial
of the requested variance. Although the error raas appareutly
tha result df a control stiake being misplaced and the resultiag
impacts af the setback would be minimal, the varian,ce requested
• i.s riot supgortied by any unnecessary physicai hardship as outZiued
by the zoning code.
.
~
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: Planning and Environmenta1 Commission
FROM: Community Development DePartment
DA7E: January 5,
SUBJECT: Pub1ic hear7ng and consideration of a request for an exterior alteration
or modification and for a gross residentia] floor area varianee
af 147.72 square feet to increase the size of an existing loft in
Un7t 701 of the Landmark-Vail Condominiums.
Applicant: Lonnie Williams
REqUEST
The request is to increase the size of an existing loft from 259.14 square
feet to 401.86 square feet. The loft area would be extended over the existing
living/d7ning space an the floar below. The appllcant states that the use
wi11 be a master bedroom replacing a sleeping loft containing two sets of
doub7e bunk beds. This change will have no impact on the exterior of the
building.
EXTERTOR ALTERATION OR MODIFICATION REQUEST
! Because of the requirement that an alteration of an existing building which
adds or removes any enclosed f7oor area can basically be reviewed only twice
a year, this request is coming thraugh naw. We probab7y shou7d reconsider
and have an alteration to a building which adds or removes any enciosed flaor
area and does not have any exterior change be reviewed at any time during
the year. This change can be part of the tota7 review and amendments to the
zoning code. The process to review the code wil7 start about Apri1 1st.
Since there are no exterior changes with this proposal, it would not come
under the Vai1 Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan or Design Considerativns.
CRI7ERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of Community Deve7opmentrecommends denialafthe requested
variance based u on the followin factors: ~
Consideration of Factors
The relationsh3p of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
~ Very few variances for GRFA have been granted in the past few years. in the
Vail Lionshead area there have been no recent requests.
• Willtams/Landmark 2 1./5/84
The deqree to which relief from the strict or Titeral interpretation and enforcement
• of a s ecified re ulation is necessar to achieve com atibilit and un7formit
af treatment amonq sites in the vlcinity or to attain the objectives of _this
title without grant of speciai privilece.
The GRFR variance would be a grant of special privilege. How would the Planning
and Environmenta7 Commission be ab1e to turn down a GRFA request for any other
loft unit in the Landmark bui3ding.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popuiation,
transportation and traffic faci1ities, pubTic faciiities and utili.ties, and
ublic safet .
The app7icant's architect states that there wou7d be a reduction in the number
of people that would be accommodated in the condominium. Currently the laft
contains twa sets of double bunk beds. If the GRFA varlance is apprnved,
th1s would be come the master bedroom, thereby potentially reducing the use
by two peopTe.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the
proposed variance.
~ FIIVDINGS
The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make the followin findin s
befbre granting a variance:
That the granting ofi the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other propert3es classified in the same
district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimenta1 to the public heaith,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one ar more of the fol7owing reasons:
The strict or 1iterai interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical aifficu7ty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the abjectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary clrcumstances or canditians applicab1e
to the site of the variance that da nat apply generalTy to other properties
in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretatian and enforcement of the specified regu7ation
would deprive the appiicant af privi7eges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
.
a ~ Wil7iams/Landmark -3- 1/5/84
. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community DeveTopment Department recommends denial of the request. The
GRFA variance for this property would grant a special privilege to this
property owner. Other owners of a simiiar type unit could request a variance,
and it wou1d be difficuit to deny the request.
i
i
Planning and Envfronmental Commiss3on
. January 23, 1984
1:45 pm Site inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
l. Approval of minutes of January 9, 7984
2. Request far a conditiona7 use permit in order ta construct three
outdoor tennis courts, parklng and possibly a building ta house
~ bathrooms, equipment storage, etc. upon the propefty commonly known
as the Lutheran Ghurch parcei, along the South Frontage Road West
of Cascade Vi7lage. Applicant: Mansfleld, Ltd.
3. Request to amend the Public Use District ta add Snooting Range
to 18.36.030. Applicant: Vail PoTice Department
4. Approval of the Community Action Plan as Vai7`s wvrking policy
document.
r
PLANNING AND ENViRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 23, 1984
• PRESENS ST'AF'F PRESENT
Diana Qonovan Dick Ryan
Gordon Pierce Peter Fatten
Duane Piper Tom Braun
Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack
wi 11 Trout
Jim VieTe
The meeting was ca71ed to order by Duane Piper, chairman, at 3:00 pm
1. A roval of minutes of Januar 9, 1984.
Diana moved and Ra son seconded to a rove the minutes. The vote was 6-0.
2. Re uest for a conditional use ermit in order to construct three autdoor
tennis courts, arkin and a buiidin to house bathrooms, e ui ment stora e,
etc. u on the ro ert common7 known as the Lutheran Church arce7, a7on
the South Frontage Road west of Cascade ViTlaqe. App1icant: Mansfieid, E.td.
1'om Braun presented the propasal and showed site plans. Peter Jamar, representing
the applicant, explained that the site was 2.1 acres, would include about 10 parfcing
• spaces, seating for 100 spectators, and a structure for bathroams. Additional
parking would be provided in the Gascade Village parking structure.
The need for mare courts was discussed. Donovan mentioned that these courts
were being placed c7ose to the property line adjoining Danavan Par[c, and was aTso
concerned about whether or not three courts could be placed on the property and
not destroy the trees. Patten mentioned that there had been a bike path plotted
through the property at one time, but it was never recorded. Now NJansfield would
construct the bike path. Patten added that the Town was in the pracess of studying
al3 of the town parks to see what major facilitios should be placed in each one.
Viele moved and Pierce seconded tfl a rove the re uest er the staff memo and
the findings listed. The vote was 6-4 in favor.
3. Re uest to amend the Pu61ic Use District to add Shootin Ran e to
Section 18.35.030. Applicant: Vail Police Department
Tom Braun presented the proposal, reminding the board that the Police Department
would have to come back to ask for a canditional use permit for the specific site.
(The board had made a site visit before the meeting and had 17stened to pistols
being shot fram the proposed area near the TOV maintenance building.) Braun added
that truckS on the Interstate registered between 76 and 86 decibels, while the
pistol registered 49--50. Jeff I.ayman, polic.e officer, said that when two afficers
are shooting, the decibels are not doub1ed, but increase 4 ta 8 decibe1s, and
. added that usuaZ1y only one nfficer would be shooting, ahd sometimes up to 4 at
once. Discussion fo7lowed concerning times it would be used and other places
a shoat3ng range could be built. Donovan had reservations because of the nolse
. PEC 1/23/84 -2-
; Trout suggested changing "shooting" to "pistoT" range. Vieie moved and Pierce
• seconded to a rove the re uest, but ta chan e it to read " istol ran e."
The vote was 5- 1 with Donovan against.
4. R rova1 of tne Communit Action plan as Vail's workin olic document.
Dick Ryan said that the plan had been warked an since June 1982 when an aTl day
workshop was held. He added that the plan's purpose was to set a direction for
Vail and to actively pursue the plan. A series of committees worked on each
part of the p7an and changed it several times. This was an abbreviated version,
to include anly those things achievabie by 1985. Ryan said that because af the
requests from the VVI and the Sonnenaip, the TOV was studying the potential develapment
~ of each site, and the types of incentives to offer for upgrading, etc.
Trout talked a5out the special needs of neighborhoads which was mentioned in the
statement af purpose goals, and stressed that each neighborhood was 7ikeTy to
have different goals. The role af the VRA and possibTe duplicatian of efforts
was discussed. Also discussed was the conflict with the VRA board of directars
as to whether or not to inc7ude the 7awer valley such as Avon and Edwards in
recreational guides to the area. Donovan felt that in the winter Beaver Creek
was campetition for Vail. It was suggested that summertime advertising inciude
the fact that there are 5 champion golf courses.
AftEr more discussion of each page, Trout maved and Rapson seconded to approve
for recommendation to the Town Council the Communit Action Plan as resented.
~ Tne vote was 5-0 in favor. Pierce had left.
The meeting adjourned at 5:00 pm.
i
I
~
. MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR4M: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: January 38, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for an amendemnt to the zoning cade to a71ow a shooting
range as a conditianal use in the Pub7ic Use Ristrict.
Applicant: Vail Pn7ice Department
PROPOSAL
This proposa7 is by the Vaii Po1ice Department to use an area immediate1y
east of the impaund 7at (located at the Public Works/Transpartatian facility)
as a firing range. The amendment to the zaning code would be to Chapter
18.36, Public Use District.
Section 18.36.030 ConditionaT Uses
S. Shooting range
There are naturally a number of concerns with respect to a request of this
• nature, Among these are safety, noise, haurs of operation, and securfty,
The Vail Police Department has addressed these in their app7icatifln. However,
before the specifics of the Vail Palice Department's proposal are considered,
the question of whether this use is appropriate for this zone must be determined.
1$.36.010 Purpose
7he pubiic use d3strict is intended to provide 51t25 for public and quasiW
public uses whlch, because of their specia1 characteristics, cannot appro-
priately be regu7ated by the development standards prescribed for other
zoning districts, and for which development standards especia7ly prescr3bed
for each particular deve7apment proposa3 or project are necessary to
achieve the purposes prescribed yn Section 18.02.020 and to provide for
the public welfare. The public use district is intended to ensure that
public buildings and grounds and certain types of quasi-public uses permitted
in the district are appropriately iocated and designed to meet the needs
af residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding Uses, ~
and, in the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate 7ight, air, open spaces, and other amenities approprlate to the permitted !
types of uses. ~
The purpose of the Pub7ic Use District is to provide sites for uses that
would not be apprapriate for other districts. This zone is intended to
provide for uses necessary to achieve the genera3 purpose of the zoning
code.
~
i
~ 5hooting Range -2- 1/18/84
,
• 18.02.020 Purpose
A. 7hese regulations are enacted for the purpose of promating the health,
safety, morals, and general welfare of the town, and to promote the
coardinated.aad harmaniaus deve7opment of the town in a manner that
will conserve and enhance its natural environment and its established
character as a resort and residentia7 community of high quality.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
It is the recommendation of the staff.that this use is appropriate for
the Public Use District. Zf approved by the P1anning and Environmental
Commission and the Town Council, this amendment does nat give the Vai1
Police Department the r1ght to operate a shooting range in the Pub7ic
' Use Ristrict. It wi11 an7y make a shooting range an al7owable conditional
use in that district. Befare any action can be taken toward establishing
a range, a conditional use permit will have to be approved. 7he Vail
Palice Department's proposa7 would be addressed in detail at that tlme
• to more fu71y evaluate impacts of this use on surrounding areas.
~
.
MEMORANDUM
•
T0: Planning and Environmentai Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: January 79, 1984
SUBJECT: Conditianal use application to construct three outdoor tennis
caurts an a site common7y [cnawn as the Lutheran Church property
along the South Frontage Road West of Cascade Vil1age.
App1icant: Mansfield, Ltd.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPQSED USE
Tennis courts are perEnitted in the Agricu7tura1 and Open Space zone, A
conditional use permit is required because these courts will be private.
As proposed, the caurts will be utilized by the Cascade Club and onTy members
will be allowed access to them. Other features af the proposal include
parking, terraced seating for spectators, and possibly a sma11 structure
to house bathraoms and storage space.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
• Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
appraval of the conditional use permit based upon the fol7owing factors:
Consideration of Factors
Relationshi and im act of the use on develo ment objectives of the Town
On6.of-,the Town's development objectives is ta require the private sector to construct
recreational facilities to relieve the burden upon the Tawn to provide them. This
praposal supports that abjectlve and is a good u5e for the Agriculture and Open
Space district.
The effect of the use on li ht and air, dlstribution of papu1ation, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation faciTities, and other
public faci7ities needs.
The proposal includes an extensian of the bike bath to connect the courts
with the Cascade G7ub. This is a positive feature of the plan. The additian
of three private tennis courts in Vail could lessen demand on the use of
public caurts in the Vailey.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and conveniertce, traffic flaw and contro1, access,
maneuverabilit , and remova7 of snow f'rom the street and arkin areas.
No impact.
•
r
Cascade Tennis -2- 1/19/84
Effect u on the character oF the area in which the ro osed use is to be
located, inclu inq the scaTe and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
' • surrounding uses.
This use will be compatible with Donovan Park and will create na impacts
on the Coldstream Candominiums.
5uch other factors and criteria as the Cammission deems a licab7e to the
proposed use.
The environmenta1 impact repart concerninq the proposed use, if an environmenta7_
impact repart is required by Chapter 18.56._
FINDINGS
7he Community Development pepartment recommends that the canditional use permit
be apprnved based on the foT1owing findings:
That the proposed lacation of the use is in accord with the purposes of this
ordinance and the purposes of the dzstrict in which the site is 7ocated.
That the proposed location af the use and the conditions under which it would be
operated pr maintained wauld not be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar
' we7fare or materially injur7ous ta properties or improvements in the vicinity.
• That the proposed use wou7d comply with each of the applicable prov-isions of this
ordinance.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
~ The staff recommends approval af the conditional use permit requested. It
i appears that this project will work on this site as proposed. While the contours
~ of the site provide an excelZent location for terraced seating {for one court},
a more detailed review of how the ather courts fit on the site is necessary.
This will be done during the design review process.
,
I
~
' .
s iy~. pv ~'R~y S Y a~,. ' ~jq a t(.^ ~ s ~ f~ _ , ~ . . - . .
~.~w ~^J~,~~~r;k•,!.i~' j'+ r'.^ 'rr~4';.'~J. lw : ~ . .
- iry"ti"t~~ y6.~~ i+~ 1' f~ ~rA'"_f ,Gj~ ,4a~, ~ , _ i ~s k ~ _
{.A; '17 n'r"~
~ ~ ~ f~[I~~'7~`W ~ L~u . . tt.. f ~ fti F . , •t -3 , 3 ~ .y
4 y' ~r ~f' ~ F ~1 ~:i Y' - e-F , i , - ~r ~ 4 t > > ~ 3 ~ . _ 4 ? , ~ ~ * ~ . • ~ . ~
k~~~~~,e~,
~ ~li A ~ ~ iy , ~'K ~Y. ~A - i F ! • ~ 1 , R l~~._ M~, . 1` 5
r ~ ka~, e 'l--n 3-,r ~ ` r e~.
~
_ ~ R ~ ! ; .
~ ~i x ti -_$p N .c ~ v i * s~ ~ 1 r A^* Y.
~3q~.~`,,y~~~T~ -4. K %5 ~R . 5.~~ ^dh~ ~S'i ~-~"t~ r. a ~ q ~ ~S~ ~ r~Yq ~ 1 ~..ktsSrr~ ' , f ' "~-!1
F 3 s~;i . . yff ~'~4,~' ~ ~ t l~ ~ i t ~~r~~ , t~ w S"' ~t . r ti$ 1 ' : S ~ 1 . .ti - ~ i _ s _ • . i' `t
Yn~
~~s~ ~~C, 1 K . St~;~ 4 . Z's. ~f 4 Y(~- ft' • ' i~ - , 'y . r ~ ~ ~ ~ - Y ` ~i ' r,S' ~+tt ..oicR~ y s . ~ '
s A
sx
~:.~§f r T,k, ~i • , r. 1s. ",t, ~ ti. ~ Ya.- ~ } ~ ' . ~ 'd •
• ,lE~yJ '~.3 r ~ c , ~ y s~. ' ~ J-^ . ~ ~t -y
Y ~ . w ^ . i ti _ ,~.1 r- _s ~I+ ~ _ , ~f` :r?'
-~-'+~~~d~~- ~ j, F r, r:•~, , :F.- s ~ s
lA~ ~
* - --y~
~~r
a
i
~ ~~~'y` f•O-, J ~l,~.x
if
~ ~ • -r-
f ~
~ S ~ 1 : J~ ~W ~~s"~ .
~0f
77
f ~ y~- • ~ .
• -:}~r~ ^ t _ ~ ~ ! f ~ f ~k~~ 7 . -.t~ ~
. ~ V i 1~ t f~~ I'r'~'~tl~~ f ~ y.`~.A",
`}Y , _a r~ . p 4 1 ~ °N~~ ~ ~ ~ f
wl-
ry~{ 74 .~lY
.
Szl
, P~~ ~ -r,. ~ ~ ~ ~ {-~~S ~ -t r ~
. ~ . ~ ~~s~• ~ ~'~~i.~y~~ ~,°`~r . , .~F ;
, ; • _ . ' ~ ~
. ~ ' ' ` ' I'~• . '1. . . ~ ~ _ . ~ ~ ~ r.k_}(w~ ~t~ ? .~'(t'.'fi.
' 1` ~ • - . 1 ~ .4. . ~ ,
~ • ~ . ~ ' ' =x~-_ ~
Planning and Environmenta1 Commission
~ February 13, 1984
11:30 am Site Visits
1:00 pm Pub7ic Hearing
1. Request for a side setback variance af 13.5 feet in order to build a garage
on Lot 6, Black 1, Vai7 Village 8th Filing. Applicant: Michael Halpert
2. Request for a side setback variance in order to remodel a lega1 non-canfor-
ming building at Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village lst Filing.
App7icant: Uelda B. Wyche
3. Request to convert the Grest HateT, on Lot 1, Va11 Lionshead 2nd Filing,
to condominiums following Section 17.26 of the Subdivision Regulatians.
Applicant: Sun Vai7, Inc.
4. Exterior alteration request to insta7T portable plexiglass windows far
the west wall of the Red Lion deck along Bridge Street. Applicant:
Joseph Kelemen
5. Exterior alteration request for a seasona7 greenhouse enclosure over
Cyrano's south deck. App77cant: Bud Parks
~ 6. Exterior alteration request for a greenhouse enclosure over a part of
the west deck for Valentino`s at the Plaza Suilding. Applicant:
Bridge Street Restaurant Rssociatian
~
J
Planning and Environmenta7 Corr?mission
February 13, 19$4
.
PRESEIVT STAFF PRESENT
Scott Edwards Dick Ryan
Duane Piper Peter Patten
Jim Viele Tom Braun
Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack
Gordan Pierce
The meeting was caTled to order at 1:12 pm by tne chairman, Duane Piper. Vtele
moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes of the January 23 meeting. The
vote was 4-0.
2. Request for a side setback variance in order to remodel a 7egaT non-confarming
building at Lot Block 5, Vail Uiliage lst Filing. Applicant: Velda Wyche
Tom Braun presented the proposal and expiained that the width of the lots were
25 feet, so side setbacks actua7ly averlap one another. He added that the propasa1
wouid result in a net 7ass of 14 sq ft GRFA.
After discussion, Jim Viele moved and Rapson secanded to approve the request
. findin that 7t wou1d not be a rant of s ecial rivi7e e, wauld not be detrimentaT
to the pub1ic health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties
or impravements in the vicinity, and was warranted because the strict or literal
interpretatian would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physica1 hardship.
The vote was 4-0 in favor.
3. Request ta convert the Crest Hotel an Lot 1, Vai1 E.ionshead 2nd Filing, to
candominiums follawing Section 77.26 of the SubdivZSiort_Regulations.
Applicant: Sun Vai7, inc.
Peter Patten reported that just that morning the app7icant asked to table this
to the February 27 meeting because of problems they had run into w-ith their
contract with the owners. Edwards moved and Rapsan seconded to table tQ the
meeting of 2/27 as asked by the app7icant. The vote was 4-0 in favor.
5. Exterior alterat-ion re uest for a seasona1 reenhouse enclosure aver C ranv's
south deck. Rpp1icant: Bud Parks
Peter Patten showed an elevation that incTuded third stary condominiums, and showed
the greenhouse type covering. He reminddd the board that the construction of
a path1inking Pirate Ship Park and the mountain path to Hanson Ranch Road was
a candition of approval in a 1982 request, and would also be a condition with
this request, as well as sub-area concept 10, paving Seibert Circle.
~
- PEC 1/27/84 -2-
~ Jim Calumbo, architect for the applicant explained that everything would be
retractable, including the glass roof sections.
• (Gordan arrived.)
Patten felt that this type of enc7osure would be beneficial to the Town because
it would allaw for use af the decks in the winter and shaulder season months,
while returning the deck to "open air." We then read the 6 conditions. Columbo
stated that the app1icant agreed with all 6 conditions
Mare d1SCU5510n of the removal of the windows followed, and Columbo explained
that the vertical windows would be removed and stored off of the property from
June 15 to September 15.
Ra son moved and Pierce seconded to a rove the re uest with the conditions,
findinq tnat the request was in compliance with the purpose section of CCI and
with the Urban Design Guide P7an.~ The vote was 5-0 in favor.
6. Exterior alteration request for a gre,enhouse enc7osure over a part of the
west deck far Vaientino's at the .Pla,za,8ui7ding. App7icant: Bridge Street
Restaurant Association
Dick Ryan explained the request with the twa conditions, one being that the glass
panels at the pedestrian level north and west be removed totally from June 15
through September 15. Columbo, architect for the applicant, stated that the roof
panels would not be removable. Pierce suggested a snow removal problem from the
raof, and support of the roof was discussed, with Co7umbo asserting that there
would be structural accammodation made to support the roof.
• Ra son moved and Pierce seeonded to a rove the re uest with the two conditions.
The vate was 5-0.
1. f2equest for a side setback variance of 13.5 feet in..order to bui7d agarage
on Lot b, BTock i, Vail VilTage 8th Filing. Rpplicar~t:~ JM7chae1 HaTpert
Tom Braun exp1ained the request and added that originaily the carport was approved
to be a garage, but the appiicant now wanted to place a studio in the carport
and build a garage on the other side af the property.
Gordon Pierce, architect for the applicant, stated that he did not know of a propasal
to build a garage where the carport was at present. He mentioned that the app7icant
had about 1000 square feet of GRFA not yet used.
Edwards stated that according to the material he had received about issuing variances,
he could see no hardship in this case. Pierce said that in the past, cutting
trees was 7ooked upon as a hardship. More discussion fallowed concerning a possibie
hardship in this case. Vie1e felt that he needed more information,
Carol Duddy, owner af lot 8 on the east adjacent to the carpart asked if the carport
would be removed if the garage were built. She added that as it stood now, at
least the carpart was open. She abjected to changing the carport to a solid
structure.
.
PEC 1/27/84 -3-
~
Pierce requested to table the request untii the February 27 meeting. Edwards
. moved and Rapson seconded to tabTe per the applicant`s reguest. The_vote was
4 in favor with Pierce abstalning.
4. Exterior alteration re uest to insta71 ortable lexi lass windows for the
west wall of the Red Livn deck along Bridge Street. Applicant: Joseph Ke7emen
Dick Ryan presented the request and stated that the staff recommended denia7
because the change would be out af character with the Vi7lage and would be basically
unenforceable.
Bill Post, representing the applicant, stated that in the eventngs the deck was
dark and cold and very noisy to the neighbors. He requested to table the proposal
for two weeks for more study. He felt that the solution wnu1d be better for
Bridge Street. Piper suggested a softening of the material on the back wall to
solve the accoustic prob7em..
Discussion followed concerning the fact that the tenant wasn't told by the owners
of the need to remove the windows during the summer months, and the fact that
there wou7d probab7y be 7itigation between the tenant and the owners cancerning
this point.
Keiemen, applicant, stated that during rain, the water blew in. Edwards stated
that he was on the PEC when the enclosure was approved original7y. Ne felt that
any prab1ems resuiting fram the first approval should be between the tenant and
~ the owners. More discussion contined.
Edwards maved and Ra son seconded to den the re uest because it was out of character
with the Vi7lage and would be basically unenforceab7e. The vote to den,y__was_5-0.
I ~
i
~
~ f
~ . MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmenta1 Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1984
SUBJECT: Public hearing and considgration of a request for an exteriar alteration
and modification for a seasonal greenhouse enclasure of 308 square feet
of an existing west deck of Valentina's Restaurant
Rpplicant: Bridge Street Restaurant Associates, Ltd,
I. REQUEST:
The request is to constru.ct a greenhouse enclesure of 308 sq ft on the west
deck area of Valentino's restaurant. 7he expansion would come out 8 feet and
meet the building wall edge to the south. The entire expansion is within the
Plaaa building property and would be extended to the west property line. The
front paneis along the deck 7eve1 are propased to be removable. The new glass
roof extended would be permanent statianary panels. The north elevation would
be clear glass that would not be removed during the summer manths.
II. BACKGROUND:
• The area immediately west of the proposal is land that the 7own of Uail has
agreed to lease for the purpose of an outside patza. This was originai1y
part of Donovan's outsid2 deck.
III. COMPLIANCE WFTH PURPOSE SECTION 1$.24.010
The Gommercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to maintain
the unique character of the Vail Vil1age commerc3al area, with its mixture
of ladges and commercial estabiishments in a predominantly pedestrian environ-
ment. The Commerc3al Core I district is intended to ensure adequate light,
a7r, open space, and other amenities apprapriate to the permitted types of
buildings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail
Vi11age Urban qesign Guide Plan and Design Considerations preseribe development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of
the tightly ciustered arrangements af buildings franting on pedestrianways
and pub17c greenways, and to ensure continuation of the bu7lding scaie and
architectural qualities that distinguish the village.
The proposal is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercia7
Core I zane district.
•
' l
. -2- Valentino's 2/9/84
~ IV. COMPLTANCE WITH URBRN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Urban Design Guide P1an states that dining decks cantribUte to the liveli-
ness of a busy street, making a richer pedestrian experience. The use of
the existing patia area for dintng throughoUt the year will enhance the street
life along Bridge Street and will be in conformance with the pian.
V. URBAN DESTGN CONSTDERATIONS
A. Pedestrianization
The enciosure of the patio should not have any negatTVe impacts upon
pedestrian circu7atian aTong Wa11 Steet and shouid improve the pedestrian
experience in the winter months.
6. Vehicle Penetration
No change
C. Streetscape Framework
The addition of people dining on the patio during the w7nter wi11 improve
the quality of the wa1king experience and will prnvide more street life
and visual interest. The encTosure of the deck in the summer, however,
wauld eliminate an open space which as had an exciting relationship to
• the plaza and and pravides a strong sense of activity for the pedestrian.
7he applicants are not proposing to enclose the deck during the summer
months comp1eteiy. They propose to remove the glass panels at the pedes-
trian level during the summer and re-instail them in winter.
D. Street EncTosure
The street enciasure daes not change by the praposal.
E. Street Edge
7he Urban Design Guide Plan states that plazas, patios, and green areas
are important faca1 points for gathering, resting, and arienting and should
be distributed throughout the Vil7age with consideration to spacing,
sun access, apportunit7es for view, and pedestrian activity.
The tota7 glass approach provides exceilent transparency dur7ng the fa71,
winter and spring seasons.
F. Bui1ding Height
No change.
G. Views
• No change
-3- Va1entino's 2/9/84
y•
H. Service and Delivery
~ No change
I. 5un/Shade
The project wi17 not increase shadows on adjacent property or on
public property.
V. ZQNING CpaE CONSIQERATIONS
A. Parking
The applicant will be required to pay a parking fee based upon one space
per each 8 seats provided. The fee wou1d need to be paid priar to the
1SSUdnCE of a bui7ding permit.
STRFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community qeve7opment Department staff recommends approval of the proposal
to enclose 308 square feet of Valentino's patia with the following conditions:
i.That the gi,ass panels at the pedestrian T2ve7, north and west be removed totally
~ from June 1,5.th thrQUgh September 15th. We feeT that this.would Provide the '',t
outdoor a,tmosphere during the summer season that many corsider an' asset foriVail.
2.The appiicant particlpates in and not remonstnates against a specia1.improvement
district if and when formed for Vail Vil7age.
Fai1ure upon the applicant's part to camply w3th these COndYtiOnS w3ll result
in the Community Development Department disallowing food and beverage service
on this deck, unless previaus arrangements have been made with our department.
~
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: P7anning and Environmenta7 Commissian
FROM: Cflmmunity Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1984
SUBJECT: Request far Exterior A7teration to enclase the south deck on the
second ievel of Cyrana's Restaurant. Applicant: Bud Parks
I. BACKGROUND
This is the third time that the applicant has requested enc7osure af this
deck. The first was in 1979 when tne Planning and Environmental Cammission
denied the application 3-2 (this application included the north deck as we7l)
and the applicant removed the south deck enclosure fram the application upon
Council appeal. The Counci7 sent the proposal back to PEC which eventualiy
approved enclosure of the north deck as Tong as the side windows were removed
in summertime.
In September of 1982 the Planning and Environrnenta3 Commission held a public
hearing on a request to permanent7y enc1ose the north deck, enc7ose the south
deck with a retractab7e greenhause enclosure and to add a 3rd story dwelling
unit (see attached memo). The Planning and Environmental Commission denied
• this app7ication 3-2, and the Town Counci7 approved it without the south deck
greenhouse enclosure.
IT. CURRENT PROPOSAL
The praposal at this time is simply to attain approva1 for the segment of
the 7ast proposal which was denied by Council: the south deck "greenhouse"
enclo5ure.
The submittal is showing the third story dwelling unit with the 74' x 42'
back deck (944 sq ft) enclosed with glass paneis on the southernmost part
of the new roof, the south wall facing the mountain and on the east side waTl.
If the third stary is not done before the greenhouse enc7asure, then the applicant
wau7d be required to revise the design of the enc3osure. Such a revision
wauld require at least Design Review Board approval.
The glass panels on the roof would retract into the roof using an automatic
system while side panels on the east would be s1id back or remaved (see attached
app7icant's statement).
~
-2- Cyrano`s 2/9/84
III. COMPLiANCE WITH PURPOSE SEC7ION QF COMMERICAL CORE I
~ The CommerciaT Core T district is intended to provide sites and ta maintain
the unique character of the Vail Vii7age commerctal area, with its mixture
of iodges and commercia1 estab1ishments in a predominantly pedestrian environ-
ment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate iight,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of
buidings and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail
Vi7lage Urban Design Gu3de Plan and Design Considerations prescrfbe development
standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation af
the t9ghtly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways
and public greenways, and to ensure continuat7on of the building sca7e and
architectura7 qualities that distinguish the village.
7he proposal, we find, is in compliance with the purpose section of the
CCI Zone District.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
R. Sub-area Concept 8: "Mi17 Creek walking path, west side of Mi11 Creek.
Path completes linkage from Pirate Ship Park and mountain path to Hanson
Ranch Raad."
The canstruction of this path was a condition of approva7 in the 7982
request. It will be here, as well (in case they choose to only do this
~ segment of the three alterations). They also agree ta construct abridge
across Mi11 CreeK as part of the path.
5ub-area Concept 70: "Seibert Circ7e. Feature area pav7ng treatment.
Re7ocate focai point (potential fountains) ta north for better sun expasure
; (fall/spring), creates increased plaza area and are the backdrop for activi=
ties. Separated path an north sides for unimpeded pedestrian route
during deTivery periods."
The app1icant agreed to th7s in the 7982 approva7 and is again in this
proposal.
B. Pedestrianization
This would be improved as a result of the Pirate Ship ParK to Hansan Ranch
Road path.
C. Vehic7e Penetration
This cou7d be slightly improved by freeing-up inside space for more storage
capacity, thus reducing the frequency of deliveries.
D. Streetscape Framework
Streetscape framework is unaffected -the deck is on the rear of the
bui1ding.
~
-3- Cyrano's 2/9/84
E. 5treet £nclosure Unaffected .
~ F. Street Edge Unaffected
G. Bui7ding He7ght
7he building wiiT be we17 w7thin height 7imitations if the proposal
is approved.
H. Uiews
Na designated view corridors are affected by the propasal.
I. ServZCe and Deliver,y
The Town of Vail has leased some of its property on the east side of Gyrano`s
for use as a driveway and trash dumpster building. These improvements
wers constructed in 1983 and have significantly improved the service and
del3very functions of the building.
J. Sun/Shade
The enc1osure wou1d improve access to the sun for Cyrano`s patrons for
nine months of the year.
~
V. ZDNING CODE CONSiDERATi4NS
• The proposal is in comp7iance with the Commercial Core I zoning regulations.
IU. STAFF RECOMM£NDATTON
aeck enclosures have always been a volatile issue in Vai1 Village. They vary
from permanent type enclosures (making the deck a part of the interior of
the building without a iarge amount of transparency) to greenhouse enc7asures
(where maximum transparency is achieved) to removable or partial7y removab7e
glass panels. The planning staff feels that enc7asures, if done in a certain
manner, can be beneficia7 to Vail V77lage.
The manner in which enclasures should be done is to allaw for the "greenhousing"
(maximum transparency) of decks in the winter and shoulder season months,
while returning the deck to "open air" in the summer months when weather is
generally canducive to outdoor dining and drinking. In this fashion, very
litt7e is 7ost and the use 3n winter months are gained. The occasional very
nice, warm spring days are 1ost for outdoor dining unless an automatic retractab7e
panel system is used.
This proposaT for Cyrano's back deck could be the best enclosure system we've
seen propased. It will accompT7sh the above objectives, even allowing far
totaT open-air environment an those occasianal nice days not in the June 15 -
September 15 period. We do feel strongTy that the remaining g7ass panels
should be removed for the June 15 - September 15 time period. Thus, we recom-
~ mend approva7 of this proposal with the foTlowing canditions:
i. All window panels except those an the roaf plan must be totally rempved
during the period fram June 15 to September 15 each year.
. . -4- Cyrano's 2/9/84
2. If the greenhouse enclosure is constructed previous to the third story
dwel3ing un1t, the prapasa7 must be resubmitted to the Design Review
~ Board (assuming this proposal receives DRB approval).
3. The appiicant shall construct the Mill Greek path including a bridge
across Mill Creek, and this pian shall be approved by the planning staff
and by the Pub1ic Works department.
4. The applicant participates in and not remonstrates against a special
miniTimprovement district if an when formed to relocate and redesign
Seibert Circle.
5. The app7icant participates in and nat remonstrates against a special
imprnvement district if and when formed for Vai7 Village.
6. FaiTure to comply with the June 15 - September 15 restriction wi71
result in the Cammunity Development Department disai7awing food and
beverage service on this deck, un7ess previous arrangements have been
made with our department.
~
•
~
~
- : . . t .
, . .
. . . ' ' ' ' . . . • _ ' , a , ' , , . , . . ' , .
. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Location . : y9 ga I `
Cyrano's Bua.].ding Lot C S1ock 2 First Fil.ing
298 Flanson Ranch Road . . , . awner . ,
Va i l, CO R1657
• Gre ta & Bud Park s . . 1 . ,
Sauth Deck Greenhbuse Enc].osure ' ' . .
The project request is to create a seasonal greenhouse enclosure
over the 944 square foot south deck of the Cyrano's Building.
The existing deck as it is now, is useable only threemonths ofthe year and during li.mited hours because of orientation and '
shading from the Gold Peak House to the Sauthwest.
The project request is to maxi.mize the useage of this deck thraugh
a compromising seasonal program. This progxam calls for a 90% '
transparent greenhouse structure ta enclase the deck area from
Scptember 15 through Juns 15,....af each year. Fram June 15 thraugh. ~September 15af each year a 14 faot by 42 foat section of glass
.
greenhouse roofing wil.l be retracted to an open position to
render this area unobstructively open-aired. Also during this
the side glass greenhouse panel.s which will.extend from the
,
,:existing parapet wa1.1s to the greenhouse roof, wi].1 be retracked
, and stacked to side or completely removed. This in aEfect, returns ,the south deck to an open deck condition as it is
' . - . ' i. •'.i ' ! ' 6 A.. l' . Y. 3 ~ \ '..4.~ 3 . ,
{ . ; .A S 1 3',
The retracking systems will be both eiectronica~ly con~.rolled arid 5
; possess manual over-riding systems which permit opening and closing a sfir.
! of the system at a11 times, despite the passibilites of e1ectrica1
. bi.ackouts or system freezing b7.ockages . ' x,~
In addition to the determined open conda.tian. dates the ~retrackable
V rO'y '
system allows the flexibilty of opening the greenhouse sectipns
x
during the "clased" season for paxticular mi.ld weather days
. _ ,
„
The ermanent roaf 5ectio , . ; ' ` . . ~ , a' , , :
, ns'will extend from the split roof ~.ev
p els' of the previousiy approved third floor condoma,nium and wa.11 reprssent'.':";>-';;;.?~, ,
only thle northern most 10 feet o£ the existing deck.
All greenhause glass sections .will be of tempered, insulated glass.
~ All raof glass sections will be of a minimum I inch tempered and '
in:ulated conc3it.ion. U:;ing heahed elements avid a heat contrall.etl
iniier enviromerit will guarantee a clcar, non-f.oggi.ng t,ransparer?cy
. to the sy5tem. `
F ,
O _ _ . ' ...i . . 4.i.rn3..,.
.
T0: Planning and Environmental Cammission
FRONf: Department af Community Develapment
DkTE: September 7, 1982
SIfBJECT: Exterior alteration and modification request for Cyrano's to
enclose two second leve1 deckS and add a third story condominium
Applicants: Sud and Greta Parks
1. BACKGROUND
~ In the surrmer of 1979 Cyrano's requested to enclose the same ciecks as
; they are again requesting to enclose. At the PEC an July 10 they were
denied 3-2 due to the size of the expans7an, the precedent that it would
~ set for future expansions af a similar nature, and the eff ect that this
expansian would have nn changing the character of the area by eliminating
outdoor din-ing areas and increasing cangestion.
The Pianning aiid Environmental Commission decision was appealed to Council,
but the applicant changed his mind and praposed to only enclose the front
f deck (facing Hanson Ranch Road). The Counci3 ren-ended it back to PEC, which
' approved the f ront deck enclosure with the condition that the enclosure
~ be con5tructed so that the side windows are removed in the summer to provide
~
~ the same summer space and appearance that is there taday. Another condition
; required the awning to remain to retairt the color and movemertt when the
; wind comes up and the awning fl utters.
As the current proposal cfoes not meet these conditians (they wish to pet°manently
encZase the cfeck), the previous appraval does not apply, and we should treat
this as a tota3ly new proposal.
II. THE PROPOSAL
The proposal entails enciosing the 480 Square foot i;arth deck as a structural
cflmponent of the building.
The south deck of 1000 square feet is planned to be enclosed with retractable
greenhouse windows to reta7n the ability to make it an autdoar cfeck throughout
the year. Alsa proposed is the addition of a third 5tory to the building
which would consist of a dwelling unit of approximately 2,300 square feet.
The appl7cants wish to enclose the north deek to make it an indoor space
due to the small time period throughout the year when it can be used as
an outdoor eat7ng area (due to its north orientatian). Thev wish to "green-
hause°" the south deck to a11ow it to remain functioning as an outdoor deck
when weather al l aws (gl ass woul d be removed) pl us to be able to use the
deck in the winter when weather is not conducive to eating outdoors. The
third floQr dwelling unit would be set back from Nanson Ranch Road to attempt
to retain the bui7ding's two story feeling from that perspective.
4
° ' • Cyrano's -2- 9/7/$2
III. COMPLIANCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION 0F CQMh1ERCIAL CORE I
~ The Camniercial Core I district is intended to provide sites and to inaintoin
the unique character of the Vatl Vi1lage corrmerc7al area, with its mixture
of lodge5 and commercial establishments in a predominately pedestrian environ-
ment. The Commercial Core I district is intended to enSUre adequate 7ight,
air; open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of
buidings and uses. The district reguTations in accordance with the Vail
Village urban design guide plan and design considera-tians prescribe s-ite
develapment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preserva-
tian of the tightly c7ustered arangements of buildings f ronting on pedestrlan
ways and public greeways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale
and architectural qua7ities that distiiiguish the village.
The propa5al is in compliance with the purpose section of the Commercial
Core i zone district.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITN THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
A. Sub-area Concepts
Concept 8: "Niill Creek walking path, west side Mill Creeis. Aath
campietes linkage from Pirate Ship Park and mountain
path to Gare Creek Drive."
Since physicaTly there is no area to Keep the path totally on the west
• side af the creek, the path must be constructed partiaily (southeriy
1/3) on the east side with a br7dge aver the creek. The construction
of this pa th wil1 be a conditian of approva7, The staff will work with
the app1icant for proper placernent and constructian of the path.
Concept 10: Seibert Circle. "Feature area paving treatment. Relocate
foca7 point (patential fountairi) to north for better sun
exposure (fall/spring), creates increased plaza area and
are the backdrop for aCtivities. Separated path on north
side #ar uniinpeded pedestrian route during deTivery periods."
A condition of approval will be that the applicant agree to participate
in amini-improvement district for this project.
B. Pedestrianization
No change in pedestrianization will occur as a result of this proposal.
C. Vehicle Penetration
Vehicle penetrat7an into the`Village will be s7ightly increased as a
' result of the residents of the condominium dropping off luggage, gro-
eries, etc.
~ D. 5treetscape Framework
The streetscape framework is predominantly unaffected because the changes
woul d ta€ce pl ace above street level.
,r• . Cyrano's -3T 9/7/$2
. ,
E. Street Enclasure
From the perception of a pedestrian walking down Hanson Ranch Road, the
street enclosure will not be S1gn7fiCdntly increased. Tne narth wall
af the proposed dwelling unit will be 20 feet sauth of the property line
along Hanson Ranch Road and about 40 feet from the eenter of Hanson Ranch
Road. Thus, by setting back the third level away from the major pedestrian
~ f1ow, the street encTosure is not negatively affected. The Urban Design
Guide Plan labels a 112 (height of building) to 1(width of street) street
~ enclosure ratio as the most comfortable. Because the }iareson Ranch Raad
pedestrian will be conscious of only the two story building height which
; naw ex7sts, the street enclasure would remain about the same as it presently
~ is,-18.5 t0 38 or about 112 t0 1. As one views the building fran upper
i 8ridge Street, the third level 'S impact will be evident, but definitely
~ not overwhelming.
~
I;
F. Street Edge .
}
Y Street edae is unchanged with the proposal.
~
i'
i:
G. BUj]d7nqNEt~Lht
1'he proposal meets the new building height requirefnents for Vail Village
as fol1 ows:
1. Allowed: Up to 60% of the buiiding (building coverage area) may
~ be built to a height of 33 feet or less.
Proposed : 63% of the build i ng to be under 33 feet
2. A11awed: No mare than 40% of the building (building coverage area)
may be higher than 33 feet, but rtot higher than 43 feet.
; Proposed: 37% of the building ta be hzgher than 33 feet, but not
' higher than 43 feet
i
; H. Views
There is a minor view plane or3ginating from Gore Creek Drive just east
af the Mi11 Creek Bridge which looks southwest taward Vail Nfountain.
7his view plane goes over the western half of Cyrano's and over the
Gold Peak Nouse. Because the Gold Peak House is so much iarger and taller
than Cyrano's, the minor view will not be affected by the praposal. Even
after the third story is added to Cyrano's, the Gold Peak House's roof
height wi17 be 16 feet more than Gyrano's.
1. Service ancE Deliver
Service and del7very 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. Tnternal ad}ustments
with regard to more kitchen and storage space are planned and wiil be neces--
sary.
. . cyrano's -4- 9/7182
Service and delivery e€ficiency wii1 be greatiy improved with the current
construction af a trash enclosure and paved driveway on land leased fr~m
-L-.he Town to the east of the bu i1 d-ing. Del i very_ trucks wil1 be a11 owed
f.a use this new driveway to get aff Hanson Ranch Road and aliaw a vehicle
free pedestrian experlence. A new delivery walkway into the building
is 7nc7uded in the trash enc1osure 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 vehic1es entering the core area.
J. Sun/Shade
Enclosing the north deck has no effect an 5Un/5Flad2 factors. 1'he green-
housing and ability to retract the wiiidows on the south deck preserve
the accessibility to the sun in that locat7on.
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
af the buiTd-ing, it should not increase the shade on Hanson Ranch Raad.
~ This ty pe of design is specifically encauraged in the Sun/Shade section
~ of the U.D.G.P. Furthermore, the Gold Peak House already serves to screen public rights-of-way f rom the sun during the afternoan hours.
I ~ .
U. ZONING CODE CONSIDERATIONS
1. llses - a11 proposed uses are permitted on their respective levels
in Coinmerc i al Core I.
2. Density Control - Buildab1e site area = 4,462 sq ft
Rllowable GRFA = 3,569 sq f t
Proposed GRFA = 2,364 sq ft
3. Cover_._a~e - na change
4. Landscapin - no change
5. Paricing and Loadi~ The appl icabl e~'ee wi11 be paid into the parking
~W fund.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Department af Connunity Development recommends approval of the exterior
alteration and modification proposal for Cyrano's. If adequate visua7 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 Rev7ew
Soard should carefully review the project to see that this is accomplished.
~
~ . Cyrano's -5- 9/7/82
,
In conclusion, the design of these additions has been sensitive to existing
conditions and responsive to the Vail Vil1age Urban Design Guide Plan.
The resu7t7ng massing and scale of Cyrano`s should maice the currently
awkward transition between the Gold Peak House and Cyrano's somewhat more
comfortable. Conditions of appraval are as follows:
l. 7his approva7 is valid only if the improvements to the street ievel
; 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 Uillage.
3. The greenhouse enclosure of the south deck must be removed completeTy
during the time period from June 15 to Septeniber 15 af each year.
4. The owner agrees to Participate in a m3ni-improvement district if
one is formed for Seibert Circle.
- 5. Tne approva1 is va1id for a period of no more than 3 years af ter
f3nai approval is given.
6. 7he appiicant must construct the Mi11 Creek walking path connecting
Hanson Ranch Raad and the existing bike path south of Cyrano's. This
includes construction of a br7dge across Mill Creek.
i
r
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: Planning and Enviranmenta7 Commissian
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1984
T. SUBJECT:
Request for an exteriar alteration to instaT1 plexiglass windows for
the west wall of the Red Lion deck Appiicant: Joseph Keleman
iI. BACKGROUND:
On February 8, 1982 there was apprnval by the Pianning and Environmenta1 Cammission
for the enc7osure of 922 square feet of outside patio space at the Red Lion.
The purpose was to permit din-ing throughout the year instead of only during
the summer months. There was one condition of approval noted below:
Due to the enhancement of Bridge Street which would result fram the
enclosure during the winter months, we fee7 that the proposai is a
positive one. Howcver, we feel that the enclosure wauld nflt be appro-
priate during the summer months and wauld detract from the exciting
• relationship of the open patio and the street. Therefore, we recommend
that the enclosure be approved from September 15 to June 15 and that
during the remainder of the year, the glass along Bridge Street must
be removed and the patio be open ta the street. Nothing within the
approval, however, shou7d prevent the applicant fram removing the glass
panels prior to June 15 or re-insta7ling them later than September 15.
Failure upon the app7icant`s part to comply with this condition would
be grounds for not aliowing food or beverages to be served upon the
patio unti3 such time as the candition is complied with.
Checking through the motion approved by the P7anning and Environmental
Commission, there was an additional condition added that stated that
the additian was to a1so require remova7 of the south end panels during the
same time per7od.
III. RE UE5T
The app1icant is requesting reiief by permitting a plexiglass window to be
insta3led along the west part of the deck during evenings when it is toa coal
for dining.
IV. GOMALTANCE WITFi PURPOSE SECTION 18.24.010
The Commerc7al Core I district is intended to provide sites and ta maintain
the unique character of the Vai1 Ui1lage commercial area, with its mixture
~
i
- -2- Red Lion - 2/8/84
.
;
i of lodges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate 7ight, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of bui7dings
and uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vai7 Village urban
design guTde plan and design considerations prescribe deve7opment standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tight7y
c1ustercd arrangements af buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public greenways,
and to ensure continuation of the bui7ding scale and architectural qualities
that distinguish the village.
The staff considers that intent was to permit year round use of tha deck by
allowing the enclosure and having the street frontage open during the summer.
We do not feel that plexigiass should be placed over the window area any time
trom June 15 to 5eptember 75. First, the plexig7ass is probably a materiaT
that should not be introduced into Vail Vi7lage. Second, enforcement of when
the plexiglass is put in would be next to impossible to regu1ate. Who determines
when the patio is too coal for dining?
V. COMPLIANCE WITH IJRSAN DESIGN GllIDE PLAN
The Urban Des-ign Guide PTan states that dining decks contribute to the 7iveliness
of a busy street, making a richer pedestrian experience. The use af the existing
patio area for dining thraughaut the year wi71 enhance the street life along
Bridge StrEet and wi l1 be 1n conformance wi th the pl an.
~ The staff considers that during the June 15th through September 75th period,
there shou1d be na abstructions, even aplexig1ass window along Bridge Street.
The richer pedestrian experience is enhanced by the public viewing directly
the people in the Red L7on and other restaurants in Vai7 Vil7age.
IV. RECQMMENDATION:
The Communlty Development Department recommends denial of the request for piexiglass
windows during cool evenings. The change would be aut of character with the
Village and would be basicaliy unenforceable.
The applicant needs to be reminded of the additional condition placed an the
original proposal that the south glass must also be remaved in 1984.
~
MEMORANDUM
. T0: Planning and Enviranmenta3 Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
j DATE: February 3, 1954
~ SUBJECT: Side setback variance request in order to remodei an existing
~ lega1 non-conforming building on Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village
! First Fi7ing. Applicant: Velda B. Wyche
i
I
I
DESCRIP710N OF UARIANCE REQUES7ED
The applicant's unit is 1ocated in the Vai7 Row Mouses. A portion of this project
was subd3vided creating individua] lots for each unit in the praject. This type
of subdivision has resuited in a situation where each unit encroaches on adjacent
property's setbacks. The width of these lots are 25 feet, sp side setbacks actually
overlap one another. Consequently, any redeve1opment on these lots would require
approval of a side setback variance.
This proposal includes the addTtion of a new entryway (40.5 sq ft), a new internal
stairway to the basement (removal of 27 sq ft), and the removal of 27.5 square feet
of GRFA from the front of the residence. These developments resu1t in a net
loss in GRFA of 14 square feet. This proposal also includes modifications to
an existing deck and construction of a new deck on the rear of the unit. A new
roof line wou1d be created in the front of the Unit to a17ow for a deck and hat
• tub off the master bedroam.
CRI7ERIA AND FINQINGS
Upon review of Cr9teria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the De artment of Communit Develo ment recarrnnends a roval of the re uested
variance based u on the followin factors:
Consideration of Factors
The re1atianshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
At present there is very 7ittle continuity between the units at the Vail Row
Houses. Remodels and addit7ons to this project have resulted in a variety of
front setbacks, architectural styies, and materials. The proposed modifications
to this unit wou7d have iittle impact on the rest af this development.
The deqree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation.and enforcement
of a specified requlation is necessary ta achieve compatibilit,y.and uniformity
of treatment amonsites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this
title without rant af s ecial rivile e.
.
wYCHE -2- 2/3I$4
~
~ The subdivision of this property has created a situation where no exterior work
' • can be done without violating side setbacks. 5trict or literal interpretation
of the zoning code would, in this case, create a practical difficulty as we71
as unnecessary physica7 hardship on the app7icant. Ta grant this variance wou7d
not be a grant of special privi7ege.
The effect af the requested variance on light and air, distribution of papulation,
trans ortation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities and uti7ities, and ub1ic
' safet .
Changes to this residence would not increase its sleeping capacity, nar would
. it have any ather negative impacts on the above.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the ro osed
variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Env3ronmental Gammission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance wi17 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 wi71 not be detrimental to the pubTic 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 fiol7owing reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regUlation
wauld result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsist2nt
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances ar conditians applicable to
the site of the variance that da not app7y general7y to other properties in the
same zane.
The strict or litera] interpretation and enforcement of the specified regu]ation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties
in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENpA7IONS
The subdivisian of this property has created an unworkable situation for any rede-
velopement at the Vail Row Houses. No exterior work can be done on this site without
receiving approva1 for a side setback variance. For this reason the Cammun7ty
Development Department recommends approval of the variance as requested.
•
~ pn,~ry aor
co,`~--Croek '
~
TRACT B
s 8p° . _
za.sa~
o
U7ILITY EASEMENT
wi
N
~D tV
01 .
jr) -
O Q,
Deck
~to_
IMerior wall of unit ia 0.4' Dulside of Proverty '
~ Line 'a,
Inlarear Wall oF Unif ia L2' .
, si Imide Property Llna f±0.1') , .
M
~
' LOT 7 3 5t0ry rownhoube
ri
LOT 9
Lina ot Interiqr Wall .3 + ~ • . ' . ~
3.2~ { Mlddla leuell ~
N
cS e, h
2.01 . . , ' , . •
~ 46~
enfry ra.~' f 2 ~ -
1 oeck f . .
Q ~
0) _ 9 ~ • w ~
z a
Fence o p . _ ~ . .
n
LOT S '
2e3x,.r. ' • ScaEe = Id
• pate of 5urvey .
N e+° as . yy .
24,93'
G ORE .
~ CREEK DRlVE (40') . NOTICE:- AacardYng ta Coiorado l~tu you muer conemCace any.lega3. ac
besed upon any rlefect 1n thls_ aurvey wfthin six ycars efter.you"fi
c{3ncover guch defert.'Ln no cvent, wey.any setfon based upon any d
fn this sai'vay be uommence3 note ttian tem years frm rfie 9ata bf t
• certificatlon ahovn hereon. .
r ~ ~
.
~ ..~3,
4 • '
~Y
l.~
y41'. . .
;
--~~~~~t .
. .~t~~:. .
-'~2 ~
~
7 Fr ~ r r r y.
~
Arr~..
. ~ .
'31
0
M ~C
~ . ~ . . ~ .
!I 1 ~
U ~
El
. , ~
• ~ ~t~~~:G~ ~ ~ i. ~
~
~ ' ~f,`1.. ~ ~ . ~L'E6i~-~i~Nt_. k~7~f'1-ri I ~ ~ ~ ~ l~i~ •
Li ~N6 ~ b~rr~
. ~
. , .
_
I jL 14~, -
_ 12d TF
vki;: P. ~ nct"
Fr~ti H ifi 0
. •
, . .
- ~
. .
- -
~ -
-
.
MEMORANQUM
~ T0: P1anning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 8, 1984
SUBJEC7: Request to convert the Crest Hotel to a condoThotel under Chapter
17.26 of the Subdivision Regu7ations. Applicant; Sun Vail, Tnc.
THE PROPOSAL
The Crest Hotel, representing all 134 accommodation units, lobby, recreation,
meeting, banquet and commercial areas is in the pracess of being acquired by
Sun Vai3, Inc. There are 19 dwelling units in the building which already have
been condominiumized which would be unaltered by the proposal. The proposal
is to create a condo-hote7 (where each accommodation unit is sold aff individua1ly
and a condominium association runs the property) to accomplish two major objectives:
l. To "provide the economic feasibllity to overcome the indebtedness
of the Crest in its present state as a iadge;"
2. To "maintain its function as a Todge" without any "effect on the present
status of serv7ce to its occupants."1
The applicants alsa state that this proposal would be benef-icial to the Vil7age
. area by having the Crest resume its place in the community a5 a f3rst-class
lodging facility and afford them the economic ability to mafce it happen.
TFEE CRITERIA
There are two sets of criteria for a hotel conversion to condominiums: the
first set is found in Section 17.26.080 (A)(B)(C) which are criteria for aTl
condaminium conversion projects in general and, second7y, Section 17.26.075
which specifically addresses accommodation unit conversions.
The fo1lnwzng are the criteria for all conversion projects:
17.26.080 Action on Pre7iminary Map
A. At the hearing on the prellminary map, the P7anning and Environmental
Commission sha1T consider whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the following housing goals of the town:
1. To encourage continuation af social and economic dlversity in the
town through a var7ety of hausing types,
2. Ta expand the suppiy of decent housing for law and moderate income
fam31ies,
i
1. Letter to Richard Ryan from Carson Wright and Michael Starace (applicants)
dated January 26, 1984.
. ' -2- Crest - 2/8/84
3. Ta achieve greater econamic ba7ance for the tawn by increasing
. the number of jobs and the supp7y of housing for peaple who wili
hoZd them.
B. The commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the canverted
un3ts be reserved for sale or rental to persons of moderate income.
C. The P7anning and Envfronmental Commissian may deny the tentative or
prelirninary map upon finding that:
1. Based on the information required by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy
rate for rentaT hausing, tenants w711 have substantZai difficulty
in obtain3ng comparably priced rental housing. A rental vacancy
rate below five percent based on the mast reeent town survey constitutes
a housing emergency situation.
2. The ratia of multip7e-family rental units would be reduced to 7ess
than twenty-five percent of the total number of dwelling units
in the Gore Valley, from Dowd Junction east to the base af Vai1
Pass, with no replacement rental housing being provided.
This set of criteria i5 obviously directed not at condominiumizing
an hotei, but toward regulatian in the reduction of availabZe low-
cost or employee housing. Thus, we wi11 not evaluate the proposaT
with regard to these criteria, as they are not applicab7e. The reason
~ they're 1ncluded in this memorandum is that the requirements and procedures
of the entire Chapter 17.26 must be complied with for any condominium
conversion project, and there are other sections of the general part
of the chapter which have been app7ied as requirements.
Below is the appiicable sectian af our regu7ations applying to accamma-
datian unit conversions:
17.26.075 Candomium Conversion
Any app7icant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the town shall
comply with the requ7rements of this section. The requirements cantained
in this section shaTl not apply to structures or buildings which contain
two units or Tess.
A. The requirements and restrictions herein contained sha71 be included
in the condominium declaration for the project, and filed of record with
the Eagle County clerk and recarder. The condominium units created sha17
remain in the short term rental market to be used as temporary accommodations
avai1able to the genera7 public.
1. An awner's personal use of his unit shall be restricted to 14 days
during the seasonal periods of December 15th through Rpril 75th and
14 days during June 15th through Secptember 75th. This seasonal
period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's persana7
• use" shall be defined as owner occupaney af a unit or nonpaying guest
af the owner or taking the unit off the rental market during the
seasona1 periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary
. • . -3- Crest 2/8/84
repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrentable.
Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff emp1oyed by the lodge,
however, shall nat be restricted by this section.
' 2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by a unit owner shall
subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium.assa-
ciation of three times a rate cnns7dered to be a reasonabTe daily
rental rate for the unit at the time of the violatian, which assessment
when paid shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium
association for use in upgrading and repairing the common e7ements
of the condominiums. All sums assessed against the owner for viaiation
of the owner's personai use restriction and unpaid shall constitute
a iien for the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's
unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written natice placed of record
in the office of the cierk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado,
and whickmay be collected by foreclosure, on an awner's condom3nium
unit by the associatian in like manner as a mortgage or deed of trust
on real property. The condominium associatian's failure to enforce
the owner's personal use restriction shall give the town the right
to enforce the restriction by the assessment and the lien provided
for hereunder. If the town enforces the restrictinn, the town shall
receive the funds collected as a result of such enforcement. In
the event 1itigation results from the enfarcement af the restriction,
as part of its reward to the prevailing party, the court shall award
such party its court costs tflgether with reasnnab1e attorney's fees
incurred.
~ 3. The town shall have the right ta require fram the condominium assaciatian
an annual report of owner`s persanal use during the high seasons
for all canverted condominium units.
B. Any lodge 7ocated within the town which has converted accommodation units
to condominiums shall continue to provrtde customary lodge facilities
and services inc7uding a customary marketing program.
C. The converted condominium un7ts shall remain available to the general
taurist market. This candition may be met by inclusion of the units
of the candaminium praject, at comparable rates, in any lacal reservation
system for the rental of 7adge ar condominium units in the town.
E. Rny accommodation units that were utilized to pravide housing for employees
at any time during the three years previous to the date of the app7icat3on
shall remain as employee units for such duration as may be required by
the Planning and Environmental Commission ar the Town CounciT.
F. Applicability: ATT canditions set forth within this section shall be
made binding on the app7icant, the app7icant's successars, heirs, personal
representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the
subject of the app7ication for the iife of the survivor of the present
Town Cauncil plus twenty-one years. Conversion of accommodation units
located within a lodge pursuant to this section, shall be modified anly
by the written agreement of the Town Council and the owner or nwners
~ of the units which have been converted into condominiums. The documents
creating and governing any accommodation unit which has been converted
into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of such units anly
wYth the prior written approva7 of the Tawn Council.
. ° -4- Crest 2/8/84
• As you can see, the above criteria are absolutes, that is, they must be met
in order to a17ow the conversion. 7heir intent is to allow the ownership to
be divided (subdivided into individua1 condos, common areas, etc.) whi7e disa1lowing
a change in use. Fnclosed please find a copy of a ietter from the applicant
indicating their willingness to comply with a17 of these requirements. Furthermore,
the proposed Condaminium Declarations do contain paragraphs 17.26.075(A)7, 2, 3.
Thus, we feel these criteria have been met.
BUILDING AND FIRE CODE gQUIREMENTS
7he area in which this conversion will be thE most troubiesome for the applicant
is in meeting the BuiTdfng and Ftre Department requtrements as specified in
the regu7ations as follows:
17.26.060 Requirements - Condominium Conversions
The app7icant proposing to make a condominium conversion shaTl provide the
fol7owing documentation with the preliminary map:
A. A condominium conversion report from the town bUild7ng inspector on
the condition of the building, listing a31 building code violations,
fire code vio7ations and related violations which are detrimental to
the health, safety and we7fare af the public, the owners, and the occu-
pants of the building. The applicant shall have avaiTable and shall
• provide copies af this report to all prospective purchasers af condo-
minium units or interest in the in the condominium project.
Attached is the report from those departments and one can see it is extensive.
The engineering report will be received this week and reviewed by the staff.
At the hearing on Manday, the app7icant must address these required renovations
ta the PEC's and staff's satisfaction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Cammunity Deve7opment Department recommends approval of the conversian
to condominiums of the Crest Hotel. We feei strongly that th7s will resu1t
in much needed improvements to not only the physicaT plant of the structure,
~
~ but ta the generai management and operation of the hotel. This project wou7d
be a big plus to tne community, as this hote7 has 1n the past been one of
~ Vail's finest hote7s, and the subsequent deterioratian has been a negative
experience for Uai7. We do feel strong7y about the physical rennovation required
by our regulat3ons and will see that this bui7ding, when finished, is brought
up to Vai7's high standards.
~
.
a
' SITN VAIL, INC. '
5ix Paleimo Avenue
Coral. Gables, FL 33134
~ (305) 445-67.01
I
January 23, 1984
CominusZity Developmenr ?epartment
xoian of Vail
75 South Frontag;e Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
12e: CresL Hote1 - Application far Convezsion; of Fxisting Hotel
Rooms to Coiidoiuinium Hotel units
Gcntlemen:
In connection with rhe application of Sun Vail, Inc. to canvert
the exisring hutel rooms of the Crest Hotel to cvndominium hotel vnits,
Sun C'ai1, Inc, hereby zepresents that upon such canversion, the Dec7ar.atzon
~ af Condominium governing the units will contain the 4caner IIse Restrictions
seC forth in Chaptex' 17.26.075 of Town of Vail Ordinaaces" and thar the
units will in a11 other respects, be operated as required by said Chapter
17.26.075.
Sincer.ely, f ;
SUN VAIL, INC~.~'`~
rr f
filicha~l R. 5t'or.ace; Ghai`rman
and Chief Eaecutive Officer
MRS:dc
~
i
' Planning and Environmental Commission
~ February 27, 7984
1:15 pm Site vis7ts
2:00 pm Public Hearing
i
~
1. Appraval of minutes a-F February 13.
2. Request for a side setback variance of 13.5 feet in order
to build a garage on Lot 6, 63ock 1, Vail Village 8th
Filing. Applicant: Michael Haipert
3. A request to establish a specia7 development district for
the purpose of redeveloping the Sonnena7p Hotel to a7low
additianaT accommodatian units and commercial space.
Applicant: Sonnenalp at Vail
4• Request to amend Sectian 18.26.045 (F) 5 by adding a new
subparagraph 5{b} to provide for an earlier deadline for
exterior a7teration and modification in Commercial Care Ii
~ for tne spring of 1984 oniy. Applicantc Town of Vail
5. Request to convert the Crest Hote1 on Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd
Filing, to condominiums fo1lowing Sectian 17.26 of the
Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Sun Vaii, Inc.
i
~
PTanning and Environmental Commission
. February 27, 1984
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Dick Ryan
Scatt Edwards Peter Patten
auane Piper Tom Braun
Howard Rapsan Betsy Rosolack
Wi1T Trout Larry Eskwith
Jim Viele
ABSEN7
Goon Aierce
The meeting was calied to order at 2:10 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper
i. Approval ofi minutes af ineet7ng of February 13. Viele moved and Rapson_
seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
2. Re uest for a side setback variance of 13.5 feet in order ta build a ara e
on Lot 6, Bloc[c 1, Vail Village $th_ Filing. Michael Halpert
The applicant requested to table this until the meeting of March 12. Donovan
moved to table to 3/12 and Edwards seconded. 7he vote was 6-0 to table.
•
3. A re uest to estabiish a secial develo ment distriet for the ur ose of
redeve7oping the Sonnenalp HoteT to allow additiana7 accommodatian units
and commerciaT s ace. Appllcant: Sonnenalp at Vai7 Dick Ryan exp3ained the lengthy praposal reviewing the sub-area concepts from
; the Urban Design Guide Plan, the Design Considerations, and the proposed bui7ding
i and parking. He explained that the present building would be demolished. Ryan
~ pointed aut that, although there were many positive aspects, the concerns of
~ the staff were permitting additional accommodation units and gross residentia1
floor area without guidelines and criteria, providing no long tem parking on
the site, and the height of the southwest corner of the building.
Jay Petersan, representing the applicant, stated that CCI and PA zones interact,
and he felt that the Sonnenalp should be treated as though it were part of CCI
when considering the proposal. Tn this regard, he pointed out that 55 accommodation
units in the Vil7age had been changed to commercial in the past 10 years. He
ta7ked of the need ta upgrade facilities in the Uillage area. He showed brochures
of a Sonnenalp lodge in Europe that he ciaimed was five times larger than the
one propased far Vail, both of wh7ch were intended to be destination type resorts.
Dan Corcaran, fram the audience spoke in favor af the project. The board voiced
their concerns: Edwards wondered if two check-in parking spaces were enough,
; and felt that the street was crawded where it was:narrowed down to let only
~ one bus through. The manager of the Sonnenalp said that since they da not have
~
- PEC 3/2/84 -2-
• Saturday to Saturday bookings, they foresaw no problem with on7y 2 parking
spaces. Bi11 Ruoff, architect far the project, added that there had been
~ mare spaces in the first presentation, and the staft had asked that that part
' of the building be redesigned. Viele's concern was the lack of criteria
with which ta judge the praposal, but he felt that the parking did belong in
the parking structure and was in favor of the project.
Rapson wondered about the desirability of having the service and guests' cars
~ cross the pedestrian walkway, and felt that the lobby should be c7oser ta the parking
I spaces. He a1so asked about the fire access. Dick Duran, Vai7 Fire Chief,
stated that he was coneerned about access to the building behind the delivery
area and about the dlstance between buildings. Donovan felt that two drop-off
parking spaces were not enough, and pointed out that there would be many delivery
trucks servicing the restaurant and trash and crossing the pedestrian path. She
wandered 3f so much commerciaT space was necessary and whether or not there was
room for the bus turn around to the west of the Sonnena1p site. She felt that
the prflject was dependent upon the bus shelter being moved and the p7anter removed.
Ryan reminded the bflard that there must be an agreement between the Town and
the applicant regarding the maintenance of the arcade, since it would be on Town
property. Donovan felt that the northeast carner protruded toa much and hated
to see the trees removed.
More discussion centered around the fire department's ability ta get to the bui7ding
behind the loading area. Tt was suggested that the 7oading and service area
nat be walled in, but be merely roofed over. Petersan stated that they were
. willing to go back to the arigina1 scheme where the Sonnenalp had their ~
trash and deiivery inside of their own buiiding. Rapson asked for a memo
from the Fire Department stating that they would be comfortable with a eom6ined '
trash and de1ivery area if it were roofed over and had no walls.
Piper was concerned about the "bott7e neck" on the east for the bus lane and felt 76
feet was too narrow, that the building should not be as large so that this area
wou7d not be so crowded. Me felt that the trees were a positive feature in terms
of the streetscape. Piper felt that parKing far guests shbuld be provided in the
parking structure, and also that the parktng fee was too 7ow.
Peterson stated that he wou3d 3ike a vote to be taken subject to the conditions
and concerns mentioned and fe7t much could be worked aut with the staff prior
to the presentation to the Tawn Council.
Viele moved and Edwards secanded to recommend a raval of the s ecia1 deve1o ment
ta the Town Council with the fo7lowin condltions: that there be no condominium-
iza ion or 20 years, that the a rovaT be on1 to the a 7icant, that there
6e an a~reement b the a 1icant to maintain the arcade area, that the al3cant
that the a 17cant a to move or modif anters and bus sheiters, and that
the a licant a a licab7e arkin fees at the time of a bui7din ermit issuance.
Part of the motion was the list af concerns that the board voice :That a satis-
factory_so1ution to fire access be obtained, that trees remain on the east,
concern af the 16 foot bus access on the northeast cnrner, the location of the lobb
with res ect to the entrance, and the fact that service and deliver vehicles
~ crossed the pedestrian way. The vote was 3. t0 3 with, Ra.pson, ponovan and 7rout
voti ng aQai nst. .
• PEC -3- 3/2/84
,
4. Re uest to amend Section 18.26.045 F b addin a new ara ra h 5 to
• provide for an earlier deadline for exterior a7teration and modificatian
~ Dick Ryan stated that the purpose of the amendment was to give the property
owners in Lionshead an opportunity to app1y for aTterations earlier than usuai,
and hopefully coordinate their efforts with the mall construction. Same af
the PEC fe7t that this should have been done even eariier.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve.the request and forward it to Town
- ,
Council. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
5. Request to convert the Crest Hotel an Lot 1, Uail Lionshead 2nd Filing, to candominiums_fol1awing Section 77.26 of the Subdivision Regulations.
App7icant: Sun Vail, inc.
Peter Patten stated that after the iast meeting, there was much confusian as
fi.o whether or not the applicant would cont-inue to try to buy the Crest. Patten
was told by the owner to table the item until March 12, and Patten added that
he would prefer to do this, rather than abandon the prflject at this time.
Viele moved and Rapson seconded to table until March 12, 7984. The vate was
6-0 i n favor,
~ The meeting was adjourned at 5:00 pm.
~
i
I
;
I
,
~ I
~ MEMORANDUM -
~ February 23, 1984 Corrected 2/29J$4
T0: Planntng and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department ,
SllBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request to establish a
special development district for the purpose of redeveloping
the Sannenalp Hote7 7ocated at 242 East Meadow Drive to allow
additional accomrnodation units and commerciai space.
Applicant: 5annena7p at Uail
BAC KG ROUfV D:
Qn November 22, 1982 the Community Development Department received a ietter -From
Sill Ruoff regarding the propased redevelopment of the Sonnenalp property.
At that time the request was an invitation for a joint study of the property
and surrounding area so that there could be pub7ic and private improvements
to Vail ViTlage. Some meetings have been held with the architect, and the
plan refiects same of the comments.
~ On October 10, 1983 there was a study session with the Planning and Environmental
Commission. Several areas of concern have been addressed in the revised proposa7.
RE( U~EST
The request is to rebui7d the Sonne'nalp Hotel with atotal of 65 accommodatian
units, manager's and owner's units, retail space, a restaurant and a bar. In
addition, there would be an outc#oor swimming pool, spa artd back of the house
space.
STATISTICS EXTSTING
S7te area 24,092.7 square feet
5ite coverage 35.4%
Site density 37.9 urtits per acre
Accommodation units 39 a 249 sq ft GRFA
DweTling units 2@ 1,900 sq ft GRFA
• Retail 600 sq ft
Restaurant kitchen 994 sq ft
Sonnanalp -2- 2/23/84
.
Restaurant dining 455 sq ft
Bar 105 sq ft ~
Lounge 700 sq ft
Spa 630 sq ft
STATISTICS PROPOSED
Site area 24,092.7 square feet
Site coverage 71%
Site density 62.5 units per acre
Accommodation units 65 = 28,595 sq ft GRFA
Dwelling units 2= 1,624 sq ft GRFA
Retail 3,613 str,eet levei, 2191 basement .retail 5torage
Restaurant icitchen 2,700 sq ft
Restaurant dining 1,877 sq ft
Bar 1,170 sq ft
Lounge 1,300 sq ft
5pa 1,741 sq ft
Meeting room 565 sq ft is part of a hote1 room that ~
can be used for meetings
ANALYSIS OF PROPQSRL
First, there will be an ana7ysis of the Urban Design Guide Plan suh area concepts.
They are basica]1y the same as presented in a memorandum ta the Planning and Environmental Commission on October 10, 1984. Secand, will be an analysis
of the site, Third, will be a discussion af ather factors that impact the.
site.
~
Sannena7p -3- 2/23/84
VAIL VILLAGE URSAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
~ Even though the Sonnenalp property is not in Commercia1 Core I zone district,
it was part of the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan. 5pecific sub-area
concepts are part of and surraund the site.
24. Future study of potentiai and desirabi7ity af below-grade parking
with open space and/ar building expansion above to further reinforce
pedestrian connection.
This sub-area concept specifica3ly addresses the Sonnenalp property.
At the time of the appravaT of the Urban Design Guide Plan there was
no specific proposa7 discussed. The Community Develapment Department
and consultant did see the potential for first floor commercia1 shops,
pedestrian walkways and landscaping for improved pedestrian circulation
along East Meadow Drive. The purpose was to have Vail Village an even
more successful pedestrian village. Tourists would have the opportunity
to walk out of the Vail Transpartation Center and have two inviting
opportunities. First, to continue into the main part of the village
through the covered bridge, and second to be attracted to the shops
going west aiong East Meadow Drive to Village Center commercial shops,
then to Crossroads, the Vafl Village Inn commercial shops or south
to the main part of VaiT Viliage. The pedestrian counterflow wou7d
aTso be an inviting walk for the tnurist.
. ZO.. Separation of two-lane bus route from traffic circle by means of earth-
formed buffer to reduce bus/auto conflicts at peak traffic periods.
Private land encroachment necessary.
The dedication of Zand for the possibility of th7s destgn consideration
has taken place with the approva3 for new shops at the east end of
the Village Center building. Detailed design and capital improvements
funding has not been approved at this time. If approved, the app7icant
shau3d partic7pate with the other property owners in this impravement.
21. L7mited commerciai expansion - one story. Infii7 commerciaT possibi7ity
to draw pedestrians both east and west aiong East Meadow Drive, which
with other improvements he1ps complete the pedestrian 7oop to the Village
cora. Low building, in fareground of tal1er building ta sauthwest,
wi71 not encraach into view corridor. Facades/entries on narth and
northeast sides.
22. Roof-top/focal point over parking garage. Dense p7anting bed as backdrop
for low-maintenance feature area paved open space. Benches, lighting,
portable planters, and focal point serve as foreground to mountain
v7ews, and open space node on pedestrian path.
These sub-area concepts were part af the Village Center proposal on
the east end af their parking structure. There is a praposai under
consideration for an expansion of commercial space in this area which
~ the P7anning and Environmental Commissian will review in March.
Sonnenalp -4- 2/23/84 "
,23. Separated pedestrian walk in public R.O.W. (by narrowing bus lane), ~
with barder planting to screen parking and make attractive connection
to Covered BrTdge Plaza.
This sub-area cancept has a7so been shown an the Sonnena]p proposal.
After some discussion with the Public Works and Transportation departments
the best solution is ta have an exclusive bus lane that goes the entire
1ength of the property with a pedestrian walk along the south side
of East Meadow arive. AUinimum of twenty four feet in.width is required
for the bus Tane. Final design would need to be worked out with the
Pub1ic Works Department. Alsa shown along £ast Meadow'Drive is a covered
pedestrian arcade which would be on Town of Vai1 property. ,If approved,
an agreement would'be -necessary to lease this property f.rom the Town and
to insure adequate maintenance and upkeep of the arcade.
. . , . In the plaza coming vut af the Transportation Center there are a1so
some modif-ications propased. First, a p7anter in the middle of East
Meadow ma77 on the west end would be removed, 7'he reasfln is that it
could not remain,as the area between the arcade and p7anter would be
too narrow for a bus ta pass through.
5ecand, the bus shelter on the south side of East Meadow prive would
be remaved. A new smaTler bus shelter is proposed to the east of thc
current shelter. There would a1so be modifications to the landscaping
and paving in the plaza area.
4n the north side of Last Meadaw Drive is a proposed change ta the ~
bus shelter 7oca-tfon. The change was recammended by the Transportatton
department of the Town.
In order for this proposed development to function properly, many of
these improvements would need to be done. 'fhe staff can see that a11 of
improvements mentioned above should be done by the app7icant with the
exception of the relocated bus she7ter on the north side af East Meadow
Qrive.
DESIGN CONSIRERATTONS
The site daes not come under the Vail Village Design Consideratiarts, since
those were anTy approved for Commerc9al Core I zone district. Some af the
design consid2rations c!o definitely apply for tI3'15 site:
Pedestrianization
As noted in the Design Cartsiderations: "A>> new ar expansian construction
shau3d anticipate the appropriate ieve] of pedestrianization adjacent to
the site. A major objective for Vai7 Ifil1age is to encaurage pedestrian
circulation thraugh an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ~
.
• ' Sonnenalp -5- 2/23/84 ~
• i
I
ways. Many of the impravements recognized in the Urban Des7gn Guide P1ans
~ and accompanying Des7gn Consideratians, are to reinforce artd expand the
qua7ity --of pedestrian walkways through the ViTiage."
Also, "Separated pedestrian walks where street width and traf-Fic volume ~
(trucics, shutt7e buses, etc.) preclude joint vehic]e/pedestrian use of
the roadway. "
The proposa1 does dramatical7y improve pedestrianization in the area and
meets a major abjectYVe for Vai1 V731age ta encourage pedestrian circulation
throughout an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways.
Vehicle Penetration
8y maving the bus control gate, there should be a reduction in vehicle
penetration. One critica7 e7ement in that area wouTd be canstruction of
the exclusive bus lane and turn-around noted in sub-area concept No. 20.
Th7s should be canstructed at the same time as the Sonnena7p if it is approved.
Amini--impravement district possibly could be estabiished to do this improvement.
Mflving the gate should be the responsibiiity of the Town of Vail.
Streetscape Framework
The Design Considerations state: "To improve the quality of the walking
~ experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system,
two genera7 types of improvements adjacent to the wa7kways are considered:
1. Open space and landscaping--berms, grass, fTowers and tree planting ,
as a sof't, co7orfu7 framework 7inkage aiang pedestrian routes; and plazas
and parlc green spaces as open nades and focaT points along those routes.
2. Infill commercial storefronts--expansion of existing bui1dings, ar new
infi7] development ta create new commercial activity generators ta give
street life and visual interest, as attractians at Ecey locations along
pedestrtan routes."
We consider that the proposal meets both considerations mentioned above.
5treet Enc7osure
Because there is a landscaped berm for the parktng structure to the north,
there is a sense of street enclosure with this proposa7. It sti77 wouid
be w7thin the acceptable enclasure rat3o.
Street Edge
The arcade is a concept that has been used at Crassroads. With the landscape
path and bui7d-ing front change, there is a much more pos3tive street edge
with this praposal.
~ .
r,
Sonnenalp -6- 2123184
Views
~
No designated view corridor is over the Sanenalp. There is a view corri-
dor ta the east of the szte over the main part of Vail Vi7lage.
Service and Delivery
Propased is a service and de7ivery area on the west end of the site. The
Sonnenalp and east end af the Village Center shops would use the new service
and delivery area.
ANALYSIS OF USES
R~5'IDENTIAL USE
PA EXISTING pROPOSED
Z0NING ON SI7E
GfiFA in square feet 79,274 11,472 30,219 ~
Accommodat7an urtits 39 65
Dwe]ling units 2 2
Units total 14 21.5 34.5
Note; Two accammadation units equals one dwelling unit
A major concern of the staff is sti71 aTlflwing a substantial number of additionai
accommadation units withaut criteria with which to evaiuate the propasal. In
October the same cancern was noted by staff. We have actual1y spent a great
deal of time working on deveiaping criteria. Just last Tuesday we presented
a proposal ta the Tawn Council and the Planning and Environmentai Commission.
7hey cansidered more work needed to be done in refining number, criteria and
des7gn considerations. A1so, a detailed site by site anaiysls needs ta be
dane to determine and understand impacts. We are not opposed necessarily to
this proposa] but we do not have a reasonab]e set of guidelines and criteria
with which to judge the request.
~
Sonnenalp -7- 2/23/84
.
• COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTZNG
Currently there is a ski shop of 600 square feet and a restaurant/bar af 660
square feet.
PROP05ED
The restaurant/bar would be expanded to approximately 3,047 square feet of space.
New f3rst f1oor commercial of appraximately 3,613 square feet would be along East
Meadow Drive. Again, this was proposed in the Vairt Vil7age Urban Design Guide
Plan. In addition, in the basement there is a potentia7 of 2„191 square feet
of-_leased storage space: .
The residential and commercial uses encompass a major part of the structure.
Support faci7ities and the spa are the ather types of uses in the building.
PROPOSED BUILDING
If approved, the present Sonnenalp Hote7 would be demolished, and a completely
new structure wou7d be built. The new bui7ding height along East Meadow
Drive would be 43 feet. The east height is 47 feet, while the south and west
carner is 57 feet in height.
~ Along the north eleVdt30n on East Meadow Drive there is very gaod arttcu7ation
with the stepping back and farth of the facade. The arcade and changes ta
the west end of -the site actually form a facade that should be a comfartable
walking experience tar the pedestr3an.
Along the east side of the building the arcade and one story stube part of
the restaurant should pravide good reTief fram the 47 -feet in height of the
main part of the bui7ding. Apossib7e Design Review Board issue mlght be
to look at more windows on the main part of the building in this area.
The south elevation wiZl not be viewed fram many public spaces. 7he exception
being the southwest corner which can be seen fram the park by Mariachi's restaur-
ant. This area is 57 feet in height and there is a definite impact fram a
pub1ic space.
The Tyrolean architecture is very compatible with design considerations develaped
for the Vai7 Village Commercial Core i zoning area.
