HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes June- DecemberPlanning and Environmental Commission
June 10, 1985
1:15 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
I. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration
to remodel the Lionshead Gondola Building.
Applicant: Vail Associates
2. Request for a density control variance of 395 feet and setback
variances in order to add a third story to a residence on
Lot 20- Bighorn Terrace, 4277 Columbine Drive.
Applicants: Timothy Boyle and Debbie Nicholson
3. Request to amend an approved development plan to allow for
a two year interim development plan for the Golden Peak Ski
Base Area. Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
4. Request for a 14 foot setback variance and a four percent
site coverage variance in order to build a garage and to reduce
the grade of the driveway on Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 2.
Applicant: Richard Strauss
5. Request for an exterior alteration and side setback variances
in order to enclose a deck at the KB Ranch Company restaurant
located in the Lionssquare Lodge.
Applicant: Lion Square Ltd Partnership
6. Update on Ford and Donovan master plans.
7. Reminder of Bighorn Park meeting on June 12.
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 10, 1985
• PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Eric Affelt Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Duane Piper Rick Pylman
Howard Rapson Kristan Pritz
Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack
ABSENT
Jim Vieie
Jere Walters
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper, chairman at 3:05 pm.
1. Request for a setback variance and for exterior alteration to remodel the
Lionshead Gondola Building. Applicant: Vail Associates,.Inc.
Tom Braun showed the site plan and elevations and explained haw the.request differed
from the request a month ago. He explained that one significant area added to
the plan was a proposed expansion to This Wicked West shop located on the lower
level of the Gondola Building, a display box on the opposite side of the staircase,
and modification to the proposed expansion of the real estate offices to the east.
Bill Pierce, architect for Vail Associates, felt that the creation of more retail
space was in compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, the increased landscaping
on the southwest corner was a favorable addition, the overall exposure to the real
estate office was reduced, there was reduction in the amount of space devoted
to the real estate office, and the Wicked West expansion was in response to the
architectural character of the building. He felt that this upgrading would en-
courage other Lionshead merchants to upgrade their property. Pierce felt that
the proposal complied with the Urban Design Guide Plan and quoted the following:
"Building expansions should be limited to 1 or 2 stories." "Exterior space most
comfortable when the wall height is 112 the width."
Pierce said in reference to sun /shade studies that the addition did not cast
any additional shadow until June 21. Carl Dietz, part owner of the popcorn
wagon felt that the addition would change the traffic path and it would be
more difficult for patrons to get to the popcorn wagon during the high ski
season. Dan Mulroony, owner of Bart and Yeti's and the other owner of the
popcorn wagon felt that there was a real problem with traffic flow in peak
months. He also had a letter from Dinah and Del Owens protesting the real
estate office expansion. Mulroony felt that Purcell's was getting "the short
end of the stick with regard to sun /shade." Cindy Anett, representing
John Purcell, stated that because of traffic problems (getting people from
one end of the mall to the other) and difficulty with snow removal, John
Purcell was against the addition. Norm Ladd, marketing manager of Colorado
Insight, was strongly opposed to the addition and added that Lionshead did
not need more retail shops.
PEC -2- 6/10/85
Schultz was concerned with enclosing the patio space and suggested that Le Petite
look into using removable walls, he felt that expanding the real estate offices
would constrict the pedestrian area, and would like to see the Wicked West expansion
reduced. Donovan felt that le Petite should not have a patio further onto the mall,
and felt that This Wicked West would look better if the store front was not extended
but was left recessed. Rapson stated that if the present deck at Le Petite was
enclosed, he was not in favor of any future expansion. He was not in favor of
the infill of the wall. Rapson felt that the area near This Wicked West seemed very
cold and the addition of glass block would make it seem even colder.
Affeldt mentioned that the intention of the Lionshead Mall improvements was to make
it a place more conducive to pedestrian traffic. He did not agree with the applicant's
statement that the construction would be an architectural improvement. Affeldt wondered
why VA did not do their construction during the Lionshead construction. He stated
that there were a large number of corporate functions using space in the core that
could be moved to make room for the real estate offices. He did not think moving
the retail space out to the north would add new pedestrian traffic, agreed with Piper
concerning This Wicked West, felt that the real estate addition would inhibit
pedestrian traffic and that reducing the stairway size combined with retail ex-
pansion would inhibit skiers traffic to the Gondola.
Piper said that he noted that during the site visit the only.life on the mall.was
LePetite cafe. He felt that two things were counter to each other - -the expansion of
the cafe helped reduce the vast space, but also reduced activity which is also
important to the mall. Piper was disappointed that there VA was still proposing
a two story addition for the real estate offices and felt that the massing inhibited
the flow of traffic that goes west down the mall. He had mixed emotions of the
0 Wicked West expansion because the new facade went back to the cold and sterile
approach of the rest of the building, and the recesses helped to break this up.
Bill Pierce stated that popcorn wagon customers now had to stand on VA's property
because VA's property extended to the east edge of the stairway. He felt that this
was not the time to be discussing whether or not Le Petite's use of the mall space
for a patio. He also reminded the board that the Town had already set a precedent
in allowing private parties to use TOV land. He added that the Urban Design Guide
Plan suggested expansion of retail space.
Bruan clarified his earlier remarks in quoting from the Urban Design Guide Plan
which stated there could be a two story addition if it would not have negative
impacts.
Jack Hunn asked to table this item one more time.
Affeldt stated that he hoped the new proposal would be greatly changed. Rapson
said he would to see a drawing showing clearly where the VA property lines are
•
PEC -37 6/10/85
•
0
on the proposal. Ra son moved and Affeldt seconded to table this item to
to an indefinite date. The vote was 5 -0 to table this item.
2
Request for a densit
in order to add a thi
4277 Columbine Drive.
Applicants: Timothy Boyle and Debbie Nicholson
Kristan Pritz presented the request explaining that because of the small
size of the lots in Bighorn Terrace, all construction encroached on the property
lines and any additions would have to include setback variances. She stated
that presently the dwelling contained 748 square feet of GRFA and the request
of 395 feet would result in a total GRFA of 1,143 square feet or 539 square
feet over the allowable GRFA. The staff feat that to approve the request
for 395 square feet of GRFA would be a grant of special privilege and also
felt that this request disregarded Ordinance No. 4 which was intended to
address upgrading of existing homes. The PEC and Town Council have worked
for over a year to write an ordinance that would allow home owners to apply
for no more than 250 square feet of additional GRFA in order to upgrade their
homes. The staff felt that the applicants could work within the allotment
of 250 square feet for their addition, realizing that setback variances would
still be necessary for either type of addition.
Tim Boyle, one of the applicants, stated that they had two options when adding
on, to either expand upward or outward. They felt that an upward expansion
would have less impact on the neighbors because their unit was somewhat detached.
He added that he was aware of Ordinance 4 but felt the request would not
have much impact on the neighborhood, it would only be 33' high, would solve
the problem of a leaking roof, would improve the appearance of the building,
and would not be a grant of special privilege since so many other Bighorn
Terrace residents had been granted variances.
P
as did Donovan and Schultz. Piper pointed out that now that there was an
ordinance to work with, this was the first request to ask for more than
250 square feet.
Affeldt wondered if Boyle had tried to add a third story and still stay within
250 square feet, and Boyle said he believed it would not be as aesthetically
leasing Pa son agreed with the staff concerning the 250 square foot limit
Ra son moved and Donovan seconded to the setback variances. The
vote was 5 -0 to approve. Rapson moved_ and Donovan seconded to deny the request
for a GRFA variance The vote was 5 -0 in favor of disapproval of the GRFA
requst.
3. R equest to amend an approved development plan to allow for a two year
interim development plan for the Golden Peak Ski.Base Area.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
The applicant requested to table this item until June 24. It.was moved,
seconded and voted to table to 6/24.
control variance of 395 feet and setback variances
d story to a residence on Lot 20 -D, Bighorn Terrace
PEC -4- 6/10/85
4. Request for a 15 foot setback variance and a four percent site coverage
in order to build a garage and to reduce the grade of the driveway on
Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 2. Applicant: Richard Strauss
Rick Pylman explained the requests and stated that the property had a very
steep (18 %) grade which was unsafe and the applicant wished to build a garage
within 5 feet of the front property line. The zoning code required 2.5 parking
spaces, but the proposal allowed for only two on -site parking spaces with
the third parking space partially within the Town right -of -way. The Town
engineer was concerned with potential negative impacts upon traffic and upon
snow removal and had requested that the applicant address his parking requirements
within his property boundaries.
Ken Wentworth, architect for the applicant, stated that there was other parking
on the street, so this would not be a grant of special privilege. Wentworth
explained that the garage could not be moved farther back because of footing
conditions. Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, stated that this proposal was similar
to that of the Stephenson request in that it was important to get the parking
off of the street. He added that for snow removal, it was important to get
the parking as far off of the street as possible. Wentworth pointed out
that the existing retaining wall encroaches onto the street every bit as
much as the parking would. Andrews said that the property had been annexed
that way. The board discussed other possible solutions.
Ra_pson_ moved to deny the request but there was no second Affelt moved and
Schultz seconded to approve the request because it would not constitute a
grant of special privilege, would not be detrimental to the public health
• safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties in the vicinity
and was warranted because the strict or literal interpretation and enforcement
of e specified regulation would result in practical 7 icu y or unnecessar,
hysicalhardship inconsistent wit the objectives of this title--the threat
with the car coming own through the main thoroughfare as the driveway now
exists. Rapson felt that there must be another design consideration that
would solve the problem other than the one presented. The vote was 3 in
favor and 2 ( Rapson and Piper) against.
5. Request for an exterior alteration and side setback.variances in order
to enclose a deck at the KB Ranch Company restaurant located in the
Lionsquare Lodge Applicant: Lion Square Ltd. Partnership
Rick Pylman reviewed the request and the criteria, showing site plans and
elevations. He stated that the staff recommended approval. Jim Cunningham,
representing the owners told a little of the history and Mike Bergemeister,
the KB Ranch restaurant owner added more information. Donovan was concerned
that the a enclosure not look like an "add on." Patten was concerned about
the sign over the entrance to the Lionsquare lodge advertising the restaurant.
Rapson moved and Affeldt seconded to approve the setback variance to allow
the enclosure per the staff memo The vote was 5 -0 in favor. "
Rapson moved and Schultz seconded to approve exterior alteration per
the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
PEC ` 6/10/85
There followed a discussion of areas to be studies further on the application
for fractionized fee interest for the Mariott Mark Hotel.
Kristan Pritz gave an updated report on the Ford and Donovan parks and also
announced that there would be a meeting on the Bighorn Park on June 12 at
the Vail Racquet Club.
6. The following projects were given preliminary approval and decisions
were made concerning whether each was to considered at a public hearing
in 60 days or in 90 days y
Lodge at Vail elevator addition: Vote 5 -0 for 60 days to a public hearing
Lodge at Vail entry addition: Vote 5 -0 for 60 days to a public hearing
•
Hill Building enclosure of deck: Vote 5 -0 for 90 days to a public hearing
The meeting was adjourned at 6:45 pm
u
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10. 1985
SUBJECT: Request for side, front and rear setbacks and for
a GRFA variance of 395 square feet in order to add
a third story addition to a residence on Lot 20 -D-
1 of Bighorn Terrace Subdivision at 4277 Columbine
Road_ Applicants: Tim Boyle and Debbie Nicholson
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants wish to add a third story, including a clerestory
to their two story single family residence. In order to construct
this addition, a GRFA variance of 395 square feet and setback
variances are needed. The following table shows the GRFA and
variance statistics for this property:
Zone: Medium Density Multiple- Family
Lot Area: 1724 sf
GRFA:
Existing: 748 sf
Allowed: 604 sf
Variance
Proposed: 395 sf
Total with variance: 1,143 sf
Total amount over allowable: 539.4 sf with addition
Setbacks Required: 20 feet on all sides
Setbacks Existing: 0 feet north side
9.7 feet on south side
19.2 feet on east side
12.1 feet on west side
Parking: Required: 2 spaces /500 to 2,000 sf of GRFA
Presently the site has one parking space. The parking
is considered to be a legal non-- conforming situation.
This request does not increase the GRFA beyond 2,000
st which would necessitate an additional parking space.
Therefore, the legal non-- conforming situation is adequate
for the addition.
Boyle -2- 6/10/85
40 Height: Limit is 35 feet for a flat roof, 38 feet for a sloping
roof. Request is for 33 feet.
The GRFA allowable for this unit is 604 square feet. Presently,
the GRFA is 748 square feet. The applicants are requesting
to add another 395 square feet which would make a total GRFA
of 1,143 square feet. This request would result in the GRFA
being 539 square feet over the allowable GRFA. The staff will
count 250 square feet of the total 395 square foot variance
as a request under Ordinance 4 which allows for additions up
to 250 square feet. The intent of Ordinance 4 is to address
this type of upgrading for dwelling units which have been located
within the Town of Vail at least five years. If Ordinance 4
were not applied to this request, the applicants would be able
to add another 250 square feet in the future. For this reason,
it is important to incorporate the GRFA request under Ordinance
4.
Because of the small size of the lots in Bighorn Terrace, the
existing building encroaches into the required 20 foot front,
side, and rear setbacks. This unit encroaches 20 feet on the
north, 10.3 feet on the south, 7.9 feet on the west and 0.8
feet on the east side. The proposed addition will be located
on top of the existing structure. The addition will not encroach
any further into the 20 foot setbacks than does the existing
unit. The same setback encroachments are being requested for
the third floor addition. (Please see site plan.)
The following is the applicant's request:
"The purpose of this letter is to request a GRFA variance
for a proposed addition to my residence at 4277 Columbine
Drive. The addition will consist of an additional story
on top of the existing two story structure. As such, I
will not be approaching any set —backs nor will I be increasing
the footprint of the building. I intend to hold the new
ridge of the building below the 33' height restriction,
so again no variance will be required on that point. As
you are aware, Bighorn Terrace is composed of a number
of small single family and duplex residences on extremely
small sites. Many of the owners in this subdivision have
done additions to their residences, typically adding on
to the perimeter of the buildings. Due to the postage
stamp size of our lot, I feel that an addition upward will
have less impact on the site and the neighborhood than
a perimeter addition. Also the flat roof design of this
early Vail home has caused us numerous problems with leaks
that have to be addressed by creating a slope on the existing
building. By going up with the addition, I will basically
41 be solving the roof problem and creating additional space
at the same time. Presently the home has two small bedrooms
and one small bath which make it nearly impossible to consider
having a family. I intend the finished building to be
Boyle -3- 6/10/85
considerably more attractive than the mansard roof "box"
which is presently on the site. As many other residents
of Bighorn Terrace have been granted variances to improve
their properties, I feel that I have a right to enjoy the
same privilege. The proposed addition will be approximately
400 square feet. I do not feel that the granting of this
variance will affect the light, air, distribution of population,
transportation, traffic, utilities or public safety in
the area. The increased height of the building will not
have a detrimental effect on the two neighbors, as neither
have a view or sun corridor through this volume; trees
taller than the proposed addition exist on two sides of
the house, between our house and the two neighbors noted
above. The residents across the streets are in taller
buildings than the proposed new level and should not be
affected by this addition. In short, I feel that relief
from the strict interpretation of the GRFA requirement
is necessary in this case if I am to receive equal treatment
as a number of other sites in my vicinity."