PARKING
On site are two guest loading stalls. All long term parking wou7d be
in the Vail Village Transportation Center. Since there is a recent policy
to permit parkirtg on the frontage road when the parking structure is fu11,
. there seems to be no conflict witn a11 permanent long term parking being in
the structure or on the frontage road. The applicant would be required to
pay the applicable parking fee,.and receive a parking excepption from the
T'own Counci7.
x.
Sonnenalp -8- 2/23/84
RECONiMENDATION ~
At thi s time the staff cannot recommend apprava], even though there are many
pasitive aspects with the prnposal. Concerns of the staff are permitting addztivnaT
accommodation units and gross residential floor area without guidelines and
criteria. Second, a cancern with providing no Zong term parking on s7te. Third,
a cancern with the height af the southwest corner of the buz1ding and the view
from the pubiic space by NEariachT's restaurant.
Once the criteria and design guidelines are deveioped to eva7uate all lodges,
we would 6e abZe to evaluate this proposal in greater detail. The current
method of a]lowing Special Development Distr7cts withoUt these eiements must
change to reflect impacts on the community regarding uses and design.
. 40
~
>
i C
MEMORANDUM
February 23, 1984 ' . .
T0: Pianning and Environmental Commission
FRONi: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Pub1ic hearing and consideration of a request to establish a
special deve7opment district for the purpose of redeveloping
the Sonnenaip Wotel 7ocated at 242 £ast Meadow Drive to allow
additional accommodation units and commercial space.
Appl3cant: Sonnenalp at Vail
BACKGROUND:
On November 22, 1982 the Community Deve1opment Department received a 7etter from
Bill Ruoff regarding the praposed redevelopmettt of the 5onnenalp property.
! At that time the request was an inv7tation for a joint study of the praperty
; and surrounding area so that there cou7d be pub7ic and private improvements
~ to Vai1 Village. Some meetings have been held with the architect, and the
plan reflects same of the camments.
On October 10, 1983 there was a study session with the PTanning and Environmentai
. Commission. Severa7 areas of concern have been addressed in the revised proposal.
REQUEST
The request is to rebuiid the Sonnenalp Hote7 with a tota7 of 65 accommodation
units, manager's and owner's tanits, retai7 space, a restaurant and a bar. Tn
addition, there would be an autdoor swimming poo7, spa and back of the house
space.
STATTSTICS FXISTING
Site.area 24,092.7 square -Feet
Site coverage 35.4%
Site density 37,9 units per acre
Accommodation units 39 @ 249 sq ft GRFA
Dweiling units 2@1,900 sq ft GRF'A
, Retail 600 sq ft
Restaurant k7tchen 994 sq ft
Sannenalp -2- 2/23/84
Restaurant dining 455 sq ft
. 8ar 105 sq ft
Lounge 700 sq fit
Spa 630 sq ft
STATISTICS PROPOSED
Site area 24,092.7 square feet
5ite coverage 71%
Site density 62.5 units per acre
Accommodation units 65 = 28,595 sq ft GRFA
Dwe1ling units 2} 1,624 sq ft GRFA
Retail 3,613 street level, 2197 basement retail or storage
Restaurant kitchen 2,700 sq ft
Restaurant dining I~Y`I,~ sq ft
Bar 1,170 sq ft
Lounge 1 , 300 sq ft
Spa 1,741 sq ft
~ Meet9ng room 565 sq ft is part of a hotel room that
can be used fnr meetings
ANALYSIS 0F PROPOSAL
First, there will be an analys9s of the Urban Design Gu1de Plan sub area concepts.
They are basically the same as presented in a memorandum to the Planning and
Environmental Commission on October 10, 1984. Second, wiTl be an ana7ysis
of the site. Third, wi11 be a discussion of other factors that impact the
site.
~
I
i
p -3- 2/23/84
Sonnenal
VAIL VILl.RGE URSAN ~]ESIGN CUIQE PLRN
• Even though the Sonnena1p property is not in Commercial Gore I zone district,
it was part of the Vail Uii7age Urban Design Guide Plan. Specific sub-area
concepts are part of and surround the site.
24. Future study of potential and desirabil7ty of below-grade parking
with open space and/or building expansion above to -Further reinforce
pedestrian connection.
This sub--area concept specificaTly addresses the Sonnenalp property.
At the time of the approval of the Urban Design Guide P]an there was
no specific proposaZ discussed. The Community Deve7opment Department
and consultant did see the potential for first floor commerciaT shops,
pedestrian waTkways and landscaping for -improved pedestrian circu7ation
alang East Nfeadow Drive. The purpase was to have Vail Vil7age an even
more successful pedestrian village. 1'ourists would have the opportunity
to walk out of the Vail Transportation Center and have two inviting
opportunities. First, to continue into the main part of the village
through the covered bridge, and second ta be attracted to the shops
going west along East Meadow Drive to Village Center commercial shnps,
then to Crossroads, the Vail Village Inn commercTal shops or south
to the main part of Vail ViTlage. The pedestrian counterflow wouTd
al sa be an i nviti ng wal kfor the tDUY'7 St.
20. Separation of two-lane bus route from traffie circle by means of earth-
~ formed buffer to reduce bus/auto conflicts at pea[c traffic periods.
Private iand encroachment necessary.
The dedication of ]and far the possibility of this design consideration
has taken pl ace with the approvai for new s hops at the east end of
the Vi17age Center building. Detai1ed design and capital improvements
funding has nat been approved at this time. If approved, the appTicant
should participate witn the other property owners in this improvement.
21. Limited commercial expansion - one story. Tnfi11 commercia7 possibility
to draw pedestrians bath east and west alang East Meadow Drive, which
with other improvements helps camplete the pedestrian loop to the Viilage
core. Low building, in foreground of ta7ler building to southwest,
wi1i not encroach into view corridor. Facades/entries on north and
northeast sides.
22. Raof-top/focal point aver parking garage. Dense planting bed as backdrop
for 1ow-maintenance feature area paved open space. Benches, lighting,
portable p7anters, and focal point serve as foreground to mauntain
views, and open space node on pedestrian path.
These sub-area concepts were part of the Vi71age Ceriter proposal on
the east end of their parking structure. There is a proposal under
consideration for an expansion of commercial space in this area whlch
i the Planning and Enviranmental Commission will review in March.
i
SonnenaTp -4- 2/23/84
23. Separated pedestrian walk in pubiic R.O.W. (by narrowing bus lane),
• with barder planting to screen parking and make attractive connection
to Covered Bridge Plaza.
7his sub-area concept has aiso been shown on the Sannenartp proposal.
Rfter some discussion with the Public Warks and Transportation departments
the best solution is to have an exclusive bus 7ane that goes the entire
7ength of the property with a pedestrian wa7k along the south side
of East Meadow Drive. A minimum af twenty four feet in width is required
for the bus lane. Final design would need to be worked out with the
Public Works Department. Also shown along East Meadnw Drive is a covered
pedeE~trian arcade which would be on Town of Uail proPerty. If appraved,
an agreement would be necessary to lease this property from the Town and
to insure adequate maintenance and upkeep of the arcade.
In the plaza coming out of the Transportation Center there are also
some modifications praposed. First, a planter in the middle of East
Meadow ma11 on the west end would be removed. The reason is that it
could not remain,as the area between the arcade and planter would be
toa narrow for a bus to pass thraugh.
Second, the bus shelter an the sauth side af East Meadow Drive would
be removed. A new smaller bus shelter 75 proposed ta the east of the
current shelter. There would ajsa be madifications to the landscaping
and paving 7n the plaza area.
~ On the north side of East Meadow Drive is a proposed change to the
bus sheTter lacation. The change was recommended by the Transportation
department of the Town.
In order far this proposed deveIopment to function proper1y, many of
these impravements would need to be done. The staff can see that all of
improvements mentioned above shouid be done by the applicant with the
exception of the re7ocated bus she3ter on the narth side of East Meadow
Drive.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
7he site does not come under the Vail Village Design Gonsiderations, since
those were anly approved far Commerciai Core T zone district. Some of the
design consideratTOns do definitely apply for this site:
Pedestrian7zation
As noted in the Design Cansiderations: "A1T new ar expansion construction
should anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to
the site. A major objective for Vaii Village is ta encourage pedestrian
circu1ation through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian
.
` Sonnenalp -5- 2/23/84
ways. Many of the improvements recognized in tho llrban Design Guide P]ans
• and accompanying Design Considerations, are to reinforce and expand the
qual i ty --of pedestrian wa7 kways through the Vi 11 age. "
Also, "Separated pedestrian walks where street width and traffic valume
(trucfcs, shuttle buses, etc.) preclude joint vehicie/pedestrian use of
the raadway."
The proposal does dramatically improve pedestrianization in the area and
meets a major object7ve for Vail Viilage to encnurage pedestrian circu7ation
throughout an interconnected netwark of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways.
Vehicle Penetration
By moving the bus contro7 gate, there shou7d be a reduction in vehicle
penetration. One eritica1 element in that area would be construction of
the exclusive bus lane and turn-around noted in sub-ar.ea concept No. 20.
This should be constructed at the same time as the Sonnenalp if it is approved.
A mini--impravement district possibly could be estabiished to do th-is -improvement.
Mov3ng the gate should be the respons7bility of the Town of Vail.
Streetsca e Framework
The Design Considerations state: "To improve the quality of the walking
experience and give continuity ta the pedestrian ways, as a continuous system,
. two genera7 types of improvements adjacent to the walkways are considered:
1. Open space and ]andscaping--berms, grass, flowers and tree p1anting
as a soft, calorfu7 framework iTnkage along pedestrian routes; and plazas
and park green spaces as apen nodas and focal points along those routes.
2. Inf i 7l commerci al storefronts--expans-i on of existing bui 7 di ngs, or new
infill development ta create new commercial activity generatars to give
street lifeand visuaZ interest, as attractions at key 1ocations a1ong
pedestrian routes."
We consider that the proposal meets both consideratians mentivned abave.
Street Enciosure
Because there is a Tandscaped berm for the parking structure ta the north,
there is a sense of street enclasure with this proposal. It sti73 would
be wzthTn the acceptable enclosure ratio.
5treet Edge
T'he arcade is a concept that has been used at Crossroads. With the landscape
path and bui1ding front change, there is a much more positive street edge
with this proposa7.
~
I ' Sonnenalp -6- 2/23/84
Views
No designated view corridor is over the Sonenalp. There is a view corri-
dor to the east of the site over the main part of Vail Viilage.
Service and Deiiver
~ Proposed is a service and delivery area on the west end of the site. The
; Sonnenalp and east end of the Vi13age Center shops would use the new service
! and delivery area.
ANALYSTS OF USES
RESIDENTIAL USE
pA EXTSTING pROPOSED
ZONING 0N SITE
GRFA in square feet 19,274 11,472 30,219
. Accommodation units 39 65
flwelling units 2 2
Units tota7 14 21.5 34.5
: Note: Two accammodation units equals ane dwelling unit
~
A major concern of the staff is stiiT allowing a substantial number of additianal
accommodation units w3thaut criteria with which to evaluate the proposal. Tn
October the same concern was noted by staff. We have actually spent a great
dea3 of time working an developing criterla. Just last Tuesday we presented
a proposal tn the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission.
They considered more work needed to be done in refining number, criteria and
design consideratians. Alsa, a detailed site by site analysis needs to be
done to determine and understand impacts. We are not oppased necessari1y to
this proposa7 but we do not have a reasonabie set af guidelines and criteria
with which to judge the request..
~
Sonnenalp -7- 2/23/84
,
~ COMMERCIAL L1SE
E?(ISl'ING
Currently there is a ski shap of 600 square feet and a restaurant/bar of 1504
square feet.
PROPOSED
The restaurant/bar would be expanded to approximate7y 1,877 square feet of space.
New f3rst floor commerciaT of approximately 3,613 square feet would be along East
Meadow Drive. Again, this was propased in the Vail Vi71age Urban Design Guide
Plan. In addition, in the basement there is a potential of 2,191 square feet
for commercia7 space or leased storage space.
The residential and commercial uses encompass a major part of the structure.
Support faci7ities and the spa are the other types of uses in the building.
PROPOSED BUILDTNG
If approved, the present Sonnena1p Hotei wauld be demo7ished, and a completely
new structure would be bui1t. The new building height along East Meadow
Drive would be 43 feet. The east height is 47 feet, while the south and west
carner is 57 feet in height.
~ A7ong the north elevation on East Meadow Drive there is very good articulation
with the stepping back and farth of the facade. 1'he arcade and changes to
the west end of the site actually form a facade that should be a comfartable
walking experience for the pedestrian.
Along the east side of the building the arcade and one story stube part of
the restaurant should provide good relief frvm the 47 feet in height of the
main part of the building. A possib3e Design Review 8oard issue might be
to look at mare windows on the main part of the buildtng in this area.
The south e7evation wili not be viewed from many pub7ic spaces. The exception
being the southwest corner which can be seen from the park by Mariachi's restaur-
ant. This area is 57 feet in height and there 7s a definite impact from a
public space.
The 7'yro1ean architecture is very compatible with design cansiderations developed
for the Vai7 Vi71age Commercial Core I zoning area.
PARKING
On site are twa guest ]aading stalis. Ai] long term parking would be
in the Vail V-i7Tage T'ransportation Center. Since there is a recent pol3cy
to permit parking on the frontage road when the parking structure is fu71,
~ there seems to be no cortf7ict with a17 permanent iong term parking being in
the structure or on the frontage road. The applicant wou7d be required to
pay the applicable parking fee,.and receive a parking excepptiQn from the
Town Council.
. •
~ 5onnenaTp -8- 2/23/$4
RECOMMENDATION
• At this time the staff cannot recommend approvai, even though there are many
pasitive aspects with the praposal. Concerns af the staff are permitting additiona7
accommodation units and gross residential floor area wzthout guidelines and
criteria. Secand, a concern with praviding no long te rn parking on site. Third,
a concern with the height of the southwest corner of the buiiding and the view
from the public space by Mariachi's restaurant.
Once the criteria and design guideiines are developed ta evaluate a3I 7adges,
we would be able to evaiuate this proposa1 in greater detail. The current
method of allowing Special Development aistricts without these elements must
change to reflect impacts on the community regarding uses and design.
.
~
.
MEMQRANDUM - -
~ February 23, 7984 Corrected 2/29/84
7p; Pianning and Environmenta7 Commissian
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department _
SUSJECT: Public hearing and cans7deration of a request ta establish a
~ special dev2loprnent district for the purpose af redeveloping
the Sonnenalp Hoiel lacated at 242 East Meadow Drive to allow
additional accoumodation units and commercial space.
Appiicant: Sonnenaip at Vai7
BACKGROUND: On November 22, 1982 the Community Development Department received aletter from
Bill Ruoff regarding the proposed redevelopment of the Sonnena3p property.
At that time the request was an invitation far a joint study of the property -
and surraunding area so that there could be public and private improvenients
ta VaiT Vi7lage. Some meetings have been heid with the architect, and the
plan reflects some of ihe comments.
~ On October 10, 1983 there was a study 5e55i0n with the P1anning and Environmental
COmmisSi4n. Sev2ral areas of concern have been addressed in the revised proposa7.
REQUEST
The request is to rebuild the 5onnenalp Hote1 with atotal of 65 accommodation
units, manager's and owner's units, retail space, a restaurant and a bar. Xn
addition, tnare would be an outdoor sw~mi-ning poa1, spa and back of the house
space.
STATISTICS EXISTING
Site area 24,092.7 square feet
Site coverage 35.4%
Site den5ity 37.9 units per acre
Accommodation units 39 a 249 sq ft GRFA
~ Dwelling units 2@1,900 sq ft GRFA
Reta31 600 sq ft
Restaurant kitchen 994 sq ft
Sonnenalp -2- 2/23/$4 •
Restaurant dining 455 sq ft ~
• Bar 105 sq ft
Lounge 700 sq ft
Spa 630 sq ft
STATISTTCS PROPOSED
Site area 24,092.7 square feet
Site coverage 71%
Site density 62.5 units per acre
Accommodation units 65 = 28,595 sq ft GRFA
Dwe7ling units 2= 1,624 sq ft GRFA
Retail 3,613 street level, 2197 basement reta3l 5torage
Restaurant icitchen 2,700 sq ft
Restaurant dining 1,877 sq ft
Sar " 1,170 sq fit
Lounge 7,300 sq ft ,
Spa 1,741 sq ft
i Meeting room 565 sq -Ft is part ot ahatel raom that ~
can be used for meeti ngs
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL
First, there w31l be an analysis of the Urban Design Guide Plan sub area concepts.
They are basically the same as presented in a memorandum to the Planning and Environmental Carnmissian on October 10, 1984. Second, will be an analysis
af the site. Third, will be a discussion of other €actors that impact the
site.
.
' Sonn2nalp -3- 2/23/84
VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUiDE PLAN
~ Even though the Snnnenalp property is not in Commercia1 Core I zone district,
it was part of the Va31 Village Urban DeSign Guide Pian. Specific suh-arna
concepts are part of and surraund the site.
24. Future 5tudy of potential and desirabiTity of below-grade parking
with open space and/ar building EXp3n51fln above to further re7nfOrC2 _
pedestrian connection.
This sub-area concept specifica71y addresses the Sannenalp property.
At the time of the approva7 of tne Urban pesign Guide Plan there was
no specific proposal discussed. The Community Development Department
and consultant did see the potential for first floor commercial shops,
pedestrian walkways and landscaping for improved pedestrian circulation
alang East Meadaw Dr3ve. The purpose was to have Vail Village an even
mare $uccessfu7 pedestrian vil3age. Tourists wauld have the opportunity
ta walk out of the Vai7 iranspfl rtation Cente.r and have two inviting
opportunities. First, to continue into the main part of the village
thraugh the covered bridge, and second to be attracted to the 5hpp5
going west along East Meadow Drive to Village Center commercial shops,
• then to Crossroads, the Vail Village Inn comnercial shops or south
to the main pat°t of-Vail Village. The pedestrian counterflow would
aiso be an inviting walk for the taurist. ~ 20.. Separatian of two-lane bus route from traffic circle by means of earth-
formed buffer to reduce bus/auto conflicts at peak traffic periods.
Private 1and encroachment necessary.
The dedication of land for the possibility of this design consideration
has taken place with the approvai for new shops at th2 east end of
the Village Center building. Deiaiied design and capita7 improvements
funding has not been appraved at this time. if approved, the applicant
should participate with the other property owner5 in this improvement.
21. Limited commercial expansion - one story. Infili commercial possibility
to draw pedestrians both east and ;vest along East Meadow Orive, which
with ather impravements helps complete the pedestrZan loop to the Village
cflre. Low building, in foreground of tal7er building to southwest,
will not encroach into view corridor. Facades/entries an north and
nartheast sides.
22. Roof-top/focal point over parking garage. Dense plant3ng bed as backdrop
for low-maintenance feature area paved open space. Benches, iighting,
portable p7anters, and foca7 point serve as foregrQUnd ta mauntain
views, and open space node on pedestrian path.
These sub-arEa concepts were part af the Village CeniLr propasal on
the east end of their parking structure. There is a proposal under
con5ideration for an expansion of commerciai space in this area which
~ the P1anning and Lr-nvironmenta] Co :r,ission wili revieSN in March.
Sonnenalp -4- 2/23/84 •
23. Separated pedestrian walk in public R.O.W. (by narrowing bus lane), ~
; with border p7anting to screen parking and make attractive connection
to Covered Bridge Plaza.
This sub-area concept has also been shawn on the Sannenalp propo5al.
Rtter some d1SCU55tOn with the Public Works and Transportatian departments
the best solution is to have an exclusive bus lane that goes the entire
7ength of the praperty with a pede5trian wa7k along the sauth side
of East Meadow Drive. R minimum of twenty four feet in width is required
for the bus lane. Final design would need to be worked out with tne
Pubiic Works Department. Also shown along East Meadow Drive is a cavered
pedestrian arcade which wauld be on Tawn af Uail property. If approved,
an agreenient would,be necessary to lease this property from the 7own and
to insure adequate maintenance and upkeep of the arcade.
In the plaza coming out of the Transportation Center there are aiso
some modifications proposed. First, a planter in tra middle ofi East
- Meadow mall on the west end wouid be removed. The reason is that it
could not remain,as the area 6etween the arcade and p7anter would be
tao narrow for a bus ta pass through.
Secand, the bus shemJter on the south side of East Meadow Qrive wou7d
be removed. A new smaller bus sheiter is praposed to the east nf the
current sheTter. There would a1so be mad3fications to the landscaping
and paving in the piaza area. ~ On the north side of East Meadow Drive is a praposed change ta the ~
bus she7ter location. The change was recommended by the Transportation
department of the Town.
In order for this proposed development ta function properly, many of
these improvements would need to be dane. The staff can see that all of
improvements mentioned above should be done by the app7icant with the
exception of the relocated bus she7ter on the north side of East Meadow
Drive.
DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
The 5ite does nat come under the Vail Village Design Considerations, since
those were oniy approved far CoMmerc7a7 Cnre I zane district. Some of the
design considerations do deTinite7y app7y for this site:
Pedestrianization
As noted in the Design Considerations: "A11 new or expansion constructian
should anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianfzation adjacent to
thE site. A major objective for Uaii Village is to encaurage pedestrian
• circulation through an interconnected network of safe, pieasant pedestrian
' Sannenalp -5- 2/23/84
ways. Many of the improvements recognized in the llrban Design Guide P7ans
~ and accomp3nying Design Consideratians, are to reinforce and expand the
quaTity of pedestri an walklvays through the Vil7age."
A1so, "Separated gedestrian wa]ks where street width and traff7c vo7ume
(trucks, shuttle buses, etc.) preclude joint vehic]e/pedestrian use of
the roadway,"
The proposal does dramatical7y imprnve pedestrianization in the area and
meets a majar objective far Vail Vil7age ta encourage pedestrian circulation
thraughnut an intercannected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways.
Vehicle Penetration
By moving the bus control gate, there shou7d be a reduct7on 7n vehicle
penetration. One critical element in that area would be construction of
the exclusive bus lane and turn-araund noted in sub-area concept No. 20.
This should be constructed at the same time as the Sonnenalp if it is approved.
Aminz-improvement district possibly cauld be established to do this improvement.
Moving the gate shouTd be the respansibi3ity of tne Town af Vaii.
Streetsca_pe F'ramewor#c
The Qesign Cansideratlons state: "To improve the qua7ity o-F the walking
~ experience and give continuity to the pedestrian ways, as a cont7nuaus system,
two genera7 types of improvements adjacent ta the walkways are considered:
l. Open space and 7andscaping---berms, grass, flowers and tree planting
as a soft, co1orfu7 framework 17nltage along pedestrian routes; and plazas
and park green spaces as open nodes and foca7 points aiong those routes.
2. Infill coinmerciai storefronts---expansion of existing bui1dings, or new
infill deveTapment to create new commereia7 aCtivity generators to give
street iife and visual interest, as attractions at key locations a7ong
pedestrian routes."
We consider that the proposal meets both consideratians mentianed above.
Street EnclosUre
Because there is a landscaped berm for the parktng structure ta the north,
there is a sense of street enclasure with this proposal. It sti71 would
be within the aceeptable enc7osure ratio.
Street Ed .ce
The arcade is a concept that has been used at Crossraads. With the landscape
path and buiTding front cnange, there is a much more pasitive street edge
with this proposal.
~
~
Sonnenaip -6- 2/23/84 .
.
Views
t11%
• No designated view corridor is aver the Sanenalp. There is a view corrl--
dar to the east of the site over the main part of Vail Vii7age.
Service and De1ivery
Proposed is a service and delivery area on the west end of the s9te. The
Sanrzenalp and east end of the Vi7lage Center shops would use the new service
and deiivery area.
ANALYSIS OF USES
RESIDENTIAL USE -
PR EXISTING pROPOSEQ
ZONING 0N SITE ~
GRFA in square feet 19,274 11,472 30,219
~ Accommodation units 39 65
Dwe7ling units 2 2
Units total 14 21.5 34.5
Note: Two accommadatSon units equa7s one dwe1ling unit
A major concern of the staff is stil7 allowing a substantial number of additional
accommadation units without criteria with which to evaluate the proposai. In
October the same concern was noted 6y staff, We have actually spent a great
dea3 of time working on deveioping criteria. Just last Tuesday we presented
. a proposal to the Town Council and the Planning and Environmental Commission.
They considered more work needed ta be done in refining number, criteria and
design considerations. Also, a detailed site by site analysis needs ta be
dflne to determine and understand impacts. We are nat appased necessarily ta
this proposal but we da not have a reasonable set of guidelines and crifi.eria
with which to judge the request..
~
" Sonnenalp -7- 2/23/84
. •
. COMMERCIAL USE
EXISTiNG
Currently there is a ski shop of 640 square feet and a restaurant/bar of 660
square feet.
PROPOSED
The restaurant/bar would be expanded tQ appraximately 3,047 square feet of space.
New fir5t frtoar eommercial of approximateiy 3,613 square feet would be along East
Meadow Drive. Rga7n, this was proposed in the Vail Vi7lage Urban Design Guide
Plan. In addition, in the basement there is a potential of 2,191 square feet
of ieased storage.space. .
The residential and commercial uses encoinpass a major part of the structure.
Support facilit7es and the spa are the other types of uses in the buiiding.
PROPOSED BUTLQING
If approved, the present Sonnenalp Hotel wou7d be demolished, and a completeiy
new structure would 6e bui3t. The new bui1ding height along East Meadow
Drive would be 43 feet. The east height is 47 feet, whil-e the south and west
corner is 57 feet in height.
. Along the north eievatioro on East fleadow Drive there is very good articulatian
with the stepping back and forth of the facade. The arcade and changes to
the west end of the site actually form a facade that should be a comfortable
wa7king experTence for th2 pedestrian.
Along the east side of the buiiding the arcade and ane stary stube part of
the restaurant should provide good relief from the 47 feet in height of the
main part af the building. A possible Design Review Soard issue might be
to iooK at niore windows on the main part of the building in this area.
The south elevation wiTl not be viewed from many pub7ic spaces. The exception
being the southwest corner which can be seen fram the park by Mariachi's restaur-
ant. This area is 57 feet in height and there is a definite impact from a
public space.
The Tyrolean architecture is very compatible with design considerations developed
for the Vai] Ui71age Commercial Core I zoning area.
.
PARKING
On site are two guest loading sta7ls. A7T 7ang term park3ng wauld be
7n the Vail Village Transportation Genter. Since there is a recent policy
to permit parking on the frontage raad when the parking structure is full,
~ there seems to be no conflict with all permanent long term parking being in
the structure or on the frontage road. The appiicant would be required to
pay the applicable parking fee, and receive a parking excepption from the
7own Counci7.
.
Sonnenaip -8- 2/23/84 -
.
RECQMMENDA7IQN
• At this time the staff cannot recomsnend approval, even thaugh there are many
pasitive aspects with the proposal. Concerns of the staff are permitting additional
accominodation units and gross residential floor area witnout guide7ines and
criteria. Second, a concern with providing no long term parking on site. Third,
a concern with the hei ght a-f the sauthwest earner af the bui7 ding and the vi ew
from the public space by Marlachi's restaurant.
Once the criteria and design guidelines are develaped to evaluate all lodge5,
we wouTd be able to evaluate this prQposal in greater detail. T'he current
method of aliowing Speciai Deveiopment Distriets without these elements must
change to reflect impacts on the community reqat°ding uses anci design.
.
: ~
MEMORANDUM
~ February 29, 1984
7O: Town Councii
FROM: Community aeve1apment Department
SUBJECT: Con-Dents received by staff regarding why Planning and Environmental '
Commission members did nat suppart the Sonnenalp praposal.
Howard Rasan
1. f-lad no problem with the ciensity.
2. Felt the lobby should be closer to the parking spaces.
3. Felt that the applicant shauld pay the true cost of parking.
4, kie wanted to see fire access prablem to Building "A" of the Village Center
resolved (his major concern). This could create a majar prablem fior the Town
1 ater.
5. Feels bus lane width shouid be 24 feet.
Wi 7] Trout -
1. Feel that 12 or 13 conditions are too many to send the proposa1 to the
TOlVl1 COUnG1 l.
2. No problem with density on that partzcular site.
• 3. No prablem with bulk and mass on that site.
4. Should not have to pravide a great deal of parking, but felt that there
should be a 1ittTe more.
5. Opposed to removing trees along east side of the building.(They are on TOV property
6. Bus lane issue should be warked out now.
7. Fire separation between the Sannenaip and the VilTage Center cammercia1:
a. Must be sufficient to get inen and equipment safeTy through to get to
the Village Center condos.
b. What code Zmplicatians would -take place on the Vil7age Center cammercial
space because af eonnecting the Village Center commercial to the Sonnenalp?
Diana Donavan
l.~issues sti31 need ta be resolved before a recommendation of approval by
the PEC.
2. The applicant should pay the actual cost of parking.
3. 5ome more spaces needed on site.
4. Concerned about the number af trucks possibly caming to the site at one
time. May create some problems especially at the traffic circle.
5. Questions the amaunt af space in the bu3lding. Possibly take out some
commercial and leave anly enough to service the lodge. Question the size
of the kftchen and basement support facilities - the smaller the bui7ding
the better. If the.building were kept in the "hole" it would appear sma1ler.
6. Can see the point af 7arge roo3ns for this lodge.
7. L.ikes the existing bus lane is3and, as it hides the bus 7ane looking west.
~ (over)
.
~ 8. Concerned with tne loeation of the lobby with relatian to the two
check-in parking spaces.
9. Need to keep trees on the east side of the building.
10. There are two very 1arge trees that wi31 be impacted by the change in grade
above them and a new reta i ni ng wal l bel ow them.
11. Feels that the arcade protrudes too far 3nto the road.
~
~ '
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: P7anning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Cammuntty Deveiopment Department
DATE: February 9, 1984
SUBJECT: Variance request to construct a garage within a side setback
an Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Vi71age 8th Filing. Applicant: Michael Haipert
DESCRIPTION OF VARIRNCE
7he appTicant nas requested a side setback variance of 13.5 feet to construct
an "oversized" one car garage. The garage wouid be located 1.5 feet from the
property iine. The appifcant states that this is the most logical 1ocation on
his lat and would aTlow for the canstruct7on of a garage without havinq to remave
any existing mature tree cover.
CRZTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of Community Deve7opment recommends approval of the requested
variance based upan the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
~ The relationsh3 of the re uested variance to other existin or otential uses
and structures in the vic7nity.
The configuration of this lot and the Tocation of the existing residence leaves
anly two possible locations for a new garage that wiil not requlre the removal of
. any trees. Both of these locatans wauld require a setback variance. The proposed 7acation wou1d have 1ittTe impact on adjacent propertles and structures.
The awners of property located directly adjacent to the praposed structure have
submitted a letter stating that they da not object to this propasai and in fact
prefer it to one that would neCe557tate the remova7 0f any trees.
The_degree to which relief from the strict or literai interpretation and enforcement
of a s ecified re uiation is necessarto achieve cam~atibi1it and un~~t ~
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this
title witnout grant of specialprivileqe,
It has been the policy of the staff and of the P7anning and EnvironmentaT Cammtssiort
to attempt to encourage garages. In several instances setback variances have
been granted in order ta meet this goal. The z4ning code states that the purpose
of a variance is to lessen practieal diffieu7ties inconsistent with the ohjeet9ves
of the zoning code. The code aiso states that a practical difficulty may resuit
frorrt the size, shape ar dimensions of a site or the location of existing structures
upon the site. In this case the configuratian of the lot and tne location of
the existing house limit the possiblilities for locating the garage upon the
Y r
Halpert -2- 2/9/84 `
site, 7he proposed Zocation would have the least impact on the adjacent house
as we1l as an existing trees an the site. ~
~
The effect of the requested variance on liqht and a7r, distribut3on af population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public Fac9lities and uti11ties, and public
safet .
No impact.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the proposed
variance. ~ FINDIN.GS
The Planning and Environmental Cammissian sha11 make the faliowing findings before
granting a variance: ~
That the granting of the variance wiil not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on ather properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the vartance wiTl not be detrimentai ta the public hea]th,
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: ~
C The strict or literaT interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wou1d resuTt in practicaT difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this titTe.
There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or conditions appiicabie ta
the site of the variance that do not apply generaliy to other properties in the
same zone.
'fhe strict or Titera] interpretation and enforcement af the specTfied regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
S7RFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development tiepartment recommends approval of the requested variance.
Ttie,additian af garages has been seen as a positive improvement to the Town and
has been encouraged. To 7ocate the garage within the side setback is a preferred
alternative to a location that would require the removal of mature trees.
r
(
. ' f.,• n _
tl L .1 J ~i .
~7i
J'
, ~•,,f ~
CQ
, .t~ . 1 n ~ + ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
+ ~ ~r~. ~ . ? t
~ ti
~ la1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . rn
~ sti
-
n~
. .
MEMORANDUM
T0: P7anning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DA7E: March 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Request to convert the Crest Hotel to a condo-hoteI under Chapter
77.26 af the Subdivision Regulations. AppTicant: 5un Vail, Irtc.
THE PROPOSRL
The Crest Hotel, representing a11 734 accommodation units, lobby, recreation,
meettng, banquet and commercial areas is in the process of being acquired by
Sun Uail, Inc. There are 19 dweli3ng units in the building which already have
been candomzniumized which would be unaltered by the praposai. The propasa7
is to create a condo-hote7 (where each accommodation unit is sold off individually
and a condominium association runs the praperty) to accomplish two major objectives:
1. Ta "pravide the econom7c feasibility to overcome the indebtedness
of the Crest in its present state as a lodge;"
2. Ta "maintain its function as a 7odge" without any "effect on the present
status af service to its occupants."I
The applicants also state that this proposai wau3d be beneficiat to the Village
area by having the Crest resume its place in the cammunity as a first-ciass
lodging facility and afford them the economic ability to make it happen.
THE CRI1'ERIA . .
1'here are two sets of criteria for a hotei conversion ta condominiums: the
first set is found -in Section 17.26.080 (A)(B)(C) which are criteria for a17
condominium conversion projects in general and, secondTy, Section 77.26.075
which specifica77y addresses accommodation un3t conversions.
The foilawing are the criteria for a1] conversion prajects:
17.26.080 Action on Preliminary Map
A. At the hearing on the pre1iminary map, the Alanning and Environmental
Cammission shall consider whether the proposed canversion is consistent
w7th the foliowing housing goa7s of the town:
1. To encourage cantinuation of sflcial and economic diversity in the
town through a variety of housing types,
2. Ta expand the supply of decent housing for low and moderate income
families,
1• Letter to Richard Ryan from Carson Wrzght and Michael Storace (applicants) '
dated January m, 1984.
-Z- Crest - 3i7i84 s -
~
3. To achieve greater economic baTance for the town by increasing
the number of ,jobs and tne supply of hausing for people who wz]1 ~
- ho]d them.
B. The commission may require that a reasonable percentage of the converted
units be reserved far saie or rental to persons of moderate income.
C. The Pianning and Enviranmentai Commission may deny the tentative or
preliminary map upon.finding that:
1. Based b11 the information reqUired by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy
rate for rentaT housing, tenants wi11 have substantial difficuYty
in obtaining comparably priced rental housing. A rentai vacancy
rate below -Five percent based on the most recent town survey constitutes
a housing emergency situation.
2. 7he ratio of multiple-famiTy rentai units would be reduced to less
than twenty-f3ve percent of the total number of dwelling units .
in the Gore Va]ley, from Dawd Junction east to the base of Vai1
Pass, with na rep]acement rental housing being provided.
This set of criteria is obviously directed nat at condominium7zing
an hotel, but toward regulation in the reduction af,avaiiabie iow-
cast or employee housing. Thus, we wii] not evaiuate the proposa2
with regard to these criteria, as they are not applicable. The reasan
they're included in this memorandum is that the requirements and procedur(..
of the entire Chapter 17.25 must be compiied with for any condominium
canversian project, and there are ather sections of the general part
flf ths chapter wh7ch have been applied as requirements.
BeTow is the applicable section of our reguiat7ons applying to accommo- datifln unit conver5ions: 17.26.075 Candomium Conversion
Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit withirt the town sYtal]
comp7y with the requirements of this section. The requirements cantained
in thzs section shal1 nvt apply to structures or buildings which cantain two un7ts or less. - ~
- A. The requirements and restrjctians herein contained sha]1 be included in the condaminium deciaration for the project, and fiied of record with
the Eagi e Cocanfiy cl erk and recorder. The candomi ni um units created shai 1
remain in the shart term rental market to be used as temporary accammodationsavai7able to the general public.
1. An awner's personal use of his unit shalT be restricted t0 14 days
during the seasonal periods of December 15th through April 15th and
14 days during June 15tn through Secptember 15th. 7his seasonaT A.
period is hereinafter referred to as "high season." "Owner's personal
use" shali be defined as owner occupancy of a unit or nonpaying guest
of the owner or taking the unit Off the rentai market during ths
sea`sonal periods referred to herein for any reason other than necessary
0 -3-40 est 3/7/84
repairs which cannot be postponed or which make the unit unrehtable.
~ Occupancy of a unit by a lodge manager or staff employed by the ladge,
however, ShdTT not be restricted by this 5ection.
2. A vioTatian of the owner's use restrict3on by a unit owner shall
subject tne owner to a da51y assessment rate by the condominium asso-
ciation of three times a rate cansidered to be a reasonable daily
rental rate for the unit at tne time of the vioiation, which assessment
when paid shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium
association for use in upgrading and repairing the corrmon e]ements • of the condominiUms. AlI sums assessed against the owner far violatian
of the owner's personal use restriction and unpaid shall constitute
a lien far the benefit of the condominium association on that owner's
unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written notice pZaced of record
in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagle County, Colorado,
and whickmay be co7lected by foreciosure, on an owner's condominium
unit by the association in iike manner as a mortgage ar deed of trust
on real property. The cflndominium association`s failure to enforce
the owner's persanal use restriction shall give the town the right
to enfnrce the restriction by the assessment and the iien prnvided for hereunder. If the town enforces the restriction, the town shall
receive the funds coilected as a result of such enforcement. In
the event 1itigatian results from the enforcement of the restriction,
as part of its reward ta the prevai7ing party, the court shall award
such party its court costs tagether with reasonable attorney`s fees
incurred.
~ 3. The town shall have the right to require from the condominium association
an annual report of owner's personal use during the high seasons
for all converted condominium units.
B. Any Zodge located within the town which has converted accommadattnn units
to candominiums shall continue to provide custamary lodge faci1lties
and services including a customary marketing program.
C. The converted condominium units shall remain ava37ab7e to the genera7
tourtst market. This candttion may be met by inciusion of the units
of the candominium project, at camparab7e rates, in any loca7 reservation
system for the rental of lodge or condominium Units in the town.
E. Any accommodation units that were ut9lized to provide hausing far emp7oyees
at any time during the three years previous ta the data of the appiication
shall rema7n as employee units for such duratian as may be required by
the Planning and Environmental Corrunission or the Tawn Council.
F. Applicability: Aii conditions set forth within this section shall be
made binding on the applicant, the app7icant's successors, heirs, personal
representatives and assigns and shall govern the property which is the
subject of the appltcation for the iife af the survivor of the present
Town Council plus twenty-one years. Conversian of accommodation units
7ocated within a Todge pursuant to this $ection, shall be modified onZy
by the written agreement of the Town Cauncil and the owner or owners
~ of the units which have been converted into condominiums. The document5
creating and governing any accommodatifln unit which has been converted
into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of such units anly
with the prior written approval of the Tawn CounciT.
0 -4-lost 3/7/84
As you can see, the above criteria are absalutes, that is, they must be met ~
in order to a17ow the conversion. 7hezr intent Ts ta a11ow the ownership to
be divided (subdivided into individual condos, cornmon areas, etc.) while disallowing
a change in use. Enclosed p]ease find a capy o-F a letter from the applicant
indicating their willingness to comply with all of these requirements. Furthermore,
the praposed Condominium peclarations do contain paragraphs 17.26.075(A)1, 2, 3.
Thus, we feel these criteria have been met. .
gIJILDING AND FIRE GO_DE REqUTREMENTS
The area 3n wh3ch this conversion will be the most troublesome for the applicant
is in meeting the Building and Fire Department requirements as specified 1n
the regulations as -Follows.
17.26.060 Requirements - Condom7nium Cartversions
The app7icant proposing to make a condominium conversion shall provide the
foTlowfng documentation with the prelimTnary map: A. A cvndominium converszan report from the town brailding inspector on
the condftiart of the buiIding, listing a]1 building code viaiations,
f9re code violatians and related vialations which are detrimental to
the health, safety and we7fare af the publ7c, the awners, and the accu-
pants of the buiTding. The appitcant shalT have available and sha11
provide capzes of this report to all prospective purchasers of condo-
minium un9ts or interest 7n the in the candamirtium project.
Attached is the repart from those depar^tments and ane can see it is extensive.
The engineering report will be received this week and revYewed by the staff. .
At the hearing on Monday, the app]icant must address these required renovations
ta the PEC's and staff`s satisfaction.
RECt}MMENDATION -
The Community Development Qepartment recammends approval of the conversion . to candomin7ums of the Crest Hate1. We feel strong]y that this will result
in much needed improvements to nQt on7y the physical p1ant of the structure,
but to the genera7 management artd operation af the hotel. This project would '
ba a big plus to the cammunity,.as th7s hotel has in the past been ane of
Vail's firtest hoteis, and the subsequent deterioration has been a negative
experience for Vail. We do feel strongly about the physica] rennovation required 'rby our regu]ations and will see that this buiiding, when finished, fs brought
up ta Vail's nigh standards.
~
<
,
.
r ` ~ ~
r
. lowo, of V42 west meadow drive fire departmertt
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
February 8, 1984
Peter Patten -
Department of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vai3., Colorado 81657
Re : Inspectian of Crest Hotel
Dear Peter,
On January 24, 1984, Gary Murrian of tfie Building nepartment and I ~ conducted an inspection of the Crest Hotel for purposes of determining
those items and features of the building that would be required to be
repaired, retrofitted, changed or brought up to current code, in the
event the condo conversion proposal is approved. Tt was our desire
to review an engineering report prior to issuiing our recommendations
and requixements, but we have not had the benifit nf such a report.
Herein are the findings of the inspection made on that day.
It should be noted that the 'tinspectian" was not a point by point
review af the building. Upon completion of our inspection of the garden
leve]., the first floor and garage, we were requestEd by a Mr. Cunningham,
wha identi£ied himself as a representative of the prospective buyers, to
simply address the " big ticket items We were told that a11 minor
items would be resolved in the proposed resnodeling.
I advised Mr. Cunningham of the current requirements regarding the £ire
alarm ordinance, reqUiring retro--active znstallation of a complete fire
0 alarm system. LJe discussed the nature of the design, the operation, and
rough costi estimates of such a fire alarm system, as we1l as the history
of it's derivation.
. ~
4vamil
tow42 west meadow drlve fire department
valf, calorado 81657
(303)476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 2
We then discussed, in terms of current requirements, the spacing af
fire hose cabinets, distances between standpz.pes, and I pointed out
the inadequacy of the exzsting system. We also discussed the goar
maa.tainance record of the sprinkler system in the garage and the
fact that the basement is only partially sprinklered. I suggested
that the Fire DeparCment would not approve plans for such a huilding
today without plans for total sprinkler coverage... The lack of fire
truck access, fire behaviQr, egress, lack of emergency lighxing, ~
loss of integrity of the mechanical ventilation system, and the unknown
status of the building`s power plant {ie. electrical system, gas fired
boilers, water supply, p1umbing, etc. were discussed and he was
advised that an engineering repart woul.d be required, as we].l as
a report addressing the structural integra.ty of the building. I was
advised that such a report had been prepaired and would be avazlable
to us for review. Aga3.n, I have not Seen such a report.
T advised Mr. Cunningham that given the present conda.tion of the Crest, the Fire Department would request a retrofitted fire sprinkler system,
and that we would al1ow alternate materials, use of existing camponents,
and came to an estimated cost between $ 90,000 and $ 160,000, far the
retrofitted system. I suggested that by using the existing risers, the
cast could be minimizac3 to around tha lower fi.gure.
We estimated that the total cost for rahabiZa.tation of the mechanical
ventilation system, fire sgrinkler insCallation, and fire alarm system
would be in the range of $ 225,040. I assured ha.m that I would he7.p in
. reviewing plans and ma[cing suggestions to minimized the costs oE these ~
items.
. 48m,
t ow.
42 west meadow drive fit'e departmeni
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 3
I made a pointi of advising Mr. Cunningham that, in the eyeys of
the Fire Department, failure to pravide for a sprinkler system would
result in mare attenrion being paid to the ventilation system, the
questinnable locatian of fire dampers in the seven exhaust systems and
the two makeup air units, the required four hour fire seperation,
the operation and maintainence of the roll down fire doors in the
labby, the lack of secondary egress from the lobby, the flame spread
of interior finish maLeria].s, and the wood shaice roof. Tn essence, • the figures estimated to cover the installation af the fire alarm
system and the restoration of th.e ventilation systems would probably
off-set the cost of installing fire sprinklers.
Tn addition to the foregoing, I have included tlne list of mznor
items for the areas we inspected. If such a iist o£ minor items
fox ail other areas of the building, condos, guest rooms, corridors
and soforrh, is desired, such a list can be generated.
GARAEN LEVEL
1. Lzmited acces to all areas of the building due to inadaquate key
and lock contral .
2. Handrails are needed on both sides of the stairs from the deck to
the p001.
3. Ceiling tiles are damaged and missing in several locations.
4. Exit signs et the gool are missing or inoperable.
. 5. Se1f-closa.ng doors at the pool, boiler room and maintainence roam
are obstructed.
. . ~ C ,
.
~
low~ o V42 west meadow drive flre department
val1, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest Inspecti.an
Page 4
6. E].ectrical wiring in the poal area is in aeed of attention. GFT
circuits are required, grounda.ng system is zn need of repair,
P rings are required in many locations, power to saunas is nat
in conduit.
7. Woad pane3.ing in poa1, saunas and adjacent areas is questionable
as to fire rating, sheetrock baclci.ng and method of fastening ta
the wall
8. The light switch a.n the chemical starage room needs a caver ~
9. There is excessiae atorage of flammable liquids in the chemical
stozage room
14. The light fixture a.tself needs a cover in the chemical storage room
11. A solid core door with self-closure is required as we11
12 The sauna does nat have adaquate fire seperation from adjacent
rooms
13 The heating unit in the sauna is not properZy installed. A fire
has evidently 4ccured due to zmpropar installation. Such fire was I
not reported to the Fire Degartment
14 5alid core doors with se1.f-closures are reqctired an the saunas
ELECTRICAL RQOM
1. Covers far the electrical apnels are aither not in place ar missang
2. Hales in the ceiling and walls need to be sealed
3. Water leaks need ta be repai.red
4. Open.. juncta.an boxes need to be covered ~
5. Water damaged drywaZl needs to be replaced
6. The basement is on7.y partialiy sprinklered, in violation to the
ariginal plans
~ ~ A1?
lowo, of voil ~
42 west ineadow drive iire departmen1
vaii, colorado 81657
(303)476-2200
The Crest Inspectian
Page 5
CORRIDORS
1. The basement is only partiallq sprinklered, contrary to the original
building plans
2. 'I'he carpet on the walls has not been tested to meet flame spread
requirements
3. Fire rated doors are missing, da not close, have holes zn them and
are not all equiped with self-closures
4. The emergency 1ighting is inopexable and inadaquate
~ 5. Ceiling tiles are missing, damaged, and in need of repair
6. Open wiring in the ceiling needs to be covered
LAUNDRY
1. The electrical panel is obstructed
2. The ventilatian system is installed illegally and presents a threat
in terms af gas explosion and/or electrical fire
3. Electri.cal wzring is open in several locations 4. Penetrations in the walls and ceiling need to be repaired
5. The trash chute doors are proped open, without fire fuse link
6. Se1f-closing daors are blocked open, missing and inoperable
BOILER ROOM .
1. Open electrical wzring needs to be covered '
2. Exhaust vent from hoiler is disconnected
3. 5torage of combustibles zn boiler room is prohibited
4. Fire rated doors are not sel£-closing
~ 5. Drsft stops are missing
6. Severe rvsti and corrasion are evident on electrzcal panels
7. Electrical extension cords are running through the wa11
~ • ~ ~ .
. ~
tO~I~ 0 V42 west meadow drtve flre department
vall, colorado 81857
(303)476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 6
lOth MOUNTATN ROQM
1. The compressed gas cylinders are not secured
2. Open electrical wiring is present
3. Trash has accumulated in the fireplace
4. Controls to gas firerl fa.repl.ace are not accessable
5. Exit doors are abstructed
6. Exit lights are inoperable
BANQUET ROOMS ~
1. Exit signs are inoperable
2. Ceiling ti1es are missing, damaged and in need of replacement
3. Exits are not marked 4. k'ire rated doors are falling off their ha.nges, do not close, are ~
missing, are not self-closing, and/or blocked
5. Single action fire alarm pull statians have not heen replaced
6. Electrica1, junction boxes and switches need covers
7. Compressad ags cylinders need to be secured
8. Accumulatians of trash and rubbish need to be removed
KITCHEN
1. Handrail to rear stair is falling o£f the wall
2. Compliance with engineering report issued 12-18--$3 has not been
met
GAftAGE
1. Open electricaljunction boxes need to be cavered ~
2. Storage of firewood in garage is prohibited
3. Accumulation af trash and rubbish shall be removed
. M ~ ~
' i
A
lowo of voi
42 west meadow dri?+e tire departmen#
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 7
4. Exit lights and doors are inoperable.
ELEVATOR
1, mhe el.evator shall be required to have a full inspectian
by a licensed el.evator company and shauld have a
maintenance contract.
2. Veri.fication of elevator shaft vent to exterior shall
be provided.
STAIRWAYS
~ l. Stairwells shall be labeled per UFC Appendix 1B.
2. Stairwells shall be provaded with er:jergency lighting. Vail Fire Department has issued several correction natices
to the Crest hotel. Several items are still required to
be completed.
In essence, it is the opi.nion of the Fire Department, that the
Crest should be required ta subrnit a report form a registered
engineer, refiectirig an investigation of the foll.owing:
a. Structural integrity
b. Electrical system, including serv3ce and distribution
c. Plumbing and venta..ng system
d. Air handling equipment, design and functionalism
By cosmetic remodeli.ng, installation of an approved fire
alarm and sprinkl.er system, and xepair of existing systems
to their original intended l.evel of operation, the Crest
could be bx'ought to alevel of fire ixt4d life safety co4nparable
to most newer structu.res in Vail.
~
Respectfully submitted,
~ ~~~z~~
Michael McGee C/ Gary Murrain
Fire Marshal.l Building Inspector
Vail Fire Department Town Of Vail
f~ E~~inee~+ t ^1I f~g l ^l!L{- G'J IE r-+ ' .
1~Qr' 1 sf-~ ~L.
j~ ~ ~
' ~i' •
Mechanical/E (eet-Lical
•12F Narth Eighth Strest f~j 2'!99 Chamonix Roa+~, EJnit"'1
Grand Ic~nctias~, Caforado 8`t"~01 ~J ~,L~ pow~ Vail, CQiarado 81657
303-245-0'148 '1°800-332-3259 303-476-2091
~
D°C eMD-ai 18, 1983
Er. PetQr Ragers . She Crest Resatt
25C Sou -Luh Yron-Ea;e Ro3d
Va:~l, Calorada 81657
Re : Rev~ ew af Restaurant fBas Ven t-i lation c~ Z'-,stiaust Sys-tera-5
. Dear k-Ir. Rogers:
\ ' 3
The follawing comments are based on a physical review of the systems December 18, 1983. They are grouped into thrAs cavagariss
based upon aur judgement as to the relative hazasd tQ li.-,Pe- '
safety each contributes. Catagory;f: We bel3.eve these i-cems require oorrpction be~'ore ~
~ -~l~.e genera~ public is pezmitted into the spaces:
j B ~ ,
. .---1 .,...1
Catagary : TY:.ese items must be addressed with dilioance
an3 in no case should they bs permittad tQ r~~ain uncoxn~s--ted.
.In mast instances, they have been dtfective for somQti.me or .
were a part of the original buil.diilo constructinn and ar° now ~
unacaeptable by tadayr s standasds: ;
71 '1A: 49 ~t 'Vil G .
2A 3 $
~ Caiaoory illlt These items should be reso`! ved as budgeting ~ permits. ~-"Uoe eompli2szce and goad business sug;ests thsy xeezive
at-Eention as soon as posaible:
. . I 4--B- '
4
. 4 .
5 -
T~`~p ab-oyc eQmm^nts are based on field obsorva '.zc,-js. ;+e
acceut re snonsibility for items re1ate3 to
' xe:rrwi n u:.aisc o vered.
]
. . ' ; .
, a +t r~~~
. . . _ • ` t?, ~;t,{~t ~ r " . ,~~ny,s', :
. . . . . ' ' . ...e~,i+.~w,v~6SL~~~~V`~St,1¢,.a'~ "~?.,~,..x:x.si'~.!+1.~5i~,
;
raul Ros,ers,
Pa~.~e T~•ro
~
2f you 'h2v° any ques ;,ions 4?" z,,wtner zs required,
please ca? 1 1-800-332--3259.
Sii?cerely, ~ .
.
P."Dl.
~
Colora3o Redist-ru tion 10715
Enc1.. ~
D=/me
~
,
_ . 7 i ~
. , , , ~ ~ . .#S, ~,.f'~s~''a~~~.'~..r:'e, ~.,.:m+'.,...,a. - ,
C .
«
m~e_ i1T0 3 1`1 R e SO'_': ~
$.:?ti 1.0~~ 0.~ ~~w 8 t3i:~ ~::i ~',rI:....~' VB~I ~7.13 t a J21 :.''...:1..-n..1;.5 ~:a%rsuG=3
DeCBmbvZ` 1E2 10,81'5
-'1 -^,1" `Jdi7~n1.l^ L~7^'~t,J rt3'v,^'.+.,t.--.~iJi~ ~ • SL"f~4LYL l.l~l~.~c "l
1A. UMQ2002(a) T-qp ran~e e~zaust ~a.~: .i:~let and ou-t~.et connec--
-~ians are nfl4 air~y;~.-c. Can.neotion sh::uld, be redane using a
~ non-combus t-ible1"le!_ in ametal sleeva ~oir_t with the eompletAd
rewark airtir-rzz.
~ 13. U1102002 { b} (c ) y~--,a auc t, as installed, has flat (nan-
s1.o-oins) sec tions in :ra.olation of codR. G~ewse accumulation is
the~nazard. Re;ular ^Iaan3is.g is the solutivn. Additiional
olear_outs plus wa1L7.;ays for persannel accesa td clsanou-s
may be necessoary to tYiaroughly elQan the exhaust duct on the discharge sa.de af the fan as well as the fan housin~ itself.
IC. IIMC2002(a) The 1932 code requ-ireg the duct be enclossd
since i-t serves atype T hovd, The enclosura must be fire rattd
based on building fire resistive type. The haza.rd ie increasad,
by the fac t that the exhaus t duc t pas se stYxuugh a re turn air
p]:enum.
~1..-1D. UMC2002(h) If the fixe marshall permits the exhaust duct , -
ta remain unenc7.osed (installation under a.prior cade) then
- the code xequirement that the exhaust duct have at least an ~
'!8 inch c3.ea.rance to conbustible construction (wood roof deck)
must be followed, The clearance may be reduced to 3inches if
- the deck is pratected by one ho3zr fire resittive construc'tion.
IE, TDTC2043{i} The makeup air unit muat be interlaaked to
operate when the rax7.ge exhaugt i9 aperat ' ing.
UA~C20Q4(a) The fire damper in the exhaust duct shc~~zld be '
~,.~i~'
_ removed to comply with th.is section af the cade. 'IG. UDIC.? Range hoad exhaust fan automatic shutdown. We find .
no code requirement far fan shutdown either b snoke or heat dew _ teetiQn for ranbe er.haust systeas. tIIwI01009{a~ re3ers only to '
_ heatin; or cooling systems, not to commercia3 kitchen hoad systems.
If fan ahutdovm is not a required part of the haod fire $uppreaton , sys"u-ems, th4 sensing access• hole in the exlra^:~t duct should be pluaged. in an appraved mar-ner.
• ~•~yti~~i
1} .
. . ~ . . . .,n rr3. r . ~Ef.if....R .mr:t.. . e s:re. - . .
. . yJJf L.
r. , , . . . , . ' -
~
Y7~Y~+ ~
.~.a~Q V1....7 L 11eJ=`
T y ~
ReT71 ylr. .,~l 0
ies- .+'.rG.ni ff~'
3
Aec effDer 18, 1953 J
. .
2. A'R 14-1Li:T.7TS.:::C SYSTE:H(S) - ~,.?a,32A. uRAiT
2A. :JiM'{ OJ9 a Au vom-IJ-ic s'hLL J.i.J }'~Gi ~j ' .~.aU.J L fuyy 5cV lior 11`v~
~g0
BpC°lt°J° Qi t.I:.° ^o=QTl ai_'" ti,Fe -nCOm-m°71d -I-uc{,t~'~', SmOka
detection in any arQa sezve.d -b-~ he e=-nn.ent i-Ti tha a~ t-ic.: space
cause a13 0'L ;k~e air han31izi~- w:~i.; t o s h~u t ciav,n. fo11o~ri~.g
should 'nave co.on shat~.o.,~::; ~
1. Air han?linz s -,,,s ~et aer:-in,f-r lower leve1
2. 5w? mm? ng pool wy.s ~em-
3. Air han3li-.ng sys Lem bar/yes ua•arant/lobby
I•2B. UI-FC4 30S ( j) Fire Dampe--s. T r ou-r opinion, a-ny retj,zrn air _
pene~ra ~~oi,
of uhe cailing imas: haY e aloire danper pax sub~~.~a-
graoh 4 of retsre:ceci sec ~ion. Rp ~urn air grilles are 3ocated
at lhe nor t-h end oi the bar, now 'i.-I.--ast cnrner af the &ininQ room,
- and the soutia end af ;,he wait"_ess serva.ce a.rea: Any o-ther reyurn
air grilles tha l'i access directly a.nto the at 'uic return air p3enum
should be fa.re dampared. 2iISGELTA?TEOUS
3A Wirang zn Plenums: A1,1 wirs ng in the attic spac 6 rsturn air
plenum (above the entira lobby/bar/restaurant) muat be in
~ conduit unless UZ rated/listed for plenum aDplications. (LIDIv4305(e), ~ m-Ic1002(a) & rrEC)
3B• All junctian baxes, motor stas t-es, control relays, convro~.lers,
etc. ].oca-lu-ed in =che a-tt-ic suace must have covers. There,should
ba no open or expa9ed wiTino or device. -
4. Damaged, I7uctwork: IIifC1002(c) Sealing existing ductwark •
Yrould assist ir_ maintainzng confort level9. Sone of the duct
aupport syste-ms need ~o be rewarked before permanent sealing can
be accanplish.ed efffeetively. Installatian of adequate parsonnel
walk3rrays for Maintena~.~.ce service would prevenG rapid deteriation
of ductwork and sea.m repairs. Adequat-A access is actuall.y a .
UIf10 requzremenU (UI._C1202, 1507, et al.)
5. no er^a~i7e CoWfor t Contral SystAms: ~Te strongly recomaend . . . •
tnat a canpa uemperature con-trol cantxactor beeone inval•red
in a thaxough clzecl out, reconnec 'uion, and recalibrata.on of tne
sys ~em con ~y a1s a:.c3 d.a~pors. A1though not a direct threat to life sa~'etf, im~ro-,er s~~sue~ aperat-ior leads to therruostat daua-e 2-n3
n~s3.u~.1 ~~ni~L?a~ion a~' ccn'ra]. devi-es. 3ven-~~z~.~.~.g, tz~.e s;TQ;em
is randered 1314?J°rati-~e -v,hich thezi bscomes a codz P1.OZals,1.0n
per -I.aining to miiiimam ai-r ciraulu uion. Cl , T:i ? Slp a .M1.Oil TemJ vn-d fliY` wil1 t'vmX}ox'ar.i.ly ?lieG' V
cow-L;;t ; -14:.a u wr a~:w rm s i-i u. `'o comply wi th c-le .
c i;i.i~~.i-.',.~: ;t"' --:z-,;_ ..;.i': u ..:1Qu1 ' w° T°~.^.~r--i.~'C~... t 1'1
a ~.i. ,
..1~Y
NL
f -m
F
i . S7r ~ y. ,s,.W
. . , . , r. . .Z ~F`~w, 4a e . • . ,s.~i, ,u? :r+'w .
C ~ .
' Memorandum
~
TQ: Interior Design Staff
Marketing and 5ales Departments
SUBJEC7: P9arketing, Management and Refurbishment pursuant takeover
of the Crest Resort.
FROM: Carson Bennett Wright, President Sun Vail, Inc.
GOaLS
To establish the facility as a premier resort via:
A. Change existing facility name from Crest Resort to Chateau
Mantagne.
B. Refurbishment of physical pTant.
C. Management.
1. Exteriar:
We plan to provide an attractive exterior through use af new
coTor tones which wil] nat an7y enhance the appearance of the
structure, but wilZ also compliment and blend with the entire
Vail Village,
Z.) l.andscaping. Plan to soften the buildYng base by surrounding
it with fui1 landscaping. Great emphas7s is being placed on
. the uniquely abUndant open space surrounding the physical
fOOtprinti of the building. We believe the develapment of
;summer taurism is crucial to the success of the Uai1
resort community in general and this facility in particuiar.
Essential to developmer?t of that tourism is emphasis upon tlhe
rich natural mauntain environment blends af colorfuT flowers,
trees and grouna cover which flourish in the spring and sumner
manths.
2,} Guest Amenities. Occupant enjayment of this environment is
to be enhanced by develapment of the exterior patios, decks
and pool a,rea and dedicating faod, beverage and restaurant
resources to those areas for the purpose of encouraging
. outdoor relaxation and recreational utilization by guests.
I.T. Interior Design:
The present state of interiar finishes of tne Crest Resort 7s best
defined as early tired and will require a brand new look. Our
approach cannat be what is acceptable, but rather what will be ~
t ~ ~ ~
f t
memorab7e and a 6it overwhelming. Attention to the following
~ areas will be necessary, utiliz`ing the abave philosophies:
a,} Reception Lobby. Camplete cosmetic renovation, including
carpeting, wall treatments and refurnishing.
b,} Elevator lobby and Eievator cabs. To receive new carpeting,
new wall and ceiling treatments. Complete cosmetic renavatian
of elevator cabs' interiors.
c,} Administrative offices, Commercial spaces. A complete
renovation of the administrative offices and comnercial spaces
relative to hotel services. This includes new carpeting, wall
coverings, refurnishing and ceiling treatments where applicable.
d.} All common area corridors (a1l flaars). To receive new
carpeting, new wa11 treatment, new ceiling effects, and upgrad3ng
of corridor lighting relatlve to fixture des3gn and light leve3s.
e.) First floor, Conferences and Exhibit spaces, including
Pub7ic Corrman Areas. Complete cosmetic renovation, including new
carpeting, new wall surface treatments, new acoustical ceilings
and upgrade of general lighting system.
f.) Individual Condo-Lodge raoms. Complete refurbishment and
refurnishing of all Lodge rooms will inciude new carpeting,
. new wall coverings, ceiling treatments, and the removal of ali
existing furniture and the replacement with new.
TII. Management:
On site owner-management.
Ownership of restaurant and bar: While consideratian is being
given to development as a dinner-theatre, our first responsibility
is to provide first quality food and beverage service ta the occu-
pants-owners and rental guests of the condo-hatel commensurate with
its refurbishment. No 7odge can offer more than superb customer service, attraetive
interior environment and comfortable ambiance. No successful
lodge can be satisfied with less. Lodges in maturing resort
comnunities such as Vail, faced with competition from an everW
increasing number of new ski areas and alternative winter destinatians,
can na longer rely sole7y upon skiing and winter recreation as the
basis for attracting tourists and generating the desire ta return.
Therefore, strong emphaszs must be placed on the development of an
interiar ambiance highly acceptabie to guest-occupants and a manage-
ment structured to maximizing guest care. We nave no intention of
depending solely on snowfall and ski canditions as the catalyst for
success. The ladge experience must be memorable in its own right.
1Je intend to provide an interior ambiance of high quality and a
~
. > C ~ -
~i
staff dedicated ta four-star guest care, warmth and comfart. ~
The best advertising for any resort and/or resort cQmmunity
is the quaZity of the tourist/lodging experience.
Se advised a buaget has been estahlished of $1,280,000.00 reTatiue t4
achieving the above goals in analyxing tne respectSve solutions. Can-
siderativn shal1 be given ta budget controT, hawever, should there
exist doubt that the quality leveTs outlined in our above goals be
threater,ed it must be brflught ta the further attention of corparate
management.
~
~
. ~
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIQN
. March 72, 1984
12:45 Site v3sits
2:00 Public Hearing
7. Approval of minutes af February 27.
2• Request for a side setback variance of 13.5 feet in order to bu71d
a garage on Lot 6, Block 1, Vail Vil7age 8th Filing.
Applicant: Michael Halpert
3• Request to convert the Crest Hote7 on l.ot 1, Vai7 Lionshead
2nd Fi7ing, to candominiums fo7lowing Section 17.26 of the
Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Sun Vai7, Inc.
4. Request for a side setback variance and for a density control variance
in order ta allow far a greenhouse/entry vestibul.e addition on
Unit 17B, Vai1 7'ownnouses, Lat 11, B7ock 6, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: B.A. Bridgewater
5. Request for a density control var7ance in order to add 92 square
feet of GRFA to an existing dwclling unit and to convert Exist7ng
space to an additianal dwelling unit on the top floor of the
Sunbird l.odge. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge
~ 6. Request for an exterior alteration and for a setback variance in
order to add four dwelling units to the Concert Hall Plaza Bui7ding
at 616 West Llonshead Circle in Commercial Core II.
Applicant: Selby-Tofel Associates
7. A request for an exterior alteration to the Uillage Center project
at 122 East Meadow Drive to add a new retail addition on the east
end, to revise the entrance to Toymaker's i"rail, to construct additians
to the retail shops, and to construct a new sidewa7k along the north
side of the project. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
8. A request to amend Specia1 Development Dtstrict 4(Cascade Village)
to review a new phase plus to permit additional commercial space,
and to add two parcels of land into the SDD and to permit -Fireplaces
in some af the accommodation units. App73cant. Mansfield, Ltd.
9. A request ta estab17sh a special deveiopment district for the
purpose of redeveloping the Sonnena7p Hotel to a71ow additional
accommadation units and corrmercial space. The Town Council has
sent this item back to the Planning and Environmenta1 Commission.
Applicant: Sonnenaip at Vail
10. Discussion of parking fund fee per parking space for CCI and CCiI.
~
,
• PLANNIEVG AND ENVIRONMENTAi. COMMT5SIQN
March 72, 1984
PRESENT STAFF FRESENT
Diana Donavan Dick IZyan
Scott Edwards Peter Patten
Gordon Pierce Tom Braun
Duane Piper Kristan Pritz
Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack
Will trout Larry Eskwith
Jim Vieie
The meeting was cailed to order at 2:70 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper.
7. Approvai of minutes of February 27. Duane Aiper carrected page 2, paragraph
5 so that it wou7d state "Piper felt that parking for guests should be provided
in the parking structure and he also felt that the parking fee was too lnw."
Donovan moved and Ra san seconded to a rove the corrected minutes. Vote was 7-0.
2. Re uest for a side setbacic variance o-F 13.5 feet in order to build a ara e
on Lot 6, Block 1, Vai] Uilla e 8th Filin . ApplicanE. Michae Halper~
~ This item was withdrawn at the request of the app]icant.
3. Re uest to convert the Crest Hotel an Lot 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Fi1in ,
to condominiumize followin Section 17.26 of the Subdivisian Re ulations.
AppTicant: Sun Vail, Inc.
This item was withdrawn at the request af the applicant
4. Re uest for a side setback variance and for a densit control variance in order
to a7Tow for a reenhotase/entr vestiblue addition on Unit ]TB, Vail 7ownhouses
iot 11, Block 6, Vai1 Vi17a e lst Fi1in . Applicart: B.A. Bridgewater
Patten explained that there were two separate requests, one was a setback variance
and the other a dens7ty variance request. When the unit abave 17B was remode7ed,
it created a situation where the applicant was forced to enter through the front
courtyard direct7y into the iiving/dining room area. He showed crosssections
of the twa units. Craig Snowdon, architect represent7ng Brzdgewater, explained
the addition, adding that the addition would not be very visib1e from the street
since it was being kept under the averhang. He felt that the upgrading of the
property was an advantage ta the Town. Patten said one que5tian was whether or
not this addition was rea73y an airlock with s7iding glass doors.
Snowdon said the app7icant would be agreeable to reducing the amount of tne addition
by pu7ling the wal1 further back, but he felt that 25 square feet was too smali.
Piper stated that Snowdan's point was we11 taken, and that if the airlock were
. ta be only 25 square feet, the depth of the addition would be only two feet.
He added that this addition did not affect the bulk and further that the addition
would not be used as an extra bedroom. Trout wondered if the app7icant wauTd have
to resubmit a request if the PEC were ta suggest a reduction in size.
~
PEC 3/12/84 -2-
.
Trout moved to approve the request for density and setback variances with the
fo1lowing conditions: That the outside wall be moved back so that it 7s no further
than six feet from the origtna7 wall and that the sliding glass daors be changed
to a swinging door.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Edwards stated that the applicant hadn't shown that this wauld not be a grant af
speciai privilege. Snowdon said that the 7own had approved the addition of the
unYt above, making the Tower unit 7ess desirab7e which makes this ahardship on
this unit. Donovan asked if any other unit was recessed that far back, and Snowdon
answered "no." Diana read fram amemo written by Larry Rider dated 10/3/78 in
which he discusses variances and the hardsnip ruTe. She felt that this was a
harship case because it did relate, uniquely to this property on7y. Rapson felt
that the wall wauid ioak better without any recess, Donovan, piper and Pierce
wanted to see a recess.
Patten returned from looking into the files concerning the add3tion of the unit
abave, and stated that the Town did not nave any recard of approving the addition.
Trout moyed and Viele secondedto aDprove the requ,ested variances with the
co-nditions that the new wall be na more than 6 feet outfrom the ex'istin
wall and that the doors shall be swin'in rather than siidfn doors.
• The vote was 6-1 in favor with Edwardsaqainst,.
5. Request for a density cantrol variance in order to add 92 square feet of
GRFA to an existin dwellin un~t and to convert existin s ace to an
additiona7 dwel7ing.unit on the tap f1oor of the Sunbird Lodge
Appi i cant: Sunbi rd ~Lodge Tom Braun explained that this was aiso two separate requests. He showed floor
p1ans and sections and stated that a11 work would be interior. 7he staff recom-
mended deniai of the additional GRFA and approval of the additional emp7ayee unit
with the condition that it remain an employee unit by deed restriction.
~ Bruce Parton, vice president of United Resorts, owners of the Sunbird, said that
he would be happy to put in a deed restriction. Scott asked tf the unit w7th the
requested GRFA addition could be salcf, and Parton said it could. Pierce was in
tavor of the empioyee unit, Viele wasn't sure if the board had speciftc criteria
with which to judge the request. Donovan stated that she did not mind adding
an employeeiiunit, but wondered about adding "another kitchen.
Patten stated that there was an agreement w3th the Sunbird regarding the number
of kitchens al]owed. Parton said that llnited Resorts was a new owner, and that
tney did not know of any previous agreements with the Town of Vai1, but they intended
to abide by any ru7es and regulations of the Town. Patten returned with the file
.
• , PEC 3/12/84 -3-
~ an Sunbird and stated that the Town allowed 13 kitchens and were shown around the
lvdge, where they found 15 kitchens, but were not shown the f3fth floor. Three
kitchens were then removed by Sunbird to get to the 73 allowed by court order.
He added that they had asked to see al1 of the rooms, but were not shown this unit.
He felt that if the board allowed this kitchen, one of the other kitchens should come
out. Patten pflinted out that in the present request, United Resorts stated that they
did have 14 kitchens, so they were not trying ta hide anything.
Parton stated that because the previous owner did someth3ng illegal, he 5h0u7d
not be placed in a dtfficult position, but shau7d be allowed to upgrade the facilities.
Discussion fo1lowed cancerning whether or not another kitchen could be allowed.
Larry Eskwith, Town attorney, stated that 3t was a question of density, that one
dwe7Ting unit equa1Ted 2 accommodation units, that the court order was to allow
13 kitchens.
Piper felt that the board should focus on the request and the staff could handle
the number of kitchens with the applicant.
Edwards moved and Pierce seconded to a rove the mana er's unit on the fifth f1oar
with the conditian that there be a deed restrictian that this unit remain an em lo ee
unit and is not so7d off or rented an a short term basis. The vote was 7-0 in
favor.
Donovan recommended tab1ing the request for added GRFA unti7 the kitchen problem
• was resoived. Piper suggested that a court order discussion could take pTace
separately from this item. Rapson stated that an approval cauld be given with
the stipulatian that the number of kitchens be reso7ved.
Rapson maved to apprave the addit7ona7 97 square feet on the condition that the
situation concerning the number of kitchens be resolved prior to the issUance of
a buiding permit. Pierce seconded. Patten stated that since this was a court
order, it had to be resoTved this week.
Rapson wYthdrew his motion. Parton stated that he did not know that he had an
illega7 unit, and was wi7ling to work with the Town to get the kitchen problem
salved.
Edwards moved to deny the additionaT GRFA by statirag 3t would be a special privilege.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Vie7e stated that it was in the applicant's interest to tab1e this portian af the
request because he did not fee1 comfortabTe until the kitchen question was soived.
7raut felt that either way it was a policy action; but agreed with VieTe. Piper
agreed with Trout. Aierce fe7t that the app7icant should be given enough time
to resolve the problem.
Piper told the app7icant that the board wished to table the item. Parton asked
to tabie untiT the meeting of Rprii 9. Ra son moved to tabTe until A ril 9,
seconded by Trout with the vote 7-0 to table.
•
I
,
PEc 3/12/84 -4-
~ 6. Re uest far an exterior a7teration and for a setback variance in orcfer
to add four dwel7in units to the Concert Hall Plaza Bui7din at 616
West Lionshead Circle, Applicant: Selby-Tofel Assaciates
Pipe,r said that the app1icant requested to tab7e this item until March 26.
Vie1e moved and Pierce seconded to table per request. The vote was 7-0.
7. Re uest for an exterior alteration to the Villa e Center ro'ect to add
a new retail addition on the east end, to revise the entrance to To maker's
Trail, to construct additions to the retail sho s, and to construct a new sidewalk
alon the north side of the roject. AppTicant: Fred Hibberd
Piper Stated that the applicant requested to table this item until April 9.
Donovan maved and Edwards seconded to table to A ri7 9. The vote was 7-0.
8. A re uest to amend S ecial Develo ment District 4 Cascade Villa e) to review
a naw phase plus to_permit additianal cammercial ,sp,ac,e.,_ and to add twn parcels
of 1and into the SDD and to ermit fire laces in someof the accommadation
units. Applicant: Mansfield, Ltd.
Dick Ryan stated that this wou7d be a discussion item only. The or3ginal SDD
appraval was explained, and Ryan added that since 1979 the applicant has loaked
at the market and felt that he needed additional hotel rooms instead af more
condominiums. The app7icant also wanted to annex two parcels, the Roberts parcel
• and the Cosgriff parcel.
Andy Norris, the app7icant, explained that Mansfield hired a consu7tant to tell
him exactly what was needed to make Cascade a frtrst c7ass destinatTan resart.
He was told there must be a large amount of ineeting space, additional retail,
no new restaurants, and recreatian facilities. Norris said that the parking structure
and the sports faci i i ty wou7 d be completed by November.
Norris went into a detailed explanation 0'F I115 plans for the remainder of the
project, etc. Ryan said that Narris wou7d be back in April for a formal hearing,
9. A re uest to establish a s ecial deve7o ment district for the ur ose
of redeveln 7n the SonnenaT Hotel to a17ow additionaT accommodatian units
and commercial s ace. The Town Councii has sent this item back to the
Planning and Environmental._Corrunission. Applicant: Sonnenalp at Vail
Dick Ryan stated that the 1"own Councii did approve the Sonnenalp, but wanted several
~ issues resolved by the Planning and Environmental Cammission: The parking fee,
the resolutian af the pedestrian traffic on the northeast corner, the arcade, the
number of parking units on the site, the inclusion of the creek bank into the
district. Jay Peterson, attorney for the app7icant, said that he would like to
sit down with the transportation department of the Town to resolve the traffic
' PEC 3/12/84 -5-
questions at the staff level and come back to the PEC in two weeks.
He said that the applicant agreed to the time Timit of 18 months, to include the
i creek bank into the district, to pay to move the utilities, ta install necessary
street 7ighting, and to make all the retail uses conditional uses. He stated that
the parking fund rnust be resolved, and that the applicant agreed to pay the applicabTe
fee under ordinance at the time of issuance of a building permit.
He said the placement af trees wou7d be shown at the next meeting, but the trees
would not be lost, and the arcade would be made inviting to the pEdestrian.
He asked to table to March 26.
Edwards moved and Donavan seconded to table to the March 26 meetin er re uest.
The vote was 7-0 in favor.
.
~
.
a.
MEMORANDUM
• T0: P7anning and Environmentai Gommission
FROM: Community Development Department
DRTE: March 7, 7984
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request for an exterior
alteration in arder to add four dwelling units to the Concert
Ha71 Plaza Suiiding at 611 West Lionshead Circle in Commercial
Care II. Applicant: Selby-Tafe1 Associates
STATISTICS FOR PR4p05AL
Lat area 11,320.52 square feet
Height proposed 45 feet
Density proposed 4 units
GRFA 5,100 square feet
REQUEST
i The appiicant is requesting to construct four units and approximately 5,100
square feet of gross residential f7oor area at the Concert Hail P7aza. 7hey
will be added to basically the sauth ha1f of the building. The second floor
wou1d be aver the Mole Kole and Baggage Claim retail space. The arcade wou7d
be open another story, and then a third floor of residential would be over
the arcade and two commercial shaps previous7y mentioned. The proposaT is
to step the units away from the Landmark Townhouses, so some of the views
are preserved on the Tower floors of these un7ts.
DISCUSSION 0F PROPOSAL
Currently there are no dwelling units on the site. Under the current zoning
of the property, Cammercial Core II, there is a possibility of six units with
9,056 square feet of gross residential floar area. The applicant is not requesting
the maximum residential use on the property. Again, faur units are proposed
with 5,100 square feet of GRFA.
COMPLIANCE WiTH PURPOSE SECTION 0F COMMERCIAL CORE TT ZONE pISTRICT
1$.26.010 Purpose
7he Commercial Core II district 3s intended to provide sites for a mixture
of multiple dwellings, lodges and commercial establishments in a clustered
• unified development. Commercia7 Core IZ district in accordance with the
Concert Hai7 P]aza -2- 317/84
Vail Lionshead urban design guide pland and design considerations is intended
to ensure adequate light, air, open space and ather amenities appropriate
i to the perm3tted types of building and uses and to maintain the desirable
qualities ofi the district by establishing appropriate site deveiopment standards.
The praposed four units would conform to the purpose of the zone district
which states "to provide s7tes for a mixutre of multiple dwe7lings, lodges
and commercial estabiTShments in a clustered unified deve7apment."
CONiPLIANCE WTl'H THE VAiL LI4NSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUID£ PLAN
On tne west end of the site, there is one sub--area concept:
West Ma1T Entry - 34
Functional improvements include: separation of buses from ather traffic,
an auto drap-o-Ff (and serivice vehicle) zone, and at-grade traffic is7ands
far pedestrian crossing and snow storage. The bus shelter, at the north end
of the circle as the road gradient eases, aiso serves to screen the loading
area. Landscape planting is used to circumscribe the area and foccas attention
an the entry. A wider plaza and expanded steps aiso serve to re7nforce the
entry way.
This improvement was made a coupTe of years ago when the Town and property
owrrer joined together on a public/private partnership to imprave this area.
Also proposed around the same time was an awning over the entrance to the
• Concert Ha7l Plaza ma]1 which would signify commercial shopping and the Vail
Lionshead mall.
The proposal shows a two-stary space with an awning type attraction to signify
commercial space and entrance into the VaiT Lianshead mall. We consider this
a pasitive attraction to draw visitors from the west inta the pedestrian mall.
iJR6AiV DESZGN CONSIDERATIONS
The Design Considerations basically discuss improvements to be made ta commerciai
space in Vail l.ionshead. Therefare, there is no specif7c consideration to
aiscuss with the exception of the changes to the ma71 entrance discussed above.
ZDNING COfVSIDERATIONS
The proposal meets thc zon7ng requirements for Commercial Core IT. i'he applicant
would be required to pay the applicable park7ng fee. Loading and unioading
of baggage would take place in the ]oading zone on the west side of the building.
T'here is concern of the staff that the loading zone can become permanent parking
for the condominium users. Again, in Gommercial Core II an applicant can pay
for parking. Thfs polTCy for residentiai should be recansidered as the Uail
Lionshead structure is a great distance from the Concert Hali Piaza.
~
.
Cancert Ha17 Plaza -3- 3/7/84
~
~ R
ECOMNiENDATIO1V
The Community flevelopment Department recommends approval nf the request.
WE consider that the appiicant has deveiopment rights to the praperty, and
currently the Concert Hall PTaza is one of the few buildings in Commercial
Core ii that does nat have residentia7 uses. Secand, the architect for the
developer has considered the private vfews from the Landmark Townhomes in
the design of the proposa1. Third, the proposal is not requesting any variance
from thc development standards of the district in which it 1s located. The
ane condition for appraval is that the applicant must pay the applicabTe
parking fee.
~
~
. T0: P7anning and Environmentai Commission
FRQM: Community Deve1apment Department
DATE: March b, 1984
SUBJEC7: Request far a side setback variance and for a density controi variance
in order to allow for a greenhouse entry vestibuie addition on Unit
11B, Uai7 Townhouses, Lot 17, BYock 6, Vail Village 7st F7ling.