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
U on review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the _ setback variances and denial of the requested
GRFA variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existin
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
A. Setback Variances
The requested setback variances presently exist. The application
is for a third story on a structure that is already encroaching
on all four sides into the required setback restrictions.
The encroachments due to the addition should not substan-
tiallyimpact adjacent units, as the setback encroachments
already exist.
B. GRFA Variance
A third story would somewhat impact the neighbor to the
south. The units in Bighorn Terrace are on small lots with
the result that there is not much space between buildings.
In general, units in Bighorn Terrace are only two stories.
The new third story will appear out of character with the
rest of the subdivision. However, the impacts from the
third story are negligible due to the location of adjacent
units' windows and views.
Boyle -4- 6/10/85
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation
and enforcement of a specified requlation is necessary to achieve
compatibilty and uniformity of treatment among sites in the
vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant
of special privilege.
A. Setback Variances
Staff feels that due to the existing building, it would
not be a special privilege to grant the variances for setbacks
as the setback encroachments will not be any greater than
those existing encroachments.
B. GRFA Variance
Staff feels that it would be a grant of special privilege
to approve this GRFA variance. The following chart shows
variance requests in Bighorn Terrace have been approved:
DATE
VARIANCE REQUEST HISTORY OF BIGHORN
APPLICANT TYPE OF AMOUNT OF
RFQ UEST VA RIANCE
TERRACE SUBDIVISION
STAFF PEC
RECOMMENDATIO ACTION
Mar 77
Benysh
GRFA
130
sq ft
Approval
Approval
Setback
8
ft
Approval
Approval
May 78
Rowe
GRFA
473
sq ft
Denial
Approval
Setback
7.5
ft
Denial
Approval
July 78
Alder
GRFA
75
sq ft
Denial
Approval
Setback
8
ft
Denial
Approval
Aug 78
Turnbull
Setback
7
ft
Approval
Approval
Aug 80
Curfman
GRFA
177
sq ft
Denial
Approval
Aug 82
Odum
GRFA
122
sq ft
Denial
Table
Setback
18
ft
Approval
Sep 82
Odum
Setback for
18
ft
Approval
Approval
Airlock
Nov 83
Houston
GRFA
80
sq ft
Denial
Approval
Setback
16
ft
Denial
Approval
Feb 11
Sherr
GRFA
50
sq ft
Denial
Approval
3
Setbacks 3,11,
& 13 ft
Approval
Approval
The chart
indicates that
approving
the setback variances would
.. not be
a grant
of special
privilege.
However,
it does show
that
approving
the GRFA
variance
would be a grant
of special
privilege
due to
the large
amount of
GRFA. There
have been
13 requests
for
additional
GRFA. The
staff recommended
approval
Boyle -5- 5/10/85
. of only one in 1977 for 130 square feet, and recommended cdenial
of the others. only two requests were for an amount greater than
130 square feet, that of Rowe in 1978 and. Wefman in 1980.
(Rowe is Boyle's neighbor to the south. ) Start believed tnaL
to approve this GRFA variance would be inconsistent with other
requests that have been granted in Bighorn Terrace. More impor-
tantly, staff feels that this request disregards Ordinance No. 4
which was intended to address upgrading of existing homes.
The PEC and Town Council have worked for over a year to write
an ordinance that would allow home owners to apply for no more
than 250 square feet of additional GRFA in order to upgrade
their homes. The ordinance specifically states:
18.71.010 Purpose
The purpose of this chapter is to provide an inducement
for the upgrading of individual dwelling units in
certain structures which have been in existence within
the Town of Vail for a period of at least 5 years
by permitting the addition of up to 250 square feet
of gross residential floor area to dwelling units
in said structures.... Proposals for any additions
... shall be reviewed closely with respect to site
plans, impact on adjacent properties, and applicable
Town of Vail development standards."
It should be noted that the applicants were made aware of the
opportunity to add an additional 250 square feet of GRFA under
this ordinance. However, the applicants chose not to pursue
their request under this process. The GRFA variance request
is 145 square feet over the 250 square feet allowed under Ordinance
4. A great amount of work went into Ordinance 4 to insure that
the amount of GRFA that could be added would be adequate for
upgrade additions and that the additional GRFA would not be
such a large amount that it would detract from the property.
To grant the GRFA variance of 395 square feet would go against
the intent of Ordinance 4. The 250 square foot figure was arrived
at by a great deal of discussion and research. Staff believes
that this figure is not arbitrary, and that the applicants'
desire to upgrade their unit can be achieved within the 250
square foot limit.
The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution
of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities,and publicnafety.
The third floor addition will decrease slightly the amount of
light and air between the Boyle's unit and the unit to the south.
It is felt that the third floor addition is not particularly
in character and scale with the rest of the subdivision. however,
the structure will be within the MDMF height requirement if
the third floor is added.
Boyle -6- 6/10/85
0 Related Polices in Vail's Community Action Plan
Under the heading, "Community Design" No. 2 states:
"Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements
should be encouraged.
-- Stimulate community awareness
- Incentives"
Staff encourages upgrades. However, zoning /variance criteria
must be adressed.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin
findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not consitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to proerties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Setback Variance
The staff recommends approval of the setback variances.
These setback encroachments already exist on the property
and the applicants are not requesting any further encroach --
Boyle -7- 6/10/85
r ments.
(Please note that if the PEC decides to approve the two
requests, the Town Engineer has requested that the applicant
complete a revocable right -of -way agreement as the applicants'
fence is on the Town right -of -way adjacent to Bighorn Road.)
B. GRFA Variance
The staff recommends denial of the GRFA variance. This
request conflicts with the intent of Ordinance No. 4 which
allows for additions up to 250 square feet. Staff believes
that the applicants could work within the allotment of
250 square feet for their addition. The applicants have
the opportunity to add 250 square feet either on the third
floor or perhaps on the ground floor. Staff realizes that
setback variances would still be necessary for either type
of 250 square foot addition. However, it is felt that
by staying within the 250 square feet the intent of the
ordinance is upheld and the additional GRFA would not be
a grant of special privilege. It also felt that the scale
and character of the existing subdivision would be maintained
by this alternative. Staff feels that to approve the GRFA
variance request of 395 square feet would be to disregard
Ordinance 4 which is designed to provide a streamlined
process for property owners who wish to upgrade their units.
For these reasons, staff recommends denial of the GRFA
variance request.
r]
TO: Planning and Environmental Commision
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for a front setback variance of 15 feet and
a site coverage variance from 20% to 24% in order
to construct a new garage on Lot 47, Vail Village
West Filing No. 2. Applicant: Richard Strauss
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a front setback variance of 15 feet
and a site coverage variance of 4t (488 square feet) in order
to construct a new garage. The new garage will be integrated
into the hillside and will have an earth covered roof. The
applicant makes the following statement as to why the variance
is being requested:
"The applicant currently has a two car garage at an elevation
of 10 -1/2 feet above the street. It has the longest practical
driveway of approximately 60 feet resulting in a total
slope of 18 %. (If the relatively flat apron in front of
the garage doors is not counted, the slope of the driveway
• is over 21 %). The maximum allowed for new construction
in the Town of Vail is 8 %, and with good reason. Having
occupied the unit for one winter, the Strauss' have experienced
many minor automobile body scrapes and several near misses
with other vehicles as they attempted to leave on snowy,
slippery days.
The present condition is unsafe, and good alternate garage
locations that do not require a variance are non - existent
on the site.
The effects of the site coverage variance have been strongly
mitigated by setting the structure into the hillside and
using the roof as landscape.
This requested variance has no effect on light and air,
distribution of population, or transportation. Traffic
facilities and public safety will be enhanced by the elimination
of a potentially dangerous condition. The onl aspect that
can be seen is that automobiles will be backing into the
street, but this is a typical condition in the area."
The Town of Vail zoning code requires 2.5 parking spaces for
a dwelling unit of this size. The proposal allows for only
two on -site parking spaces with the third parking space partially
• within the Town of Vail right -of -way. The Town engineer is
concerned with potential negative effects this may have on traffic
and on street maintenance and has requested that the applicant
address his parking requirements within his property boundaries.
• CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The relationship requested variance to _o ther existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Through the design of the garage, the applicant has attempted
to mitigate the negative impacts of locating a structure within
five feet of the property line. There are existing structures
within the vicinity which appear to be within the front setback.
Because of the improvement over the existing situation, and
with the design of the structure, it is felt that the setback
and site coverage variances will not have any significant impacts
upon adjacent properties and structures.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interprL tation
and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compa tibility and uniformity of treatment amore sites in the
vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant
of special privilege.
The applicant is attempting to improve an existing undesirable
situation. The current driveway grade is 18 %, resulting in
an unsafe situation for the applicant and for the traffic on
Gore Creek Drive. The applicant has put much effort into the
design of the garage to minimize the impacts of both the setback
variance and the site coverage variance. For these reasons
it is felt that if the Town Engineer's concerns can be met and
required parking could be provided, that the front setback and
site coverage variances would not be a grant of special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and _air_, distribution
of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
The Town Engineer has requested that a revocable right -of -way
permit be obtained for the existing retaining wall that encroaches
within the Town of Vail right -of -way. The Town Engineer has
also requested that all required parking for this site be addressed
on site and that no encroachment be made into the Town of Vaal
right-of -way. The proposal as designed does not meet this require-
ment.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings_ before granting variance
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordindary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone.
• The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
STUFF RECOMMENDATIONS
While the staff feels that this is an improvement of an existing
unsafe situation, and that the applicant suffers some legitimate
hardship, we cannot support this request due to the concerns
of the Public Works Department. We support the concept of the
improvement but feel that further design work attempting to
accommodate the required on -site parking is warranted. Staff
recommendation is for denial of the request as proposed.
r1
L._J
IOL
• ! a♦�
i ki
w Az
Aw
f . �MvAOtM'
t y
k..,
.f
j •i �i 3
Y: j r
fir
i
- Y i
r•, Y �
r L
a t
)T
1 . l i
k
a-
,w
I
t,-
II I
i'I III
...r a
4
x .
a:
1
J
i
' �' y F• a i �:i
E
4
r
4
� 0
�
I
tc%
ik
I LI
L LL[L L L L L Ll
4 f
Pf
L l
A 4
4 � k
� 0
Li W
F
iF
l ns. i 7 k J• , �I
■
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: ,Tune 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for a setback variance to allow for enclosure
of an existing deck that protrudes 7.b feet into the
side setback on the eastern property line and 10 feet
on the southerly property line.Applicant: Lionsquare- -
Limited Partnership c/o Jim Cunningham
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant has applied for an exterior alteration and setback
variance in order to enclose an existing deck at the Lionsquare
Lodge at the KB Ranch Restaurant. The existing deck protrudes
into the required 10 foot side setback, 7.6 feet to the east.
The existing deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property
line. The property to the south is covered by a 99 year lease
to the condominium association. It is used as open space and
a recreation area for the Lionsquare Lodge. The applicant is
requesting a 10 foot setback variance along the south property
line. The actual restaurant space will be within the property
is line given the existing deck rail and stacking width of the
glass enclosure.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the re uested variances based upon the following
far_tnr��
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existin
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The existing deck currently encroaches into these setbacks.
The enclosure of this deck should not negatively impact any
other existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity.
The adjacent property to the east owned by Vail Associates is
utilized as a skier access area. The property to the south
is under a 99 year lease to the condominium association of the
Lionsquare Lodge and is currently used as recreation and open
space.
The decree to which relief from strict or literal interpretation
. and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achieve
comp atibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the
vicinity or to attain the objectives of this title without grant
of sPecialprivilege.
The staff feels that to grant this request would not be a grant
of special privilege. The deck as existing is within the setbacks.
To enclose this deck would not create any additional impacts
upon the existing situation. Although the applicant must request
a setback variance from the southern property line, this property
is, for all intent and purposes, under the condominium association
control through a 99 year lease.
The eftect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution
of 12o2ulation, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
This requested proposal would have no impact on any of the above.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE
TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal . interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical difficulty
or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordindary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone.
• The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval. The
staff can see no additional negative impacts that go beyond
the existing situation.
•
0
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core
II and setback variance in order to enclose the dining
deck of the KB Ranch Restaurant located in the Lionsquare
Lodge
Applicant: Lionsquare Limited Partnership
I. THE PROPOSAL
The Lionsquare Limited Partnership through Jim Cunningham
is requesting an exterior alteration in CCII and a setback
variance in order to enclose the KB Ranch exterior dining
deck. The applicant presents the following statement addressing
their request:
"The KB Ranch Co is a restaurant located on Level
3 of the Lionsquare Condominium, Phase I, at the southeast
corner of the building. Due to topography, the restaurant
is three floors above the swimming pool to the south
but is currently entered from the condominium lobby
which is at grade at the north parking lot. Along
the east of the restaurant the grade drops approximately
3 stories.
A few years ago a deck was constructed to provide
outdoor seating area for the restaurant, the architectural
character of which matches other decks of the building.
The deck was constructed over a deck on level 2 and
is dimensionally responsive to that level 2 deck.
Due to climate conditions the deck has not been used
successfully for outdoor dining and has subsequently
fallen into disrepair. For this reason the owner
proposes to enclose the deck with sliding glass doors
and greenhouse glazing (see plans and description
in "Exhibit A"). When weather permits, the glass
doors will be open providing a quality "semi -- outdoor"
dining experience. During inclement weather, the
doors will be closed permitting use of the area and
enhancing the views from the dining area.
Specifically the existing deck protrudes into the
required 10 foot side setbacks on east, 7.6 feet at
the northerly portion of the deck and 6.5 feet at
the southerly portion of the deck. Furthermore the
existing deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property
line. It should be noted that in the region the deck
extends beyond the property line, the property to
the south is covered by a 99 year lease to the Condo-
minium Association. The leased area is used for a
swimming pool and open space. It should be noted
that, when constructed, the restaurant space should
be within the property line considering the existing
deck rail (which remains) and the stacking glass unit
width."
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR
ALTERATIONS
As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions
for new construction in Commercial Cores I or II involve
review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These
involve both the sub --area concept as delineated in the
Guide Plan and map as well as the Design Considerations
outlined for both the Village and Lionshead. In addition
to this are standard zoning considertions. This memo will
address the request with respect to these three review
criteria.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
There are no sub -area concepts that are directly related
to this proposal. The Lionsquare Lodge is on the fringe
. of the Urban Design Guide Plan area and not located in
a pedestrianized mall environment. Thus it is not specifically
addressed by any sub -area concepts.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
The following summarizes how this proposal relates to the
applicable design considerations as outlined in the Urban
Design Guide Plan for Lionshead.
A. Height and Massing Although the enclosure is technically
located on the third level of the Lionsquare Lodge,
the east elevation is actually near grade and will
appear as a ground level expansion. This should positively
impact the view of this multi- storied building as
seen from the Lionshead Mall. The south elevation
is three stories above grade, but due to its exposure
has no impact on the pedestrian scale.
B. Roofs The proposed deck expansion is compatible with
the guidelines addressing roofs.
C. Facades/Walls/Structure The proposed enclosure enhancing
the transparency of this level of the building. The
materials and design are compatible with these guidelines.
The existing handrail will be retained in order to
meet Uniform Building Code requirements.
D. Decks and Patios The Urban Design Considerations
for Lionshead state:
"E.1. Functional decks or patios, primarily for dining
are strong street life elements in Lionshead and are
highly encouraged, on either the ground or second
floor level."
This enclosure will increase the year -round use of
this deck but there is no impact upon the street life
due to the location of the restaurant.
The Design Considerations add:
"E.2. Decks and patios should be sited and designed
with due consideration to sun, wind, views, pedestrian
activity and accessibility."
Sun: While the east patio loses the sun early in
the day, the south deck receives sun through most
of the afternoon. Included with this memo is the
detailed sun /shade study completed by the applicant.
Wind: The location of this deck adjacent to the Gore
Creek corridor subjects this area to fairly strong
winds and rapid afternoon cooling. This issue is
also addressed in the applicant's sun /shade study.
0 Views: This proposal has no impact on views.
Pedestrian Activity: This proposal will have no impact
on pedestrian activity.
Accessibility: This proposal will have no impact
upon accessibility.
The guidelines also discuss the issue of decks as they
relate to the adjacent street life. This is not applicable
to this proposal as it is removed from the pedestrian core
of Lionshead.
E. Accent Elements
This issue is best addressed at the Design Review
Board level.
F. Landsca a Elements
This issue is also best addressed at the Design Review
Board level. Although it is apparent that construction
of this plan would necessitate removal of one 6 inch
caliper aspen tree, the applicant has agreed to replace
this tree with two 3 inch caliper aspen trees.
•
0
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
There are basically two areas to be addressed relative
to zoning. This includes parking and the requested setback
variance. Following are our staff comments on these issues:
A. Parking
The enclosure of this deck creates an additional demand
for required parking spaces. At the time of issuance
of building permit, a parking fee will be assessed.
B. Setback Variance
The setback variance request required for this deck
enclosure is addressed in the accompanying memo.
•
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The enclosure of exterior dining decks has often been a
controversial issue in the past. The Urban Design Guide
Plan and Guidelines encourage these decks and discourage
their enclosure. However, the staff feels that due to
the location of this deck and its lack of impact upon street
life and pedestrian scale, that there is little negative
impact associated with this proposal. The staff feels
that this is an improvement of an existing situation, both
functionally and architecturally. It will significantly
incense the use of this dining area into the fall and winter
months while still allowing for a basically "open -air"
atmosphere. We recommend approval of this exterior alteration
request.
LJ
0
May 1, 1985
i
Planning and Environmental Commission
Planning Staff
Town of Vail
Vail, CO.
Re.: Setback Variance - KB Ranch
Company Deck Enclosure
intratect
po box 57
vall colorado
.81658
8275732
Commission Members,
This statement is intended to address the precise nature of the requested
setback variance for the KB Ranch Co. Deck Enclosure. .
General
The KB Ranch Co. is a restaurant located on Level 3 of the Lion Square
Condominium, Phase 1, at the southeast corner of the building. Due to
topography the restaurant is three floors above the swimming pool to the
south but is currently entered from the Condominium Lobby which is at
grade at the north parking lot. Along the east of the restaurant the grade
drops approximately 3 stories.
A few years ago a deck was constructed to provide outdoor seating area for
the restaurant, the architectural character of which matches other decks
of the building. The deck was constructed over a deck on level 2 and is
dimensionally responsive to that level 2 deck.
Due to climate conditions (explained in detail in the attatched "Exhibit
A ") the deck has not been used successfully for outdoor dining and has
subsequently fallen into disrepair. For this reason the Owner proposes to
enclose the deck with sliding glass doors and greenhouse glazing (see plans
When weather permits the; '
and lass doors will
description in "Exhibit A "). p g
be open providing a quality "semi - outdoor" dining experience. During
inclement weather the doors will be closed permitting use of the area and
enhancing the views from the dining area.
Specifically the existing deck protrudes into the required ten foot (10')
side setbacks (on east) 7.6 feet at the northerly portion of the deck and.
6.5 feet at the southerly portion of the deck. Furthermore the existing
deck extends 0.7 feet beyond the south property line. Itshould be noted
that in the region the deck extends beyond the property line the property
to the south is covered by a 99 year lease to the Condominium Association.
The leased area is used for a swimming pool and open space. See Ihter-
Mountain Engineering survey No. V- 50185, submitted. It should be noted
that, when constructed the restaurant space should be within the property
line considering the existing deck rail (which remains) and the stacking
glass unit width.
•
Planning* Commission Considerations
• The specific nature of the request has been addressed above. In addition,
F believe the Commission should consider the following:
10
1. Creating the space within the required setback will
eliminate a large portion of the potential dining space,
imply removal of large portions of the exisitng decks
(due to reduced dimensional characteristics), expose a
large portion of the existing deck on Level 2 to weather
and require installation of new structural components
through the decks below.
2. The areas surrounding the expansion are open, Tract
land, which will remain open for the forseeable future.
Tract C, to the east is used as skier access. Tract A
is not developable. Furthermore, the existing deck has
been in place for quite some time and enclosure of the deck
within it existing boundries would not materially effect
the sense of open space. Elsewhere in the Lionshead
Commercial Core expansion to the property line is encouraged.
I would find this proposal appropriate in that it does
not substantially reduce the apparent openers of the space.
3. Unlike other restaurant deck enclosures proposed in the
pedestrian areas of the Village and Lionshead Core areas
this proposal involves enclosure of space that is one
Lo three levels above grade and is in an area that is
not effected by pedestrians. Furthermore, the proposed
openable glass architectural character will permit use of
this existing deck more frequently although as a semi- -
outdoor space.
4..The proposal will not adversely effect light, air, ...
distribution of population, transportation, traffic
facilities, utilities, or public safety. Conversely,
the proposal will positively effect the use of the deck
itself (see attatched letter from .dim Cunningham dated
April 29, 1985, and sun analysis submitted under seperate
cover) .
10
� 0
KB Ranch Co. Restaurant
Deck Enclosure
Setback Variance
"Exhibit A"
I*
To support the variance requested in the attatched documents the following
information, which outlines the architectural solution; is submitted.
a. The existing railing will be left intact except where
the new entry deck is to be added - the new deck railing
will match the existing.
b. The sliding glass portion of the glazing will encompass
about 2/3 of the exterior wall surface permitting a true
feeling of outdoor dining when weather permits opening of
the panels. The exterior wall glazing panels are full
height - extending From the floor level (behind the existing
railing) to approximately 6' -$" above the floor. The .._.
existing railing, which is an "open" style railing and
will permit penetration of light and.air, and will serve
as the required "gaurdrail ".
c. A glazed "greenhouse" style roof system will be installed,
except where ice fall danger exists.. This installation
will enhance the open, outdoor feeling of the space.
d. Vail Associates has reviewed the proposal., including
encroachment of the new entry stair onto Tract C. A
letter showing their approval is submitted under seperate
cover.
e. A letter from the restaurant operator will be submitted
explaining how the space will be operated (when will the
glass be open ?), upon the operators return from off - season
vacation.
10
IE
April 29, 1985
SUNSHINE STUDY FOR KB RANCH CO.
T have owned the subject space since its completion in 1972 and have
the following comments with respect to the path of sunshine on the
deck. T will confine my comments to two seasons, winter and summer
with the off- seasons making the obvious transition between the two
major seasons. The present deck space consists of two areas -- the
east patio and south patio (see attached drawing).
Winter Season East Patio
This patio obviously receives good morning sun. However, in
the early winter, December and January, the low lying sun is
hidden behind Golden Peak early in the A.M. and doesn't reach
the deck until 9:15 to 9 :30. By 12:00 noon the sun has rota-
ted westerly and the east deck is again in the shadows.
Summer Season East Patio
j The sun rises higher in its arc towards solstice and the east
deck gets good early morning sun, however, except for its most
southerly portion, by 12 :30 the majority is again in the shadows.
Because of its location next to the stream there is a rather
rapid cooling trend in the early evening and sometimes Accom-
panied by strong down valley winds.
Winter Season South peck
The south deck gains the sun early (except for Decembex.and
January) and enjoys it until 3:30 to 4:30 p.m. during; the
winter days. However, because of its closeness to the bottom
of the valley floor it doesn't enjoy the longer sun found at
Purcells and Bart & Yettis. As the winter sun moves higher
and more northerly towards the spring season, the end of the
building shades the south deck before the sun sets towards
the West Vail radio tower hill.
Sumuie'r Season - South Deck
The south deck enjoys early sun and all afternoon sun. However,
as the sun moves more northerly the south patio would get shaded
by the building itself and consequently looses the late after-
noon and evening sun. Again, because of its proximity to the
660 west lionshead place + vail colo. 81657 • telephone a/c 303 476 -5237
p.o. box 418 • vail, Colo. 81658
L'
Sunshine Study for KB Ranch Co.
Page Two
April 29, 1985
stream and rapid heating and cooling in the down valley
winds, there is a tendency for relatively strong winds in
this area in the Late afternoon and early evening.
Over the years we have attempted dinners on the patio using umbrellas,
umbrella tables and banquet facilities. Although occasionally this
has been done quite satisfactorily, in general, because of the rapid
cooling and the tendency for higher winds, it has not been a satisfac-
tory site for outdoor patio dining. The views obtained by the clients
using the deck, into the stream, into the pool and up the Gore Range
is something we feel to be highly desirable. However, the decks need
to be made more enjoyable so that the occupants can enjoy both the
views and scenery which will, most certainly, enhance the apres ski
traffic.
Should you have any questions with respect to this rather informal
study I would be more than happy to answer them. I hope you will
view them as from an occupant of the building for the past 14 years
and that in itself speaks with sufficient history.
Very truly yo xs,
WT Jam. Cunningham
WJC:kg
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10, 1985
SUBJECT: Proposed Expansions to the Gondola Building
Applicant: Vail Associates
BACKGROUND ON P REVIOUS P LANNI NG COMMISSION REVIEW
There are three main areas of expansion proposed for the Gondola
Building that were reviewed by the Planning Commission one month
ago. These include:
1. Addition of approximately 1100 square feet of retail space
by expanding the area currently occupied by Banner Sports,
Marcets, and Le Petite Cafe.
2. The conversion of 1100 square feet of office space to commercial
use and an addition of approximately 700 square feet of
commercial space by infilling a portion of the walkway
between the two wings of the Gondola Building.
3. A two story 1800 square foot addition to the east end of
the Gondola Building to be used as office space for Vail
Associates Real Estate.
With respect to these areas of expansion, the Planning Commission
expressed some concern over the potential loss of Le Petite
Cafe's outdoor dining along the mall. There were no negative
comments voiced concerning the expanded retail operations in
the walkway between the two wings of the building. There was
considerable concern over the proposed two story addition to
the real estate office. Specific comments referred to the encroach-
ments into the popcorn plaza area as being a negative impact,
the expansion of real estate space on ground floor in Commercial
Core II was felt to not be in the spirit of the zoning code
regulations, the loss of landscaped pockets around the addition
were seen as a negative impact, and a number of commission members
suggested that a one floor expansion would be preferable over
the two stories proposed in the submittal.
The staff has met with the applicant to discuss the results
of the Planning Commission meeting and review an amended proposal
for this expansion. One significant area added to this plan
is a proposed expansion to This Wicked West shop located on
the lower level of the Gondola Building. This and other amendments
and changes to the plans will be addressed in detail in the
next section. Staff reaction and comments concerning these
changes will be addressed in the following section of this memo-
. randum.
. CHANGES TO PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED PLANS
1. Storefront Expansions Along Mail The design of this expansion
has not changed from that previously reviewed by the Planning
Commission. With respect to the impact on the existing
street lamps, the applicant has proposed providing lighting
for this area mounted on the building itself. While it
would not be appropriate to use the same fixture because
it would not relate to the scale of the building, staff
recommends that some type of lighting be installed that
is compatible with the existing Lionshead street lighting.
In addition, the applicant has proposed installing four
tree grates in front of the retail expansions. While these
have not been reviewed by the Public Works and Fire departments,
the staff is pleased to see this addition to this proposal.
These plantings are consistent with the Urban Design Guide
Plan.
2. Commercial Infill in Staircase Area
The commercial infill in this area has not changed from
that previously reviewed by the Planning Commission. There
is, however, an additional display box proposed on the
opposite side of the staircase. While this proposed display
box is only approximately 40 square feet in size, the staff
. feels it will impact this area by narrowing the staircase
to 8 feet in width. This will be addressed in more detail
in the next section of this memorandum.
3. Pro osed Ex ansion to This Wicked West
Exterior alterations in Commercial Cores I and II can be
submitted to the Department of Community Development twice
each year. On the most recent deadline, which was May
28th, This Wicked West submitted an application for a storefront
expansion. Because the Gondola Building is presently going
through the same review process, we have incorporated the
proposal for the Wicked West with the Gondola Building
plans. The proposed expansion is approximately 450 square
feet directly in front of the existing storefront. A second
floor deck is proposed atop this expansion and will be
accessed by the proposed Vail Associates Real Estate office
and the new retail space on the same level.
4. Real Estate Expansion
The proposed expansion in this area of the Gondola Building
has been modified in a number of ways. Foremost among
these is the addition of retail space on the north side
of the building immediately fronting on the Lionshea d Mall.
This has reduced the amount of actual frontage for the
real estate office to approximately 30 feet on the mall.