Appiicant: B. A. Bridgewater
DESCRIPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to construct a greenhause/entry vestiblue addition to
the existing graund floor unit 17B. A previous remodeling of Unit 11A located
abave unit 118 has created a situation where the applicant is forced to enter
through the front courtyard directly inta the Tiving/dining room area. The
addition creates a forma3 entry and indoor area far remova] and storage of
ski qear and cloth7ng. The enclosed space also a7lows far greater direct soiar
heat gain and minimizes the unit's heat loss when the entry doar is used. The
propased greenhouse/entry vestibule is 97.5 square feet. 7he dining room area
would be separated from the vestibuTe by sliding glass daors.
A portion of the VaiT Townhouse project was previousiy subdivided in a way
which created noncanforming side setbacks. For this reason, a side setback
• variance is a1ways required for proposed madifications to Vail Townhouse units.
The request for a density control variance is to allow for an additional 97.5
square feet of GRFA. Units 11A and 116 have an existing GRFA of 2,142 square
feet (Unit 11A:1,130 square feet and Unit 1IB: 1,012 square feet). The alTowab3e
GRFA for the site is 1,391 square feet under HDMF density requirements.
CRITERIA AND FINDZNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Sectian 18.62.050 of the Municipal Code,
the De artment of Commun3t ~ Develo ment recommends a rova7 af~the szde_setback
variance and denial of the densit contro,l„variance based on the fortiowing factors:
Consideration af Factors:
The reiationshi of the re uested variance to other existin ar otential uses
and_structures in the vicinity.
The proposed addition wouTd have no impact on the existing structures in the
project. The Vail Townhouses have a variety of architecura7 styles, materia1s,
and front setbacks. The glass and wood addition wouid be compatible with the
adjacent units. Tn addit7on, the greenhouse/entry vestibule would be screened
from the street by the existing 5'6" waTl enc7osing the courtyard area.
•
' I1B V.Townhause -2- 3/6J84
The degree to which relief from the strict or litera7 interpretation and enforcement
of a specified rea~lation is necessarv to achieve compat7bi7itv and unlfarmity
~ of treatment amonq sites in the vicin7ty or to attain the objectives of this
t3tie without grant of specia7 priviTege.
Given the 60 percent density factar, the site presently exceeds the allowable
GRFA by 751 square teet. The greenhouse/entry vestibule would add 97.5 square
feet of GRFA for the site making a non-conformZng situation even more so. The addi-
tional 97.5 square feet, if granted, is considered to be a grant of speciai priviiege.
GRFAvariances which p.hysically en7arge structures have been strongly discouraged.
The effect of the requested variance on 1ight and air, distribution of population,
trans ortation and traffic facilities, ub17c facilities and utilities, and
pu ic safety.
No negative effects.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable t4 the proposed
variance.
FINDINGS ,
The Planning and Environmental Cammission shall make the fal7owinq fTndinqs before
granting a variance: "That the granting of the variance wili not constitute a grant of special privilege
. incansistent with the limitations on ather properties c1assified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance wi17 not be detrimenta] to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to praperties or impravements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one flr more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would resuit in practica7 difficulty or unnecessary physicai hardship inconsZStent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
~the site of the variance that do nat apply generally to other prnperties in the
same zone.
The strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulatian
would deprive the app]icant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties
in the same distr3ct.
STAFF RECQMMENDA7ION5
The Community aeveiopment Department recommends approval of the side setback
variance and denial of the density control variance.- The first variance is war-
ranted because of the unreasonab7e conditions created b,y the subdivision of the
~ property (i.e. very sma11 Tots vs HDMF zone district requ?rements). To grant the
second variance would be a grant of specia7 privilege inconsistent with dansity
contro]s of the Town. The additiona7 57.5 square feet canstq.tutes a grant of special
privilep: The staff recommends the construction of an airlock entry (not to exceed
V5 square fe6t). The air7ock entry SalVes the access problem, dECreases heat lass
and does not increase the lot's GRFA. '
4
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: P1anrt7ng and Environmental Commission
FRQM: Community Deve1opment Department
DATE: February 9, 1984
SUBJECT: Variance request to construct a garage within a side setback
on Lot 6, Bloclc T, VaiT Village 8th Filing. Applicant: MichaeT Halpert
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE
The applicant has requested a side setback variance of 13.5 feet to construct
an "oversized" one car garage. The garage would be located 1.5 feet from the
property line. The applicant states that this is the most 1ogical location an
his lot and would allow for the construction of a garage without having to remove
any existing mature tree cover.
CRITERIA AND FINDTNGS
lJpon review of Criteria and Firtdings, Sectian 18.52.060 of the Municipal Cade,
the Department of Community Development recommends apprflval of the requested
variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
~ The reTationsh7p of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
Tne confTguration of this lot and the Zocation of the existing residence leaves
only two possible locations for a new garage that wili not require the removal of
any trees. Both of these locatons would require a setback variance.
7he praposed location would have little -impact on adjacent properties and structures.
The owners of property 7acated directly adjacent tn the Proposed structure have
submitted a letter stating that they do not ab,ject to this proposa7 and Yn fact
prefer it to one that wouid necessitate the removal of any trees.
The de ree to which relief from the strict or iiteral inter retation and enforcement
of a speci_fied regulation is necessary to ach-ieve compatibi1ity and un7-formity
of treatment among sites in the vicinit,y„ar,to_attain thie objectives of this
title without rant of s ec7a1 rivile e.
It has been the policy of the staff and of the Planning and Environmental Commfssion
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 iessen practica7 difficuities inconsistent with the objectives
of the zoning code. The code also states that a practica] difficu7ty may resu7t
frorrt the size, shape or dimensions of a site or the location of ex-isting structures
upon the site. In this case the configuration of the 7ot and the location of
~ the existing house 1imit the possiblilities for 7ocating the garage upon the
Halpert -2- 2/9/84
.
site. The praposed location wou7d have the least impact on the adjacent house
~ as well as on existing trees on the site.
The effect of the requested variance on liqht and a7r, distributian afpopul.ation,
trans ortatifln and traffic facilities, ub11c facilities and utilities, and ub17c
safet .
No impact.
Such other factors and criterta as the commission deems applicabie to the proposed
variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission sha71 make the_following findings befare
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of speciai privilege
incansistent 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, ar 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 litera1 interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wauld result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this tit1e.
There are exceptians or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicabie to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict ar Titeral interpretation and enforcement af the specified reguiation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community QeveZopment Department recommends approvai of the requested variance.
The addztion of garages has been seen as a positive improvement to the Town and
has been encouraged. To 7ocate the garage within the side setback is a preferred
alternative to alocation that wauld require the removal of mature trees.
~
~
-3
? / f7 3.~ - .s'' ~
q
' . 1~ r'f
~
.1 ~ + +
~ r, ` ~ ~ ~ !
~ 1' • r .J'` y ?_~~~1 :4 ~r~~
c (
f ^ ' '4
1r- ~ ~ ~ ~ t ,
~ ~ +
y~~;~
~1; _a•. `1
Vo ~
~
4g--
~
v ~
f-
n~" ~
' • ~
I
MfEMORANDUM I
. T0: P7anrting and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: March 7, 1984
SItBJEC`f: Request to convert the Crest FEotel to a condo-hotel cander Chapter
17.26 af the Subdivision Regulations. Applicant: Sun Vail, Inc.
THE PROPOSAL
The Crest HoteT, representing all 134 aecommodation units, lobby, recreation,
meeting, banquet and comrrtercial areas is in the process of being acquired by
5un Vail, Inc. 7here are 19 dwelling units in the building which already have
been candominiumized which would be unaltered by the proposa1. The praposaT
is to create a condo-hotel (where each accommodation unit is so7d off individual1y
and a condominium association runs the property) to accompTish twa major abjectives:
1. To "provide the economlc feasibility to overcome the indebtedness
of the Crest in its present state as alodge;"
2. To "maintain its function as a lodge" without any "effect on the present
status of service to its occupants."I ~ The applicants also state that this proposal would be beneficial to the Vil7age
area by having the Crest resume its pTace in the community as a first-ciass
7odging facility and affard them the econamic abi1ity to malce it happen.
THE CRITFRIA
There are two sets af criteria for a hote7 conversion ta condominTUms: the
first set zs found in Section 17.26.080 (A)(B)(C) which are criteria far all
condominium conversion pro,jects in gcneral and, secandly, Section 17.26.075
which specifical7y addresses accommodation unit conversians.
The fiallawing are the criteria for a17 conversion projects:
77.26.080 Action on Preliminary Map
A. At the hearing an the prel-iminary map, the Planning and Environmenta7
Commission shaiT cansider whether the proposed conversion is consistent
with the foTTowing housing goais of the town: ,
1. 7o encourage continuation of svcial and economic diversfty 7n the
town through a variety of housing types,
2. To expand the supply of decent housing for 7ow and moderate income
fami 1 i es ,
1. l.etter ta Richard Ryan from Carson Wright and Michael Storace (appiicants) dated January 26, 1984.
0 ~ -2- Crest - 3/7/84 ,
3. To achieve greater ecnnomic balance for the town by increasing
the number of jobs and the supply of housing for people who wi1l
ho]d tfiem.
8. The commission may require that a reasonab]e percentage of the converted
units be reserved for sale or rentai to persons of moderate income.
C. The Planning and Environmental Commission may deny the tentative or
preliminary map upon finding that:
1. Based on the infarmation required by 17.40.070 and on the vacancy
rate for rental housing, tenants will have substantia7 difficulty
in obtaining camparably priced rental housing. A rentaT vacancy
rate below five percent based on the most recent tawn survey constitutes
a housing emergency situation.
2. The ratia of multiple-family rental units woUZd be reduced to less
than twenty-five percent of the tota7 number of dweliing units .
in the Gare Va11ey, from Dowd Junction east to the base of Vaii
Pass, with no replacement renta] housing being provided.
This set of criteria is obviously directed not at candominiumizing
an hote], but toward regu7ation in the reduction of awailable low-
cost or employee housing. Thus, we will not evaluate the proposal
with regard to these criteria, as they are nat applicable. The reason
they're inc1uded in this memorandum is that the requirements and procedurft
of the entire Chapter 17.26 must be complied with for any candominium
conversion project, and there are ather sections of the general part
of tne chapter which have been applied as requirements.
8e1ow is the applicable section of our regulations applying to accammo-
dation unit conversions:
77.26.075 Condomium Conversion
Any applicant seeking to convert any accommodation unit within the tawn shall
comply with the requirements of this section. The requirements contained
in this section sha71 not apply to structures or bui1dings which contain
two units ar 1ess.
A. The requirements and restrictions herein cfl ntained sha71 be included
in the condominium declaratian for tne project, and fi7ed of record with
the Eagle County cYerk and recorder. The condominium units created shaTl
remain in the short terin rental market to be used as temporary accommodations
available to the general public.
1. An awner`s persanal use of his unit shall be restricted to 14 days
during the seasonal periods of December 15th through April 15th and
14 days during June 15th through Secptember 15th. ThiS seasonal
period ts hereinatter referred to as "high seasan." "Owner's persanal
use" shaTl be defined as owner occupancy of a un9t or nonpaying guest
of the owner or taking the unit ofif the rental market during the
seasonai perzods referred to herein for any reasan other than necessary
IN
' -3-~est 3/7/84
; repairs which cannot be postpaned or whtch make the unit unrentable.
j Occupancy of a urtit by a 7odge manager or staff employed by the lodge,
; i hawever, shall nat be restricted by this section.
2. A violation of the owner's use restriction by aunit owner shall
subject the owner to a daily assessment rate by the condominium asso-
ciation of three times a rate cansidered to be a reasonable daily
rental rate far the untt at the time of the vioiat-ion, which assessment
when paid shall be deposited in the general funds of the condominium
association for use in upgrading and repairing the corr~non e7ements
of the condominiums. A17 sums assessed against the owner for v3olation
af the owner`s persanal use restriction and unpa9d shall constitute
a lien far the benefit of the candominium association on that owner's
unit, which lien shall be evidenced by written natice placed of record
in the office of the clerk and recorder of Eagie County, Colorado,
and whichmay be col1ected by foreclosure, on an owner's condominium
unit by the association in rtike manner as a mortgage or deed of trust
an real property. The condominium association`s faiiure to enforce
the owner's persana1 use restriction shall give the town the right
ta enforce the restriction by the assessment and the 13en provided
far hereunder. If the town enforces the restr7ction, the town shall
receive the funds co7lected as a result of such enforcement. In
the event iitigation results from the enforcement of the restriction,
as part o-F its reward to the prevailing party, the eaurt shall award
such party its court C05t5 together with reasnnable attarney's fees
incurred.
~ 3. The town shall have the right to require from the condominium association
an annual report of owner's personal use during the htgh seasons
for a11 converted condominium units.
8. Any lodge located within the town which has converted accommodation units
to condominiums shall continue to provide custamary lodge facilities -
and services incTuding a custamary marketing program.
C. The converted condominium units shall remain availabTe to the gerieral
tourist market. This condition may be met by inclusion of the units
of the candominium project, at comparable rates, in any local reservation
system for the rental of lodge or condominium units in the town.
E. Any accommodation units that were utilized to pravide housing for employees
at any time during the three years previous to the date of the appTication
shall remain as employce units for such duration as may be required by
the Planning and Environmental Commission or the Town Counci7.
F. Applicability: All conditions set forth within this section shall be
made binding on the app7icant, the applieant`s successars, heirs, personal
representatives and assigns and shall govern the praperty which is the
subject of the application for the life of the survivor of the present
7own Council plus twenty-one years. Conversion of accammadation units
located within a ladge pursuant to this section, shall be madified anly
by the written agreement of the Tawn Counci7 and the owner or owners
~ af the units which have been canverted into condominiums. The documents
creating and governing any accammodation unit which has been converted
into a condominium shall be modified by the owners of SUCh units only
with the prior written approval of the 1'own Caunci1.
~ -4-~st 3/7i84 .
As you can see, the above criteria are absolutes, that ts, they must be met
in order to ailow the conversion. Their intent is to a17ow the ownership to
be divided (subdivided into indiuidual condos, common areas, etc.) whiie disallowing
a change in use. Enclosed please find a copy of a letter from the applicant
indicating their willingness to comply with all of these requirements. FUrthermore,
the proposed Condominium Declaratzons do contain paragraphs 17.26.075(A)I, 2, 3.
Thus, we feel these criteria have been met.
BUTLDING AND FTRE CODE REQUIREMENTS
The area in which this conversion will be the mast troublesome for the applicant
is in meeting the Buiiding and Fire Oepartment requirements as specified in
the regulations as follows.
17.26.060 Requirements - Candominium Conversions
The applicant proposing ta make a condominium converston sha11 provide the
following documentation with the preTiminary map:
A. A condominium conversion report from the town building inspector on
the candition of the buiTding, listing all building code vioiations,
fire code violattans and related violations which are detrimental to
the health, safety and welfare of the public, the owners, and the occu-
pants of the building. The app]icant shal1 have availabTe and shali
prvvide copies of this report to a1T prospective purchasers of canda- ~
minium units or interest in the in the condominiUm praject.
Attached is the report fram those departments and one can see 7t is extensive.
The eng7neering repart will be received this week and reviewed by the staff. .
At the hearing on Monday, the applicant must addre5s these required renovations
ta the PEC's and staff's satisfaction.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recammends appraval of the conversion
to condominiums of the Crest Hotel, We feei strvngly that thzs will result
in much needed improvements to not only the physical plant of the structure,
but to the general management and operation af the hotel. Thzs project would be a big plus ta the community, as this hotel has in the past been onE of
Vail's finest hotels, and the subsequent deteriorat7on has been a negatzve
experience for Vail. We do feel strongly about the phys7cal rennovatTOn required
by our regu1ations and will see that thfs building, when finished, is brought
up ta Vail`s high standards.
~D
. _
. ~ ~
.
~
j
lowul of Val ~
42 west meadow drive fire department
vail, colorado 81657
{303} 476-2200
February 8, 1984
Peter Patiten .
Department af Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South FronLage Road
Vazl, Colorado 81657
Re : Inspection of Crest Hotel
Dear Peter,
~ On January 24, 1984, Gary Murrian of the Building Department and I
I conducted an inspection o£ the Crest Hotel for purposes of determining
i those items and featuxes of the building that would be required to be
repaired, retrofitted, changed or brought up to current code, in the
eveRt the condo eonversion proposal is approved. It was our desire
to review an engineering reporti prior to issuiing our recommendations
and requi.rements, but we have nat had the benifit of such a report.
Herei.n are the findings of the inspection made on that day.
It shauld be noted that the "inspection" was not a point by point
review of the building. Upon completion of our inspection of the garden
level, the first floor and garage, we were requested by aMr. Cunningham,
whq identif.ied himself as a representative of the prospective buyex's, to
simply address the " big ticket items We were told that all minor
items would be xesol.ved in the proposed remodeling.
Z advised Mr. Cunningham of the current requirements regaxding the fire
~ alarm ordinance, requiring retro-actave installation of a camplete fire
alarm sys'tem. We discussed the nature of the deszgn, the operation, and
rough cost estimates of such a fire alarm system, as we11 as the history
of i.tts derzvation.
. ~ ~
. taw ol v42 west meadow drive fire department
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest inspection
Page 2
We then discussed, in terms of current requirements, the spacing of
fa.re hose cabinets, distances between standpipes, and I pointed out
Lhe inadaquacy of the existing system. We also discussed the poor
maztainence record of the sprinkler system in the garage and the
fac't that tne basement zs on3.y partially sprinklered. I suggested
that Lhe Fire Department would naL approve plans for such a building
today without pl.ans for total sprinkler coverage. The lack of fire
truck access, fire behavior, egress, lack of emergency lighting,
, 7.oss of integrity of the mechanical ventilatzon system, and tihe unkno`an
stattts of the building's power plant (ie, electrical system, gas fired
boilers, water supply, plumbing, etc. were discussed and he was
advised that an engineering report would be required, as we1l as
a report addressing the structural integrity of the building. Z was
advised that such a report had been prepaired and would be available
to us for review. Again, Z have not seen such a report.
I advised Mr. Cunningham that given the present candition of the Crest,
the Fire Department would xequest a retrofitted fire sprinkler system,
and that we would a11ow alternate materials, use of existing components,
and came to an estimated cost between $ 90,000 and $ 160,004, for the
; retrofitted system. I suggested that by using the existing risers, the
cost cauld be minimized to around the lower figure.
We estimated that the total cast for rehabilitation of the mechanical
ventz7ation sys'tem, fire sprinkler installation, and fire alarm system
woul.d 5e in the range of $ 225,000. I assured him that z would help in
• reviewing plans and making suggestions to minimized the costs of these
items.
. ~ i
• ,low42 west meadow drive tire department
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 478-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 3
I made a point of advising Mr. Cunningham.that, in the eyeys of
the I'ire Department, failure to provide for a sprinkler system would
result in mare attention being paid to the ventilatzon system, the
questionable location of fire dampers in the seven exhaust systems and
the two makeup air unats, the required four hour fire seperation,
the operation and mazntainence of the roll down fire doars in the
Zo6by, the lactc of secondary egress from the Iobby, the flame spread
. of interior finish materials, and the wood shake roat. In essence,
the fz.gures estimated to cover the installation of the fire alarm
system and the restoration of the ventilation systems would probably
off-set the cost of installing fire sprinklers.
In addition to the foregoing, I have included the 1.ist of minor
items for the areas we inspected. Zf such a list of minar items
for a11 oLhex areas of the building, concEos, guest rooms, corridors
and soforth, is desired, such a list can be generated.
GARDEN LEVEL
1. Limited acces to a11 areas of the building d.ue to inadaquate key
and lock contx-ol .
2. Handrazls are needed on both sides of the stairs from the deck to
the pool.
3. Cei]_ing tiles are damaged and missing in several 3.ocations.
4. Exit signs at the pool are missing or inoperable.
. 5. SeIf-closing doors at the poo1, boiler room and maintainence room
are obstructed.
. , •
• ~
~ lowu42 west meadow drive fire department
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 4
6. Electrical wiring in the pool ax-ea is in need of attention. GFT
circuzts are required, grounding system is in need of repair,
P rings are requzred in many locations, power to saunas is not
in conduit.
7. Wood paneling in pool, saunas and adjacent areas is questionable
as to £ire rating, sheetrock backing and method of fastening to
the wall
8. The light switch in the chemical starage room needs a cover
. 9. There is excessive storage o£ £lammable liquids in the chemical
storage room
10. The Iigl-jt fixture itself needs a cover in the chemical storage room
11. A solid core doox with self-closure is required as well
12 The sauna does nat have adaquate fire seperatian from adjacent
rooms
13 The heating unit in the sauna is not properly installed. A fire
has evidently occured due to improper installation. Such fi.re was
not regorted ta the Fire Department
14 So1id core doors with self-closures are required on the saunas
ELECTRICAL ROOM
1. Covers for the electrical apnels are either not in place or missing
2. Ho1.es in the ceiling and tidalls need to be sealed
3. Water leaks need to be repaired
4. Open juRction boxes need to be covered
i 5. Water damaged drywall needs to be repl.aced
6. The basement is only partially sprinfclered, in vzolation to the
original plans
. • ~ ~
~ 4voml
tow42 west meadow drlve fire department
vail, colorado 81657
(303)476-2200
The Crest Inspection
Page 5
CORRIDORS
1. The basement is only partially sprinklered, contrary to the original
buil.ding plans
2. The carpet on the walls has not been tested to meet f1ame spread
requirements
3. Fi.re rated doors are mi.ssing, do noL clase, have holes in them and
are not all equiped with seif-closures
4. The emergency lightiing is inoperable and inadaquate
! 5. Ceiling tiles are missing, damaged, and isi need of repair
6. Open wiring in the ceiling needs to be covered
LAUNDRY
1. The electrical panel is obstructed
2. The ventilation system is installed illegally and presents a threat
in terms of gas explosion and/or electrical fire
3. Electrical wirzng is open in several locations
4. Penetrations in the walls and ceiling need to be repazred
5. `i'he trash chute doors are proped open, without fire fuse linlz
6. Se1f-closing daors are blocked open, missing and 3noperahle
BOrLER ROOM
1. Open electrical wiring needs to be covered
' 2. Exhaust vent from bailer is disconnected
: 3. Storage of combustibles in boiler room is prohibited
4. Fire rated doors axe not self-closzng
i 5. Draft stops are missing
6. Severe rust and corrosion are evident on electrical panels
7. Electrical extensa.on cords axe running through the wa11
s
~
i
-
oI wofi Vai ~
42 wesi meadow drive fire department
vall, colarado 81657
(303) 476-2200
Z'he Crest Inspection
Page b
lOtli MOUNTAIN ROOM
l, The compressed gas cylznders are not secured
2. Open electxica1 wiring is present
3. Trash has accumuiated i.n the fireplace
4. ControZs ta gas fired fireplace are not accessable
5. Exit doors are obstructed
6. Exit lights are inoperabl.e
~ $ANQuET RoaMs
1. Exit signs are inoperable
2. Ceiling tiles are missing, damaged and in need of replacement
3. Exits are not marked
4. Fire rated doors are falling of£ their hinges, do not close, are
missing, are not self-closing, and/or blocked
5. Single action fire alarm pu11 stations have not been replaced
6. Electrical junction boxes and switches need covers
7. Compressed ags cylinders need to be secured
8. Accumu.lations of trash and rubbish need to he removed
KITCHEN
l. Handrail to rear stair is falling off the wall
2. Campliance with en$ineering report issued 12-18--83 has not been
met
GARAGE
• l. Open electricaljuncta.on boxes need to be covexed
2. Storage of £irewood in garage is prohzbited
3. Accumulation of trash and rubbish shall be removed
~ lowo, ol 42 west meadow drive fire depar#men#
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
The Crest Inspection j
Page 7
4. Exit lights and doors are inoperable.
ELEVATQR
1. The elevatar shall be requ.irec1 to have a fu1.1 inspection
by alicensed elevator coznpany and should have a
maintenance contract.
2. Verificati.on of elevator shaft vent to exterior shall
be provided.
STATRWAYS
• I. Stairwe7.].s shall be labeled per UFC Appendix 1B.
2. Stairwells shall be provided with emergency lighting. Vail Fire Department has issued several correction notices
to the Crest hotel. Several items are still required to
be completed.
in esserace, ifi is fihe apin7on o£ the Fire Depar-tment, that the
Crest should be required to submit a report form aragistered
engineer, reflecting an investigation of the foZlowing:
a. Sfiructural integxity
b. Electrical system, including service and distxibution
c. Plumbing and venting system
d. Air handling equipment, design and functionalism
L'y cosmetic remodeling, installation of an approved fixe
alarm and sprinkler system, and repair of existing systems
to their original intended 1eve1 of operatian, the Crest
could be brought to a level of fire acid life safety camparable
to most newer structuxes in Vai1..
Respectfully subfnitted,
~
M~.chae7. McGee AGarvy'v, Murr aa.n
Fire Marshall Building Inspector
Vail Fire Department Town Of Vail
i
~
CC~r::) ~ l~~~..tnearing 'F~r ' it~'
~
- Mechanica!/Electrical
~'i?- North Eighth Street )q~~~ 2`!99 Chamonix Raa~l, UnEt 2
Grnnd lunctinn, Colorado 81501 Vail, Cotarado 81657 .
303-245-0'i48 'i-80f}-332-3259 ..,J~ 303-4716-2091
~
Dece:~ber IS, 1983 .
ilr. Pet°r RogerU . ,
Tile cr° w t R° S Qtt
250 Sou tth Frontage Road
Vail, Calorado 81557
Re: Review of Restaurant/Bas Ventilation Zz;.~4~aust Systnmti
Dea.r I41r, Rogers:
The fallowing camments ase based on a physical review a~ t-hc
systems December 18, 1983. They are grouped inta thzee catagaries
based upan aur judgement as to the relative hazard to lzfe- '
safe ty each contribu-tes. -
Catagary:;t, We believa these items require carrectian before
6 the generai public is permitted into the spaces:
Ca
~ Catagory Tx.ese ztens nust be addressed with dili~enee
and in na ~case should they be per~tted ta renuin uncax-~ °ct e d~
.In mo~t instances, they have been dofective for sometime or
were a part of the original buildixio construction and axu now ,
unacceptable by todayTs standards:
71 -1A, 0s ~v Ey Vp G _
2A, X 3 B ~ .
~ Cata;ory ~~S~y~ These a.tems shou3d be resolved as b~.dge-~ing
permits. 's'C;aA campliance and good business suggests thsy receive ~
~ attention as soon as possible: ~
~ ~ .
:4-Br
3g,
4
5
rk
~
Thp abovc comments are based on field obsnrva-,-ian:,. 1,17G
acceut res-oon sibilit;~ foh itemo rzlated luo
' r°m~ in ,Ln.c1isLov°red.
f
F1 F
. 1
' . , ' .iv ~ . .,s 2:. . . , . .
, , . .
, raul I',.o„ers,
• Pace Tra
•
If you hzve any aues;,~.ans
or firwtner c7 = ~,17~cwt:.o a_J-s requzred, .
pleasQ ca? 3. 1-800-3342-3259.
Sir~c~~~ly, ~ •
,
av~.id-L. Yad"i~•
er, P,~.
Colorado R o i s tra tion 07'f 5
Enc l. '
DFY/me
•
_ , . _ . • , . -E:z..~,t... s ~ ~e7€~~.r~_ `~"I . 3 ~ t .~s'r,,.i.. . '
0 0 .
. m V'C'a`.3'~i. t~°50~'_"`
Reva.ev ai : -1s Vent-iia t- io :
~ Decamber 18, 1~381`1 .
:1 • R~LiV GE
,'iA. UHC2CO2(a j -TfA~ ~~ngle exhaust ~a.~~ ir~let a,nd ou~Zet conn.ec-
x tions a.re na v airtw~~?~c. Con.nectiion sn:~u1d be yec~ann ~.sing a
non-comtaus t? ble1"ley- zin a metal sleeve joirt =orith t:ze completed
reFrark aixti~~
~ 1B. LTi-IG2002 (-o) (c ) T= e duc t-, as installea, has fla t (nnn-
slaDin_,) sec ~~ons i: :r].D7 a.u.10n of codR. Grease acc~ulation is
tne nazzrd. Re ;u? ar ^leani~jr. is the so1U~ion. Addiiional
clea.r_outs plus wa1L-ww3rs for peY'sonnel acceas to cleanautu-s
may be necessary tQ thoroughly clea~. the exhaust duet on the d~.sch2sgp sid.e of the fan as well as the fan houszng i -Lu-self,
1C, U24C2002(d) The 1982 code requires the duct be enclos°d
since it serves a type I hood. Ths enclosure must be fire rated
based an building fire resistive type. The hazard is increased,
by the ~ac~ tha~ ~he ef.ha~xst duct pasaes thrn~zgh a return ai.r plenurn.
~J,ID. iIM02002(h) If the fire marshall permits the exhaust duct ,
to remain unenclosed (installation under a priar code) -then
the code re4uirement that the exliaust duct have at least an
18 inch clearance to conbustible construetian (waad raof deck)
~ must be followed. The clearance map be reduced to 3inches if
the deck is pratected by Qne haur fire resittive constrU.c~~~on,
1E. UMC2003(i) The makeup ai-r unit must be interlacked to
K operate when the range exhaust ia operatin.g.
F. UMC200¢ (c ) The fire damper in the exhaust duct shau3.d be '
removed to eamply wa.th this aeation of the eode. ,
1G. UPiC7 Range hoad exhaust fan automatic shutciown. We find
no code requiremsnt for fan shutdawn either by smake or heat de-- .
tec-cion for range exhaust systens. ZtI~IC10C39(a} refers only to b.eatin4 or coaling systems, not to commercial ki.tchen haod systems. t,
Zf fan shutdovrn .is not a required part of the hood fire euppresa.on
Sy~ ~ems, the sensing access. hole in the exl:-a..5t- duct should be
p1u,,ged in an appraved mar-aer.
1 of 2
~ • r ~ ~
• ~ '
' 1h8 v i cS i. Re.ri u
~ Rdv' w 0--~, 6re,1'u,._... ~'1...'! aTi e
~
' 2. ATR H111JDLI~~1G SYa"TEN(S)
2A. Ui:~.'~`.,1009(a) AU.vOj,3-tiu z1ruU-Of.is mLiot be
B@CaIIs° Qi th° CQ"~..."'..,.QT}. 3"et'L:n, a;." -plEn'.~~.~ l'T@ ZBCom..~.°Tld ~"i.x«at $T..1'Qk°
d.ptectian zn any area servea oz- v=~v e-:i~.; ~Wen ~ in -thz atuic.: ;pace
C3Uue a.ll Di ~he a,1.r 112.i.i1u? ii1~ ~;-n:.~S va Siil~u C~D~r72. .'r'~~ v~ ~O~.j,.~~F~.r'if~'
should :~ave ca=oxi shutdoi;;::
1. Aiy handlzn; s Ts tv:^ acrv4,1g lower ? evel
2. Swxmming pool mai--e--uD sys tem,
a. Air handliiig syste-m ser:=inc- ba_r/restaura.n.t;labby
)..2B. Ut?C¢ j0S ( j) F? re Da.m.pe-s. Try our opiriion, any return air ~
penetratzon of .the cailzng =s; ha.re a ffire danper per subpara--
graDh 4 of referencea section. Return air grilles arQ locatad
at !he nar4h end of the bar, nor~heast corner of the dining room,
and the south end of -~Ghe waiu~-ess service area. Any o-ther return
air grilles tha'u access direct].y intn the attzc return air plenum
should be fire dampered. MTSCELTANEOtTS _
3A W.iring in Plenums: All tairing in the attic spacd return air
plenum. (above the entiza lobbyjbar/restaurant) must be in.
. oanduit unless UL rated/listed for plenum applications. (IT~~04305
U1.701002(a} & I3EC)
~ 3B. Al1 junction boxes, mvtor start-es, control relays, can~ra
etc, lacated in the a-tt-ic szace nust have covers. There,,shauld
be no open or exposed wiring or davice. .
4. Dam.aged Ductwork: TYKIC'I 002 (c) Sea].ing existing ductwork
would assist in maintainzng confart leve3.s. Sone of the duct
eupport systems need to be reworked befare pexmanent seal3.ng can
be acconplishad e-Lofectively. Installavion of adequa.ts personnel
wa1'kvrays for mazntenanaA service would preven; rapid deterzation _
of ductwork and seam repairs. Adequate accesa is aetually a WC requiremen t ( UMC'i 202, 'I 507, et a1. )
5. no erativs CoWsort Cantrol Systams: -We strangly recomaena that a conpe temT)eraYure control aontractor becone a.nvo3-Fred
in a tharough chechout, rAconnec tion, and recalibration of -tae ,
sys ~en contrals a..rd dampYxs. Although not a direct threat ta life
safety, improper sya tem oper? -lu-ior. leads to therruostat dana-e 3nd
manual manipulation of con-ttiral deviCes. 3ventual1y, the s;yrs aeM .
is z°enderea ino-oarativs -vrnicii trwn becomes a code viola4inn ,
peruainin ;to rmi;iimau aiz.° c irculat-? orz. ,
6. 27he hew J,-:f-;~_ uoi- r=-~~ ~02? : ~;-r'2_• v ~r=ll tet. ~.~r °
~ ~ :~~aorar; ect
L-il..l:. c:...~ U • TIO cQmply iTi' u,-I Gdde ,
T/ cr1U,.l.1v.l+o.. ~.•'i ~ti.'.~. i ~ 1Iv u.~~ T , - ...:.~i.`. V .raQu-k~~.~'. bv Tevonnev leV ;-l~~~
~ ~pT'1-por.-.- ~~~y ~.'.u1v. vecV~ on•
r
Q r ? .
t ~F
1
$ ct N { f
p. ~{y J } H~.`
~
Memarandum
, Ta: Interior Design Staff
Marketing and SaIPS Departments
SUBJECT: P4arketing, Nianagement and Refurbishment pursuant takeflver
of the Crest Resnrt.
FROM: Carson Bennett Wright, President Sun Vail, Inc.
GaALS
Ta estabiish the facility as a premier resort via;
A. Change existing facility name fram Crest Resort to Chateau
Montagne.
B. Refurbishment of physical plant.
C. Management.
I. Exterior:
We plan to provide an attractive exterior through use o#' new
• calor tanes which wi11 not only enhance the appearance of the
structure, but will also compiiment and blend with the entlre
Vail Village.
1.) Landscaping. P1an ta soften the building base by surrotanding
it with full land5caping. Great emphasis is being placed on
the uniquely abundant open space surraunding the physica3
footprint af the buiiding. We believe the development of
summer tourism is crucial to the suceess of the Vail
resort community in general and this facSlity in particular.
Essentia7 ta development of that tourism is emphasis upan the
rich natural mountain environment blends of colarful flowers,
trees and ground caver which flourish in the spring and summer
months.
2,} Guest Amenities. Occupant enjoyment of this environment is
to be enhanced by development of the exterior patios, decks
and pool area and dedicating food, beverage and restaurant
resources to those areas fnr the purpose of encouraging
autdoor relaxation and recreatianal utilization by guests.
II. Interior Design:
The present state of interior f1i1i5I1e5 af the Crest Resort is best
defined as early tired and will require a brand new look. Qur
approach cannot be what is acceptable, but rather what will be
~
• + . ~
memorable and a bit overwhelming. Attention to the follawing
. areas wi13 be necessary, utiliz'ing the above philosophies:
a.) Reception Lobby. Complete cosmetic renovation, including
carpeting, wall treatments and refurnishing.
b.) Elevator lobby and E1evatnr cabs. To receive new carpeting,
new wall and ceiling treatments. Complete cosmet7c renovation
of elevator cabs' interiors,
c.} Administrative affices, Cammercial spaces. A complete
renovation af the administrative offices and comnercia1 spaces
reiative to hotel servYCes. This includes new carpeting, wall
coverings, refurnishing and ceiiing treatments where applicabie.
d.} A1l common area corridors (all fToors). To receive new
carpeting, new wall treatment, new ceiling effects, and upgrading
of corridor lighting relative to fixture design and light levels.
e.) First flaor, Conferences and Exhibit spaces, including
Pubiic Corimon Areas. Complete cosmetic renovation, including new
carpeting, new wail surface treatments, new acoustical ceiiings
and upgrade of general lighting system.
f,} Individual Condo-Lodge rooms. Complete refurbishment and
refurnishing of all Lodge rooms will include new carpeting,
• new wali coverings, ceiling treatments, and the removal of aTl
existing furn3ture and the replacement wlth new.
III. Management:
On site owner-management.
Ownership of restaurant and bar: While consideration is being
given ta development as a dinner-theatre, our first responsibility
is to provide first qual7ty food and beverage service to the occu-
pants-ownars and rental guests of the condo-hatel cammensurate with
its refurbishment.
Na lodge can offer more than superb customer service, attractive
interiar enviranment and comfortable ambiance. No SUCCE55fUl
lodge can be satisfied with less. Lodges in maturing resort
comunities such as Vail, faced with competition from an ever-
increasing number of new ski areas and alternative winter destinations,
can na 3onger rely salely upon skiing and winter recreatian as the
basis for attracting tourists and generating the desire to return.
Therefore, strong emphasis must be placed on the develapment of an
interior ambiance highly acceptable to guest-occUpants and a manage-
ment structured to maximizing guest care. We have no intention of
depending solely on snowfall and ski conditians as the catalyst for
success. The lodge experience must be memorable in its own right.
~ 1Je intend to prnvide an interior ambiance of high quality and a
~ staff dedicated to four-star guest care, warmth and eomfort.
The best advertising for any resort and/ar resort community
is the quality of the tauristllodging experience.
Be advised a budget has been established af $1,280,000.00 relative to
achieving the above goals in analyzing the respective salutians. Con-
sideration shali be given to budget control, however, shouYd there
ex7st daubt that the qua1ity levels outiined in our above goals be
threatened it must be brought to the further attention of carparate
management.
s
~
P7anning and Environmental Commission
March 26, 1984
~f
11:15 am Site Visits
12:00 - 3:00 pm Study session with Town Council on Todge room density, summer
resort study, and parking program
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Appraval of mi nutes af March 12, 1984.
2. A request to establish a specia1 development district for the
purpose of redeveloping the Sonnenalp Hotel to a71ow additional
accommodatian units and commercial space. T'he Town Council
has sent this item baclc to the Planning and Environmenta7 Commission.
Applicant: Sonnenalp at Vai7
3. Request for an exterior a7teration and for a setback variance in order
to a.dd faur dwelling units ta the Concert Ha7l Plaza bui1ding at
616 West Lionshead Circ1e in Commercial Core II.
Applicant: Selby Tofe7 Associates
4. Request far a front setbac[c variance of 7.6 feet for an existing building,
Bui7ding i of the Vail Racquet C1ub Townhomes located at 4770 Bighorn
~ Road. Applicnat: Vail Racquet Club Townhomes
5. Request for a grass residential f7oor area variance on Lot 12, Block
2, Vail Village Filing 13, west unit, in order to construct a 200
foot greenhouse, enclosing a partial7y enclosed patio deck over the
garage. Applicants: Jatnes and Patricia Hansen
~
Planning and Environmental Commission
March 26, 1984
.
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Dick Ryan
Scott Edwards Peter Patten
quane Piper Betsy Raso7aclc
Howard Rapson Tom Braun
WiT7 Trout Kristan Pritz
J7m Viele
ABSENT
Gordon Pierce
The meeting was called to arder at 3:15 pm by Duane Piper, chairman.
1. A raval of minutes of March 72, 3984.
Will Trout carrected his motion concerning the Bridgewater request to
read: "Trout moved and Vie1e seconded to approve the requested variances
w3th the conditions that the outside wall be na further than six feet out frorr?
the existing wall and that the doors be swinging rather than sTiding doors."
~ Diana Donovan a1so corrected the next to last paragraph on Page 2 to read:
"Donovan stated that she did not mind adding an employee unit, but wondered
about adding another kitchen."
Ra son moved and Donovan seconded to tabie the a raval of the minutes unti3
the meetin of A ri7 9. The vote was 6-0 in favar.
2. A re uest to_estab1ish a special development district for the purpose of
redevelo in the Sonnenal Hote7 to allaw additional accommodatian units
and commercia1 s ace. The Town Council has sent this item back to the
Plannin and Environmenta7 Commission. Applicant: 5onnenalp at Vail
Dick Ryan stated that he met with Jay Petersan and Peterson also met with the
Public Works department concerning some of the issues. Peterson then discussed
the issues of concern to the board. Ne stated that: parking had been moved closer
to the 7obby with access to the lobby through a side door, the fire access problem
had been solved (there was a letter in the file), that the bus lane would be 22'
wide in the winter, and 16 -Feet wide in the summer with a removeab7e planter. there
are now 5 parking spaces on the site, the trees on the s.e. side can be protected
and not moved, though they may be movcd a little during construction, the trees
an the east end would be moved to the west area so that it would be easier for
pedestrians to see the pedestrian path, he felt strongly that the amount of commerciaT
space was correct -For the praperty and was important ta add interest to the pedestrian
~
PEC 3/26/$4 -2-
w
a
• path, and finally, that the de7ivery trucks would probabTy number only 2 or 3 daily.
Aatten asked what the space in the basement would be for, and Peterson answered
that it would be hotel or commercTal storage, but would not be retail.
Sid 5chultz from tne archi-Lect's (Ruoff) office showed severa1 schemes the architect
had prepared to lower the appearance of the roof.
Peterson asked for a twa year rather than 18 month iimit on the approva7, and was
told that the ordinance defining specia1 development districts specified 18 months.
Peterson then referred to Chuck Anderson's concerns in his motian at the Town CoUnci7
meeting of March 20 in which Chuck wanted a resolation of dollans needed for the
parking funds, the resolution af pedestrians and traffic problem on the northeast
corner, rep7acement of the trees, pedestrianization of the arcade, time 7imit p7aced
on the approval, impravements of the creek bank be a part of the SDD, and the fact
that the applicant would pay for the movement of utilities necessary in the street
area dn would pay for necessary street iighting in frnnt of the property, and that
all retail uses should be conditionai uses.
In referring to Chuck's concerns that he had not already addressed, Petersan stated
that the 7andscaping of the creeK bank wauld.be partliof the SDD, that the appl3cant
would install street iights and would pay for the relocation of utiiity lines, that
a7] retaii uses would be conditional uses, and Peterson asked that the propasaT be
accepted with these changes.
Rapson questioned the fire access and Patten explained that there would be open stairs
~ with a cover and that the access to that part of Village Center was improved from
what it had been. Peterson added that when thE Vi7lage Center project is built
a stand pipe would be p7aced in the area as we17.
Rapson wondered why a71 of the road could nat be 24 feet. Stan Berryman, director
of tne Pub7ic Works department, stated that 22 feet was the wldth used behind
the Vai7 Uil7age Inn, and his department was happy wi.th that width.
Peterson repeated that a pZanter would be used in the summer ta reduce the width
of the road, and that the applicant would enter into a iease agreement to maintain
the landscaping in the planters. Donovan stated that she sti17 felt that it went
against ai] Town of Vail princip7es to a17ow private projects to buiid on TOV prop-
erty. She also said that she did not 7ike p7anters to take the p7ace of permanent
Tandscaping, and that the buiiding needed more substantia7 permanent planting with
more trees to break up the appearance of the bui7ding, that the DRB ought to look
closely at the roof line perhaps being too much of all one pitch. Donovan stated
that if she voted for the project, it was nat because it suggests a soiution to the
basic parking prob7em.
Peterson replied that there was no landscaping there now, and that the applicant
needed to be concerned with traffic flow, and that landscaping would be a DRS issue.
Trout asked if the new bus shelter would be paid for by the app]icant, and Peterson
replied that they praposed tv do benches, not a shelter, because 5tan Serryman and
Skip Gordan (transportation director) felt that a sheiter was not needed because
people waiting for buses could wait under the arcade, and most peopie at present
• did not use the sheTter. Trout asked to see the drawings of the fire iane, and it
PEC 3/26/84 -3-
~
~ was expiained that ~h~s was an V~llage Center Tand, and that it wouid be leased to
the Sonnena7p.
Vie~e said tnat, whi~e he fe~t comfortable w~~~ ~he project as a whole, he did
no~ feel comfortable approving the increased density w~~hou~ gui~e~~nes.
Edwards was no~ sure he understood what Chuck Rnderson's 7~tentian was concer~ing
the parking fees, but Edwards fe1t they s~ould b~ those es~ablished at the ~~me
the bui~ding permit was is:sued, and he asked what the staff's p051~30~ was.
Patten replied that parking fees had nothi~g to do with SDD's, bu~ were reviewed
every few years to see if they needed ad~~s~ment, and fees for ~ndividual projec~s
were set at the issua~ce of a buiiding permit.
~dwards also asked if ~here were any s~e~iai reguiat~ons concerning privat~ develop-
ment o~ 70U property, and Dick Ryan rep~ied that the Tawn Counci1 must approve and
es~ab1~sh a mainte~ance agreeme~t.
P~per wa5 perpiexed tha~ the app7icant ~ad not reduced the s~ze of the building
whe~ he knew the concerns o~ the board relating ta the crowded s~reet. Peterson
stated that ~he ap~i~cant had looked at other sizes, bu~ ~elt this size was need~d
~o make the project work financia7ly. Pi~er ~e1t ~hat th~re couid have bee~ chang~s
made to ~he build~ng, rather than decid~ng it wou1d be this size and no smaller.
More discussian foiTowed concerning the wid~h o~ the str~et, and Sta~ Berryman stated
~hat ~he moveab7e planter was a co~prom~se, that the Publ~c Works needed 22 feet
guarant~ed in the kvinter.
• Dick Rya~ reminded the ~aard that ~hey were dea1ing w~th anly the ite~s referred
to by Chuck Anderson in his motion at Town Council. Piper stat~d that he would 17ke
to see al~ of the issues listed by Rnderso~ placed in a mat~on. Vieie asked if there
had been a staff inemo on th~s ~ss~e, and Ryan repl~ed there was not. Donovan stated
that she had been disappointed not to have received some wri~ten information fro~
~he staff an ~his proposal be~or~ the meeting, because it ~ad been some t~me since
the board had considered the orig~nal proposai. ~yan said tha~ Peterson had brought
up a1i the issues of concern, and VieTe repTied ~ha~ the board should have had some-
th~ng to read before ~~e ~ee~ing.
Piper listed the concerns, and ~dwards mov~d with a second b Vieie ta recommend.
a rovai to the ~own Cou~ciT for the re uest for S ecia~ Develo ment District #72
the Sn~n~na~ Notel w~th the foliaw~n co~di~io~s:
7. that ~he park~ng fee be the amount established at the time o~ issuance a~
the bu~1ding perm~t,
2. ~hat ~he north~ast area and ~he bus 7anes be des~gned as per an agreement between
Public Works and the appiicant,
3. that the approva7 be for an ]8 mo~th periad
4. that special atten~ion be ~aid ta the creek bank at Design Review Board
5. that any u~ility Tine reloeat~on ~e done at a~plicant's expense
6. that all retai7 uses be condi~iona7 uses
7. that all s~reet lighting p7acement be subject to DRB approva7 and construct~on
paid far by the applicant
• ~he vote was ~-2 wi~h ~apsan and Trout agaanst, Trout,,because he did,_„not fee~ a~y_.
ro~ect should be a roved that wo~]d have any negat~ve effec~ vn TOV~~ro ert
i.e. ~~e bus shel~er, pavin~, ~rees, or o~her i.mprovements ex~stinq and_Rapsan
felt the roa'~ shouTd be 24 feet wide throughou~~
PEC 3/26/84 -4-
,
• 3. Request for an exterior,a1teration and for a setback variance in order
to add faur dwel7ing units to the Cancert Hall Plaza buildinq at 616 West
Lianshead~Circ7e in Commercia7 Core II. App3icant: Sel~by Tofei Associates
Dick Ryan read a letter from the applicant asking to table his proposal untiT the
meeting of April 23, 1984. Uie7e moved and Donovan seconded to table per the
appllcanV s request, at which time the bo,ard wouldact on the proposai. The vote
was 6--0 in favor of tabiin one more ~Cime. ~W
4. Reauest for a front setback variance af 1.6 feet for an existing building,
Bu7idin I o-F the Vai1 Rac uet Club Townhomes Tncated at 4770 Bi horn Road
App7icant: Vai7 Racquet Club Townhomes
Tom Braun stated that the appl7cant had submitted a request to table this item until
Aprii 9. T'raut moved and Ra son seconded to table er the a licant's re uest
until April 9. 7he vate was 6-0 in favor„of tabling.
5. Request far a qross residential floor area variance an Lot 12, Block 2,
Vail Vil1age Filin 13, west unit, in order to canstruct a 200 faot
reenhouse, enclosin a artiall enclosed atio deck over the ara e.
Rpplicants: James and Patricia Hansen
• Peter Patten shawed a site plan and explalned that the lot has 43 square feet
of GRF'R remaining and the proposal represents 194 square feet, so a 151 square
foot GRFR variance is being requested. He added that propasals lilce this had
consistently been denied because the desire to add T7ving area aver and above
the allowable on a site for basiealTy "convenience" purposes did not meet the
criteria for reiieving GRFA maximums on property.
Mr. Hansen, the applicant, said that he had talked with the architect of the
bu3lding who stated that he did not think there had been any changes in GRFA
requirements since construction. He exp7ained that his request was for a solarium,
not an indoor jacuzzi raom, and thou~h they would like tn have a jacuzzi in part
of the space, the jacuzzi was not necessary. He described the difference between
a solarium and a greenhouse, the main ane being that a so1arium was build to prevent
heat from escaping with insulation and dauble glass. Hansen then exp7ained that
this would be a passive solar structure wh-ieh followed all the standards required
by the IRS to receive tax credit incTuding:. solar collectnrs, means to absorb and
store heat, means to distribute the heat. He said that Co1orado has added the
cr7teria that there must be a positive gain & 75% of the g7ass be exposed to sun.
Discussion followed which revealed that many nf the board felt sympathy toward
the project because of it includyng marly solar features, but could not vote for it,
hardship had not been demonstrated according ta the criteria they must follow.
More discussion followed which reveaTed that the members would 17ke to have some
way to encourage solar construct7on. Patteri suggested.perhaps active solar systems
could be exempt from counting as GRFA.
i Viele moved and Donovan seconded to deny tha request. The vote was 6-0 for denial.
.
~
s
• MEMaRANDuM
T0: Planning and EnvYronmentaT Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 22, 1984
SU8JEC7: GRF'A variance request for 151 square feet to add an indoor
jacuzzi room to the west haif of the duplex on Lot 12,
B1ocK 2, Vail Vil7age 13th. Applicant: James Hansen
DESCRIATION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
James and Patricia Hansen, contract purchasers of this half dup7ex in Booth Creek,
would iike to build an indoor jacuzzi room on the second 1eveT of their futurc
home. The lot has 43 square feet of GRFA remaining and the propasa7 represents
394 square feet, thus, a 151 square foot GRFA variance is being requested.
The app7icants feel the variance is justified in that they are long-term residents
of the area, are not adding the abi7ity to house more peop1e in the house,
that the new roam w37l be architecturally campatib1e with the house, and that
they in-tend to use passive and active solar heat in the home.
~ CRITERTA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.050 of the Municipa7 Code,
the De artment of Cammunit Develo ment recomrrtends denia7 of the re uested
variance based u on the fo7lowin factors:
Consideratian of Factors
The reiationshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otential uses
and structures in the vicinit .
The proposal wou7d have negligib7e impacts an surrounding properties due to
its centra1 locatian an the lot and the small amount of bulk which would be
added.
The degree to which relief from the strict or Titeral interpretation and enforcement
of a s ecified re u7ation ts necessar to achieve com atibiiit and urtifarmit
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this
title without grant of speciai priviTege.
There is a long history of simiiar requests which staff and Planning and Environmental
Commission have dealt with. Proposa1s ]ike these have consistently been denied
because the desire to add living area over and above the a7lowabie on a site
for basically "convenience" purposes does not meet the criteria for relieving
~ our GRFR maximums on aproperty. There is no physica7 condition of the site
which warrants the need ta go above and beyond the aliotted GRFA for the site.
This nouse was canstructed in 1978 under more liberal GRFA regulations than
we have today and was "maxed out" (minus 43 square feet) at that time. Now,
' WANSEN -2- 3/22/84
, v
,
a new awner would like to expand the house over and above al1owable densities
. so that they can have an indoar jacuzzi room. We feel this would be a
granting of speciat privilege with relationship ta not only existing policy
regarding GRFA variances, but also that there is no re7ationship to the
physica1 characteristics of the site which warrant relief from the regulation.
The effect af the requested variance nn 17ght and air, distribution of
o ulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities, ublic facilities,
and utilities, and ublic safet .
No effect upon these factors would result.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems app3icable to
the proposed variance.
FINDINGS:
Yhe P7annin and Environmental Commissian shal1 make the followin findin s
FINpINGs
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the to1lowing__findings before
grantzng a varlance:
• That the granting of the variance wi17 not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
7hat the granting of the variance wi31 not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, ar materially injurious ta properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or 17teral interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulatian
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship znconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app7icable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enfflrcement of the specified regulatian
would deprive the applicant af priviieges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
STAFF RECQMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the variance. There is
no argument presented which would po7nt to the fact that relief of the GRFA regulation
. is warranted in this specific case. If the Planning and EnvironmentaT Commission
feels that these types of proposals should be granted, then we need to change the
regulativns to allow for them within a new system which makes sense, not within
the realm of a GRFA variance.
~ M
MEMORANDUM
• T0: Plannin and Env7ronmenta] Commiss'
9 ~on
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DA7E: March 21, 1984
SUBJECT: Setback variance request to a1Tow an existing building to encroach
1.6 feet into the front setback. Vail.Racquet CTub.Townhomes;, i,
Building -I. Applicant: Walter Kirch
. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Building I of the Uai1 Racquet Club Townhomes has been canstructed only 18.4 feet
from the front property line. The required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a
7,6 foot encroachment inta the setback. The app7icant has cited errors made by either
the surveyor.ar the foundatian contractor that have resulted in this bui7ding being
lacated within the setback.
CRT7ERIA AND FINDINGS
U on review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici al Code, the
epartment af Community Development recommen s deniai of the requested variance
. ba sed upan the fol lowi ng factors :
Consideration of Factors
The reTationshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otentiai uses and
structures in,.the vicinitv.
Rs part of the Vai1 Racquet Ciub compTex, this variance request wouid have no impact
on existing or patential uses and structures in the vic7nity.
The degree to which re7ief from the strict or 7iteral interpretation and enforcement
of a s ecified re u7atian is necessar to achievecom atibil7t arrd uniformit of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the abject-ives af this tit]e without
rant af s ecia1 ri vi 1e e.~
The staff can find no evidence to indicate a physical hardship exists that would
merit our support of this request. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate
any physical hardship. Rather, human error has been cited as cause for the bui7ding
being located in the setback.
~
~
p ~ Vail Racquet Club -2- 3121/84
,
The effect af the requested variance on 1-7qht and air, distribution of population,
~ transporta~ion and traffic fac7lit7es, pubiic faciltti2s and utillties, and pubiic
safety.
1Vo impacts
5uch other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable ta the proposed
variance. ^ FINQINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq findings befare
granting a variance.~
That the granting of the variance wi17 not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with tne limitations on other properties classified 7n the same district.
7hat the granting of the variance wi71 not be detrimental to the pub7ic health,
safety, or welfare, ar materialiy injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for orie or more of the following reasons:
~ The strict or 17terai interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconszstent
with the objectives of this tit1Q.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditians appiicabTe to
the site of the variance that dQ not apply generally to ather properties in the o-,-
same zone.
The strict ar literal interpretattan and enforcement of the specified regu7ation
would deprive the applicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district. '
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation -For thzs request is denial. There is no physicai hardship
to warrant this request, and to approve this variance would 6e a grant of special
pri vi 1 ege. -
At this time, Building I is near completion. The prablem with the setback was not faund earlier because of the applicant's reluctance to have his building surveyed
prior to its framing inspection. The Building Department allowed construction to
cantinue without the improvement survey with the understanding that the applicant accept
responsibility tor any probTems with the bu7iding's location. In light of th7s, the
staff cannot support this variance as it is c7early is a self created hardship.
~.i
~ ~J
~ ~ - •
c
T ry S36042~00''W
~ To Qtia 50.80 _ f
~yo p,~ rti -
- - - - _
IN,
\
~
~ ~ .
FxT Sh 2 A
o,c
o~NQ4r
ssoo/4ipy o
JO ~o f ~,o ~~yF,Ci7'
r ~.2s •=~orry U~~ 0 ~ G~Q2
~ ~ ~LH~r CF srNG
00
.
~w m
o
' ~
E 6
PARK1NG
;Nl= d~ SPAGES ~~3Q
„w p~~ ~s' R=96.00 L=sa.ls' a_ SCALF
57p~g C!1 s N T$° 10 40`yy 8p o38 `~Y 30 20 10 0
°Op OO ` 6O 39 ,
o'ao"E $,7. . rk=S78o 06'5 e"F s~
ze.ad A+49°3I'1s" ss.
~ yyo37~ ~ a
~%%o2Aa" ~4b- 04
2o50 W p ~•r~ A6. 5~~
GN' . Y'fA
3047 3811 D.'}t / NT <
s~v ~Q
W 7 94 /:a co
~-POkNT "An EN PARKlNG ~i
SAqOES a '[0.
00 W /o tic
OF ss-
~ FpUhOqT10 ~ b w .
ti N Q- ss,3 0~~j~
1 i1 !6 P~8'24`r. 16 ~p~18.2q'n 2~~ ~2J
°l0 E
30 ?~F .~y.
3.00~ a~~~U~'
n ~ SroR 't
-Dlnr
Y F01JR G
utitr
~D~W 12.4!'~ p 7,~'= QOMlNlU ~n~i /0
Ns3 00 , 39,,
~
7. 2a.a4~~ 4~' ~ 23, 12.4r F g
N7p~z4' e ri ~'4 0 84•~~ 3 ~
`V
)K E 40,00
?2. W O i ~ .
~ ~ ~ ` ~ ' 44V Cb '
ry,tsrC''~ ~ ~ ~ 1O ~
1 :t:=: 4k- ti
• ~ 1 2~ ~~y ry. e ~Ns,o ~ ~y s~2s
~ R. 6io~0•~
opTf,p ~ /8
8~ o O ~ ~ O /
.S09047 20nw~ ~ ~?l~' oa4MS~ FoUNQT`Nf ooW OO,/~ 4~~ g 3~~
?,q, m s^6' ry,o ~'OO' 8 O3og.-~ 9
37.00' z, R44, oo F oo p, o.~ a
~ 3
A
M ki pO
2g.~M~~~ ~=9q~•~' Slb 4~fs /O5~0990
M4 p eM rM ~Q C T S 3 ~ h r~Lr 80 ~ 9 cb
7,0w OF SUpp - ti~kRF F ~ D~ N G ~ 3~ m Fo0 psI?AC .
NyaoU"T ~eN r T 'e f~ 40e k/yG
C UQ O ~R ~ti a ~ 99 F° N 9S/
_ o ~4%pyfOF
op, 2~ ~M~ •3a•
_ v) Z, ~~9.~ lFc~ s\ °ow~°sr• ~a 561°18'0
T~GQr,F'9q~y O:~ G.VC. '
1
~Q• Q42G
entITF1F85T CORNER N28
r.n'
. MEMORANDUM
T0. Planning and Environmenta1 Gommiss3on
FROM: Cammunity Development Department
DATE: March 19, 1984
TOPIC: Discussion of Parking Fund for CCI and CCII at
Planning and EnvironmentaZ Commissian Meeting March 12, 1984
COMMENTS/QUESTIONS/RECOMMENDA7IONS
Update on Parking Dick Ryan, Director of Planning stated that the current
Construction Costs fees far parking are $3,000/space for commercia1 parking
and $5,000/space for residential parking.
In aletter fram Jim Ream, architect, and Hugh Hyder,
contractor, dated December 27, 7982, it was estimated that
if the parking strUCture were constructed in 1984 the
cost would be $5,334/space. A tvtal of 412 spaces could
be added ta the existing structure.
7hese figures have not been updated since 1982. The figure
daes not inciude financing and other costs.
•
History of Parking Dick Ryan: Five or six years ago the 7own Council established
Program a minimum parking fee of $I,000/space. 7he fee was created
What was the original ta allow for patential developers in Vail Village Commercia3
intent of the parking Core I(CCI) and Lionshead (CCII) to develop property.
program? Was the The fee for parking was not meant to cover the actual cost
intent to actually pay of construct3ng parking.
for a parking space The Town Council wanted to encourage additiona7 commercia1
or to establish a redevelopment in CCr, so the $3,000/space for commercia7
nominal fee? was established. The $5,000/space for residential is
c7oser to the actua1 cost of construction. At that time,
the Town Council was not trying to promote condaminium
residential use.
Additional Backgraund Jay Peterson, Attorney: About eight years ago, the Slifer
on Parking Program building, Covered Bridge building, Red Lion and Mountain
Haus wanted to expand. At that time, the existing parking
ordinance dYd nat address the issue of increased deve7apment
or change of use in respect to parking. The Town Council
deveioped a pian far collecting money from the develapers
for parking. The p1an was not enforceable. An ordinance
was then designed to ai7ow additional development and
• to bring in some money to the Town to cover parking expenses.
The ordinance was never meant to cover the full cost of
a parking space. The fee was an incentive to promote
Parking Fund -2- 3/12/84
commercial redevelopment, part3cularly in the Lianshead
. area.
Jim Ream's figures are probably accurate given that 100%
of the space is uti1ized except for the ramps. If you
take the origina7 construction costs for the existing
parking structure and escalate the figures 8% annua1ly,
the cost/space is $7,600. The $7,600/space includes ramps
and entries.
Two Reasons Why Parking There are two reasons why a person should not be ob7igated
Fee Shau7d Nat Cnver to pay tne fu17 cost of a parking space:
the Totai Cost of
Parking 1. The parking space is not utilized solely by the business
100 percent of the time. There is no guarantee that
° No guarantee of 100% the space will a7ways be available.
uti7ization of space.
2. Most people in CCI have not paid for parking. On1y
°More recent develop- the recent developers have been required to pay for
ments are forced to parking. The fee should be less than the actua1 cost
bear most of the of parking due to the discrepancy.
financing burden for
addittanal parking.
• An Alternative Solution A parking district was suggested as an a1ternative to
to the Parking Fee is the existing parking fee system. The saiution will be
to create a Parking more equitab1e in that everyone in CCI and CCII wi17 benefit
District from a iarger parking structure. Jay Peterson asked why
a person who has never paid for any parking shou7d be
exempt from a parieing fee just because he or she established
a busTness before the ordinance was enacted. The parking
district is feasible legally and eguitable as the financing
burden is shared equally among the CCI and CCI2 areas.
Need to 5tudy Parking The issue of the Day Skier shou7d also be studied in
Impacts of the Day respect to par[cing impacts.
Skier
Gordon Pierce: Basicaily, Gordon agreed with many of
Jay's suggestians. It was poTnted out that different
types of residential uses generate different parking needs.
During the VVI study, it was evident that the project
wou1d end up with alot of unnecessary parking spaces
and yet the project was slightly under what was required
by the zoni ng ordi nance.
In respect to the Sonnena7p, 45 to 50 spaces are probably
adequate, but the lodge wiTl pay for approximateiy 90
.
Parking Fund -3- 3/12/84
spaces. The 90 spaces seems like an improper balance.
~ On the other hand, 7f you were planning a duplex on
the same site, you probably would be paying for 2 to
4 spaces.
Jay Peterson: About 50% of the people who stay at the
Sonnenalp bring a car.
Need to Document Realistic Jim Vie7e: It is clear that we need additional parking.
Costs of Additianal What we should do first is determine the realistic cost
Pa_ rkinq af the parking. Policy can be deterrnined after the
cast figures are available.
Cascade Villa e Parkin Duane Piper: Rndy Norris' figures for his parking
Costs Estimates structure breakdawn in the following way:
265 sf/space (very efficient)
$3,800,000 Total Parking cast
- 500,000 Spa Related Cost
$3,300,000 Total Parking Cost
$ 7,600/vehicle (This amount cavers only hard con-
struction costs, a minimum fi~re)
•
Parking User Survey Diana Donavan: Some type of survey could give us infor-
^ mation on parking users. Resident users shou1d a1so
Who is dependent on the be included in the survey. Present7y, our planning
parking structure? does not address local users. The day skier has the
° Athletic C7ub greatest impact on parking. In addition, a lot of the
° Town res9dents parking that is required for commercial redeveiopment
° Commercial users i s not available to the customer, but is oniy for
° Mountain Haus peop7e who check into that hote7.
Of the 412 additional Scott Edwards: One of the mistakes we make about the
parking spaces, how day sk3er is that we say they don`t spend any money
many will be impacted in Town. However, when they go 1nto the cafeteria at
by the recent deve1op- mid-Vail and spend money, it is sti17 helping the overa7T
ment incentive program Town. if Vai7 Associates makes more money, they are
for CCI? gaing to improve conditions on the mountain which attracts
more people ta Vai1.
Where wi11 a new
parking structure be lo- Jim Viele: In summary, we need better data on
cated once the additional the parking issUe. This information will he7p
412 spaces have been us make better po1icy recommendations.
built?
•
Parking Fund - 3/12/84
~ TSSUES F0R REVIEW
1. Research origina1 intent of the parking program.
2. Determine the impacts of the day skier (i.e. cash va7ue).
3. Evaluate parking district concept and passibility of public
transportation becoming a part of the district.
4. Determine the actual cost of additional parking (400 t0 500 spaces).
The figure snould include all costs.
5. Find figure on total cost/space of the Lionshead parking structure.
6. Camplete a us2r's survey for the parking structure.
7. Determine how the recent development fncentive program for CCI wi7l
impact the 412 additional parking spaces.
8. Clarify the purpase of the parking fee--Is the fee in additian to
other var7ances or in lieu of other variances?
9. Research possible location for a future parking structure.
~
~
1 . . .
ROBBINS AND REAM INC ARCHITECTUfiE1URBAN DESEGN 212 SUTTER S7REET SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNiA 94108 (415) 989•2616
•
14 October 1983 Mr. Dick Ryan
Director, Community Development ' .
Town ot Vail
75 South Frontage RoadVail, CO 81657
Dear Dick:
EncJ.osed is a copy of the letter I wxate to Ri.ch Caplan
on 27 December 1982 concerning the potentzal increase in ~
paarking stall count and pY'O]ECted Cq5tS fO7C the eastward
extension to the Vai3. Transportation Terminal.
The cast figures in the Zetter assumed a 1984 construction
. season wi.th escalation o£ cost5 to that point. From the
s-tandpoint of the timing of professional services, this
would still be a very feasible target if the Town desired
to proceed. We wou7.d still need to ask the Town af Vail
the same questions the letter identifa.es about the timing
of the approval process and making financial arrangements
Eor the project. There is one additional question which
shoul.d be considered in evaluatzng potential car spaces
and costs. A caretul l.ook should be taken at the amou.nt
of land usad up by the extensian versus the amount of
lateral space required for adequate snow storage for snow
removed from the tap deck of the structure. That investi-
gation could be very quickl.y done a.f you decide ta proceed. ~
P3ease let me knaw if there is any further way we may be
of assistan.ce.
Very bast regards,
.
James Ream
Enclosure: Letter to Rich Capl.an, 27 Deeember 1982
~ CC: Mr. Rich Caplan w/encl. .
JR:j'c
~
ll• ; ~ ' . ' , , ~
' ~ . ' . ,
i'
ROB6INS ANQ RCAM lNC AfiCH1TtC7UfiE/11R811N DESIGN 212 SUl'7EFi S7iiEEF SAh1 FRANC]SCO CF,LIFORNlA 14110p (415) 9ts9:2b1G
:L•
December 27,, 1982 Mx. Ri.ch Caplan .
Town Managex
Tawn of Vail. '
75 South Frantage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Rick: .
St was good to run into you.'at the emerging Westi.n.• Hotel. Hy now they
must be fuiiy but of.the she11 and spreading tbsa.r new wings, .
Per your xequest for information on tne possa.ble expansion of the parkzng
structure at the Transportation Center,- we haue campil'ed the -following: 1. The, ox.iginal strudture was deszgned to incorporate a potential expan- ~si.on of the stxucture-, at a•l1 four '(4) parking -1.evels, from the east end. There are removab].e con,crete panels on each level of the struc~
ture at the east wal].-to open up the drxving lanes without disturbing
. the.maxn parta.on of the east wa7.3.. The new st'ructuxe woulcl fz13 the
area now occupied by the suxface paxking and basketba].1. court,
2. The plans provided fox ten..T°10 ) additional hays ta the east, -but the• '
£inal al.ignment of the end xaad conneeting the lower lodges and the
Vail Athletic C7.ub to the fxontage road make it appear that a nine-bay
extension may be maxa.mur~ to permit reasonab`I.e grade transitzons between
structure.and raad.
3. Since .add.itional bays 'wouTd be served by a1l the exista.ng functional i el.ements, (access xamps,.paxking equi;pment, pedestrian step system),
the 'added bays would be vexy econvmical by today's standards and could be utilizea 100% for parking spaces,- Only two ,(2) stair spaces wauld
ne.ed ta be deZeted with the present end driving loops at levels 2 and ~
3 transferxed to the new end of the structure allowing those 1.oops to
be converted to parking spaces. This would yield the fol3owi.ng park,
a:ng space caunt:
9 bays at 48 cars/bay ,{4 leve1.s); f432
Less 2 stairs (4 1.evels) : • g
Less 4 end driving loops at 6spaces ; 24
Fi].l existin dri.vin J.oo s, level 2 and 3: +12
Net total spaces added: f412
~
~
. ` ~
~ . . . . . '
r Mr. Rich Caplan • . . , , . _ . ` .
~ Town of Vai.1 . • . • . • . . . -
;
December 27 r 1982 . ' -
Page Two . .
g. We. have asked Hugh Hydar.of Hydar.Construction Cnmpainy, contraatoxs fox the original structure, to give an appxoxa.rnate,'cost;, proaected to the building seasan of 1984, for this:construction. By maka.ng
qual.ified comparisons to the earl,ie~c-project arid Lionshead Center,
he projects tha fal].awing budget for the- pur'pose of.eva`lua.ting the
project feasi.bi.J.ity: . ~ _
Constructa.on, I25, 000 SF at 17.JSF:t:= 2,125;'/ 000 .
Fees at 4.9%: 105,000 ,
_ _ _ S,andsca zn al7.owance: ~ . _ - . . . .50; 000 . .
2.~280,440 . .
--To•the;_ab_ove project-costs would need to-be...added other soft. cost
i.tem,s such as -financi4g:_ ,costs., and the cost of admin~istrat.~u~ t~.me .
by the Town if separately identifa,ed. . . - _ . . . . . . . . _ _ _ . ~ ,
5. On a cost .per _space basis ~this-.computes _ to $5.,'534 pex, space; Thzs
compaxes very favar'ably to the origi.nal cost pex-space..as fol'J.ows ' . _ - . ~Original: costyspace c 3,,.850
~ - - Escalation added-• at .8 % f or 9 eaxs
Tatal escal.ated cast per_ -space : , . 7a 696 .
. - _
The. savings in functiana7. _ service . eJ.ements, ~ the e~~ic:iency ,of the
pa.rki.n.g..p7.an, and the deueloped,exp~rience with ..tl~e or.~ginal project
- _
acc.Q.urit..far the restxJ.tant savings.
The questi.on shou3.d be addressed as to whe.thex i.t' wo.uTd be possible to.
promqte.~-,such_:a.,._project; to tb
e_..7.983 buildi.ng season to saue the addit.ional
year' s~_BXCalata.on,.and meet. par%~nq~ needs__a year. sooner. We £eel tha.s would
be theoreta.cal].y possib1e f: .-fxom ,a -tqc.hna.r,,a1 serva.ce standpoint,, •~.f the pro
ject_-pxoQ4Qded_ on. a f~s~-~xack-bas~:s w~..th the pxe-casting. of, standard can-~
crete_ camp.vnenta=: prpqaedjng dha,l.e detailed: wo-~k-'.on ,the ; baXance o~ the pro-:
ject. was -completed. '~he grobable _~.im~i:tata.ons _ta this approach wou'1d be the •
f ol].owing : _ . ` . _ . - - _ . . _ . .
AvailabzZa.ty of producta.on capacity and exectio'n schedu-Iing
at the pre-casting.plant; However, with the prabability of ' a 1.ess-thanrnoxmal avnstxuction year ahead, the-capacity might'
we].l be available. 2. Decisian-making l.ead time for the public agencies invol.ved.,
' incZuding a bond i.5sue e1.ec-Eian-if.required. . . '
• 3. Ta.me required for campJ.eting financial. arrangements ,
.
,
r'. ~ ' . .
~ , • , ' . • .
J M.r. Rich Czplan • , ~ ~ •
Town of Vail .
ecember 27, 1982
age Three ' . ~
Needless to say, if the -poss-a.bility exista of an Apxi3. 1983 start, it
woul:d be- necessa.ry to give an almost xmmediate go=ahead to the desxgn
team since every day would be helpfuT in meeting the necessary.schedule.
Because of the tight schedule it might also be necessaxy to couex the
passibila.ty of overta.me costs by a s7.3g7it increase in:desig~j- fees, Such
an increase however wou3:d be sma1l in compara.san to, the. amo.urit saved on
bui.ldxng cast escalation, euen at today `s •lowex annual •].eue'ls..
Please l.et mekriow ifthc:r.e_isany.. addit'iona"I., infoxmation _which might
be he].pful.. We wi].J.~be g7.ad to assist in any,way,vze can. .
Very best. regards,- : .
, i. . _ . .
James Ream, FAIA - ' - - - ~ ~
c : John Eber1.e;. -Da.tector o:~ .Publi.a: Woxks . ' ,
Huqh Hyder, ..'Hyder_
_ . _ : r~_: . : .:_._W._: ~ . _ . ~ . .
~ . .
!
t
~ VAII, PRRKiNG STftUGTURE SUftVEY
Sunday Wednesday Friday 3-Day Avg.
VilTage Transportation Center 3/18 3/21 3/23 Avg. %
4-6 p.m.
Day Skiers 23 25 65 34 27%
Destination Skiers 51 33 65 50 40%
Wark 33 31 11 25 20%
5hopping, Restaurants, etc. 9 7 3 6 5%
Other 16 9 0 S 8;6
Lacal Residents 45 39 lOT 64 52%
Non Residents 77 66 37 60 48%
7otal Cars 122 105 144 124
7:30-9:30 p.m.
Day Skiers 10 3 20 11 12%
Destination Skiers 24 13 32 23 26%
Work 24 10 26 20 22%
Shopping, Restaurants, etc. 43 2 18 21 23%
Other 23 8 5 12 17%
Local Residents 3$ 14 33 2$ 31%
Non Residents 86 22 78 62 69%
~ Total Cars 124 36 111 90
Total Transactions (all day) 2516 2069 1849
Season Pass Transactions (all day) 127 148 155
VilZage Structure Filled Yes Yes Yes
Cars on Frontage Road 0 117 144
Lionshead Transportation Center
4-6 p.m.
Oay Skiers 38 40 23 34 33%
Destination Skiers 39 53 39 44 43%
Work 12 7 18 12 12%
5hopping, Restaurants, etc. 10 2 3 5 5%
Other 21 0 3 8 7%
Local Residents 14 12 24 17 17%
Non Residents 106 90 62 86 83°6
Total Cars 120 102 86 103
~ 7:30-9:30 P.m.
Day Skiers 5 5 9 7 20%
Destinatian Skiers 0 11 47 19 56°6
Work 3 5 7 5 15%
Shopping, Restaurants, etc. 1 3 5 3 9%
Other 1 D 0 0 0%.
Local Residents 5 7 15 9 26%
Nfln Resi dents 5 18 53 25 74%
T.,+>> rnrc 7n ? r, AR 14 d
I
~ VAII. PARKING LOT SURVEY
1979-80
Purpose of T
Work 19%
Ski 77%
Shop 2%
Other 2%
Where Do You Live:
Local Residents 28%
Denver/Boulder 21%
Other Non Residents 51%
Are Yvu Here For Just One pay_:
Yes 44%
No 56%
~
~
, MEMORANDUM
March 28, 1984
i •
I
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Develapment Department
I
~ SUBJECT: SoronenaTp Specia7 Develapment Distr7ct Praposal
~
I
Tne Planning and Environmenta7 Commission reviewed several issues on the
I Sonnenalp special deve7opment district proposai and made the fo7lowing
, recammendations.
1. Parkin Fees
The parking fees shou7d be the amaunt established at the time of
issuance of the building permtt.
2. Bus Lane
The northeast area which previously narrowed down to 16 feet wi17 be 22
feet during the winter season. An agreement was warked out with the
Pub3ic Works/Gransportation Department to have remavable p7anters in
this area. During the summer, the planters wouTd be instailed to have
a 16 foot bus ]ane, whi7e during the winter they would be removed and
• there wou7d be 22 feet of bus 7ane.
3. 7ime Requirements
The Special Development District section of the zaning ordinance states
"The applicant must begin construction of the speciaT deveTapment district
within eighteen manths from the time of fina7 approval, and continue
di7igently toward the completion af the project." The Planning and Environ-
mental Commission stated that the building permit must be picked up within
18 months after Town Counc7l approval.
4. Creek Bank Landsca in
The Planning and Enviranmental Commission stated "speciai attention must
be paid to the landscaping of the creek bank." The staff would recommend
that re-landscaping the creek bank be the responsibiTity of the appiicant.
5. Underground Utilities
The P7anning and Environmental Commission recommended that relocation
af utilities caused by construction of the Sonnenalp be the appTicant`s
responsibility.
~
i
~ 6. Commercia7 Uses
• The P1anning and Environmenta1 Commission recommend d
e that a71 commerciai
uses be conditional uses.
7. St_reet Lights
The P1 ann i ng and Envi ronmental Cammi ss ion recflmmended that street_:,1ights
be subject to Design Review Board approval and be paid far by the app1TCant.
NOTE: Jay Petersan did show a revised plan with five parking spaces.
i
•
~
I Chuck's motion an the Sonnenalp:
• 7hat the app7icant return to the planning and Environmental Cammiss3on
before the secand readtng with the resolution of dai7ars necessary far
parking funds, the resolution of pedestrians and traffic problem on the
northeast corner of the bui7ding, the resolutian af the replacement af the
trees, the resoiutian of the pedestrianization of the arcade, that a time
limit be pTaced an the approval, that the improvements of the creek bank
; be a part of the improvement district, and in fact the applicant will pay
~ far the mQVement of utilities necessary in the street area and will provide
for necessary street lighting in frant of the property, and a11 retail uses
shalT be conditianal uses.
~
. ~
~
P7anning and Enviranmental Commission
Apri7 9, 1984 ~
1:30 Site Inspectians
3:00 Pub1ic Hearing
1. Approva7 of minutes of March 12 and March 26.
2. Request for a front setbacK variance of 7.6 feet for an existing building
of the Vail Racquet C7ub Townhomes Tocated at 5770 Bighorn Road.
Applicant: Uai7 Racquet Club Tawnhomes
3. Request for a dbnsity control variance in order to add 92 square feet
of GRFA to an existing dwelling unit on the top floor of the Sunbird
Lodge. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge
4. Request for arE exterior alteration to the Village Center, Bui7ding D,
at 122 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
5. Request for a density control variance in order to enclose a hot tub at
Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Village ist Fiiing. Applicant: Velda Wyche
6. Request for a GRFR variance in order to enc7ose the porches of four
adjoining condominiums at the Lodge at Lionshead., Phase ZZ.
• Applicants: Hazel Goode, James Thorburn, Marie Eoff, and Janet Steele
Tabled 7• Request for a stream setback variance in order to build a dwelling on
Lot 2, Vail Village West. Filing No. 2. Applicant: The Elmore Group, Ltd.
7abled g• Re9uest to rezone Lot 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2, from Agriculture
and Open Space to Residential Primary/Secondary. Applicant:
The Elmore Group, Ltd
9. Request to amend the Town af Vai1 zoning code, Chapter 18.69 Hazard
Regulations, ta include provisions for geologic hazard investigation and
m9tigation in a17 areas of the Town which have been identified as having
potential geoTogic problems. Applicant: Town of Vai7
~
~
Planning and EnvironmentaT Commission
April 9, 1984
• PRESENT STRFF PRESEN7
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Scott Edwards Tom Braun
; Gordon Pierce Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Larry Eskwith
Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack
Wil1 Trout
ABSENT
JIM VIEl.E
The meeting was called ta order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman.
1. Approval of minutes of March 12 and Nfarch 26.
Pierce moved and Donovan seconded to apprave the corrected mtnutes of March 12.
The vote was 6-0 in favor. Trout corrected the March 26 minutes so that his
reason for voting against the Sonnena7p specia1 development district would read:
"because he d3d not feel any project shou7d bc approved that would have any negative
effect an TOV property (i.e. the bus shelter, paving, trees, or ather improvements
existing)." Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the March 26 minutes
as corrected. The vote was G-a in favor.
. . 2. Request for a front setback variance of 1.6~feet for an cxisting building
of the Vai1 Racquet C7ub 7'ownhomes located at 5770 B.ightirn Road.
App7icant: Uaii Racquet Club Tawnhames
Tom Braun expiained the request. He stated that Building I had been constructed
on]y 78.4 feet from the front property line, resulting in a 1.6 foot encorachment
into the setback. Braun added that the variance would have no impact an existing
or potential uses and structures, but that there was na evidence to indicate
a phys9cal hardship, merely human error.
Waiter K3rch, the applicant, said that he found that the 1'own of Vail owned the
adjoin7ng property, and that he considered asking for either a land swap or
a Tand acquisition, but decided to first asEc for a variance. He felt that the
granting of this var7ance wouid nat consistitute a grant of specia7 privilege
because of other simiTar variances inciuding one in 1981 for 1ot 12 in Bighorn 4th
which was 18.2 feet from the property line. He added that granting of the variance
would not be detrimenta7 to the public health, safety or welfare, and felt that
he qua7ified because the strict or 7itera1 interpretatian and enforcement wou7d
resuTt in practical difftcu7ty and would deprive the appl7cant of privileges
enjayed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
Trout moved and_Pierce seconded to approve the variance request because the
granting of the variance wauld not constitute a grant of special privilege, and
wou1d not be detrimental to the public hea1th, safety or welfare and was warranted
because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the speczfied
~ regulation would resuit in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the zoning code. The vote was 6-0 in favor.