With this change in use, there are now two retail shops
proposed with this expansion. The footprint of the expansion
in this area has also been altered slightly by jogging
inward at ground level off the mall. One additional modifi-
cation in this area is the expansion of the landscaped
planter on the south and east ends of the proposed real
estate space. This has also allowed for the placement
of a seating area adjacent to the expanded planter. In
summary, there have been a number of changes made in this
area, however, the bulk and mass of the addition is substan-
tially the same as was preiously reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
STAFF COMMENTS ON THESE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS
Following are staff reactions to the proposed amendments and
additions to the Gondola Building expansion plans:
1. Storefront Expansions Along Mall
The two areas of concern with respect to these expansions
are lighting and landscaping. The staff can support relocating
lighting fixtures on the building that would be lost from
the expansion. While it would not be necessary to use
the same fixtures as are presently located on the mall,
a similar design and light with similar wattage should
be used. The staff supports the introduction of four on--
. grade tree grates and would encourage the Planning Commission
to direct the Design Review Board to expect substantially
sized trees in these grates. It should be noted, however,
that the location of the tree grates will have to be approved
by the Public Works and Fire departments because they would
be located on Town of Vail property.
2. Commercial Infill and New Display Box in Staircase
There have been no substantial changes to the retail addition
that was previously approved by the Planning Commission.
The display box, however, is a new element to this proposal.
The staff does not support this addition because of the
impact it would have on the width of the staircase. Where
proposed, the display box would narrow the width of the
staircase to 9 feet. It is felt that this display box
would provide no real benefit to the Lionshead Mall area
while creating a point of congestion on the stairs.
3. This Wicked West Expansion
At the conceptual level, the staft is favorable toward
this proposal. However, there is concern among staff that
the proposed expansion extends too far out into the mall
area. As proposed, the expansion would be flush with the
existing wall along the staircase leading to this area.
At the present time, it is felt the existing storefront
works well in that it is recessed off the mall a number
of feet. At this time, the staff feels that an expansion
approximately one -half the dimension proposed would be
more appropriate. Another related impact resulting from
this expansion is a loss of an existing spruce tree in
this area. While the applicant has proposed a new planter
adjacent to the staircase, staff would like to see both
planter areas maintained through this proposed expansion.
The staff would recommend that this element of the Gondola
Building proposal be considered by the Planning commission,
however, it may be best to table this matter to allow the
staff and the applicant time to address some of these concerns.
As stated, staff feels some infill in this area may be
a positive addition to Lionshea d. However, the Lionshea d
Urban Design Guide Plan did not address this area for infill.
For this reason and other concerns mentioned, the staff
would like an opportunity to receive input from our design
consultant, Jeff Winston, concerning this proposal.
4. Real Estate and Retail Ex ansion
The changes to this area of expansion have been outlined
previously in this memo. The staff considers the increases
in planter area and the placement of the seating area to
be a positive addition relative to this proposal. The
introduction of retail space in this area is also a positive
change with respect to this proposal. However, the proposal
is still for a two -story addition and that is unacceptabale
to the staff at this time. The May 13 memorandum prepared
by the staff for this application is included in your packet.
Generally speaking, staff concerns outlined in that memorandum
hold true for this revised proposal as well. Briefly,
these concerns include:
a. The proposed expansion would impact dramatically the
clock tower square area. This is contrary to the
design of the Lionshead Mall.
b. The connection between the Gondola Plaza and the clock
tower square would increase in length and narrowness
as a result of this addition.
C. The proposal would impact existing view corridors
from adjacent outdoor dining decks.
For these reasons, the staff is strongly opposing the plans
presented for the real estate office expansion.
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
It was previously stated in the May 13 staff memorandum that
40 parking requirements from this addition would be accommodated
through Vail ,Associates' existing parking spaces in the north
day lot, the west day lot, and the Gondola Building. While
this is the case for the real estate office expansion and the
previously approved additional office space, parking requirements
for individual retail expansions would be the responsbility
of the tenants. This would be addressed through payment into
the parking fund as outlined in the zoning code.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
There are a number of elements relative to this proposal that
have been addressed in this memo. individually, the staff
is supportive of some, conceptually supportive of others, and
strongly opposed to other aspects of the proposal. These break
down as follows:
1. Staff supports the commercial expansions along the north
end of the building adjacent to the mall and between the
staircase.
2. Staff is opposed to the proposed new display box in the
staircase area.
3. Staff is recommending denial of the proposed real estate
expansion.
4. While the staff is generally supportive of This Wicked
West's expansion, it is felt that more study is needed
and recommend that action not be taken on this element
of the proposal at this time.
Regardless of the positive elements found in this proposal,
the staff is strongly opposed to the real estate expansion plans.
As a result, staff has little choice but to recommend denial
of this proposal as presented.
W0 Aull
x, v-
t J 1 tip' .. �,,_ .. k .�,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...........
m
VAT
1k Ai
Vol
I ow
s. -. ` wG` S + t '�•�7s� 5R Y'q -, ! � � y#• e ; �.�• :. ,� � � � s - �� i ? � + _ � -
4 0
, OP
6 4 ,
&
T7 ..........
4 NAM
IOU
van . 411. PAS. a sit ri r
.5.
' 10 " .46 W
41-
N
Y5�
4
o
3 0,1
f�;�l,�b �..��"r' �� +c_� �ti f. .r �� �,��• i- � -� r , ;� -� f - s � _ : ,t � '� +" � r ....... . . . . . . . . . . . .
1 31
'RE
t'.41
J Z
J.; Q
.......... .......... ...............
9
F S
1 h• ,
4 O.
r 44 4 th •Y� � - ;��,# � ,� ��s P - .-.� - � 5 { �� � ���y � (e+ ��% ��
5y ' s; 4 • -t4 y -�t ,. . ,ir -w.W �My 4 8
Vi-
7 ^ V "5 •i
Y, y ti
.�
A
t� ,fib �• i J 4 � ,+. n . �
-, �
r - ." r
- f l
t:
rX �,t t oo ,
F .f�
r
r s o
who
a �S,
ti
'�� 'i Y ,' .jf r, �-�R r� .irk r f ! � _ts° �T ? Y
'� .?y ` r. S_ - _ S S � °,- ti� �/�• f 4 - � tit ', �' � +'P � tp }.
70- Q4
n o
AS
f y
■
M1 r ~• A .
s '�
-
I r A ARM
Kim
K s
r ti'
�r h
7 ^ V "5 •i
Y, y ti
.�
A
x
d y
_
.J
a
3
MEMO TO: The Planning & Environmental Commission
FROM: The Community Development Department
DATE: May 13th, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order
to expand existing commercial and office uses in
the Lionhead Gondola Building.
Applicant: Vail Associates
I. THE PROPOSAL
This proposal includes additions to the existing Lionshead
Gondola Building in three areas. These include:
P7
1. Addition of 1098 sq.ft. of retail space by expanding
existing and retail operations (currently occupied
by Banner Sports, Marcets and Le Petite Cafe), along
the north side of the building adjacent to the
Lionshead Mall area.
2. Convert 1168 sq.ft. of existing office space to commercial.
use (presently occupied by Vail Associates Real Estate
offices), and add an additionally 680 sq.ft. of
commercial space by infilling a portion of the walk-
way /staircase between the two portions of the Gondola
Building. This addition would be on the Mall level
immediately across from Banner Sports.
3. A two storey, 1880 sq.ft. addition to the east -end of
the Gondola Building to be used as office space for
Vail Associates Real Estate.
In addition to this proposal, the Planning Commission should
note that Vail Associates does have existing approval from the
Planning Commission to add office space above the existing
mezzanine between the wings of the building containing the Gondola
operations and what is predominently retail use. Approval was
also granted for a proposed restaurant expansion at the north-
west corner of the Gondola Building adjacent to the Lionshead Mall.
The requests before you today are in addition to those previously
approved by the Planning Commission.
Lionshead Gondola Building #2
C
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR
EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions
or new construction in Commercial Core 1 or 2 involve review
with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These involve
both the sub --area concept as delineated in the Guide Plan and
map, as well as the design considerations outlined for both the
Village and Lionshead. In addition to this are standard zoning
considerations. This memo will address each of the three areas
proposed for expansion with respect to these three review
criteria.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN D ESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
The Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a number
of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any re-
development or additional development in the Mall area. Two
of the sub -area concepts are directly related to this proposal.
A third area (Clock Tower Square), while not specifically a
sub -area concept is directly affected by the proposed expansion
of the real estate office. Each of these three areas should be
adddressed when reviewing this proposal.
Sub -area Concept #19
This sub -area concept reads:
Commercial expansion (one storey), and ground floor office
replaced by commercial to improve pedestrian scale, accessibility,
and create strong activity generator for south side of plaza -
currently a snow collector. Light tree screening, either
portable or ingrade - level tree grates for snow removal and
easy access.
This element of the proposal is generally in compliance with the
commercial expansion as called out for by the Urban Design Guide
Plan. The expansion will create a much more pleasing pedestrian
scale then what is existing presently. There are however, two
areas of concern which need to be addressed with respect to this
addition. As proposed, the expansion would necessitate the removal
of existing street lights on the Lionshead Mall. The relocation
of these lights would have to be approved by the public works and
fire departments prior to permitting this expansion as presented.
In addition, the Urban Design Guide Plan calls out for the intro-
duction of trees to help screen the existing structure. While this to
Lionshead Gondola Building #3
a
has not been shown on the proposal before you today, the
applicant has acknowledged that this would be an acceptable
addition to the plan. As is the case with the street lights,
locations for landscaping would have to be approved by the Public
Works and Fire Departments.
Sub -area Concept #20
This sub -area concept reads:
Gondola Building ramp, a second access to the Gondola to distribute
foot traffic, and draw visitors, through other areas of mall.
The Guide Plan envisioned a ramp leading from this staircase
to the doors of the Gondola Terminal in much the same way the
existing staircase functions. The intent was to improve pedestrian
circulation as well as draw people through this area. Obviously
the ramp is not an element of this proposal. However, the staff
supports the additional commercial space in this area and feels that
it will serve to invite the pedestrian through this corridor.
While the commercial expansion would narrow the width of the existing
stairwell, it is felt that this is not a negative impact. In
addition, if V.A. were to propose the construction of a ramp in
the future, it is felt that it could still be accomplished regard-
e9
less of this proposed commerical addition or expansion.
Clock Tower Square Sub -area
As previously stated, while the Clock Power Square is not a
specific sub -area, it is directly impacted by the proposed
expansion of the real estate office. As proposed, the real
estate office expansion would extend 22 ft. from the existing
building to the east (with an additional S ft. roof overhang
over the entry), and 16ft. towards the north. The staff
feels there are significant impacts as a result of this expansion
on the Clock Tower Square area. Before outlining what these impacts
would be, it is important to understand the intent behind the design
of the Lionshead Mall. As stated in the Urban Dasign Guide Plan for
Lionshead:
"The general urban form of Lionshead is that of a series of
connected plazas or courts, occasionally linked by a mall or
narrow passageway. Both architectural and landscape improvements
should reinforce that urban form ".
This concept is easily recognized by walking through the Lionshead
Mall, where a number of plazas, squares, and courtyards have been
established. The staff feels there a number of concerns relative
to this aspect of the application that should be carefully considered.
These include:
Lionshead Gondola Building #4
1. The connection between the Gondola Plaza and the Clock
Tower Square is a short and narrow one. The addition
to the north of the Gondola Building would increase the
length and narrowness of this walkway connection. It is
the feeling of the staff that this addition would create
a feeling of an "alley -way" and that this is not a desirable
addition to the mall. It is felt that this addition would
also cast more shade on this walkway than is presently
occurring.
2. This addition encroaches dramatically into the existing
plaza area to the east of the real estate offices. The
staff feels strongly that this diminishes the size in
openness of the plaza in such a way as to destroy the
intent of this area.
3. The outdoor decks of Purcell's and Bart & Yeti's are very
popular areas in both the summer and winter months. This
addition would impact the existing view corridor toward
the mountain to the east of the Gondola Building.
4. The addition would require the removal of two existing
seating areas. While the plans show these benches being
relocated, inspection of this proposed location would
show that the new site is going to be a much more private
area and not an inviting one for use by the general public.
5. To summarize, it is felt that the proposed real estate
office expansion has a number of serious impacts that alter
and compromise the intent of the original design of the
Lionshead Mall.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH T URBAN DESIG CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
The following summarizes how this proposal relates to the applicable
design considerations as outlined in the Urban Design Guide Plan for
Lionshead.
Height and Massing
With respect to building expansions, the Guide Plan recommends
they be limited to one - storey unless a two- storey addition is
called out for specifically in the Guide Plan. When considering
this application, the proposed real estate expansion is a two -
storey addition and is not compatible with this guideline. While
the two - storey expansion may be compatible with the existing
roof lines on the Gondola Building, it does create negative effects
on the pedestrian with respect to scale and massing.
c �
Lionshead Gondola Building #5
(0
Urban Design Considerations
Of primary concern here is the guide line addressing the
general urban form of Lionshead Mall. This was highlighted earlier
in this memo. It is felt that this addition is in conflict with
the general concept of the Mall which is a series of plazas and
courtyards connected with malls or passageways.
Another design goal is to improve and strengthen the visibility
and attractiveness of ground floor improvements. While the
commercial addition will undoubtedly accomplish this, the real
estate office expansion will create a more negative effect with
its impact on the Clock Tower Square area than will be gained
by improved visibility at the pedestrian level.
Roofs
All three proposed areas of expansion are compatible with the
guide lines addressing roofs.
Facades - Walls /Structure
The proposed expansions are generally in compliance with these
guide lines. Because the commercial store fronts would be finished
by the tenant, detail on these facades are unavailable. These
issues could be addressed at the DRB level.
De cks & Patios
There are a number of issues relative to these guidelines that
need to be addressed. Among these is the existing outdoor patio
at Le Petite Cafe. On completion of this commercial store front expan-
sion, there will be no room to accommodate the existing outdoor _dining
that takes place in this area. This is because the proposal is for
an expansion up to the property line. Allowing the patio dining
to relocate on the Town of Vail property would require approval of
the Town Council. An additional concern here is with respect to
potential obstruction of pedestrians and emergency and service
vehicles if the dining activity is allowed to encroach further
into the Mall. As was previously mentioned, another area of
concern is with respect to the relocation of two existing benches.
The proposed location for these benches is in a fairly private area
that will not be comfortably accessed by the pedestrian. This is
a strong concern of the staff with respect to the real estate office
expansion.
Accent Elements
These elements are best addressed at the DRB level.
Landscape Elements
As is the case with Accent Elements, the level of detail to
l.ionshead Gondola Building #6
evaluate these areas at the Planning Commission review is w
insufficient. If this project is approved by the Planning
Commission, more level of detail will be required for the
DRB and these areas will be thoroughly addressed.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
There are basically three areas to be addressed relative to
zoning issues. These include parking, office uses on ground
floors, and the requested setback variance to allow for the
Real Estate expansion. Following our staff comments on these
issues:
Parking
The existing inventory of parking spaces for Vail
Associates includes the North Day lot, the West Day
lot, and the loading dock area with a total of 338
parking spaces. Existing parking required for uses in
the Gondola Building is 214 spaces. On considering
the additional commercial space, the additional office
space, and the conversion from office to retail use,
parking demand generated by these improvements equals
19 spaces. This would leave Vail Associates with an
excess of 105 parking spaces remaining after this
proposed development.
2. Office Use on Ground Floor
As the Planning Commission is undoubtedly aware, professional
offices are prohibited on the ground floors in C ommericial
Core 1 & 2. Uses in operation prior to the creation of this
ordinance are allowed to continue as legal, nonconforming
uses. The proposal before you today involves the same
floor area of office space on ground floor. The applicant
has proposed converting the existing real estate space to
commercial use and relocating the same square footage in
the proposed expansion. While not compatible with the
spirit of the ordinance to restrict offices from ground
floor, in reviewing the nonconforming section of the zoning
code it appears that this proposal is allowable. V
3. Setback Variance
The setback variance request required for the real estate
expansion is addressed in the accompanying memo.
L �
Lionshead Gondola Building #7
6
Staff Recommendation
There are three distinct areas of expansion with respect
to this proposal. The staff is generally supportive of the
two retail commercial expansions and is strongly opposed to
the real estate office expansion. As a result, we are
recommending denial for this submittal as presented. The
memo highlights our primary areas of concern. In most general
terms, the real estate expansion plan undoubtedly would improve
the functionability of the Vail Associates Real Estate office,
however, the staff feels strongly that the proposal has a number
of negative impacts on the street and surrounding public places.
An extremely helpful tool in evaluating proposals for development
in the Village or Lionshead are the Urban Design Guide Plans.
These documents were developed through a public participation
process and approved by the Planning Commission and Town Council.
They address design considerations as well as physical improve-
ments that were deemed necessary to improve the overall pedestrian
experience in the core areas. The Lionshead Urban Design Guide
Plan was the conceptual plan utilized in developing the design
for the Lionshead Improvement District. As is the case in the
Village, any proposals in this area must be reviewed with respect
to their compatibility to the original Urban Design Guide Plan.
In looking at this Guide Plan, there are a number of areas called
out for infill development. Indeed, one of these is the commercial
expansion proposed for the north side of the Gondola Building in
this submittal. The majority of these areas called out for infill
are done in order to improve the pedestrian scale of the Mall.
Other areas are called out for infill development because of sun/
shade characteristics. In these areas, development was considered
preferable over existing situations because of the overwhelming
amount of time the area was cast in shadow. While the Guide Plan
identified areas for infill development, it also identified areas
to be established and maintained as plazas or squares. One of
these is the Clock Tower Square immediately adjacent to the Meal
Estate office expansion proposal. The "open feeling" found in the
Clock Tower Square area is a refreshing change when considering the
scale of the built environment around the Mall. It was designed to
be open courtyard area with the popcorn wagon and landscaped areas
as focal points. The real estate office expansion would violate
this open area dramatically. Keeping in mind the Guide Plan is
our tool for evaluating proposals in this area, there is no doubt
in the opinion of the staff that this proposal is inconsistent with
the intended design of the Lionshead Mall.
The staff strongly recommends to the Planning Commission that this
proposal as presented be denied.
To
m
- "T L ��
f t.
rn
--"- tT
r � � G� -
;� �; � 1,
�� 1
T
T-
1�
I
(TI
Z� '
cn
rT
0
--"- tT
r � � G� -
;� �; � 1,
�� 1
T
T-
1�
I
(TI
Z� '
MEMORANDUM
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Comilission
FROM: Coriununity Development Department
DATE: May 13th, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for expansion of an existing
structure 6 feet into the required 10 feet setback.
APPLICANT: Vail Associates
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Vail Associates has applied for an exterior alteration for a number of additions
to the Gondola Building. The real estate office expansion proposal as outlined
in the accompanying memo is proposed for an area of 6ft. into the required loft.
setback. In addition to the approval of the exterior alteration proposal, the
Planning Commission would have to grant this variance request for the encroach-
ment into the 101"t. setback.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.06 of the Municipal'Code, the
Department of Community Development recommends denial of the requested variance_
based upon the following factors:_
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity
There presently exists a portion of the Gondola Building that encroaches an equal
distance into the 10ft. setback along the Lionshead tall. This existing
encroachment creates a situation with negative iirpacts with respect to urban
design and pedestrianization along the tall. Specifically, it is the felt the
the existing encroachment creates a narrow feeling for the pedestrian as they
pass from the Gondola Plaza to the Clock Tower Square. It is the feeling of the
staff that to allow further encroachments - would increase the canyon -1 i ke
effect in this area.
The degree to which relief from the strict or litera in a enforcement
of a specified re u lation is ne cess� to a comoatibility and uniformity o
treatment among site in th vicini to a ttain the objectives of this tit
without grant of special privi
The staff feels that to grant this request would be a grant of special privilege.
Any proposed infield development that is specifically called -out for in the Urban
D--sign Guide Plan for Lionshead may autocratically waive the required loft. setback.
Areas not intended for redevelopment must comply with the required 10ft setbacks.
The area in question was not identified in the Guide Plan for expansion.
s
T he - effect -- j Q gpyes;.£C'' vorianc on light and air, distribution of po ulc'tion,
transR rtation and tr a f f aci I ides, publ iC faCil itlE`5 and 111117 t1P. s. :rrd iUbl if
- - _ _ _ .._.....- - - -- - -- -
safEt��. _ - ..
This proposed expansion would have a negative effect on light and air by increasing
the narrowness of the walkway between the Gondola Plaza and the Clock Tower Square.
In addition, it would reduce in size an area used by the Public Works Dept. for
temporary snow storage.
RELATE POLICI IN VAIL'S C ACT ION PLAN
There are no policies in the action plan that would lend support to this request.
t
(_f
Such oth er fac tors and cr teri a as th e _com s i on de ems appl i cabl e _ t he �rro�escd
variance. __.
FINDIN
Th Planni and En viro Co sh at1 make the fof1 i n wing f ding before
gr anting � a�var °i ance: � � T —_ � —_� � � - -` - -�- ,� 4101
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege
inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health,
safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstEnces or conditions applicable to
the site of the variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and c-r "orcument of the specified regulation
would deprive the a pplicant of privi Q;y,—d '. },, -nnLrs of of propert
oth er
in the same district. V
STAFF RECOil'IENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. The staff can see no legitimate •
physical hardship to warrant this request and to grant this variance would be a
grant of special privilege. For the reasons cited in this nenn and those rlentioned
in the exterior alteration merno, the staff feel strongly that this request be
denied.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 12, 1985
REVISED AGENDA
1:30 pm Site visits
3:00 pm Public hearing
1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24.
2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
3. Request for exterior alteration and for variances in order to add an
elevator to the east side of the Lodge South (Lodge Towers).
Applicant: Lodge South Condominiums Association.
4. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf course
clubhouse on the site of the present clubhouse in the Agricultural and
Open Space zone district.
Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
5. Request for an amendment to the municipal code in order to add low
power, subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the
Primary /Secondary Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space
zone districts. Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc.
6. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the
west side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a garage
on Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins
TO BE TABLED 8. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story
to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
9. Announcement of ,joint Town Council /PEC meeting on August 20.
� J
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 12, 1985
1 :30 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24.
2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
3. Request for exterior alterations and for variances in order to add an
elevator to the east side of the Lodge South (lodge Towers).
Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association
4. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the west
side of the Lodge at Vail. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
TO BE TABLED 5. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to
the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
6. Request for an amendment to the municipal zoning code in order to add
low power, subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the
Primary /Secondary Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space
zone districts. Applicant. Stephens Communications, Inc.
7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a garage on
Lot 4, Block D, Vail Ridge subdivision.
Applicant: Mike Baskins
8. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf
course clubhouse on the site of the present clubhouse in the Agricultural
and Open Space zone district.
Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
9. Announcement of joint Town Council /PEC meeting on August 20.
•
1
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 12, 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Tom Briner (new) Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Tom Braun
Howard Rapson Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Betsy Rosolack
Jim Viele
ARSFNT
Eric Affeldt
1. Approval of minutes of June 10 and June 24.
Donovan moved and Rapson seconded to approve the minutes of the meeting of
June 10. The vote was 4 in favor with Viele and Briner abstaining.
Donovan requested that concerns about the amphitheatre timing be passed
on to Council in the August 24 meeting.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded that the corrected minutes of August 24
• be approved. The vote was 5 in favor with Briner abstaining.
2. Request for exterior alteration for Gondola Building in Lionshead.
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
Tom Braun stated that this was the third time this item had been considered.
He showed site plans and elevations and listed 6 major elements with changes
and also listed the criteria to evaluate exterior alterations. He stated that
the staff recommended approval of the plan with the exception of the staircase
adjacent to Purcell`s deck, and the approval included 3 other conditions.
Bill Pierce, architect for VA, reviewed the proposal. He mentioned that VA
had eliminated the expansion of the real estate office on the northeast
corner. He added that the only issue now was the staircase on the north side.
Pierce stated that the staircase was necessary until level 3 was constructed.
The staircase was discussed as was the schedule. Nunn stated that with new
ownership there was no guarantee when the project would be done, but guessed
that perhaps it would be next spring. He added that they could come back with
the phasing later. Dean Liotta stated that This Wicked West would expand this
October and hope to be finished on the exterior in 2 to 3 weeks.
The sun /shade aspect was discussed and Pierce felt that there was no change.
Donovan wanted DRB to know that the lights at le Petite were to be relocated.
Braun stated that the same type of light that exists in the area could be obtained
in a smaller version. Donovan felt that letting le Petite use public space
• would encourage other businesses to do the same.
PEC 8/12/85 -2-
Donovan also felt that placing trees so far into the mail may obstruct the view
and make it look like a dead -end. She asked if it were possible for VA and
others to do all the projects at once„ and Braun answered that this aspect
hadn't been addressed. Patten stated that if the PEC felt strongly about the
timing, they should make a strong statement to VA. Donovan replied that she
felt that Lionshead had suffered enough, and Viele agreed. Donovan added that
she was not concerned about Wicked West since it was not on the mall. Nunn
stated that first there would be the addition of the mezzanine that was within
the existing volume, and the stairways and the expansion of the storefronts
on the north. Nunn stated that the applicant would have no problem if the PEC
wanted to require that all that be done at once. (with the exception of the
proposed restaurant expansion on the northwest corner - -it can't be converted
to restaurant until the balance of the office has been completed.
The size of trees was discussed and it was decided that they should be 3" caliper
dediduous trees.
Viele moved and Sch ultz seconded to approve the proposed expansions to the Gondola
Building subject to the schedule of construction as listed, that the trees be
3" caliper deciduous, that the tenants of Le Petite Cafe and Banner Sports will
be responsible for snow removal between the four proposed trees and the storefronts,
that adequate street lighting be provided in the le Petite and Banner Sports
areas to replace the 4 Lionshead mall lights that would be lost from this expansion.
The vote was 5 in favor with Donovan abstaining.
. 3. Request for exterior alteration and for variances in order to add an elevator
to the east side of the Lodge South Lodge Towers). Applicant: Lodge South
Condominium Association.
Kristan Pritz presented the proposal and showed elevations and site plans. She
stated that the staff recommended approval with the Fire Department and Public
Works concerns addressed.
Darrell Harris with Robert Arnold Associates, representing the Lodge South, answered
questions. The feeling of the commission was that because of the height and
massing of the building, the elevator addition would not have much impact. The
building was already far beyond what was currently permitted. Rapson asked
about the construction schedule and Harris replied that they hoped to start
in September and have the outside done by October and the rest done by
Thanksgiving. Jay Peterson, speaking for the applicant, stated that it was
- reasonable for buildings that needed service elevators to be allowed to have these
elevators, as they improve the functioning of the building. He stated that this type
of improvement was good for the Town as long as no other negative impacts occured
due to the elevator addition.
Bob Poole of the Forest Service stated that the parking area south of the Lodge South
is Forest Service land and the Forest Service had 3 parking spaces. Poole expressed
concern that the staging materials and vehicles not use the 3 spaces nor block access
to the spaces. The contractor, C. Duncan, said this would present no problem. Briner
moved and Viele seconded to approve the exterior alteration per the staff memo Vote
. was 6 -0 in favor. Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the variances. Vote
was 6 -0 in favor. Staff also required that the elevator have fire service recall
and compliance with Vail Fire Department alarm systems.
PFC 8/12/85 -3-
5. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an entry to the west side
of the Lodge at Vail Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
Kristan Pritz showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. She
added that the staff recommended approval. Donovan was concerned that the large
evergreen be protected, and Pritz answered that she had been assured by the applicant
that the large evergreen would stay. Jay Peterson repeated this assurance.
Rapson asked about the purpose of chasing the entrance, and Jay stated that it was
to facilitate the flow of traffic.
Rapson moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff memo The
vote was 6 -0 in favor.
6. _Request for an amendment to the municipal code in order to add low power
subscription radio facilities under conditional uses in the Primary / Secondar
Residential and in the Agricultural and Open Space zone districts.
Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc.
Rick Pylman explained the request and added that the staff recommended approval
of only the change in the Agricultural and Open Space district and therefore
recommended denial of the proposal as submitted. Steve Wherry, the applicant,
gave his reasons for wanting the rezoning. The Forest Service site which his
company had been using could not be used any longer. Bob Poole of the Forest
Service stated that the Forest Service had allowed Wherry to have a temporary
use permit but would not be able to renew it. He added that the Forest Service
did have an area designated for this use on Vail Mountain. Wherry stated that this
location would not work for his business. Wherry also asked if he could get a
variance and was told that there was no such thing as a use variance. Patten stated
that all conditional uses in the Primary /Secondary zone district were public uses,
and to add a private use would be a bastardization of the zoning code; once a
conditional use is in the code, it is very difficult to turn down.
Donovan felt that the Forest Service was shirking their duty and should allow
the use on their land. Patten replied that the Forest Service policy was to
attempt to eliminate this type of service. He added that the staff could work
with the Forest Service in an attempt to address overall uses in the Master
Plan and spread out the responsibility to provide uses.
Wherry pointed out that his needs were very
After more discussion, Briner moved and Ra
involving only the AOS district but not the
Donovan voting against.
7. Request for a site coverage variance in order to build a ara e on Lot 4
Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision. Applicant: Mike Baskins
Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the request. He stated
that the staff felt that the location of the garage was the most- - logical one
on the lot and the garage size was not excessive. The staff recommended approval.
After discussion, Vieie moved and Ra son seconded to approve the request per
the staff memo The vote was 6 -0 in favor of approval.
different from other radio signals.
son seconded to approve the request
P /S. The vote was 5 in favor with
•
PEC 8/12/85 -4-
• 8. Requ est for a conditional use permit in order to construct a golf course
clubhouse on the site of the resent clubhouse in the Agricultural
and Open Space zone district. Applicant: Vail Metropolitan Recreation District
Peter Patten presented the staff memo and explained the procedure to be followed.