, PEC -2- 4/9/84
3. Re uest for a densit control variance in order to add 92 suare feet of
! GRFA to an existing dwel7ing unit on the top fioar of the Sunbird Lodge.
; . Appl icant: Sunbird Lodge . .W. ~~._...W.--..~~.
Tom Braun exp1ained that at the meeting of March 12, 1984, the applicants had
two requests, and the request to add an emp7oyee unit was granted. The request
to add 92 square feet of GRFA was tabTed because af some question cancerning
the number of kitchens allowed at the iadge.
The staff inet with the applicant to resolve the issue concerning how many unit5
1n the Sunbird Lodge may have kitchens. A court order limited the number to
13, but the Cvmmunity Development department erroneously issued a building permit
for the instaliation of another kitchen in the fall af 1983.
To allow for a kitchen in the 5th f7aar unit, the applicants agreed to remove
a kitchen from another unit and have agreed to an on-site inspection. The end
resu1t would be 14 lega7 kitchens.
Bruce Parton, applicant, stated that the unit was not functional, and he was
trying to improve an existing unit, not add another unit. Discussion centered
around whether 4r not the added GRFA would be adding bulk and mass. Braun reminded
the board that they must establish a hardship and Patten felt that this request
was more for convenience.
Rapson felt that this was a condition not generally applicable ta other situations.
Edwards fe1t that there was a physical hardship here, Piper stated that the 7edge
was not habitab7e space, Donovan feit that the board did not have a tool with
~ which to approve the variance. Trout felt that the board had approved the employee
unit with the result that the app7icant was ieft with the need ta expand the
adjacent unit. Plerce felt the density and bulk were not being increased and
Piper agreed,
7rout moved and Pierce seconded to approve the requested GRFR variance.
Rapson suggested adding the site inspectian of~kitchens ta the motion, but
Braun fe7t that in light of what had gone on in the past, plus the 1etter of
commitment from the applicant, the staff wou1d be aware of the need to inspect
the units. Danovan painted out that arTginally both top floor units were
employee units.
The vote was 5-1 with Donovan aqalnst because she felt that the board did nat
have a tool with which to approve the variance. ~ T
4. Request for an exteriar alteration to the Village Center, Suilding D
at 122 Meadow Drive. Applicant: Fred Hibberd
Peter Patten expTained the requast by first showing a time lapse movie from twa
locations. First from the top of the 7RE laoking southeast, then from the west
side. He pointed out the "7ost tourist" autos and the way the pedestrians
avoided the sidewa7k in front of the Village Center and wa3ked down the street.
aelivery problems were evident on both on both the east and west ends of the
Village Certter bu37dirtg.
. Patten explained that the planning staff encouraged Hibberd to treat his appTicatian
as a master plan and to include ane comprehensive proposal.
I
I PEC -3- 4/9/84
Patten showed a site plan and explained that there was a loading problem an east
• side with no 7oading zone. This would be avercome with the joint 7oading facility
shared by the Sonnenalp. Patten then said the 7oading zone on the west side
would be remaved to help to get pedestrians onto the sidewa1k. The 1oading on
this side would be interna3ized adjacent to the building.
Fatten explained that the two story addition on the east end was the same height
at La Tour and the eave line would continue across. He explained that there
would be a roof over the steps which went down to Bui7ding A. The major redesign
of the sidewaik included placing it closer to the street, and also they were
made easier to get onto coming fram Crossroads. The street would be 26 feet
wide with snow storage areas between the street and the sidewalk.
The retail fronts were tn be redesigned to better relate to the sidewalk, and
there would be a sma7l amount of square footage added to each store, a7ong w7th
a redesigning of the stairs ta the Toymaker's Trail.
Patten described the Urban Design Guide Plan with re1ation to the sub-area cancept5
18 through 22. He then stated the proposaT complied with CommerciaT Core II
zane district's requirements.
The setback variance was requested in order to share the loading dock with the
Sonnenalp. The ioading building would overlap the property line and would be
canstructed at the request af the staff as a solution to the Toading prab7ems
for both projects.
~ Patten read $ conditions for approva7. Hibberd discussed the conditions and
stated that he would fee7 more comfortable if the Town cou7d set a date when
the impravements in sub-area #20 would be done. He added that he would like
to have the Town remove the snow if it needed to be hauled off-site, but that
ne would otherwise install and maintain the sidewa7ks.
The west end was discussed with some of the board fee7ing that samething should
be done to make the garage entrance more appealing. Hibberd stated that he intended
to paint the interior of the garage. Pierce suggested a garage door or gate,
and Hibberd said he would take the suggestion under advisement. He pointed out
tnat a gate was a major maintenance factar.
Rick Baldwin, architect for the project, explained how the steps and sidewa1ks
would work and said that the sidewaTk would be 8 feet wide. Park7ng in the
parking area in the bui7ding was explained by Hibberd who stated that the shop
owners had assigned parking spaces, but that the studio condos did not have any
parking spaces in the building. Patten exp7ained that the app1icant was required
to pay far parking spaces in the Viilage Parking Structure and was not al7owed
to put parking on his site. Piper stated that he had many letters of oppositon
from Merv Lapin and from the condo owners in Buiidings A, B, and C.
Loading on the west end was discussed again. Kathy Warren, representing the
owners in Bui1dings A, B and C explained that the property owners did have many
opposing ideas, but that they had met with Hibberd and the problem areas had
been resalved and she had a ietter to submit to the permanent fiTe from the Village
Center Association to Hibberd agreeing to severaT items. Patten pointed out
that this would be an agreement that the Tawn would not be a part of.
.
PEC -4- 4/9/84
• Ann Louthan, President of the Bui1ding D Condo Association, exp1ained that the
condos in 8uilding n did not have any parking spaces in the building, but needed
a p7ace to park while they unToaded their autos. She felt that more than onc
space was needed, and the autos needed to be in the spaces about 30 minutes.
Hibberd exp7ained that there would be no probTem with parking near the doors,
but the cars could not be left in the Toading zane. Louthan asked if the condo
owners in 8uilding D would be paying for any of the impravements, and Hibberd
rep1ied that they would not. Louthan mentioned that the condo owners felt the
changes to the building would be a great improvement.
Rapsan was concerned wlth the appearance of the west end when the riprap wa71
was removed, and especial7y from the point o-F view af the tourists coming up
Willaw Bridge Road. He felt it would be better to have an entrance that people
could not see. Hibberd replied that he had had to repTace garage doors three
times. He felt that a face lift would be enough to improve the entrance.
Rapson asked about exterior lighting, and Hibberd replTed the one waoden lamp
would be replaced with lamp posts, and Baldwin fe1t that the display lights in
the shops would help to light the sidewalk.
Ra son moved and Edwards seconded to a rove the side setback variance for the
loadin berth er the staff inemo dated A ri7 5, 1984. The vote was 6-0 7n favor.
Ra son moved and Trout seconded to a rove the exterior alterations, for the
com lied withthe Urban Desi n Conszderations 7 thru 9. Inclu ed in the motion
. were the ei ht conditions 1isted on a e 6 of the memo with extra attention to
the_changes on the west„ end of the buiid.3nq. The vate was 6=0 in favor.
5. Re uest for a densit contro1 variance in order to enclose a hat tub at
Lot 8, Block 5, Vail Villa eIst Fi1in . Rpplicant: Velda B. Wyche
Tom 8raun expTained that at the February 13th meeting of the PEC a side setback
variance was approved to aliow for an extensive remodel of this residence, ane
element of which was a hot tub on a rooftop deck. This application was to enc7ase
the hottub with a greenhouse type of enclosure that would add 72 square feet of
GRFR. He added that the staff recommended denia7 because no hardship had been
established.
Tim C7ark, architect for the applicant, read the letter of request. Ne exp1ained
that the space would be unheated and was without direct access trom the inside
of the un-it. He fe7t that the granting of the variance would not be detrimentaT
and also felt that the strict interpretation would deprive the applicant af
priviieges enjoyed by the owners af ather properties in the same district, and
that it would not be a grant of speciai privi7ege.
Donovan felt that she cau]d not support the request because there would then be
i
PEC T5- 4/9/84
many other simi7ar requests to enclose hot tubs. The board concurred, and many
~ felt that it wou7d be good to looK at GRFA definitions to ailow many similar
request5 with changes in the zoning code.
Rapson moved and_Pierce seconded to deny the request with the finding that the
granting would have constituted a grant af 5pecial privilege The vote was 5 1n
favor, none against, with Trout abstainiU. Trout felt that he did not want to
vote until he cauid read the staff changes in the zoning code. Patten pointed
aut that at this time there was no active study, but that within 1-72 years the
who1e zaning code could hapefu1ly be examined and revised. He added that he could
not promise that when the changes were done, there would be a way to al7ow hottub
enc1osures.
Piper reminded CTark that the applicant had 10 days in which to appea1 the decision
to the Town Council.
Request for aGRFA variance in order ta enc7ase the porches of four_adjoi_ning
condaminium5 at t_he Lodge_at_ Lio_nshead, Phas_e TI
Applicants: Haze1 Goode, James Tharburn, Marie Eoff, and Janet Steele
Kristan Pritz explained that the four applicants each owned condominiurrES on the
north side of the Lodge at Lionshead, Phase II. Each unit had a balcony facing
the Lionshead Parking Structur'e and were requesting to enclose the balconies ta
minimize the impacts from the parking structure. Pritz explained that the project
was over the aiTowab7e GRFA. She aiso added that the parking structure was bui7t
after the Phase II was constructed, but added that since other dweliing units
~ were also similarly impacted, there was no extraordinary circumstances and the
staff recommended denial.
James Thorburn, one of the appiicants, stated that all four applicants were origina7
owners, that when they purchased the units there was na parking structure. He
stated that naw their porches were unusab'le- because af noise, lights and dust.
He pointed out that the Athietic Club and Mountain Naus in the Village wou7d be
szmiTarly impacted, but that the Town had planted a berm to mitigate any disturbance
from the Village parking structure.
Scott Thorburn, representing the app1icants, had faur points to make. 1} that
this was existing floor area and it would not 7ncrease occupancy, 2) that the applicants
had considered other measures such as triple glazing of the sliding glass aoors,
but that since the glazing constituted all of the light and venti3ation, this
wou1d not be effective when the doors were open, 3) the design of the building
amp1ified the sounds from the parking structure, and 4) since glazing was such
a 7arge part of the affected units, sound boards would not help much. He felt
that these four units were claser to the parking structure than others and so
this was a unique situation. He felt that a strict interpretation of the code
would deprive the applacants of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
Trout felt that he had been sympathetic to the staff's position, but now had mixed
emotions because the use of the porches was diminished. Donovan wortdered if other
buildings in the area were similarly affected. Thorburn stated that because of
. the way the building was constructed, it ampliFied sound. Donovan wondered just
what about the construction amplified the sound. Piper felt that fram observing
. .
PEC -6- 4/9/84
~ the porches that day, it appeared that these un7ts were impacted more than
others. Donovan fe7t that the 1ight from autos wouid hit higher than these
porches, and Thorburn replied that neverthe7ess, enough light from snaw plows
hit at the porch level to be a nuisance, and theiporches constituted the an7y
opening to the exterior, and furniture could not be left out because of the amount
of dust that sett1ed an the porch. The applicant was asked what effect the
parking lot Mad had before the structure was buiTt, and he stated that since
the cars and snowp7ows were at a 3awer 7eveT, they dic# not intrude as much, and
there was also 7ess traffic.
Edwards fe7t that perhaps this was an extraordinary circumstance because of the
ang7e and the cioseness of the units to the structure. Donavan felt that since
these units were at the same ievel as the top of the parking structure, the hardship
of the dust was not created by the app1icants. Also the fact that four peop3e
were affected, not just one, cau7d explain the uniqueness. She added that the
light from head7ights woula affect others, but the dust affected only these
units, making the porches unuseable. Trout suggested gypsum board ta absorb
sound, along with studying the bu71d7ng ta see if there was an updraft, and suggested
to the applicants that they table for further studies.
Edwards moved ta approve the variance but there was no second.
Rapson_moved and Piper seconded to deny the variance because it would be a
grant of special privilegeinconsistent with thelimitations an other properties
in the district. 7he vote was 3-2 in favor with Edwards and Donovan votin
against denial. (Pierce had left.
. Piper reminded the app77cants that they had 10 days in which ta appeaT the ru7ing
to tne Town Cauncil.
Trout asked Piper to po1T the board members ta see if they wou7d have granted
a variance Chat asked for screens, and most of the board feit that screens wou7d
not have he7ped the applicants` situation.
7. Request for a stream SEtbdCk variance in order to build a dwellin on Lat 2,
1lai 1 Vi l1 age West., Fi~lYng #2. Applicant: The Elmore Group Ltd.
8. Re uest to rezone Lot 3 Vai7 ViTla e West Filin #2, from R riculture and
0 en S ace to Residential Primar /5econdar . Appiicant: The E7more Group Ltd.
The applicant of these two requests asked to table to April 23. Rapson maved
and Edwards seconded to table to A rii 23. The vote was 5-4.
9. Re uest ta amend the Tvwn of Uai1 zonin code, Cha ter 18.69 Hazard Re u7ations
to include provisians for qeoioqich.azard investigation. and mitigation
in a11 areas of the Town which have been identified as havin otentia3
geoTogic problems. Applicant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten explained the reasoning for the request and asked the board far
• appraval of the ardinance. There was much discussion, and Larry Eskwith explained
that this was mereiy an amendment to the existing hazard section of the zaning
coda.
• PEC -7- 4/9/84
a George Hallenbeck, representing the Booth Creek area of homeowners who were
impacted by the recent rack fall discussed with Eskwith whether or not property owners
wou7d have to solve any hazard prob7ems. He felt that the Town should not be
able to affect additions ta homes a7ready bui1t. He added that the Town was
affecting property values.
The board discussed a similar sitation, the LeRoy petition to build a garage,
which was in a severe avalanche path and construction of the garage was denied.
Mal1enbeck was cancerned about the affect on the Sooth Creek property values.
More d7SCUS510n fo1lowed abaut various areas of concern.
Donavan moved and Rapson seconded to recommend ta the council the amendment
to Chapter 38.69 Hazard regulations per the staff mzmo dated 4/6/84 with
the following concerns to be addressed:
1. C7arify who paysfor the studi es.
2. Describe the fact that sites that are already built upon must not
increase risk by adding on to the dwel3ing.
3. Section 78.64.010 Purpose, Line 5, add "steep" before "slopes."
4. Qn page 2, Section 4, paragraph A, add "A71 reports and studies required
under this chapter sha17 be prepared under the directian of the owner/applicant
and subm3tted to the Community Deve7opment Department."
~ The vote was 5-0 in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 8:15 pm.
~
MEMORANDUM
~ TQ: Planning and Environmental Commission
! FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: April 4, 1984
SUBJEC7: Request for a GRFA variance in order ta enclose the porches of
four adjoining condominiums at the Lodge at Lionshead Phase IZ.
Appl3cants: Hazel Goode, James Thorburn, Marie Eoff, and Janet
Steele
DESCRiPTION QF THE VARIANCE
The four app7icants own condominiums on the north side of the Lodge at Lionshead,
Phase iI. Each unit has a balcony facing the Lionshead Parking structure. The
applicants are requesting to encTose the four balcanies in order to minimize
the impacts from the Lionshead Parking structure. The applicants stated that
their privaey had been invaded by "blowing horns, racing engines, head1ights
and noise from snow removal equipment." In addition, rental guests are requesting
other raams making it difficu7t ta rent the four units. The enclosed ba1cony
area would add atotal of 388 square feet. The enc7osed space per unit is:
tJnit 370: 92 sq ft
320: 102 sq ft
330: 102 sq ft
. 340 : 92 _ _sg ft
Tota7 388 sq ft
Both phases I and II of the Lodge at Lionshead were built under previous zoning
requirements. (Phase I and II are built on the same 1ot: Lionshead lst Filing,
Lot 7, B]ock 1.) In respect ta the existing GRFA requirements for the High Density
MultipTe Family zone, phases I and Ii are exist3ng legal non-conforming uses.
The lot size ts 59,629 square feet and has an al7owed GRFA af 35,777 square
feet. The square footage for Phase I and II is:
?hase I: 28,168 sq ft approx
Phase fI: 29,673 sq ft apprax
Total 57,841 sq ft apprax
T'he total existing square footage far Phase I and Phase II is auer the allowab1e
GRFA by approximate1y 22,064 square feet. The addition of th2 enclosed balcony
(388 square feet) wpuid iMcrease the non-canformance that already ex7sts on this
1 ot .
i
' Lodge ba7conies -2- 4/5/84
~ CRITERiA AND FINDINGS
U on review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici ai Code,
the De artment of Cammunit Develo ment recommends deniaT of the re uested
variance based upon the fai7owing factors:
Consideration of Factors
7he re1ationshi of the re uested variance to other existin ar otential uses
and structures in the vicinit .
The enclosure will have very little impact an uses or structures in the area.
The closed balcony space will not change the existing plane af the building.
Brown cedar siding w311 be used to enc1ose the balconies. Brown tone casement
windows wi17 fit into the upper half of the enclosure. The present ra713ng
wou7d be remaved. The addition matches the existing cedar siding and is compatible
with the rest of the building which is off-white stucco and brown siding.
The de ree to which relief from the str3ct or literal inter retation and enforcement
of a specified_requlation is necessary to achieve compatib.il9t_y and unifarmity
of treatment among_sites in the vicinity or,.to.,attain the objectives of this
tit1e without grant of special_privilege. yW
~ Relief from the strict interpretatian of aTlowe.d GRFA for this variance is not
necessary. The applicants could buffer the7r units fram the noise of the parking
structure by insulating their north exterior walls with sound proof materia7.
The additional GRFA far the enclosed balcony would be an unnecessary grant of
specia] privilege, as other aiternatives for mitigating the impacts of the parking
structure exist besides adding GRFA.
The effect of the re uested variance on 1i ht and air, distribution of o ulation,
transportat7on and traffic fac37ities, pubiic faciTities and utilities, and
pu_blic safety. • J...-J`J
Not app7icable,
Such ather factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to._the proposed
vari ance.
~
' Lodge ba7conies -3- 4/5/84
.
Such other factors and criteria as the commtssion deems alicable to the ro osed
variance.
FTNDINGS
7he P1annin and Environmental Commission sha71 make the folTowing findings._before
granti ng a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of specia7 privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same dis-trict.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental ta the pub7ic health,
safety, or welfare, or materialiy injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasans:
The strict or literaT interpretation and enforcement of the specified regUlatian
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physicaT hardship inconsistent
with the objeetives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
~ the site of the variance that do not app7y generaTly to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wouid deprive the app]3cant of privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties
7n the same district.
STAFF RECaMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recommends denial of the request to encTose
the four baTconies. The granting of the variance would constttute a grant of
special privi7ege, as other alternatives cou7d be used to decrease the impacts
of the parking structure on the four units.
~
,
MEMoaANauM
~ T0: P1anning and EnvironmentaT Commiss7on
FROM: Community Qevelopment Department
DATE: Aprii 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Request fior exteriar alteration and a side setback variance for
~ Village Center BulZding D. Applicant: Fred Nibberd
I I. SACKGROUND
i
This proposal began to be discussed in June af 1983 when the appiicant and
, his architect applied for a commercial additior? on the east side of the property
: and a redevelopment of the 7oymaker's 7'rai7 shap's stairs fln the west end.
We discussed redeveloping the entire sidewalk/landscaped area on the north
and west sides of the building, as weTl.
The p7anning staff encouraged the applicant to treat the proposal as a"master
plan" concept which meant making it one entire camprehensive proposal, including
the new sidewalk and landscap-ing an the west and north sides, the new stairs
for Toymaker's Trai1, retail store front expansions on the north eievation,
. new stairway entries/ex7ts from the sidewalk to the street, the two-story
commercial addition on the east and the creation of new loading areas on both
the east and west ends of the buiTding.
~ The lack of adequate loading facilities on the east end of the property is
the major issue which held the project up so long. The staff encouraged the
applicant to explore a jaint 7aading faci7ity with the adjacent property to
the east, Hote7 Sonnena7p, as they were proposing a major redevelopment on
the3r property. It was not unti3 this past Tuesday, April 3rd, that the Sonnenalp's
proposa1 was approved on second reading of the Special Qevelopment District
Ordinance.
Also, this somewhat complex proposal has received a great deal of review from
the various departments af the Town, including Public Warks/Transportation,
Fire and Pa1ice. The proposal in frant of the P7annfng and Enviranmental
Corrrmission today has accomplished the objectives and requirements of a11 the
various departments. (5ee memos attached from Public Works and Fire Department.)
The Vi71age Center project remains, for reasons stii1 une7ear to the current
p1anning staff, in the Commercial Core II zone district. However, the project
is located in the Vail Village EJrban Design Guide Plan area and must be
evaTuated with regard ta those documents. Thus, this memorandum will praceed
in five more sections: flrst, a description of the praposal; second, an evalua-
tion of how the plan meets the Vai7 Village Urban Design Guide Plan; thZrd,
a Took at compTiance with Commercia7 Care II zone district requirements; faurth,
a Took at the requested setbacEc variance; and lastTy, a staff recommendation.
.
Village Center -2- 4/5/84
~ II. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL (See attached praposed site plan.)
The sidewalk an the north and west sides of the Village Center retaiT shaps
has never worked with regard to being a viable publie pedestrlan route.
Nistorica7Ty, there's been a lack of continuity of the walk on the east end
(people chaose ta walk on the street) and the on-street loading area an the
west end scares people away from the sidewalK {traveling northward} and again
onto the street. 7o solve these prablems, the proposal is to relocate the
on-street Toading area to an off-street one on the west end of the building.
This requ9red re1ocating the driveway entering the 1awer parking garage for
the condom3nium owners. The Town staff fee7s strongjy that we shou1d not
reduce loading facilities in this particular area, and we are exp1oring the
possibiility of creating anew "on-strEet" loading area to the southwest of
its present 7ocation on the west side of the street sauth of the K7andr's
driveway.
Thus, the brick pavers which exist on the east s7de of Wii7ow Bridge Road
north of the bridge and the elimination of the loading area would invite people
to continue walking on the sidewalk making a more pleasant and safer pedestrian
experience. The new sidewalk, as calTed for in the UDGP, wouid be lower to
relate more to the street and have several short stairways to East Meadaw
Drive to make it easier to fiow on and off the waTkway. The new walkway is
p7easantly buffered from the street with landscaped berms which have been
designed to handle the required snaw storage. Several retai7 store fronts
wi11 be expanded ta the north between 6 and 9 feet to maintain a pleasant
~ window shopping experience a1ong the walkway.
As one approaches the eastern portion of the walkway, the existing "La Tour
Plaza" is improved by finishing it to a three sided enclosure with the new
commercial addition containing twa new retail spaces on the plaza leveT.
The pedestrian then may enter this pocket park area to shop, dine outdoars
(in summer), sit on one of the benches or continue easterly on the walk which
will connect directly onto the Sonnenalp property. The redevelopment of the
Village Center walkway combined with the Sonnenalp's proposed walkway completes
an entire pedestrian loop system beg3nnYng at the Covered Bridge P7aza, up
Bridge 5treet, west on Gore Creek DrivE, north on Willow Bridge/Wii1ow Bridge
Road and east on the Vi17age Center/Sonnenalp waTkway back to the Covered
Bridge Piaza.
The joint loading facil3ty on the east with Sonnenaip vast7y improves the
service and delivery situation far the easterly shaps of the Uillage Center
complex. CurrentTy, the lack of loading spaces in this area have created
a situation where illegal loading occurs in front af "La Tour Plaza" and this
hinders the Town's bus traffic f7ow. The combination of the new joynt loading
dack (partial3y on Village Center property and partially on Sonnenalp's site)
with the norther7y expansion of the landscaped berm will effectively eliminate
the current i71ega1 1oading activities.
.
Village Center -3- 4/5/$4
. A new wa1kway from the pedestrian walk will maintain access for Building A
of Village Center and wiil have a roof covering the north portian of the stairs
to architectura7ly tie together the Sonnena7p and Village CEnter projects
as well as provide some protection from the elements for the walkways' users.
i
i
i
iII. COMPLIANCE WT7H 7HE UAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN (even though in CCIT)
R. COMPLIRNCE WITH PURPOSE SECTION FOR 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 1odges and commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian
environment. The Commercial Core I district is intended ta ensure adequate
light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types af buildings and uses. The district regulations in accardance with
. the Vai7 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 build7ngs fronting
on pedestrianways and public greenways, and ta ensure continuation of
the building scale and architeetural quaTities that distringuish the v111age.
We find that the proposal is in compliance with and furthers the intent
of the purpose section for Commerc9al Core I.
~ B. SUB-AREA CONCEpTS AFFECTED (See attached Urban Design Guide plan)
There are a number of Sub-Area Concepts which are indirectly related to
the Village Center praject. Briefly, Sub-Area Concepts 19 and 20 re1ate
to a number of physical design solutions to reduce the "1ost tourist"
who drives down Village Road and then west on East Meadaw Drive looking
for parking or whatever. The current proposal for Village Center recognizes
this as a potential future project (Fred Hibberd gave a portion of land
to the Town in 1981 toward this end) but is designed for workability
without these improvements as the Town has no immediate plans for this
capital improvement project.
Numbers 21 and 22 relate to the last commercial addition praject which
was compTeted three years ago.
Number 17 discusses improvements to the intersection of Willow Bridge
Road and East Meadow Drive. Alarger planter in the middle and brick
paving treatment are calZed for.
Sub-Area Concept 78 is what is being praposed for the sidewalk. It reads:
"Fx9sting walk lnwered slight3y ta become major separated south side
pedestrian route (barrier free ramps). Landscape pTanting buffer along
roadway."
i
Village Center -4- 4/5/84
C. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
• 1. Pedestrianization: The objective of this praject is to improve pedes-
trianization in a manner directTy called for by the UDGP. The staff
feels this will occur if the proposal is implemented (refer to Section
II of this memorandum).
2. Uehic1e Penetration: The applicant has, as noted above, given land
to the Town for the purpose of implementing Sub Area Concepts 19 and
20 which are attempts at a design soiutian for reducing vehicle pene-
tration down Vi11age Road. As the time-lapse photography the staff
has conducted 1n this area shows, this is amajor problem for this
area of the Village and the problem needs to be addressed so yehicle-
pedestrian conflicts can be reduced.
3. Streetscape Framework: Streetscape framework will be vastly improved
by construction of the three types of Tmprovements calTed for in the
UDGP: 1) continuity of walkways; 2}iandscaping treatments aTong
wa1kways with occasiona7 plazas/packet parKs; 3) infill commercial
storefronts.
4. Street Enclosure: The new commercial additian will dup7icate the
height of the 1981 °La Tour" addition and will create a comfortable
1-1/2 story enclosure on the east end of the project. Overail, the
"outdoor room" created by Village Center and Crossroads falls within
the comfortab7e ratia set out by the UDGA.
i 5. Street Edge: The street edge will be improved with the new landscaped
walkway delineating a clear street edge separating pedestrian and
vehicuiar traffic. The commercrtal add7tion improves street edge by
providing the third s3de enclosure to the plaza.
6. Build7n Hei ht: The proposal meets the requirements of the UDGP
and the Commercial Core II zane district.
7. Views and Foca1 Points: There are no designated view corridors in
this area. The building height praposed for the commercial addition
hides Building A of the project and does not intrude upan important
mountain views to the south.
8. Service and Deiivery: As mentloned earlier, this has been an area
of concentration for this project. The situation would be greatly
improved as a resu7t of the proposal by eliminating the existing
loading area on the west end and the illegal 7oading area on the east.
Proposed is a comp7etely enclased loading dock on the east (used with
the Sonnenalp) and a new laading area between parking garage garage
entrances on the west. Also, the staff is exploring a new on-street
loading area south of the Kiandra eastern driveway. These improvements
will a71ow loading located more c7osely tp the shaps/restaurants being
served and in an area which works better for the delivery persan and
pedestrian.
.
Vi7lage Center -5T 4/5/84
9. Sun/Shade: The building is so massive that it wil1 always cast
sFa_ffe___do_wn to the sidewalk area. The new commercial addition wili
~ cast some shade onto the new wa7kway, and it wi1l be the appTicant's
responsibility to maintain the walk in goad candition.
4-
IV. COMMERCTAL CORE II ZaNE DISTRICT COMPLIANCE
A. Uses: The proposed commercia1 uses are permitted uses in the
Commercia7 Core II district.
B. Setbacks: Rcquired is 70 feet on a11 sides. The proposal complies
wlth this except with regard to the variance for the jotnt loading
faci1ity discussed below.
G. Coverag~: 70% maximum Existing = 59% Proposed = 68%
D. Landscaping: 20% minimum. The proposal provides a net increase in
landscaped areas.
E. Parking and Loading: The applicant will be required to pay into the
parking fund the app7icable amount for the cammercial expansion.
i V. S£TBACK VRRIANCE
A. Request
The applicant requests a 0 foot setback on the ea~.t baundary of the
property to eonstruct a joint loading dock with the Sonnenalp. The
praposai is to have the loading bui7ding overTap the property line
in this area. The loading facillty was constructed at the request
of the staf-F as a solutian to loading problems existing in the area
as well as a viable placement of the faci7ity to enable service to
both properties.
B. Recommendation
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the setback
variance for the joint loading bui1ding as we find a specific physical
hardship-in 7ocating it elsewhere in this area. We feel that the
proposed soiution is an exce7lent flne and will adequately serve both
properties. Al1 impacts of the building are posftive anes (refer
to service/delivery sect7on of this me€nnrandum).
.
Village Center -6- 4/5/84
VI. RECOMMENDATION
• Tne Community Qevelopment Repartment recommends approval of the proposed
Village Center project. We have spent many hours warking with the appTicant,
his architect and the various Town of Va31 departments to arrive at solutions
to a71 the prob1ems in this area of the Ui1lage. It should be noted that
initia1 opposition to certain aspects of the project by Village Center
condominium owners has been greatly reduced by the applicant's meeting
with the owners and campromising on various elements. The staff has a7so
spent much time with the homeowners and their representatives in explaining
the praject and all its revisions. We feel that the proposa7 represents
the best solutions for all involved parties and that it will be a signifi-
cant impravement to the immediate area and the Vail Village area.
The following are conditions of approva7:
1. The project must be constructed under a single bui7ding permit.
2. Before a building permit is 3ssued for the project, a signed and recorded
agreement by property owners of the Village Center Suilding D and
Sonnenalp shall be presented to the Cornmunity nevelopment Department.
The agreement sha1l specify the mutuai use of the ja3nt loading dock
to the east of the new commercial addition and outiine easement agreements
pertaining thereto.
3. Before any building permit is issued, the applicant sha17 sign a revocable
. right-of-way agreement with the Town.
4. The app7icant agrees to pravide for maintenance af the pedestrian
sidewalk area as we7l as the associated 3andscap7ng constructed under
the buiTding permit.
5. The west-end loading area shall be maintained and poiiced by the applicant
to see that it serves its intended function. The existing wood planter
in this area shaTl be removed to al1ow maximum area for trucks.
6. The Town agrees to pay for the cost of removing the landscaped berm
an its praperty in the area north of the "La Tour Plaza" if and when
it decides to proceed with improvements as noted on the Urban Design
Guide Plan.
7. The applicant agrees to work with the Tawn of Vail Fire Department
in achieving the required work to the fire a1arm system and exploring
the possibillty of daing a17 required fire eode work (inc7uding retrofit
requirements) at the same time.
8. The app7icant agrees not to remonstrate against a special improvement
district if and when farmed for the Vail Village area.
~
~
4vom
1ow75 souih frontage road i{epartment of public worksltr8nspartation
vaif, colorado 81657
(303)476-7000
M E M 0 R A N D U M
T0: Peter Patten, Com ity Develapment
FROM: Stan Berryman
AATE: Apri1 5, 1984
SUBJECT: VILLAGE CENTER EXPANSION PROPOSAL
This memo is to notify you that the Department af Public
Works/Transportati.on has xeviewed an.d approved the proposed
plans for the Vi1J.age Center project as ammended.
.
~
~
t ow ol v42 wesi meadow drive tire department
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-2200
'F0: Peter Patten~
FROM: Dick fluran
DATE: Apri1 4, 1984
RE: Village Center Proposal
As per our meeta.ng yesterday, 2 have no problem with the
proposal at this time. Having the dry pipe and yard
~ hydrant wiZ1 he1.p the Fire Department in set-up time
in the event of a fire on the south side of ViJ.lage
Center p ar afixe a.n A or B bua.ldings. The k'a.re
Department would like to meet with the people involved
with the project in regard to the placement of the dry
hydrant and fire department connectian.
I have many concerns in regard to the canstruction
stage whi.ch will be taken care of during the plan
check.
Thank you for getting all clepartments together and
allowing us to voice our concerns. Look forward to
working with you on al.l projects.
~ ~
.ri • ; ~ 1,, ' I
~ . • . _ , . "
~~~x%'~{:~,• i:t' :'i+r` ~ ' . , ~ - . . . _ . J
i..' .
~ ~ ~'T~l...:: . . ~7 . ~
Z
C/0 . ~
~!~j:kC~:ts~ •iY + ~ i . ~ v . '
'
gp~
'.,~~i~ s. c~'~, j~• a~ r c~t k ` e . a' ,
r •ti~',iF,~ ~ ~7 ~ ,
L.^t*'~.l~c~ ~i.. ~r` . t ? ,~~i ~ ~ - . WQ~ ~ . ' - ' . . .
'`,T. ' . . ~ , ~ _ . . . ~ . , ~
~ . , . . , .
'.F. . . . ' . ~ . . . , . , .
~
~ r .
1 ~
p Er
O
w
26.~~ 5i O
" , . ~4-•'~~ ~ ? , . , ~ . .
Q !D _
~
~ ~ .
.
~
,
z.
~ . _ . . - ~ -
'
. . ~ . . . . ,
. . , . lN`~~ ~ ~ ' •t ' ,-~,;.v",
. `j
. `i ~ , ~
• „ ~ _ ~ ti -
. . ~
• g , .
• ~1 . ~ _y..
. _ • ' . ,
~ • sr -
' • ~
. . . ~ -
a
a ~
W J
O w
N ~
N
~p -
2
h
y~ ~.y ~n~~~~ L.';,r~••Y••~. _ ~ ' _ X..- . , ( ~ . Y^i
„ ' . z • y ' f
aF , ' ' . _ ~ ~ . 1 , , ~ ~ t ~
, ys ,.r' . ~ . ~ r _ • - ~ ~r ` ' . J ~ . ~ .
. l~ 1 . . ~ ~ ~ • ~ ~ , !
•.,.e . ~ ' ` ~ .i.+!F- ; . .
' , . _ ` • ~ ~ ~
:l • - . . ~ . r ~ ' . ; . ? ' ~ ' ti ~
~ ` ~
w ~
, , • ~
,
,
- ~F~~~~ ~ ;N~y ~ • , ~1~
• , ~i ~
'
.
•
~
Y.? IiZR~ ~~4tw. ~ I ~ .4" ~ ~ ~ \
-
. . . . \ ~ ' .
1 ~
. ~
.
y.
, . . ~ ~
~ . ~ „
g
- . ; ?
! ~ s • ir -
! '
: { n
-..4' - _...___.-_-r I % i;e '
~ rs.,
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: Planning and EnvironmentaT Commissian
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 5, 1984
SUBJECT: A density contral variance request ta add 72 square feet
of GRFA by enciosing a hottub at Lot 8, Slock 5, Vail
Vi7lage Ist Filing (Vai7 Rowhomes).
APPLICANT: Velda B. Wyche
DESCRIPTION 0F THE VARIRNCE
At the February 13th meeting of the Planning and Environmental Commission
a side setback variance was appraved to allow for an extensive remodel of
this residence. One e7ement of this remode7 is a hottub on a rooftop deck.
This application is to enclose this hottub with a greenhause type of enc7osure
that will add 72 square feet of GRFA ta the property.
Lot size: 2,632 square feet
Allawable GRFA: 1,579 square feet
Ex-isting GRFA: 2,171 square feet
. This residence is currently 592 square feet over its allowable GRFA. If approved
this proposai would increase that discrepancy to 664 square feet.
CRITERIA AND FiNQINGS
iJpon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipa7 Code,
the Department af Community Development recommends denial af the requested
variance based upon the follow3ng factors:
Consi-deration of F'aetors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity. ~
The remadel of this unit (a3ready approved by Planning and Environmental Commissian
and Design Review Baard), invoives modifying its existing roof line. This
improvement, along with the greenhouse addition, wii7 have little impact on
existing or potential uses and structures fn the vicinity with the exception
of Unit 7. The new roofline and greenhouse cou7d impact unit #7 if they were
to consider similar improvements to their unit.
.
WYCHE -2- 4/5/84
The degree to which relief from the strict or 7iteral interpretatian and enforcement
~ of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibiTity and unifarmit_y
. a . _ . _ .
af treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob3ectives of this
titie without grant of special privilege.
There have been many similar requests for decK enclosures that have been addressed
by the staff and the PTanning and Environmental Commission. These proposals
have consistently been denied because the desire to add living area (aver
the ailowable GRFA) on a site for reasons of convenience does nnt meet the
criteria for approving a variance requesC.
There is no physical cond3tion on this site that warrants the need to a17ow
additional GRFA. The applicant states that the Enclosure is there to provide
shelter for the users of the hottub. This reason does not satisfy ex3sting
policy concerning GRFA variance reqUests. To allow this request wouTd be
a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the 7imitations on other praperties
in the same district.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of popu1ation,
trans ortation and traffic facilities, ub7ic faciiities and util3ties, and
publ i c safety._
This request will not add to the occupancy af the unit. The propasal would
not have any effect on the other factars.
FINDINGS
• The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make the folTowing findin4s bEfore
granting a, variance:
That the granting of the variance wil] not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations an other properties classifieci in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pub7ic health,
safety, or we]fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
7hat the variance is warranted for one or more of the fal1owing reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficuity or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the abjectives of thzs title.
There are exceptivns or extraardinary circumstances or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not appiy generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulatian
woujd deprive the applicant of privileges enjayed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
. ~ STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recommends denia7 of this request. 7he applicant
has made no argument to warrant relief from the GRFA regu7ations. 7he staff can
find no basis on which to support this request.
~ t 1 f~+
1r . LQ T `I
• . , =Xi~~'; i`'C~ lV~~~~'~'~ .
' .
~
7-~
.
~r +T-ry
` - • ~ `Y-
4 [j
i~ E I I ~ ~ / - - : f • ~ ' `
~
l1l`1 l-T ~
r
- ~ --1-. . _ _ ?
' . - z1 . r
1
. ~ ~
3 '
. ~
' - . ~X;- v ~ .
. .
~ w . .
~
~-7 O
r
C-1^~ ~lL ~ f r.-~ . . ~
~ '
MEMORANpUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Cammunity Deve7apment Department
DATE: April 5, 1984
SUBJECT: Density control variance request ta add 92 square feet of GRF'A
to an existing 5th floar unit at the Sunbird Lodge.
App1icant: Sunbird Lodge, United Resorts, Inc.
BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
On Nlarch 12, 1984, the applicants presented their praposal to add an employee
unit to the Todge and 92 square feet af GRFA to an existing 5th f1oor un1t.
The Planning and Environmental Commission approved the request far the employee
unit by a 7-0 vote. The request for additiona1 GRFA was tabled on the recammendatian
of the board. The reason for tabZing was because of same questzon concerning
the number of kitchens that are allowed at the 7odge. The request for the additional
92 square feet is what we are considering today.
The staff has met with the applicant to resolve the issue concerning how many
units in the Sunbird Lodge may have kitchens. A court order has limited that
~ number to 13. The lodge currently has 14 units with kitchen facilities. Th3s
past fall the Community Development Department erroneously issued a building pernnit
to the Sunbird for the insta1lation of a Ecitchen. This errar has essentiaTly
increased the number of a1lowable k3tchens from 73 to 74.
To allow for a kitchen in their 5th f7oor unit, the appl7cants
have agreed to remove one kitchen from another unit (see accompanying letter)'.
The staff will conduct an on-site inspectian prior to the issuance of a building
permit to confirrn the number of kitchens in the lodge. With the remaval af one
kitchen and the addition of another, the Sunbird shou1d stilT be in compliance
with their Timit of 14 kitchens.
STAFF RECOMMENDRTIONS
The initia1 staff recommendation of the request for 92 square feet of GRFA was
for denial. Our positian on this request has nat changed. While all modifications
are taking place within the interior of the building, to allow this variance wauld
be a grant of special privilege. (See accompanying memo dated March S, 1984.)
~
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Communtty Development Department
!
DATE: March 8, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for density contro7 variance to modify an existing
5th floor unit. The raquest involves adding 95 square feet
of GRFA ta the unit as we17 as modifying the space to create
an additional unit. This new unit will be employee housing
far the manager of the iodge. Applicant: Sunbird Lodge
' DESCRIP7i0N OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
This request invoZves two modifications ta existing fifth floor penthause space.
I Presently the penthouse unit is 770 square feet. The app1icant proposes to divide
' this s.pace creating a new unit of 345 square feet. Kitchen and bath faci7ities would
be added to this space that would then be used as a manager's unit. The remaining
425 square feet would continue to be used as penthouse space. This request aTso
3nvolves adding 97 square feet of GRFA to this unit by re3ocating a wall. This
w311 allow far a hal1way to be created that will result in a more functional living
. space. The additinn of floor area wi17 not require any externa7 a7teratians to
the bui1ding. Most of the floor area to be added is existing as an unuseable
1 edge i n the fourth fl oor uni ts be7 ow.
• CRITEIZIR AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
the Department of Community Development recommends denial of_the re q Lested
variance based upon the follawing factors:
Constderation of Factors
The re7ationship of the reguasted variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicini.ty.
All work necessary to comp7ete this project wou7d be dane within the existing
structure. If appraved, this prflposal wau1d add ane dwei7ing unit to the building.
Consequently, this proposal would have no effect an existing ar potentiai uses
and buildings in the vicinity.
The de ree to which relief from the strict Gr literal inter retatior and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessarNi ta achieve compatibility and uniformity
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this t-itle
without grant of special privilege.
Very few variances far GRFA increases have been granted over the past few years.
7a grant additional GRFA ta the existing unit would be a grant of specia7 privi1ege.
i
Sunbird -2- 3/8/84
To allow the additional unit would a7sa be a grant of specia1 pr7vi3ege.
~ However, the unit wou7d be emp7oyee housing, and that is cansistent with the
Town of Vail objectives to improve nousing supply for employees in the valley.
During meetings of the Community Design task farce, specific discussion centered
on permitting amanager's unit in large lodge or condomin9um develapments.
The effect of the requested variance on ligh,t and air,d3stribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilties and~ uti7ities, and._.public
safety• ~
There would be no significant impact resulting from this request.
Such other factors and criteria as the_commission deems applicabie to the propased
variance.
FINDINGS
The Flanning and Environmental Cammission shall make the fallowing findings befare
grant,in.ga var i ance :
That the granting af the variance wil7 nat constitute a grant of special privilege
irtconsistent with the limitations on other properties ciasszfied tn the same district.
That the granting of the variance wi1] not be detrimental to the Public health,
~ safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the var-iance is warranted for one or more of the fol7ow-ing reasons:
The strict or iiteraT interpretation and enforcement of the spec3fied regulatian
would result in practica7 d-ifficuity or unnecessary physical hardship ihconsistent
with the objectzves of this tit7e.
There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or conditions appiicable to
the site of the variance that do not app7y genera]1y to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretatian and enforcement of the specified regulation
wou1d deprive the app7icant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
STAFF REC4MMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department recomrnends denial of this request for additional
GRFA in the penthouse unit. Whi1e a71 modifications are taking p7ace within the interior
of the.buildTng, to allow this vartance wou7d sti7] be a grant of specia7 priv-ilege.
The staff recommends approval of the additional employee unit with the fo1lowing
condition: A deed restriction be p7aced on the property ensuring that it remain an
employee unit and is nat so3d off ar rented on a short term basis. This would be
required prior to the issuance of a buiiding permit.
~
i
i
UNITED RESQRTS, INC.
•
March 13, 1984
A. Peter Patton Jr.
Assistant Director of Planning
Department o£ Community Development
75 So. Frontage Rd.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Peter:
Thank you faac allowing me a meeting on such short notice
after the Planning Comna.ssion meeting of March 12, 1984.
I was very happy that we were able to resolve long past
misunderstandings that the previous Sunbird Lodge owners
have had with your departmen.t. It is Una.ted Resorts, Znc.
and the Sunbird Lodge management's desire to develop an
~ honorable and abave board relationship with al1 munica.pal
departinents.
In our meetin.g of March 13. 1984 we detexmined that uncler
current conditions we would be allowed fourteen (14)
dwelling ki-tchen units. Those units are 214, 220, 301,
314, 315, 320, 402, 404, 406, 408, 410, 412, 414 and 420.
In our variance request before the Planning Commission
we will need a kitchen in the remodeled Pen.thouse. It
is oux plan to remove one kitchen un.it (perhaps 301)
pra.ox to the issuan:ce of the bua,lding permit for the
Penthouse pxoject. TnTe would aZso weZcome an on-sa.te
inspection as a shaw af good fai-th to determine our
sinceri.ty to abide by a11 regulatians. Furthermore,
we would agree in writing to the sale and use restrie-
tion so noted during the m.eeting pertaining to the new
staff quaxters to be constructed adjacent to the Penthouse
apartment.
After the above issues are resolved, 'sr,re will be.sub-
mitting additional permit applica.tions to improve the
Sunbird Lodge,
~
1820 East Sahara Avenue • Suite 150 • Las Vegas, Nevada 89104 9 (702) 731-1600
.
March 13, 1984
• Page Z (cont'd)
It h.as been my pleasure rr?eeting and worka.ng with you and
I hope we can continue ta work together in the future. Yf
any questions arise, please don't hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
U ''ED RESO INC.
' / ' /
;Bruce Parton
UVice President
Resort Operations & Construction
BP/lb
cc: Jeff Cohen
Len At1as
Ron Gates
Roger Moliere, Esq.
~ Larxy Eskwith, Esq.
~
1 S
1"ILI'IV 1\AN4 VM
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Cammission
FRONi: Community Deve7opment Department
DATE: March 21, 7984
SUBJECT: Setbaclc vari ance request to al low an existi ng bu71 d-i ng to encroach
1.6 feet into the fi'ront setback. VaiZ Racquet Ciub T'ownhomes
Building I. Applicant: Walter Kirch
aESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Building I of the VaiT Racquet C7ub Townhomes has been canstructed only 18.4 feet
from the front property line. The required setback is 20 feet, resulting in a
1.6 foot encroachment rtntn the setback. The app7icant has cited errars made by either
the surveyor or the foundation cantractor that have resuTted in this building being
located within the setback.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 af the MunicipaT Code, the
e artment of Communit Develo ment recommends denial of the re uested variance
~ based upon the failawing factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship af the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses and
structures in the vicinity. '
As part of the Vail Racquet Club complex, this variance request would have no impact
on existing or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The degree ta which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve compatibil,ity artd un7formit~y of
treatment amon s'ites in the vicintty or to at ,
tain the objectives of this title without
grant of special privilege.
The staff can find no evidence to indicate a physica3 hardsh-ip exists that wou7d
merit our support of this request. The applicant has aiso fai7ed to demonstrate
any physical hardship. Rather, human error has been cifi.ed as cause for the building
being 7ocated in the setback.
~
° Vail Racquet Club -2- 3/21/84
. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of papulation,
transportatian and traffic facilities, pub7ic faci1ities and uti7ities, and public
safet .
No impacts
such other factors and criteria as the commis5ian deems_applieab7e to the propo$ed
variance. -
FINDINGS
The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make the followin f-indin s before
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance wil7 not constitute a grant of specia1 privilege
inconsistent with the 7imitations on other properttes classified in the same district.
7hat the granting of the variance wi71 nat be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or material7y 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 af the specified regulation
would result in practical difticu1ty or urinecessary physicaT hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or conditions applicab]e to
the site af the variance that do not appiy generally to other properties in the
same zone.
1'he strict ar literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would deprive the appiicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same clistrict.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendat7on for this request is denia7. There is no physical hardship
to warrant thYS request, and to approve this variance would be a grant of special
privilege.
At this time, Bu7iding T is near compTetion. The prob7em with the setback was not
found earlier because of the applicant's re7uctance to have his buildtng surveyed
prior to its framing inspection. 7he Building Department a7lowed construction to
conCinue without the improvement survey with the understanding that the applicant accept
responsibility far any prob]ems with the building's Tocation. In light of this, the
staff cannot support this variance as it is c7ear7y is a self created hardship.
~
'1c
A%'A'r 4 S36°42'00'~W
~
~~A ra qHo 50.80
~QA s/~T , yp~O,r ti
\
~
axT ~;h~/
.w F F & 0: / -8 • ss T'o F ~
0
~ ~ ~ oOlq h' O
0
=ryO ry T @~`°s8 F 0 ~r O,pA-
6%~p UN yqF (D/~ Gc5'' f/
F S G I a yj
eo y TOq 'T_~ C'Y
~~pM
~sr 'y,
! E ao~s
sP NS • s
3o J
)Iiw ' :gg8 R:96.00 0 =83.18' 4~49
SLHLE
il 'i g, ~k'7 34 CN= N 78 i0'4p"yy 803g ~9
5Q, ~L 30 20 10 0
)0100 E 5-r7°°° / / . . cri=sTa' 06'5 es,3.
~4G' L"O~ap~/,7~ ~,7G.00 A=490 3113" L s b
Ry d° A'~}f O 46.oA B .
~ G H o~~~-ropO`p.E 69. `
)3o~43Q,~ - ~
~
m SEvEN
W 7_94 ~-PO11~S "A~~ AARkfNG gpQ~~s N ~.L0. 4~p '1'B
~oOn ~
n o or FO
UNnA L+Ne 63, - ~ G~~ R LQr 2~~
~ rlflk
Ik 16.2Ti 018, S1 ~~2i G~ '2J~ ,
S3
70101W E
s F
18.00 0 ~ 8~~~~~~
~ ti_ roRr F~ D/N& a~p
L~ 6'o~j~ O~f
z ~R Unrrr CQ "
00"W 12.4r~~ 6~ ~3, MlNlU N ~ A, /~Q ~3 Fp
t • ° _ `9~~
~7 N70~ 2~.9q'~~ f 2"41 r' 25.gq 12.4!
O~E 1 1.41p E ~ N7qo4p'
21-" ao W 9QO • ` ~
(i L .bg _
c+
"s r U
~ A`<
~ tio ry
1 ~
tpN 61. 0y 1a
N 6 6 Fxre s~°,a, , , S/op0 •
~ 9 op ~ og~' 900 UN Q I,NF °o'ir 00 Cy,,y g2 3F pT
S 09°4? 20 W s,4. s~s'4~3 ~ T~o 19s °,8. ~/0. °0, 8 g°0 3o4 ; 49•
o so
57.00 D ~ ~ A,qR4q 00f O 0
~
~ ~m k~~,~ ~ ~ •
sp /p' ~ 0
~FS _ 38' ~Y 3p
) ~
3q 6 MT7 4
~ ~ ~9
MNrr~qCT ,O. ~oM9.
"
qP N SUP 5 3 ,~~iyRe ~(~I R~ ~ Fo
T OW QF
~ VR 3s.
NHOM~S OU~ r'~f~y / ~ G FN_ 33, f,t'T ~'4C R'k'I
. C ro oU ~ 2 9g F~S ha
~U 8 N o A~ 2 s~ /sJ ~ OV44 R(Iflp N
C
O Oy~ .g1= C~, ,Cr ~OF
OMi ~
ti~ ~ ` R yrF ss ~ fj' aooOib? °>s ~ S6101810(
8~ 2.62
~
el \ D' ~ry ~
O&PpF p bd.
2~ \ 2s N~.$°4ZO
' SOUTHEAST GORNER 18.00
~F~S ~3 9
MEMORANDUM
.
TO: PlannYng and Environmental Commissian
FROM: Community Development Department •
DAT'E: Apr31 6, 1984
SUBJEC1": Amendment ta the Hazard Chapter of the Zoning Code
App7 icant: Town af Vail
I. BACKGROUND
In the last coup1e years the Town has experienced some very serious
geological hazard problems. The discavery of the severity of the
prob7ems, in at least two instances, was to the degree that if we had
been aware of the problem the subdivisions involved would never have been
approved.
Geological hazards are preva7ent, within their variaus forms, throughout
the country. The damage they cause to human 1ife and property is quite
substantial. Each year miliions of dollars ofi property damage are caused
by natural hazards in the Elnited States. It is the governing bady's
responszbility to protect the healtn and safety of its inhabitants in
. regard to regulating the location and nature of development with respect
to natural hazards.
7he Community Development Department has been waricing clasely with the
Town attorney and the Public Works department on a proposa1 to amend our
hazard regulations to expand them to cover a17 geologica1 hazards, not
just avalartche, floodplain and steep slopes. It is very important that
we regulate potential deve7opment in areas containing hazards such as
rockfa1l, debris fans, soil creep, underground springs and landsiides
in a similar manner as we have treated floodplain, avalanche and steep
s7ope for the past six years. This 3s what we`re attempting to do with
the proposed ordinance attached to thrts memorandum.
II. PROPOSAL
The following is an outline and brief description of the attached proposed
ardinance. The proposed ordinance would:
A. Broaden the purpose section to mentian geoTogica7 hazards in general.
~ B. qefine geological hazards.
;
C. Require geological hazard investigation if identified as an area of
potential or knawn geoiogical problem area by a map ar study in the
j Town's possessian or submitted to the Tawn.
I
, Hazards -2- 4/6/84
~ D. Require site specific geological hazard investigation under these
approval processes: 1) preliminary plan for major subdivision;
2) development plan for Specia1 Development District; 3) fina1 plan
for a minor subdivision (unless waived by Communlty Development De-
partment); 4) building permit.
E. Requires the study ta address the site suitabi7ity for the proposed
use or structure.
F. Sets forth parameters of who can do the study (cert7fied geolagist),
approval by 70V af the study, that the structure must be built according
to the recammendations and data found in the study, etc.
G. 5tates that no Certificate af Occupancy sha1l be issued unless all
wark regarding the geological hazard study has been actua7ly
incorporated into the construction.
H. A11ows for TOU to deny approvai af a development plan or bui7ding
permit if the study shaws the site is not suitab1e for the proposed
use or structure.
. III. RECOMMENDATION
The Cammunity Development Department recommends approval of this amendment
to the hazard regulations. We feel that the expansion of our regulations
at this time is a most prudent step in protecting the people and property
of the Town in relationship to the rema3ning development of the va71ey.
i
.
~
. .
If
. ORDINANCE #
(Series of 1984)
AN ORDINANCE Ah1ENDING CHAPTER 18.69 OF THE
VAIL LIUNICIPAL CODE OF THE TOR'N OF VAIL;
SETTING F4RTH PROVISIONS FOR TFIE PROTECTION
OF THE COVENANTS OF THE TOWN OF VAIL FROM
GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS; AND PROVTDING DETAILS
IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, the hazard xegulata.ons of the Town set forth in
Chapter 18.69 do not directly deal with problems created by
geological hazards; and
WHEREAS, recent developments within the Town indicate that
it is important that subdivision and construction in areas affected
by geolagical hazaxd be regulated for the pxatection of the health,
safety and welfare of the inhabitants of the Town,
~ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAZL, AS k'OLLOWS:
Section 1. Section 18.69.0I0 Purpose of the Municipal Code of
the Town of Vail is hereby repealed and reenacted with arriendments to
read as follows:
• 18.69.010 Purpose - The purpose of this Chapter is to pratecG the
inhabi.tants of the Town fram dangers related to development in f7.oodpYains,
avalanche paths, steep slopes, geological hazards, and ather natural
hazaxds of the Town; ta regulate the use of l.and areas subject to
flooding, avalanche, geolagical hazards and slopes; to protect economic
and propexty val.ues, aesthetic and recreatianal values and the natural
resources which are sQmetimes associated with fl.oodplains, avalanche I,
areas, geolagical hazards and slopes and ta pxotect the public heal.th,
~ safety and welfare.
Section 2. Section, 18.69.020 - Definitians - is h,exeby amended
_ by the addition of paragraph H Geological Hazard to read as follows:
H. Geolagical Hazard means landslides, rock fa11.s, mud f1.ows,
` ~ .
. r2- ~
2. A cievelopment pl.an for a special development da.strict or
3. The final plan for a minor subdiviszon, unless waived fox
good cause by the Communa.ty Development Department.
Section 4: Chapter 18.69 of the Municxpal Code of the Tawn of
Vaa,1 is herebp amended by the addi.tion of Scction, 18.69.052 - Speca.al
Restrictions fox the Development of Geological Hazard Areas to reaci
as follows;18.69,052 - Special Restricta.ons for the Develapment of Geolagxcal
FIazard Areas. •
A. In any area identified as a geological hazard area by
either a master ha.zard pl.an or map of the Town of Vai7., the subdivis3.on
process of the Town of Vai1., or any r.eliable study done by a geo].oga.st
ar engineer, no development plan and no building permit shall be approved ~
until site specific geological investigation is complete. For the purpose
of this section, a site specific geological investigation sha1.1 bc deemed
a detailed geological investigation which is applicable to each respective
sz.te. 1. The extent of the site specific geological
investigation required shal.l be determa:ned by the gealogist or engineer
wha is responsible for the investigation; however, the investigation
shall, be of sufficient thoroughness and accuracy to allow a geotechnical
expert to certify whether the geologic condita.ons are such that the site
can or cannot be developed for the specific structure or use pro-
pased wi-thout correcti.ve engine:erz.ng and engzneered construction, or
whether corrective engi.n.eera.ng and engineered can,structa.on, can or
cannot be accomplished to elimi.nate the danger to the publa.c heaZth,
safety or to property due to geologz.c hazard. When any geotechnical
study disturbs the suxface of the area studied and construction on
eaid arca is no•t to be instituted withzn thxee (3) manths of such study,
then the owner or develaper wi].l revegetate the area to return it to
. ~
~ --3-
1. Tf the conclusion of the engineer or geol.ogist
perfarmi.n.g the in.vestigation is that the site can be developed far the
specific structure ar activity propased without corrective engineeri.ng
and engineered construction, the development plan may be approved without
conditions relating to the mitigation of geolagic ha.zard or the
building permi.t may be issued.
2. Tf the fanding of the engineer or geologist performing
the geologa,c investigatian is that the site is subject ta geologic hazard
but that corrective engi.neering and engineer construction can be
accomplished to eliminate danager to the publa.c health and safety or
to property due to such geologic hazard, approval of the development
~ plan for the issuance of the building permi.t shall be conditional and
contingent upon approval of plans for carrective engineering and
engineex construction as set forth an this oxdinance.
3. If the canclusion of the geologist or engineer duxing
the geotechnical a.nvestigation, is that the site cannot be develaped for
the structure or activity proposed due to the danger posed by geological
hazard, the development plan or building permit shall be denied.
C. Th.e fo3.lowzng requirements shall pertai.n to the
constructa.on of any builda.ng or structure ta be built in.an identified '
or designated geolagic hazard area which requires corrective engineered
construction to eliminate danger to the public health and safety or to
property due to geologic hazard as set forth in paxagraph B 2 above. The
certifi.ed site specific reports and plans required by this paragraph shall
i be prepared by each engineer and geologist as applicable to their area of
specialty.
1. Town approval of all reparts, designs, arzd actual
(as built) c;onstruc.tion plans shal7 be reaua.red to insure that,
a. Adequate base data, including engineering,
' R
?
-4- ~
, b. Said base data is utili2ed in the design and
planning of the proposcd project;
c. Design and canstruction procedures derived
from said base data are executect; and
d. Design and construction wi11 ela.minate danger
to the public hea].th and safety or to property.due to geolagic hazard.
2. The following certified site specifxc reparts and
pl.ans shaZl be submitted for approval by the Town. Enga.neer and Building
Official ox their authorized representatives prior to the issuance of
a buildi.ng perma,t;
a. An engineering geology report, includa.ng an
adequate descra.ption of the nature, distributian and strength of the
existing soils of. the site, conclusions regarda.ng the effective soil.s ~
condition on the proposed project and recommendations as to design
criteria for correctzve measures whenevex necessary.
b. Other reports and recommenclations as determined
necessary by the engineear or gealogist pertainzng to.hydrology, slope,
rockfall ar other factors to be fa.led as separate reports ox included
in the reports required xn Sectian 2(a) and (b). ,
c. P1ans and speca.fications for the pxapased
pxoject and a xeport describing how the recammendatians presented in
the above noted report axe incorporated into said plans and specifications.
3. No certifa,cate af occupancy shall be issued unta.l the
follawing have been approtred by the town engineer and building official
ar their authorized representatives:
a. Professional inspectzon and certification that !
the work was done in accordance wi.th the plans and specificatians set
forth above.
b. Prep4Lx'ali.LUI1 or :c-etriow aiid cErta.tication of
revised recammendations and/or plans and/or specificata.ons as required
~
r
I
` _5-
~ 4, Zf in the course of ful.filling the responsibility
undex this chaptex, the engineer or geo7.ogist find that the work is not
being done in accordance with the approved plans and specifications,
the descrepancy sha11 be reparted iriunediately, a.n wxiting, to the
contractor and to the buil.ding official of the Town. Recarnmendations
for corrective measures, if necessary, shall also be submitted.
5. If the enga.neers ox geologists of recard are
changed during the course of the work, the work shall be stopped until
the replacement has agreed to accept responsiba.lity within the area
of their tech,nical competence with certification of work completed
under their inspection and supervision.
6. A1l geological re.ports prepared under this Chapter
~ shall be signed by and prepared by or under the xesponsible da.rection
af professional geo].ogists as defined by Calarado Revised Statutes,
Section 12-25-101, as amended. Such profession.al geolagzsts shall be
experienced and competent in the geologic speciality required to meet
the objectives of this Chapter. Such professional geologist shall be
responsible for certificatian of a11 gealogic maps and reports prepared
by him under his responsible direction as specified in this section. .
Secti.on
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is fox any reasan held to be invalid, such deca.sian
shall not effect the val.idity of the remaining portions of tha.s
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it woul.d have passed
0 this ordi.nance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, cl.ause
or phrase thereaf, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts,
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Caoi- i nn
{
r
'i
-6- ~
that accurred priox to the effective date hereof, any prasecution
cammenced, nor any other actxon or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue af the provxsion repealed or repealed and reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shaXl not revive any provisxon or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
iNTRODiJCED, READ AND APPROVED ON FIRST READING THIS day of
, 1984, and a public hearing sha1.Y be held on thi.s
ordinance an the day of ,1984, at 7:30 p.m.
in the Council Chambers of the Vaa.l Municipal Building, Vaiz, Colorado.
Ordered pub7.i.shed in fu11 this day of , 1984.
~
Radney E. Slifer, Mayor
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk INTRODUCED, REAn AN'D APPROVED ON SECOND READxNG AND ORDERED PUBLZSHED
this day of , 1984.
Rodney E. Slzfer, Mayor ATTEST:
~
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Tawn Clerk
i
! Planning and Environmental Comission
~ April 23, 1984
2:15 Pm Site Inspections
3:00 pm Public liearing
7. Approva1 0f minutes of April 9.
Change of date for meeting during the week of Memorial Day.
2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add faur dwelling
units to the Concert Fla7T Plaza Bui7ding at 516 West Lionshead
Circle. Applicant: Selby-7ofel Associates
TABLED 3• Requesti to rezone L.ot 3, Vail Village West Filing No. 2 from Greenbelt
and Natural Open 5pace to Two-Fam71y Pt7;mary/Secondary. App7tcant:
Eimore Group Ltd, dba Elmore and Associates
TABLED 4. Request for a stream setback variance in order to bu7id a dwelling
on Lot 2, Vail Village West Filing No. 2. Applicant:The Elmore
Group, l.td, dba E7more and Associates
TABLED 5. Cascade Village Project (SDD#4) requests:
a. Amendment to permit additional commercial and convention space.
WED b. Request for a minor subdivision to incorporate two adjacent
parceis into SDD4 and to rezane these parcels from Residential
Cluster to SDD4.
c. Request for a height var-iance af four feet for the Terrace
Wing project, propased ta be located directly east of the
Westin Hatel. Applicant: Mansfield, Ltd.
6. A request to rezane lots 7, 8, and 9, B1ocfc H, Vail das Schone
TABLED Filing No. 2 from Residentia7 Primary/5econdary to Special
Deve3opment District and a concurrent request for a minar
subdiviston to combine the three ]ots into one. Applicant:
W and W Assaciates
7. Request for a minor subd3vision an Lot 0 of Vail Village lst
Filing, Vail Village Inn. Applicant: JAMM Ltd and Vail Village
Tnn, Inc.
~
• MEMORANDUM
April 18, 1984
Y0: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public hearing and consideration of a request for minor
subdivision of Lot 0, Block 5-D of Vail Village First Fi7ing.
Applicants: Vail Viliage Inn, Inc. and JAMM Ltd.
TNE REQUES7
Requested ts a minor subdivision for Lot 0 of BZock 5-D of Uail Village First
Filing. The request is to take the existing Phases Z and II which contain
appraximately 3,335 square feet of residentia7 use and four units and
22,601 square feet of commercial use. Phases I and II would contain approxi-
mately 28,780 square feet of land. The Phases are part af the Vail Vil7age Inn
Special Development District #6.
The purpose of the request is to subdivide off these two phases so they can be
sold.
~
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approva1 of the minor subdivision
request. Conditions of approval are noted be7ow:
1. That a revocab7e right of way permit be applfed for, reviewed, and if
there are no prob7ems, approved before signing af the plat. Part of the
Alpenrose outside deck is on East Meadow Drive.
2. That a parking agreement be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney
regarding parking for Phases I and II within the Special Development
District. The agreement shau7d state that required parking for Phases
i and II wi7T be provided within Special Development District #6
acceptable to the Town of Vai3. Aiso, that owners and tenants of space
within Phases I and IT and users of the businesses or the residential
units can use the parking spaces (possib1y on a charge basi.s).
3. The cross easements for use by owners and pedestrians must be provided
to insure the entire SDD function as ane project. Th7s should be reviewed
and approved_by the Town Attorney.
NOTE: Phases I and IT have been constructed as to plans approved by the Town
of Vail under Special Development District #6, and ther_e is no
additionaT gross residentia1 f7oor area or commercia7 space remaining.
~
Y Planning and Enviranmental COmmlS51Qn
April 23, 1984
~ PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Dick Ryan
Scott Edwards Peter Patten
Gordon Pierce Tom Braun
Duane Piper Kristan Pritz
Howard Rapson Betsy Rosolack
Jim V7ele
ABSEN7
Wil1 Trout
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman.
l. Approval of minutes of April 9. Rapson moved and Pierce seconded to approve
the minutes as presented. The vote was 5 in favor with Viele abstainin .
The meeting date for the meeting that wouid normally have been held on Memorial
Day was moved to Tuesday, May 29, and the PEC wi71 meet May 29 at their usual
time.
~ 2. Re uest for an exterior alteration in order ta add four dwe713n units to the
Cpncert Hail plaza Suilding at 616 West Lionshead_Circle.
Applicant: Seiby-Tofel Associates ~
Dick Ryan explained the history of the Concert Na7l Plaza. He stated that the
Planning and Environmental Commission approved a variance far a nonconforming
10t s7ze and for a varlance for distance between buildings (a regulation that no
longer would be necessary). The Town Counci1 den3ed the 1ot size item and the
applicant later added additional land ta the site to make a 7ega1 lot. Then in
7977 the Concert Hall PTaza received a variance for parking, for the studio and
far a roof overhang.
In 1977 the Concert Hall P1aza received a setbaek variance and further consideration
of the parking with ajaint parking agreement with Vail Associates to use their
North Day lot after 6:00 pm. and a Parking var7ance for commercial space.
In 1982 there was arequest for 10,000 sq ft of cammercia1 space with a reductian
af studio space. This was approved, but was not canstructed. In 10/83 there was
a request for a conditional use in order to add commercial storage in the lower
level. This was withdrawn by the applicants.
Ryan then explained that the applicant was now requesting to cflnstruct 4 condo
units and approximately 5,100 square feet vf gross residential floor area. The
second floor would be over the Moie Hole and Baggage C1aim retail spaces. The
arcade would be open another story, and then a third f1oor of residentiaT wouid
~ be over the arcade and the two commercial shops previously mentioned. Under the
current zoning of the praperty, CCII, there could be 6 units with 9,055 square
feet of GRFA.
PEC -2- 4/23/$4
4 units were propased with 5,100 sf of GRFA. Ryan then exp7ained the complfance
. with the Urban Design Guide Plan and with the zoning considerations. He stated
that the staff was concerned about where the condo awners would park, although
the app7icant was anly required to pay into the parking fund accarding to the zoning
code. He said that the town did not have a record of promises made to Landmark
condo owners, so the staff did nat have information about the pramises. Ryan stated
that the staff recommended approval af the request with the candition that the
applicant pay the parking fee.
Uiele asked how much the applicant would pay for the commercial and residentiai
parking spaces, and Ryan replied $3,000 for cammercia7 and $5,000 for residential.
Donovan stated that she went through the Concert Hall Plaza file and noted that
the PEC had denied the cammercial spaces. fZyan said that the Town Caunci7 overturned
the PEC decision and did allow the commercial spaces. P9per asked if the design
followed the Urban Design Guide P7an with respect to the residentia7 units, and
Ryan replied that residential units were not dealt with in the design consideratians
of the UDGP, and that an7y two things were dealt with on the west end, the entrance
and the walk from the pedestrian overpass ta Montaneros.
Buff Arnold, architect representing the applicant, showed a madel and exp1ained
the reasons for the design of the building. The model included an insert that
showed the alTowable buik and height. Jeff Selby, applicant stated that they had
looked careful7y at the impacts and did not go tfl the maximum height or bulk and
were not asking for any variances. He stated that on a piat fiied in 7979 air
space was reserved for additional expansion. He added that he had addressed to
• the best of his abil9ty the impact on adjacent property owners. He added that
there was adequate loading area for the candos.
Viele wondered if the applicants were p1anning to come back 7ater to ask for the
remaining GRFA and additional units, and Selby answered that he wauld cansider
apromise not tn came back as a candition of approvaT if that were necessary.
He added that all buildings are subject to changes in use, and go through a pracess
of requesting changes, and that he may ask for changes if the uses in effect were
not working out.
Donovan asked haw the lot size had changed fram 8,000 to 11,000 sf, and Selby
responded that they had purchased property from VA to bring the Iot to a size
that wouid not require a variance.
Joseph Loper, an owner in Landmark and a member of the board of directars,
represented the Landmark property owners who could not appear that day. He intro-
duced owners of units 17, 6 and T, and manager Jeff Wright. He c7aimed that he
had 1earned of the project by chance, but did not receive lega7 notice. He potnted
out that 5elby and Brown were partners in the Landmark, and also that the attorney
for the Landmark Condo Association was 8i1l Post, who he Tearned was representing
the app3icant. Therefore, the condo assnciation was search7ng for and had just
found another legal counse7. He felt that the construction af the addition could
create financial damages exceeding $500,000, and that it increased density while
also compaund7ng the parking probTem. He felt that the condo owners would park
in the parking lots that belonged to the Landmark, the Enzian and Vail Glo. He
stated that by paying a fee, the parking probiem would not disappear.
~
PEC -3- 4/23/84
. Mr. Loper asked the board to elther deny the app1ication or to table the
app7icat7on for 90 days to give his legal counsel time to research the
records.
Walter Neubaum, owner of Unit #1 stated that he had purchased his unit
for the view, and that.the salesman from Gore Range Properties had assured
him that there would be no structure bu71t on the adjacent lot.
RusseTl Pitto, awner of unit #9 in the Landmark, said that when he purchased
his unit, the rea7tor told him that the property under discussion would a7ways
remain a parking iat, and that it belonged to the Town of Vail. He read section
18.54.010, Intent of Design Review, and also asked if an EIR would be required.
He fe3t that 4 potentlal owners should not be a11owed to develop in such a
way that they would negatively impact 22 owners. He asked for 90 days delay
to study the issues further.
Neals Kypur, a renter in the Landmark for 4-5 weeks each year, stated that
he and ather renters would not continue to rent at the Landmark because they
would not want to 7ook at a wa77.
Dr. Ken Shaefer, president of the Landmark Conda association, stated that Rick
Pirog, representing Gore Range Properties, stated that nothing higher than
the eki5ting building would be constructed on the Concert Ha17 sitec: Ne disagreed
mi:th`;the statement that the architect had considered private views and felt that the
financial loss to the Landmark owners would be astronomical. ~ Sue Dugan, a real estate saiesman for Ewing Bachman, fe7t that this addition
would adversely affect Uail, and that it would not attract more people to
Lionshead. Lisa Saro of the Board of Directors of Montaneros fe7t that the
addition would be detrimental to the fourth floar on Montaneros and was very con-
eerned about the parking. She felt that the condo owners would use the circular
parking on the west end of Lianshead.
Piper read the owners of the 7etters into the record: RV WILLIAMS, MARY GNADBAN
WILLIAM H MILLER, RUSH ELLiS, PILR iNTER, S.A., GW BREUER, ISIDORO LOMBROZO,
WYNN BINGER, WM BARBER, NORMA AND PHILIP STEPHEN, JIM ROBERTSON, THOMRS TERBELL,JR
ALVTN ROGAL, THOMA5 B ANDERSON, JAMES L 0'CONNOR, JAMES F& JEAN P COLLINS,
GEORGE F FRYKLUND, all of whom nad wrltten letters of protest.
Pepi Gramshammer spoke against the addition, stating that it would affect aTl
of Uai7. Bud Benedict of the Antlers was concerned about parking. Benedict stated
that the Town of Vail did not a3leviate the parking prab7em by selling parking
spaces in the parking structures. Jim Hansen of the Enzian Lodge stated that
he did nat receive a pub7ic notice and corrected the address of the Enzian condo
association. The concern of the Enzian was primari7y that of parking, for it
was felt that the autos would be parked in the Enzian lot. He feTt that purchasing
parking spaces was alright in theory, but in practicality it did not worK
at aTl, in this case partly because of the proximity of the parking structure.
Another Landmark owner stated that the road between the Concert Ha71 Plaza and
the Landmark was oniy a service road and not made to ioak attractive.
.
PFC -4- 4/23/84
Rtime share owner stated that he baught into his unit for Vail's natural beauty,
. and felt that the rights af the owners in the Landmark should be preserved.
Colleen McCarthy, awner of the Baggage Claim in the Concert Mall Plaza build3ng,
gave the PEC members a letter exp7aining that the remodeling of the building
would affect her business negatively in addition to the interruption that would
be caused by the Lionshead improvements.
Donovan said that she went through the Tawn fi1es which seemed to indicate-
that the Concert Hall Plaza building was constructed to draw people into Lionshead
and to provide night 7ife. She read from the m7nutes of a PEC meeting that
was held on February 7977 in which the staff stated that they forsaw no other
impacts from the building, as it would be kept low. In the minutes, the staff
alsa stated that this building would saive the problem of an unsight7y parking
lot. Danovan added that originally the intention was to get rid of amud hole.
She asked how atwo story building with commercia1 could be more inviting, and
said that ariginal7y the malT of the building was supposed to be 7andscaped and
that the 9' variance was granted to a11ow the landscaped mall through the middle
of the bui1ding. Donovan feTt that the Landmark building was constructed when
the property that the Concert Hali building is an was considered undevelopable.
Then UA sold more 7and to the deve1opers of the Concert Ha71 building. 5he felt
that the Landmark owners had every right to expect that there would nat be any
development in front of their building.
Rapson felt that the way the west entry was designed, it seemed more like an obstacie
to the entry to Lionshead. He would rather see underground park3ng with landscaping.
He felt that the Community Action Plan spoke to situations like that. Rapson felt
• that parking had become a probiem that was no longer spoken to effective1y.
Viele shared Donovan's concern regarding the history of the site. He fe1t that
it was important to note that there were a number of variances granted when the
buiTding was canstructed and wondered if those variances would have been granted
if requested now, especially the setback variance in light of tne cancern ot the
surrounding property owners. Viele mentianed the parking problem and a1so added
that he felt that the Urban Qesign Guide Plan did not do anything for Lionshead.
Aierce stated that he agreed with Vieie, and added that he had never seen a proposal
opposed by so many people. Ne felt that the board had to respect the rights af
property owners, that it was difficuTt to turn down a development when the iaw
as written permitted the deve1opment. Pierce asked if an £nvironmental Impact
Report would be useful. In reference to the purchase af parking spaces, he said
that ariginally the idea came out of the Village core. He added that he was a
veteran of view corridors and fe7t they were expremely important. Pierce fe7t
that in this case the deve1oper already received a 7ot considering al1 the variances,
etc.
Edwards read Section 18.26.045 A3 in which it is mentioned that it sha1T be the
burden of the applicant to prove that the proposal does not a7ter the character
of the neighborhood, 7his was his major concern. Piper explained that both the
applicant and the neighboring praperty owners had rights. He added that specific
to the parking prob1em, current ordinances provide for the purchase of parking
spaces. Donovan fe1t that the app7ication was in violatian of the purpose of the
zoning code, 18.02.020 B, 1, 4, 5, and 7.
~
~
' PEC -5- 4/23/84
Not3fication of adjaEent property owners was discu5sed, and Vie1e suggested going
~ back ta the previous methad of mailing natices by certified mail in order ta have
proaf that the recip7ent did receive notice.
Vie1e moved and Pierce seconded to deny.,,the. appl_icatian because of the previaus
variances received and because it was fe7tthat the ro osal did nat meet the
Urban Design Guide Plan, in articuTar that it did not enhance the neighbarhood
and has .ne9ative impacts. The vate was 6-0 in favor of denia1. ~ T
Piper reminded the app7icant that he had 10 days in which to appeal the decision
to the Town Council. Selby replied that he intended to appeal for the May 15
Town Counci1 meeting.
3. Request to rezone Lot 3,~Uail V31lage.,,West,Filing._No.2,_ from Greenbe7t and
Natural 0 en~S ace to Two-Famil "Primar%Secaridar . Applicant: E7more Group
Dick Ryan stated that further information was being gathered concerning the flood
p7ain issue, and the app1icant asked to tabTe to May 14. Piper moved and Rapson
seconded to table to 5/34. 7he vote was unanimous.
7. Request_for a minor subd3vision on Lot 0 of Uail Village lst Filinq, Vail
ViTlage Irtn. App1icant: JANfM Ltd and Vai1 Uil7age Inn, Inc.
~ Dick Ryan showed a piat of Phases I and II. He stated that the staff reviewed
the request and approved it with three conditions. Jay Peterson, representing
the applicant, expla7ned that the SDD6 was sti71 in existence, but with different
owners. His c1ients' concern was that the SDD remain and operate as a viabTe whole,
as one property even though there would be more than one owner. Alsa that there
be a right to use the parking and that there be cross easements. One of the condi--.
tions the staff wanted was that there be a revocable rignt of way pErmit signed and
approved before the signirtg of the plat, since part of the Alpenrose outside deck
was on East Meadow Drive.
Donovan was concerned that future owners may not agree to the conditions, and Peterson
assured her that the restrictians would be attached ta the subdivision parcels.
F{e added that there were three owners within the;SDD at the present, lnclucfing
the condo association in Phase III. Patten asked if this request would be followed
by a condominium map, and Peterson replied that it wou7d.
Edwards moved and Pierce seconded to a rove the re uest for a minor subdivision
with the following conditions:
1. That a revocab7e right of way permit be applied for, reviewed, and if there
are no problems, appraved before signing of the plat.
2. That a parking agreement be reviewed and approved by the Town Attorney
regarding parking -For Phases I and Ii w7thin the Specia7 DeveTopment District.
The agreement should state that required parEcing for Phases I and IT wi71
~ be provided with SDD6 acceptable to the Town of Uail. Also, that awners
and tenants of space within Phases I and II and users of the business or
the residential units can use the parking spaces (passibiy on a charge basis)
and this sha17 be recorded with the plat.
;
, r FEC -6- 4/23/84
~ 3. The cross easements far use by owners and pedestrians must be provided to
insure that the entire SDD functions as ane praject. This should be reviewed &
approved by the Town Attorney.
The vote was 5 in favor, none aqainst,_ w3th Vieie abstaining.
The staff asked to table items 4, 5, and 6 unti7 the May 74 meeting.
Ra son moved and Donovan seconded to table these items ta M 14. The vate was
4-0 tn favor Vie3e and Pierce had left .
The meeting was adjourned at 5:35.
.
~
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
May 14, 1984
1:30 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approvai of minutes of April 23 meeting.
2. A request for a conditiona7 use permit in order to bui7d an addition
and a rock fa77 barrier on the north side af the Vail Mountain School
on Lot 12, Biock 2, Vail Vil1age 12th Filing. Applicant: Vail Mtn School
7ABLED 3. A request ta amend Specia7 Qevelopment D3strict 4, Cascade Village.
Applicant: Mansfield Ltd.
4• Request ta rezone Lot 3, Vail Village West #2 fram Greenbelt and
~ Natural Open Space to Residential Primary/Secandary. App7icant:
Elmore Group dba Elmore Assaciates
TABLED 5• Request to rezane Lots 7, 8, and 9, Biock H, Vail das Schone #2, from
Residential Primary/5econdary to Spec3al Development District Na. 13,
and a concurrent request for a minor subdivision to cambine the three
7ots into one. Proposed are six dweiling units, two of which wou7d
be employee units. Applzcant: W and W Associates, Ltd.