The memo included floor plans, elevations and square footage statistics. He stated
that the staff recommended approval of the clubhouse plans and added that it was
not within the purview of the PEC to discuss the overall community need for the
clubhouse redevelopment in relation to other recreational facilities. He also
showed a photo with an overlay of the new clubhouse which indicated that it would
not impact views. He added that although the clubhouse was large, the site was
also large which made the clubhouse not out of scale with relation to surrounding
uses.
Bill Ruoff, architect for the applicant, answered questions about the change
in the parking lot circulation.
Abe Shapiro, adjacent property owner, spoke in behalf of himself and the property
owners to the west of the proposal in favor of the new clubhouse.. He asked that
a bumper for cars be placed below his stone wall, that the existing landscaping
not be decreased, and that the existing golf cart path behind his home be grassed
over. Shapiro did not want more paving to the east.
Jay Peterson, representing Dr. Tom Macejko, a neighbor to the west, disagreed
that the PEC should not prioritize proposals brought before them. He stated that
his client did feel the clubhouse would have a positive effect upon the golf course,
as long as the Recreation District had unlimited funds.
Dr. Macejko then spoke and stated that the transient golfer did not feel that
the clubhouse was the most important item when visiting a golf course. He felt
that priority should be given the pro shop and the golf course itself rather than
the restaurant and bar.
In answer to additional off - street parking that could be available, Ruoff stated
that there was additional unused parking at Fall Ridge, and the management.was
willing to lease these spaces to the golf course. Answering the question about
whether or not there were guidelines when the present clubhouse was built, Ruoff
stated that the original clubhouse was constructed before the area was annexed into
the Town.and many small additions had been constructed since then. Briner asked
if there had been a study to determine the amount of parking needed, and Ruoff
answered that many studies had been made since 1981 and were available to the public.
Viele fundamentally agreed with Patten concerning the fact that the PEC should
not set priorities for the Town. He asked about development standards and
Patten stated that the development standards were to be approved at the same time
as the conditional use permit.
Pat Dodson, Director of Recreation, stated that there was to be a bond election
on September 3 and the voters would decide whether or not the clubhouse was to
be constructed. Piper stated that he would have like to have seen more citizen
input before the election. Dodson replied that there were to be two public meetings- -
on August 19 and 27 at 6:30 pm.
PEC 8/12/85 -5-
41 Rapson felt that the new clubhouse was badly needed, and was surpassed in need
only by the condition of the Golden Peak base facility. He pointed out that
this was another support facility for Vail. Donovan felt it was too bad the
facility was being proposed only 21 weeks before the bond election, because
she would have liked to have seen more public input as to what was best for
the whole community. She added that the bottom line.was that the money.was
comming from tax payers. Donovan felt that the Vail Metropolitan Recreation
District should be lowering the mill levy. She was curious as to the number of
persons served by the facility, and had concerns about the following: The restaurant
and bar was 3 times the original, it was competing with private restaurants, it would
not be practical to expect employees to park at a parking lot a block away, felt a
2 -way traffic flow pattern in the parking lot was needed, there was a need for more
parking, felt there should be a better solution to the delivery system, and felt that
she did not have enough information.
Schultz agreed with most concerns and felt that input from the public was most
important. Dodson stated that Nolan Rosall had done a study in which the Vail
clubhouse came out second to Beaver Creek when Beaver Creek was operating out
of a trailer. Patten stated that it was possible that the parking lot would need
more landscaping to comply with Town standards. Piper would have preferred to have
the proposal go to a larger forum before coming to PEC.
Discussion followed concerning development guidelines, and Patten explained that
the proposal contained the development guidelines.
Viele moved and Rapson seconded to approve the conditional use permit and to accept
the development standards in the plans per the staff memo
The vote was 4 in favor with 2 (Donovan and Briner) against.
Tom Briner was welcomed as a new member of the commission. Patten stated that there
would be a joint meeting of the Planning Commission and the Town Council on
August 20 at 2:00 pm to discuss the Vail Village Master Plan, the sign code
proposed amendments, Vail Associates' Mountain expansion plan, and the PEC's role
in capital facilities planning and prioritizing.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
•
I*
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 121 1985
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add an
elevator to the east side of the Lodge South building.
Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The Lodge South Condominium Association is requesting to add a 9b
toot high elevator tower to the east side of the Lodge South
condominium building. Total square footage for the elevator
addition is bl square feet. The elevator will extend up to the
8th story of the building. The elevator will be used primarily
for servicing the 42 existing condominiums.
Total Site Area: .3350 acre
Site Coverage Allowed
(8U% of total
site area) Existing
Elevator
Total existing
Remaining sf
LODGE SOUTH
or 14,5`
11,6'/4
11,542
81
11,1)23
51
)3 st
sf
5t
sf
sf (with elevator)
sf
(Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level
patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design
Guide Plan.)
GRFA: Allowed ll,b /4 st
Existing 57,52b sf
Over allowed 45,bb2 st
Density Allowable DU's: S
Existing DU's: 42
Common Area
(GRFA allowed 20%) Allowed 2,33b sf
Existing 7,249 sf
Elevator 61 sf
Total existing 7,330 sf
Total over allowed (including
elevator) 4,99!) sf
Hei ht Allowed: 1. Up to bvt of the building may be built
to a height of 33 ft or less.
• 2. Not more than 40s of the building may be
higher than 33 ft, but not higher than
43 f t.
Approximate Existing Heights:
• 16% of existing roof 96 It
bit of existing roof 94.b ft
16% of existing roof gl It
bt of existing roof 88 It
2% of existing roof bb It
Proposed elevator 9b tt high:
Revised Height Breakdown with New Elevator:
'l3% of existing roof 96 It
61�t of existing roof 94.5 tt
16% of existing roof 91 tt
•
*Please note that the southeast corner of the elevator addition
tapproxima to ly y sf J encroaches on the Lodge at Vail property.
The applicant has prov al for the encroachment. from the Lodge at
Vail giving their app
The Lodge South building is clearly a legal non - conforming
structure when compared too all owable Commercial r
comonarea l the existing
ments. With respect common
structure is already et14 withrtheeelevator addition the t total
area of 1,335 square a square
of common area over the allowed amount i5 equal he pp licant to
feet. For this reason, it is necessary osa1. tSee attached
request a common area variance for this p p
memo.?
Under Commercial Core I zoning, the maximum height of the building
is 43 feet. In addition, only 40t of the building can actually
have a height of 4:3 feet. The Lodge South condominium bui lding osed
has a height range be p6 feet and 8!> feet.
The proposed
elevator would match exactly the highest root ridge of p6 feet.
limit Of
The new root is over tw � e riaes hg hvas the liswrequired for the
43 meet. Therefore, g
addition.
11.
COMPL IANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE COMMERCIAL CORE.1
ZONE
18.24.01U Purpose
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 o -lodges and
env o
etablishments in a predominantly p edestrian
•
The Commercial Core I district is intended to ensure adequate
light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to
the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district
regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site develop-
ment standards that are intended to ensure the maintenance
and preservation of the tightly clustered arrangements of
buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways,
and to ensure continuation of the building scale and archit
ectural qualities that distinguish the Village.
Due to the fact that the Lodge South building is a non - conforming
building, it is difficult to compare it to the prescribed site
development standards as well as building scale requirements that
pertain to the Village. Staff believes that the new elevator is
an amenity that is appropriate to the permitted use of a condomin-
ium building. It is difficult to maintain the building scale and
architectural qualities that are called out in our Urban Design
Guide Plan as this building is a non - conforming structure.
However, the elevator is in scale with the existing building and
will use the same materials that are on the present building.
This proposal, given some consideration for the fact that the
building is a non - conforming structure, is in compliance with the
intent of the zoning for the CCI district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The Urban Design Guide plan does not call out any specific
proposals for this area.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the Design
Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or
detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations.
Below each consideration is the applicant's response as well as
the staff's response to that particular item.
A. Pedestrianization
Applicant: The proposed elevator addition will continue to
define the established separation between pedestrians and
vehicle circulation along the east building edge and the
Lodge parking lot.
Staff: The elevator addition is located on the interior of
the Lodge development. It is not close to a major pedestrian
way. The open area between the elevator addition and the
Lodge employee cafeteria is presently used as a parking
area, sevice delivery area, and a pedestrian walkway up to
the ski lifts from the Lodge. The elevator addition should
have very little impact on pedestrianization as it is pulled
back close to the existing Lodge Tower building. The
elevator will not take away any space presently used for the
0
purposes of parking, walking or making deliveries.
•
r1
B. Vehicle Penetration
Applicant: Not applicable.
Staff: This Design Consideration's major emphasis is to
reduce "auto penetration into the center of the Village."
The Lodge is organized in such a way that parking is located
in the interior areas of the site. Therefore, this design
Consideration is not applicable to this proposal. It should
be noted that the elevator addition will decrease the entry
way now going into the parking garage on the ground level of
the Lodge South building. An adequate opening of 12 feet
will remain if the addition is constructed. Both Public
Works and the Fire Department have stated that this is not a
problem. The minimum width for an access way is lU feet.
The proposal maintains this required width. Interior
vehicle penetration should not be adversely attected by this
proposal.
C. Streetscape Framework
Not applicable.
D. Street Enclosure
Applicant and staff: This consideration states that "an
external . enclosure is most comfortable when its walls are
approximately halt as high as the width of the space en-
closed." The external enclosure of space between the Lodge
at Vail and the Lodge South Towers is currently a ratio
greater than 1:1. This ratio will not be affected by the
proposed elevator addition.
F. Street Edge
Applicant and staff: The addition will provide more interest
and irregularity to the building edge and facade of the
east elevation.
G. Building Height
Applicant: The Lodge'South Tower Condominiums is currently
a non- conforming building located on the outer boundary of
the Commercial Core I zone district. The proposed elevator
addition is located internally on the Lodge at Vail property
at the east end of the Lodge South Tower condominiums.
Although this location will cause the most impact to the
Lodge at Vail, both the ownership and management of the
Lodge strongly approve of this addition. No request for
additional height is required since the proposed elevator
addition is to be no higher than existing portions of the
building.
•
Staff: The applicant actually is requesting additional
height as a greater portion of the building will now be at
the maximum height of 36 feet. The existing building has
only 16% of the roof at gb feet. With the elevator addition,
.
23% of the roof line will be at 9b feet. It is difficult to
compare this building to the Building Height consideration,
as it is so far from conforming to the height limitations.
This height is necessary in order to provide elevator
service for the building's 8 floors. The roof line will not
exceed the existing highest point of the building which is
also where the present elevator is located. As stated in
the Design Consideration "The height criteria are intended
to encourage height and massing variety and to discourage
uniform building heights along the street." It is staff's
opinion that the criteria cannot be applied effectively to
this proposal due. to the fact that to have a useful elevator,
it must service the S floors of this existing building.
Staff does feel that the Lodge South condominium building
does require special consideration due to the existing
height of the building and purpose of the service elevator.
H. Views
Applicant: Neither established view corridors nor streetscape
views from pedestrian ways will be adversely affected.
Staff: Established view corridors and views from pedestrian
ways will not be adversely affected by this proposal. Views
of the ski mountain from the I -70 and Frontage Road areas
will be affected. The additional height of the elevator
. addition will block out a small portion of the view of the
ski mountain.
I. Service /Deliver
Applicant: No impact.
Staff: All service and delivery areas are maintained given
this proposal.
J. Sun /Shade
Applicant: The proposed elevator addition will have insig-
nificant effect on the spring and fall shadow pattern over
the surrounding Lodge at Vail properties and parking lot.
Staff: The existing stair tower already casts shadows into
the parking area below. The proposed elevator will increase
the shadow pattern slightly. However, the sun /shade criteria
is designed for the purpose of limiting shadow patterns on
adjacent properties or the public right -of -way. In this
case, the elevator addition will not affect adjacent proper-
ties or public right -of -way areas.
•
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. It is felt that the
proposal is either not applicable to the Design Considerations or
has very little impact, it any, on each consideration. Statt
also feels that some relief must be given to the strict interpre
tation of height considerations for this building due to the fact
that it is a non- conforming structure. Staff recommends approval
of the project contingent upon the Fire Department and Public
Works concerns being addressed.
Fire Department
1 . Fire service recall w i l l be required in the new elevator.
2. . Compliance with the Vail Fire Department alarm system
w i l l be required.
Public Works
1. The elevator addition must not change the existing
drainage pattern on the property.
I•
July 9, 19U'5
Mr. A. Peter Patten
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TOWN OF VAIL
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Lodge Tower (Lodge South) Elevator Project
Dear Mr. Patten:'
Following our recent discussion this note serves
as a request to support the application Lodge
Tower for the addition of a second elevator to be
located on the east side of the building adjacent
to the fire staircase.
We would also like to confirm that bodge Properties
• Inc. are initiating proceedings to add the required
additional square footage necessary to accommodate
this elevator.
We would appreciate your support and favorable
consideration on this matter.
Sincerely,
Hans D. Turno szky
Managing Direc r
LODGE PROPERTIES INC.
cc: Mrs. Alice Snavley
•
174 East Core Creck Drive Vail, Colorudo 81657 303 -476 -5011 Tclex 45-0375
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
z
0
FROM: Community Development
DATE: August 12 19b5
SUBJECT: A request for a height variance and common area square
footage variance in order to add an elevator addition
at the Lodge South Condominium Building.
Applicant: Lodge South Condominium Association
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Lodge South Condominium Association is requesting to add a 96
foot elevator addition t8i square feet) on the east side of their
existing building. In order to construct this project, a height
variance and common area square footage variance are necessary.
This building is a legal non - contorming structure. The Lodge
South building is located in the Commercial Core I zone district
which has a height maximum of 43 feet for 4Ut of the building and
3-i teet for bU% of the building. The Lodge South does not
conform to either of these height considerations. In fact, most
of the Lodge is over two times as high as the maximum height of
43 feet. The elevator will be used as a service elevator and
therefore needs to provide access to all of the 8 stories of the
building. The proposed elevator wil11 match the highest existing
roof ridge of 96 feet.
In Commercial Core I, 2U% of the allowed GRFA for the property
can be considered as common area. Common areas include hallways,
common closets, lobby areas, stairways and common enclosed
recreational facilities. The allowed common area is 2,335 square
feet. The existing common area is 7 square feet. With the
addition of the proposed elevator, the building would be 4,99b
square feet over the allowed common area square footage. For
this reason a common area variance is also being requested.
Please see the following zoning statistics for this building:
LODGE SOUTH
Total Site Area: .33.50 acre
Site Coverage Allowed
(bU*o of total
site area) Existing
Elevator
Total existing
Remaining sf
or 14,.5
11, 674
11,542
81
11,6Z3
bl
)3 sf
sf
sf
sf
sf (with elevator)
sf
(Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level
patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design
Guide Plan.)