6• Request for a setback variance and a conditional use permit in order
to construct drive-in bank facilities at the Vai7 das 5chone shopping
center at 2111 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: lst National Bank
TABLED 7• Request for a setback variance in order to enclose a covered deck
and hot tub area at Lot 19, Block 7, Vail Village lst Fi1ing at 324
Beaver Dam Road. Applicant: Peter Kalkus
A request for modification to the floodplain and a minor subdivision
to subdivide the Stephens praperty in Tntermountain into four lots.
Applicant: A1 Stephens
~
~
P1anning and Envirflnmental Commission
May 14, 19$4
PRESENT S7AF'F PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Scott Edwards Tom Braun
Gordon Pierce Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Betsy RosoTack
Jim V3ele
RBSENT
Will Trout
l. Rpproval of minutes of. April 23 meetinq
Pierce moved and Edwards ta approve the minutes. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
2. A re uest for a conditional use ermit in order to build an addition and a
rocEc fall barrier on the north side of the Vail Mountain School on Lot 12,
Block 2, Vail Vil1a e 12th Filin . A 1icant: Vail Mountain School
Kristan Pritz presented the applicatian and showed a site plan. Gflrdon Pierce,
~ the architect far the project, answered quest7ons. Peter Abuzzi, head master,
and Hermann Staufer, a member of the baard of the school were in the audience.
Edwards was concerned that the parlcing 10t was not safe when picking up and dropping
off of chi7dren, and Pierce stated that there would be a turn around constructed at
a later time. P-iper fe7t that attentian shouTd be drawn to the DRB concerning
the visuaT impact af the barrier.
VieZe moved and Donovan seconded to a rove the re uests er the staff inemo
with the conditions that Vail Associates and the Town En ineer ive a roval
for the rocfc fai1 barrier. i'he vote was 4in favor with Pierce abstainin .
4. Request to rezone Lot 3, Vail U1a.qe.,West #2 from Greenbelt and Natura7
0 en S ace to Residential PrTmar Secondar . Appiicant: Elmore Group
Tom Braun presented the request and reviewed the background. Mark DonaTdson,
representing Eimore, exp7ained that according to the f1ood p7ain map by Hydro-
Triad, 17,000 square feet remain outside of the floodplain, and therefore the
1ot meets the minimum bui]dable area.
Discussian fo7Towed concerning the two units existing on the Tot, and DonaTdsan
stated that the plan was to remove~ the present structure and bui1d two new
units, that al] of the 7arge trees would remain. P7erce moved and Urte7e seconded
to approve theTrezoni_ncLrequest per the._staff inemo dated 5/7/84. More discuss7on
folTowed cancerningperhaps adding theicondition that the applicant must upgrade
~
' PEC 5/14/84 -2-
_ the praperty. Piper felt that recourse ta DRB would cantrol any adding on ta
~ the property without substantial improvements. This condition was not added
to the motion. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
6. ReQuestfor a setback variance and a conditiona1 use permit in order ta
construct dri ve- i n bank tae i 7 i ti es at the Vai 1 das Schoneshp i ncenter
at 2111 North Fron,taq,e.,,Road West. App7icant: st Nationa Bank o ai
Tom Braun explained that there were two parts to the request, one a setback
variance, and the other a conditional use permit. He explained both and showed
site p]ans. Rick Baldwin, architect for the applicant, stated that the bank
wanted visual connection between the bank in the Vail das Schone bui7ding and
the drive-up facility and alsa felt that the location would have the ]east impaet
on the parking iot, with the traffrtc flow onta the site as mfnimum as possible.
He added that the faciiity would be mnved when Vail Commons was constructed,
but that he did not know Vail Common`s t3me tab7e.
Braun exp1ained why the staff recommended denia7 of the faci7ity, mainTy that
the b7fce path would be severely impacted with a dangerous conflict between vehicular
traffic and users of the bike bath, and the fact that this faci7ity wouTd be
in conflict w-ith the Vail Commons project which had been approved by the Caunty
and accepted by the Town.
Baidwin then asked if he could present a different sTte p7an, and was told that
• the staff would need time to review a new plan. Discussion foliowed concerning
the number of parking spaces to be 1ost with variflus schemes, and of the crawded
condition5 for driving both in front af the r.etai1 stores and along the side
to get to the back af the building.
Baldwin asked to table the item to the meeting of May 29. Edwards moved and
Pierce seconded to table until 5/29. The vote was 4-0 in favor with VieTe abstainin .
8. A re uest for modification to the fiood Tain and a minor subdivision to
subdiv_ide the Stephens property in Intermountain into Four ots.
App7 icant: A1 5tephens
Peter Patten explained the request and pointed out that the 7ast column on page
one of the memo shou7d have read "Approx. GRFA Existing." He pointed out that
a water easement that had been re7acated needed to be recorded, and mentioned
the four conditions of approval--the staff recommended approvaT of the request.
Terri17 Knight, representing the appiicant, stated that he had letters from
Mountain Bell and from cable TV. He gave these to the staff. He sa7d the easement
had been recorded that day, which 7eft only two conditions with which to comply.
Knight exp7ained that almost a1l of the work wouTd be done abave the flood plain,
and Stephens showed on a site plan the genera1 idea he would pursue.
Knight stated that the Corp of Engineers wanted certairt w111ows 1eft intact,
and he added that the large spruce trees wou7d be left intact and the raots
~ protected.
~ PEC 5J14/84 -3-
Donovan wondered if the Town af Vail property wauld have to be done at the same
• time to make the project work, and Knight repTied that the Town property was
not in eminent danger.
Uie7e moved and Pierce seconded to approve the minor subdivision with the conditions
R through D as noted in staff inemo dated May 4, 1984. The vote~ was 5-0 i nfavor.
Viele moved and Edwards seconded to a rove the flood lain modffication as er
the staff inemoofMay 4, 1984 provtding proper permi,ts from the,Carps of Engineers
are abtained. The vote was 5-0 in favar.
3. A re uest to amend S eciaT Deve7o ment District 4, Cascade Viila e.
Applicant: Mansfield Ltd
The applicant asked to table until May 29, and Pierce moved and Viele secanded
to table t0 5/29 with the condition that it must be heard then or withdrawn.
1'he vote was 5-0 in favor of tab7inq,
5. Request to rezane lots 7, 8, and 9, Block H, Vai1 das Schone #2, from
Residential Primary/Secondary to Special DevelopmentDistrict No. 13,
and a concurrent re uest for a minor subdivis7on to combine the three lots
into ane. Pro ased are six dwei1in units, two of which wouTd be em lo ee
~ units. App1icant: W and W Associates, Ltd.
1"he applicant asked to table until May 29. Edwards moved and Pierce seconded
to a rove the tabT7n with the canditian that it must be heard then or withdrawn.
The vote was 5-0 in favor of tabling.
7. Request for a setback variance in order to encTose a covered deck and hot
tub area_ area at Lot 19, Bi ock 7, Vai l Vi 11 age lst Fi li rig at 324 Beaver
Qam Road. Applicant: PetEr Kalkus
The applicant asked to table this until May 29. Viele maved and Donovan secanded
to table t0 5/29. The vote was 5-0 to tabTe..
Patten expressed a desire to have a wark session with the PEC to d7scuss ways
to imprave the meetings, agendas, Community Deve7opment department, long range
projects, etc. It was decided to try to meet befvre a meeting that might otherwise
be a short ane.
The meeting adjvurned at 4:30 pm.
~
.
r'
MEMORANDUM
~ May 7, 1984 „
T0: Planning and Environmental Cammission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUSJECT: Public hearing and consideration af a reqUest to rezone L.ot 3,
Vail Village West F'71ing No. 2from Greenbelt and Natural
Open Space to 7wo Fami7y Primary/Secondary Residential District.
Applicants: Elmore Grflup Ltd, dba Elmore and Assocates
BACKGROUND:
Th3s property was part of the Vail City Corporation land annexed by the Town
of Vail in September 1975. Zan7ng of the land went through alengthy process.
When the entire property was initiaTly zoned, Lot 3 of Vail Village West Fi3ing
No. 2 was zoned Greenbe7t and Natural Open Space "with a transfer to Parcel
A af density allowed for the bui7dable acreage accarding to the same zoning
as Parcel A." Parcel A is part of tne 7and purchased for park and open space
purposes in 1980 by the Town of Vail. This property is now [cnawn as Donovan
Park.
Reading through the file regarding the sa1e of land to the 7own of Vai1 from
f`-Elmore ar~d Associates., There was dTSCUSSion,of'placing lots 1, 2 and 3 of
Vai 7 Vi l] age West F'i 1 i ng No. 2 as part of the area the Town would. purchase
- ' ~ and the Town was not interested.
REQUESI':
The request is to rezone Lot 3 of Vail Vi7lage West Filing No. 2-From Greenbe3t
and Na.tural Open Space to Twa Family Primary Secondary. The lot size is approxi-
mately 23,181 square feet with two units on the iot. . ,
ANALYSIS OF ZONING AND LQT
Current Zoning:
Under the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District there is very little that
can be done with the property. Baslcaliy no develapment e.g. residentia7
housing is permitted on the property. 8e1ow are the permitted, conditionai
and accessory uses and development startdards for this zone district.
i
~
Elmare -2- May 7, 1984 .
~
78.38.020 Permitted Uses
The fo1iawing sha11 be permitted uses in the GNOS district:
A. Greenbeit and open space;
B. Bicycle and peaestrian paths.
18.38.430 Canditiona1 Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted in the GNOS district,
subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit 9n accardance with
the provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Pub7ic parks and piaygrounds;
8. Galf courses;
C. Equestrian traiTs.
18,38.040 Accessory uses '
Not applicable in the GNOS d7strict.
18.38.050 Development standards
Nat applicable in the GNOS district,
The current use of the property previously noted 7s a duplex. The structure ~
an this lot may be continued as a lega7 non-conform7ng use, but cannot be
enlarged or changed. Repair and maintenance can take p7ace provided "that
no such maintenance or repair shall increase the discrepancy between the
use, structure or site improvements and the development standards prescribed
by this title." Therefore, the current structure could essentially remain
farever and be maintained and repaired.
PROPOSED zONING:
Praposed by the applicant is Two Fami1y Primary/Secondary zaning. Lots to
the west and south are zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary. If Town Cauncil
rezones this property as requested, the fo7lowing could take place on this
1 at:
18.13.020 Permit-ted Uses.
The fallowing uses sha7l be permitted:
A. Single-family residential dwellings;
B. Two-famiTy residential dweliings
The uses on the site would remain the same under the proposed zaning. ~
Elmore -3- 5/7/84
~
~ 18.13.030 Conditional Uses
The fol3owing conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance
of a conditianal use permit in accord with provisTans of Chapter 78.60:
A. Pub7ic utility and pub7ic service uses;
B. Pubi7c buildings, grounds and facilities;
C. Pubiic or private schoals;
U. Public park and recreation facilities;
E. 5ki lifts and tows.
No conditional uses currently ex3st ar are proposed.
18.13.040 Accessory Uses
The fo7lowing accessary uses shall be permitted:
A. Arivate greenhouses, toolsheds, p7ayhouses, garages or carports,
. swimming pools, patios, and recreation facilities customarily incidental
to single-family and two-family residential uses;
B. Home occupations, subject to issuance flf a home occupation permit
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.58;
C. Other uses customariiy incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary far the operatian thereof.
The accessary uses would be addressed as part of the Design Review Board
review ar at the time of buiTding permit issue.
• 18.13.050 Lat Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lat or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet of
bui7dabTe area, and each site shall have a minimum frontage of thirty
feet. Each site shall be of a size and snape capable of enclosing a
square area, eighty feet on each side, within its baundaries.
The site contains 23,781 square feet of land. The area not in the flood p7ain
is 17,943 'square feet. Therefore, the lot meets the mtnimum buiTdable area.
78.13.060 Setbacks
In the Primary/Secandary residential district, the minimum frant setback '
shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet,
and the minimum rear set6ack shall be fifteen feet.
There is a1so a strearh setback of fifty feet fram the center of the stream.
A new structure shou7d be abie to meet this setback.
r
Elmore -4- 5J,7i84 +
Considering the setbacks and flood pTain, there should be adequate area to ~
construct a home and meet the setbacks.
These are the ma,jar restrictions for this lot regarding zoning and lot
constraints. The owner should have adequate area to construct a new home if
desired.
RECOMMENDATiON;
The Cammunity Deveiapment Department recommends approval of the rezaning request.
The change in zoning will basically reflect what aTready exists an the s-ite,
and the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space does not seem to be appropriate zon-ing
of the property. With the Two Family PrimaryJSecondary zoning of this property,
there is the possibility to demolish or move the exi$ting structure and construct
a new hame. Under the Greenbeit and NaturaT Open Space zoning, the existing
house would remain with prabably little incentive to upgrade.
.
r
• ' -
~
~~n.•
~
~HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD
Victor Mark Dpnaldson Archi tect May 2, 1984
8ox 5300
Avon, Colorado 81620
Re: Floodplain for Lots 2 and 3, Vail Viliage West
FiTing No. 2
Dear Mark,
With reference ta our letter dated April 1984, we have campleted our .
anaiysis af the 100-year floodp3ain boundaries as they pertain ta the above
referenced lots. A brief description of the work performed, anaTyses and
conclusions is provided below. Also, attached are the 1"=10' topographic
maps prepared by Mountain Engineering &Land Surveying Company with the
100--year floodplain boundary superimposed by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
1. Scope
The scope of work consisted of twv items:
~ a. Delineate the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain for Lots 2 and 3 of
Vail Village West, Filing 2.
b. Cal cul ate the area of each lot 1 ocated wi thi n and outsi de of the
lOQ-year flflodplain.
2. Data
Reference data far the analyses consisted of the repart "Gore Creek
Floodplain Information" dated June 1975, prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd., and
a site specific tapographic map prepared by Mountain £ngineering and Land
Surveyang Company. The topographic maps are at a scale of 1"=10' with aI
foot contour interval. Survey data for the maps were obtained by Mauntain
Engineering and Land Surveying on ApriT 24 and 25, 1984.
3. Analysis
Both lots are lacated on the north and west side of Gore Creek, The
right-of-way for Highway 6 and Interstate 70 forms the north boundary of bath ]ots and Matterhorn Circ7e is the east boundary of Lat 2. The area
encompassed by both lots i s ShOwn on Pl ate 6 0f the fl oodpl ai n i nformati on
report. Superimposing the 7ot lines on this figure indicates that portians
of both lots are located within the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain
boundaries. 7he 100-year peak discharge at tnis point is approximately
~ 2950 cubic feet per secand.
12687 WEST CEDAR DRIVE - SUITE 100 LAf(EWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303-989-1264
a -
4 .
Victor Mark Donaldson Architect ~
May 2, 1984
Page Two
To delineate the floodplain boundary, 100-year water surface elevatians
were determi ned f'or the respecti ve 1 ots usi ng water surface e1 evati on5 at
specific Gore Creelc cross-sections. Three specific cross--sections analyzed
far the fl oadpl ai n report are loGated wi thi n cl ose proximi ty of bath lots.
These are shown on PTate 6 and are identified as Sectian 14.3, 15 and 17.
Section 14.3 is located immediate1y west af Lot 2, Section 15 is near tihe
center of Lot 3 and Section 17 is east of Lot 3 at the upstream side oF the
Park West Bridge. Streambed arid 100-year water surface elevations at each
sectian are shown in the table below.
SELECTED ELEVATIONS
100-Year
Section Streambed Water Surface
14.3 7944.0 7951.7
15 7950.7 7957.5
17 7951.7 7952.2
The streambed elevatfons shown I above and the topographic contours indi- ~
cated on the flflodpl ai n map compare favorably wi th the recent topagraphic
maps. Using these maps along with the cross-section information and water
surface profi 1 es devel oped as part of the fi oodpl ai n report, the 100-year
water surface elevations were plotted and the floodplain boundary delinea-
ted. This boundary was compared with that shown on Alate fi of the flood-
plain report. Given the small scale af the floodplain map (PTate 6), the
boundary indicated on the 1"-I0' maps campares favarably. A copy of the
1"=10' maps with the 100-year floodplain superimpased is attached.
4. Canclusians
After delineation of the flvodplain boundary, the area of each iot both
inside and outside of the floodplain was determ7ned by planimeter. These ,
results are presented in the table below.
Item l.ot 2 E.ot 3 Combi ned "
Total Area of Lot 17,166.43 ft2 23,181.92 ft2 40,348.35 ftz
Area autside of
Floodplain 7,001.43 ft2 17,943.92 ftz 24,945.35 ft2
Area Inside af '
Flaodplain 10,I65.00 ft2 5,238.00 ft2 15,403.00 ft2
.
.
~ Victor Mark Donaldson Architect
May 2, 1984
Page 7hree
From this, it can be seen that approximateTy 59 percent of Lot 2 and 23
percent of E.ot 3 are located within the 100-year floadplain. Approximately
38 percent of the total combi ned 7 ot area i s wi thin the fl oadpl ai n. If the
devel opment pl an i ncl udes some fi 11 i ng i nta the fT aodpl ai n zone, i t may be
necessary to evaluate the interaction between the fl oadplain and adjacent
tracts.
Additianally, it should be noted that bath lots may be suhject to ero-
sion damage during the 100--year flaod. Lot 3 has the greatest potential
for damage. ImmediateTy downstream of the Park West bridge the Gore Creek
cnannel is canstr3cted and the bank along Lat 3 is steeper than the down-
stream banks. This wili resuit in higher fTow velocities thereby sub-
jecting the ban€c to possibie erosion damage. This should be kept in mind
during future design and canstruction work on Lat 3.
We have appreciated the opportunity of providing you this analyses. If
you desire additional work or have questions, please contact us.
Sincerely,
~ NYDRO--TRIAD, LTD.
01
R. Jay Nelson, P.E.
Senior Water Resource Engineer
RJN/jh
;111stsfit"eg
Enc7osure ,}qy~,'/l9"~,
eQO08}iif4~•~` •c
#5000
17~b ~ =
o F
w..Jy r ^ ' 4
W•~ L lo 1 c'7..yf',. ~ ~
b 1 ~vs' 0~
~
. MEMORANDUM
TD: PTanning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Development Department
DAT£: May 8, 1984
SUBJ£CT: Request for a conditional use permit to locate a drive-up bank
facility at the Vail das Schone Shopping Center.
Applicant: First National Bank of Vail
DESCRIPTION 0F PROpOSED USE
This request is to construct a drive-up bank faciTity at tne southeast corner
of the Vail das Schone Shopping Center. The facility wouid include a°drive
thru" building and a 1andscaped area defYning the entry to the structure.
CRTTERIA RND FINDiNGS
Upon review af Section 78.60, the Community Development Department recommends
denial of the conditianal use permit based upon the foTlowing factors:
. Consideration of Factors
Re1at7onshi and im act of the use on develo ment objectives of the Town.
This proposal would have no significant impacts on the overall development ab-
jectives of the Town. CCIII is an established "auto oriented" area, and this
proposal wouTd not adverse7y impact its existing deve1opment.
The effect of the use on 7i ht and aTr, distribution of o ulatifln, trans ortat7on
facilities, utilities, schaols, arks and recreatian facilities, and other ubTic
faci7ities needs.
This facility could have a minor impact on air qua77ty as a result of 7dling
cars waiting to use the bank. The faci7ities Tocation affects recreation facili-
ties in that it is in direct confiict with our existzng bike path. The Tawn
of Vail Recreation Department has reviewed these plans and is very concerned
with the facilities' location.
The effect u on traffic with articu7ar reference to con estion, automative
and edestrian safet and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverabiTity, and removai_.of snow from tne stree~ an parkinq area5.
• This proposal presents a potential7y serious conf7ict with vehicular, pedestrian,
and bicycle traffic. Vehicular circu3ation within the parking area wili be
affected by the addition of this facility. Pedestrian and bicycle traffic are
aiso 3mpacted because of the proposed 1ocation of the fac9lity. A major cancern
1st Nat Bank -2- 5/8/84
r
• is the "sense of security" one has on a bike path as compared to the potentia7
congestion one wou7d eaIGOLinter when reachino the parking lot. This 7ocation
presents a pntentially dangeraus situation with respect to the bike path.
Effect upon the character af the area in which the proposed use is ta be located,
inciuding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in re7atian ta surroundinq
uses. . ~
This propased use is compatibie with uses in the surrounding area.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the ra osed
use.
T'he environmental impact report concerninq the proposed use, if an environmental
impact report is required by Chapter 78.56. ~
FINDINGS
The Community Development Department recammends that the condit7ona] use permit
be denied based on the fa1iowing findings:
• That the prapased location of the use and the condit-ians under which it would
be operated or maintained would be detrimental to the pub1ic health, safety,
and wel fare.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. While th7s type af use is
compatiVe with the area and the Town, it's 7ocation is not compatible with
circulation in the area. The facility is proposed for a location in direct
conflict with an existing bike path. Th-is presents a situatian that could be
a direct detriment to the public hea1th, sa-Fety, or welfare.
~
MEMORANDUM
S T0: Planning and Environmenta7 Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
RATE: May 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a side setback var7ance to locate adrive-up bank
: fiacility at the Vail das Schone Shopping Center.
Applicant: First National Bank of Vail
DESCRIPTTON 0F VARIANCE
This request is to construct a dr7ve-up bank faci77ty at the southeast corner
of the Vail das Schone shopping center. This facility would include a"drive-
thru" buiiding and a landscaped area defin7ng the entry to the structure. A
setback variance is required because the proposed iacation for the structure
abuts the side praperty line. The required setback in the CCIII zone is 20
feet.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
U_pon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 78.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
• the De partment of Commun,ity Development recommends denial of the requested
var ance base upon the following factors:~ J~
Consideration of F'actors
The relationshi of the re uested variance to other existing or otentia7 uses
and structures in the vicinity.
7his praposa7 is in conflict with both existing and proposed uses in the vicinity.
At the present time a Town of Vail bike path feeds direct7y into the shopping
center's parking Tot. As proposed, cars using this facility wou1d circuTate
directly through the point where the bike path adjoins the parking lot. 7his
would create a serious conf1ict between vehicular traffic and users of the
bike path.
Patential uses in the v3cinity include the Vail Commons project immediately
to the east of Vail das Schone. During annexation, the rawn of Vail accepted
the County's approva7 of the Vail Commons development p1an. This approva1
stands as long as the deve7opment plan remains unchanged (if changes are proposed,
the plan wi1i be resubrnitted to PEC). This p7an ca71s for a pedestrian wa7(cway
and internal vehicu1ar circu7ation that wou7d run directTy into the propased
bank fac7lity. Access to Vail Commons underground parking wou7d also be adversely
affected by this dr7veup facility.
.
ist National Bk -2- 5/7/84
.
~ The de ree to which rel3ef from the strict or literal inter retation and enforcement
of a s ecified re ulation is necessar to achieve com atibilit and uniformit
of treatment among sites in the.vicinity or to attain the objectives af this
tit1e without grant_o,f special~privi lege. •-•--~JThe question here 7s whether denying this variance would deny the applicant
the right to use his property. In looking at this site, it is evident that -
the drive-up faci1ity cnuld be accammodated in another location that would
not require a setback variance. 7o approve this variance would be agrant
of specia] privilege.
The effect of the re uested variance on li ht and air, distribution of o u7ation,
tra_nsportation and traffic faciiities, public fac_i7it3es and utiTities, and
pubi i c safety. _ . .
Transportatlon and traffic facilities would be impacted by this proposal's
conflict with existing circulation patterns. Pub1ic safety would also be affected
by the location af the facility with respect to the existing bike path. Th-is
proposal has a7so been reviewed by the Town of Uail Recreation Department,
and they are very concerned with this proposa7's impact on the bike path.
_
-
~ Such other factors and criteria as tne comm,issZan deems app.Ticab7e to the praposed
var9ance. FINDIIVGS
The Planning and_ Environmental Commission shall make the folTowinq findings befare
granting a vari ance: _
That the granting of the variance wi11 not constitute a grant of specia3 privilege
inconsistent with tne 7imitations on other properties classified in the same district.
7'hat the granting of the variance wi7T not be detrimental to the public health,
5afety, or welfare, ar materially injur7ous to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or 17terai interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulatian
would resu7t in practical difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the abjectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances-nr condi-tions appiicabYe to
the site of the variance that do not apply generai7y to other properties in the
same zone.
~ The strict ar litera] interpretation and enforcement of the specified reJulation
would deprive the appTicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
1st Nat Bk -3- 5/7/84
~
- • STAFF RECQMMENDATI0N5 ~
Staff recommendation on th7s request is for denial. This proposal is also in
direct conflict with an existing bike path that creates circu7ation as we1l as
safety prob1ems. Potential conflicts with the Vail Commons prflposal do exist ,
but they cou7d be mit7gated with an agreement between present (and future) owners
of the Vai7 Commons property, Vail das Schone shopping center, the bank, and the
Town of Vail. This agreement would require that the drive-tnru faciiity be removed
prior to the 7ssuance of a building permit for Vail Commons. This agreement would
have to be worked out before a buiTding permit wouid be issued for the bank facility.
While this agreement cauld theoreticaliy e77minate potential impacts on Vail Commons,
the conflict with the bike path and the issue of specia7 privilage are sti11 unresolved.
~ -
~
r
' MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Development Qepartment
DATE: May 4, 19$4
SUBJECT: Request for Minar Subdivision and Modificatian to the F7aodplain
on the Ailen Stephens Property in Intermountain Subdivision
Applicant: Allen Stephens
1. BACKGR0UND
Mr. Stephens wou1d Tiice to subdivide his existing parcel zoned Residential
Cluster into four parcels each zoned Residentiart C7uster. There are two
existing single-1`amily houses on the property 7acated north of Gore Creek.
7he property is surrounded by the South Frontage Road on the north, Meadaw
Creek Candominiums on the east and sauth and the Intermauntain 5wim and
Tennis Club Condominiums on the west.
Development Statistics
Gross Sa.. Ft. of No. of No. of Approx.
Proposed Size 3n Buildable Area D.U.'s D.U.'s GRFA GRFR
Parcel Sq. Ft._ (Non-fioodplain) Allowed Existing A17owed Existing
~ A 32,670 8,450 1 i 2,112 2,050
B 22,651 12,400 1 1 3,100 1,780
C 18,730 14,300 1 0 3,575 0
D 86,684 66,930 9 0 16,732 0
Totals 150,735 702,080 12 2 25,519 3,830
* Ca7cu7ations show 7.97 units allowab7e, so if a recalculation af the
buildable area (figures supplied by applicant) showed any increase,
two units would be allowed.
•
• Stephens -2- 5/.4/84
zI. PEC REVIEW CRITERIA (Section 17.16.710)
~ APPROPRIATENESS IN REGARD T0:
R. Subd7V15TOn Control (Utilities avai7abllity, infrastructure improvements,
etc. 7etters from util7ty companies attached)
7. Applicant must fina1ize water district easements
2. A detaiTed analysis of underground conditions and foundation
design as per the Summer3ee report must be submitted.
3. The applicant must get proper permits from the Corps of Engineers
4. The applicant needs letter from Mountain SeIT and from the
local TV company regarding their ability to service the site.
8. Densit3es Aroposed
The propasal does not inc7ude a rezoning and does not increase
or decrease existing allowab7e density. It logically creates sma1T,
low-density parcels on the north side of the creek and a mu7ti-
• fami1y parcel on the south side.
C. Env3ronmental Integri~y
7he area dnes cantain a7most 60,000 square feet within the 100
year f1oodp7ain. However, our regu7atians and the modificat7ans
proposed under this proposa7 should mitigate this.
Proposed parcel D, the multi-family parcel south of the creek is
in a debris flow area as per our Geologic Map (see attached map)
and wi71 be required to have a site speciffc geo-technical study
done (i.e. proposed hazard ordinance) when a proposa7 is made on
the praperty.
D. Access to Parcels
Access to the 7ow-density parcels exists on parce1s A and 6 aff
of the South Frantage Road. Access to Parce7 C w711 be through
an access easement granted to Mr. Stephens as part of a previous
agreement with the Town af Vail regarding the open space 7and to
the east.
The muTti-family parcel is accessed via a recorded easement through
the Meadow Creek Condominium parcel off of Lupine Street.
•
Stephens -3- 5/4/84
IIT. RECOMMENDATION
. The Community Development Department recommends approva7 of the minor
subdivtslon request for the Stephens praperty. We feel they've done
a gaod job 7n putting the density where it is most compatibTe with
its surroundings and are not asking for an upzaning. This subdivision
should improve the land for development purposes by dividing it into
logical, manageable parce7s.
Conditions af approval are as folTows:
A. App7TCant must fina7ize water district easements.
B. A detai7ed analysis af underground conditions and foundatian design
as per the SummerTee report must be submtted.
C. Need ta acquire praper permits fram the Corps of Engineers.
D. Need letters from Mountain Be17 and from the 7oca1 TV company
regarding abi1ity to service the site.
IV. FLOODPLAIN MaDIFICATTON
Section 18.59.040 (E) af the Hazard Regulations specifies the criteria
for modification to the floodpiain:
• E. The zoning administrator may require any applicant or person desiring
to modify the f7oodplain by fi11, construction, channelization,
grading or other similar changes, to submit for review an environmenta7
impact statement in accordance with 78.56 ta establish that the
work wi31 nat adversely affect adjacent properties, or increase
the quantity or velocity of f1ood waters.
The mini-EIR 7s attached in the form of letters dated Juiy 5 and August 5,
1983 from John MacKown of Johnson, Kunkel and Assaciates to 7errili
Knight. The floadp7ain in this proposed subdivision has been modified
in the past by Mr. Stephens and he now wishes to simply make it safer
to buiid by providing a higher berm as per the August 5, 1983 7etter,
(2.5 feet).
The staff recommends approval of the floodplain modification as we
feel the proposa] meets the intent of the criteria in 18.69.040 (E).
This modification should provide a safe buiTding site for parcel C
whi7e respecting upstream and downstream properties.
•
9 J
UPPER EAGLE VALtEY
• a= WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICTS
846 FpREST ROAD • VAIL, COLqRADO 81657
(303) 476•7480
September 1, 1983
Mr. Terrill Knight
P.O. Box 947
Eagle, Colorado 8163I
RE: AZ Stephens Property in West Vail Dear Mr. Knight: '
The ?pper Eagle Va].1ey Sanirati.on District can and will
provide the abave referenced property with wastewater treat- .
ment servi.ces. The District has excess capacity to pracess wastewater at its Vail and Avon Wastewater Plants.
Additionally, Vail Va1ley Consolidated Water Aistrict can
~ and wal.l provz.de this property with doinestic water services.
Accordingly, the Cwo Districts wil.l provide water and ,
wastewater services upon compl3ance with the Rules and Reg-- .
ulations of the Disrricts, inc7.usi.on into rhe bistricrs '
subject ta.the terms and conditions of said inclusion. Also
the payment of appropriate tap fees will be required.
_
. SincerelyA-4-4d
_ &Va David Krenek, P.E.
' Technical Director DK:pf CC: Duane Davis
~
PAF2TICIPATING D15TRICTS - ARRQWHFAD METRO WATER . AVON AhETRO WATER • BEAVER CREEK
, METRO WATER • BERRY CREEK ME7R0 WATER . EAGLE-VAIL METRO VVATER . EDWARDS WATER CLEAN
6A LAKE CREEK MEAQOWS WATER . UPPER EAGLE VALLEY SANITATION . VAIL VALLEY
CONSOLIQATED WATER • VAIL WATER AND 5ANITATIQN
{.`.HOLY CRaSS LCECTRIC ASS0C.:1ATI0N, I NC.
3799 HIGf-fWAY 82 AREA CODE 9P, O. DRAWF.R 250 303
GLENWOOb SPAINGS, COLqRADO 81602 945-5491
Apxil 11, 1984
Mr, TerriJ.l Knight
P.O. Box 947
Eagle, CQ. $1631
RE: Stephens Subdiva.sion-Vail
IV= Sl4'4 Section 14, Twp 5 So.,
Rng $1 tiY, 6th P.M.
Dear D9r. Knight,
Be it Rnown that the abave mentianed development is withzn the certified service
area of lioly Cross E2ectxic Assgciation,.. Inc,_
Be it fuxther knawn that Efoly Cross Electric Association, Inc. has an existing
24.9Y/14.4 kv three-phase overhead power linQ on the southerly side of the
south frontage road adjacent to the above described subdivision. This line is
capable of supplying.eiectric pawer to the above descxibed subdiva.sion subject
to the tariffs, rules and regulations an fiJ,e with the Public Utilities Commissi.an
~ of the Srate of CoZorado, and to apprapriate contractual arrangements with Holy
Cross Electric Association, Inc, It wi11 be the developex's respanszbility ta
extend, enlarge ax alter the sxisting power line to the desired lacations within -
the above described subdivision.
If you desaxe`any further information, please feel free to call me at 949-5892.
Sincerely,
HOLY CROSS ELEC'FRIC ASSQCiATION, INC.
e.
Ted Huskey, Engi er
TFl: Zw
cc: HCEA Vai2 Office 51-36:Stephens Subdivision
. . - `
- - .
-r-• ~
• , 1
~ r
~
. • .
(COLIGIM(dIED
~ ~ .
;
P.O. Box 1387 pillori, CoIC>r~,tfo 80435 -
~
April lb, 19$4 .
Mr. Terrill Knzght
P.O. Box 947
Eagle, CO 81631
Re: Stephens Subdivision, Vaa.l Col.orado
Dear Mr. Knight:
Public Service Company of Colorado will serve the above referenced
project with natural gas service, based on the rules`and regulations
for gas service extensians on file with the Public Utilities Commission
of Colorado. '
I have enclosed a guide ta the information that wi11 be needed to
complete your requesr.
~ Due to constructzon backl.ogs and an abbreviated construction season,
prompt attention to the sezviee request and gas application will be
greatly appreciated.
If I can be af further assisrance, please feel £ree to contact me.
Si.ncezely,
Gary Hall Eagle D9.stxact ~'i?px'es(~ntat:ive
Jm
•
T ~ j I
N v'.t01 - / / /
> ~ } 1~ i ~i 1. ~t ~ / 4 ~
fr 1
c n • ~ l,~ ~ i ~ r ~`A _ _ ~ fI lIlI °
J
p LY Q)'r
CLI
p ~ 4- ~ b p_ N 1.1 ' ' i~~~~e ' ~ ' ~ ~
p • V ly
a ° sz
w
~r C~ ~n m
C Y N ~
~ W CL)
~ o a ov ~ •M ~y ~vl;~`~I~ i i+
C U N 0. ~ ~F O Ql \ \ ~ ` \ \ r r 'I ~ ' ~ ~ ! 1 ~ I I
Gi ~O C a> L N ~ , f W
rnaro o NE mwaia~ ' ff .
~ ~ ~ c c
~ ~p N C T i I~. ~
y' c o
s. m F~ m2
rn~w
y ~ ro w c c . ~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • i ~
ICU
6
6 N
. Al
C.r y G V1 ~ ~ 'I14 \ ~AV,
V > ~ V ~ Q
T ~ Cr o ? ~ i ~II . i "•1 ~ ~m
f„ vl T V~ N
N N ~ ~
L L 16 V~ \
°i " ag ~ o
Y ~ n U
V R 1-i X+O YV 61 C
I ~ ~
c u ~ °itc vTy m ~yL . .
10 U1 V1 v F rn G1 o p.V1 C L. Q~ ~ ~ i
+1
Cy rt
= Y ~ o- V ~ W C Ql o+{ • 7 ~ ~ V~1 '?1 • ~i /
y~ 3 ~ i6 i0 C tn f- V .I'Y O O 4~ E O
a L A 4-
4~ a ro V ~ j~,f~ J r F I I ~~J \
0 N
~ N ,6 Ylr ~ GI O V ~ ~3 3 ~ /l"{-~Y/' ~ 11 , Ol ' 1
y y ~v , o:a ~
o ~ 'r m ,o adl.+
\ 1
oi m 0 ~'O :o N Y b N
Y C Y• V Q. C~! "U OJ f RI' , F~ ~ 1 11 ~
r U C R~ "6 t) ~n 1e 7~ r- p . rC • O E I• ;ji~~-/ \
Y- a~: .0 7~
N Q1 ~ 7 3 O V ~ . C~ ~ ~ O 41~
a N IX`] •r U ~ N N
4'C] Ql N L • ~
6!
U C L ~ 4 vdi aV ~F w C ~G iD
4 ~~a u`~ioE ~a~cp no as / y ~ ~~gt~ `g
~ ~ ~
O
LL b ~ vi ~o X a~i w a D a-~~ S' rn~n
N
L I ~ ~ r 9' l5
N w E P s~ c w ~ v +1
oooE ; ~n If/ e/A 1 l ~II
q a4,
NE o oa~~ v- wcY aa L ~
i al y._ ,y O L CI
O iJ C 4~ ~tl 4- C:: +1 N
~c o ~o aY ~ f. ~
4-
L~ t L 1n ~ QY O C V1 N ' ~ r ~ P I V tt
Ip 61 a+ i y -GO O • r- 41 ~ p~h L 10 N CRa d E N i fJ' 'j11'~P O. VI
~ 3 L O O Q r y 4"
~ Y y r E L N O O 3 L It
y
QI ~ 1 ~ r 4Y
r y(~l6 ~ r
QD r-~
b ~ t ~ N
f y ~ O 00 ~ 0
~ O p
~ ~ r N LL 'D~6".
V V
ID
~ ~ ~ J 0 ? > ~ at
r .l ~ I . L^,r
~ l~ ~1~•` 1 ~ , , , ~ f ~ ~
johnson, KunkeI & Assoclate.s, lnc.
LANq SURVEYING • ClVIL ENG[NEERlNG MAPP[NG
Ju1y 5, 1983
Terrill Kni9ht
Box 1199
EagZe, Co - 81b 3J.
~
RE:. Al.Steph.e.ns Property at West Vail
Flood Plain Analysis 83/085
Dear Terrill, _
• At your__request.I~have' examaned th.e £1oodi.ng potential f.r.om a 100 year flood
for A1.Stephens property located in Section 14, Township S Sauth, Range SIW o€
the 5ixth P.M. .in the Town of vail, CoZorado. ~ .
The anaylszs is based on a..s.tudy per£ormed by Hy ciro-Triad oE LakEwood, June
- -
1975.'.for. the .To.wn. of Va.il.,. Eagle County and the Colarado Water Canservation
Board. _ This _st.udy -was suppiemented with _field cross-sections perf:orsned by
Eag1e Va-].ley Engineering Co. af-Vail, CoLorado. - -
• Fiow depth was hased on Mannings equatzan usirrg a value o.f N=0.06, Q1O0 = 3,000
cfs and a slope between-1.5% and 3$. The 100 year f].ow depth below the bridge
at Lupine Street (section 97.45) wil.l spill over the north s.ide bank and wi1L
inundate around the exzsting structures and area to the west. This inundated
area would be considered a low hazard flood area, i.e. veioczty and depth would
be minimal. Construction o£ a berm on the existing natural l.evee wa.ll correct .
the problem. Use of river cobb].es (18"+) ror riprap anl undUlated slopes with
natural grasses would make the laerrri undectable. BasicaZly ti-ie berm shauld run
,from the bridge abuttment at approximate7.y 2% to the existing levee waLl
currentiy in place. The berm would range from 2 to 5£eet i.n heiynt, thus
affordi.ng a 2 to 3 foot free board capacity along the north banit. The existing levee and b1ocK wa3.1 at khe easterly structure provides
appraximately 1/2 foot free board. ,7ust dowiistream fram the house at sta S+
19.37 the leevy should be rai.sed ta afford additianal protection ta the •
~ westerly structures.
P.O. Box 409 • 313 East 4Yh Street - Eag1e, Colorado 81631 . Plione: (303) 328-6368
i Page 2 of 2
The limits of flooding have been indicated on a base map prepared by Eagle
Valley Engineering, #558 from the house on the narth side to tne bridge at
Lupine 5treet and along the south sidA rrom the bridge to the wes*_erly property
boundary.
Shauid you have additional questions concernkng this study please advise.
Sincerely,
Moc- r
yaohr~cKo wn, P.E.
• . . _ . •
.
~ .
Johnson, Kunkel & Associates, lnc.
LANp SURVEYING • CIVIL ENGlNEEFiING • MA?FING '
August 5, 1383
Mr. Texx'ill Knight
Box 947
Eagle, Colorado 81631
Re: Al Stephen.s Praperty in Vail JK/$3/085 Floodplain ,
Dear Terrill: ~ _ .
~ At your request I Yiaire plotted the flood lzmits from
Station 4f51.49 to Station 7+$7.27 at the westexn end of -
the property along the northerly bank. Enclosed is a
.
revision af the earli6r map. _ _ - - ~ • • Additianally you asked about the passible effects
of the berm on the upstream and downstreain.sectia.ns of
Gore Creek. The berm wi1.1 have minimal-effects on the
level of the stream since f.he velocity within the new -
channel wi].l be sliqhtly inczeased. Some overbank starage
af-the 100 year fl.oad peak wiIl be affected, however, the
valume agai.n is very small compared to the overall drainage
basin,,.f.hus the flow rate wi].1 remain basically unchanged,
causing no detr,imental affect on properties along th.e strearri.
It is recommended that any development that occurs
shauZd provide far addi. tional freeboaxd between the first floar elevation and the 100 year floodplain of 2.5 feeta Shoul.d you have any'additional questions please advise.
Si c~r~~Y, /~7~"~~ . . '
J n L. MacKown, P.E. '
nczasures '
. ~
~ .
. P.O. Box 409 • 113 East 4th Street •EagEe, Colorado 81631 - Phone: (303) 328•635$
~ MeMaRANDuM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commtssion
FROM: Community Deve7opment Department
DATE: May 70, 1984
SUBJECT: A request for a conditionai use permit in order ta build an
addition and a rock fa77 barrier on the north side of the Vail
Mountain School on Lot 72, B7ock 2, Vai7 Village 72th F717ng
Applicant: Vail Mountaln School
BACKGROUND
The Vai7 Mountain School received approva7 to construct a new school in Booth
Creek in 1978. The request was for a conditional use per[nit to a17ow a private
school of approximately 9,000 square feet for a maximum of 110 students. Con-
ditions of approval were as fo7lows:
1. The maximum floor area far the Vail Mountain School building is not to
exceed 10,000 square feet.
0
2. The Vail Mountain School buiTding is to be used only by the Vail Mountain
School for school functians.
3. Additionai parking shail be provided by the Vail Mounta7n School if the
proposed parking is found by the P1anning and Environmental Commission
ta be inadequate.
4. The Tacation af the schoo1 building and its activities is restr9cted
to the area designated on the pTans appraved by the Flanning and EnvironmentaT
Commission at the October 24, 7978 meeting, which are on file in the
Community Development Department. A deed restriction from Vai1 Wssociates
wi17 Timit the amount af 7and to be used by the school on this designated
area. The balance of the 7 acre parcel is ta be restricted as greenbelt.
5. The cabin currently on the prflperty is to be preserved and restored either
in its existing location or in another 1ocation restricted to the Eastern
part of the site as shown on the submitted plans.
At the public hearing there were severa7 property owners of the Booth Creek
area who were concerned with the location of the school and the impact it would
have an the neighborhood. The school has been in aperation for over two years,
and the Community Deve7opment Department has received very few negative comments
regarding the operatian or site. In November 1979 the Vail Mountain School
received approval for a lunch room, indaor recreational area arod dark room.
Conditional use approvai was given in October 1981 to remove the restriction
limiting the number of students at Vail Mountain Schaol. Tn August 1983, the
~ schoo] received canditional use approvai to accommodate a sadded soccer field.
At all the subsequent meetings s7nce 1978 there havs not been any major concerns
raised by surrounding property owners, and the Vail Mountain School has been a very
good neighbor.
Mtn School -2- 5/70/84
DESCRIPTION
• The Vail Mountain SchooT is requesting to build an addition to the existing
schaol. The addition wou7d adjoin the north side of the schaol. Square
footage for the new building ts approximateTy 3,096 square feet. The proposal
provides space for:
1 print roam 2 classrooms
1 computer room 1meeting roam
7 language lab 1 kindergarten raom
A parking/hardspace play area (appraximately 4,000 square feet) wi17 be located
to the west of the existing parking area.
The Vai] Mountain School is also proposing to construct a rockfa7T barrier
on the north hillside above the schoo3. A pre7iminary eva7uation of rocKfall
hazard and mitigation has been compTeted by Woodward Clyde Cansultants. The
study stated that the school is "in an area of Tow to moderate rockfall hazard
related to the largest slab-faiIure events... We be1ieve that an earthen trench
and berm constructed ups1ope of the school wou7d significantly reduce the
rockfal7 hazard." {see enclosed 1etter dated April 6, 1984.}
CRITERIR AND FINDINGS
Upon review af Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approva7 of the conditiona7 use permit based upon the foilowing factors:
~ Consideration af Factors
Relationshi and im act of the use on develo ment objectives af the Town.
The zoning code states that "...scMoo1s and certain types of private recreation
facilities and institutions are suitable uses in the Agriculture and Open
Space district." (Town of Vail Zoning Code 78.32.010) Excellent educational
and recreational programs have helped to estab7ish the Vaii Mountain Schoo7
as an asset to the cammunity. The propasal also respects the intent of the
Agricultural/Open Space zone to maTntain the land in a°predaminantly open"
state. (78.32.010)
The effect of the use on ]i ht and air, distribution of o ulation, trans artatian
facilities_,_utilit3es, schoo7s, parks and recreatTOn faci1ities, and other
publ ic faciT ities needs. •
The project will provide additionai recreat3on space and educationa7 fac-ilities.
0ther impacts are not significant.
~
, Mtn School -3- 5/10/84
Effect u on traffic with articuiar reference ta con estion, automotive and
. edestrian safet and convenience, traffic flow and contro], access, maneu-
verabilit , and remova7 of snow from the street and arkin areas.
Traffic exits from the North Frontage Road onto the site. The additional
c7assroom space will serve the needs of the present school bady. It is not
intended to meet the needs of a large number af new students. Therefore,
the addition should have minimal impact on traffic. The propasal provzdes
for additionaT parking if some demand for spaces is generated by the addition.
Effect u on the character of the area in which the ro osed use is to be loeated
includin the scale and bu7k of the ro osed use in relation to surroundin uses.
Building bulk is increased by the addition. However, the new structure has
very 7itt7e impact on the actua7 appearance of the schoal as a who7e because
it is 7ocated behind the main building. Rrchitectural7y, the addition will
match the existing school. From the North Frnntage Road, the additian is
screened from view by the existing school, berms on either side of the schaol, and
the log cabin on the east side. Laok3ng dawn at the site fPom the.Boath Fai1s Court
cul de sac, the impact of the addition is minima7. Neighbvrs=would see a sma11 portion,
if any, of the new roof (approximately 25 feet high). The addition is built
below the crest of the hi11 and is lower than the existing school (approximate7y
33 feet high). The rockfall barrier wou1d be built into th2 hi3Tside and
would have minimal impacts on adjacent properties. Further review of the
rock barrier by the Town Eng7neer and Design Review Board wii7 be required
~ by staff.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Deve7opment Department finds that the proposed addition is in
accordance wjth the intent of the Agricu7ture/Dpen Space zone and recommends
approvai of the School addition, parking/hardspace play area, and rocK barrier.
The Vail Mounta3n Schoo7 has received approval from Vail Assoctates, property
owner, ta construct the add3tion. Approval of the above conditiona3 Use
is cantingent upon receiving Uail Associate's approval for the rock fa17 barrier.
The barrier must aiso be approved by the Town Engineer before final conditional
use approval is granted.
•
• ! ~c"6~• uiC c - i~;:~;;.
700 "<<1C:'c.;,,.., ~ ~°~~~iF~~~ ~~a 8.::~~attw~~~.~'`?
• i, , ESIr!n,.:GUC rDl~S:c.'l_ yi'~! W
3C9u9CW0
ADril 6, '384
GoYnon Pierce, nrchi.tect
1000 South r ron t: ce Road
Vail, CO 81657
F,ttention: Mr. C-oz`oon Pierce
Re: Fre].im-.nary Evr:1oatiors of Rockfall I',azard and lfiitigation,
Vai_3. t•1our:La?n School, Booth Creek irea, Vail, Coloradp.
Jou Nr. 21357
Gent]emen:
At vour recuest u-e have concucted a pxeliminary recannaissance of t}:e Vail
mour,tain School :pzn.party in the Bouth Creek area oz Vai1, Colorada. W e
underst.and that in May 1983, three residences upslope of the schoal
pxoperty were st?-uck by zocks fallzng from the mountainszc3e and cliffs
~ above. Trie Tc-rn ox 4'ail has suspendec3 bualding permits in the area until
L2ie zockfa3.l Y,a,-_ard can be aaeauately evaluated or mit.igated. Becahse you
are planning an aadition to the scl,ool, you requested that we ronsider the
rockfa] 1 risk to the scT;ool and any practical mS.tigation measures that
could reduce tne risk, of rockfalls t3amaging the existing or planned
facilitaes.
The school property is an the north side f the generally east-west tzend-
ing Goxe Valley, just east of the poinfi w''t"~~ E3ooth Creek joins the valley
£ram the narth. ?ntez'state Highway 70 is to the south near the centeY c+f
the val.ley, and several pzivate resiciences are situated to the nortn and
northeast, upslape of the school property. About 200 £eet noztheast of the
existing school builci}ngs, tihe valley slope rises steeply to an elevatzon
anproximately 1,000 feet above the valley floor over a lateral distance c>f
approximately 1,700 `eet. P.edrock in the va].ley slope a.s generally mantled
by s3opewash, residual soils and talus. Two bedded limestone units, dip-
ping cently to the south-southeast, to•ward the va3ley, cron out pr.ominantly
an narr.ow cli.ff sectxor.s h?gn on the slcpe. Significant areas oz the south
facinq slone are hare of trees and numexaus roc}:fal.l cnutes or track.s aze
evioerit,
~
Co-;~1t~:,~ -•c,°eF;r~ G=- -:s
u•- : . ~3.~'-~,!1
: 1tfEoC)~veai d•Cei de CwnSuftaei,
. .
Gor. don Pierce, y,rciii'tect ~ Anril 6, 1984
page 2
In 1983 the Co?orado Geological 5uzvz;a conc3uct2d a study af the rockLall
hnzard zn the nooth Crea?; area, which S ncludes the school prcpArty. Ti;ey
concluded that the rockfall hazazd in the area t;as extTer,tely high, ar,d that
roci:zall events cou,_d ueneTalJ.y Ue cliviaea into two cateyories; (1) those
involvina [,-,assivz, topnl i ng slab fai1ures of the lzmes tone clz`f f.aces, and
(2) thcse involvinc sr,aller, individval l;oulozrs fatlzng ofr the edges of
the limesione cliffs due to Qownslope creep. As part af the rel-jor. t, the
C,.,'OZOraQQ VoOlQg1ca1. St1rVey C7;'epazed d riaZarCl imZp Oi tr12 l'L1IlOUt 7077E. lf7e
ITicp diV1deQ t712 Y'L'nOt1i_ zone 1r1L0 ihr2e L15k cGtegories. Tf1E.' 1']OmE.'S ii]rtilc5ti
unslope irom t't-,e school iie in an area aescribed as havzng extreme rock`all
razard. Tnese ,are the nnmes that are hignest on -t}ie va11ey slope. ?'~n e
seccnd zone, charactcrized as a hazaxaous rockLall axea, includes homes to
the north of the school. The scr}oal property lies in the tnizcz risk zone
wnich the Survey has tezmec an area of low to moderate rocicfall hazard
z2latcd Go the ?urcest slab--fai3ure tyne evznts.
During our reccr.^.r,aissanre, wa waired the sc?iool pra:pert; ana rkUCh of the
residcr,tial irea in the booLr r'reek area and examined Fzlabs arau boulders
tnat we helieve to be the result of roc}:fa11 `ro;n L'ne sloy:es ahave. In our
._r•
judg;aent, tYze school zs exposed to a much lo•~;er._ risk of rocxfall aaMaae
t?,an - any of the striictures -,1:6 the Karth and to.~~graphz_ca~~_y__.unslope as
~ resioenr.aal i::bnstzuction to the north tencs ta s7zield_.,~h_e. sch,p~.l prop~rtv
fr.om sorne of the rock`,al l ris}:. In additian, the valiey siope abrup-tly
f]at_tens a. ora;:a,-„ately 200 feet to the nozth oz the school, creating an
area of ceceleratiari for boulders or slabs eo;ning from h? gher up the s3ope.
we believe that an earthern trench and berm constructed upslo..p.e of the,
..._.:.~._e.~.
_
sc~iool 'would s} gr.aficantJ.y_reduce..: the_ ._rockf~l~, hazard. An eartnern
struciure ot tnis type dan ahsox-b atremendous amount af impact energy, due
to passive rPsistance of the soil.
Fiaure 1(attached) sncws a conceptual diagram of t;ie type nf t.ench/be;m
we believe could be constructec3 to reduce the rack."alI exposure of the
school. Ttae berr;, could be fcrmed by slopinq the graund up from the schnol
at a slope af about 1 1/2:1 (harizonta3 to vertical), 7'he crest width af
the trezm could be aaproximately 15 feet wide and the uphill slor~e of ~e
berm constructed nea; verticalJ.y using a£lexible retaining wall +tec'rsnique
such as wirE cabions. Ti-fp differerrce in height from the cr.est of the berm
to the bottom oi the trench wouZd be on Y-pe orcer of 20 Feet. Or.-site
soiJ.s, r,tiainly granular alacial morraine deUasits, s}:ould be suitable xor '
the berm construction. Apnropriate drainege wol.)ld be necassary to prevent
ponding water tapslo?e of the berm, and ta route surface runoi: on the
downslcpe away fram the schoal.
i
' • ~'~`4ty~,gs`~rt~•~'s~~~° ~€~::~~it~t7#S
Gorcion ; ierce, %,rcr,itect
hpr~ Z 6, 1984 ~ page 3
" Fss you requc!sted, we are nreparing aproncsal to provide desigtas and peri-
aciic inspFCti.ort for cor_struction of the t?encn/bcrm, for the schaal. if you
have aaiy ques~_ior.s, please ca11,
Sancerely, ~
4f .
/
no~H. Snit-zer
FiojeC~ Gt1alogis~
i~e,;iewPa by:
johr, H. Black
Seniar pro~ect Gcolocist _
n:'.S yg -
. (2 co~,les sent )
Enclosure
I cc: 1-u'. Dick F.}-an, D3.rector
Cor.munity Development Bepazt,ent
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
VaaJ., CO 81657 ~
.
.
~ _.._~.~.._..._.,_~_t_r..~ _d..~....~,..d_..,..=..w.'_..,_..~..~._N,.~.P~.,~....~..,....a~._ !^fo-od;~~~ri•Cly~e Cc~e-fsuitanti~
O
v~ z
~ v
xN ~
w d
cr
~ - g
w
J C)
o .
zo
~
~ O
a
LU
z o
~ z
U~ F ~
r _ o
cr
ff 0
~ a`~~r ~ J ~`U
O J O ~ Q
~ X ~
LLJ - ~ ~ awu)
• a u, `r' ~
~ Z
p -
X ~ .
C)
Ir ~
• a t- 1 a
~
4
l
_ - - - _ T - - - - a LLJ l r_l
Z _j
J Q
U
z~
~
t~ p
O
1
~
Z~
~
xU ,
tia ~
LL
LLJ~
a ~ i
v3 ~
~
K ~
O :D
cr O
n- cr
d
I
~ ~ .
J'
.Iot No 2 ~ ' S7
VAIL tv^OUN I A!N SCHOOL
rc-r4 by: aH 5 ~
- Cp>;CLP7U AL -1 r;E'vCR M'
~......,.._.a.__.~...-_...- a.,~.~.,..,.......a..w.......~~~
~ ~ ~IG. ~
VA As5~~~tes~ Inc.
Creacors and UExrators of Vail and BeavGr C'reek
April 9, 19$4
~
, Vail Mauntain School
3160 ;-Katsos Ranch Raad
VSili COlQradD $1657
Attentian: Mr. Willf.am Han1.on
, Gentlemene
We are in receipt af your request for Vail Associates, Inc.'s
approval of a proposed additian ta the Vai Z Mountain School
loeated an Lot 12, Hlock 2, Vai1 Vill,age Twelfth Filing, Vail,
Colorado (the "Property"). Vail Asaociates, Tnc. hereby approves
of the add3.tion to the Mauntain 5chool in accordance with the
pl.ana prepared by Gorc7on R. Piazce, A.I.A, dated December 1, 19$3
under the fallowi.ng conditiong:
~ 1. Vail Mauntain School assumes any and a11 risk
assooiated with the location and constructXOn of the addition
ro the Mountain School1
2. Vail Mountain School shall obtain $ii approvals
from the Town of Vail and any other regulatory authvrity
havinq jurisdiction over the Fraperty or the impravements to
be constructed thereon pra.or to the commencement of any
construction on the Property,• and
3. Vail Associates, Inc.'s approval hereunder does
not constitute a waiver of any rights xt may have under the
deed from Vail Asgociates, Ync. to the Vail Mountain School
dated July 3, 1980 for any future i.mprovements on the
Froperty.
Very truly yours,
' VAIL A5$OCTATES, INC.
gY,
Vi ce P esident
RWP/JAD/j
' I'<~st Off;ce K)x 7• Vail, Colc.7rn& 81658 • 130 3147c, ~ 5o01
-44
40 T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Kristan Pritz
DATE: May 4, 7984
SUBJECT: Request to Amend Special Deve7opment District 4: Cascade Vi7Tage
The planning staff recommends that the Cascade Village proposal be tabled unti7
the May 29th Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Submitta7 require-
ments are not fu1iy completed at this time. The proposal requests the
fa7lawing:
A. Increase allowable retai7 to between 36,000 and 37,000 square feet.
B. Rev3se the height standards to make them consistent with the current
definition of height in the zoning code so that no buildings in the
SDD wi77 be talier than the Westin Hotel.
C. Add to Cascade Vi11age by rezoning and eliminating lot lines (minor
subdivisian) for two parcels known as the Robbins and Cosgriff parcels.
D. Request a variance to the fireplace ordinance to a17ow 18 accommodation
~ units to have fireplaces.
~ E. Make other minor revisions to the~SDD'-ordinance to bring the ordinance
up to date with 1984 zaning reguiations and make it consistent with the
above revisions.
The staff will continue to work w7th Andy Narris, deve7oper, to fulfi11 the
submittal requirements.
~
Planning and EnvironmentaT Commission
~ May 29, 7984
1:30 pm Site inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval af minutes of May 14.
2. Request for a setback variance and a conditional use perm3t in order
to construct drive-in bank facilities at the Uai7 das Schone shopping
center at 2117 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: 7st Nationa7 Bank
3. Request to amend Special Development District 4(Cascade Vil1age) to
to the following:
Work Session
a. Increase allawable retail to between 36,000 and 37,000 square feet.
b. Revise the height standards to maKe them consistent with the current
definition af height in the zoning code so that no buildings in
the 5DD will be taller than the Westin Hote3.
i
c. Add to Cascade Village by rezoning and eliminating 1ot lines (minor
subdivision) two parcels known as the Robbins and Cosgriff parcels.
d. Request a variance to the fireplace ordinance to a11ow 18 accommodation
units to have fireplaces.
e. Make other minar revisions to the SDD ordinance to bring the ordinance
up to date with 7984 zoning regulatians and make it consistent with
the above revisions.
4. Request for a setback variance in order ta enclose a covered deck and
hat tub area at Lot 19, B7ack 7, Vail Vi7lage lst Fii-ing at 324 Seaver
Dam Road. APplicant: Peter Ka7kus
5. Request to rezone Lots 7, 8, and 9, Block H, Vail das Schone #2, from
Residential Primary/Secondary to Special Development pistrict Na. 13,
and a concurrent request for a minor subdivision to cambine the three
lots into one. Proposed are six dweiling units, two o-f which would
be employee units. App7icant: W and W Associates, Ltd.
6. A request for a density variance in order to buiId amanager`s unit
at the Treetops Condominiums on Lot 6, Black l, Lionshead First F91ing.
App7icant: Treetops Condominium Association
7. Administrative appeal of staff decision regarding Vail Associates
Potato Wagon. ;
8. Preliminary review of early submittals for exterior alterations ~
in L3onshead.
a. Antlers
b. Gondola Building '
c. Ganada's entry remodel
a• 5unbird
. Planning and Environmental Gommission
May 29, 1984
~
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Duane Piper Kristan Pritz
Gvrdon Rapson Larry Eskwith
Wi71 Trout 8etsy Rosolack
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Scatt Edwards
Gordon Pierce
The meetin was calied to order b the chairman, Duane P7 er, at 3:00 m.
1. A raval of minutes of meetin of Ma 14. Donovan moved and Viele seconded
ta approve the minutes. Vote was 4 in favar with Trout abstaining.
2. Request for a setback variance and a conditional use ermit 9n order to con-
struct drive-in bank faciTities at the Vail das Schone shflpping center at
i 2171 North Frantage Road West. AppTicant: Tst National Bank of Vail
I
Peter Patten showed changes made to the site pian since the 1ast meeting. He
feit that two things coul.d clean up thQ parking;lot;. Str.ip3.ng as per the previous
bank approval on Vail Cammons (there was to be a joint parking agreement with re-.
strip.ing to include compact cars which would add more spaces), and the landscaping
is-lands whicn cauld better define driving lanes.
Rick BaTdwin, architect far the applicant, showed elevations and perspectives
of the project. Discussion of relocation of the biKe path follawed and then
the size of the p1anters was discussed. It was fe7t that they were too small
ta support plants. Patten reminded the board that this propasal would be reviewed
at DRB.
Trout moved and Rapson~seconded to approve the variance request per the staff
memo of 5/19/84. The vote was 4-0 with Viele a6staining.
3. Work sess3on ta amend the Special Develnpment District 4 to increase commercia1
space, revZSe height standards, add two parcels, request additional fireplaces
and other minor revisions.
Andy Narris, app1icant, exp7ained the changes and added that a study had been
made which indicated more need for hotel rooms and meeting space with additionai
retai7. Rapsan felt a need to know when the construction of the phases would
take place because the market cau7d change again in 3 or 4 years. Norris mentioned
that Cascade Village will be more seif contained so that it can survive anything
and can fi1T the shaulder seasons, plus compete with Beaver Creek as we11 as
Keystone, Copper MountaTn, etc.
I
PEC -2- 5/29/84
~ Traut wondered how to resolve the firepiace request with other projects that
require fireplaces. Norris stated that in his original plan, 62 fireplaces had
been approved, and he was asking far only 18. Trout wondered if approval would
come back at the board, and others would ask for firep1aces.
Norris stated that he planned to compiete phase ii, the parking structure and
the athletic cTub and begin the Terrace Wing, to be completed by the fail of 1985.
Next spring start the Plaza wing conference, quest-rooms and retail to be comp3eted
by December of '86. Also finish West Haven next summer. Viele asked abnut employee
housing, and Norris replied that there were 20 units reserved for employees at
Ua71i Hi, but these were only 60% occupied. He added that most employees were
semi-permanent, and housing was not an issue. Patten stated that an employee
housing survey had just been completed by Eag1e County, but the staff had not
yet had time to study it. Wis fee7ing was that employee housing was not critica1
at this time, but that Va11i Hi was not a barometer. He fe7t that there was a
need to p3an for long term employee housing. He added that the staff felt that
not all of the employee housing should be released. Norris added that several
apartments at Co7dstream were leased far empToyees.
Donovan suggested gas fireplaces, ski trai1s were discussed, and the parking structure
was explained. Piper then mentioned that dwel7ing units were changed to aceommo-
dation units, and then fireplaces were asked for. He fe7t that others could say
that they cou7d change accommodation units to dwelling units and ask for firep7aces.
The study session ended here.
4. Request for a setback variance in order to enciose a covered deck and hot tub
~ area at Lot 19, Block 7, Vail Viliage 1st Filing at 324_Beaver_Dam Road. ~
App1 icant: Peter Kal kus Kristan Pritz outlined the request. She expTained that the adjacent Tot was in
the process of being dedicated to the T'own as open space. The staff felt that
this was a"no-impact" type of variance and recommended appraval. Craig Snowdon,
architect for the app7icant, stated that the intent was to try to use existing
posts and not disturb the site.
Viele moved and Ra son secanded to a rove the variance er the staff inemo.
The vote was 5-0 in favor.
5. A request ta rezone 1ots 7, 8, and 9, Block H, Vai7 das Schone #2, from Residentia1
Primar /Secondar to S ecial Qevelo ment District #13,~and a concurrent re uest
for a minor subdivision to combine tha three Tots into one. Pro osed are 4 dwellin
units.
Peter Patten reviewed the proposal and explained that an SDD will oftert result
in a better siV p7an. We showed site plans which indicated an open meadow to ~
remain open space. Patten explained that originally the app7icants had planned ;
to include two employee irnits, and since the applicants had removed the employee
units from the proposaT, the staff was recommending denial. Patten pointed out
that the Community Action Plan stressed the need for employee housing. John WheeTer,
, one of the applicants, stated that he fe1t the employee units wouTd cause a real
hardship in marketing the praject.
Viele feit that such a smaTl praject should nnt be required to suppiy employee
housing. Rapson agreed with Viele, Donovan added that since the site was very
PEC -3- 5/29/84
~ visible, perhaps fewer dwel3ings wou7d be more appropriate. Trout.felt that it
was ironic that the Town wanted to cut down density in one project and increase
it in this project. He added that the plan was sensitive to the site.
Trout moved and Ra san seconded to a rove the re uest for a minor~subdivision
and to rezone as requested, inc7uding the drawings and modei shown and the
adoption of the development plan. The vote was 4-0 with Piper abstaining.
6. A request for a density variance in order to build a manager's unit at the Treetops
Condominiums on Lot Block 1, Lionshead First FiTin_g. AppZicant: Treetops
Condominium Associattion
Kristan Pritz showed f7oor and site plans Peter Looms, arcnitect for the praject,
mentioned that there wauid be the need to pay for two more parking spaces. Ne
added that the space that would be the manager's unit had been planned far storage
and laundry.
Rapson moved. and Donovan seconded to approve the request far the density variance
because the strictor Titeral interpretatian of the regulation would resu7t in
practicaidifficuity or unnecessary physical hardship. The two additiona7 parking
spaces wou1d also_ have to be paid for by the applicant. The vote was 5-0 in favor
7. Administrative appeal of staff decision regarding Vail Associates' Potato Wagon.
~ Peter Patten explained that two questions to be concerned with were: 1} is the
potato wagon an accessory use? and 2) is this outside vending?
. Patten added that the staff considered the "fixed barbecue" an accessory, but
that the potata wagan was maveable.
Dave Edeen of Vai1 Associates disagreed that the potato wagon was a vending operation,
but that it was used the same way as the barbecue. He added that Vail Associates
did not intend to take it off of the licensed premises. Edeen explained that
the potato wagon was 7eased fram Buck Latearneau's company by Vail Associates.
Larry Eskwith told the board that they must make the decision without cancern
as to who was running the operation, and must decide whether or not it was an
accessory use or a vending use.
Donovan felt that the potato wagon cfluid be considered an accessory use if a waitress
would have ta serve the potatoes ta customers at tab7es, but if the patatoes were
sold ta passersby, it was vending. Rapsan stated that during the Vai7 Ski Classic,
Buck's people were actually receiving the money--it was pointed out that this was
incorrect, that it was free. Viele felt the potato wagon was vending, and felt that
the Council should make the fina7 decision. Trout agreed with Viele, and Piper felt
that a basic definitlon af vending was needed.
Rapson felt that if there was an agreement entered 7nto with the shop or restaurant
owner, it couid be ca71ed an accessory use. John RaiTton,'a member of;the audience,
felt that a restaurant should be able to distribute faod as in a salad bar, but
it should be eaten in the restaurant.
PEC -4- 5/29/84
~ Larry Eskwith stated that he thought the qUestion was not totally clear cut.
Eskwith fe1t the question was a difficult one. Danovan offered the idea that
perhaps it would depend upan who received the maney, for examp7e if ane had to
go into the shop ar restaurant to pay for the merchandise it could be an accessory
use. Piper mentioned that 3t might make a difference if the merchandise were
on a specific premises. Trout asked if a potato could be purchased independently,
and Edeen answered that it cou7d be and that it could be eaten e1sewhere.
More discussian of whethEr or not to consider this vending or accessory uses
folTowed. Donovan felt that they did not have enough information and wanted time
for further study.
Viele moved and Trout seconded to u hald the staff decision that the otato wa an
should be considered outside vendin . The vote was 2 in favor, 2 Pi er and Ra son)
a ainst, with Donovan abstainin . Therefore the staff decision was not u held.
Patten stated that the matter would be called up to Counci7 on either June 5 at
work session or on June 19.
•
~
i
~
. MEMQRANDUM
T0: PZanning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: Niay 25, 1984
SiJBJECT: Patata Wagon: Should it be considered as an accessory use to a
restaurant?
The Potato Wagon praposal involves sel1ing baked potatoes out of an antique
wagan. Va9i Associates wou7d sell the potatoes out af the wagons an their
outside patio. The Potato Wagan wou7d be leased by Bucic LeTourneau's company
from Vail Associates.
The staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that the Potato Wagon should
be considered to be an outside vending use, which is not allowed. The business
does not qualify as an accessory use because it isnot customarily incidental
or necessary for the operation af the restaurant. The wagon would alsa be
a separate, movabie structure, from the rest of the restaurant aperation.
For these reasons, the staff consfders the Potato Wagan to be outside vending,
which the Council has prohibited.
We are working an revisians to the outside vend-ing reguTations which would
a1low this use under a specia1 events permit only.
i ~
~
5/30 NOTE 70 COUNCIL:
The planning sta-Ff feels it wouTd be prudent to cali this ttem up for
your review as it directly impacts the paiicy of no outside vending
that the Counci1 has estabiished. The PEC voted 2-2 with 7 abstention
to uphoid the staff. Lacking a positive vote in staff's favor, these
wagons will now be perm7tted (unless PEC decision reversed). On Tuesday
we can discuss the implications of this decisian.
.
,
+ Sk'iS ~
~
~
May 22, 1984
Tawn of Vail
Planning Commisslort
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Sirs:
In talking with both Dick Ryan and Peter Patten over the past few months,
I feel there is an unjust interpretation of an existing ordinance. The
ordanance number being 18.26.050 Accessory tJses section B which states:
"Outdoor dining areas operated iri conjunction with permitted
eating and drin[cing estab7ishments."
I fee7 that our ovens would qua1ify for this additional use classificatian.
First of all, we da not operate the ovens, but lease them to Vail Assaciates
which wauld constitue an additional use of an already existing restaurant
7icense and not a vending operation.
~ I have a diff7cu1t time seeing the difference between an outside barbacue,
which is an outside cooking apparatus, and a potato oven, itself, an outside
cooking apparatus.
It appears two iike objects are being classified as different when they are
actua11y used for the same purpose, cooking foad; in the same lacation, Vail
Associates exisiting 7iscensed restaurant; by the same company, Vai1 Associates.
I would hape that the planning commission can 1ook at the facts and reconsider
the interpretatlon of the ovens in question being a vending operation to a
mare accurate additional use classification.
Sincerely,
Buck Letourneau
U.S. Product Manager
BL:kas
i
~
A Division of Baldwin Sports Inc.
P.O. D rawer 1168 • Vail,Colorado81fi58 • (303) 949-6161 • TWX910-920318QLACROIXU5-AVCO
I ,
i
MEMORANDUM
~ May 7, 1984
,
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJECT: Public hear3ng and consideration of a request to rezone Lot 3,
Vaii Village West Filing No. 2 from Greenbelt and Naturai
Open Space to Two Fami1y Primary/Secondary Residential District.
Applicants: Elmore Group Ltd, dba Elmore and Assocates
BACKGROUND:
Th3s property was part of the Vai1 City Corporation land annexed by the Town
of Vail in September 1978. Zoning of the land went through a lengthy process.
When the entire property was initially zoned, Lot 3 of Vail Village West Filing
No. 2 was zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space "with a transfer to Parcel
A of density ailowed for the bui7dable acreage according to the same zaning
as Parce7 A." Parcel A is part of the land purchased for park and open sPace
purposes in 1980 by the Town of Vail. This property is now known as Donavan
Park.
~ _ -
RE UES1':
The request is to rezone Lot 3 of Vai1 Ui7lage West Fi7ing No. 2 f'rom Greenbelt
and Natural Open Space to Twa Family Primary Secondary. The lot size is approxi-
mately 23,181 square feet with two units on the lot.
ANALYSIS 0F ZONTNG AND LOT
Current Zoning:
Under the Greenbelt and Natural Open 5pace District there is very little that
can be done with the praperty. Basically no deveiopment e.g. residentia7
hausing is perm3tted on the property. Below are the permTtted, conditional
and accessory uses and development standards for this zone distr7ct.
~
~
Elmore -2- May 7, 1984
. 18.38.020 Permitted Uses
The fal7owing shall be permitted uses in the GNOS distrtct:
A. Greenbelt and open space;
B. Bicycle and pedestrian paths.
18.38.030 Conditiona1 Uses
The foliowing conditionaT uses sha17 be permitted in the GNOS district,
subject to the issuance of a canditional use permit in accordance with
the provtsians of Chapter 18.60:
A. Pubiic parks and playgrounds;
B. Golf courses;
C. Equestrian trails.
1$.38.040 Accessory uses
Not applicable in the GNOS district.
18.38.050 Development standards
Nat applicable in the GNOS district.
~ The current use of the property previously noted is a dup7ex. The structure
on this 7ot may be continued as a legal non-conforming use, but cannot be
en1arged or changed. Repair and maintenance can take place provided "that
no such maintenance or repair sha11 increase the discrepancy between the
use, structure ar site improvements and the development standards prescribed
by this title." Therefore, the current structure could essentia7ly remain
farever and be maintained and repaired,
PROPOSED ZONING:
Propnsed by the appiicant is Two Family Primary/5econdary zoning. Lots to
the west and south are zoned Two Family Primary/Secondary. If Town Counctl
rezones this praperty as requested, the following couid take p1aee on this
lot:
18.13.020 Permitted Uses.
The fo7lowing uses shall be permitted:
A. Single-famiiy residential dwellings;
B. Two-famiiy residential dwellings
The uses on the site would remain the same under the propased zoning.
~
' E7more -3- 5/7/84
I .
18.13.030 Conditioila1 Uses
. The fpllowing canditianal uses shall be permitted, subject to 7ssuance
of a conditional use permit in accord with provisions of Chapter 18.60:
A. Pubiic utility and public service uses;
B. Public buildings, graunds and facilities,
C. Public or private schools;
D. Public park and recreation facilities;
E. Ski lifts and tows.
No conditiona] uses current1y exist or are proposed.
18.13.040 Accessory Uses
The fol7owing accessory uses shall be permitted:
A. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses, garages or carports,
swimming poals, patios, and recreation facilities customariiy incidentaT
to sing7e-famiTy and two-family residentiart uses;
B. Wome occupat3ons, subject ta issuance of a home occupation permit
in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 78.58;
C. Other use5 custamarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
condit9onal uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
The accessory uses would be addressed as part of the Design Review Board
review or at the time of buiTding permit issue.
~ 18.13.050 Lot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be fifteen thousand square feet of
buildable area, and each site shall have a minimum frvntage of thirty
feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable of enciosing a
square area, eighty feet an each side, within its boundar3es.
The site contains 23,181 square feet of iand. The area nat in the f1ood plain
is 17,943 square feet. Therefore, the lat meets the minimum buildabTe area.
18.13.060 Setbacks
In the Primary/Secondary residential district, the minimum frant setback
shall be twenty feet, the minimum side setback shall be fifteen feet,
and the min7mum rear setback shall be fifteen feet.
There is a7so a stream setback of fifty feet from the center af the stream.
A new structure should be ab7e to meet this setback.
~
. ' Elmare -4- 5/7/84
: Considering the setbacks and flood plain, there should be adequate area to
• construct a home and meet the setbacks.
These are the major restrictians far this 3ot regard7ng zoning and 7ot
constraints. The owner should have adequate area to construct a new home if
desired.
RECOMMENDRTION:
The Cammunity Deveiopment Department recommends approval of the rezoning request.
The change in zoning will basica1ly ref1ect what a7ready exists on the site,
and the Greenbelt and Natura7 Open 5pace does not seem to be appropriate zoning
of the property. With the Two Family Primary/Secondary zoning of this property,
there is the possibility ta demoZish or mave the existing structure and construct
a new home. Under the Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning, the existing
hause wou7d remain with probably 1itt7e incentive to upgrade.
i
•
' fd e[' j 6~,
f
,
~
HYDRO-TRIAD, LTD.
Victor Mark Donaldson Architect May 2, 1984
Box 5300
I Avon, Colorado 81620
i
' Re: Flaodplain for Lots 2 and 3, Vail Village WeSt
Fi li ng Na. 2
: Dear Mark,
With reference to our letter dated April 1984, we have compTeted our .
analysis of the lOQ-year floodplain boundaries as they pertain to the above
referenced lots. A brief description of the work performed, analyses and
conclusians is provided belaw. Also, attached are the 1"=10' topographic
maps prepared by Mountain Fngineering & Land Surveying Company with the
100-year floodplain boundary superimposed by Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
1. Scope
The scope of work cansisted of two items:
~ a. Delineate the Gare Creek 100-year floodplain for Lats 2 and 3 of
Yail Village West, Fi]ing 2.
b. Cal cul ate the area of each Tot lacated wi thi n and ocatside af the
100-year fl aodp7 ai rr.
2. Data
Reference data for the analyses consisted of the repart "Gore Creek
F'laadplain Infarmataon" dated June 1975, prepared by Hydro-Triad, Ltd., and
a site specific topographic map prepared by Mountain Engineering and Land
Surveying Company. The topographic maps are at a scaTe of 1"=10' with a 1
faot cantour interval. Survey data far the maps were obtained by Mountain
Engineering and Land 5urveying on April 24 and 25, 1984.
3. Analysis
Both Tots are located an the north and west side af Gore Creek. 7he
right-of-way for Highway 6 and Interstate 70 forms the north boundary of
both Tats and Matterhorn Circle is the east boundary of Lot 2. The area
encompassed by both 1 ots i s shown an P1 ate 6 of the fl oodpl ai n i nforrnatian
report. 5uperimposing the 1ot lines on this figure indicates that portions
flf both lots are located within the Gore Creek 100-year floodplain
boundaries. The 100-year peak discharge at this point is approximately
• 2950 cubic feet per second.
12687 WEST CEQAR DRIVE - SUITE 100 LAKEWOOD, COLORADO 80228 PHONE 303-989-1264
i~ Victor Mark Donaldson Architect
May 2, 1984
Page Two
~ To delineate the floodplain boundary, 100-year water surface elevations
were determined for the respective lots using water surface elevations at
specific Gore Creek cross-sections. Three specific cross-sections anaiyzed
for the fl oodpl ai n report are 1 ocated wi thi n ci ose proxi mi ty of both 1 ots.
These are shown on Plate 6 and are identified as 5ection 14.3, 15 and 17.
Section 14.3 is located immediately west of l.ot 2, Section 15 is near the
center of Lot 3 and Section 17 is east of Lot 3 at the upstream side af the
Park West Br7dge. 5treambed and lOQ-year water surface elevations at each
section are shown in the table below.
SELEC7ED EL.EYATIONS
1.00-Year
Section Streambed Water Surface
14.3 7944.0 7951.7
15 7950.7 7957.5
17 7951.7 7962.2
; . The streambed e7evations shawn above and the topographic cantours indi--
cated on the fl oodpl ai n map compare favarably wi th the recent topographic
maps. EJsing these maps alang with the cross-section informatian and water
surface profi 1 es devel aped as part of the fl aodp7 ai n report, the 100-year
water surface e1 evations were pl otted and the fl oodpl ai n boundary deT i nea-
ted. This boundary was compared with that shown an Plate 6 of the fTood-
pl ai n report. Gi ven the smal l sca7 e of the fl oodpl ai n map ( P1 ate b), the
baundary indicated on the I"=I0` maps compares favorably. A copy of the
1"=10' maps with the 100-year floodplain superimposed is attached.
4. Conclusions
After delineation of the floodplain boundary, the area af each 7at bath
i nsi de and autsi de of the fl oodpl ai n was detemi ned by pi animeter. These ,
results are presented in the tab7e belaw.
Item Lot 2 Lot 3 Combi ned
Total Area of Lot 17,166.43 ft2 23,181.92 ft2 40,348.35 ft2
Area Outside of
Floodpiain 7,001.43 ft2 17,943.92 ft2 24,945.35 ftZ
~ Area inside of
Floodplain 10,155.00 ft2 5,238.00 ft2 15,403.00 ft2
/ . ' .
' • Victor Mark Donaldson Architect
! May 2, 1984
Page Three
! From this, it can be seen that approximately 59 percent af Lot 2 and 23
percent of Lat 3 are located within the aao-year floodplain. Approximately
38 percent of the total combined lot area is within the flaadplain. If the
development plan inciudes some filling into the floodplain zone, it may be
necessary to evaluate the interaction between the floodpiain and adjacent
, tracts.
Additional1y, it should be noted that bath lots may be subject tfl ero-
si on damage duri ng the 100-year fl ood. Lot 3 has the greatest potenti al
far damage. Immediately downstream of the Park West bridge the Gore Creek
channel i s constri cted and the bank al ong Lot 3 i s steeper than the dawn-
stream banks. This will result in higher flow veiocities thereby sub-
jecting the bank to passible erosion damage. This should be kept in mind
during future design and constructYOn work an Lot 3.
We have appreciated the opportunity nf providing you this analyses. If
you desire additional work or have questions, please cnntact us.
Sincerely,
~ NYDRO-TRIAD, LTD.
~
R. Jay Nelson, P.E.
5enior Water Resource Engineer
RJN/jh
Encl o s ure
h•~ ~ JFi Y ~ r .
a
#5000
" I1;~:,~6
,
'{Y?f!~Uaez ..6•
•
` h1EMORRNDUM
T0: Planning and Envlronmental Commissian
FROM: Corrimunity Development Department
DATE: Nfay 25, 1984 SUBJECT: Pntato Wagon: Should it be considered as an accessory tase to a
restaurant?
The Potato Wagon proposal invo7ves seiling baked potatoes out af an antique
wagon. Uail Associates would sell the potatoes out af the wagans on their
outside patio. The Potato Wagon would be leased by Buck LeTourneau's co€npany
fram Vail Associates.
The staff has reviewed the proposal and feels that the Patato Wagon should
be considered to be an outside vending use, which is not a7lowed. The business
does nat qualify as an accessory use because it isnot customari7y irtcidental
or necessary for the operation of the rEStaurant. The wagon would also be
a separate, movabTe structure, from the rest af the restaurant operation.
For these reasons, the staff coRSiders the Potato Wagon to be outside vending,
which the Council has prohibited.
We are working on revisions to the outside vending regulations which would
allow this use under a special events permit only.
~
~
r -
~
.
S is
..i
~ .
May 22, 1984
Town af Vail
Planning Commission
Vail, CO 81657
pear 5irs:
In talking with both Dick Ryan and Peter Patten over the past few months,
I feel there is an unjust interpretation of an existing ordinance. The
ordanance numher being 18.26.050 Accessory Uses sectian 8 which states:
"Outdoor dlning areas operated in conjunction with permitteci
eating and drinking estab7Sshments."
I feel that our ovens would qualify -For this additional use classification.
First of a11, we do not operate the ovens, but lease them to Vail Associates
which wou1d constitue an aaditional use of an aTready existing restaurant
license and not a vending operation.
~ I have a difficult time seeing the difference between an outside barbacue,
which is an outside cooking apparatus, and a potato aven, itseif, an outside
cooking apparatus.
It appears two 1ike objects are being c7assi-Fied as d7fferent when they are
actually used for the same purpose, caoking food; in the same location, Vai7
Associates exisiting liscensed re5taurant; by the same company, Uai1 Rssociates.
I would hope that the p1anning commission can look at the facts and reconsider
the interpretation of the ovens in quesfiion being a vending aperation to a
more accurate additional use classification.
57ncereiy, ;
oc,~
Buck Letourneau
U.S. Product Nfanager
8L: kas
~
A Division of Ba{dwin Sports Inc.
P.O. Drawer 1166 • Vail, Colorada 81658 • (303) 943-6161 • TWX 910-920 3180 LACROiXUS-AVCO
T0: Planning and Environmenta] Commission
FROM; Community Qevelopment Departmertt
DATE: May 23, 1984
SUBJECT: A request for a minar subdivts7on ta abandon internai lot 1ines of
three lots and rezone the property from Prirrtary/5econdary to
Special Development DiStrict #13. The 1ots invo1ved in ths request
are 7, 8, 9, 81ock H, Vail das Schone Filing No. 2.
App7icant: W& W Associates, Ltd
I. REZONING REQU_E_S7
Backgraund of this Proposal
7hese lots were subdivzded by Eaglje County and zoned Pr7mary/Secondary by the
Town of Vail after annexation. It is the applicant's objective to develop four
residential units on the site (aTl three lats are under sing1e ownershi.p).
Rezoning to an SL}D is necessary to gain access to Lot 9. This lot is a"f1ag
lot" with approximately a 20% s7ope where the lot acccsses to Garmish Drive.
This slape makes access virtually impossible, leaving Lot 9 essentia1ly undeve7op-
ab7e. 7'he proposed SDD and minor subdivision wou7d aTlow for flexTbility in the
development of the site, whi1e maintaining the same densities as the adjacent
properties in the neighborhood.
~ The staff has been warking with the applicant to develop a solution for accessing
Lot 9. The SDD zoning and minor subdivision will a17ow for the site planning
of the three lots as a who7e. This will substantial1y 7mprove the impact of
development on the site by reducing the number and severity of cuts for driveways.
Elimination vf 3nterna7 1ot 7ines will also allow for flexrtbility in siting
structures an the iot(s).
One aspect af this app7ication that should be noted is how this proposal cou7d
impact l.ot 10. Located directly to the north of Lot 9, Lat 10 is alsa a"flag
7ot° with similar access prab1ems. The staff encouraged the applicant to incorporate
Lot 10 into this proposal. Contact was made between the two parties, but no agree-
ment was made to include'Lot 10 in this SDD. if approved, this SDD wnuld el7rninate
one access possibility to Lot 10.
Development Potentia7 of the Proposed SDD
The follawing table illustrates the development potentiai of the individual lots
and development of the site as proposed under this application:
~
W&W -2- 5/23/$4
. Existin Develo ment Potential of Lots 7, 8, 9
*
A77owable A17nwable Ganditional TotaT
Lot Zone Size GRFA Units Units Units
7 P/S 10,890 sf 2,723 sf 1 7 2
8 P/S 11,326 sf 2,831 sf 7 1 2
9 P/S 22,218 sf 4,472 sf 2 - 2
44,432 sf 10,026 sf 4 2 6
* Because 7ots 7 and 8 are less than 15,000 square feet, secondary units would
be conditiona1 based upon further review as required by Section 18.13.080
of the zoning code. This review is 3ntended to insure that a lot of this
size has the capacTty to handle a secondary unit.
Deve1o ment Pro ased for SDD #73
# of Units GRFA
Unit 1 7 2,800 sf
~ Unit 2-3 2 3,500 sf (2,100 sf primary, 1400 sf secondary)
Unit 4 7 2,100
Totals 4 units 8,400 sf GRFA
The total number of al7owable units for this site is four. This number could
be as high as 6 if the two employee units were to be included. Aliowable
GRFA on the three 1ots is 70,026 square feet, whi7e 8,400 square feet are
praposed.
DESZGN STANDARDS FOR AN SDD
The development pTan for an SDD requires app7icabie design standards to be
met. The failowzng is a summary of this proposa7 with respect to tne nine
criteria:
A. Buffer Zones
A buffer zone is requ7red for any SDD that is adjacent ta any low-density
residential use. Since the density and use of this proposaT is the same
as surrounding development, a buffer zone is not requ7red.
~
~
, SDD 73 -3- 5/23/84
B. Circu7ation System
• Public Works arod the Fire Department have reviewed the internal vehicuiar
circulation of this proposal and have approved the des7gn.
C. fUnCtIOndT Open 5pace
In reviewing th1s site p7an, the staff fee7s the app7icant has done a
good jab of optimizing views and preserving natura] open spaces when possibie.
D. Variety of Housing Types
Potential development on this site cauld a11aw far up to 6 units (2 of
which wnuld be employee units). At one time these employee units were
a part of this praposa7, but were subsequent7y eliminated by the appTicant.
The staff was disappointed to see this change in the development plan
as Yt e7iminated a key variety of housing type.
E. Privac
Not app7icable to thTS scale of development.
F. Pedestrian Traffic
• Not applicable to this scale of deve7opment.
G. Building Type
Density, siting, and bulk of the proposed structures are compatible with
surraunding development.
H. Bui7d3ng Design
This will be reviewed at the DRB 7eve1 if this proposal is approved.
1. Landscaping of Tatal Sites
While there are a number of retaining wa7ls on the site, they are for
the most part adequate7y landscaped. Other landscaping on the site appears
sufficient and will aiso be reviewed by the DRB if this proposal is approved.
~
1 SDD 13 -4- 5/23/84
Permitted, Conditional, and Accessory Uses
• The uses in an SDD are those permitted in the zone dlstrict in which it is
iacated. In this case, uses would be iimited to those in the Primary/Secondary
~ zone.
18.13.020 Permitted uses
The following uses shall be permitted:
A. Single-famlly dweliings
B. Two-family residential dweTlings
18.33.030 Cond3tional uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of a
conditiona7 use permit.
A. Public uti7ity and public service uses
B. Public bui3dings, ground and faciTities
C. Public or private schools
D. Public park and recreation facilities
E. Ski 7ifts and taws
18.13.044 Accessory uses
The following accessory uses shall be pernttted:
. A. Private greenhauses, toolsheds, p7ayhouses, garages or carports, swimming
poais, patios, and recreatian facilities customarily ineidental to singTe-
family and twa-family residential uses;
B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation permit.
C. Other uses customari7y incidental and accessory to permitted or conditiona]
uses, and necessary far the operation thereof.
Other Issues_Concerning Thts Applicatian
The applicant has gone through a lengthy pracess ta insure that the Upper Eagle
Va11ey Water and Sanitation District wi11 be ab7e to service this site with
water. Whi7e this problem appears to have been mitigated, any approval given
should be conditionaT on a letter from the District insuring adequate water pressure
wi17 be avai7ab7e and meet the requirements nf the Vail Fire Department. The F7re
Department has reviewed and approved the development plan but wi17 not give its final
approvai un7ess the above letter is submitted. Said 7etter should be in our office
by June 1, 1984.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIdN
With one exception, the staff is general1y p1eased with this submittal. The
site planning and design of this project 75 much impraved with the f7exibility
afforded by the SDD zoning. This wou7d not be possible if the iots were developed
. individua1ly. However, the staff is discouraged by the eTiminatinn of the
two employee housing units that were once an element of this proposal. Employee
; SDD 13 -5- 5/23/84
.
housing has been a long standing issue in this community and it has been a
. priority of this department to encourage them whenever possible. The Vail
Community ActTOn Plan alsa notes the importance of ineeting the needs of employee
housing. A county-wide employee housing survey's initiai resu1ts indicate
there is a preference for this type of empToyee unit as opposed tn a"Vaili
Hi" type of facility (final resU7ts of the survey shoUld be available in July).
This proposal has an apportunity to add two empioyee units to the community,
and that oppartunzty is not being taken. Because of this, aur recommendation
of this request is denial. Our opinion is that the appiicants are asKing for
everything they want without giving the community the benefit of the employee
housing.
II. MINOR SUBDIVISION
Descriptian of Request
Th3s application is required as a part of the rezoning request. This minor
subdivision would abandon the internal lot lines of lots 7, 8, and 9. These
three lots would then be considered as one lot, or SDD #13 if approved. {Qe-
velopment potentiaZ of the 7ots both individuaTly and collectively have been
outlined elsewhere in this memo}.
Criteria Evaluation
~ 17.16.110 PEC Review Criter7a
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the app3ication
is in comp7iance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and other pert3nent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due
consideration sha71 be given ta the recommendations made by public agencies,
utility companies and other agencies consu1ted under 17.16.090. 7he PEC sha11
review the application and cansider its appropriateness in regard to Town
of Vail policies relating to subdivision control, densities praposed, regu7ations,
ordinances and resolutions and other app1icable documents, environmenta7 inte-
grity and compatibility with surraunding land uses.
Density
The proposed SDD includes less overall GRFA than is alTowed on the three lots
when considered coilectively. This is a positive factar in considering tne
overall bulk and mass of structUres on the site. Whi7e up to six units cau7d
possib7y be butlt on the site, this appltcatian is proposing an7y 4 units.
The staff would prefer a density of 6 units, 2 being restricted employee units.
Site Plan
Rbandoning these 7at iines aliows for greater flexibility in site designing
for these lots. The propased site p7an has taken advantage of this, resulting
~ in an improved appearance on the iot campared to developing the lots fndividually.
~ SDD 13 -6- 5/23/$4
.
Compatibility With Surrounding Properties
• Density on these three iots will not be greater than those on surrounding
lots. This proposai wouZd be very compatib]e within its neighbarhood.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Because the minor subdivis7on goes hand-in-hand with the SDD proposal, we
recommend denial. We fee7 the applicant should be propas7ng a density wh7ch
inc1udes two employee units.
~
~
J
w
4
MEMORANDUM
! T0: Planning and Environmenta1 Cammission
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: May 8, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a setback variance in order to enclose a cavered
declc and hot tub area at Lot 19, B7ock 7, VaiT Village lst FiTing
at 324 Beaver Dam Raad. Applicant: Peter Kalkus, Lamar Financial Ltd.
DESCRIPTYaN OF VARIEINGE REQUESTED
The applicant, Peter lCalkus, wauld like to enciose an existing covered deck
and an adjoining hot tub area on the east side of the primary unit. 1"he enclosed
deck area is appraximately 337 square feet. The deck will adjoin the ex3sting
19ving room and dining room areas. A sliding glass door off the deck wili
enter ontfl a staTrway down to the yard. Presently the deck encroaches into
the setback a maximum of nine feet. The side setback for a Primary/Secondary
Residentiai lat is 75 feet. The nine foot encroachment into the setback wou7d
be maintained in the new deck enc1osure proposal. In addition, the stairs
off of the deck wili encroach 9nto the setback 13 feet.
The primary unit has enough remaining GRFA to allow for the addition. The
~ GRFA figures for the primary unit are:
~ Ailawable GRFA 3,17$ sf
' • Existing GRFA 2,566 sf
Remaining GRFA 612 sf
Addition GRFA 337 sf
Remaining GRFA 275 sf
CRITERTA AND FINDTNGS
l! on review of Cr7ter9a and F'indin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Munici a] Code,
the De artment of Communit Develo ment recommends a prava of tlie re uested
variance.based upan the following factars:
Consideration of Factors
The relationshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otentia7 uses
and structures in the_.vi,cinity.
The enclosed deck and nat tub would have no significant impact on the adjacent
area. Lot 20A, located to the east of Lot 19, has been dedicated as green
space by Vail Associates. Because of the pub7ic access through Lot 20R, vandalism
of the hot tub has occurred. The residence serves as a_..secpnd hame and is frequently
unoccupied. The owner feels that by enc7osing the decEc and hot tub, the vandaT7sm
~ could be decreased.
3
' Kalkus -2- 5/8/84
7he_degree to whieh relief fram the strict or literal interpretatian and enforcement
of a specified re qu7atian_is necessary tv achieve campatib7lity and uniformit,Y
~ of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives of this
title without grant of speciai privileqe. ^
The applicant has noted a physical hardship due to a sanitary sewer easement
dividing the lot into three pieces. Several beaver ponds are aiso 7ocated on the
lot. Because of these site constraints, the awner 6uilt the ariginai single famiiy
home on the southeast corner af the property. Rt that time, the nwner maintains
that the house met the setback requirements. In addition, the enclosed space is not
increasing the aZready existing setback encroachment, except-in resPect to the 13
foot stair encroachment into the setback.
We feel that there are unique physical constraints as noted by the appTicant
which represent a physical hardship and that al7owing the existing deck to be
enclosed would nat be a specia7 privilege.
The effect of the re uested variance on li ht and air, distribution of o ulation,
transportation and traffic faci7ities, public facilities and Utllltle5, and
U bl'E C S a f2t . . .
No impacts
- -
FINDINGS
~
The P7anning and Environmental Commission shall make the -fol1owing findings before
granting a variance: That the granting of the variance wi17 not constitute a grant of specia] privi]ege
inconsistent with the 1imitations on other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubiic health,
safety, or we1fare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fallawing reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty ar 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 appiy generally to other properties in the
same zone.
7he strict ar litera] interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wou7d deprive the applicant of privi7eges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
~ STAFF RECOMMENDRTIONS
Staff recommends approval of the requested side setback variance. We cflnsider
this to be a"no-impact" type o-F varTance and -Fee1 the easement on the 10t has
caused the house to crowd the eastern portion of the site. In this regard, the
enc7osure of the deck and hat tub does not represent a special privilege.
J
D
~
rf ..i43 :
, '~`L )e`S~';' ' ~
~II ~t
~ ~ f t.t'~'+,~~`+~•' i } '
~xi`3,~-~ryNtr . . .
~oA
• ~
i . Qy~r
I ' . ~ rL~l.,~~ . ' ~ - ~ - ~ K. y • , ,
~ ~ . _ . ~ /
il~ ' . ~ . ' ~ , 4 . - • ~ r C _ - ~ ~ 1
' 2J~•~~ _ ;.ir
~ I -jr
. Site Plan
~ .
' MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community DeveTopment Department
DAT£: May 23, 1984
SUBJECT: R request for a density variance in order ta build a manager's unit
at the Treetaps Condominiums on Lot 6, Block l, Lionshead First Filing
Applicant: Treetops Condominiums
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On Rugust 16, 7983, the Town Counci7 approved a request to change the zaning
fram High Density Multi-Family to Cammercial Core II for the Treetops property.
In January 1984, the Planning and Enviranmental Commission approved a proposal
to bui1d 5,000 square feet of commercial space on top of an existing parking
structure. A manager's office, storage and laundry areas, trash disposal, and
mechanical equipment were also part of the addition. The applicant is requesting
a GRFA var7ance ta permit the construction of a manager's dwelling unit Tn the
anciTlary bui7ding behind the retail space. The manager's unit would be Tocated
off of the upper parking level in the space previously pianned to be used for
storage and 7aundry facilities. Total square footage for the unit is appraximately
1,080 square feet.
A GRFA variance is required because Treetops presently exceeds the aliowabTe
number of dewliing units per buiidable acre for the CCII zone. CCII zoning a71ows
• 25 dweTling units per buildable acre. Treetops 1 and 2 have 29 dwe7ling units.
Lot 6 3s approximately .888 acres.
CRiTERIA AND FINDINGS
U on review af Criteria and Findin s, Section 78.62.060 of the Munici al Code,
the_Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
variance based upon the.,. fo 11 owi ng factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potentiaT uses
and structures in the vicinity. 'The emp7oyee unit wi7l have no significant impact on surrounding buildings. The
' exterior of the anci7lary bui7d-ing will not be changed to ailow for the unit.
The app7icant has stated that:
"Operation and management of the Treetops Candaminiums in Uai7 Lionshead has,
since Tts beginning been difficult and unworkable because the comp1ex laclcs
. on-site faciiities for this purpase."
: The manager's unit should have a positive effect on the entire 7reetops development
by providing fu11-time management and operational services.
;
i
Treetops -2- 5/23/84
.aion and enforcement
o a secfiedreulat3on~7s~necess~ thear strTC~ or 1,'' .
• f g i w c 'ta achieve e cam atib~.j~ttat
- nd uniformit
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this
tit7e withaut grant of speci,a.iprivi1ege.
In order to fulfill Vail's Community Action Plan goal to "make long-range plans
to meet the needs for employee housing," rel7ef from tne strict interpretation
of the density contro7 requirement for CCIT zorting is necessary. Staff feels
that the employee unit benef-its the com€nunity as a whole by meeting an important
hausing need.
In addition, the GCII zane encourages a mixture af multiple dwe7lfngs, buildings,
and commerciaT establishments in a c7ustered, unified development" 18.26.010.
Once the entire Treetops proposaT is completed, it will pravide for a well planned
commercial and residentiai development. The employee housing unit is in accord
with the intent of CCI zoning.
The effect of the re uested variance on li ht and air, distribution of o uiation,
transportation and traffic facilities.,._public faciiites arid utilities, and_pub1ic
safetY
The proposal has no significant impact on these areas. The manager would park
in the parking structure.
• Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable to the ra osed
variance. - ~
FINDINGS
The P1annin and Environmental Commission shall make the fai7owin findin s before
_granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance wil7 not const7tute a grant of speciai privi7ege
inconsistent with the 7im7tatians on other properties c1assified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance wi11 not be detrimental to the pubiic health,
safety, or we7fare, ar materia]ly injurious to properties or improvements in the
vtcinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the followtng reasons:
7he strzct or literai interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wauld resuit in practica7 difficu7ty or unnecessary physica7 hardship inconsistent
with the abjectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditians applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generaily to other properties in the
~ same zone.
The strict or literai interpretation and enforcement of the spectfied reguiation
would deprive the app]icant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of ather properties
in the same district.
,
7reetops -3- 5/23/84
~
i .
' STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval ofi the requested GRFA variance to aliow an
emplayee housing unit. Approva1 is contingent upon rece3ving an employee
~ hausing agreement as referred to in the attached correspondence. (Section
18.13.080 B 10 a-d) The proposa7 supports the Community Actian P1an's goaT
to meeti the need for employee housing. F'ar this reason, the strict interpre-
~ tation of the density cantrol requirement shou1d be waived to fuTfiTl the
goal of the Gammunity Action Plan.
i
~
~
~
.
;
;
i
i
i ,
i
~ • May 15, 1984
I
I
Department af Community Development
Town of Vail
Vai 1
Colarado 81657
Gent7emen:
Treetops Condominium Association has requested a change in zaning to
allow the exclusive use of a manager's 1iving quarters to be specified
within the greviously appraved building ta be built over the existing
garage facility. This is to be heard on May 29th.
At a meeting of the Board of Directors of Treetops on May 14th, we agreed
to solicit from both our owners and mortgage holders approval to be in-
cluded in aur Declarations, etc., a restriction specifically 1imiting the
use of the dwelling unit to employee housing as set forth in the zoning
ordinance (5ec. 18, 30, 080, B-10, a-d).
You can be assured that our legal counsel wiil file with the county clerk
the appropriate restriction, should you grant the requested use of an em-
! ployee unit.
Sincer~7y,
EDWARD M. STRAUSS
President
Treetops Condominium Assoclation
469 S. Cherry, Suite 110
penver, Colorado 80222
Copy: Marvel Barnes, Manager
Peter Laoms, Architect
Martin Share, Esq.
~
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FR4M: Community Deve]opment Department
DATE: Niay 19, 19$4
S(JBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit and a side setback variance
to locate a drive-up bank faci]ity at the Vai7 das Schone Shopping
Center. Applicant: F7rst National Sank of Vail
BACKGROUND ON PROPOSAl.
7'hese appi icat7ons were presented ta the P1 anning and Envi ronmental Commi ssi on
at the 1Nay 14th meeting. The items were tabiEd by the app]icant to address
concerns of the staff and some PEC members regarding potential conflicts with
the bike path and the propased facility. The proposal has remained unchanged
with the exception of the site plan. The revised site plan is an effort ta
mitigate confiicts with the bank facility and the bike path, as well as the
overali circulatian in the parking 7at.
REVISED SITE PLAN
The revised site plan is a product of input from the Community Development
Department staff, the Recreation Department, the Va1l Fire Department, and
the appiicant. the staff reaction to this Tatest submittal is favorab1e in
~ that prior problems with the sTte pian have been mitigated to a great extent.
The following is a summary of the issues that were raised at the Niay 14th
PEC meeting.
BIKE PATH
The applicant has proposed re1ocating the bike path off of the parking lat
to e7iminate potentia7 °head--on" canfrantations between cars and bikes. This
was in response to review by the Recreatian Department. Whi1e the bike path
wi71 sti11 bisect a heaviiy traveled raad (access to Vail das Schone), it is
no different than the many other points where bike paths cross roadways.
5ignage will be relocated to warn motorists and bilcers of the crossing.
CTRCULRTION WITHIN THE AARKING LOT
Staff was of the opinion that the addition of the bank facility added to the
congestion and lack of control in the parking Zot. The addition of a"landscape
eiement" at the east end of the two parking rows wi11 define the end of these
rows and prevent cars from parking in the lot's circulation lane. This was
a recommendation of the Fire Department {the four spaces lost wi17 be replaced
by the spaces aiong side the bike path}. The staff wou7d like to see the lot
striped to better define parking spaces and the applicant has agreed to work
with the Vai7 das Schone Condominium Association to work toward this objective.
~
lst Nat Bank -2- 5/79/84
, . Issue of Special Privilege
I The staff inttially felt this setback variance wouid be a grant af special
! privilege. With the addition of a 15 foot wide 7andscaped area aTong the east
(and south) side of the property, staff fee7s the setback is na 7onger a signifi-
cant issue, flne main Obj2Ct1Y2 of setbacks 7s to allow for buffers between
properties. ThiS landscaped area is a welcome addition to this project in that
it essentially creates abuffer between adjacent properties. It is also a fine
addition from an aesthetic point of view.
Staff Recommendations
The staff recommdation for these requests is approval. This praposa7 is a much
improved ane for a7T parties concerned. The applicant has responded weli in
this latest submittai to concerns af the Town.
~
i There is nat a great dea7 of detaiT cancern7ng the landscaping and other elements
! of this propasal. These essentialTy are DRB 15SUE5 and can be addressed at
I that review. However, the staff would encourage any concerns the PEC may have
' to be made a part of any motion.
~
~
.
. ~ I
, ~ ~ ~ , • f A, ' ft fk4~.
. . ' ' . ~ + , . , ~ . ~ ~
• ~ . . ~ . . . . , . . ~ 'y, . . ' - - , ~ .
~
,
~ ~ E . ~ ;
. ~ ~ k
~ - - ~ . . ( . ~ _
~ \vy
I ~ ~ . .
- - - _ ~ - r.. ~ ~ ~,;~~a,,~~~~ ~ ~
. _ , ~ . . \ , i . . . • ' . . r
~ ~ * 4,~ti~'. . ~l;~ ~ ~kt ` ~~~',h:. ? ~ '
5~ +v ~ ~
~ F . ~ 1 \ . _ \ ~ . :Y.
' ~ t~ y ',l • ~'i 55 S Tt' R~ ' 'ti 4 t ` . r
. . t~ y~~~y ~1~.~11 @~ . ~ ti•.'1.. ~ ~ .
q-T
3lij
MEM4RANDUM
, T0: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Cammunity Deveiopment Qepartment
DATE: May 24, 1984
SUBJECT: Background Information for Work Session on Cascade Village Revisions
As you are aware, Andy Norris is propasing anumber of revisions ta SDD4 for
Area A--Cascade Vil1age. This SDD was approved in 1976 by ordinance (development
plan to be submltted at a later date). Subsequent amendments of a minor nature
accurred in 1977 and January 1979.
1. DENST7Y
In May of 1979 the Deve7opment Plan was submitted and approved by PEG
and Council. Also at this time the Robbins Parcel, consisting of 1.25
acres, was added to the project, making the acreage a litt7e over 18 acres.
This 1.25 acre tract was brought in with no additional density a7lotted
to the project, and the new total acreage was not put into the SDD ordinance
(even though it had been specifically approved to be included),
The Cosgriff parcel has remained an excepted parcel since 1976, and naw
Mr. Norris has an opportunity to bring this 1.05 acre parcel into the
~ project. The parcel is zoned RC far 6 dweiling units, but the applicant
fee1s the density should be consistent with.the remainder of the project
(16 d.u./acre). He would a7so Zike to receive the same density allotment
for the previausly "annexed" Robbins parcel because he had planned a 4:1
ratio of accommodation unzts to dwelling units and, under this scenario,
didn't think he wou1d be close to maximum density for the SDD. He feels
he needs this density to create the needed "critica1 mass" for a 7uxury
destination resort.
TI. COMMERGIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND NATURE 0F COMMERCIAL
The most controversial aspect nf the deve7opment p7an in 1979 was the
21,700 square feet of commercta7 proposed. Staff fe1t that this was excessive
and wouTd create a third shopping vi1lage detracting from the Village
and Lionshead. PEC dnd COUnCil diSdgr2@d thdt thiS amount af commerc7al
would create that destinatzon effect and felt that 21,700 square feet
would represent, as proposed by the applicant, a basically support-commerciai
enviranment for those iiving and visiting Cascade Uillage.
Mr. Norris now proposes an increase af eommerciai square footage to appraxT-
mately 37,000 square feet as a result of a market study done on the resort.
The nature of the cammercial is twa-fold: to attract nationally known
luxury-type retaiiers (Gucci, etc.) and to provide necessary support services
for guests (liquor and food stores, etc.). Enclosed find a statement
• regarding this propased revision.
SDD4 -2- 5/24/84
• III. SKI VTLLAGE CONCEPT
Two important revisions to the project are underway (in approva7 process,
nat construction): the Westin Ho Ski 7raiT and a chairlift ta Vail Mountain.
These improvements linK the ski9ng pub7ic and Cascade guests and residents
to the ski mountain. Some plan revisions are necessary for these important
facilities and will be discussed 7uesday.
IV. EMPLOYEE HOUSiNG
Although the ordinance adopted did not include requirements fvr employee
housing, this was part af the 1979 Development Plan praposal. The Westhaven
Apartments were meant to be on-site employee housing for hotel personnel
and others. The applicant has revised the plan to accammadate employee
housing by 1ong-term leasing 20 units at Va7Ti-Hi.
V. PARKING
The revised development program (attached) addresses parking requirements.
It is very important to the project that the parking structure be campleted
as soon as possible so the surface parking problems can be al7eviated.
~ VZ. PHASING
Since the praject is behind schedule as originally appraved, a new phasing
plan will be presented.
VII. BUILDING HEIGHTS
~
When SDD 4 was approved the height regu7ations were based on an averaging
system. This definition of height was abol3shed 4 years ago in favor
i af a more straight-forward and effective definition. Cascade Vi11age
i has continued on the old system, and we would 1ike to change aver to the
new definition for the remainder af the project. However, this revision
wil1 not allow the buildings to be talTer.
VIII. FTREPLACES
The Westin feeTs they need fireplaces in some suites as a marketing toa]
and wou7d like approval for 18 fireplaces in the upcoming accommodation
units.
~
_ . PARF~ING REQMT ..---._.-,_..TQ~'AL .
• PROJECT ilNITS SF CsFcFA SEAT3 EXIST F'R4FOSEI7 COMMERCIAL
-
~ _
_
CoinPleted PraJ-e-cts . _ . . _
Millrace I 16 20000 20040 28Y
~1
race Z I 14 17534 17534 254
tin Hate1 (2 per unit) .74 55457 - . _ . 115 ~ .
Alfredos 104
Caf e 74
--.ti#tle Sfiov
PePi SPOrts 2240 . 22E10
~
-Ch4C Buildins _ _ ' :
Cascade Wine t2 Per unit) 16 15870 15870 29
CaRiaass Rase - 3111 80 ~ 3 3111
--•.-~-8ascade Theatre ..............275-.,..-._,~~ _-28
Cal]eqe-c]assrooms 4792
Collese-office 679 '
=-Meettn9 RaQm 2J 1387 - . . . . . _ ~ .
ProPOSed F'rajects ,
.
Westhaven Condos 25 22500 22540 50.f
-Terrace Wins
Guesk Rot+ms (2 Per unit) 60 55040 55400 ' 103
Retail ~ 6399 21 6399
° ' . . _ . ~ _ . . . a
Plaza Buildiny
Guesf RoamS (2 aer unit) 20 9576 9576
26
~
----Candaminiums . . . 19540 - 1950€7 :.:~~:.-•------._...~...30._....,-•------ . .._,____-___.~r
Retail/Office 19000 > 63 19000
.
Conferenc¢ Facil it•r 1 500
i ~
~-~r ; -
Mi 1 1 race 111 50 6500
Mil1 race iV -----------._:_.8 -11200 _._...1120G .16.14 . ~
Mansfield Villase Condns 42~ 58800 5$300 84.-A
- _ . _ _ ~
in Additiuns J
Retai 1 900 3 900
--Cafe E>:pxnsinn
fiumors ExPansion
i Eascade C1ub
' Retazl 1025
Resiaurant 945
--flffices ~.2160`l __...-.-_-.....9 2160 _
r
-Cascade Caurt
Retail 2000
Guest Services 2006
TflTALs 293 30324$ - 291937 _T_.~__
541^ ^.~231 - - _ 412 - ----33770
~ ~ .
Aeveioament Contpols Area Ursits GRFA
- -
Orisinal Parcel 15.67 252 238905
- _ . . _
Ratrbins Parcel . . 3 F (~20~ 1875;3
ssriff Parcel 1.045 17 15932 '
17. 445 . 289 - 273559 - .
r ~
i •
~
` PTanning and Environmenta7 Commission
June 11, 1984
; .
* WORK SESSiQN POSTPONED TO JUNE 25 DUE TO THIS LENGTHY AGENDA
1:30 pm 5ite Tnspectians
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval afi minutes of May 29, 1984.
2. Request to amend Specia7 DeveTopment pistrict 4(Cascade Village) as fo1Tows:
a. increase allowable retai7 to 37,000 square feet.
b. Revise the height standards to make them consistent with the current
definition of height in the zonrtng code so that no buildings in the
SDD will be taller than the Westin Hotel.
c. Add to Cascade Village by rezoning and e7iminating Tot lines (minor
subdivision) of two parcels known as the Robbins and Cosgriff parcels.
d. Request a variance to the fireplace ordinance ta allow 18 accommodation
units ta have fireplaces
e. Make minor revisions to bring the ardinance up to date with 1984 zoning
' regu7ations and make it consistent with the above revisions.
Site 3. A request for a rear setback variance in arder to add to a dwelling on
Uisit Lot 23, B1ock 7, Vail Vi11age lst. App7icant: Dr. 4]iver Peterson
j 5~~~ 4. A request for a front setback variance and a concurrent parking variance
i Visit 7n order to add a garage and additianal gross residentia7 floor area ta
a dwelling on Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
App7icants: Mr. and Mrs. So Price and Mr. and Mrs. Jahn Wisenbaker
;
; site
5. A request for a covered parfcing variance in order to add a secandary unit
Visit at 7ot 19, b7ock A, Vail das Schane Filing No. 1 App7icant: Alberto Martinez
6. A request for exterior alteration for the AntTers Lodge on Lot 3, Biock 1,
Vaii Lionshead 3rd Filing. 1'he request is to add a meeting/banquet room of
approximately 975 square feet. App7lcant: Antiers Condominium Association
Site 7. A request for exteriar alteration of the l.ionshead Arcade Building at 483
Vi sit West Lionshead Ma11 in order to remadel and relocate the entrance door of
Canada's Real Estate. Applicant: Canada's of Vail, Ltd.
(ovER)
~
i
~ ,
r _2_
r
r
8. A request to rezane Lot 6, B1ock i, Liansridge Fi1ing 4 from Single Family to
~ Residential CTuster and a request far a Speciai Development District for the
above 1ot and lots AT, A2, and A3, and a request for aminar subdivTSion in
order to combine these lots into one. A7so, a request far a variance ta buiid
on 40% slopes on Lot 6, and Lat A3 and a request to bui1d a caretaker's unit.
(A revision and expansion to the Architerra-at-Vai7 earth-sheltered housing
project which was approved in 1981). Applicant: Reinfarced Earth Company
9. Preiiminary review of exterior alterations for:
a. The Uail 21 Building (Gore Range Properties)
b. The Sitzmark Lodge
c. The A& D Building
d. The Hili Building
~
, Planning and Environmenta3 Commission
June 11, 1984
~ PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Duane Piper Tom Braun
Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz
Gordon Pierce Larry Eskwith
Wi1l Trout Betsy Rosalack
Jim Viele
A65ENT
Scott Edwards
The meet7ng was cal7ed ta order at 3:05 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper.
7. A rovaT of minutes of meetin if Ma 29, 1984. It was pointed out that
Howard Rapson`s name was typed as "Gordon Rapson." Viele maved and Rapson
seconded to approve the mznutes with a correction to Rapson's first name. Vote
was 5-0 with Pierce abstaining.
2. Re uest to amend S ecial Develo ment District 4 Cascade Vi11a e as follows:
a. Adoption of deveiopment pTan
b. Increase allowab1e retail
c. Rezone and add two parcels known as Robbins and Cosgriff parcels
I d. Request a variance to allow 18 accommodation units ta have fireplaces.
I~ e. Make minor revisions to bring the ordinance up to date with 7984 zoning
regulations and make it cons7stent with above revisions.
Peter Patten presented the requests and explained that most of the board was
prabably famlliar with the proposal through two previous work sessions. Basicaily,
he felt that the private sector should be supported when they proposed to do some
of the items that are stressed in the Community Actlon Plan, such as deve1oping
faciZities for seminars and conferences. Ratten explained the request further.
~
Andy Norris, the applicant, feit that there were three issues he wanted to address:
1} the parking requirement and the requirement by the Tawn to have a Certificate
of accupancy on the parking garage before starting the Terrace Wing, 2) the
employee housing requirement and 3} the requirement to have a left turn lane.
Norris stated that SDD4 was put under a new parking ordinance. He felt that the
conference facility would be used exclusively by Westin guests and wou1d not
generate the need for additiona1 parking. He added that the Westin did very few
banquets, and for those vaiet parking could be used. Narris asked that the total
figure of required parking spaces be changed to 469.
.
'
, -2_ PEG 6/11/84
• Norris then discussed employee housing, stating that this was more a concern of
the employer, not the developer. He added that the deveToper had agreed with the
Westin ta find employee housing if needed.
Norris then went on to say that it was difficu7t to work with the State Flighway
Department regarding the left turn Tane. He felt that the standards imposed were
not easy to work with. Norris stated that he would accept the condition that
the developer continue to work with the Town, 6ut -Felt that the Town should da
a study of the South Frontage Road, and he would be happy to participate with the
7awn on the study.
Piper asked about Town jurisdiction on the left turn lane, and Patten replied that
the State Highway Department wou1d cansider input from the local municipaTity.
Patten felt that a reduction in speed in that area was needed.
Viele agreed with Andy ta a large degree regarding the number of parking spaces
requi red , and felt that there s houl d be a 1 ower speed 1imi t which mi ght al T ow more
flexib37ity in the design of the left turn 1ane. Viele felt that emp1oyee housing
was a private sector problem. He agreed with the staff that this was the kind o-F
project that supported community goals and would benefit the town.
Rapson asked Narris if he agreed w9th 18.46.065 and 18.46.080 and Norris said he
did with the exception that 131 dwelling units be changed to 135. Rapson wondered
if there should be some Ecind of letter regarding overf1ow parking.
. Rapson felt that there should not be fireplaces in the accommodation units, and
felt that this was a matter of education to the public.
Donovan felt most of her concerns had been covered and stated that this was a
qua7ity project with long term gains for the town. She felt that the left turn
7ane was imperative especia1ly with more traffic at the 4-way, and that gas fireplaces
should be used. Trout agreed about the gas firepTaces and feTt that there should
be some sa1ution to the employee housing question. T'rout stated that he iived
in the MiTlrace condominiums and felt very strongly that there was not enough
parking. He asked Norris if there were any cont-ingency plans for additiana7 parking
if the assumptions being made concerning number af parking spaces turned out to
be underestimated. Norris stated that MiTlrace parking probTems were caused by
7ack of enforcement of rules, and added that now the street signs were proper1y
placed. He stated that there were two parCc7ng spaces for each unit. He added
that the 1 arge parECing faci1 ity woul d rriore than p.rovi de the amotant needed, and that
there was a possibi7ity that same spaces cau7d be rented to Mi7Trace residents.
The ski 1-ift was discussed and Norris emphasized that skiers would not be alTowed
to park in Cascade Village. He sa3d that it was critical that there not be another
base area for for day skiers. Norris added that there would be additional par[cing
under the Mansfield condominiums near the entrance to Cascade Vil7age, b[at that
they had an agreement wtth VA that na skiers would be aliowed to park anywhere
7n the Cascade Village compTex.
.
, -3- PEC 6/11/84
Employee housing was again discussed. Patten noted that the revised ordinance
• stated that the employee housing did not have to be on the site. He added that
the recently completed Eagle County employee housing sUrvey found that the need
for housing for seasona7 transient had diminished, and that hous7ng now was needed
for more permanent employees. The problem was affordable housing for the more
permanent employees. He added that the thought behind furnishing employee housing
at Cascade ViT1age was that the twenty units would be a"ho1d7ng tank" which would
give new employees a p1ace to live for 2-3 manths until the busy season was over.
Patten fe1t that the temporary solutian was sti17 important.
Norris stated that he wanted a process that recognizes that the developer is nat
the employer. Ne added that the Westin Hotel had a 30 year agreement with him
that on September 15 af each year the Westin is to notify the developer the number
of employee units needed if the Westin can't pravide the units themselves. Trout
fe7t uncomfortable with this solution because the Westin may decide not to furnish
employee housing. Norris said that he would rather show the 7own of Uail the yearly
agreement concerning employee housing between the Westin and the deve1oper.
Patten felt that there shouTd be a minimum number of employee housing units.
Viele moved and Pierce seconded to approve the amendment_to SQD4_as_presented bY
the staff with the followin modificat7ons:
1. The area and therefore the density on the table be corrected to show three
additiona1 dweT1ing units;
• 2, Parking requirements be amended to require 40 sPaces for the conference
facility;
3. That the app7icant participate in a study to deve1op a reasonable plan far
a left turn lane on South Frontage Road;
4. On a yearly basis a contracturalagreement between the employer and the
develaper showing evidence of employee hotising that is satisfactory to the
Town of Vail, be made ava71able.
7he vote was 5in favor with Trout votin a ainst, for the reason that he felt
the Town shou7d have approva7 process to the agreement concerning employee hausing.
3. A re uest for a rear setback variance in order to add to a dweTlin an
Lot 23, B7ock 7, Vail Vil1age lst.,. App7icant: Dr. Oliver Peterson
Kristan Pritz showed the site plan and eievations while explaining the proposa7.
Gordon Pierce, architect on the project, stated that he felt the Town af Vail
should require that the applicant build the primary unit if the setback variance
was granted. Rapson asked where the parking would be. Pritz stated that 3 more
spaces would have to be provided as one of the canditions of approval along with
paving the driveway. Pritz stated that the addition had already been through
aR6 with the exception of the approva3 af three windows, but it was basically the
~ same design.
. 4 PEC 6/11/84
• The board felt that there must be landscaping on the south side.
Trout moved and Vie7e seconded to a rove the re uest er the staff inemo dated
June 7, 19$4 with the additional candition that the r3mar unit must be built
simultaneousl with the secondar additian. The vote was 5-0 in favor with Pierce
abstaining.
4. R re uest for a frant setback variance and a concurrent arkin variance in
order ta add a ara e and additional ross residential floor area to a dwelTin
an Lot 37, Block 7, Va91 Vi7la e First Filin . Applicants: Mr. and Mrs.
Bo Price and Mr, and Mrs. John Wisenbaker
Tom Braun showed a site plan and eZevations and explained that the staff recommended
denial of bath requests. Tim C1ark, representing Wisenbaker, the architect and
Beck, the buiTder, showed photos and stated that for the past five years the house
had undergone extensive remodeling. Pierce wondered why the additian could not
be redesigned and moved as the staff inemo suggested, and Clark stated that it wouid
require,too much fill. C7ark added that the applicants had permission to use
parking spaces across the street in the street right-af-way. Dnnovan answered
that even that day, summer time, it was difficult to drive past the cars parked
in the right-of-way. Bii7 Anderson of Beck Asssociates felt that there was danger
of getting inta ground water if the add3tion were moved toward the back of the
1ot. Pierce suggested to Clark that he table. C1ark asked to table to 6/25.
~ Ra son moved and Viele seconded to table er the a licant's re uest t0 6/25/84.
The vote was 6-0 i n favor af tabl ing.
5. A re uest for a covered arkin variance 9n order to add a secondar unit
at Lot 19, B7ock A, Vaii dasSchone Filin No. 1. Applicant: Alberto Mart7nez
Tom 8raun explained the request and said that the lot had been approved for a single
family dwelling by Eagle County. He showed site plans, floor p1ans and elevations.
Tim C7ark, architect for the project, stated that adding a garage would add dens3ty
and would interfere with the neighbors` view corridor. Nlike Green, wha would rent
the secondary unit, stated that adding a garage would cost more than the awners
of the home wanted to pay. We wondered if landscaping could be used to hide the
cars. Pierce felt that sUbstantiai landscaping would help, but that a garage cou;d
be canstructed with a flat roof with a deck on top or earth-sheZtered.
Piper asked Clark if he had studied the view impact, and Clark replied that he
had not. Donavan felt that there would not be any more impact than the retaining
walls already made. She felt that the asset to the buiTding wou7d outweigh the
cost of constructing the garage. Clark stated that there were nat many garages
an that street, so at present it conformed, but Braun pointed out that the existing
GRFA was over the aliowable. Rapson stated that he Tived in the neighborhood
~ and saw iittle or no caretaking done to the property for the past 6 years. Viele
felt he would rather see a setback variance than no garage.
V3ele moved and Donavan secanded to deny the request er the staff memo. The
vote was 6-0 in favor of denial. Pierce suggested that Ciark teil the applicants
. that the PEC was in favor of employee housing, but felt it was important to have
a garage.
PEC 5 6/11/84
6. A request for exterior alteration for the Ant7ers Lodge on_Lot._3,_B7ack 1,
• Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing., The request is to add a meetinq/banq_u_et room
af appraximatel_y 975 square feet. Applicant: Antlers Condom7nium Association
Peter Qatten presented the request and reviewed the history af the parking exceptian
request as we11. He stated that if 4 spaces were removed, they would have to
be rep7aced either on site or via a parking fund. Patten stated that the Counci7
might appreciate it if the PEG would want to address the parking issue. He added
that the Town Council couTd be resolution make parking exceptions with certain
criter7a.
Donovan moved and Pierce secanded to a rove the re uest for exterior alteration
per the staff inemo dated June 8, 7984. T.he vote was 6-0 in favor.
7. A re uest for exterior alteration of the Lionshead Arcade Bulldin at 483
West Lionshead Mall 9n order to remodel and relocate the entrance door of
Canada's Real Estate. Applicant: Canada's of Uail, Ltd.
Kristan Pritz presented the request and showed f7oor and site plans and elevations.
Dave Pee7, architect for the project, answered questions. pritz pointed out that
the 7own had not yet received a letter af approval fram the Condominium Association
and that shou1d be a condition of appraval.
Donovan maved and Ra son seconded to a rove the re uest with the conditions
that the letter of a roval be received from the condo association and that
~ the sign code be conformed.to.
8. A re uest to rezone Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsrid e Filin 4from Sin Te Famil
to Residential Gluster and a re uest for a S ecial Develo ment District
for the above Zot and Tots A1, A2, and R3, and a re uest for a minor subdivision
in order to combine these lots inta one. Also, a re uest for a variance
to buiTd on 50% slopes on Lot 6, and Lnt A3. Applicant: Reinforced Earth Company
Peter Patten gave the background of the app7ication and explained that this was
a revision and expans7on of the Architerra-at-Vai7 project approved in 1987, and
naw to be cal7ed Bonne Vue. He stated that it was for 16 units and an employee
unit. He stated that there wauld be an 70 foot buffer to the west, that the vege-
tation existing in the draw would not be disturbed and pointed out the 4 conditions
of appraval in the memo.
Jim Merkel, one of the app1icants, explained that they wanted to increase the
number of units ta 16 for economic purposes, decrease the entrances to one, keep
all of the units on the upper ridge, and add a clubhouse, sw3m pool and caretaker's
unit. He showed sect7ons and pointed aut that the number of retaining wai7s had
been reduced. Each unit would be three stories with the garages on the bottom,
the living and dining areas on the secand leve7, and the bedrooms on the top level.
The clubhouse at first was not p7anned to be earth sheltered and was revised to make
it earth sheltered, and it would be one story in appearance.
•
PEC 6 6/iT/84
Pierce asked if the project would be built ail at once or would be phased. MerkeT
~ stated that he would like ta da all at once, but if they did not have time this
buiiding season, they pianned to do one or two duplexes. Pierce stated that he would
hate to see it built partially, and asked if the financing was contingent on resales.
Patten said that the Council wi71 probably require some type of assurance that
financing would be avaiTable.
Jim Marte7l, one af the applicants, stated that it was extremeiy important to build
two untts to show potential cTients what the project would laok like, and these
first units would laok good sa that the rest wi11 sell. Patten stated that DRB
guidelines also addressed phasing. Piper asked to send a directive to DRB af the
PEC`s concerns about tearing out and putting back together the property and the
impacts th3s might have on appearance. Martell stated that they would disturb as
little as possible in phases.
Viele stated that he had the same concerns because this development would have more
impact on site work. Nis concerns inc7uded phasing, financing, and two statements
from the EIR in which the necessity for further site specific geotechnica7 studies
were stressed and that some rock fall study was cursory. He fe7t that mud fiow and
rock fall should be studies further, since there had been huge mud flows on either
side of this project. He questianed the effectiveness of culverts and wondered
whether or not storage of water should be part af the EIR.
Martell stated that many of the projects done by Reinforced Earth Company had been
used to carrect mudslides, but Piper replied that the board was concerned with mud
slides which initiated off of this site. Rapson asked about technique used if
• they should run into stone, because blasting could start a rack slide. Martell
answered that the test cares indicated that rock outcroppings were not significant.
Donovan was concerned that if there were a mud slide it may not go throUgh the
planned culvert. Piper suggested that perhaps one unit clase to the draw would
have to be omitted.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, said that he checked with Jeff Selby and
Mark Garrisan who designed complete rockfal3 mitigation when applying for
Lionsridge Filing 4 to Eagle County, but that he did not do a supp7ementa7 report.
VieTe recommended a supp7emental report be made on a site specific study. Jamar
stated that that several site specific studies were completed, but that they would
probably go into more detail before applying for a bullding permit--that perhaps
this couTd be made a condition af approval.
Pierce moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request for a varlance to the
hazard re ulations to allow buiTdin s to be located on s1o es of 40% and above
for Reinforced Earth Company an lot 6 and_lot A3. The vote was 5 in favor, none
a ainst, with Trout abstainin .
i ~
i
i
~
, PEC 7 6/11/84
Pierce moved and Rapson seconded to approve the various requests for SDQ14
~ includin the conditians of a rova7 1 thru 4 listed in the staff inemo and
a fifth condition: 5 A site s ecific eo-technical stud must be done
rior to issuance of a bui7din ermit. The vate was 5 in favor, none a ainst,
w3th Trout absta7ning.
Vzeie moved and Pierce seconded to a rove the rezonin of lot 6, Block 1,
Lionsrid e Fi1in 4 from Sin le Fami1 to Residential Cluster and a minor sub-
division in order ta combine the abnve 1ot and Lats Ai, A2 and A3 in order to
combine these Tots into one. The vote was 5 in favor, none against with Trout
abstaining. ~
9. Preliminar review of exterior alterations for:
a. The Vail 27 Suilding (Gare Range Properties) 60 days
b. The 5itzmark Lodge 90 days
c. The A& D Build7ng 90 days
d. The Hi31 Building 90 days
Patten stated that there would be a Town Council hearing on June 19, 1984 on
this SDD.
•
~
MEMoRn,NOUM
~ I-0: Planning and Cnvironmeni.al Commission
f-RaM: Car;lmunity Qeveloptiien'c Departmer7t
j DA7F: June 6, 1984
j SUQJECT: Request for major ameiidnient to ar-ea A(Cascade Village) af
' Special Develapment Distt°ict 4
` Applicant: Mansfield Ltd (Andy Norris)
The applicant, Andy Noy-ris, is requesting a nui-rber of revisions ta tfze Cascade
Village portion of SDD 4---1n tfic- areas of tQtai clensity, tfltal cornmercial
square footage, building heights, parking requireiiiients, emp7oyee housing and
tfie riuinber of fireplaces to Ue allowed. Due to aur previous twa work sessioris
on tiiis 7i.em, the Planning aild Erivironmenf:,al Con;lMission is now quii,e familiar
wi t11 thL' pr•oposal. Thi s nlemoraridum wi 7l begi n wi th a brief cflroiiol agic f7istory
of Special Ocvelop~i7ent District 4 failowed by an explanation of the rnajflr issUes
i nvolved i n the apiDroval of the devel opinent p1 an i n 1979 and wi 1 T proceed wi th
~ the specific request by the appZicants with a discussion regarding the various
~ changes proposed, then we`ll look at the re7ated policies cflntained with7n tfie
Cojiimunity Action Plan and conc7ude 1Vith the staff recommendation.
• I. CHRON01_OGICAL HISTORY
Ordinance No. 5 of 1976 was the original establishing ordinance for SDD 4.
This ordinance created #;he special deve7apment district, while calling -Far a
specific deve7apnient plan with certain submittal requirements at a iater date.
7'he o,-di nance divi ded the total area of SDD4 inta four separate areas known
as A,B,C, and D. Area Ais the Cascade Village project, Area [3 is the Caldstrea€n
Condoiz»nium project, while Area Cis the GTen Lyon Subdivision duplex lnts and
Rrea D i s naw the GTen I_yan Offi ce 8ui7 di ng. The densi ty a71 otment for ascade
`'Viilage in ~.his original ardir~ance was 252 dwe7ling un7ts located on 6.8 act~es~
- far a dens i ty of 15 dwel 1 i ng units per acre. Nei ther the densii:y pr-ovis7 ons
nor the basic provisions af this origina3 ordinance have changed 7n any significant
manner untii this point in time.
Ord i nance No. 28 0f 1977 revised the ariginal ord i nance 7 n a nui-fiber of ways. Th3 s
ardinance changed the development areas of Rreas B, C, and D and required ciedicatioli
of aver 40 acres of open space to the Town. It also revised soine of the submittal
requireinents as well as refined perinitted and conditional uses al7owed in develop-
ment Area A(Cascade Vi7iage), 5oine other minor changes such as numericaT changes
to section numbers in the zoning code were also provided for 7n Ordinance 28.
In January of 1979 there 4•ras an amendnient to SDD4 with regard to subinitta7 re-
quirements orice again. 7he applicant had reques-ted that the subinittal requiremerits
be up--dated and clarified with regard to what actua7Ty was necessary information
to review the project. This was done at that datE in preparation for the April
and May review of the developiiient pl an i tself.
. On April 27, 1979 the PZanning and Environmental Commission conducted a pre3iminary
` revie4a of the Cascade Village proposai. Of note in this rev7ew was the ackno4;,ledge-
iient that there were appraximately 17 acres involved along with two approximately
5DD4 ._2_ 6/6/84 '
i~ nrIe.acre, parcels zoned for 6 atid 7 units, respectively. Also discussed tivas the
proposal regarding on--5ite empToyee Iiotasing for the project and the Zow rise
natur°e of the buildiiig heights. On May 22, 1979, the PEC he1d a pu6lic hearing
ior twa requests. Qne, apuroval of the dcvelopment plan -For Cascade Vi13age,
and i,wo, i;o enlar-ge Qevelopme.nt Area R to iiicT«de the 1.25 acre Robbins t'ract.
It w(Is iioted in t{ze staff merriorandum that the new acreage in 'the Area Ailow
tota] ed 18.078 acres of r.aurse, i ncl uded the €tob6i ns tract zaned for 7
Eiriits at the time. This development pTan was su5sequently approved by the
P] anni rjg and Etivi ronmental Commi ssi on and Town Counci i.
11. ISSUFS IN 1979 ADOPTION OF D1=YELOPMENT PLAN
1'he single i-flajor -issue in ttie approval process of the deve7opnient pian of 1979
i•aas the creation of a thir•d vi l1 age far Vai 7 wi th t°espect to the ainount of co;n-
mercia] pt,aposed arid the educatianal/learning center proposed. It was felt by
the planrZiiig staff that tlze creatian of such a third inajor village could negativeiy ,
impact the hus system, road system and ati3er services ?vithin the coirimunity. There ~
was alsa aquestiatiing of the relationship betwcen the proposed hate1 with the
eciucational/learning ceriter. The staff felt the learning center should be can-
struci:ed before the fiotel and that the appl icant liad iio-t convi nced the staf-f that
the riec.>ssary ] itik betwecn the hotel and tile 7 earni ng center vraul d ever be estab- ,
lished. OLher staf-F concerns centered araund the intersection of Westhaven Drive
ti,rith South #'rontage Road, access to the exc7uded Cosgr~ff parcel, providing oniy
~ one access point to the eji-tire area, and 7astly, the averal] size and mass of
the parlcing structure atid fiotel in relation to the frontage road as well as to
otlier buildings an tlie site and the dupTex Tats to the south.
The Pianriing ar-3d Environniental Comj»7ssion agreed in part and disagreed in part
tvith the staff's recommendations and cancerns. The PEC felt 21,700 square feet
of commercial to be acceptab7e to the praject. Mr. Norris explained to the .
coinn3ission that more SpeC1f1C inFarrnatian on the poi:entia3 «sers of the learning
ceriter arid the r-elationship of the hotel to the learning center would be farth-
coming, he agreed to dedication of stream tract and easements for bicycle paths,
he agrecd ta work tiYith the Highway Department ta provide a ieft hand turning lane
and acce7eration and deceleration ]anes on the South Frantage Road,and-F7na71y agreed
to provide access to the excluded Cosgri-Ff parcel. Concerninq an outdoar recrea-
tion area, the Planning and Environmenta1 Conunission fe]t it was not necessary
to the project, cantrary to the plannir€g 5taff recommendation. Firtally, Mr.
Norris agreed to the provision af a bus shelter and turn-around an the project
site.
Employee hous9ng ~,,,as an integral part of the developnient plan discussion in May
aF 1979. The proposal at that time was for 32 renta] uni ts of approximate7y
850 square feet each on the site 1qith the possibility of using industrial revenue
bonds to canstruct that housing. 1'he timing for the einployee housing project
4ras t,epr,esented as the secflnd year of construction, but ear7ier i-F possible.
• III. TIIE REQUEST
Andy fiorris has submitted the attached letter to the Comniunity DeveTopment Depart-
n,ent concerning the request and his reasons far his current proposai.
SDD4 -3- 6/6/84
Surnmat;y _and_ Oi sct,ssi_on of _Reyacst
In sumin7ary, h1r. Norri s 7 s request i ny to reprogram the remaini ng develop;,~ent
~ of Cascade Vi 1lage i n arder to iul f7 ]l a inar#;eting program wliich they
; ieel tivill hc succcssful -For the developinent and the Vail Conimurs7ty. Aiidy's
i letter does a good job of out7 i ni ng ~,{hat Lhey feei the necessary i ngredi eni:s
to such a staccessful program are.
They are, with regard to density, asking for the origina] density af
15 dwelling uriits per acre to be applied at this paint to bath the 1.25
acre Robbi ns parcel wiii ch was arinexed to the SDD i n 1979, and fi'ar the
1.045 acre Cosgr-i Ff par°cel proposed to be annexed with this current roquest.
hloreover, they feel the 37,000 square feet of coi+-:~Prciai is a riecessity
to the deve7opment program to pr•ovide i'or support retail to the type
of clientele they ar°e attenipting to attract.
Other pat°ts oi' the request not addressed in the above 1etter are: A
revision to Lhe cnip]oyee housiizg provision and at t17e uryirig of tY7c p7arlrling
st;aff, r,evising ~.he Izeight regulation to bncoine consistent with the existing
hei ght de fi n itzon as well as cl eaning up and up-dating the enti re ei giit
year old SDD ordinance. Finally, wii:h aciditioria1 density and coiT~mercial,
the parking requiremeiits for 11rea A i-nust be revised.
. IU. RELATFD POLICIES IN_VAIL`S COMh1UNITY_{~CTION FLAN: FOCUS 1985
Witfi such a major conceptual change proposed for Cascade Village, it is ,
important that «e Zook to the Community Action Plan for guidance and criteria
to eva7uate this praposaT. The fol7owing are excerpts from various sections
of the p1 an wh ich are iiiiportant i n reviewi ng -this SDD pl an amendment:
A. Statement_of Purpose
PoT7cy. To recognize that Vaii is rnoving quickTy from an eeonamy based on
1, recreation and real estate to a mature resart coinmunity with a stronger
more diverse economic and social base. Marketing the commUnit,y
and _providi~qservice to guests rcmains extremel,y important.
Policy To recognize and strengthen Vail's principai pt°aduc:ts and services.
•
2' --8usiness and pr-afessiana7 meetings
B. Socia7/Cultura7/Educational Considerations
PoTicy Uai1 sliould improve as an educational and intellectual ceriter:
3.
--Pramote seminars and conferences
--Develop facilities to provide for these activities
.
SDD4 --4-- 6/6/84 `
16 C. Fcoi7omic Considerations
Policy 'l'hc, suminer season should be signif3earitly devPloped and proifloted.
3.
--f4axilnize current sun,mer programs, opport«nities and facilities.
-Study new suml-ner programs, opportunities and faci]ities.
--Set up marketi ng prograiizs to promote the suinmer season.
Policy 7he sho«Trfer seasans also should be siqnificantldeveloRed_ and~)reinoted.
4. ~
--Cxpand__shoulder_season educational and curtturai activities.
-Encour~ge coinpii~ncn~.ar,y alternative business.
-Icientj_fy arid_proii-ioi.eopportuniti.es for recreation, shopp_inq,_etc.
Pol icy Study the -i'eas i bi 1 i i:y o#` an econoini c developnient comnni ss i or1 ta organi /e i
5. efForfi.s to direct tiiis aci.ivity.
--SLitdy the feasibility of building a convention facility
-Dcfine the role af municipal governmer,t 7n economic development
~ It'is evident that the Coi-Rmunity Actiort P1an strong7y promotes the type of
pro ject whi ch tf» appl icants are propos7 ng. The.pl an .i s ca17 i ng out For
Facilities to allow Vail to became a year-round resort alang Wi#.}1 thE markei;ing
and proinotion af those facilities as we17 as explor7ng all possible avenues
of economic develapiflent for the coinmunity. With this in mind, the praposai
represents the wiilingness of a major private sector entity within the community
..ta accoirpl ish these goal s and objecti ves wi thi n the COI11f11Ui11 tJI ACt10n Plan.
Furthermore, with regard to defiil7ng the rale of municipai gavernment in
(,canomic deveTopnierit, certainly one of tliose roles wouid be agreeable plart--
ning and iand use regulations when economic deve7oppient act7vities in eoncert
with the cnmrnunities overali goa7s and object7ves are proposed.
~
. SCD4 - 5_ 6/6/84
~ _
V . SI'Af-F RE=COMIMBDAT IQNS
The Coiiii2iuiiity Develapirient Department is highly supportive, w~th so~~~e
minor exceptions, of this proposal to amend the Cascade Uiljage portion
of Special Deve]opment Distt°ict 4. Wfe feel strongly that the proposa7
: is in concert w7th the community's gaals and objectives as outiined in
the Community Action Plan. 1,'e are of the opiFiion that wiien the private
sector steps forti•rard in this rrianner to accornplish what could be a sigriifi-
cant cantribution to the ecor:orflc deveToniiient of the Vail eariimunity, that
' the municipal govenmeriL should be fiiyhly support7ve. Tiie additiorial derisity
requested i spropa5ed to be put i nto accom,nadati on uni ts so that a sufficient
nuiiiber of accom;»odat 7 ons can be 7 ocated on s ite in order to accompli sh
~ the abjectives of the overall luxury destination resort plan. It anly
~ inakes serise that accoinpariying that critical mass of density is a comi~ercial
' support systein of a sufficient size aizd nature to work with and comp7~~~~ent
this overall goal.
I ;-le do, hotivever, feel that the aspects of parking, elnpToyee housirig, and
fireplaces, need to be seriously addressed at this point in tiirte. The
parking i3iust he sufficient ort the site to take care of this project's
ciemands. The zoni ng code cal ls for 484 spaces, artd we feel strongly that
l:hi s ri«mber shoul d be met. Currently the structure i s approved at 435
pay-ki ng spaces, and 4•re woul d expect the app7 i cant to either expand the
~ structure or provide other surface parkiiig distributed throughout the
project to supplei-nent that number. There €nust be provision far employee
liousing on t#ii s proj .ct. Whether or nat the emplayee housi ng i s on s i te
. is prohably riot critical ta the success of the pra3ect, but certainly
an-si te einpl oyee hous i ng for f:he Westi n€iote1 i s the best sol uti on. 7'he
final seetion of the revised SDD arciinance states that the developer shall
provide 20 dwelling units for 7ong-term rentals to employees of the project
on an on-going basis. We feel this to be the minimum acceptable requirement.
, T'he proposal for 18 f i repl aces wi thin accomriodati on uni ts i s not acceptable
to the staff at this time. We feel strongly that we should recognize
and deal with the Town of Vai7's air pollution problems and look cTasely
at the precedent setting nature of granting this request. Furthennore,
within the last several years the fireplace ordinance 4aas revised to remove
the variance sectian which means that to grant this request wauld require
amending the fireplace ordinance. The marketing importance of fireplaces
within luxury accommodation units can be fulfi1led with the provision
of gas fireplaces.
We aTso feel that it is very important to the sa#'ety and the circulation
sy5tern i nto and froin the proj ect that a i eft--turn 1 ane on South Frontage
Rflad be pt°ovided for this third major village of Ua71.
In conciu5ion the planning staf-F is excited about the revised development
plan far Cascade Village and its potentiaT to fulfili stated comrnunity
goals and objectives. With the provisiorts nated above, this project can
• be a treniendous asset to the community af Vail and launch Cascade Village
9nto the competitive inarket of destination resorts around the country.
Our recoiniTiendations are written into the enclased revised and updated
Specia] Development District 4 Ordinance.
.
, 18.46.010 PURPOSE
~ Special deve~optlEent discrict 4 is estahlished to ensure comprei7ensive
dcvelopinent aiid iise of an area in a mani,er tfiat wil1 be hai-rrconious tiYith
the gei3eral character of ziie town, provide adeq«ate open space and
recrfla ti ona] aineni -ti es, and pron7ate the abjecti ves of the zoni ng ordinance
AiND COMP•1UNITY ACiION PI_AN FOCl1S 1985. Special cievelopi~~Qnt district 4 is
created to ensur,e that the developmcnt density will be r.elatively low and
sLri table for the area aiid the vi ci ni ty i n 4•1hich i t 7 s si tuated, the devel ap-
rnent i s regarded as coinpl einentary zo the town by the town counci l arid the
j]ldni1111J cominission, arid there are significant aspects af the special
developirent which carinot be sat;isfied tfirough the iriipasition of standard
I~ zorii iig di stricts on the area.
I
18.46.020 ESTA3LIS13ED
' A. Specia] devc]opiTient di stri ct 4 i s establi shed for the develap;nent on
a pai,eel of 1 and coi~ipri s i ng 99,1 acres as rnore parti cul ar7y descr7 bed i n the
legal description oii file in the DEPARTh1ENT OF COir1MUNITY DFVFLOPiIENr.
Special develapment district 4 ancf the 99.1 acres may be referred to as "SD4."
B. 7tie di stri ct shal 3 consi st of i our separate deveTopment areas, as
i dentified an tfie inap, consi sting af the f011 owing approxiinate si ze :
/lrea Known As DeveTopment Area Acreage Raads: 4.7
Cascade Village A 19.1
~ Col dstreain Condomi ni uzns B 4.00
Glen Loun Dup1ex Lots C 29.10
Glen Lyon Office B1dg. q 1„8
- Dedicated Open Space 40.4
Roads 4,7
- 99.1
18.46.030 DEVELOPMEN1' PLAN-REQUIRED-APPROVAL PRQCEDURE.
A. Before the olqner cornmences site preparation, buiIding construction
or other iniprovements t-rithin SD4, there shali 6e an approved development plan
for SQ4. Development of SD4 may he phased by development area and withln
developinent area, but a sufficierit ainount of information sha71 be supplied with
respect to all deve1opment areas in order to allow the planning corrumission
and tatiqn council to ensure the compatabirtity of any py°oposed develapment plan
with the remainder of SD4.
. B. Fach development area with the exception of development area p shall
be su6ject to a single development p7an. Development area D shall be
required anly to go through the design review process. .
C. A proposed development plan for Sp4 shall be submitted to the zoning
~ adiiiinistrator who shall refer tfle developrlent p1an to the planning CO[11fIi15S10h
and to the design review board, which sha31 cons7der the p3an at a regularly
scheduled meeting, and a report af the planning comi7iission setting forth
if:s findi ngs and recommendati ans shal l be transmi tted to the town courrci 7
in accordance tiqith the applicable provisions of Chapter 13.66.
I D. Upon receipt of 1-he proposed development plati aiid plannirtg
~ 1.oEniiii s5ian report, tize town counci 1 sha11 dptermi ne whether i:he pl an i s
~ <3c:c.nptable to the to,rrn in accordance wii,h the applicable provisions of
Secti an 18 . 6& ,150 anct 18. 66 .160. Tii7 s de~err,ii na ti on by the town counci1 shal l
: be made througli its enacWent of a resolut-iQn which ir7corparatcs the develop~
;-itent pian as an official Town of Vail docurrient.
E. The approved developinent p7ari shall be used as the princ7pal guide
i for all developinent within SD4. Amc;idiaients to an approved development plan
~ ti-rhich do not change its substance may be approved by tne PLANNiNG AND
E-NVIRONIME:NTAL LOMIMISSION IN ACCORDANCE WIl-H SEC7ION 18.66.060 - 18.66.100 OF
7ltE VAIL f•1UNTCIPAL. CODE. Fach pfiase of developnient shall require, prior to
'i ssuance of bui lding per-iiii ts , approval of the desiyn revi etiv board i n accordarice
vri th appl i cable provi s i oris of Ciiapter 18.52. '
18.46.040 DEVELOPh1ENT PLAN- CONTENTS.
The proposed developl-tient plan shall include, but is not iiriited to the
following ciata:
A. A cowpl ete envi ronmetital impact report submitted 7 n accardance with
Chapier 13.56. ~
B. Exi si:ing contotirs havi ng contour i ntervals of not inore than fi ve {5}
feet i f the average slope of the si te i stweiity percent or less wi th can tour
intervals of not more than ten (10) feet if the average slape of the site is
• greater than twenty Percent. Existing and proposed contours after grading
for each phase.
C. A conceptua7 si te plan, at a scale not smal l er than one i nch equal s
fifty feet, showing the jocations and dimensions of all buiTdings and
structures with i.he exception of Single-family and two-famiTy structures,
(ises tfierein, and all principa] site developinent features, such as landscaped
areas, recreationa] faci]ities, pedestrian plazas and wa7kways, service
, entries, dr7veways, and off-street and 7oading areas.
D. A conceptual landscape p1an, at a scale not smaller than one inch
equals fifty feet, shawing existing landscape features to be retained or
removed, and showing, proposed landscaping and landscaped site develapment
fcatures such as outdaor recreational facilities, bicycle paths, trails,
pedesi.ri an pld7_d5 and wal kways , water features and other elements.
E. Preliminary building sections and floor p7ans at a scale not smaller
than ane inch equals twenty feet, in sufficient detail to determine floor area,
gross residential floQr area, general uses within the bU1lCI7ngS, and tne
general scale and appearance of the proposed development for each development
a rea .
F. A propo5ed plan of parking, Zoading, traffic circulation, and transit
facilities; and a proposed program for satisfying traffic and transportation
iieeds generated by the project.
~ G. A volumetric madel at a scale not smaller than one inch equals fifty
feet, por-traying the scale and relationships of the proposed develapment to
the site and i l1 ustrating the form and mass of the proposed bui 1 di ngs for
developrnent areas A, B and D.
• j
~ H. A proposed prograin in(Jicatiiig order af canstructian phases, trans-
C)or~~a'L-Jort faci1 itiras, and recreational ai~i,'~nities,
' I. A jJC'OpOSdl re9arding the dedica l.7 on to the iown or pri vate owner-
. shi p and inai ntenance of that poriion of the devel opment area withi nthe one-
iiundr°ed year f7oodp7ain of Gore Creek. Zn i:he event the one--h«ncired year
i floodplain is riot dedicated to the Man, such Zands shall 1De subject to a
? rig}it af pub]ic access to Gor.e Creek and the r7ght to use a portion of the
larids for a bicycle path, and far park purposes provided that Lhe iocatian and
` tise of the facilities aiid access shaT1 be determined by mutual agreemertt
~ betrruen 'Lhe i.own arid tiie orrn`r of the develapment areas involved.
i
~
~ 18.46.050 PERMITTED USES.
;
~
~ Si ngl e-fami 1y resi dcriti al dwel1ing shal i be perfni tted uses 1 n development
area D. Ttvo family &re3lings, residential cluster dwellings, and muitiple
Fami 1y cjwel li nys shal 1 be permi tted u5es i n develop3nent areas A and B.
~ Professional ofifices <3nd bustness ui'~`ices, witfi atota1 gross floor area not
j to exceed Lfiiri,een tI10U5d€ld squai-e feet, shall be perm3Lted use in developmerit
; area D.
i
~ 18.46.060 C0~1DITI~~;VAI. ~iSES ( AS I'f~R CHAPT~:R 18.60 OF TI~E 70NING CODE).
i
' A. h1AJOR ARCADES 'WITH ft0 i=RONTf1GE ON ANY FUBLIC WAY, S7REET, WALKWAY
OR MAl_L AREA.
~ B. PUSLIC PARK AND RFCREATIQhAI_ 1=ACILITTES.
C. SKI I.ITTS. 4 TKA,c.S .
18.46.065 OFFICE USE
N0 PROFESSIONAL OR BUSINESS OFFICE SHAL.L gE LOCATED ON STREE7 LEVEL
QR FIRST FLOOR (AS DEFINED IN SFCTION 18.24.030(A) OF THE ZONING CODE)
IN AREA A UVt_ESS FT IS CI_EARLY ACCESSORY 74 A LODGE OR EDUCA7IONAL
- INSTITUI"ION.
18.46470 ACCESSORY USES
A. The fallotiving accessory uses sha11 be permitted in develoPment areas
A, B and C:
1. Naine occ«pations, subject to issuaiice of a hame occupations
permi tin accordance wi th the provi sion5 0f Secti ons 18.58.130 through
18.5f3,190;
2. Other uses custoiflarily incidental and accessory to perinitted
or conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
3. Attacned garages or carparts, private greenhouses, swimming
poo7s, tenni$ courts, patios, or other recreational facilities
customarily iricidental ta permitted residential uses.
. ~
B, 7fae i ol lotivinq accessory u.,c1S Slldll be permi i_ted in develapment ar~~a
~ C on]y:
Ilttacfied garages or carparts, private greenhauses, swi rritni ng pool s,
terini s courts, pati os , or other recrea i;-i oiiai i'aci li ii es custoinari ly
inciciental ta perrnitted residential uses.
C. In addi ti on , the fol lowi ng accessary uses shal 1 be peri-fli tted i n
develapmcnt areas R and 8:
S;flriuni ng pools, tenni s courts, pati os , or otlier recreati onal
faci i i Li es customarily i nci derital to permi i;ted or condi tional Lrses, and
riecessary to tFie operai,ion tliereof.
D. The fa]1owing acce5sory use shall be perniitted in Develapiiient Area A:
hlinor arcade (Ord 6, 1982),
18.46.080 0ENSI1fY-1M,1F1_L1NG UidITS. .
1-he riumber of drrel 1ing uriits shal l not exceed the fol lowi ng;
Developr;ent Area A, TlJO HUNDRED EIGH-CY FIUE DWELLING UNITS TQTaL
MAXxh1UM, IdITH A MINIMIlJM OF 308 ACC0M11M0DATION UNITS AhD MAXIMUM OF 131
D14E1_LING UNIrS AS DCFINIED BY T}iE TABLE BELOW; y
~ Development Area B, sixty-five units; ,
Development Area C, ane hundred four units.
18.46.081 DENSITY--FLQOR AREA
The gross residential floor area of all buildings in each development
area shai 1 not exeeed .35 GRFA i n area R, iqhi ch i s aPiaximum of 291,121
square feet, sixty five thausand square feet GRFA in area B, and .25 GRFA
for the fi rst fi fteen thousand square fieet of si te area, plus not mare
than .10 CRFA shall be permitted Far each square foot of site area over
fifteen thQUSaiid not to exceed thirty thou5and square feet of site area;
plus nottmore than .05 square feet of GRFA for each square foot ot site
" area over tliirty thousand square feet in area C.
In Area C, any si te containing ttivo dwel 1 i ng uni ts, ane af the uni ts
shall not exceed 40% of the a]Towable total gross residential f7oor area
(GRFA).
18.46.082 COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE
Area A sha]1 contain a maximum af 37,000 sc}uare feet of commercial
(retail, flffice, theater and restaurant) as defined in the tab7e in
Section 18.46.089.
~
. ' • L co
CQNTR01_s
~
Arca U g 3 ~,o GRFA
(Acres) d.u./Acre (.35)
~
Original Parcel jB._92-~5.-7y 252 256,437
Robbins Pat-cel 1.23 1 18,752
Cosgt,ii'f Parcel 1.045 15 3{- 15,932
285 291,121
18.46.090 DEVf_I.OP1-iENT STAir'DARDS -240
The develop€~ient standards set out i n Secti ons 18.46 .100 f.hrough 18.46.210
are approved by the town councii. These standards shall be i ncorporated i nto
the approved development plan pertinent to each developinent area to protect
tlze ini:egri ty of the developEnerit of 5D4. They are minimum developnient
st-atidai°ds and shal i apply unl ess rriore restri cti ve standards are incorporated
in the approved develo;)Ment plan Which is adopted by the town council.
18.46.100 SFTBACKS
Requi red setbaeks shall he as i ndi cated i n each c{evelopment plan wi th a
mi[lii[IUm setback on the periphery of the property of nat less tttan twenty feet,
IJi'TH THE EXCEPI-ION THAT i"fiF SETBACK RFQUIREMENT AaJACCN7 i0 THE PARKING STRUCTURE/
A11i1_ETIC CLUB BUILDING SHALL 8E FEET AS APPROVED IN I9 BY PEC AhJD
COUNCIL.
18.46.120 HEIGffiT
IN AREA A, -EHE h'lA?(IMUM IIEIGHT FOR THE FOLLOWING BtJZLDINGS SMALL BE 71 FEET:
4JESTIN NOTEL, CPfC/LEARNING CENTER, TERRACE WING, PARKING S7RUC7URE/ATHLETIC
; CLUB, PLAZA BUII_QING. 7'HE REMAINDER OF BUILDINGS IN AREA A SHALL HAVE A
~ MAXIMUA1 HEIGH7 0F 48 FEET.
~ TN AREA B, THE MAXIMlJN1 HEIGHT SHALL BC 4$ FEET. IN AREA C, THE hfAXXMlJM
fiEIGHT SHALL BE 33 FEET. IN AREA D, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT SHALL BE 38 FEE7.
HEIGHT SHALL BE AS DEFINED IN SECTIQN 18.04.170 OF THE VAIL MUNICiPAL CODE.
18.46.140 COVFRAGE
In areas A and B, no inore than thirty-five percent Qf the totai site
area shall be caver-ed by buildings, provided, if any portion af the areas is
~ deveioped as an institutianal or educational center, forty-five percent of the
~ area may be covered. In areas C and D, no more than twenty-five percent af
' the total site area shall be covered by buildings, UN1_FSS THE MORE RESI'RICTIVE
~ SFANDARDS OF CIiAPTER 18.69 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE APPLY.
18 .46 .160 tIINDSCAP I NG
At ieast the fo3Towing proportions of the total development area shall be
. 3andscaped as provided in the developmerit plan. This shall include retent3an of
natural landscape, if appropriate. Areas A and B, fifty percent and areas C and
D, sixty percent, of the area shall be Zandscaped.
l
. MEMORANDUM
y=,~ 70: P7anning and Environmental Commtssion
~
FROM: Gammunity Development Qepartment
DATE. June 6, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for major amendment to area A(Cascade Village) of
Special Develapment District 4
Applicant: Mansfield Ltd (Rndy Norris)
The applicant, Andy 1Varris, is requesting a number of revisians to the Cascade
Village portion of SDa 4.--in the areas af total density, tota3 commercia3
square faatage, building heights, parking requirements, empZoyee housing and
the number af firepiaces to be ai7owed. Due to aur previous two wark sessions
on this item, the P7anning and Environmenta7 Commission is now quite famiiiar
with tne proposal. 7his memorandum will begin with a brief chronologic h3story
af Special Qevelopment District 4 followed by an explanat7on of the major issues
irrvo1ved zn the approval of the deveiopment plan in 1979 and will proceed with
the specific request by the applicants with a discussion regard3ng the various
changes propased, then we'Z1 Taok at the re7ated policies contalned within the
Community Action P7an and conc7ude with the staff recammendation.
I. CHRQNOLOGICAL HIS70RY
- _ -
r _
. Ordinance No. 5 0f 1976 was the original estabTishing ordinance for 5DD 4.
This ordinance created the speciai develapment district, whiZe eai7ing for a
speciflc development plan with certain submittal requirements at a later date.
The ordinance divided the total area of SDD4 into four separate areas knawn ,
as A,B,C, and D. Area A is the Cascade Village project, Area B is the Co7dstream
Condominium project, while Area C is the Gien Lyon Subdivision dupiex lots and
Area Dis now the Glen Lyon 0ffice Bui7ding. The denslty aiiotment for Cascade
Village in this originai ordinance was 252 dwel7ing units Tocated an 16.82 acres,
fflr a density of 15 dweZling units per acre. Neither the density provisions
nor the basic provisions of this original ardinance have changed in any significant
manner until this point in time.
Ordinance No. 28 0f 1977 revised the origtnal ordinance in a number of ways. This
ordinance changed the development areas of Areas 6, C, and D and required dedication
of over 40 acres of apen space to the Town. It also revised some of the submittai
requirements as wertl as refined permitted and cond-itiona1 uses allowed in develop-
ment Area A(Cascade Vil1age). Some other minor changes such as numericai changes
to section numbers in the zoning cade were also provided far in Ordinance 28.
In January ofi 1979 thare was an amendment to SDD4 with regard to submittal re-
quirements once again. The applicant had requested that the submittal requirements
be up-dated and cTarified with regard to what actuaTiy was necessary information
to review the project. Yhis was done at that date in preparation for the Apri7
and May review of the develaprrrent p7an itseif.
Qn Aprit 27, 1979 the Planning and £nvironmental Commission cvnducted a preliminary
~ review of the Cascade Village prflposal. Of rtote in this review was the acknowledge-
ment that there were approximately 17 acres involved along with two apprnximately
'ti: • ~
SDD4 -2w 6/6/84
f~
one--acre-parcels zoned for b and 7 units, respectively. Also aiscussed was the
praposa] regarding on-site employee hoUSing for the project and the low rise
nature of the bui7ding heights. On May 22, 1979, the PEC held a public hearing
for two requests. One, approval af the development plah for Cascade Village,
and two, to en7arge Deveiopment Area A to include the 1.25 acre Rabbins tract.
- It was noted in the statf memorandum that the new acreage in the Area A now
totaled 18.078 acres which, of course, inc7Uded the Robb3ns tract zoned far 7
units at the time. i'his deve3opment p7an was subsequently approved by the
Planning and Environmental Commission and Town Council.
II. IS5UES IN 1979 RD0P7'ION OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN
The sing7e major issue in the appraval process of the development plan af 7979
was the creation of athird vi7Tage far Vail with respect to the amount of cam-
mercial proposed and the educational/learning center proposed. It was felt by
the planning staff that the creation of such a third majnr village could negatively
impact the bus system, road system and other services within the comm[anity. There
was aiso a questioning of the relationshzp between the proposed hotel with the
educational/learning center. The staff felt the iearning center shouid be con-
strUCted before the hateT and that tne applicant had not convinced thE staf-F that
the necessary linic between the hotel and the learning center would ever be estab- ~
lished. Other staff concerns centered around the intersection of Westhaven Drive
with Sauth Frontage Road, aecess to the excluded Casgriff parcel, providing onty
ane access point to the entire area, and 1astly, the overa7T size and mass of
~ the parkTng structure and hotel in reiation to the frontage road as we17 as to
other bui7dings on the site and the duplex iots to the 5outh.