GRFA: Allowed 11,674 sf
• Existing .57026 sf
Over allowed 45,bb2 sf
Density Allowable DU'a: 8
Existing DU's: 42
Common Area
IGRFA allowed 1UI-) Allowed 2 sf
Existing '/ sf
Elevator 81 sf
Total existing I,33U sf
Total over allowed (including
elevator)
4,99-5 sf
Height Allowed: I. Up to but of the building may be built
to a height of 33 It or less.
2. Not more than 40t of the building may be
higher than 33 ft, but not higher than
43 f t.
Approximate Existing Heights:
16% of existing
( 0 1% of existing
ibis of existing
b% of existing
2% of existing
Proposed elevator 9b
• Revised sleight
23t of existing
bit of existing
1b% of existing
roof 9b t t
roof 94.b It
roof 91 ft
roof 88 It
root 8b It
It high:
Breakdown with New Elevator:
root 96 tt
root 94.b It
roof 91 ft
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
U on review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.U6U of the
Munici al Code, the of Community Deveiol2ment recommends
denial of the height variance and denial of the common area
variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other _existing_ or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Hei ht Variance:
The additional height of the elevator should not greatly impact
any adjacent properites. An existing stair tower already is
•
located next to the proposed elevator. This stair tower has a
height that varies between 8b and 88 feet. The elevator should
not greatly change the existing situation on this portion of the
building. The addition does not greatly change the building's
overall impact on adjacent uses and structures. The proposed
. elevator does increase the size of the building which in most
cases is already too large for the site. In state's opinion,
the addition has minimal negative impacts on the uses and struc-
tures in the vicinity.
Common Area Variance:
The proposed elevator addition decreases the size of the entryway
into the covered parking area. However, a 11 toot entry is still
maintained given the addition.The additional t3l square feet of
common area to this property has no negative impacts on existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The degree to which relief from t he strict or literal interiareta
tion and enforcement of a s ecitied regulation is necessary to
achieve com atibilit and uniformity of treatment amon sites in
t vicinity or to obtain the objec of this title without
rant of ,special privilege.
Height Variance:
It would be a grant of special privilege to allow the height
variance. It is certainly true that the existing building is a
legal non - conforming use due to the fact that it was constructed
under a different type of zoning. Vail has many buildings which
fall within this category. The proposed height of 9b feet is
• over twice the maximum height of 4:3 feet allowed under the
current Commercial Core I zoning. To approve such a great height
variance would be a grant of special privilege.
Common Area Variance:
Once again, many buildings in Vail are over their allowed GRFA
and common area allowances. To approve the additional common
area of 81 square feet would increase the total amount over the
allowed common area to 4,995 square feet. To approve the addition
al 81 square feet of common area would be a grant of special
privilege, as most other properties with the same square footage
problems have not been allowed to increase their GRFA or common
a rea s.
The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air, distribution
of population, transportation and trattic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and ublic safety.
Hei ht Variance:
This variance will have some impact on light and air in that the
size of the shadow cast by the stairwell will be increased
11
due to the additional height of the proposed elevator. The
elevator addition will not disrupt the flow of traffic through
r
• this area.
Common Area Variance:
The additional 81 square feet will have some impact on the open
hallways on each floor of the Lodge South building. Presently
there are openings on the east end of the hallway which will now
be blocked by the elevator addition. The additional common area
will have no effect on pedestrian or auto traffic. The decreased
size of the entryway into the covered parking is not affected to
such a degree that ingress and egress is a problem.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Not applicable.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin
findings before granting a variance.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical handship inconsistent with the objectives
of this title.
There are
exceptions
or extraordinary
circumstances or
conditions
applicable
to the site of the
variance that do
not apply
generally to
other properties in
the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff believes that there are. not any significant impacts
from this proposal. However, the staff feels that it would
be a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties classified in the same district to approve
either variance. For this primary reason, staff must recommend
denial of the two requests.
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Denartment
DATE: August 12, 19$5
SUBJECT: A Request for an exterior alteration in order to expand the entry on
the west side of the Lodge at Vail
APPLICANT: Lodge Properties Inc.
I. THE PROPOSAL
The Lodge at Vail is requesting to expand their west entry by 90 square
feet. They are also proposing to add a porte- coch�re off of the west
entrance. The roof ridge of the porte -cock re is 23 feet in height.
The following zoning statistics for the Lodge are listed below:
LODGE AT VAIL
MAIN WING ONLY (Does not include North Wing, Arcade, Condos, Lodge
Promenade)
Total Site Area Lot A : 2.0889 acres or 90,992 sq. ft.
Site Covera e: Allowable: 72,794
$0% x total
site area) Existing: 38,781
i (Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level patios
and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design Guide Plan)
G.R.F.A. Allowable: 72,794 sq. ft.
Existing: 19,192 sq. ft.
Common Area: Allowable: 14,559 sq. ft.
20% of allowed
GRFA) Existing: 12,515 sq. ft.
Entry Addition: 90 sq.. ft. --
New Total Common Area
Including Entry 12,605 sq. ft.
Parking: The existing parking is not decreased by this proposal
One additional parking space is provided due to realigning the
parking layout adjacent to the porte-cochere
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE
Purpose: Section 18.24.010. The Commercial Core I district is intended
to provide sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail Village
commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments
. in a predominantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I district
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district
Lodge at Vail -2- 8/12/85
regulations in accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide plan
and design considerations prescribe site development standards that are
intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and
public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the Village.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the
Commercial Core I district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts listed in
the urban design guide plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and considerations is
to show how the new design strengthens or detracts from the overall intent
of the design considerations.
A. Pedestrianization
Applicant and Staff:
This submittal has no impact on the pedestrianization of Vail Village.
The area is currently used as a parking lot,.entry and delivery area.
The canopy and the subsequent re- routing of traffic enhances the experience
of the visitor to the Lodge in that the area is now covered when the
guest unloads his or her car.
B. Vehicle Penetration
Applicant and Staff:
No change occurs to what is currently on site.
C. Street Enclosure:
Applicant and Staff:
There is no effect on street enclosure, as the parking lot is already
bordered by three to five story buildings. To a certain extent the canopy
will create a pedestrian focus and divert.attention from the upper
building heights.
•
Lodge at Vail -3- 8/12/85
E. Street Ed e:
• Applicant and Staff;
There is no change in Street edge, except to the extent that the aanapy
provides a jog in the facade line which gives some interest and a focal
point in an area of high buildings and parking.
F. Building Hei ht:
Applicant:
The building height is well below what is allowed in Commercial Core I.
Staff:
The height of the canopy is 23 feet. The allowed height in Commercial
Core I varies between 33 feet and 43 feet. The canopy is definitely
below these height maximums.
G. Views
Applicant and Staff:
No major views are affected. Some of the condominiums to the north of the
canopy may have their views of the main Lodge building blocked. However,
views of the ski slopes do not appear to be blocked.
H. Service and Deliver
Applicant and Staff:
All service alleys are kept open and full access under the canopy for
fire and emergency equipment is provided. Note that traffic into the
Lodge will now be organized so that visitors entering the property will
use the south entrance on the parking lot and visitors exiting will use
the north exit.
I. Sun /Shade
Applicant and Staff:
No adjacent properties are affected.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this proposal. The project has an overall
positive impact when compared to the Urban Design Considerations.
Staff feels that the entry addition and porte- cochere will greatly
improve the appearance of the existing entry way. Staff recommends that
the Design Review Board level, the applicant be required to provide
some additional landscaping to replace several of the aspen trees that
will have to be taken out due to the infill of the existing planter areas.
•
!9 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 12, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow as
a conditional use "low power, subscription radio
facilities" in both the Agricultural and Open Space
district and the Primary /Secondary Residential zone
district.
Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc.
BACKGROUND ON REQUEST
Stephens Communications, Inc. operates the Sounds Good radio
rental service available to skiers on Vail Mountain. Stephens
Communications is requesting this amendment so they may pursue
relocation of their existing transmitter site from Forest Service
land to property within the Town of Vail. The request involves
the Agricultural and Open Space (AOS) zone district as well
as the Primary /Secondary (P /S) zone district.
The purpose of the AOS zone district is as follows:
The district is intended to preserve agricultural, undevel-
oped, or open space lands from intensive development while
permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential
use consistent with agricultural and open space objectives.
Parks, schools, and certain types of private recreation
facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the
agricultural and open space district, provided that the
sites of these uses remain predominantly open. Site develop-
ment standards are intended to preclude intensive urban
development and to maintain the agricultural and open space
characteristics of the district.
The purpose of the P/S zone district is as follows:
This zone is intended to provide sites for single--family
residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one
unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a
smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public
facilities as may appropriately be located in the same
district. The two - family primary /secondary residential
district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single -
family occupancy, and two - family occupancy, and to maintain
the desirable residential qualities of such sites by estab-
lishing appropriate site develoment standards.
There are substantial areas within the Town of both the AOS and
the P/S R zone districts. The AOS zoned areas are primarily
i
located on both the extreme north and south edges of the incorpor-
ated boundaries of the town, although this district encompasses
the golf course as well as many centrally located parcels of
land. The Primary /Secondary Residential zone district is a much
more intensive zone district than the Agricultural and Open Space
and is generally subdivided into much smaller parcels.
EVALUATION OF THIS REMO
There are three sets of criteria necessary to adequately evaluate
this proposal. First, a discussion of the rezoning request
concerning the suitability /non - suitability of the existing
zoning. Secondly, is the proposed rezoning consistent with land
uses in the area as well as municipal objectives? Finally, does
the request foster the orderly and viable growth of the community?
1. Suitability of Existin Zonin
A. Agricultural and Open Space
The Community Development staff feels that the existing
permitted and conditional uses within the zone district
are very well suited to the intent of the district. We
believe that the addition of this request as a condi-
tional use will not weaken the strength of this district
as open space. The intent of this zone district is to
. maintain open space while permitting low impact develop-
ment to occur. We feel that the conditional use process
will allow adequate review of any proposals and allow
for development that will meet the intent of this zone
district.
B. Primary /Secondary Residential
The emphasis of this zone district is for residential
use although public utilities are allowed as conditional
uses. The Community Development staff feels that to
allow introduction of a private facility of the type
requested is not suitable for residential areas. The
average size of the parcels in this zone district and
the proximity of neighboring residents do not warrant
the addition of this use within this zone district.
2. Is the Amendment Presenting a Convenient, Workable Relation-
shie Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives?
A. Agricultural and Open Space District
The intent of the AOS district is to maintain a strong
sense of open space while allowing low impact uses.
Staff feels that given the large amount of land currently
within the AOS district, and the fairly specific nature
• of the requested amendment, that this proposal will
present a workable relationship with other uses and is
not contrary to the municipal objectives of this zone
district.
B. Prima ry /Secondary Residential
The purpose of the P/S R district states that this
district is intended to "maintain the desirable residen
tial quality of such sites by establishing appropriate
site development standards. We feel that this use is
not consistent with these objectives or compatible with
other allowable uses within the zone district.
3. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community?
A. Agricultural and Open Space District
The addition of this request as a conditional use still
allows the Town an adequate review process to insure
that siting and site development standards are met.
This also creates the ability to develop a use that is
not otherwise allowed in the Town while preserving the
basic intent of the zone district. This amendment may
allow for the growth and expansion of the ,local commu-
nication industry.
B. Primary /Secondary Residential District
As previously stated, we feel the addition of this use
in the Residential Primary /Secondary district may not
be in the best interest of the Town or the property
owners within the P/S district. This use is not
consistent with the intent of the district as a residen-
tial area and may create negative effects upon the
growth of our residential areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff supports the concept of this requested amendment for
the Agricultural and Open Space district. We feel that this use
does not adversely affect the intent or the strength of this
district. We feel that through the conditional use process,
adequate review of requests could maintain the viability of the
district while providing a vehicle for the growth of local
business. We believe, however, that the addition of this use in
the Residential Primary /Secondary district is incompatible with
the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial of
this proposal as currently submitted.
V
TO:
: 0
•
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
FROM:
August 12, 1985
DATE:
SUBJECT: Request for a site coverage variance in order to build
a garage on Lot 4, Block D Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Michael B. Baskins
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to build a gar
Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
square feet, and the allowable site
(20% of 13,150). Proposed is a
feet which is 21.6% coverage, or a
coverage than allowed.
age on the west side of Lot 4,
Che size of his lot is 1:3,150
coverage is 2,630 square feet
site coverage of 2,849 square
total of 219 square feet more
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.b2.060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the requested variance based upon the followin
factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
p otential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The garage is in keeping with the existing structures and uses in
the neighborhood. Two neighbors came into the Community Develop-
ment offices to see the proposed plans and both expressed pleasure
in the improvements the garage would make to the property and the
neighborhood.
The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta
tion and enforcement of a specified re elation is necessarx to
achieve com atibilit and uniformitX of treatment amon2 sites in
the vicinity.
The location of the garage is the most logical one on the lot and
is in the least obtrusive area of the property. The garage size
requested measures 24' x 23' which is not excessive. The lot is
small and the existing structure is relatively large with the
result that it is felt that to construct a garage of this size
would not be a grant of special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution
of populatio n, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
There is no effect.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a livable
to the proposed variance.
FINDINGS
The planning and Environmental Commission shall
findings before granting a variance.
ke the followi
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical handship inconsistent with the objectives
of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development staff recommends approval of this site
coverage variance. The construction of garages has been encour-
aged in Vail as a means for improving the appearance of neighbor-
hoods. The staff on the whole has looked favorably on setback
variances for garages and in light of the small degree of variance
needed in order to construct this garage, the staff feels it is
important to encourage its construction. The applicant received
preliminary DRB approval for the garage in 1982 (when it was
discovered he needed a variance) and he will have to go back to
DRB for final approval if he does receive this variance.
•
E•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 12, 1985
SUBJECT: Proposed expansions to the Gondola Building
Applicant: Vail Associates, Inc.
BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW
On two previous occasions, the Planning Commission has reviewed
proposals for expansions to a number of different areas within
the Gondola Building. A number of changes have been made to this
proposal since the last Planning Commission review. There are
now six elements that comprise this most recent submittal. This
memorandum will summarize these elements of the proposal, address
how they relate to the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan, and
present staff recommendations on this application.
SUMMARY OF THE ELEMENTS OF THIS PROPOSAL
The following summarizes the six major elements of this applica
tion:
1. Real Estate Office Expansion. The previous submittal
included a two -story 1860 square foot addition to the
east end of the building to be used as office space
for Vail Associates Real Estate. This element of the
submittal has been reduced to a 110 square foot infill
underneath the existing overhang. in addition to this
physical expansion, proposed changes in this area
include the addition of windows on the first floor of the
north side of the building. The existing planters and
seating areas in the vicinity of the real estate office
will remain unchanged with this proposal.