The Planning and Environmental Commission agreed in part and.disagreed in part
with the staff's recomnendations and concerns. The PEC felt 21,700 square feet
of commercial ta be acceptabTe to the project. Mr. Norris explained to the..
commission that more specific information on the potential users af the learning
center and the relationship of the hotel to the learning center wauld be forth-
coming, he agreed to dedication of stream tract and easements for bicycle paths,
he agreed to work with the Highway Department to provide aleft hand turning lane
and acceleratian and deceleration ]anes on the South Frontage Road,,and fina7ly agreed ~
to pravide access to the excluded Cosgriff parcel. Concerning an outdoor recrea-
tion area, the P1anning and Environmental Commission felt Tt was not necessary ta the project, contrary to the planning staff recommendation. Final1y, Mr. 'Norris agreed to the pravision of a bus sheIter and turn-araund on the project
site. EmpTayee housing was an integral part af the development pian discussion in May of 1979. The proposal at that time was for 32 renta3 units of approximate7y
$50 square feet each on the site with the possibil7ty of using industrial revenue
bonds to construct that housing. The timing for the empioyee housing project
was represented as the second year of constructiorr, but earlier if possible.
~ III. THE RE UEST
Andy Norris has submitted the attached ietter to the Community Development Depart- ment concerning the request and his reasons for his current proposaT.
SDq4 -3- 6/6/84
•'4
- { Summar,y and Discussion 4f Request
~ In summary, Mr. Norris is requesting to reprogram the remaining development
of Cascade Viilage in order to fulfi3l a marketing program whlch they
feel will be succcssful for the development and the Vail Community. Rndy's
letter does a good job of outlining what they feel the necessary ingredients
to such a successful program are.
They are, with regard to density, asking for the ariginal density af
15 dweliing units per acre ta he applied at this point to both the 1.25
acre Robbiros parcel which was annexed to the SDD in 1979, and for the
1.045 acre Cosgriff parceT proposed to be annexed with this current request.
Moreover, they feei the 37,000 square feet of cnmmercial is a necessity
to the deve7opment program to provide for support retail to the type
of c7ientele they are attempting to attract. ,
Qther parts of the request not addressed in the above letter are: A
revfsion to the emplayee housing provision and at the urging of the p7anning
staff, revising the he3ght regulat3on to become cansistent with the existing
height definition as wcll as cleaning up and up--dat-ing the entire eight
year o7d SDD ordinance. Finally, wYth additiona7 density and commercial,
the park9ng requirements for Rrea A must be revised.
~ IV. RELA7ED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN: FOCUS 19$5
With such a major conceptual change proposed for Cascade Viliage, it 7s important that we look to the Community Action Pian -For guidance and criteria
to evaluate this proposaT. The fallowing are excerpts from various secttons
of the plan which are important in reviewing this SDD plan amendment:
A. Statement of Purpose .
' Polic,y. Ta recognize that Vail is moving quickly from an eeonamy based on
1. recreatian and real estate to a mature resort community with a stronger ,
more diverse economic and socia7 base. Marketing the communit_y
and rovidin service to uests remains extremel im ortant. ~
Palicy To recognize and strengthen Vail's principaT products and services:
2. -8usiness and professianal meetings B. Social/Cuitural/£ducationa] Considerations
P61icy Vai7 shauld improve as an educational and intellectuaT center:
3.
-Promote semTnars and eanferences
-Develop faciiities to provide for these activities
~
. ° 5DD4 -4- 6/6/84
~.t . -
I R
C. Economic Cansiderations
' PoTicy The summer season shauTd be significantly developed and promoted.
I 3.
-Maximize current summer programs, opportunities and faci7ities.
-Study new summer programs, opportunities and facilities.
--Set up marketing programs to promote the summer season.
Policy 7he shoulder seasons alsa shou7d be sYgnifi_cantly devel.oped and promoted.
4. ,
-Ex and shoulder season educationaT and cultural activities.
--Encouraqe compiimentary alternative business.
-Fdentif and romote fl ortunitiesforrecreatian, sho in , etc.
Policy Study the feasibiTity of an economic deve7opment commission to organize
5. efffl rts to direct thTS activity.
-Study the feasibil9ty of buiTding a convention facility
-Define the ro7e of municipal government in ecanomic development
It is evident that the Camrr[unity Action P7an strongly promotes the type of
~ project which the appTicants are proposing. The plan Ys cal7ing out for
faciTities to aliow 11ai7 to become a year-round resort along with the marketing
and pramotion of those faci7ities as well as expiaring a71 passible avenues
of economic deveiopment for the community. With this 3n mind, the proposai
represents the willingness of a major private sector entity within the CDmmUn7ty
to accamplish these goals and objectives within the Community RctiQn Plan.
Furthermore, with regard to defining the ro7e of municipal government in
economic deveTopment, certainly one of those roles wouTd be agreeable p7an-
ning and iand use regulations whert economic development activities in concert
with the communities overail gaa7s and abjectives are proposed.
~
SDQ4 -5W 6/6/84
, ~ .
_ v
~ V . STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Develapment Department is highly supportive, with same
minor exceptions, of this proposal to amend the Cascade Village portion
of 5peciai Development District 4. We feel strongly that the proposal
-is in concert with the community's goals and objectives as out7ined in
the Community Action Plan. We are of the opinion that when the private
. sectar steps forward in this manner to accomplish what couTd be a signifi-
cant contributian to the economic development of the Vaii community, that
the municipal gavenment shouTd be highly supportive. The additianal density
requested is praposed to be put into accammodatian units sa that a sufficient
number of accammodations can be located on site in order ta accflmp7ish
the objectives of the overa7l 7uxury destination resort pian. It only
makes sense that accompanying that criticaT mass of density is a commercial
support system of a sufficient size and nature to work with and campTement
. this overali goaT.
We do, however, feel that the aspects of parking, employee housing, and
fireplaces, need to be seriously addressed at this paint in time. 7he
parking must be sufficient on the site to take care of this project's
demands. The zoning code ca37s for 484 spaces, and we feel strongiy that
this number should be met. Currently the structure is appraved at 435
parking spaces, and we wou7d expect the applicant to either expand the
structure or provide other surface parking distributed throughout the
~ project to sUpplement that ntamber. There must be provision for empioyee
hausing on this project. Whether or not the empioyee housing is on site
is prabably not criticai ta the success of the project, but certainly
on-site emp7oyee housing for the Westin Hotei is the best solution. The
final section of the revised 5DD ordinance state5 that the developer shall
provTde 20 dweiTing units for long-term rentais to employees ofi the project
on an on-going basis. We feel th7s to be the minimum acceptab7e requirement.
The proposai for 18 firepTaces within accommodation units is not acceptable
to the staff at this time. We feel strongly that we shouTd recagnize
and deal with the Tawn of Vail's air poiiution problems and laok closely
at the precedent setting nature of granting this request. Furthermore,
within the last severa7 years the fireplace ordinance was revised to remove ~the variance section which means that to grant this request would require
amending the firepZace ardinance. The marketing impartance of firepiaces
within 7uxury accommodativn units can be fuTfilled with the provision .
of gas fireplaces.
We also feel that it is very important to the safety and the circuiatian
system into and from the project that aleft-turn lane on South Frorttage "
Road 6e provided for this third majar village af Vai1.
In conclusion the pTanning staff is excited about the revised development
plan for Cascade Vi71age and its potentiai to fulfii7 stated community
goals and objectives. With the provisions nated above, this project can
be a tremendous asset to the carnmunity of Vail and launch Cascade Vi7lage
~ into the competitive market of destination resorts around the country.
Our recommendations are written into the enclosed revised and updated
Specia] Develapment District 4 Ordznance.
~~i~ f~ _ i ' yt h`~ , 1 ,,'t:: t.~.*,'1''~rYy,}: -_rt~ L' '...b ' ~ t ~r #-`ir ~ F ~ ~ ' fl a ~ ~r+ y r } e 1~ ;r:~1`'' ~{_{a{r,{~'"1 ~t ~,'Tl"}±{'~
YI~Y. -V:q~~[~~.
E)
4
'4 °y.
T~ ~~'t~Y i,', q3}~p
S. a
y+,1F' a4~x,i ~ si an'?~ , i G r 7S 4 ttc f f s.flt'Y h7 yy r?h' s"S ?t tti ~ t ~a, ~~d€'"..'~ f!~ ~w
.:1, =(r`,~„~~~Y~S.
y~+~ ~ Fi ~l+j 4
- h • ,~i, r. t e°W r j, ' j` a~ l.t . fa ~ ~ r °~'1 r~ i ~ ~ ~ ~ f., n. #.~i ~ 1.~
~Yh n ,
¢'~;i,y,i.yt,C ~,:~i~;~~.a~_~o.,r1,~ ' a ~«t,Y~,~
,.~?1,{('~,y:. ,7~~' •H~~F~ ~S~U.! aY~~~ ~tl'kY y~ v1K~ ~.~i,
111'.,a;'~r° •X~Y
~ .
~A Det"elvpmerit of riiansfeld ~s~' +4 ~`~34P~'`~`~f~~1~ar'
~ i (•Z~1n~:~ YS', - s' - ~t~w-- ~ ~ ~ i- " ' , p~3h
~ *rn ~ ••t~~ ~'r~ {x~ti,,.,x.s Ra~'~A~, ;>.W, '~:o + '~,.,u~c~'y`Frk ~ it> w ,~.,,t,9t^ ~•r#'.^..+~ .,tr~
Z h~5~ 1(' ~ e) r,1~ \9 { I f,J. -~~If ~g'J Y .`i ~ i!',11~~N~}rgqi ~ h~i} J~ i~LU ; 5~~', r` t
-~F 1~A,~}, fi~~~~~$•C~ii.;~~.~ i~~~ 5j~t ! 3r'.~~.s~~ f~~'57~~~ n~~~ S- i,s~e l~~~4if ~w ~Cf 1~,~D 4• 3 s ~ d ,y17 S" ¢..4i i L~~ ~F
"~~t . 4s,~..s~q r}~~~` a z! x • ~~W..~ ~ ~~,~}~ti e s r rl~~,.?..;^l: ~Y~.e'~~>. -P # , r' i ,3<~ ~ , r, ! ?E ~'~F?~ ~;.,x g rti~ r ~
rhr ' ,vti' r'i'~ y p ; s _ ~s' s.~ ' ~ ~_Z~ t p?;~, , ,}Y, s a • a ,s~' ~C'~~,~:u
~i5 ~~~r~V01
h'~,~..~
~ 1~'•`t<. z'~~~' tiYs"' ~ `1S't
y'•,` w. 1 7 5t s~~*.~ f
~f
,~~i
984 v
~res:1~~,~i:~;,',L'JCL3T G ,o.f a,c ra~ t~$ f r9s xrStist^,f, 7 lM ss ! r~~a x~.• 's.
l
51
d, r~' -~'Y ~~~,.•'S~~ s~~ ~f~S~ ~ . u. D 'p ~ f., y:
1)1~
~{s~,h ;a!~.,hf'~p `l
ta.~;x yFr
L' 4t 'f;lxs i;~ ~~i?y~:~ iM . , ~.+l;t - r,Y - a s 'f.. •-ro> ~ J ' ~
r'`~'(.J~t~ f[~•{+• ~ 4,~ a' ~ ! 5' ~r~ , '~!~ix S~ ,t~ }~Y ~ kr~~c~
:.~~i ~r ~ Peter Patteri, ~Tvwn ~ of Vai.I eq ~ k~~.~JN4
.
a
xµ+~~ i K f 1r~iki ;°-i '~1i+-~4,''".''!.•' 7 - - ~ R.d o pe ;:ku~~ ~~YS F•'S.' 4 °~S c~ ~ ~ ~ i_.
~ ~~?i x . ~
LR'4,'~~~~' ~SS 4 ~ 4 -jgF~3 ~j
N21,
~Fiv',~~i1..~.~=r~v5~~'.., e^~.. M11~ x~: .1~1 NOT'r1.S
. ~ }l~~".~ ,
RE Developn~ent~ Programs forxetail fac3 l~.ties a.t Casca
c3e Villa~e
( b 1
7Xw4
, rr- f,~i ~ .d~ '.IF rn .~t 'r. ~~r, t , as_, d~ 1 5r ~~~~s~ ri~ °E _
d;r Wi:i: ,if}4i rs '
4xy~,,~~4 ~.'r;. ';~r . s G s •,s`i;~ a,. ~ s;iQ~t~a~~ s-,`~,.,,a 7•~ ,t~~:~ fr~ ~ a.;~,#~
1.~.~,r;~jA~,f~j
;`h
SRSyl~ hf ` •7~! - ~ :i ~ J.,_?.' -~r= y v ~'t , t r ~ z~~ ~ i i F x^4 a ~ _ ~'r ~ ry5":Y" '.~~~t.5"~ = t~~~`~~ ~~~C~r-ik
r ,i }'f~,i.:3,~ ~ • , y;Poi L }-~a f '~~~,s ~'i
f i° s~,. ~`;~-M~ ~ .t~~a•~'L i ~ R'~'1..`~~~'~;~~)fi~.r~;~ ~
1:~4 ~w a ~'n• sr K 4 ~ F 1 r~ - ~ ; '3 r a ~i tr(r.~'.. ?~S l ~ - ~ `
Y- : ~=S
+
*~pyy~;;~~~~
"•:~~'F"~~t~~ '~j~~r~~T' ~
F.~ [ r ~i,,$ :'zt- •~y.'t; v ~ 4~;'s ,.1 i f f~ ;v t r~ X ~~T i~ ~ Y ~r„~ . ~ ~m
~i~:.
~ y;~~~~"• ~~fSs .~-i a..r - Sx, P• ir~'~,~'tl r ~ -p i aa ~1fu ~r`~I~'"rjqY'ryj'7,a"3'-~~'~~. ~ -~e rt4,Y~ d8~ s t4~
~ ~ . ~ ~ i ~ r - 4::,'•, . r , :s, #t, ~n , ~x yt ~ t~- nr_
~ a~ , ~ ~ ' , ' ~ , , , ~ , ~ . ~4 ~ ,d•~ - , - ' 6 ~ i i 3~ ' E«, ri i
,I sf4 si ,
F.am tha earliest deve~.a~nn~ri~'p~.armu~ in 1978-I979:: it has a~.waysi5"~
beeri e objec~ive to crea~e
ncZ ud a self-con~ained crm~~,r,; ~y., Cascade , Vi~.lage
'~rCon.sequently, p~.ans zed a''co~Iete ho~e~. facil~ty 'restaurantssports
~ ;
~r~} t'~"^
: ;s3~ ~5 ~ b4~'> faci3.i~ies , reside~r.tial candomin:i_tIIns 1
, and liTnited retai.1 facili.~zes
, q.~ ,~P `~~Y ,~wr! t • _ ~
-ti.a.lly, it c~ras e~ected that tha I~tel would be able to actv.eve
ke ac~qttate
[;~~7r~tS,~;econc~.c rest~.ts based upan the ' ~ansient gaest mart xzi Vail.~
t~ ~F~ r,~.
~''~,~~•r`~s~~};;;,.Th~e e=eri.ence at the Ft
Westin ~Iotel (an.d otter co~aaxable Drouart~.es)
,;~~~,d 'has ~a.de it c~.ear that 'the transient market i.s 'inad.eqva.te ~and xtv.zch too Q 1'~~~~~~fl~~~~*~"'
~ ~~~~a~seasox~a7. to s~port ful.1 servi.ce, : fixst-c~.ass ho~Cels. A
~ .Canseq,tten.tly.; up ~~f`b~~~:.
~ - _ ' - ,
.Aio: b0/o af occ anc ~st be attracted from the arv~ btlsinESS markets ~ ~
~
; ~~Ta provide t'he faci.lzties th~.t-~11 enable the Cdes~in ta
~~,,`liotels t1trotghout the natian, 'soine l.rocli.fieatians to the re~a.lX713~
rii~ent ~program at Cascade,Village.~.are ri
'ecessary. =..'ThESe es ~a.re r`equx.red
intfree areas : :rl} gt~est~ raams, 2) ~ ~eting facilities a3i~..
-
Y A ,z' l • t ;t= s ~ t, Y.t .ki.,~' ~ ~ ~
f. 1!5~. ~i,~ ~ ~R ~ IN-R-0, r~}t~ .x~'R'~ti~r~ r~' yi~ `Y'%•• f.`,y"~ ,~[~!v 7 : ~..t
~ t ~ [ ilflaRj A~
03A Y , L'~ ~s ~ ~ + ~~~~1
;w~ F~,, .~t• z~a~k ~ ~ ' i
~
[ILJF~ST iWIA'h7 ~;.`P~ ;~^:~lf~~.9y,F,e3~•,~y~ ~ : ' .:~a',,~ t~~ . ~ ~s ~ iJ- g _
,P~af~^F~-~~; ~a'.s'~{~
;:1Y'?.4€~~i s~`fl~~~i~~~~~1~ • ~~3~~~t~~~~''~ ~,~,i~~~~~'',~, r - y ,5~ ,a.
r,
F~~~` :.~~;:,Zr?a.tia11Y, the 'Hotel was ,Prograr.r.~ed to„ incluc~ 15(} .,~Cyp~.ca~:'. hotel roaa~s
~(~C00 , sq ft. plUS ~ exclusivs manage~:~n.t over ari~ `additia~c~a~. 62 . coridai~aizi.t~n~.
;u~ii.ts, each.
, inix~g : p1. ca, ancl. `parlor
~~`:cdmpl.etio.i, the developmesi~;.woiald provide a` hate1 r~iith 336 "k,~ys„ '~p1us
~~M ~il
.4ti.62 parYors This mix was be3~~.eved ,~to~~ be . opta mE~ for wha~ was 'expected ~o
be` a ~g,west 'profile tha.t "inc1~~d a sig~u.fic.an.t -proportion"of amilies
~~'The cand,omini~nns 3n 'the'QW Bui.icling'%re canstru~cted to a.''~."
~ cconmoc~ate
~',~~k ro.~-~+am.
P t~^ ~ir'.~ ~~~'~,.'~S~ ~~~t&E~ 'T'
,A-cAne raciical c~es ui the ma~ket `tlza~~occuxred',~nthe~..~eaz,:Y.,::~.~ s
80's~..;~ ,t
required 'a`"re-evaluation of the'"~tYest'r`.`oc~.~ program. _ . ` Y ~in9``°° ,i.
:C orpor ate~~
~~;~~'~~senunars'beca~e the mst"ampor~.~ ~xn~~t't'hat could appreciate and''afford
~~Va.i~,. ,'"-Very few family-oriented guest rocr~i stxites wo ed~' -
requir in.:the
u~d be
#'~-';future,,-altlwugh carporate meeti.ngs typi.caXly inwlve spouses,"°:~o h'~~e~. .
~.`K~~1r~~.percent 'of double-occupancy . i:s realized :,~e guest roors 'eNpansian"~rogram
far Ca.scade Vi.I1age
/Westin has beenchanged to ac~opt 'to tihe 'corparate g,rouP .
: .
~,:imarke~. `Candaminzta~type i~.i.~s;.~,~3ncl.uding ~:itchezts,..,are`being; rep~..aced by
' ~ -
~;aver-sized typica gexators
Z gu~est roon~s; - including wet baxs, refri, `~.d
;balconies, For co~etir~,ve' purposesa li.m7.ted ntiber of fireplaces
rec}uested (accorcling lo ac~aal Westin ex~er{i~nc~s 3 a^~v'~agil
~y+1•4! ~ i~' q~k gt q ~ ~y •t ~y 1: k'<~i:; , t~ ) ~ t'~~t' -~3.~~ ,M,~;~, 3': ~s a~~ i h< y a fF~ ~'^,fr~~'x`tlhiwri °~~y~ ~ p # D13~~
'pj~ I}5 -Y~ .h-~__j,,~1~ ~ ~ '-GXay.~Y~~~ / ~';Ti 1`{ w AV ~ ~ ilr~~,'~'~e~.:`,~a[~ 'M~ Mj ~ i~k j~~V~~1I~r~k~ 'k +~•~f~.,'~f' {p 4~Y'. y% ~
-71yP_},(n- ~1~i. ^-J~~: 1 's, t: ~ ~4' L h l3 td' { 'e i. .Y r.,i~ ~ s r"th~:r.~rn~~,,,~-~ _ ~I~ - ~ Y~Q f ~ti~xt P~3;~ Y'~~~~~-~~~y}~
, ~pom Marur In Gener~t! Pm7rrer lOi00 Sou11~ Fronta e Rorul Wesf ` 4y ~ F,u,
,,;:~?~*~^~,.~t'• , , . ~.r , . , .`4 ~-.~t.~_:.- . ,.z. . ..~-+.,J-.~.~~ ~K .~u~ ~ ~ g ~ a:f, ,Col~'crdo ~'I~~ _ . .
A_~.~„~-,t11~i'
I:'~s~ ~ ~f y' 6 S ' t ~F{ ~ S"~,~ ~'S!~ ~SH ~ti.;;~ t J f'~ri, jf ~ .+r~~; , { 3 f, S y1 ,t~ y'~, r.3i,~:F;P,~~~~f; .v: ~a~3t~y}~~~.~ ~ fi~ ii~'Y3 ~ l,,d. ~ ~j,~5,'~t'~!~~} k •~G~ ~ ,f~
'.rrl,'.f.~~~~{~,.i.•'~'~'~-;1r..,aia h . l;It~ -Vt~•i.~. T ~~`..y:: '!»~1~'- h„rr~.lf~ ~~~11. 'k' y~. ' ~ ,S' ?'~'i~r,t.rc .\-r.~t.F•(1.~s"'„~^A='~'~: d ' Ot -'1:~v`;k,p~ f i1~5'S'~'I;,~i`Y, Y'ZS~~~F`~
1 ~ F" ~ 1 { G ~ ) V ~ .:e 7 ,t5 ~b~ ~r 1,ft,~f.
~ _.l t A.~~74r Y 1' i.,~ • ~1:}i~`,:4~• ' f~ 5 d~
` >r~.~.~-'>~t. ,~IISf 'j, F~^{.w~,'- < V ~Y ~1 ~.i- A ,P ,~,n. ;r~ i,q- r.t•.'l;~ ~~F ny,.-J;.tsr~ ~~r r t„i
^y ` ~ fu. . ~ ~p,y i . a t5 1 2 t, ~y ~ < <.Y s 1~ 1 ~~w' , Yi
JA
.{lSSn
: 3- w' r'S•~ ~w~ ~ ` ..=f, •~~,5.J ~ S..Ii~'r,' }.t 5 ~ .7~ ~ lt . ~ v ~ i4 4.~
.1, •3~,•.a'~i.1~^~y~ p
/~•1'~, ,kb 4~k ~at~5~'~' ~',x~~y~~r1~',~; ~;~.1~
{''!-y ~,a'~~x_: ~33~h
'lE
NI4Y 25,~ ~.984 PE1~R PA2~.'EL~T > ~ IPAGE 2
J },~;is' ~ 1`,{ ;r ~ ~ ~~~J, i~ rc 'j s ~tia: 4 ~,i,. i ti, ,~tt~:. ,•ti~~.. ~,;.A,• i,.; ~ ~ .~'~'!~7}~`~~ ~S~"'•i.E
• ~5~.~!~, ~~.,~~}'s . ~'~'~'~`fi" ~~5 ,.(~....,~'r v,, r <r~ , „i, ~y,~~ , r..,t ~ 1d gk}'~:~ ~ r~ j,b'i, f ,ir h~ ~~}~lsr r, 4 f.~
,."!i~''. ;''$f~ .
:;rv ,i n,, .sh,,4'~l~ x• r~~•~~ ~~y~~f~l~y~ ~
w~A.~,x~i4{~{1~.~ c.,YV~ ~n.~1:1r.,1~Eiir~',U~~ i~.i,;.{`y, ~.~;.J,,i~.'•~fV~f~i i<5,r.5 E-n• ~i-t!':, ',.}Y,.{A# ) 1 fP'' ~
S~
t
~r i~ ~r~ :,5. . (4 .1 i j~ r~~~',.~yr.iS, r;h~''~~f~ ; :t3 ~ - 1. i,n~~ ;~ait wr ?b-q '~r, 4, f )~ba; ~~r
[ f . , ~
f~ ,i , si t ~i .'t ~ . ~ ~ ~ ,v~ ~n~t` ~l~ , a 1ft~L g- r { 5i ~ -i ~ 1r j. ~ y'r.,~.s~P•c~
'i~g ~y~5c i,~,Ita~.~' .
;~'ia1~1,~ I' 1~~ ~';~:r~'.•1~ri'•,~':'~ L°x;:,~r t 4 '~ii ~ ,'1,: w' ! ` k 'ti(~t'~.f4
y,,i{
sl~~,~~;'~
~~'~f'?~t`,~.b~.1ity of gu~est roo~? fireplaces ~.s ane of three Lrost u~partant,: requests by
" i IF: ~E"' _ fh
' it~'corporate meeti~ plarmers boal~ duri.r.,~ winter rmnths) :'At ,co~le~.xan
~ ~,~.~a .;tofta.I ol~ 160 addi.tional guest rooms .,wi.3.I be added to thef exi.sting 130
• t
'^~.1.t~.:;~ 3y,.[ , i~; ~fS l ~ Y1. S~}-
1W s
. ~e ly v~ ~.';~3y~~, ~4 i ! 8„ f.~,~i.~ .,~~~r;.. •a i~ ~~f u~' ~.,t l , ~ r, ~ i~`i'.i. t~, ,y~1', ~ ~S F ri A ~rp ~
~F.~ ~f'~~.k~ .11: ~ F~, ~i u};'C(i5,7~4•~•~ ?~3. ~ 4,~F f;i~~Aj<< tFi3`
a~ ~T ,~A. k~ ~r j fi -c ~ ..~:_f~•,.~ ~-a-'t.i l'i~', - ~s k~ n C;FV.if2s .I ~~,.e`f
.7{ ~n°. T^J~~ x~ :t~l ~ ~ ~ F~ •~,a~3~,°h. ,.~:~~~,`i€ r~ ~ 47 ~'"3 ~ -~'..3i~ 1 ,'~r`I's'il rx, i~7 s ~ i . k ~ - k~, !Cp`.:~~~•rA
F'3~5, "Ir~ r }':r ' hl~, i ~'v = i tr'J
~ ~ 7:~... t l~ti~ `:4'. ~;,ti, ;w~~;-..~'t13 ~ ,ri i.; $~~,~.c~r~r,t~ .,~~,,t
L~~y.t,,~~
ci. ,:s~~~'v i ~ 'i~'x tic ~ii~ 1a •~i, 6 GY ~ ~l~",~
~r~ ~.r
~
~i~ { t~,~ MEETLdG FACII~ZT~S 1•
. In
~.•~~,r ~y it,i rp~ ~F..l Sw '#~~~Y~#~}El,'l~~y: ! ~j,pp?a.t~e i,
'.~~~F, ~i;`~f,C~`,,t~:t;t,•i~A~. d.~,~
~ ~~'~~5,~''~:'~.,a;~'Yy,~Cl+_,`~4s~•f.~~~~tio-:._r~rl:J~'~,~.~,~U SvSVSi,~.h;y4,•{'E-~{,6,~~4f~~S~~~E~~~;t~1'~rtrf~~3,"r i-~,~f 4'3~+~
L: F1,~;~.m~~:~~S~~t
~~,•~,~5,,,he. ~rii~i_a1 ~ket pro~ra~' for th.e HoteI `amticipated a`~i.~ed xequa~.re
~rit for" neet ui9 facilities. : ;'Ihe 'facilities w~.thin the 24C ~S~ldirg coulcl
be C shared with the Colleae and could adequately suprooxt` a"lamited a,3aunt of
~ ~•ki~ 1~~ S" ~ . - - , . kt'"!!' $L•.~ S ' ' _
~r. y~-.o~ busaszess For reasons mezZtio~aied earlier the gio~el h~.s' been re i.i.red
~l 4T ' -F' l~9+ tY
to,aggressively pramte y ~ze grcnup markets. ;,The existixig OTC.facilities are
!
as to size, access, ;and quality of f~rnis~i~s coicLingly, a;~s
!,A'smajar can~'erence facili~-Y has been ~.axmed for the Pl.aza. Buil
. , P dino
T 1,,,4kj-F'addition, iipgrading of d
~e C.~~ facili~ties tvi11 oce~ in. °.Uhe , si.i~Mer of 19$4 , t~'~''~~~~
i he Plaza facilities wi1.1 enp1~.s~.ze, im~etings ; rather ~han . banquets ;Detai.~.- ~~~fi~''~ ~ ' ~ rrf
lrig 1riCl11C~5 r1C'[1 fiSk]..SZ1eS1 i 8U.C17.O-t7iSU3l ecrua.pns.~tf ~ and' caz~.venience or
t~ ee;~~'
, j ~11]N'£ i'~ ;A }~fin.ish~}
r,~~~ f~ N,the cot~ferences. kitchen wi1.I be included 7
, aithough fwa pro
7{~ /~~~..r~~~p~ry~y~-~1
du~ctzon tiaill be,provi..cied by t-1~e Westi.r~.'s CC:iL}.Ll6l ~1Z}-44..~~Cll(A 41:+~5~
~ ~ ~?kirf t ~a': .h4~M
~ 'd.,;,.
4 n r. , t ~ ~'e 3 h~ r~~ d;>>
,s,~7 ~'~~4 _,F ~~,~i'.i~>.,ti f~y~ ~:'•F) -7,
-.sYr F!'~,~f ~ # ,Ii,S~ 57i i~ ZI ~a1
i,"f~'`~~ r f:t"il;e,c;rl:,- t}53. t,a;. ~r,.~'e• 5<'-~:'~ -,-7- r ~r"d~.a,~.,,~~n3,a-E- .,1.~,~'~Yi~ t~r~l~.~i i~ ~:l~ar.~',r., :{;~t--~fv-'~its~~ ,,'i~'t~~ ~~;~~~iur~ln~:-(F.,.
'in
<i,~c.,r ,.'.:r.: : (.~f ~ ! ' _ir. F<: ~ ;,~,:y,~,~.:~~,f k u a~ i1~ ir t 1 +f.~, ";,n"_' !1'f. t7. ? S '.~~r;r:i..~'~~`~ ~ `:r~•}z'ka7`; ~c~.~' ,7t
y ~~r{~/~ .,e. 1 ;,s-ri=.~ 'S '~s: •«r._ 7.~~aY e'-,r 1 ti4x .ks•'=
b?tz.~r sf,~h~
~.e} ~ .'rtr'J~1~ ,w` ~ p
x rt ~'~.4~
'<4st \~,!`~~i ~.l I~ 'trrY c '_Y' ~ -r
i; ' N f~ iwellr.
,,Y~
~Y ~ ~ 4 r', ~ t~ E r .H.' ~ , 4,r.~..,~ i'ff,,..3 ~ r.} ..1 f;.-.J,( ~ " ' i~il _ er . } ir•~ ~Y;' S~).' i3 ( , 47 { •.c .1:`'.. ~n y s 7•S~' i !t~i~
i}~ hi. ~1~. s ? ' hE~~i - .r ~r,~, - ~ 1~ r, n H~~)~~r.Y.. "~~~f ' s ~ 'v ~ 1 ~ ~k,'?i1 ~
.~~~ir 3 .f ir ~ •t~< < r`r:. ~•_~.'u
u t ~ x7'~ a,n t~3'-r ' „ , ' r "~'•r:2•, t~.r ~'>'•;~J"a~,; r..`~, ,r..,l ~ri tR~~ ~
~A very~ important criteriaa ~ `cited by metirig plarmers A.n se~ectuzg
resort/meatin.g hotel i.s availabi~.it~ of , cam~alete retail~ ciL-~ties ~zs ~
f~,~~ ~~,n.',~„reqi~~rn~nt. recogu.zes the hi~.h percent `'of snouses attenciing : these' i metugs N, v,~r
,Iz:nv~; F- ~ .
~ii T°-,fu]-lill this requi.ren-knt, it is necessary to .tave ~a sufficient amount of
9~~`~~'~ i;to' a~.tract a certa.in diversa.ty, '~d qva7.ity ot ;inerchandise
~;'~~`~~a3so ~ma~~an~ tha.~ ~.'~e cleve~.oper cor~trol. ~ze~ 1eas~s` to ir~~e.year ra~d
~ ~.f;.•' . _ ' ' _ ~ ~ ~~r r - 4F
~arya'Peratxans and qua,litY• ~~~F~'z=~~`~~~y'~~.-~~~;
rev.i.s ed re~a.il p~cog^a~ at Cas cade Vyl1age is to not'ac~d addit~ori~.~.
t~~.
fu11-service restaurants or gen.eral retaz~.,A'•, bu-c ~rather a si:+a~~., ~'carefull.y~., y~ .
desi~ed~, shopping faci.~.ity; ; '.prnvid.u~g `spec3.a].ty.~; proclucts for th6° guest and~`
~~residen.L of Cascacl~ Vi~.1a~e. 's~,Shops generally felt to be 'a?r~ropriate"`~o~;
~~thi.s cox:cept 3nclucle: ,`books~Core,
~ a~rt.~gallery, wine and liquor,speci~7,.ty-
-F;,-. :
i~r...
delica~esse.n, ~ leather gaods, ;and ifts. 6With' Pepi. Sports alreacty 'iri.:place
A~ ~noadditiona1 xueed for sport~;'gon~,s`orsportscaear isexnected.'.''~ p`.
14.. ;J ~Exclusive-.o~' .,,~i~ 1 ~
` H~otel and Cascade , `C~.i~ accessory' uses , SD~ iiic txed
. 1 - •
~aana~. xetaatl/resta, ~ant.. of ' 2I, 700 s r
q `revlsed keta-~.1~:-p`rogra1a .,F_
provzdes a`~ota7_ of 33, 770 . sq:`~r`fti: o~rwlza.c~~i `2,160 sq:ft. "'cou~d'be~"included':=.
as We~3ness. Cent~x offic~s . in the Cascade Club. e 1.9, 000 gross° square
~'feetto be iricluded in 'the PlazaBui.l,cansidered b . ~.c ycm td
~jan intematianally recn.ized consttlting ,fi
rin tci be the n~ni ~M
~necessary to support a`succe'ss~'-ul albeit lirnited xe'EA1{,.facil3.ty: 4
F` portion of , the space ~y be ` alloca~ed to :`smaY1 of~i.ces , such f a~~ravel
~'y. ~$~agency, ,,'rea1. ~ esta.te, `and prapertY mana, ~ement i'~r;=~~~~ ~~~~~~~~`~s~~r~r,,~',~_~~
k~As oziginally pragra~ed; the ` com:~rc~.ai' activities of Cascade ~lil.la~e;
~{are designed to suQport a 340 room hotel and approxunately 165 rsi&ntia1 t.,
LS C:Lr
'Yll~~,~~„l.il.li,~ ~.il.l..~W.~t\
J rt~' ~ '•i~~,'rt'4 ~ t ~ st~
i~ v {iyex ~,c 'tat ~Y s S 3 r ei
! '~s6e~,~,y~'~.'; n1~~~r':.~. ~ ~ ~ti -r -y .~.;T,.tir~, ~s~ ,i .•9': {Pfp' ~.F,~+~`r~~ ~f ~i~r~;?~~ .'4s'~_!}fil
~ ~
t a 1 d3 ~ .,,6 Y• ~P ~ ~E3i?,~ ~~iyt ~
- ~s .k.•_r¢,~.1:~~~
~?~A~
'a--~~FJI~ r,~v c'4 lah; ? Y^.V.~. :"r k {'1i('s ~e;.p~#;,1~ ~S'k~ fF`.'.°h $i ' 'x7iE~s.~~~'' { ~5~4''~.''; / ,¢'V,
L 7 » - - i~i~s 4 tf'~4 : f ~ § _~r'- f.~ _'s~r~,. 1 i~ ~1~a.F ~~k
-i.}, i~l41Y~L.; ,~i»S~ i ,~,Yh•+t-~~ ~~N+kj1 k~'s'-',,~.',.lt.-~ '~3- ~~SY~~~7~Ji ~Hsy~ia ' j~-f +~4''~'t.~.{~.-:lf.~kkn~~~(~~ 3 7
'~,"St•'h s ~ ,4 ; - ~y{~f ~'~n •.~7~;(r;+'. ,-j ~,~~~~rrL j S,`~~ ~4~.rY~-r t ~{~~9WS ~~~lr- f~ 5~
,'A ~ I'r a x. s EV ~•i,~' ~~~S'~ s'~ d~'e., fy'Y ~~-~.S"'i:;'{'.~fL `4G r r ~ n.. r.'
S t ' i,~ i, S • ti""q~ ~ k " ~4' I~ f f~ 4;: '!Ig 'P,' : ~
.-!x'r~se'~ ' iY~ri~,k,, i t~6~,~i"T'?a~~3~y .~t~~-:q~',;t'~£_{ ~~~~~f5~~~7?P~~~;,f~~%,Ai~1~~1~,~':~`k. ~.''b~, 7~ ° ~.fx;:~,•s ~6°' t '
~'i'{!'k+y'[y 1s~ ~1 X~t ~~r- " ~V„ ~ t ~ - ~ ik 77~3 ~ r r Z fri~3~c ~ S' g~ t r ~gl; I ~ ~yY~~ ~3 r~ ~.w • ~ .
3 fc~t'~ ~ ; ,r, Y .i',.='~w s --.,~-~%•-~i.'~ fi~ ~f~ .rr~i~~. 4 g~~w Lr3~'~ i~ ~R
,t~ r r r~a ~t• ,~F x~ r;~ ~a t
.:~c.-°.k.r~:FF'.,i'7?'N,',)L~i}~4~i I~~.~ , •:':~~:-X~ inndJ7+a ~:.r.xa 'k1,9.~'v-•rf~~~ is'w1' .~7.6`L~'~ ,1jdl,±Sv k~i"_ti`«E~;15'~aaa^~~r.~i>lt~?.{'~C+?Cy~wa~~y~~i ~7.~:,"~,_~ ~ . . ,
MEMORANDUM
• T0: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1984
SUBJEC7: Request far exterior aiteration for meeting room facility at the
Antlers Ladge in Lionshead. Applicant: Bud Benedict
; I. BACKGROUND
Last February at ajoint meeting of Planning and Environmental Commission
and Town Council, Bud Benedict presented his request for a parking exception
in arder to construct additional conference and meeting room space. This
request before you today is one for the exterior aiteration apprava7 under
the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Rlan, while the specific parking exception
request would be a separate application which wou1d go to Town Council
for approval by resalution. 7he reason this request must go thraugh ex-
terior alteration is that they are removing four parking spaces in their
underground garage to be replaeed elsewhere on site. Th3s constitutes
a creation af f1oar area which the code says must go through the exteriar
alteratian process.
• Ii. 7HE REQUEST
The request is to improve and expand the existing meeting and food services
faci1-ities far the Antlers Hotel in an attempt to attract more sma17 group
business to the Antlers. The proposed addition of ineeting space would
be located on the lower parking 1evel and a17 exterior wa11s, windows,
doors, etc. wouid not be altered. The additian would not be v3sible to
the public due to its 1ocation.
III. COMPLIANCE WITN THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE FLAN
The proposal substantialTy complies with the Vail Linnshead Urban Design
Guide Plan and, in fact, has very 1itt1e ta no impact upon the Design
Considerat7ons for the Lionshead area.
IV. ZONING CONSIDERATIQNS
Ai] zoning considerations with the exception of parking and loading are
complied with by the proposa1. Again, the parking cansiderations will
be reviewed by the Town Council under the parking exception process if
this application is approved.
~
- ~ Antlers -2- 7/8/84
~ V. RELATED POLICIES TN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTTON PLAN
7here are many policies within the Gommunity Actian Plan which promote
the creation and marketing of facilities for group business and it is fe1t
that this wi1l complement the existing ecanomy of the community. We agree
with this direction and support this proposal.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The Community Development Department recommends approva1 0f the exteriar
alteration request for expansion of ineeting room facilities for the Antlers.
We find the proposal comp1les with the Vaii tionshead Urban Design Guide
Plan as weil as the pol7cies cantained within VaiT's Community Action Plan.
i
!
i ,
I
MEMORANDUM
i
T0: Planning and Environmental Cammissian
FROM: Community Development Department
QATE: June 6, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a variance frnm required cvvered parking to add a
secnndary unit on a lot less than 15,000 square feet.
Applicant: Alberto Martinez
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
This applicatian is to add a secondary unit ta an existing single fami1y residence.
The lot is 8,400 square feet and zaned Primary/Secondary. Section 18.131080 of
the zoning code allaws for a secondary unit an Tots less than 75,000 sqUare feet
if certain criteria are met. One of these requirements is that 50% of required
parking be enclosed. 7he applicant is requesting a variance fram this requirement.
Another requ9rement of Section 18.13.080 is that no variances be granted unless
they improve the visual appearance of the site. The applicant contends that adding
a garage to this site would downgrade the visual appearance of the lot and that
surface parking is a better alternative.
, CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Cr3teria and Findings, Section 18.62060 of the Municipal Code,
the Communit Deve1o ment De artment recommends denia7 of the re uested variance
based upon the following factors:_
Consideration of Factars
The reZationshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otential uses
and structures Zn the vicinit .
Existing deve7opment in the area is primarily residential. A characteristic of
deveTopment in this area is a noticeab7e lack af enclosed parking. To grant this
variance would result in no change to existing conditions in the neighbarhood.
If a garage were to be constructed, it wou7d improve the general appearance of
the area by enclosing parked cars. There is no apparent reason why a garage
cauld nat be constructed on this lat.
The deqree to which rellef from the strict or litera1 interpretation and enforcement
of a s ecified re ulation is necessar to achieve com atibi3it and uniformit
of treatment amonq sites in the vicinitv or to attain the objectives of this tit1e
without grant of special privilege_.
To grant this variance wou1d be a grant of special privi7ege. 7he existing parking
•
' Martinez -2- 6/6/84
area on the lot could accammodate a garage that wau1d benefit the site as well
. as the neighborhoad. It shau7d be noted that a similar request on a nelghboring
property was unanimously denied by the PEC in 1981.
The effect of the re uested variance on7i ht and air, distribution of o ulatian,
trans ortation and traffic facilities, ubiic facilities and uti1ities, and
up blic safet .
There are no s7gnificant effects on any of these issues.
Re1ated Policies in Vail's Cammuni~ Action Plan
This proposaT is reiated to two e1ements of the.section on Community Design. 7hese
are:
#2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should
be encauraged.
#5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property awners and the
Tawn
To approve this variance would be 7nconsistent with these objectives, while the
construction of a garage would be in keeping with goals as outlined by the CAP.
~ FINDINGS
~ 7he Planning and Environmental Commission shalrt maice the fallowing findings befor~
granting a variance: ~ ~
That the granting of the variance wi17 not const7tute a grant of specia1 priv7lege
inconsTStent with the limitations on other properties cTassified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance w3l] not be detrimental to the pub1ic hea7th,
safety, or weTfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
1'hat the variance is warranted far one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulatian
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this titie.
There are exceptzons or extraardinary circumstances ar conditions app7icable to
the site of the variance that do not app7y generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literaT interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wau7d deprive the app7icant of prfvileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in the same district.
STAFF REC4MMENDATIONS
~ Since the annexation of the West Vail area, it has been an objective of the Town
to improve the area's aesthet7cs. One means for addressing this has been to encourage
enc7osed parking faciZities. This proposal is not consistent with this objective
and our recommendation is for deniai. The sta-Ff wou7d encourage the app7icant to
StUdy the site further to investigate a7ternatives for siting a garage. .
. .
~
•
.
~ ~
~
~ .
• ~ `
~
~ ~
~
~ - ~ , 7
, ~ ~
. i ~ ~ ~
. ~ /
,
~ i ~ ~
_
_
, ~
~
~ ~ /
. ~ ~~sr~~ , ` ~
i ~ ~
•
~ , 5.~~
~ % ~
;
~ ~ , .
\
/
~ ~ / ~
~ ° /
~fa~! ~ ~
~
~ G ~ /
' _-'C! ` ~ l~
/ ~1;"yG ~~`-:.r ~ ,
/ , 2 i k, ~ ~ ~
3 - :
~ { ,
~ I ~~I 'f (~f~
~ ' ` -~I
1 ~ `-lC ~ ~ ;
I t
1;
; ~
~ ~ /
;1
~ f /
• ~ ` j '
- _ i~ ~ .
- - , -
- - . 1
~
~ ~ ~ '
~ _ ~
y 5 I
MEMORANDUM
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Request to rezone Lot 6, B1ock 7, Lionsrjdge F71ing 4 from Single
Family to Residential Cluster and a request for Special Develapment
District 14 for the above lot and Lots A1, A2 and A3; also a request
for a minor subd7vision in order ta combine these 4 7ats into one.
Also, a request for a variance to the hazard regulations to a11ow
buildings to be located on s1opes of 40% and above for lots 6 and
A3. This is a revision and expansion of the Architerra-at-Va31 project
approved in 1951 now to be ca1led Bonne Vue.
Applicant: Reinforced Earth Campany
1. BACKGROUND
In June of 1981 the Reinforced Earth Company applied for and received a
variance (from PEC and Council) to Section 18.69.040 (no bui1ding al1owed
on 40% slope or more) of the Vail Municipal Code which granted approval
to construct 13 earth-sheltered dwel1ing units upon Lots A7 and A2, Lions-
ridge Su6division, Filing 1. The applicants naw wish to revise the previous
approval and expand the project. The purpase of this environmental impact
~ report is to present new and updated information regarding expansion of
the prevously approved development. This expansion consists of the additYOn
of property adjacent to the development both on the east and west. The
results of the expansion are the addition to the development of three (3)
dwel3ing units and a clubhouse/recreational faci7ity containing a manager's
unit (applicant has agreed to standard employee unit restrictions). This
facility contains a Tounge area, a ski storage and maintenance area, and,
on the iower level a garage area which wi1l help to facilitate service
to the project. Adjacent to the recreational building, a swimming pool
has been provided (see site plan in Exhibit 1).
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed dwell3ng units wi17 be constructed direct7y 7nta the hillside
using the hi1lside itself for support and insulation (see Exhibits 2 and
3). The design is well suited for hillside development and incorporates
the same proven soils engineer3ng technology, Reinforced Earth, as did
the previously approved Architerra Project. This technoiogy, describeid
in detail in Sectian V vf the EiR provides an architectural land farm
capable af stablizing hillside conditions.
The site plan for Bonne Vue is attached (see Exhibit 1). 7he arrangement
of units consists of graupings of attached dwellings of two and three
units tagether. There are two unit types; a convex unit and a cancave
~
Banne Vue -2- 6/7/84
~ un3t. The architectural design cantained in the Appendix is typical af
' • both unit types.
One of the major ehanges in the design af the project since its initial
: approval in 1981 has been the architectural design of the units themselves.
The units have been altered Accordingly:
A. Entrances--the entrances have been changed from the side to the front.
Im act•
The impact af these changes are:
1. Reduces the excessive sidewall
2. Incorporates structure more effectively into the hill.
3. Lends itse1f to more naturai landscaping.
B. Greenhauses--the greenhouses have been reduced to smalT glass encTosures
located beneath the parapet.
Im act:
1. Reduces visual impaet of glass and glare
2. Reduces problems that may be encountered with snow and ice.
C. Unit Design--the units have been designed to retain the curved fiascia,
~ but with a rectilinear interior design.
Im act:
l. A continuaus 5-curved fascia that fits nicely into the landscape.
2. R smaller parapet that reduces the visua7 impact.
3. Rectangular rooms that are more functional and easier to construct.
4. S7oping sidewalls made with exposed aggregate that blends with
the naturai color of the soil.
5. Outside stairs constructed with stones that b3end with iandscape.
These unit design changes were reviewed by both the Planning and Environ-
mental Commission and the Design Review Board in 7982 and endorsed
very highly.
Construction of the units will take place by excavation of a hole
into the hi1lside extending from the front of the unit to a point
beyond the rear wali of the unit. 7he Reinforced Earth metal strips
will be set on layers of compacted granular fiTl which will be placed
in the excavation behZnd the wall. Six or eight structural strips,
in two rows of three or four strips, will support each concrete wali
panel, which will be 4 or 6 feet in width and with height as required
by the terrain.
The Bonne Vue units will incorparate passive so7ar and earth-integrated
concepts. These features will provide for efficient use of energy
~
• Bonne Vue -3- 6/7/84
~
I and economical living for the residents. Other benefits tv the resi-
i~ dents include physical 7solation, privacy, naise reduction, greater
open space and usable land, minimization of the effects of weather
i and autside temperature, fire-proaf construction, and Tong projected
life.
The site p1an for the project has been greatly enhanced due ta the
additional praperties acquired an the east and west of the site. The
portion of the site which once contained a1l 13 dwel7ing units now
has only 7 units situated upon it plus the recreational bui7ding.
This has freed up much of the site for open space and landscaping
and minimized much re-grading of the site.
Access to the development wi31 be from 5andstone Drive, and a dr.ive
accessing the individual units will traverse the site to both the
east and west boundaries.
III. ZONING INFORMATION
The Bonne Vue site consists of Lots A1, A2, and A3 of Lionsridge
Subdivision, Filing 1 and Lot 6, Block 1, Lionsridge Subdivision
Fi7ing 4. Lots A1-3 are zoned Residential C1u5ter, and Lot 6 is zoned
Single Fami1y Residentia7. The proposaT is to re-zone the property
to a Special Development District with an underlying zone district
of Residentia1 Cluster. An analysis of the Residential Cluster zoning
information is contained in Table 1.
~
TABL.E Z
Total Area Under (RC) No. Units
Lot Area 40% S1ope GRFA A17owed Ailowed
A1, A21 2.59 ac. 2.21 ac. 24,067 sq ft 13
A3 .944 ac .364 ac 3,964 sq ft 22
6 .727 ac .17 ac 1,848 sq ft T+ 13
Totais: 29,879 sq ft 16 + 1
Nates: 1. Lats Ai and A2 have been previousTy combined into one
parcel and approved by PEC.
2. Lot A3 is restr7cted ta a maximum of 2 dwelling units
by ordinance.
3. Lot 6, Black 1, Lionsridge 4 was zoned Single Fami3y
Residential plus the opportunity to add an emp1oyee long--
~ term rental unit under Ordinance 73, 1981 (see Exhibit 4).
Bonne Vue -4- 6/7/84
~ TABLE I
Bonne Vue Deve3opment
Total Number Dwelling Units: 16
Total GRFA: 29,879
Total S1te Area: 4.26 acres
Tata1 Area Less than 40% Slope: 2.595 acres
Total number enc1osed parking spaces: 34
~ IV. 40% SLOPE VARIANCE
The following is an excerpt fram the June 4, 7987 staff inemarandum to
PEC regarding the previous request for a 40% slope variance:
" 40l Slope Variance_
This is the first request for relief to construct residential units
on slopes of 40% or more in the Town. The applicant fee3s that the
technfllogy and construction techniques involved in the Architerra/
Reinforced Earth system specifically adapt themse7ves to very steep
slopes and that the finished praduct actually improves the stabilization
of the hillside. I will review this request first addressing the aEaster
hazard ordinance and secondly, with regard to the normal factors by
which we review variance requests. This request can be made under
Section 18.69.060 which states that variances to the master hazard
ordinance can be appTied for under the usual rules and regulations.
Moreover, Section 78.69.060 0f the hazard ordinance states that the
'master hazard plans may be altered fram time to time to confarm with
new infarmation or existing conditions." Thus, 7t was the intent of
the ardinance that it not be a concrete document, that new technologies
or changing conditions should be recognized as possible exceptians.'
In the same section as the abave quote, the ordinance states, `The
~ purpose of the master hazard plan is to identify and alleviate present
and future problems created by the construction of improvements in
the hazard areas within the Town by means of presenting in an arderly
fashion the general data and information which are essentia1 ta the
understanding of the relationship between the hazards and improvements
located within said areas.'
8onne Vue -5- 6/7/84
This points to the potential problems of constructing improvements in
~ 40% slope areas. 40% slope was chosen because the studies the ordinance
was based upon generaTly cancluded that that was the point at which
potential environmental and site planning problems accurred. However,
these studies were not able ta fully study how earth-sheitered housing
and its associated technologies would affect these steep slopes.
`The Enviranmental Impact Repart (on Page S-1) for the project states that:
'The propased units will be constructed directly into the hillside
us7ng tne hillside itself for support and insulation. The design
is weil suited for difficult-to-develop hillsides thrnugh the use
of a proven soi7s engineering technology, Reinforced Earth, (descrzbed
in detai1 in Appendix A). This technology provides an architectural landfarm capable of stabilizing hillside conditions and thereby a1lowing
for flexibility in the site p7an design.'
7he staff has no reasons to believe that the abave c1aim is not true.
The track record is one of success for both Architerra and Reinforced
Earth Company.
CRITERTA AND FINQINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the munici aI
code, the Communit Devela ment De artment recnmmends a roval of tha
re uested var7ance based u on the followin factors:
~ Consideration af Factors:
The relationshi of the re uested variance ta other existin or otential
uses and structures in the vicinit .
The praject whould not have any negative effects on other properties.
During construction, the erosion and sedimentation contro1s proposed
in the EIR shauld be strictly followed so that adjacent downhill properties
are not adversely affected.
The deqree to which relief from the strict or 7iteral interpretation
and enforeement of a s ecified re ulation is necessar ta achieve com-
patibilitv and unYforrnitv of treatment amonq sites in the vicznity or
to attain the ob'ectives of this title without rant of secia1 rivile e.
This, of course, is the crux of the issue. The staff feels strongiy
that granting of this variance would not be a special privilege (refer
to the abave discussion addressing the hazard ordinance). This is a
unTque proposaT for a site which is appropriate for applying the specific
techno1ogy being proposed. Earth-sheltered housing is increasing in
popularity, and other sim7lar propasa1s would get the same consideration
this one has recelved. Earth-she1tered 'housing affords some very sig-
nificant energy-cost sav7ngs and often provides dlfficu7t-ta-develop
sites with a workable solution. If conventional hou5ing were being
proposed, the staff wauld mast likely recommend denial.
.
8onne Vue -6- 6/7/84
The effect of the requested variance on liqht and air, distributian
• of o ulation, trans ortation and traffic faciTities, ub1ic facilities
and utilities, and public safety.
-The on3y relevant factor here would be publ3c safety in terms of the
hillside stabi1ity. Again, we feei that the technology invo7ved can
work on that h1llside and that stability of the s1ope will not be a
prablem.
RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the 40%
slope variance request for Architerra at 11ai1. We feel very posltively
about the project and feel the developers are a competent group who
can make this project work. The ever-changing technologies in the
housing construction industry must be recognized. The 7ong term energy
prob1ems of our country must be recagnized, and we as a staff must be
flexible and open to new ideas. We back with enthusiasm this project."
1984 RECOMMENOATION ON SLOPE VARIANCE
We don't feel that anything has changed with the new proposal 3n re1atian
ta the above statements. We recommend approval of the slope variance
to be expanded ta Lot 6 and Lot A-3.
~
V. MINOR SUBDIVTSION
1'he staff feels that the m7nor subdivisian approval meets the criteria
outlined in Section 17.76.110 af the Subdivision Regulations, and we
recommend approval of the minor subdivision request to make these 4 1ots
into one.
VI. SPECIAL DEVELOpMENT DTSTRICT RE UEST
A. REASON FOR SDD RE UEST
The applicants are request-ing an SDD because there exists two different
under1ying zone districtson the properties invalved (RC and 5FR).
They wish ta have a uniform underlying zone of RC for the SDD to have
cansistent development standards and to avoid canfusion over the zoning.
B. DENSITY PROPOSAL
The density proposed is consistent with the existing aI1owabie on
these parcels. No increase in number of units is requested. The
GRFA is actually being reduced by 2195 square feet over the total
~ a7lawable, inciuding the empToyee/caretaker unit. The SpD provides
site planning f7exibility and a detaiTed review and adoption of the
development plan, apprapriate for this specific praposal.
Bonne Vue -7- 6/7/84
C. SQD DESIGN STANDARDS
~ The following is an analysis of how the project meets the design stan-
dards criteria (Section 18.40.080) for SDa proposals:
1. Buffer Zane
The project is basical7y consistent with the densities of adjacent
projects and technically is not a high-density praject located
adjacent to low-density residentia7 use districts. The topography
of the s1te is such that actual dwe11ing un7ts are significantly
separated bath by distance and by a landscape buffer from the
; dwell:ing units across the road to the south. Open space areas
are located to the east and narth af the site. Sing1e fami1y
lots are lacated to the west of the site and are not negatively
impacted by the project due to the low density and a 70 foot setback
which has been provided on the western praperty boundary.
2. Circulation System
The circu7ation system has been designed for the type of traffic
expected to be generated by the site and the needs of emergency
vehicles.
3. Open 5pace
~ The p1an has provided areas of open space far the purpose of landscaping,
preservation of views, snow storage areas, and recreational features.
4. Privac
The needs of individuals, fami7ies, and neighbors in terms of
privacy have been met.
5. Building Type
The bui]dtng type has been the greatest cancern of the project,
and the appropriateness of the buildings to the site is the major
factor in the success of the develapment.
6. Building Design
The building design is most apprapriate far the sfte. The orientation,
spacing, materials, color and texture all b7end inta the hil7side.
Al1 exterior walls will be af a colar to match the earth tone
o.f the site. Maximizaton of salar exposure is akey factor in
the design of the units.
7. Landscaping
The landscaping of the total site has been designed to enhance
the area and serves several purposes including visual screening
~
' Bonne Vue -8- 6/7/84
of wa71s, wind breaks, erosion control, revegetation, and visual
~ enhancement of the area. The area now 7s currently scarred with
various road cuts, and minima1,,vegetation other than sage exists.
The final product will be maintained by a full time on-site manager
and wi7l be an enhancement to the neighborhood.
D. DEVELOPMENT STANDARQS
; 1. Lot Area
7he lvts in the SDD and total acreage shall be as follows:
Lots A-l, A-2, and A-3, Block A, Liansridge Subdivision, according
to the plat recorded in Book 215 at Page 648 in the office of
the Eagle County Calorado, C1erk and Recorder (Clerk's Records),
and Lot 6, Block 7, Lionsridge SubdivTSion Fi1ing No. 4, according
to the map recorded in the Clerk's Records. The tata7 area af
the four iots is 4.2676 acres, more or 7ess.
2. Setbacks
Setbacks shall be as indicated on the development plan, excep,t
that there shall be a front setback of 20 feet adjacent ta Sandstone
Drive.
~ 3. Hei ht
Maximum height shall be 33 feet.
4. Densit Control
A maximum of 17 units shall be a7Towed. Qne of the 17 units shall
be a manager's unit restricted to the regu7atians prescribed in
Section 18,13.080(B) 10(a-d) of the Vail Municipal Zaning Cade.
No more than 30,000 square feet af GRFA shall be allawed.
5. Site Coveraqe and Lan_dsca in
Site coverage and landscaping shall be as indicated on the deve7op-
ment p7an.
6. Pa~ rking
Each dwelling unit shall have an attached two-car garage, p1us
there shall be a minimum of nine surface spaces w3thin the project
as indicated on the development plan. No parking shall be Iocated
in a f'ront setback area.
0
' Bonne Vue -9- 6/7/84
~ 7. Perm3tted, Conditional and Accessory Uses
a. Permitted Uses
7he foilowing uses sha7l be permitted in the RC district:
1) 59ngle-fami1y residentiaT dwel3ings
2} Two-family residential dwellings
3) Mu3t3p1e-family resident7al dwe717ngs, inc1uding attached
or row dwellings and condam7nium dwellings with no more
than 4 units in any new building.
b. Conditianal Uses
The fol7owing canditional uses shal1 be permitted in the RC
d7strict, subject to issuance of a canditional use permit
7n accardance with the provisians of Chapter 18.60:
T) Public utility and public service uses
2) ! P!ubl,icl bufldings, gtrounds~ and`facilftjes
3} Public or private schools
~ 4} Pub1ic pa:rk,and recreation facilities
5) Ski lifts and taws
6) Private clubs
c. Accessorty Uses
The fallowing accessory uses shall be permitted in the RC
district:
1} Private greenhouses, toolsheds, p7ayhauses, attached garages
or carports, swimming poals, patios, or recreation facilities
customarily incidental to single-family, two-family or
low-density multiple-fami7y residential uses
2) Home occupations, subject to issuance of a hame occupation
permit in accordance with the provisions of Sections 18.58.130
through 18.58.190
3) Other uses custamarily incidental and accessory to pemitted
or conditianal uses, and necessary for the aperation thereof
~
. . Bonne Vue -10- 6/7/84
~ VII. STAFF RECQMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval af the various
requests for SDD 14. We were disappointed that the original praject
was not constructed, as we believe it to be a beneficial develapment
ta the Town. There is a certain amount of faith in the proposed earth-
sheltered housing technology inualved with our suppart, but we fee7 that
these applicants hawe dEmonstrated the3r ability to perform. Earth-
sheltered housing is a technology and housing type which is 5uitable
for our energy deticient future. It also b1ends in aesthetically very
well with its surroundings and presents very minima1 visual hi7lside
impact once it and the iandscaping are camp7eted. We sincere7y hope
the project will mare forward to construction from this point.
Conditions of approva1:
1. The Enviranmental Impact Report for Bonne Vue by Berridge Associates,
Inc. dated May 4, 1984 shall be followed throughnut the course of
the project.
2. Rockfall mitigation as recommended in Woodward-Clyde Consu1tants'
letter ta Ranald A. Todd dated May 9, 1980 (Exhibit 5) be campleted
(certification of completion as per the letter to be received by
the Community Development Department) before a building permit is
issued for the project.
~ 3. Sectians 18.40.040(C)(C)(E) af the SDD Chapter of the Vai3 Zoning
Code regarding fol7owing the development, amendments to the deveTopment
plan and Design Review Board review shall apply to the project.
4. Section 18.40.100 (A)(6) of the SDD Chapter of the 7own of Vail Zoning
Code shall app1y regarding time requlrements for construction of
the SQD.
~
~ .~~H
, ti
;
~1 , •
gJ(.
. ~~S ;c~~~~'U, .S ,
Y ~ +
4 {.i
~ Vk
. .
.
~ . s~ .
,
. , ,
• ~ C
_ ~ 1 t
1 ~L , . ~ % ' CZ3 ,
cC {[4L\ . ,
E ~ 1
u""~ ~e°f r~ ~ 7 tz ~ i
0
,il
4
~ . EXKIBIT 2.
~ • ~
! F ~1~
.
l,, 4 t~•3 , i
, ~,'.ICs~W~G. v, ~ - •t-'.*-- + ~~T
F ! ~ti" ~ ~Fry,`~
. ' •~~x+y'~f 4~w :i 1~~~/~„'~,~'~'ji__
65''•'~ -~S'' ~ ; ~ -
J .1~ J~?' • ~
~ \ , • ~ 'i,4'~!~
~ •
SF,
I ly~
L-
.
f r
s~ `o, • r
1 ~ ~it4 O 1*~ ~ ~ 1
~
oG n~~~ ~
. ~ -
~
. 'Z
6
. ;
. . . , .
~ ~ . ExHIalT 3.
~ r
~ ~ , / K, ' ~ •
.
~
~j~) ~ ~ ~ • I .
~ , ~
; y . .
~ • . .
, ' ~ ~i ;
~ ,4'' . •ti • 1, ,~~t~.
, ~ 'r.'? ~ ~i•'•y,~~ari ;Y;,y •t „
i l:.'..'.
} ~1~. ,yt~ .Ir'.~'SL:1' ~ i Fi
:1 '~~~,./~.'f ? ,:.'~.v ; r ~
' . :!:%Sil~' 't• ' . i?y~^ • .
r / ~'C . „ . ' :ti.i~:~~.:~t,'~' ' 1:;,1!~~. ,
, ~j',':,~'.~~~'~w'-. '4 ~4 . i
~ i,~• ~~•}aR.' ~1~ ' ~ (i,',,~y •ti~~~!~1'~,'.
~ •l~,..', ;,.;:;,,~ks,`~"`:,i'~.
: •;tii.:; ~ ~ •
, ~ , , , •
,~~1 ' , ,•V'~1+
r~~".~ ~~~I,~~ i~~ i~~~:~ ; •y' ~a~. ~+r`~ II I , ` .
;;4i,' • ~
,F ~I'• i;°'~ M~i:~~~,1
!1 - I~~ 'v -r• ' .
~ - f :.I:-;.
<
~
. ' .r+ t+~• ,
; • • r a
~x' { a .v
( ' R <<~..
I ~~~+N `A -:~'17~'~.:.'
I
• ~ y ~ r I~ I ~ i.
Y `
~I
l ti -
~ 4..
i • t'
I Y Y 1r •
ti JY~, ~ • ~ •~~t•'
, r~•\ ~ y'r~ 1-~', _ f J.r •
~
~ - • K ` ' ~l I ' 'i, . : i
a' ~T:~ i' ••..->,"''~~:~.ii.':r":;'~. -
•ti .^a.:~:.i~
r •
. . .
.
7 r-"'.. ~ • ij, ~ 1.:. ' t
: • ' '0e.~,:~~~~.. - ~ y'~ r~ 7~ r L. . r; '~~I ,,;:Lii,~,-9~t,',.:id~ a1 .
. , • L w~~~rY~~.- :,ily+f:'9 `.t. _ ••i::~}.i:'y~;;4 !Y;~.
. . • ~ •~Z_r, -N`:.'. ~
. ~ . . ~L~ I I ,1`• : ~l,.•^.~1: ~ .'.::,~~~;?•i:~..
• i'•~;C::` ~~~:nf•~~•.'' ''~e.~ :1 r~;~ ~ ~
, +~`T., _~'<::::s.. . _ '1j~;:;~',
' ' ' ' . . , 'y~ - ~a;," • . - ' ,
. , w~.•..,~'~. ~ ~f~
. . ~ ' . . ' • ( ]~~1"~•'=:f;•~;"'', '~t` ~•::f'.''
/ . . . . 1~~~~~I.' rl ~~l'..~ ~ '
•_~~u . • fti':'~ ;.:.•s
4 w.y,'~ , ~ . . ~7•': :
~fiar, a ~ ~ . ' .~1~ ~
_ ~~ir~ : ' •"~L.l:~t'i.i;~!• ..Y~1 Y :J::
`•i
r .~N aA ~Q; (
} ,~~,,,,•~1;.Y,i1 ~ ~1 ' ` ~.Iyt'1,~'•'k ~~'~~.i 1 y. v''S.yl~ r!
\ . •C~-fY'r l~~.~ ~ ~ ` . ~y~.'~' i +~.~c.
~ ~~i. i ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ r s' , , ' ? ~ . ~
~ • ,'~.'.y+•f r 1 .w: : i•:il: '
, . , ~ . ~ . , • . .r . ,E~a, . ,
• ' ' , EXHiBIT 4
CF~' _ i.
(4) tTail Ini;erincsuntain Swim a.nd Teiinis Club,
(5) Brzar Piktch, Lats G-2, G- 5 aizd G-6
Lzonsridge SuUdivisian Filing No. 2.
(g) Casa Del Sol Condominiums.
For anST roning pizrpose beyond the L'agle Cout3ty Cammissionezs ` approva,ls,
agreernents or actions, the developsnents and parcels of property specified
i
in f;hzs sLlbsection (e) shall be zoned Residential Clustex (RC).
,
f. Lz.onsridge Subdivision, Fili.ng Na. 9:, sla.a71 Ue subject to the
tezms of i.).Zis ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyaDd the Eagle Caunty
Comrr,issioners' appraval, agreernezit or action, this parcel of praperty
sha11 be zaned Single Fainily 7one Distxict ( SFR) with a speci.al pro-
vision t.hat an employee unit (as de-Eiiled and restricted in Section 18. 13_080
of the Vail Miinicapal Code) will be'subject ta a.ppzovals as p2r Section
18.13.080. The secardary uni.f; may not exceed one thizd of the to-tal
G,•ors Y,.isj dent ? a3 Floo~ J'Area (GIiNx) a.l1a,.%°ed a3j the 1ot as pnr the
Single I'a.mi1y 2,one Dastrict Density Cantrol (Section 1$.10.090 0f the
Vail Municipa1 Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Opeii Space (GNOS).
g. Lot G--4, Lionsridge Subd3visi.an, Fzling R~o. 2, has been the
subject af 1itigation ip the Disi,rict Caurt of Ea.g1e Cotxnt5r, arzci a Court
order has Ueen issuea regarding the c3eveZoPlrent of this propcrf,sl. `I`he
~,~:,=.L
T~3~tit~n l~~~s fiirtl~cr a~?~~=~oycd;.esolut~_on r5 oi 5:;~ zn regard ¢-o su se--
qtzent 2greement wii.h the oivner. Tlae Res~icienta.al CIus-i:er {RC) 7one
ll:istract will be the G;)z-)licable zone on this property f;o guide the
fiitiire cievel_opment olf the P.arceI, wor?aa.ng wz thin the bounds set by
~ the Court Ordez ano. Pc:scIui:ian No. 5, Scric;s of 1981.
e ;
, i
, cry.Jl+J VVI.'SI 'lll Awllill'. ~ ryq... w ~ff~ V R..
. - p 0 6n~c aD;36 ~~t~'~ti!"`~~'..^ya~'r~~~~'~
~~tV.~nts
DCnter Cn'~~~r~ai7o f~()~Cl-7 . ED
303 5,3 ,~9e2 EXNIBTT 5
` foAY 1380
May g, 1380
Mr. Ronald A. Tadd
Architect
P.O. Box 1753
Vail, Colorada 81657
Re: Engineera.ng Geologi.c Consultation, Lians Ridge
Subdivision, Filing No. 4, Vail, Calorado.
Job No. 20004-19570 '
Dear Mr. Todd :
This letter report wi11 canfirm engineering gealogic opinions .
given to you by the unc3ersigned during the couxse of his geo-
logic reconnai.ssance of Lions Ridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4,
on Friday, May 2, 1980. Dur abjective was to eva3.uate the ~
risk of rockfalJ.s from ledges cropping aut across the property
and to recommend a means to rec3uce that risk, if appropriate. ~
~ Filing No. 4, sztuated wittsin the 5W 1/4 SE 1/4, Sectzon l,
T. 5 S., R. 81 W., occupies a sector of the northern s].ape of
the Gore Creek Valley between Red 5andstone Czeek Val].ey on I
the east and Buffer Creek Valley an the west. Grounc3 .
elevation ranges from about 8200 feet at the southeastern
carner ot the filing to about 9480 £eet at the northwestern
corner of the fzling. we understand you propose to construct
single-family reszdential units within the southeastern tha.rd
ot this 43-acre oarcel.
~ Geologic conditians across this sector af the northern slope
of the Gore Creek Valley are relatively simple. Sedimentary
rock strata o€ the Minturn For-nation, mainly interbec3dea sand-
stnnes and shales, but including a few limestane units as
well, constitutes bedrock but, for the most'part, the strata
are blanketed by morainal sails acrass the lower auarter of
the fili.ng, and by slapewash safls acress the upper-three
quarters of the f iling. Within this f i.ling t1-,e bedrock strata
~
_ !,1' . _ ~ x~~
:
'oodward-Clyde Consultan#s ~
Mr. Rona].a A. Toda . ~f
.f
' May 9, 1980
Page 2 ~I
.
i
- strike nozth--northeastward and dip abaut 30 degrees wpst-
northwestward thus into, rather than out of, the hillszae. `
Wzthin the fzlirtg the hillside slopes generally from north--
w~stward to southeastward at about 1/2:1 to 2:1, although ~
varzations from that range local3y are comman.
Tt3e bedzock sfi.rata crop out as one cantinuous band farmi.ng a 5
to. 15-faot-high c1iff approxiinately paralleling eleva-tion
contour 8950 feet, and as several discontinuous bands forming
cliffs 5 ta 10 feet high between Elevations 8700 feet and
8470 feet. For t.he most part, that rock i~, well cemerated,
widely jointed 5andstones ranging fram thick bedded to thin or
flaggy bedded, but locally these sandstones include thin beds
of dar}c gray microcrystalline limestone that is moderately
hazd but very stronq. Wzth rare exception, the rock af thes2
various ledge-forming rock units appear to fae well knit
together and have not been appreciably eftected hy eraszonal
processes that in othex areas have resulted in detachment of
blocks fram similar ledges. We conclude from the evidence we
observed that the risk af rockfalls fxom these ledges, with
certain exceptians, i5 law. We would judge it, moreover, to ;
be.considerably lower than in many other sectors of the Gore
• Creek Valley. -'e
'i
'F'he excEptions to that evaJ.uation are few but are praminent. ;
Four blocks of 1imestone are loosely perched on the sandstflne !
ledye rtear the top and at the western boundary of the filing. ~
These blocks are 18 to 24 inches on a side and appear to be
balanced precariously. Two of those bldcks lie west of your
boundary in the neighboring tract, but if they shauld fall ~
they cauld travPl southeastward into your filing. Three other '
cubical blocks of rack lie loosely on the grouhc3 surface to
the west anc3 east of a rock outcrop in Lat 9, and a large slab ;
of rock is balanced precariously on a rock kraab near the ;
western boundary of the filing in the vicinity of
Slevation 8700 feet. Several other 1oose rock blocks were
r?oted during the course af our reconnaissance but we detached
those and 1et them roll clown the hi.llside where they no langer
constitute a rockfall hazard. We would suggest that you ~
follow that prac'Lice with the rest of the loase bloc3cs noted j;
above. Once thcse are removed, the r3sk of rockfalls shauld
remain .low for many years. We would be happy to help you with
that wark if you desire.
~ -
V-Jo ac~~a rd •Ctyde Consultants
• •
~
Mr. Ronald A. Todd
" May 9, 1980 . Pag e 3 'i
Tn sumrnary, E;e .1jel?eve that `he ris)c of rackfa].ls across'
Filing I~o. 4 is generally 1ow but could be improved by the
removal af 8 to 10 sma].l blocks of rock that appear to be
loosely perched on the hillside. Those constitute a high2r I
level of rockfall hazard but risk inherent to those indiva.c1ua1 j:
blocks cou].d be elirninated by pushing those blacks fLOm their
prcsent sites and allowing them to roll c3own the hill to a
natural Lesting place, Otherwise, the rock forming the •
several ledges and cliffs across the fi.].inq appears ta be
stable.
You a].so asked that we comme?it on the geotechnical feasibility
of the proposec3 300-foot-long eastern extension of XQux
praject access roads. Tnis raad would require a cut no more
than 10 feet high for a few tens of feet. 'she logs of .
tes; pits excavated in the vicinity by C}ien and Aasociates
earlier this year, and our awn observations, indicate that
less I~
$oils, mainly silts and sands, mantlzng bedrock should be
than 15 feet thick along the access road extension. '
Those soils sliould create na unusual cut slope or road founda- '
;
~ tion problems. Far your inzti.al designs, we suggest that you
(1) plan for l:1 cut slopes an the soil; (2) gian for drai.nage
ditches at the tops of slopes to catch Gaatez and to route it
around the slopes, and plan ta revegetate thase slapes
z«imediately, and (3) plan foz 1/4:1 slopes in the rack. E;
Revegetation not only should ma.nimize the visual impact of the
road cut, but aiso should improve cut-ban3C staba.lity. The
xaad base caarse and surface could be designed to accornmodate j
5ubsoil conditions evident at the time tt-Ze work is dane.
iti'e have appreciated the opportunity to wor}c with yau on this ~
project. If you have any questaons, or would like to discuss
any aspects of our report, please feel free ta ca1.1. ;
,
i
`
Yours truly, iewe bX•
, ~ ,
~ _ ~g~•
L' I ;£.s~~~~/~~~~;~j ' ~ ? ~ :a;r!'
`
Robt. J<~mes Irish Frank . I~olliday
Senior Associatc and Chief, Vice P esident ~
Geo7.ogy Divisian i
RJ1 . lfC '
i
(3 copies scnt) ~
~ . !
~
• ~ t 1 ~
Jr i z+ „r , ~7
• ~ ~tF~'~ /r ~ ~~~t- ;g ~ aL_
~ ~.NA~, ~.y te ~
t~y~+~2'~~ ~ r~~ - ~ t R~• i 't ,~.r
/ ~y~ ~ k j~ ~i r ~}M ~ ~ ' F.~ , ~ / " i,~~ ~
~ : ~ / ~ - ~i ~ r~,~ a ~'~y
, ~a.a !1 ?P ~ r~~ ,i f~~,_~~,~~„~ a ~ j ' ' ~Y 6.-~
~Y~.IE,~` .s•rr ~ti"~- . .
[ i=
• - , , i ; `1_ =J"•- ;-a' sr, ' •`n
~ ~~~q < < ~ ~ t t A'
.,M, w y~~ +~w"~~ V, , C ~•~Yrr I 1 ~'2~I~'`~ J . ~ ~ 1-~ ~
°}'w' ~ 4.,;j. ,5 rr~i c~'" F; ~ ~..~?'ir ~ ~ ~
~ ~ y'~, 4` ~ ~ 1 ~ }c'r'y ?~r} 1 ~ ~ ~
~1 ,'4~~ ~ r ~'`.~'1 ~~-..f , f 1~~ ~._„~->L i . ~ ~ ~
~
4 4 ~ 'r', P , v~ c~
~ 1, ~ i . c.~ •'~`.(t 6r , ' y;
~ ~ c 1~ ~ r ti ~ f ~r yay` ~
, ~,V.~ r•'~~`~:~,`~~:f ~ ~
~ ~ 1~ t`'~~ 1~~;, 4 i : Y, ~ , •,f
l ~ • i, f • rt , . , ; j ,
~ i ~ 1 ( ~ C ,l q'. ~ ~
~ t ~ ` . F
a~.rr ~ °r~ c- ~ 'i ; ' . a'~'`1 , i~,i LL . .
~t C i ~f L~e:;:~,li?.~:.. _
/ • . 4 ..i:', - y. ' I
~ 1 ~ ~ .i; ,~~~1.' .1 ~,~d`~
f ~ ~ / ~ i ' t_ 1~ . i °
! f c• • 1~,ti + • j : .
~ ~ ~`~c 4 ~ ~ `1 1. ;t~~~~:. - f
` ~ ~ . i ~ ~ ; __f
~ \
~ < : \ . ~ , f
~ i ' ~ . ~ 1 ,I ~l. ~Bt: j
i ~ ` f a ~ 4 ~ .
f e' 1
~ ~ .Y1,\ r ~!',~:.,,~i~~~, ~
4( r~~--~c ~ I• ~~rc r~'t~,' y,~ `f( , ,~,"r`x~I:.
` ~ r ~y ~`nr~ I i~S..jT~~:
1 _ ~ `~j~ C 1 -,?a -~~?s~1:1
( F ~ r. ~z.x. tt
- %1 C t14 ~f4~. .
6 • i ' ' k.~,' S ~
.'`l.r 't .tt (r ` r F ~~,5 M1 1'1 ,ti ~ .
t: S' F c~~~ n i.' _~1, ~ s
• , ~ ~~.`..~`":rE~°~ 11`: t ~F
~ r ' ~ ~'f ~ C: ~ i. ,t
~~1 i . L'~'{' ~',1, i...,J ,
~ ~~1~~~ ,
~
ti ~ ~ 'i s~, ,f ~ ~ : v ,
y e ~~I ~ .~f '
1' I ` ~ `1 t y 1 ~ ~ ~ {~,,1 ~ ~ ~'J `l 4 ~t
, r', i ; .i
r . ~ ~ ~1 ` 't •.;a ' `;3
.r l ~ 1 ~
j + ~ } `\\'Cl' ..S _
t ~ ~
C~ t.iJ I~hll • ~ ;li~:' .
_ - { ~ , -
~ ` `},~~(~qI
lf~~ l:, ~ ~ •ti ~ I
11 ~,~~\I ~ ~
, 1 \ ~ i, ,3` .~~~f~~'i.
~.':C
~ `.''~.~I ; > ~
: t~ :
f ( , , \ ~r _ ` ~ '
. \ ~ ~ YT
`~r ' 4•' ' 1~ 1 ''f'
~p~J~ Y`. ~
~ r~ ` ,
' p ~ ,~•t - ~ ~1'
j I f~ lF ' [J~ I 1 } 1' : ti
~ `,r 1: 4I , ` ,.~~52. •r$
~ 1`'. ~ 1 ~'t, ' .li
~ I f ~ \ iz~~ 1
~fi ~ ,
r
~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ _t ~t~.
F -~y
~ ~rt,_-~: . :
~,~~~t~
l~
~ G.?r
_1-7~,
0
~U. • }t- " 4 •
, • 7~ , r~t_ ~ _ ~ ' ? _
~ . ~ .
. . .
~ • ti_~~~ 1. 4
• ;-r i_~ '
, TO
1 Y`r' T :
• b ~tG
. • . .R' • 1 , ' ~ '
` J ~ ?
~ = Q A. d _ , fti ~T~ :a` ~p`Yl ~
r. ~ _ ' 1,-1'.~. . ra,,~' C~ ; ; : . ~ . `
. . - . ~ i ~ ~
T • ~•-1 b,~~~ ~ '
~ w~ ~ • , ,
0
q t.
. . ~y` ~ . • - ` 1 15
. ~
•
~ 4 ?-3''F~ , ~ -!r'°
~ ~ ~ r,• ~ • t~~~'~ „~-~,~.e.~ ~
~
. ~ ~
. ~
. ~
i ~ y • ~ ~ ~ , t ~
~
PA -
f_.~ • ' • • : ~ ~ - _
; . . ,
yp _ _ , s - •
~ z~~~ . I• c., m
. • ! ,f ~ ' l ~f 7 i .
~~r • , F~ - ~ ~
,
~ - . ~ ~ ~ - ~
1 ~ { ~ + nttrr~ ''r . ; ~ ~ ~~Y~ ~ / V ZtQ .
% l~ _ . ~.;;t::.U~.u~ ~ R :I~ S ~ j `~J}5 f ~ I ~
_ - .tt:~. . ~ `A ~ ~ ul~ *
~ - ',Sa,~~F h~ ~ v..' , ,V:~~ ~ I Z
f ' - 1~ . i ~ ~ F _ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~
1 J .'~i'V'! ;i "1 ' i =':I ~t • j . . ~
~ . . ':itiij~~' 'ad ~ \ ~ .,~y.J- ~ ~ `
. f -
~ ~ ~w-. - :~L•
~ti = - `I ' S4t • ~
. ~ l l . • ~ ~ ~ k - I
• 1:
\ ~ ff~-- Jl
119
. c~
~
.
~
,
.
_I
+aP I
- 6 'I
fJ ~ n , I
F-I r x d
( j'~ ~ ~ ' , • . 4~.1 ~
~1 ~ ^I
~
~
i <~'x + •
ef; {
' ,t f 5ur
Y*Y ~
..a`
~c' .-i ; r~
~ ° i 1 ~S ~a ~
~ 1 . - ` ~
, °~`3 - ~ ~ s _ ~,1
t ~ 1 . ~ ~ _ A ~ ~'W
Z~r
~ ~ ~ ~
~ ,s
~ ~J w
, ~
S
.
~ a . ~ ~II
Yy ~ c, y
~ ~ , m
~ --T- ~
~ ~ - -
~ ~ ~ ~
~,F
~ ~ ° ~ ' .
4; ~ _ .
5~' ti~-.-~-
, ~ ~ ~ ?
~ ~
5~
~ ~ ~ ~ _ a,5
~d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - x
~
~ ~z a~ -4'~~~ ,
1 J~ ~ T _ ' , j N "Y ~5
3 {c-+.5 ~ ,ti r...~' 1 7 k
ti~
a'F'~ o ~ ~ - t... . ~
~ 1 ~ ~ ~~4 ~E '
~
1, ~ ~
~
\ ,1 4 ~ ,S ' ~ ` '
x
~ ~
~ ' !i~~ + ~ i
_ t.
~ ~4 ~ ' .
, ,s~ ~ ~
-
~ _ - ~
{ ~ y~ .
- 4 ~ t ' '
Y:~
- ~
~=.,G.S I" ~x - _ _ ~ .
~ 5 }
~ µr ~ ° 4 ~
~ y
A Qy ~~,1 S I~y
~ . ~C ~ _ _ Ii ~ - .
~
1~ ~
-
1. -s - _ .
ss
~ ~ ~ ~q ~ .
4' ` ~ ~i . Y - -
~ lI ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ J 11 '
I , 1[ ~ ~ ~ r
~(y
Y ' ~ 'S''6 ~ " x C
~C~ ~ ~I± ~ Q _ - .i
n~
..a~ ~ . ' ~
1~ ~ ~v - , - .r~. ~
- ,-'1 ~ F . " ~
~ y ~
dY ' I~~j~~q ~~1 ~
~ ~ ~'.f ~ fi ~
, ~
' ~ ~
~ i ~ ~ ~ . l ~
;1 ~ ~ x
1 ~ - ;~32fl
t } - ~ '
I '
~ h I ~ ~ ~ :~e
~ I " ~
~ ~ _ 'a " + ~ ~ ~
, ~ ` ~ ? ' ' "d k
'j~ ~ ci y^~
~ . ` ' 1 - "4
~ ~I' Y ~ t ' 'a ~
~ y~ `h4
/~~y , r ~ . ~
~j ~k ~ v -
~T "~17s' ` ~F . V
~ _ ,
;
~
f I"~.
~ ,r '
r~~ ~'J
~
ZD
. ~
. ~ ~
~
~ , . '
~
~ •a
9 n
~
' ~ b+r yLi~ ' ~
•~~.~:,~f.
, . _ ,
S._
• .
1 j
. ,a .
~
e
I
MEMORANDUM
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
MoM: Commun,ty Deveiopment Department
DATE: June 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for exterior alteration of the Lionshead Arcade Suild-ing
at 483 West Lionshead Mall in order to remodeland reTocate the
entrance door of Canada's Real Estate. Applicant: Canada's af Vail
1. PROPOSAL
The application is fflr an exterior a7teration to the ground 1eve1, southeast
corner of the Lazier Suilding (Commercial Core II - Lionshead). 7he proposed
remodel will delete an existing door and three existing windows and replace
them with a"curved" sectlon of window wall. This new section of wall wi11
include a new "storefront" entrance door and faur new sections of window.
The addition deTetes appraximately 72 square feet fram the existing entry
~ amea. AT1 materials, window, and door treatments and stain colars shall match
the existing bu7lding co1ors. See attacned site plan and sketch.
Tfie applicant is remadel3ng the entry for the following reasons:
"The remode1 and relocation of the main entrance doar is in respanse ta the
~ new Vail Lionshead MaT1 design presently under construction. The present
south-facing entrance door is lacated direct7y opposite a walkway between
two existing p]anting berms. The new ma1T design maves the berms away from
the building, but places a new planting area directly opposite the existing
door. For greater visibility and the potential for more "walk-in" business,
the remodel relocates the door to the southeast corner af the building.
The main entrance to the commerciai space would then be opposite the 45°
waTkway between the new c3rcu1ar flag disp7ay and planting area."
II. CONlP1.IANCE WTTH THE CCII ZONE DISTRICT
The application is in comp1iance with the CCII zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE LIONSHEAD URBAN QESIGN GUZDE PI.AN
Stab-area concept 12 refers to the Lionshead Arcade and states:
An opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades, awnings, etc.
-to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercia1 facades.
The building 1s actually decreasing its entry facade. However, the new entry
will relate better to the new planting areas proposed in the Vail Lionshead
Ma11 design. The facade's transparency will be maintained, if not increased,
~ by the new windows and doors. The window treatment helps to further define
the ground floor pedestrian area.
~
,
Canada' s -2- 6/7/84
~ TV. URBAN DESTGN CONSIDERATIONS
1. Height and massing - not appl7cable
2. Roofs - not app]icable
3. Facades-Walls/Structure
C.1 Uertical wood Sld1f1g artd wood window and door treatment wi17 be used.
Wood is encouraged ta be used as a"primary material" in l.ionshead.
C.2 A11 wood surfaces are to be sta3ned to match the existing wood colors.
This complies exactly with the guideline.
C.3 AIl trim and muilions are to be stained dark brawn to match existing
which corresponds to the llrban Design Guide Considerat » n'. to use
darker earthtones for these areas.
C.4 It is suggested that materials be limited to 3 or less major types.
The applicant is using two wood stain colors.
4. Facades/Transparency
~
D.1 The UDC states that commercia7 facades should be proportionately more
transparent than upper floors. The ground flaar w-ill be more trans-
~ parent than the upper floor.
D.2 The design camplies with the Urban Des3gn Guide Consideration to
locate window sills no more than 78 inches from the walk level.
D.3 The window area substantially comprises the gound floor commercial
faeade and is c7ose to the suggested 70% transparency leve3,
D.4 The Urban Design GuYde Cansideratiorr. encourage window grouping.
The propasal camplies by creating two groupings of windaws an each
side of the remodel.
D.5 G7ass should be subdivided with joznts or mullions. New windows will
be added to delineate the entry. The treatment should create a
"progressively" more human scale.
D.6 Bay, bow and box windows are encouraged. Not applicabTe to this project.
0.7 Ciear glass to match existing gTass will be used. Frame materials
are to be stained dark brown to match existing. Design cQmpl-ies with
the llrban Des9gn Consideration
D.8 The new entry door is appraximately 40% transparent, 70% over the
minimum 30% transparency level.
~
~i
r Canada's -3- 6/7/84
~ D.9 7he "curved" wall of the praposed remodel w31i recess the entrance
an average two feet fram the existing facade plane. This treatment
is in compliance.
D.10 All locking and security systems will be similar to those on the existing
building which complies.
5. Decks and Patios: Not appiicab1e
6. Accent Elements: Not applicable
7. Landscape Elements: Nat applicable
' U. ZONZNG GODE C4NSIDERATIONS
No impact.
VI. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNTTY ACTION PLRN
The Community Actian Plan`s section on Community Design encourages the upgrading
af structur.es. This proposal supports the policy and also is trying to coor-
dinate with the overa7l Lionshead Improvement Program.
~ Policy 2:
"Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be
encouraged."
UII. STAFF RECOMMENDA7I0N
The Community DeveZopment Department recommends approval of the remodel.
The proposaT meets a majority af the Urban Design Considerations and
wilI improve the cflnneet3on between Canada'sentry area and the Lionshead
Mall.
~
.
~t~~~- a •`b -
- Ak
- nA ~
V-1
• d i r
~ ~ ~ I L '•~~~:i _
i
~ Lr" -71 3' ~ {
~
114
~ N..
,
~
1 I 'ti~ f f f a~ -}11~ .
• ~ - :'~i:~'y - ~ ~ ~ #;t Y; '
~nJI~.
- ~ ~ \ t ?T~ y~ r,`'.
_ ~ J~' ~ Z ~ :
-
I 1'~:.J ~ { t; •
L~`
I
9
~ _ ~ .
1 1:1
~ ~ ~ : •~;k~F I '
: .,•r, „ .
,
~
r
~r
IiMDJP- - r..... _ . . _ . - ~ ~~~~r {iti~.f ^asii<-d S
1 A~, , '.~~.>e,~, .x-.-:7r~I4~ 40Sd~9Lti•EO£ ~Oe~Iu~JL] " _ ~x~~ll~.''~,~
" ''....G;4w: ~99918 0C)'[1pA UOJ1DM Ilu}D)l - ~ _
':rr'.. • t'... ~ _ _ .~i~'i!~`~ -6~ . . /
•~P osao 88SZ ~i-
V OLEE XQG 'o'd 108444010
iaad,w pInnp - -
1~iti r k ~ U
Q
~Yy~_
s 4~ nl
' ; . " • ' . ~ .a . . . l_~
, . 1
~ ~ . ~ ' -
~DL / / ' r S~~
Y"-
n.
,
5~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ` - - ` . . - - - - •4 - i _ r -
` 'i . i ~
ti k
• , a~ Q~~'- SL ~ a ~ ill 11~ ~ yi
_
kL
a
N
• . ~ ~5
n-' ~ 9ll i11
~4`_
S
61 J'
.
. :
~
~
~ . . r - ' I r • 8~T .'E
~ i
• ~
~
~
~ MEMORANDUM
T0: Plann-ing and Environmental Commission
FRONi: Community Development Department
DA7E: June 7, 19$4
SUBJECT: A request far a rear setback variance in order to add to a dwelling
on Lot 23, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing
APPLICANT: Dr. Oliver Peterson
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUES7ED
Dr. Petersfln is requesttng to construct an addition onto tYte east side of the
secondary unit. Presently, only the secondary unit exists on the iot. A primary
unit will be bui7t on the narth side of the secondary unit. The existing un-it
encraaches into the rear setback (15 feet required) by bfeet.creating anly a
9 foot rear setback. The applicant would like to build the addition sa that
it maintains the same line as the existing south side of the house. For this
reason, a rear setback variance is required. The area of the addition that is
within the setback is 32 square feet (64 square feet for both the upper and lower
levels). The entire addition would add 756. square feet to the 1ower 1eve1 and
156 square feet to the upper 7eveT. The follawing figUres show the change in
~ GRFR:
zoning: Primary/Secondary
Lot Size: .57 acres or 24,829 sq ft
Total Allowed GRFA: 4,733 sq ft
Total Proposed Primary Unit GRFA: 2,802 sq ft
Total Allowed Secondary Unit GRFA: 1,593 sq f't
Secondary Unit (Existing) GRFA: 1,563 sq ft
Secondary proposed addition GRFA: _ 312 sq ft
7ata1 secondary proposed GRFA: 1,875 sq ft
Total ATlowed GRFA 1',893 sq ft
Tota1 Proposed GRFA 1,875 sq ft
Remaining GRFA 18 sq ft
~
. Peterson -2- 6/7/84
.
On the lower leve1 the addit3on would expand two existing bedrooms. On the
~ upper level, the dining and living roam areas would be increased. The addition
w71l match the unit`s existing height and roof 1ine.
A deck will extend off the new additian appraximately 8 feet. A 2 foat catwalk
wi11 extend along the south side of the secondary unit. The additional decks
will be canstructed within the setback requirements.
The applicant is requesting the variance beeause the addition:
1) "occurs with the least practzca1 difficu7ty
2) expandrtng to any other directian would nvt only be difficult from an
inter7or organization standpoint, but wou1d jeapardize the existing
trees" located on the north edge of the property:'
CRITERIA AND FINDZNGS
U on review of crlteria and findin s, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code,
t e pepartment of Community Deve opment recommen s appraval o t e requested
variance based upon the fa3lowing factars:
Considerat9on of Factars
The re7ationship of the requested variance to other existing ar potential uses
and structures in the vicini~y. ~
• The existing 6 foot encroachment into the rear setback does impact adjacent
7ots by not maintaining the lega7 distance among ather.houses surrounding Lot 23.
However, the addition does not S7gnlflCdnt7y increase the mass af the building
that would be seen by adjacent property owners. Views of the west and east
elevations remain essentially the same. On the south e1evation, the unit w1l1
extend 6 feet farther east and will maintain the same appearance as before
the remodei. Lot 22 (vacant) to the south af the unit, is probably mnst iinpacted
by the exrtsting unit's encraachment into the setback. However, because the
unit's mass (49 feet length and 30 feet height) is already 6 feet into the
setback, the proposed addition should not create significant impacts. Views
from the primary unit (to be bUi1t) will also be the same.
The degree to which rel1ef from the strict or 13teral interpretation and enforcement
of a specified re ulation is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniform7~y
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attazn the objectives of this
tit e without grant of sp~c~a pr~ui]ege.
Reiief from the strict setback requirement is reasanab1e because so much of
the existing home is already in the setback. A smal7er addition could be added
without encroaching into the setback. The addition could be shortened by
6 feet on the south side. However, aesthetically the rem6del wauld like it
was "added on" and would make no sense as far as the interior organization
of the unit. The two units cannot be pushed to the north to allow for an
~
Peterson -3- 6/7/84
~ additlon, as a grove of exrtsting trees would be impacted. There is no other
Zogical place to construct the addition except in its present location. The
other alternative would be to nat build the additian. Because af the location
of the existing unit, relief from the strict interpretation of the setback
requirement is justified.
The effect of the requested variance on 7ight and air, distribution of popula-
tion, trans ortatzan and traffic facilities, ubiic facilities and utilities
and utilic safet .
No significant impacts. Staff 7s requiring that the driveway be paved and
the parking requlrements be met for both units. Present1y 2 parking spaces
exist on the property. Three mare spaces are required. The applicant is in
the process of working out the driveway grade and parking with the Town
Engineer and Community Development staff.
ReTated Policies in Va73's Communit Action P3an
Under the Community Design section nf the Community Actian Plan, Policy #2 states
that "upgrading and remodeTing of structures and site improvements should be
encouraged." This propasal upgrades the existing unit and wiZl alsa provide
far the paving and additional parking spaces. Staff fee1s that the praject
supports the upgrading policy.
~ Such other factors and criteria as the commisszan deems a iicable to the ro osed
variance.
FINDTNGS
The P7annin and Environmental Commission shall make the fallowing findinqs befare
graninq a variance:
That the granting of the variance wil7 not constitute a grant of specia] prtviiege
inconsistent with the 7imitations on other properties classlfied in the same district.
That the granting of the variance w91] not be detrimenta7 to the publlc heaTth,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more vf the fo1lowing reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wouTd result in practical difficu7ty ar unnecessary physica7 hardship inconsistent
wlth the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions ar extraordinary circumstances or conditions appTicable to
the site of the var7ance that do not apply generally to other properties in the
. same zone.
The strict flr literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
wouZd deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
in tne same district.
. Peterson -4- 6/7/84
~
STAFF RECOMMENDATTONS
The setback variance for the addition has little impact on surrounding properties
as the house is already 6 feet into the setback. The 6 foot ddd1t10n would
not significantly increase the unit's impact an adjacent hames. Re7ief from
the str7ct interpretation of the setback requirement is warranted because of
the present setback encroachment and trees an the north side of the lot wh7r.h
make it unfeasible to move the additian and primary unit to the north out
of the setback. For these reasons, staff recommends approval.of the rear setback
variance contingent upon meeting parking requirements and paving the driveway.
~
~
,
~ I~ t~~Ry i • ~Y'~3 ~1 a~,~ ~ ' .
~~~i 5.~~~-#• * "1' ~~-'~1~~ - ~ 'f ~ t~le}~ ~i` j . - ~'~~Y~ ~ ~ ~:a~ ~ y ~ ~~~,rx,3~~ r
~ F..• x ~A~g~ ~ .,.;ca. ~ . , _ 1.~. ~ a... ~ s. ~ ~ ~'w .fr, 'i~~k"; ~ ~~v ~ .
_ . , ' . <}h' . _ . • - . , ' . , , _ ~ j .
• ~5 f - ' - ' ~ - ~ ' ~ ~K~ ~ • ~ ~
i_w~ . . . . ~ . ~ • e ~ ~ R ~ ~
: ' , . .
. • ~ . ' , ~c+~ rE s ~ ruw. fnl g PF i4w
a!_o%rs.i waKat[s ~A talwerpr
~79.2 ~ - . , . . ,
, . , Qxoief,z .
Or.o'/ai.e , . .
3-9.o% 80,0
~ -Ql0%95.2 a1.0~/BS,I
w 85.4
~ " . . . . - ' ' ' .
JALT'
/SPOT ELEV0.TION5~
91.0 r 89.4
6
A090.2 _
92.7
rp-L-~
' • :1 _
T5V0 STORY HOU9E - •
NINc FIRST FLOOR ELEV. = 8192.2 ~ Do"
SHCQND FLOOfl ELEV. = 8200.8
. { I 0
. ~ . • pazgA 4~r v?gIsWE
48.5
w. •
+s 176. 75
s
N g ~ • 45 ' ~ . F',i : J~4.
• ' ~ ` `,Y.' .4~.
. . ~ LOT 22
. i
. . • . ~ ~ •
. . -
ta .
.
; .
. e~ NO
, . . '.t. _
. . . . ; ~,h~.~•,rl~5}r' ~f
~
,,~.•~="_1
i ~
. ~
• ~i ~ ~ r ~ ' .
i
~
- - _ _ . ~ - - - - _ - _ - - - _ .
T
~
~
• ~
~ f
~
urn
~ .
I
.
• r~~-.H ~i~?5-r'1 ti~ ~ ~'"t#~~ ~
I
- I
~
. .
. _ . . .
- . _ _ . - ~ ,
_ . ! .
- _ . - - • ~ ,
. -
. , . . . . ,
.`:',.__....i._ . . l. . _ . . j_
. . . , . .a .
. ~ _ .
. . . _
. , . . . . _ ~j
. . ,
r--~- ~
~
- • i j~ ~ 1 ~
~ ~ -
' - . . . _ . ~ . M ~ "'.~n-,~._~_ -
_ .
~ - : i
.
_
- - ~ - _ _ . . ~ - - -
-
_ ~ - _ - _
- - . _ . . _ . . - . . . _ . _ - - _ fa.d? ~xzv i. 3'
. • ~
i
~ ~ ,
- i ~ ' - -
~
~
~
_ . . _ , ~
I ; ^ , - I
------i ~ ~ . >
. <5T
~
~ ~ .
-a
~
~
77t
~ -
_ . ~
~ - ~
- .
-
~ - _ - - _ tL_j
. .
.
~
~ ~ - - _
.
~ - - _ - -
. . _
.
- - - ~
~ ~i
01
; - _ _ . - - . ~ _
; . . . . - - - - - - _ . . ~ •
~ -
ZL
1
-
-
HAM.44 $W,~~n~.1~. ~ ~ ~ _ _ _
• ,
i.. - - -
cvk" h-I ~j
~ " ~ ; . _ _
~-at
~ ~ •
t . . .
_ { ~
~ _ €
' ~ . . . . . . ~ I
. ; i. .
HI vr SHoW~4 k `~-j ~ ~ - -
•
~--4
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
June 25, 1984
12:15 Lunch and WorK Session at MunicipaT Bu77ding
2:00 Site Visits
3:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval af m3nutes of ineeting of June 11, 1984
2. Designation of inember to DRB for Ju1y, August, September
3. A request for a front setback variance and a concurrent parking variance
in order to add a garage and additianal gross residentia7 f7oor area to
a dwe7iing on Lot 37, BTock 7, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Bo Price and Mr. and Mrs. John Wisenbaker
4. Request for exterior alteration to the Lionshead Gondola Building.
Applicant: Vail Associates
TABLED 5• Request for exterior alteration to the Vai1 21 Building in order to remodel
the entry of Gore Range Properties. App7icant: Gore Range Praperties
~ 6. Request for a conditional use permit in arder ta add a dining deck onto
the south side of Purcell's restaurant in the Lifthouse Lodge on Lat 3,
B1ocK 1, Vail Lionshead 7st Fi7ing. Applicant: John Purcell
7. Request for corodominiumization af the Ramsharn Lodge located an Lot A,
Block 3, Vail U1llage 5th Filing. Applicant: Poiar Partnership
i
WORK SESSION AGENDA
46 12:15 6/25/$4
7. Suggestions for improving operating procedures (memos-format, content,
organization and time of meetings, meeting format, site visits procedure).
2. Report on Lang-Range P7anning Projects
- Village Study/UDGP Expansion and Revision
- Parks Planning
- Neighborhvvd Planning
- GRFA Revisions for small additlons
3. CCI and CCII submittal deadlines
4. PEC review of plans: strictness of application deadl3nes and reviewing
p1ans which may have problems with utility avai7ab31ity, etc.
5. Other items:
- RRB a1ternate member
- anything else
~
~
~
' Plann3ng and Enviranmenta1 Commission
i June 25, 1984
FRESFNT STAFF PRESENT
Qiana Donovan Peter Patten
. Scott Edwards Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Tom 8raun
Haward Rapson
Wi11 Trout
Jim Vie1e
ABSENT
Gordon Pierce
The meeting was ca7led to order at 3:70 pm by the chairman, Duane Piper.
i. A rovai of mfnUtes of meetin of June 11, 1984.
Donovan maved and Rapson secanded to approve the minutes. Uote was 5in favor
with Edwards abstainin because he had been absent from the June 13 meetin .
2. Desi natiort of inember ta DRB for Ju1 , Au ust, Se tember. Hnward Rapson
volunteered as DRB representative for this periad, an uane Piper vo7unteered
to be first alternate.
3. A re uest for afront setback variance in order to add a ara e and additional
. ross residenfial f7oor area to a dwe7lin on Lot 37, Biock 7, 11a71 Vi11a e
First Filin . App7icants: N!r/Mrs. Bo Price, Nfr/Mrs. John Wisenbaker
Tom Braun explaTned that this item had been tabled from the previous meeting to
try to worEc out a salution to the parking probiem in order to avoid a parking
variance. He added that a parking variance was no 1onger necessary due to the
appTicants recessing one haTf of the garage faur to five feet. The staff recommended
approva7 af the revised request because there were many non-conforming structures
in the area already. Thus, this wauld not be a grant of special privilege. Bi1T
Anderson, representing the applicants, was present to answer questions.
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request. The vote was 6-0 in
favor.
4. Re uest for exterior alteration to the Lionshead Gondola Bui7din . Applicant:
Vail RssQCiates
Peter Patten exp7ained the request and said that there were two separate exterior
a7terations to the Gondola 8uilding: one was an office addition on the west
facade which "makes the bu77ding more compatibTe architectura7ly and there is
no canflict with the Urban Design Guide Plan." The other was a orte story commercial
addition to the northwest corner of the buiTding. Landscaping would be altered
and a p7anter wou1d be added ta compensate for the loss of landscaping. Patten
added that trade-of-fs included the fact that this would promote commercial use
~
i
~ PEC -2- 6/25/84
,
in the area and is tota1ly in concert with the Urban Design Guide P1an.
One problem is that the project takes out same very nice landscaping that screens
• the corner of the Gondoia Building.
Jack Hunn, representing the applicant, responded to the landscape issue by stating
that Richard Matthews gave Uail Associates a ietter stat-ing his opinion as to
which trees cou7d be rep7anted. The letter said that some af the Aspen tredg couTd
not be successfully transplanted, but that the large spruce could be repTanted.
Hunn proposed using large trees with a new configuration for the new
landscaping. Bill Pierce, architect for the project, stated that this prvject
used space that was a7ready tn existence--in effect it was an infi11 project rather
than a proposal that added more square footage to tho.size of the build7ng. He felt
that the building was needed.
Edwards fe1t that the staff should keep track of V.A's par[cing a17otted to the
Gondola Building. Donovan and Rapson felt that the DRB should laok closely at
the landscaped area and at the size of the trees to allow screening of the building.
Jim Viele moved and Will Traut secondcd to apprave the request for the exterior
a1terations per the staff inemo dated June 21, 1984 and to apprave a coriditianal
use to have an office above the 2nd floar. The vate was 6-0 in favor, unanimous.
6. Re uest for a conditianal use ermit in order to add a d7nin deck onto Purcel1's
Restaurant in the Lifthouse Lodge. Applicant: John Purcell
Tam Sraun described the proposa1, adding that it complied with the Lionshead
. Improvement Program, and the use conformed to the Urban Design Guide Cansiderations
reTating to commercia7 expansion. He added that the staff was concerned about
two existing trees. He stated that the plan allowed for the trees ta be saved
and that the staff supported the project as long as the two trees were saved.
John Perkins, representing Ken Wentworth, the architect, stated that the two trees
wauld be saved. Rapson moved and VieTe seconded to approve the request as per
the staff memo with the condition that the trees be saved. The vate was 5 in
favor with none against, and Donovan abstaining because of a conflict of interest.
7. Request for condominiumization of the Ramshorn Lodge located on Lot A,
Biocfc 3, VaiZ~Vzl7age 5th_F11ing. App7icant: Polar Partnership
Peter Patten described the request as per the staff inemo stating that the staff
recammended approval because the majority of the project met the conversion criteria
as 7ong as the appiicant met the five points outlined in the memo and the 13 paints
attached to the memo. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, was on hand ta
answer questions. Donavan asked if the 14 day restrict3on was for both summer
and winter, and the answer was that it was. Edwards was concerned that the parEcing
requirement was nat pinned down. Patten explained that it was difficuit ta determine
an exact number of parking spaces because the canference room was alsa a lounge
area. Dan Corcoran, engineer on the project, stated that the F-i property could
handle 16 spaces--that landscaping wou7d also have to be fncluded. Peterson stated
that the faci7ity wauld be a lounge most of the time, and feTt that 33 spaces
would be adequate. F{e added that they could actua7ly have 27 spaces, that
~
PEC -3- 6J25/84
+ * I
33 was a compromise, and 35 would be at the expense of less landscaping.
• Edwards and 7rout bath wanted to have the number of parking spaces fina7ized at
PEC. Will felt that it was important as weil as a submittai requirement_ta have parking
outlined on the 5ite p7an. Peterson sta.ed that he was open to a PEC decision
on the parktng. Patten felt that there was ambiquity in the ordinance, that the
staff feTt 16 to 18 spaces couid be provided on the F-I property, and the staff
recommended that 35 parking spaces be requ7red. Rapson felt that 35 spaces should
be provided and striped. Viele agreed but felt that he would be sympathetic to
a parking variance because he did not want to see more aspha7t than was necessary.
Donovan wanted to see more landscaping as opposed to more asphalt. She stated
that she would like to see a stipulation that if additional parking was necessary .
that it would be added. She wanted to insure that the Ramshorn would not remonstate
against the sidewalk improvement part of the Golden Peak project, and she asked
7f the Ramshorn would pay for their part of the sidewa7k. Peterson felt that
it would be unfair for the Ramshorn to pay un1ess an improvement district was
formed. He agreed to be part of an impravement district.
Donovan did not feel that the conversion would be a positive addition to the community.
Peterson responded with the statement that this was a change of ownership, not
a change of use, and the change of ownership would allaw for an upgrading. Piper
reminded the PEC that Cascade Uii1age did receive a compromise an parking and
he would like to see a compromise tv 33 spaces to a17ow for additional Tandscap7ng.
Patten reminded the board that in the surnmer additional parking was availab1e
at Golden Peak. Jim Morter, architect, added that the Ramshorn track record also
had been good. Patten stated that a landscape buffer would have to be added no
~ matter what.
Edwards iTioved and Pz er secanded to a rove the conversion er the staff recommendatYOn
with the chan,qe to SA of 31 spaces and if ~eede 4 mare spaces be added, that
8c, the fence encroaching on the Town of VaiT right-o~-way wi17 be removed at
the applicant's expense,that 88 be omitted, that the five points in the memo
and the other 13 points in the addendum to the application be adhered to with
with the exceptian af 8B. The vote was 5 in favor with Trout absta7ning hecause
he felt the p7an should delineate the parking spaces.
~
9T
. MEMORRNDUM
T0: PZanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community aevelopment Department
DATE:: June 20, 19$4
SUBJEC7: Consideration of front setback variance request to construct a
garage and additional GRFA to an existing residence at Lot 37,
Block 7, Vail Vi1lage lst
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Bo Price and Mr. and Mrs. John Wisenbaker
SACKGROUND OF RFQUESTED VRRIANCE
This request for afront setback variance (and a concurrent parking variance),
was considered by the P7anning and Environmenta1 Commission at their June 11th
meeting. The feeling of the Commission at that meeting was that a front setback
variance may be warranted, but the proposal cau7d be re-designed to accommodate
an additional off-street parking space. This wou1d eliminate the need for
a parking variance. The applicant requested the item be tabled to the June 25th
meeting.
~ NEW SUBMITTAL
A revised plan has been submitted requesting just a front setback variance.
This plan includes an additional parking space on the applicant's property
thereby eliminating the need for a par(cing variance. This was accomplished
by recessing one-half af the garage to accommodate an additional space.
STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
As stated in our June 7, 1984 memo, the staff does not have a problem with
the front setback variance requested. The location af the existing structure,
non-conforming structures in the vicinity, and numeraus variances that have
been granted in thc area a17 lend support to our recommending approval of
this request. When completed, this project wili beneflt the area by providing
two enclosed parking SpaCES as well as accommodating an additional space off
of the right-of-way.
~
1 r ,
r f
: _ .
; 1 .
4 ~ k'V Y
,
_ _ - ~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
I ~ 1 ~ ~ f ~ ~ ~ y~ , • .
e~~ . ~ _ ~ ~ , ?
\ ~t ~--._1--~ . ~ ~y ~ ~ • r~ ~ / l.
r
f _ , ~ ~ ~ ] ~ - - ~r r' .
} ? 1 . / R .~'y:
- ~ _ . - ~ f~ - ~ ~ f . _
t
d'
i~ • ~-r ~
~f ~ ~ '
f r /
- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
,
r
~r , _.j. r. ~ ' • f
.
• . t ~ ~ '
. - . 1
. ~1l` ' , ~ l r E ~ • i~
~ 1 ~ • . • " e ~ ' . i
~ V
• ~ ; j 3
~
~ . - _ _ .
. ,
.
~ . _ , - - ° -_...y.
~ f ~ ?
~ - - . ~ ~ _
_ _ . _......r .
!.n..'.~
f ~ • . . ' r , . I ~ i _ . . , .
• 1 ' . ' y' 1 ~~ss~- ~ ,
• ^ ~ ' , . ~ ~ _ . k . _ _ _ . . . i l
. .
.
.
. , E_ .
~ ~ - . ...~.t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ - - x - ,
,
~ MEMORANDUM
T0: P7anning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: June 7, 1984
SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance and a concurrent parking variance
to construct a garage and additional GRFA to an existing residence
at Lot 37, Block 7, Vail Vi7lage First Filing.
APPLICANT: Mr. and Mrs. Bo Price and Mr. and Mrs. John Wisenbaker
DESCRIPTiON 4F VARIANCE REQuESTED
The setback variance is requested to construct a garage and an entry way addition
in the front setback. The required setback is 24 feet. As proposed, the garage
, wTll encraach 20 feet into the setback, and the entry way 14 feet. The appiicant
' cantends that the setback is warranted due ta the physica1 hardship of the site
and the existing residence that is bu71t 5 inches from the front praperty line.
The required parking on the property is 5 spaces (this will not change with the
proposed additional GRFA). There are at present two legal non-conforrning spaces
that are Tacated an Town of Uail right-of-way. If approved, the garage addition
would add 2more spaces, making a total of 4. While the applicant maintains
~ it has "1egal" use of 3 additiona7 spaces 1ocated across the street, the Town
does not recognize these spaces because they are aTso in the right-of-way.
Consequently a parking variance is being requested because the property is 1
space short of the required 5 spaces.
CRITERIA AND FINDZNGS
U on review of criteria and findin s Section 18.62.060 of the Munici ai Cod
the De artment of Communit Develo ment recommends denial of the re uested
variance based upon the following factars:
Consideration of Factors
The relationshi of the re uested variance to other existin or otentiai u5es
and structures in the vicinity.
The staff does not have a prob7em with the 7ocation of this structure as proposed.
Due ta the existing structure's Tocatlon and the many homes in the area that
encroach into setbacks, the impact af this proposal would not be significant.
However, this is an opportunity to locate this residence's required parking off
the right-of-way as much as passible. Ta a71ow this parking variance would
essential7y mean vehic7es would still be parking an the rightWof-way_ This
is in direct conf7ict w3th the zoning code.
•
. Price/Wisenbaker -2- 6/7/84
~ The_degree to which rel,ief from the strict or literalinterpretationand enforcement
of a s ecif7ed re ulation is necessar~ ta ach7eve com atibilit and uniformit
of treatment amon sites in the vicinit or to attain the objectives of this
titTe withflut rant Qf s eciaT rivYTe e.
The staff does not feel the setback varianee wou7d be a grant of special privilege
because of the topography on the site, the location of the existing structure,
and the many non-conforming structures in the vicinity.
While the garage will be an improvement in the overall parking situation of the
praperty, we feel one additiona7 space could easily be provided on the 7ot, and
to grant the parking variance wouid be a grant of special priviTege.
Effect of the re uested variance on li ht and air, distribution of o ulation,
transpartation_and tratfic facilities, pub.,,ic aci ities an uti ities, an public
s a f e ty
Tk~e setback variance will have no 7mpact on any of the above. Tne public works
department has reviewed these plans and commented that this praperty has historicaliy
been a prabiem because of parlced cars in the r7ght-of-way. To grant this variance
would allaw this problem to continue.
~ F I N p I N GS ~ -
The P7annin and Environmenta7 Commission sha71 mafce the followin findin s before
granting a, variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special pr9vilege
incansistent w7th the limitations on other properties class-ified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the pubiic health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
, i
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the fo1lowing reasons:
, The strict or 1iterai -interpretation and enforcement of the spe.cified regu7atian
would result in practica3 difficulty ar unnecessary physica7 hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this tit7e.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or cond7tions applicab]e to
the site of the variance that do not apply genera7ly to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or 77teral interpretation and enforcement of the specitied reguTatian
wouTd deprive the applicant af privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties
• in the same district.
' . Price/Wisenbaker -3- 6/7/84
~ STAFF RECQMMENDA7IONS
;
While staff opinion is that a front setback variance af some type is warranted,
we cannot support the proposal before us. It appears the proposed deve7opment
, could be shifted to the north to reduce the degree of the encroachment into the
~ front setback. This would also ailaw for an addition off-street parking space in
the driveway, thereby eliminating the need for a park7ng variance.
Consequently, our recommendation far both of these requests is for denia7. We
would encourage the app1icant to re-evaiuate this design and consider aiternatives
that wou7d accommodate the three additional parking spaces off the right-of-way.
i •
~
f ~ a s
• . ~
~ ~ .
. y
. , . ' ' . ~ .
f ~ -
~ F 1.~~f ~ ~ j•
• z
/ ` / • , ~ ((d'
K P: j
/ i 'k-.'i
m.15'~f ~ ` ~ • ~
~ I / r:
.
.
. . . .
~ ~ !
.
- - - . _
~ ~ `'`a.. / • / r-~'~ ~ ( 'i j~ ~ ( j! 41;
~ ~ y r ~ , lE
`\k
r ' j f r tr
' ~ • / r_ d -~r" ;:i' < . r,_ 1.
Z7
! tE
"~'r ~ ` , f f / ~ ? _ ' j f~~ ~ ~ ~ fJ ! `
l3~ f A~_~ ~_•F ~J N~ `2~''~ _ P f ~ + f.
_ ~ ~ ~,3ry c ~ ' ~ l`ts~ ~ ~ 4' f f ~
_ _ „'•'r h~.+i_ t aim?~ _ x . 1 r ~ F~ / ~ ~ ri ' 1~.
\}h j
•
- . . . , . . ~ ~ . ~
,
• NlENfORRNpUM
. T0: Planning and Environmental Commissian
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 21, 1954
SUBJECT: Request for Exterior Alterations to the Gondala Building in Lionshead
App7icant: Vai7 Associates
I. THE REQUEST
P7easc find the attached letter from Vai1 Associates explaining the request
a7ong w3th the site plan for the two a7terat7ans.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH 1.I0NSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
A. Sub-area concepts
There are no sub-area concepts directly addressing either of these
proposaTs. The guide plan ca1]s for the area on the northwest corner
of the Gondo3a Building to be a large p7anter. The current proposal
complies with this by the incTusion of a p7artter on the north side
of the expanded commercia7 space.
B. Comp7iance with Design Considerations
1. Pedestrianization
1'he proposed conversion of approximately 1,168 sq ft of existing
a-Ffice space on the ma17 leve7 on the northwest corner af the
faci17ty to cQmmercia7 space will contribute to the aesthetics of
the mai1 and enhance pedestrian traffic and experience. This con-
version can bc accomp7ished without an encroachment into the proposed
rrEa11.
With the partia7 remaval of the existing planter area, the ma17
wili actually be opened up, providing improved traffic flaw, a pleasing
visua7 experience, and additiona7 commerciai activity. The enclosed
schematic design graphical7y il1ustrates this situation. The conversion
of existing office space to retail is encouraged by the Urban Design
Guide Plan
2. Vehicle Penetration
Service and delivery vehicular traffic generated by the additional
commercial space wiil be routed the same as current traffic servicin
existing retai7 space in the facility, i.e. to and from the ioading
dock at the lower west side of the building.
.
LH Gondo7a -2- 5/21/84
• 3. Streetscape Framework
The reTationship between the existing pedestrian mall and the north
side of the bui7ding wi1l be improved considerably with the intro-
duction of retai7 space addition and retai1 activity. Currently
the nrthwest corner of the building is separated from the mall by
a planter area with several mature spruce and aspen trees and is
not an integral, active part of the mal7. With the remvval of this
planter area and introduction of commercia7 activity, the mall wi11
expand, open up, and relate in a very positive manner with the building
' structure. The result is an improved wa7king experience and visual
' interest along with expansion of the mall 3nto new commercial activity.
~ This addition provides an opportunity to soften the existing archt- i
tecture and develop a new facade that reiates to the pedestrian ~
sca7e of the mali. ~
C. Architectura1/Landscape Considerations
There are both exterior building and Tandscape modifications as a result
of this proposa7:
Commercial Expansian. ~
I . 7he 6$7 SF add7tion and redevelopment of existing office space on
. the northwest corner provides an opportun7ty to redevelop an
unattractive, sterile facade. The existing three story facade
wi17 be improved by the single story additian. In SUb5eqG2nt
phases of development, we propose to expand existing narth side
retail spaces in much the same manner. Ultimately, the entire
north side of the bui7ding would be improved to relate to the
pedestrian scaZe, while a7so improving the appearance of the building.
2. The 7andscaping modifications, as discUSSed in previous sections of
this-attachment, may be justified in part by the improved ped-
estrianization, streetscape, framework and architectural aesthetics.
The new planter, whi1Q being smaller in size, will be designed to
enhance the proposed addition and to provide a trans.ition between
the building and the ma17.
Office Ex ansian: i. The 6,600 SF three story office/operations addition wouid architect-
tura7Ty integrate the Gondola Terminal portion of the building with
the existing siaped-roof office/retai7 wing. This proposa7 inc7udes
improvements to the Skier Ldbby, the auilding's Main Public Entrance
and to the general appearance of the building,
2. There are no madifications to existing landscaped.areas as a result
. Of th75 portion af the proposal:
• LH Gandola -3- 6/21/84
~ zri. zoNrruG caDE ITEMs
All uses proposed in their locations meet the requirements for_zoning
in. Commercial Core H. The required parking for the additional affice
space would be 16 spaces, and Vail Associates has the ability to absorb
this additional parkin requirement in their currertt parking faci7ities
in the Lionshead area ?as shown beiow):
Current Parkin Inventor No, of Spaces
a) North Day Lot 720
b} West Day Lot 200
c) Loading Dock Rrea 78
Tota 1 338
~
Parkin Re uirement
a) Existing Facility
(63,502 sq ft totai) lgg
b) Additional Office Space
I (4,896 sq ft ) 16
Tota1 214
: • Additional parking spaces
avaiiable for outside use 724
Parking wi11 be required for -the 687 square feet of additiona1 commercial
space witn the appropriate payment into the parking fund required a-t building
permit stage.
IU. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Develapment Department reeammends appraval of these exterior
alterations for the Lianshead Gondola Building. The prvposal meets the
criteria of the Guide Plan and wi17 improve the northwest corner af the
bui7ding by relating it more ta the type of activities we are try3ng to
generate on the Lianshead Ma17. Sringing out the building toward the ma17
by this one story expansion wi7T make this area of the mali more interesting
to the pedestrian. The construction of the commercial space is schedu1ed
for this summer at this point in time. Every effort will be made ta coordinate
this construction with the existing mail construction be7ng done by the
Town.
.
f.---
s~
~ -
~ Va.i1Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek
May 14, 1984
, :Town of Vail Department of Community Development .
15 S. Frontage Road
Ua91, Colorada 81658
RE: Lionshead Gondala Building Remodel
Ref. No. 6
ApPLICATTON FOR APPROVAL '
Gentlemen:
Attached, please find a package af materia3s, presented as our Application
far Approval of a proposed addition and exterior mQdifications to our
L7anshead Gondola Building. 8asically, our progosal consists of two ,
~ parts:
1. We are proposing the addit7on of 6,600 SF of new aperations
and office space, approximately one third of which wau7d be .
deveioped within the existing bui7ding without affecting the -
building's exterior. 2. We are proposing the-add-ition of 687 SF of commercial space,
together with the conversion of 1,168 SF of existing officE
space ta commercial, resuiting in a new 1,855 SF ground f7oor
commercial space on the northwest corner of the bui1dtng./ This praposed expansion represents an 11.5% increase in the tatal bu7iding
size, but has a minimal impact an the mass and foatprint of the existing . ,
'
building.
The attached package addresses the specific questions on the "Application
for Exter7or Alterations or Modifications in Commercial Gore II, Vail/ - `F
Lionsnead." Further, we have summarized the current and proposed uses
and the areas associated with each on Attachment No, 1. . The 4,892 SF af new office space wzll accommodate the disp1aced personnel '
from the area converted to commercial, approximately 15 people to be
re7ocated f'rom our Avan Office Building with the ba7ance of the space to
be used to re1ieve overcrowding in the existing offices, and in general,
to improve existing working conditions.
~
Post Uffce Lgox 7 • Vail, CaIorado 81658 *(303)476-5601
S • / ~
~
LIONSHEAD GONDOLA BUILpFNG JDN. 5/1I/84
~ PROPOSED ExPAN5I4N .
ARER SUMMARY
ATTACHMENT i
EXISTING OPERATIONS RETATL OFFICE - TOTAL
BaSement 11,254 -0- -0- 11,254
, Leve7 #1 12,146 4,224 2,056 18,426
Level.#2 -0- 2,472 10,724 ' -13,145
Level #3 I2,610 -0- 6,936 19,545 Leve1 #4 -0- -0- 1,080 .1,080
Totals 36,010 6,596 20,796 63,502
PROPOSED
EXPANSIQN OPERA7IONS . RETRIL . OFFICE TOTAL
Level #1 540 -0- -0- 540 ' .
Level #2 -0- -1,855 456 2,311 Level #3 -0- -0- 2,344 2,344
' Level #4 -0- -OT 2,092 2,092
i
Tvta7s 540 1,855 4,892 7,287
~
PGTENTIAL
EXPANSTOiV 4PERA7IONS RETAIL OFFICE TOTAL
Level #2 -D- 2,944 -0- 2,944
7otals --0- 2,944 -0- 2,944
Tatal Existing 36,010 6,696 20,796 63,502
Total Proposed 540 1,855 4,$92 7,287
Subtotal BIdg. 36,550 8,551 25,688 70,789
Tatal Potentiai -0- 2,944 -0- 2,944
Subtotal B7dg. 36,550 11,495 25,688 73,733
N07E:
The potential expansiort is not a part of this applicatzon.
~
. ;I
. ! , !~I r • •
. r - . ,
. , • ' } . , S~ .1
• ' l~ ' -y . . . ~ i ~ ,
i
~ r~y f ~ ' 7~ ~ ~ ~1 ~r` ~ ' , . - . - • .
n
Ts~ ?~3 ~s~a~ ~ ~ r. . . . • ~ . _ ' .
r14~1 t~~~~~t~ ~
~~p~ ~t ~ ~ "s:~ - ~ ~~~'i ? W'1""1~~-;~~3 ~1E •C.ir ~ ~ ~,,..ti'^i'"
. ~~~i ~ r,,~ .a . Y~ :,r,~y : • ~ ~ ~ - ~p,?'` . ,
~ ~L~x'S.~15.•~~x~~1~~ ~ ~ .a h~ ; ~ , ' •
r s"
- . . , • ~ , ~ , _
F 6 . _ I///f y ' r{. , , ' ,y!~ • ,
~ ' r ~y ~ 1 • f' _ ' ~ ~
~ ' ' ~ ~ ~T'~s -H;,~.1k5 ~ 'Y-~'.M :P •;~'V~ r~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
OLA, ,
GO¦ w D
~ TERMIIVA?L
_ . . _ . . ~ . ~ .
~•-i`~ `z-~ ~ • - ' ~ d ~ i RV'~ r k5~~~-~.~t `j~ ~ ~
,u!n ~ ~ .
~ w.... ti ~l ~ f! ~ . ~
. . ~ ~ ~ • { , , ,
5~
~ - `y, ' : ~q_ s , • . ~ . ^ ~ ' t . .
~ ~
A -
~
r.
~nkti
~~`~F~,,~
~ yi.., ~ pl ~v ~ ~r ~e.. d . 4 H kd~ ~T~pri't~
c at s ~ ~x 1 r ~ '~~&f ~ t'e4~t rS ,.;ai =i ¢ {
~
+'t+.~i~ .+...;.'~.VE~?~.- ~•y~}~l#C't}Y ~~`~<i 2,~Y 'h > s -,4;j~in~`t~'~i
M~'~
y=i~~ 331 ip, ~e '~1iy, v~ ~ 3e~ rra~ nt W~ c s
~ , ~ ' ~ 1, ° ~i ~ r` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3Y°•.
~
~.a Z~ MS
' . ~ • ~~.?h'~ ~-~p? - ~ .Y ~r~ S „+c'~'~}~ .~j` ~1 r~'~'~'~~~ ~ ~'~d"~".~ a~ ~ 1 F- t at~<
i ~
i'a ~ - ~l ' , S ~.k 'P~ + - ~ ' ~ j it•sy~f . /t''~ n ''s ,F s ~ n -'t 7~..~i~;
~v~''~i,
:~e - ~ „W'!- •'flp` y, s .3~t . w - . "
4k,~`~~;F~,y~~,`1~+
c'.
i `
: , ~ ~ ~s+rA~+ s ~ ~j, '~~~~a r .~j ~ ~ '+"~'~A~~~ s~~. gy~~~yr ~;y~ ~ ~
~ , 7. ~ n' E ~ ~~x~ . ~~fir.S~ ~h~•c. ~ ¢ n~s < .,'~r
° '''Y ~ ,l^ -y` w .s~ z~ , i' s t' ~ 'x-S~1r ~ ~'''F: . ~ ~'7 e "1 ~`~~s~. ~ p•i;r"k~~'~~'yc~ ~~~~~'~ri t~$,~~`~$~}~1~e, ~y~ ~j.
~w ~~~~.k„.Yt.'~S'•`I33~.,~6,.~kk~':#~ ei ~yc1 i
7
1# '6s.• ,+~v,~r
S s¢
'~~~"~yy-~~'~';4 1°~`.~~~~;y~'~ ?y~~`fi~} S~w'Si-~i~4T'.t=.
" ~ye„
~ ~ ~ ``~E,.~~' ' ~ e1. S^AT'~/~4 J/a ~ Iy~ ~ ~ - i rv /[~~j
rt-
~Ss,~C.~ i~-
N' I~'~.~
~q mm~~q~F~
~~,.4.
~ . ~ ~S,~~S. L 4,~.~ L LC i . _ .4`.
u .F<
¢
~i .
F4 ? t
L. - .Y
~
i - s. t- •s ,"i;~, n~s ~ r-~,Y
1 . ~ 4atR^ {,~'f~y;~ ~ 4 ~ iz~~i4fF ~S ~ - ~"h~ - ~ 1~5'e . , K rF.n„y ~~~rt f~ ~
t
~fEg~
~ -r-
, 1w;
' Yl S.~3 t,~' ' ;~'~a > w ~ ' afi ? t ~ r.~~ x - ~s'- . t `t7 4 ~ o
SZ}~ '~'7iA1'a`''Y
• ~4. '~rx`~'~'~+~ 4'St6~..~'~'' iiq6~c~,4~, .aa~ ~4 -€'e=r, L '}~~8 } ~
z~
x~$~ ~ • ` ~ ~ . ~~~~i~~~~~ ~Y,~~'~' Si d~ s 1 , ~ ~'~,`A ' ~ x + .r~r~'~ ~ ~ ;~4 e _
4.:.
4}+
~i)',~ ~~y ~S
. H A .j"~~.~ ~ r ~ ~~,F ,1 <<~ t~~ ; } ~ : ~ y 3• ~5e<'`~'"~t .
~'V4`5 '.F [ `r+• x ~}r ~i~ - ' .`~t~~ ~?a„ if~gr~+~`~^~.;~ 4~"'~ si
ar.~ + • a ~ . ' . .
~c~~
r
A1
T9
11 I.
~ ~
~ 4 . 6H. r .M... ..ioYr : .yj
MEMQRANDUM
i T0: P7anning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: June 20, 19$4
SUBJEC7: Request far a conditional use permit to add a dining deck
to the south side of Purcel7's Restaurant in the Li-Fthouse
Lodge. Applicant: John Rurceli
DESCRIPTION OF PROpOSED USE
1'his proposal would convert an existirig "green space" area to a patio that
would be used by patrons of Purce1l's Restaurant. The proposed patio expansion
would be done to match the existing patio vn the other side of Purce7l's
entrance. The use of the patio would be for the 5erVTCE of food and drink.
Hours of operation for the deck would be consistent with the hours of the
restaurant.
CRTTERZA AND FINDINGS
. Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development Department recommends
approval of the conditional use permit based upon the fo71owing factors:
Consideration of Factors
Reiatianshi and im act of the use on deve7o ment objectives of the Town.
This use is consistent with the commercial activity found in the Lionshead
area. 7'his proposa7 wili not create any significant impacts to Lianshead.
The effect of the use on 1t ht and air, distribution of o u3at7on, trans ortation
faci1it9es, utilities, schools, arks and recreation faci7ities, and other
ublic faciiities needs.
No effect an any of the above.
Effect upon traffic with pa.rt7cular reference to canqest3on,.,_.automotive and
edestrian safet and convenier?ce, traffic fiow and control, access, maneu-
verabilit , and removal of snaw from the street ~ arlcin areas.
If the decic 7s to used in the winter, snow removal could present a prabiem.
It wii7 be the responsibiiity of the re,taurant operators to ensure that
snow is not removed onto pub1ic right-of-ways.
.
i
~ r Purce1l Deck -2- 6/20/$4
~ I
.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be lacated, ;
. i nc 1 udi ng the scale and bul k of the proposed use i n rei at7 on ta_ surrounding uses.
i ~
This proposal is not in conflict with existing scaTe and bulk a-F Lionshead. It
~ should be noted that this proposal would result in a Tnss of one of Lionshead's
' "green" areas.
Relationship of Proposed use to Vai1's Community Act7on Plan.
; Nat applicabie.
Relationship to Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
This proposal is reiative to Sub-Area Concept #78 of the Guide Plan:
18. Commercial expansian (I stary) to emphasize pedestrian 1eve1. Patia area
eniarged slightly for additlonal dining space (a sun pocket area), and
wider, inviting steps also sitting function.
This sub-area concept ealls for a'°slight" enlargement of the patio area. This
proposal would convert the entire area ta a patio and dining use. While this proposal
wau1d remove existing green space, the two trees on the site wi17 remain. The staff
regards these trees as a key element af this proposal as we17 as a vital eTement
of Lionshead. As 1ong as these trees remain, this proposal is consistent with the
Guide Plan.
. FINDINGS
The Community Deve7opment Department recommends that the conditional use pcrmit
be approved based on the -Fo17owirtg find3ngs:
That the proposed location af the use is in accord with the purposes of this
ordinance and the purposes oF the district in which the site is located.
7'hat the proposed location of the use artd the conditions under which it would
be operated or maintained would nat be detrimental to the public hea7th, safety,
or we7fare or materiaTly injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would compiy with each af the applicable provisions of this
ardinance.
STAFF RECOMNiENDATIONS
T'he staff recommendatian for this proposal is approval. The two main reasons
-For this recommendation are that the use is consistent with activities in Lianshead,
and the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan calls for this type of expansian. One
condition of approval we would recommend is that the two existing trees remain and
are protected during construction.
~
~ -
L10NSHEAD CENTER MALL
Planting i51and5 reiocated to improve stare accessibility and ta
expand dual mall passage for peak skier crowds.
Cammercial expansion (1 storey) to increase pedestrian emphasis,
scale of mall, and improve shade-zflne facades and accessibility.
1zOppartttnity exists for expansion of buildinas, arcades, awnings,
etc. to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commereial facades.
CLOCKTO WER SQUARE
~3 Ticket plaza expanded for skier queui,ng, sr~aw removal, a throuah
passage. In summer, portab7e planters restore calor, sma11 scale.
Connecting ramp to make the entire mall accessible to emergency and
utility vehicles, as well as easy barrier-free access for pedestrians.
15 Centra7 p1anting island w7th popcQrn wagon reconfigured to give
more uniform ci.rculation and permit free movement on a11 sides.
Commercial expansion (1 storey)'to establish pEdestrian sca7e
~ beneath building mass. 5ummer season use of pUblic r.o.w. by
permit for dining patio. Furnishings; to be removed for winter
access, snow remava7, and aeneral appearance.
~l Plant7ng ta screen non-commercial areas and make visua7 areen
link between plazas.
Commercia7 expansion {1 starey} to emphasize pedestrian level.
Patio area enlarged s7ightly for additional dining space ( a
sun-pocket area), and wider, inv7tinq steps also sittinq functian.
GONQQLA PLAZA
t9 Cammercial expansion ( 1 storey),and ground floor office replaced
by commercial, to 7mprove pedestrain 5cale, accessibility, and
create strong activity'generator for south side of plaza -
currently a snow col7ector. Light tree screening either portabie
ar in grade-1eve1 trec grates for snow removai and easy access.
20 Gondola build3ng ramp, a second access to the Gondala ta distr-i-
bute foat traffic, and draw visztors, through other areas of mall.
21 Ta17 sculpture feature at highest-visibility point as viewed from
either end of the mall.
Exist7ng mature vegetation preserved for areen, color, and sca7e.
Supplement with portable summer-time planters for additianal
calor and more intimate scale for plaza.
•
t-
I.-i * f Xte~w2 1` ' ~ , ¦ 3 ~r. . , ' ~ 3 . - ~ :~M1 ~r lr:,~s'
s ~`C"F'•"4.~- ' .'~"ri,~~y ~ 9 ~r+ i*m. .n.yi.L~'!i`dG '"~y.;~~ ry"~a ~`~''Yi ~"'`,i',c A S .w~ -e!..a:
~ ~ ~h/Y~ ~'~1Aadll,k}^wF~, ~l~~f~:ti'2~R. ~ac.i+`~°'. ~<:~r~s~ K.,-1,~.~~?~,e~'.;~'P ,,,,.s
-w i ~ - w~! t ~ . . # a r;~'! ~~n~ ~;~tu \ c ~ ~ ~A, „r~ . ~ ~ ? \
2Y
~S ~ n11 !l,j,L',~~ f~; - 'k~ ~SnA ~ ~J~'1~., ~ , tf ,`l - ~l3i^ ? , . l T~pr C7SY1QiKi.
tl r 1 ~ .~~~~j~ . . ' ~~a~.~ . . ~ . •
F ~
y4 I' t AT~ , i~l~.'~' i~r.ri ~ , - . _ ~ 2~'.~,~~~yi~,$~ . ,;,t+~~`'4^H"S`~s~•~ r
f i i f- ~ • ~ ~ _ " . ~ ~S~ riM~~+~l4a§ ~R)usr~~ .i..,,, .
~
77j LIONS S£\~y.DE
1 V
i
T 4'• 'S ~ j ~ , ~ - _ 1 E , i 1, ~dw w•rc. 7~aro~~ a>.4F.
v~q~,pr» ~i.
y
-.u,~~
' • ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ . ~ _ . , - ".~.~.T. .5,.~... ,.....w~.s~~+."".,_"r.....,..~'S » '~"~i+.s. 2~# ~ ,v+~ csr~.wr.ai~~~~y ~ - , ~Y 1 s ~ V .
~ a 4 -F~ . ~ 1 , . . § ~.;•}~$J
f'a ~jl iE }3 -b.--~ ~ ' , . • ' , ' . . ~j' 7 ~;4 " ay
4 l
77'!'~+~~.. S
4- L_tiJf~ ^~~^lil.7~~~
E 3ba~~~
~i~' i P1J~1V
° ~ ? 3~~; :^1'-'-} - . . . ' . , ~'(irs/~ '
''CC ` _ t ' , . . ~ . . ~ . • ' , . ; ~ . . ~
~i+ ri ~ i . • ~ ~
"Tr~~
iSy . , a . .4 -7 . . f>.+s. q r~'
r rr'~ s ~f~. ~ ~ ~ .r. s• .-v.• ' + ~~J ,~.C".y r ~
~ H j t~ ,~..ti~ .~1~ ~ ~.~.._Y., `t } ! -
~ ~ x i i ~ -~~~^"3.. .~'.«~r..= t~ - -t . . ,h-:•__ ` j1;f{' , g .
~ 'C ;.c• • . ~ `~k--,---.W~ ri..•_T ~ -~I ~ . ,y~
_ • i ' ~ yk) ' ' ~ . , ' i ~.,ts~z~ c.. ~ ~ ~ •~Y ~.y,~~ _:yj'~~S'' ' '~`~"y~~ k ] ~ ' S.
-j',~/~ :i . s ~tr}~~ ~ ~ 4 R~. ~i_.u T.-y~7f~"~1at'~ar~v~~-•.M'~ 3.~.~d~~s~4'A.~.. Ag___ ~ -H'~'"'lf1'';~~• , 1'~ ,~,•Tv... ~ ~ ~
i i,y h .f l~~~i ~ • ~11 ~ir.~'~)~ + ~~~.{y,.,+~#-„~~~~~L , ~a*~1P ,~y-i«..~•%.3ey~
a~.OLA .l~A?~~b°~ ~ ~ ~~i ?'•~I 7 ~ ~~rb •1,~
~.'m[;... . ~ , ~ . •'T,_ r~ ~ ~'!~i'i `r ~ . , i,
Si,f
~
f ~;c, _ . , ~y~ ~S ~~Sl~ ~ ~ ~5 , ri4~~ y'~.~r..»a4 .
• ' « ~~~.a.- G n.-' t-~s~t` ~''x ~~t t 1- ~ , , ~~i
a~~~~°~
. S fL~~{`t•{_ in il~'~~~i~•~ . ~~3 '•f ,''~.3 '9t~:~a~"f~-.~,.
n 4„~ i.' •'ji't~~~;;~---~~' . ~ _ .~i.°`~ r ~ v~ ',i sg~
~ ' ~ S t 3i i • ~ ~ _ i. , t ~ 1 : ~ ~ ? .~e.ye;•~ y ~
i w_. . Z•j~ . L~=y . ~ ! ` ~ 3 d'~~,w.y r
. _ :.j: ~ ~0... .~r..
• ~ .;p+~,~ ' ~
.r• .Y.~~ S;_•~'.tT ~ . ~ ~sK ~t~~~?45' .
.
7 e
r'
• ~ , , : ~1y1~'~s, t~ , ~ ~ ~ `t ` ~r i i {
~ ~ / _ ^y. . ~ . - 1~ ~ ~ ;i. ~ ~ > l' ~ . 4F_~ 3 : '~•r. , q~rr 20'
:~r.ih~ ' 'IY' ~.L1 '
i'~ '1. ~ y . ~ IS.~~~,~ ~ _ ' ~ #~3 ~~t~ ~ Y , i T lr 1 4(lthtll ~{w ~~i.a.~ `
~=i•' . h~ ~ i. ~ ~ . ~
Ti t(~~r~-~i\
ET' I ~ ii~ 1 I II 1:1 i}! I ~1.,, 1~ i il~f; •4
•r:., . 4 ~~li.~~ y~~ BLJC7 FA ~ ~ I% i i:, ~ ~ ~~,i~ e 7' ~ ~ff~~•
. i ~
? ~ t~ i i rF
• . ' , , ~ ~~a ~"~„`-~•rf ~ _ ~ t s - ~3
13 . , _ . 4 L ~ -'~.,i- ~R ~ ,~'~d V 1 i . ~ ~j ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~~f' ~3 ~ ` i ;
~ • - Ay~d` .wv~i"~v_~~rj`'f'~~°a"'Kw,~ ~ ~.y~H',_~~ .t i 4'w,~ ~ ~~y~ . _~'r
~A T
: ~ .I~ • . e`a~.+~. ~.~~°...d'~~§~"''wf.•~ ~ ~ ~°`"`n~',~k T ~f;.'; ` ~ ~ f;~ri~.7' : ~ ! ' .I: jA3~~~;; i~'/~; R~~
~n?a~.~ TERMI~VAL ~ • yi5g~~~p ~ ~ > >~r,~.~~k•'f ~ , , ~
l~ rt -r~..~~~,~~ F i~i r! -e.i_,,i'•
~i
ar~,s~ • .h ~ +
Lw.~ ~ ~;~-,r•'~~ `t ~ y ~ k~~F ~ .
. : + _ ; .~f ~ ' ~ , ~ ~,•~,K.~ {
' . . ~ ~.U ~e ~ - ~ ~,x{~_,~1 M i i~~ •1 i
~f~ ' . . . - ~ , • . ' ~ ..31, ~:7 + . ` ~w.~~,:1~ .i.14z
~ .
.
LIONSHEAD CENTER MALL
Plantina islands reioeated to imprave store accessibility and tv
expand dual mall passage for peak skier crawds.
Commercial expansion (I storey) to increase pedestrian emphasis,
scale of mai7, and improve shade-zane facades artd accessibiiity.
12Opportunity exists for'expansion of buildinas, arcades, awnings,
etc. to improve scale, sheiter, appearance of comercial facades.
_ CLOCKTOWER SQUARE 13 i'icket piaza exparided for skier c~ueuing, snow.I r~emoval, a thraugh
passage. In sumrner, porta6le planters restore 661or, small scale.
Connecting ramp to make the entire mali accessible to emergency and
utility vehici;s, as weT1 as easy barrier-free access for pedestrians.
Central pianti_ng'i-sl•and::,wi.~k,.,wagan recarrfigured to give
~nore uniform circttlation and germit free movement on all sides.
i6 Cammercial expansian (1 storey)'to establish pedestrian s,ca7e
beneath building mass. 5ummer season use af pub7ic r.o.w. by
permit for dining patio. Furnishings ta be remaved for winter
access, snow removal, and qeneral appearance.
Planting to screen non-cQmmercial areas and make visua7 green
Z?nk between piazas.
Commercial expansion (3 storey) to empnasize pedestrian levei.
Patio area enlarged slight7y for additfonal dining space ( a
sun-pocket area), and wider, invitinq steps also sittina function.
GONDpi_A PLAZA
~s Gommercial expansion ( 1 storey),and ground floar office replaced
by corrIInercial, to improve pedestrain scale, accessihility, and
create strong activity'generator for south side of piaza -
currently a snow col7ector. Light tree screening either partab7e
or in grade-leve7 tree grates for snow removal and easy access.
~a Gondola building ramp, a second access to the Gondola to distri-
bute foot traffic, and draw visitors, through other areas of mai1.
21 Tall sculpture feature at highest-visibility point as viewed from
either end of the mali.
!
ZZ Existing mature vegetation preserved for Qr'een, color, and scale.
Supplement with portab]e summer-time planters for additianal
color and.more intimate scaie for p7aza.
MEMORANDUM
i
T0: Planning and Environmenta1 Commission
FROM: Community Deve1opment Department
DATE: June 20, 1984
SUSJECT: Request for a condominium conversion of the Ramshorn Lodge
Applicant: Polar Partnership
I. THE REQUEST
The Ramshorn Lodge has changed property ownership recently, and the new
awners wish to canvert the iodge into a condomtnium and construct a major
remode7 of the interior of the lodge. This request faT1s under the sub-
division regulations, Chapter 17.26, Condominium Conversian, with the
specific section re1ating to accommodation unit conversions app1iCable.
The applicants are propasing to restrict a11 but three af the accommodation
and dwelling units proposed even though the ordinance requires onTy the
accommodation units to be restricted in terms of owner use.
This property encompasses two 1ots, one which is zoned Aublic Accommodation i
and contains 23,216 square feet (.533 acre) and another 1ot of 6,006
square feet zoned Parking District. The fo7lowing table explains the
. existing, praposed, and allowab7e statistics relating to the property
(including parking).
EXISTING PROPOSED
N0. SQ FT N0. SQ FT
Accotnmadati on Un i ts 28 8,146 17 6,266
DweT1ing units 3 2,479 7 5,903
TotaT Density 17 10,625 15.5 72,169
Cammon Lobby/Lounge 2 1,337 2 7,038
Tatal A71owable 13 18,572 2.5 6,403
~ over under
Parking Spaces 33* 33
* Applicant has ability to add an additivnal 4 spaces and is required
35 total spaces including the meeting room requirement.
; .
RAMSHORN -2- 6/20/84
,
• These numbers reveal that the number of accammodation units is being
reduced, the number of dwe1ling units is proposed to increase, a slight
reduction in lounge area is proposed, and that the parking needs can be
met. It should be noted that part af the request is to e1imTnate the
existing lounge adjacent ta the check-in office area on the ma7n f7onr
of the lodge, while slightly increasing and greatly improving the existing
lower leve7 game raom area. The proposal is to construct a meeting room
faci7ity where the game room now exists to accammodate approximately 60 persons.
The net 7ass in square faotage is approximately 300 square feet of common
area under this proposed revision. Also, gas fireplaces wi11 be installed
in accommodation units, whi7e the creation of seven new wood burning
fireplaces would occur in the new meeting room and in 6 af the new dwel3ing
units.
II. CRITERIA TO EVALUATE THE PROPOSAL
The criteria to eva7uate the condominiumization of the lodge is found
in Section 17.26.050 relating to all condominium conversions whether
accommodation units are invoived or not, as weil as 17.26.075, the specific
section addressing requirements for converting accommodation units to
condominiums, and a7so 17.26.080 which, again, app7ies to all condominium
conversions and not specifica7ly toward lodge conversions. The Town Buiidtng
Department has comp7eted the required inspection tor conversian, and~the
app3icant has agreed to the list af changes required. Criteria relating
. to tenants' accupancy, emp7oyee hausing, and current rental rates are not
applicable to a lodge conversion.
' IIT. COMPLIANCE WiTM S7IPULATIONS 0F SECTION 17.26.075 REGARDING ACCOMMODATION
~ UNIT CONVERSIONS
The request is basically in campliance with the section regulating accommadation unit conversions with the exception of the reduction of size of common
areas. The section stipu1ates that the common areas of any lodge with
canverted units sha11 remain common areas and be maintained in a manner
consi5tent with its previous character." It goes an to say that "any changes,
alterations or renavations made to comman areas shall not diminish the
size or quality of the common areas. It 3s the staff's interpretation
that the proposal daes not strictly meet the standards of this provision.
However, it should be noted that this provision is a discriminatory one
toward appTicants wishing to condominiumize a lodge over applicants wishing
to mereiy obtain a building pernzit to alter common areas of a lodge withaut
converting to condominiums. In ather words, an existing lodge owner couid
obtain a buiiding permit to reduce in size or a1ter the existing common
areas of the lodge without being required ta meet the provisYOns of 17.26.075.
Once an app1icant wishes to candominiumize and remodel simultaneous7y,
the provision re1ating to common areas then applies. This is an exist7ng
loophole within our regulatory system which creates an 7nequity toward
a property owner wishing to change the ownership format of the 7odge.
~ With this in mind, the staff fee1s the net reduction of 300 square feet
of common area shouTd be reviewed within the overall cantext of the project
. Ramsnorn -3- 6/20/84
and not be an item to sing7ed out. Also changeS
. re1ating to the proposed condominium dec~arations and what the specific
language requires in the Town ordinance need ta be addressed as COnd1t70n5
of approvaT.
IV. STAFF RECdMMENDaTION
The staff feels that, although the specific intent with regard to common
areas is not being complied with, the overall project general7y meets the
intent of the ordinance to not have a change of use occur on the property.
The appTicants do propose a]arge improvement effort to the property (see
attached cost estimate) and are restricting a17 but three dwe77ing units
to the 14 day high season use restriction as per the ordinance. Technically,
they would only be required to restrict the 17 proposed accommodatian units
and not the additiona1 4 dwe7ling units proposed. Mareaver, the additian
of the meeting room and its cancurrent marketing cou7d be a benefit to
the community with regard to attracting sma11 group business meetings.
7he fo7lowing conditions of appraval wi17 apply to this project:
1. All accommodation units may have only gas firep1aces which must be
specifica7ly approved as such by the Community Development Department.
2. The condominium dec1aration proposed sha71 be rev7sed to reflect the
14 day owner use restriction period and not the 15 day period currently
. contained in the declarations.
3. The decTarations sha1l contain 7anguage stating that the declarat7ans
may be changed only with the priar written approval of the Tawn Council.
4. The declarations shall contain language staing that a7T business activity
; relating to sale of the condominium units shall comply with lacal zoning
~ and sign ordinances. ,
5. Items 1through 13 contained with7n the Addendum to AppTicat3on for
Condominium Conversion of Ramshorn Lodge as submitted by the app7icant
as part of the application shall become part of this approval and binding
upon the applicant.
.
-
r
.
ADDENDUM TO APPLICATZON
FOR CONDOMTNTUM CONVERSION OF
RAMSHORN LODCE
1. Proposed Condominium Declaration, Map, Bylaws and Articles
(see attached) . ~
2. A copy of the Building Department's report for needed
corrections (see attached).
3. Aletter fram Applicant agreeing to the corrections (see
attached).
4. The length of occupancy of the exa.sta.ng tenants of thi5
structure is not applicable as the Ramsharn has been run as
a lndge (short-term rentals anly) and has not incl.uded any
employee housing units. The existing owner's apaxtment has
been vacated by the former owner.
5. The question of rental rates is also not appl.icable as no
emplayee housing units exist. Regaxding short-term rental
rates, the same basic rate structure wi].1 be fo3.].owed as was
~ usecl by the farmer ownerss
6. F'ull ownership is proposed for the condominium units.
Proposed prices and financing have not been set.
7. All the units wi11 be restricted an owner usage according to
Section 17.26.075, with the followinq exceptions:
(a) Current Unit 402/404
(b) Current Unit 502/504
(c) Owner's apartment
Units listed in (a), (b) and (c) above are presently
dwell.ing units and the Condominium Conversion Ordinance does
not require dwelling units to be restrzcted. New dwelling
units to be created wi1.1 be restricted, even though the
Orda.nance technically does not require the restrictions.
8. Site considerations:
(a) Thirty-thxee (33) paxk:ing spaces are available {16
spaces to the east of the swimming pool and 17
~ spaces to the north of the main lodge}. Four more
parking spaces can be addcd i.n the future if need
be.
~ (b) No new laridscaping is proposed, as matuxe
landscaping already exists.
. ~ ~
. (c) The fence ctirrsntly encroaching on the Town of
Vail right-of-way will be moved in arder tQ allow
a pedestrian path.
(d) The Applicant will cooperate ful1y witn the Town
and will grant an easement for a pedestrian path
to the Town. (Physical restraints do exist,
however, because of the clase proximity to the
property line of the pool utility room (twa feet)
and thE southwest corner of the building (nine
feet). The cost of any proposed pedestrian path.
should be paid £or by the develoner af Golden Peak
as it would be for their benefit, nat the
Applicant's).
(e) Proposed exterior improvements include four
siiding g1ass doors and several chimney stacks tor
fireplaces. Applicati.on will be made to the
pesign Review Board for approval of the exact
design,
(f) See attached Survey and Condominium Map for the
location of all amenities and parking areas.
(q) See attached copy of Warranty Deed for praof of
~ ownership.
10. Customary Zodging services, ir?c1.uding a marketin_q program,
will be continued. These will include a cantinental
breakfast, ski starage, full maid service, and laundry. An
affidavit of services is no longer required, contrary to thc
application form.
11. No employee units are currerztly located on the site.
12. Ses attached for architectural plans for the propased
improvements. (Dotted lines show existing walls to be
removed and all numbers are current xoam numbers.)
13. See attached for cost estimates.
~
2
i
Nelson / eeb
Construction Coo Ittc.
P.O. Box 685 Avon, Coforado $1620
Phone 303/949-5152
April 5, 1984
,
Mr, Dave Garton
P.O. Sox 705
Vail, Colorado 81658
RE: REMOAEL RAMSHORN ESTIMATE
Dear Dave :
The fa.gures and numbers on the fplIowing pages are Estimates
Qply, and are not to be taken as a bid paekage.
SincerelY,
NELSON-Z EB CONSTRUC'FION CO.
,
~ RichaW,A. Nelson
~
• + Nr?lson , Zeeb
~ • ?
CAnstruetNO11 to. Inc.
fo P.O. 8ox 685 Avon, Coloradp 81620
t-Ot
~ Phone 303/949-5152
t
F
f~
7 ~ Estimate
~ Page 1
€
1. TILE at tub surrounds: Labor only
24 tubs with 65 s.f. = 1560 s.f. +l0% ~ 1716 x 2.25 s.f.
E
~
~ $ 3,861.00
~ Matera.al 1716 x$5.00/s.f, ancluding shipping & tax. 8,580.00
t
1 Remove aII old tile & pateh or replace drywall raitih
~ Duraband 24 tubs repaired - approximately 1680 s,f,
~ drywaJ.1 patch x .651s.f. 11pg2,pp
~
~ 2. QUARRY TILE: $3.10/s.f. labor 7,130.00
~ Ki.tchen, entry„entry next to baths, t'ireplace
~ hearths T 2300 s.f. - Material at #3.301s.F. incZudes
shipping & tax. 7,590.00
~ 3. CARPETING: L~ibor at $2.65/s.y. 3,930,00
Appraximately sq. yd. cost for units $25/sq. yd.
~ at 1133• 28,325.00
i
Apprnximately sq. yd. cost for Common Areas $18/sq.
~ yd. at 350.
~ 6,3oa.oo
~
} Tax on materials 1'55$,13
r
{
~ Freight 11085.50
4
~ Foam pad at $2.501sq- ya. -1483 sq- Yds. 3,702.50
(
~ Tax on foam pad 166,84
~ 4. FIREpLACES:
i
j 7 new "Marco" or simila.ar 42" model, including flue
~ pipe, caps etc... $1300/unit. 9,100.00
F
~ 5. 1'AINTING:
r
' ApProximately 12,000 s.f. at.$1.75/s.f. 217000.00
~
~
P
~.t
I
• ` ~
, . els0n ~ Zee
.p~~.
Construction Co. Inco
~ P.O. Box 685 Avon, Colorado 81620
1Phone 303/949-5152
F
t Estimate
~ page 2 .
6. EXTERIOR STUCCO:
~ $ 51000.00
~ Approximately 1800 s.f. at $2.75/s.f.
~ 7- APPLIANCES:
~
; 7Fri$ - Sub Zero 361 Side by Sa.de- $1,759 each. 12,313.00
~ 7 Qvens - Jenn-Aire 5125-2 A100 Cartridges and 509
~ BackspJ,ash $1,180 each. 8,260.00
~ 7 Mierowaves - Sharp R 1400 with Carosel $571 each 3,997.00
~
7 Alternate - R 1800 with Convection $700 each (4,900.00)
7Filter Kits ~$15 eaeh 105.00
7 Dish.washers - Kitehen Aid- KDS 20-- $5$7 each. 4,109.00
7 Alternate Jenn-,Aa.re--Du 490- $566 each (3,962.40)
~ 5 CompactUr Whirlponl-Tu 8oa3-- $337 each._ 1,685.00
3 CJnder counter Frig - Sub Zero- 244RFD- $724 eaeh 2,172.00
~ ax an k~.tcher~ appliances 1,468.85
~reaght 1,000:00
8. KITCHEN CABIN~RY:
120 3..f, wa11 cabinet at $10011.f. 12,000.00
~ 100 I.f. countertop (2' wide) at $2011.f. 21000.00
~ 50 3.f. base cabinets at $125/l.f. 61250.00
' 20 1 . f. enuntertop at $20 / I. . f . 400 . 00
~ 14 l. f . base eabiAry at $ 125 /l. f . 1 , 750 . 00
~
~ Vani'ties _ 24 at 31-6" at $425 each 10,200.00
' 24 Corian Integral Stiwl (white) 316" witn baek- ~ splash at $290 each. 6,960.00
~ `I'ax on CabiAry 1,780.20
.
~ Freight 1,240.00
9. RdQF REPAIRS:
Allowance 6,000.00
~
~
elson / Zee
i ~
. Constru ion Co. Inc.
~ P.O. Box 685 Avon, Colorado 81620
Phone 303/949-5152
~
F
t
~ EStiIl78t2
~ page 3 ~
i
~
~
' 10. RooF REvrszoNs :
Allowance (b,OQO) ' $ 6,000.00
F
# 11, NEW SAUNA & CHANGTNG AREA: ~
~
~ Allowance (16,000) 16,O0O.00
~ 12. DRYWALI., : Patching, New & Texture ~
i ~
~ Allowance -.75/s.f. at 35,000 s.f.(25,250) 25,250.00 ~
f
; 13, GLAZING:
~ Allowance - 24 mzrrnrs, includes a.nstallation &tax. 1,500.00
~ 14. CO2dCRETE:
i
~ Allowance 10 yards at $200/yard - k2,000)
Repair slab on grades, repair 12" toPping
~ New 2, Cs00.00
F .
~ 15. MASONARY: '
E
~ Allowance - (3;500)
~ Repair exterior walls far fireplaces
~ Below grade wa1J~s fnr fireplaces 3,500.00
~ 16. FRAMING MATERTAL:
,
'
~ Allowance (3,600) 3}600•00
~ Fire place chases, New Partitions & Decks
~ Misc,
~ 17- FINISH MATERIALS:
~
` Entry Doars 1 3/4" oak flush S.C. ~
Interior donrs 1 3/8" oak flush S.C_ 120 doors at $50/
door 6,000.00
~ Door Jambs-solid oak - 120 at $40/3et 4,800.00
,
6500 l.f. oak trim: 7/16" x 32" solid at .70/]..f. 4,550.00 ;
4800 I. f. oak casing 7/ 1 6" x 321P solcVi at .70/1 . f. 3,360.00
~ Tax nn finish materials 841.95
i"Jelson / Zeeb
tonstruction C0. Inc.
~ P.O. Box 6$5 Avon, Colorado 81620 •~F:~;:~
Phone 303/949-5152
• ~ N
` 'Ky,_~tfY
Estimate
Page 4
18. HARDWARE:
A1lowance $700 /unit ~~y~~:
$ 12,600.00 '.r:~
Includes door knabs, hinges, door stops, weather- ~a~•~=
stripping, towel bars, paper holders, bi-pass tracks ete.
19. ELECTRICAL:
~F
Electrical work on phase 2 must confnrm to Natianal .
Electri.cal Cnde; any existing Romex that is expnsed
or boxes changed must be upgraded to conduit
*Estimate Onl 341000.00 ~ Includes; fixtures in bathrooms, 24 new Theatrical
stra.p, new porcelin fixtiures in closets, pull t.v
to eaeh room .j
20. FLUiNBING & MLCHANICAL:
A11,owanee (38,750) 38, 750 . 00
. Replacing 10 tubs
Includes; 24 new toilet seats & covers,
24 Koh1er "Alterna" lavatory trim fixtures, tub &
.shower tr2m.
7 Polar Stainless Steel Sinks and 3 bar sinks with ~
Moen Chateau Faucets; 7 disPasaZs 27. TRASH REMOVAL & CLEANitP 12,000.40
22 . IiVSULATION : ( sound ) 27100.00
23. EXCAVATTON & SACKFILL: 1,200,00
24. FEES & PERMITS : N. C .
25. LABqR; Nelson--Zeeb Gensral Cnnstruction & Carpsntry. 730,000.00
~
s„
C. 7..i.
.
; . , IVeIson / Zeeb
Construetion Co. Inc.
P.O. Box 685 Avon, Colorado 81620
Phone 303/949-5152
~
~
Estimate
Page 5
~
_
26. GENERAL & ADMTNISTRATIVE COSTS $ 25,000.00
•.,,,.,,E~~
SUb-x'ot31. 525' 162_97
Bond at 1.2% 6,301.96
Sub-Total 5317464.93
Profit at 10% 53,146.50
GRAND TOTAI, $ 584,611.43
M
~