2. Expansion to This Wicked West. The expansion proposed
for This Wicked West consists of approximately 270
square feet located at the mezzanine level of the
Gondola building. In addition to the expansion of the
retail space, two planters are proposed as an element
of this addition. The proposed addition extends
anywhere from 5 to 8 feet from the existing store front.
3. Commercial Expansion Under Existing Stairwell
This retail space is created by the physical expansion
of the building as well as the conversion of existing
Vail Associates Real Estate office space. Consisting
of approximately 600 square feet, this is one element
of the proposal that has not changed since the previous
Planning Commission review.
. 4. Retail Ex ansions at Mall Level The proposed retail
expansions for Banner Sports, Le Petite Cafe, and
Marcet's have been altered from the previous Planning
Commission review. The most significant change was to
reduce the amount of expansion in front of Marcet's and
Le Petite Cafe to allow for more room for outdoor
dining in this location. In addition, the installation
of four trees have been proposed as has been called out
in the Urban Design Guide Plan. This element of the
proposal will be discussed in greater detail in a later
section of this memo.
5. Second Floor Office Space Located
Atop PreviousZ
Approved Restaurant Expansion.
The
Gondola Building
received a previous approval for a
restaurant infill on
the west end of the building.
An
element of this
proposal is to infill a portion
of
this previously
approved expansion with second floor
office space. An
additional element of this proposal
is
the reinforcement
and improvements to the existing
planter adjacent to
the restaurant expansion area.
6. Addition to the Existing Stairwells. In order to
facilitate internal circulation, horizontal additions
to two existing staircases are proposed. These additions
• are designed to facilitate circulation to third floor
office space within the Gondola. Building. Stairwells
affected by this proposal include the staircase adjacent
to Purcell's patio and the staircase on the west end of
building. This element of the proposal will also be
discussed in greater detail later in this memo.
CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR
ALTERATIONS
As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions
or new construction in Commercial Core I or II involve review
with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plans. These involve both
the sub- -area concepts as delineated in the Guide Plan and map as
well as the design considerations outlined for both the Village
and Lionshead. In addition to this are standard zoning consider-
ations. The remaining portions of this memo will attempt to
relate each of the elements of this proposal to these three
review criteria.
I. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
The Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a
number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any
redevelopment or new development in the mall area. This
proposal affects two of these sub -area concepts:
F1
. Sub -Area Concept 19
This sub -area concept reads: "Commercial expansion (one
story), and ground floor office replaced by commercial,
to improve pedestrian scale, accessibility, and create
strong activity generator for south side of plaza - -cur
rently a snow collector. Light tree screening either
portable or in grade -level tree grates for snow removal
and easy access."
This proposed expansion is substantially in compliance with
the developoment objectives outlined in the sub -area concept.
One issue of concern voiced during previous Planning. Commis-
sion review was with respect to the loss of outdoor dining
in the event of the building being expanded. This issue has
been resolved by recessing a portion of the expansion to
allow for both outdoor dining and the addition of the
building. In order to increase the size of the outdoor
dining area, the applicant has proposed locating a portion
of the outdoor dining patio on Town of Vail right -of -way.
The extent of this dining area would be defined by the trees
proposed for the area immediately adjacent to the Gondola
Building. The Town Council has reviewed a preliminary
design of this dining area and conceptually agreed to allow
for this activity to take place on Town of Vail land. This
conceptual approval by the Council was conditional on the
Planning Commission approving this proposal and in no way
pre -empts your review of this element of the application.
Two other issues relative to this expansion include the
maintenance of the area between the proposed trees and the
store frontage expansions as well as the loss of street
lighting now in place in this area. Both the Fire Department
and the Public Works Department have approved the location
of these trees with the condition that the tenants be
responsible for snow removal during the winter season. It
should be expressly understood that the applicant will be
reponsible for an agreed upon arrangement with the Public
Works Department for how snow removal in this area is to be
handled. The applicant has stated that street lighting will
be addressed by incorporating it onto the building expansion
when constructed.
Sub -area Concept No. ? 0
This sub -area concept reads: Gondola building ramp, the
second access to the Gondola to distribute foot trafffic,
and draw visitors, through other areas of mall."
The guide plan envisioned a ramp leading from this staircase
to the doors of the Gondola terminal in much the same way
• the existing staircase functions. The intent was to improve
pedestrian circulation as well as draw people through this
area. Obviously the ramp is not an element of this proposal.
However, the staff supports the addition of commercial space
in this area and feels that it will invite the pedestrian
through this corridor. While the commercial expansion would
narrow the width of the existing stairwell, it is felt that
this is not a negative impact. If VA were to propose the
construction of a ramp in the future, it could still be
accomplished regardless of this proposed addition.
YY. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
Only two of the six elements of this proposal are addressed
specifically by sub -area concepts. The following will
address the design impacts of the remaining elements of this
proposal as well as those previously addressed.
Height and Massing
With respect to building expansions, the Guide Plan recommends
they be limited to one story unless a two -story addition is
specifically called out in the Guide Plan. With respect to
the proposed areas of expansion, the Wicked West addition is
a one floor expansion, and the commercial in -fill at the
mall level is a one floor expansion with a second floor
greenhouse type addition. The office space proposed above
the restaurant expansion, while at the second level, will
serve to minimize the height and mass of the existing
building behind it. This is not seen as a significant impact.
One area of concern with respect to this application is the
proposed increase in height to the existing stairwell
adjacent to Purcell's deck. At present, the ridge line of
this portion of the building adjacent to the pedestrian
walkway is 19 feet high. As proposed, this height would
increase to 25 feet high, step back and extend to a total
height of 30 feet. While new windows are proposed in this
area of the building, it is felt the increase in height to
this stairwell will provide a substantial negative impact
with respect to its effect on the pedestrian and this
portion of the mall.
Urban Design Considerations
With the exception of the previously mentioned height of the
proposed stairwell expansion, this proposal will generally
improve the pedestrian scale and experience throughout the
mall.
Roof s
Roof elements proposed in this application include both flat
and vaulted roof systems. In addition, roof connections to
the existing building are tied into the architectural
elements of the Gondola Building. This element of the
proposal is in compliance with the guidelines outlined.
•
Facades -Walls /Structure
The proposed expansions appear to be
with the Facade -Walls /Structure
storefront finishes are to be done
details of the proposed finishes are
time.
Decks and Patios
in general compliance
guidelines. However,
by tenants, so exact
not available at this
The only area of concern with respect to this guideline
would be the Le Petite cafe outdoor dining area. As has
been mentioned, the Council has given a preliminary approval
that will allow for the development of a lease for Le Petite
to establish a portion of their dining area on Town of Vail
land provided the design is approved by the Planning Commis-
sion and Design Review Boards.
Accent Elements
These elements are best addressed at the Design Review Board
level.
Landscape Elements
There are a number of landscape elements proposed with this
application. The staff is supportive of all of these
elements proposed and feel that with one exception they can
best be reviewed at the Design Review Board level with
respect to exact numbers and types of materials used. The
exception would be with respect to the four trees proposed
in front of Le Petite and Banner Sport expansions. Discussion
has taken place with the applicants concerning the size of
trees contemplated for this area. Staff would like to see
minimum sizes established at the P.lanning Commission review
for the trees which will be installed in this area.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The only zoning consideration relative to this application
is with respect to parking.' Additional parking demand
created from changes within the Gondola Building for V a i l
Associates' uses can be met by the existing excess of
parking spaces at the North and West Day Lots. Additional
parking demand created by the commercial expansions would be
the responsibility of the individual tenants. Assessments
would be levied based on the square footage added as outlined
in the zoning code. Dollar figures for each level of
expansion would be determined and resolved by the applicant
prior to the issuance of any building permit for new construc
tion.
,`
r
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is generally supportive of the numerous elements
Of the proposed redevelopment. One exception is with
respect to the increased height of the stairwell adjacent to
Purcell's deck. It is felt that this increase in height
will have a negative effect on the pedestrian in this area.
With this exception, staff recommends approval of the
exterior alterations as proposed. The staff recommends that
the following conditions be included in any motion to
approve this application:
1. Approval is conditional u on the deletion of the
proposed staircase expansion adjacent to Purcell - s deck.
2. A minimum size for trees proposed adjacent to Le Petite
Cafe and Banner Sports be established as a part of this
approval.
3. That it is understood the tenants of Le Petite Cafe and
Banner Sports expansion areas will be responsible for
snow removal between the four proposed trees and the
storefronts. Specifics concerning how this will be
coordinated will have to be agreed upon with the Public
Works Department.
4. That adequate street lighting be provided in the Le
Petite and Banner Sports expansion area to replace the
four Lionshead mall lights that would be lost from this
expansion.
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 26, 1985
2:15 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of August 12.
2. Request for exterior alteration in order to add an area less than
100 square feet to the Lodge at Vail east entry next to the
Wildflower Restaurant. Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
TO BE TABLED 3. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story
at the Hill Building at 311 Bridge St. Applicant: Blanche Hill
4. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a stairway area
of less than 100 square feet to the Sweet Basil Restaurant at 192
East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Kevin Clair.
140
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
August 28, 1985
PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Peter Patten
Duane Piper
Kristan Pritz
Howard Rapson
Sid Schultz
Eric Affeldt
ABS ENT
STAFF ABSENT
Jiro Viele
Tom Braun
Tom Briner
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
This meeting was postponed due to the lack of a quorum on the scheduled
date of August 26.
1. Approval of minutes of August 12
Donovan moved to approve the minutes of August 12 as submitted, Rapson
seconded the motion. The minutes were approved unaimously with Eric
Affeldt abstaining. The vote was 4 -0 -1.
2. Exterior alteration request for the Lod at Vail to construct a new
entry way in order to add an area less than 100 s ware feet, east entr
next to the Wildflower Restaurant
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Inc.
Kristan Pritz of the staff exDlained the memorandum and corrected the memorandum
to read that it was an 88 square foot addition. Pritz explained that there
were no sub -area concepts affected and that the design considerations of the
Urban Design concept were really not impacted either. She went on to explain
that the zoning requirements were met in that the one condition of approval
would be that they provide adequate signage for a fire exit. C.D. from the
Lodge at Vail stated that it was important the addition be constructed for
energy related purposes. Donovan asked why the zoning calculations were.done
separating out the Lodge Properties, Inc. parcel by itself. Patten responded
that this related back to the recognition that separate parcels had been created
many years ago and that this was recognized in the proceedings that occurred
concerning the International Wing proposal which was approved three years ago.
In tn.ose proceedings the Council decided that the Lodge Properties Inc. was
indeed a separate parcel and could be treated as such for zoning purposes.
Affeldt moved for approval as submitted with the condition regarding adequate
fire exit signage. Donovan seconded with the comment that the Lodge should
get their act together on the entire Lodge development. The motion was
approved 5 -0 unanimously.
3. Re uest for an exterior alteration in order to,add a third story to
the Hill Building at 311 Bridge St
. Applicant: Blanche Hill
This item was requested to be tabled by the applicant to the September
PEC 8/28/85 -2-
23, 1985 meeting.
0 Donovan moved for approval and Rapson seconded, The motion carried unanimously.
4. Exterior alteration in order to add a stairway area less. than 100
square feet to the Sweet Basil Restaurant at 192 East Gore Creek
Drive.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Kristan Pritz explained the proposal saying that it complied with the
Commercial Core I guidelines, no sub -area concepts were affected and the
design considerations were generally not affected except that service and
delivery would be improved. One condition of the staff recommending
approval was that the alley way between this building and the adjacent
building be asphalted or cemented for reasons related to the health code.
The applicant Kevin Clair stated that he had not been made aware of the
condition until just before the meeting and that he does not own, or
control that area. The property owners control that area. Kevin also
stated that the owners have verbally agreed on separate occasions to do
this but that he would like it not to be a condition on him. Donovan ex-
pressed a concern that something nice be done on the second floor window
along Gore Creek Drive. Clair stated that he was going to attempt to
have that window display copper pots and pans and have the chefs
visible through the window so that the cooking activity was evident.
The problem regarding the condition of paving the alley was discussed further
and Pritz suggested that maybe the project should go to Design Review Board
and that we could deal with the owners implementing the condition at that
level. Kevin Clair stated that if the owners would not do it that he would
and that it would be done by November 15. Donovan moved for approv al as per
the staff memo with the condition that the alle way be as halted or cemented
and that it have adequate drainage provisions installed. Schultz seconded
the motion and it was approved by a vote of 4 to 1. Howard Rapson opposed
the motion because he felt that there were too man unanswered questions at
this point
The meeting concluded with Patten stating that due to the !Vest Vail deannex-
ation Howard Rapson would be required to leave Planning Commission due to the
lack of Town of Vail residency. He thanked Rapson for his time served on the
Planning Commission and was sorry that something could not be worked out to
keep }coward on the Commission. The meeting was then adjourned.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
10
C7
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 26, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in order to add an
enclosed stairway on the east side of the Gore Creek
Plaza building. Applicant: Sweet Basil, Incorporated
I. THE PROPOSAL
Sweet Basil is requesting to add an enclosed stairway of 99
square feet to the east side of the Gore Creek Plaza build-
ing. Sweet Basil is relocating their kitchen facilities to
the second tloor in order to allow for expansion of the
existing dining area on the first floor. This requested
stairway will provide the service link between the proposed
kitchen area and the dining room and bar on the first floor.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI-:ZONE.
Purpose: Section 18.24.UIU. The Commercial Core I district
is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique
character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its
mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predom-
inantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I
district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types Of buildings and uses. The district regulations in
accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considertions prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preser-
vation of the tightly clustered arrangements of buildings
fronting on pedestrian ways and public greenways, and to
ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural
qualities that distinguish the Village.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning
for the Commercial Core I district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts
listed in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONS IDERATIONS,' FOR VAIL
V
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and
considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or
detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considerations.
is
A. Pedestrtanizat ;on
ie This submittal has no impact on the pedestrianization
of Vail Village. The area proposed for the staircase
is currently an alley. The sole purpose of this alley
is for service and delivery to both the Schoeber and
Gore Creek Plaza buildings.
B. Vehicle Penetration
No change occurs to what is currently on site.
C. Street Enclosure
There is no ettect on street enclosure. The proposed
stair tower which is 24 feet in height will be located
midway down the alley, well oft of the street.
D. Street Edge
This proposal presents no change to the existing street
edge. The alley remains the same as it currently exists.
E. Building Height
The proposed staircase addition is 24 reet in height.
The allowed height in Commercial Core i varies between
33 feet and 43 feet. This proposed stair tower is well
within these height limitations.
F. Views
No mayor views are affected.
G. Service and Delivery
As previously stated, the proposed stair tower is
located in the service alley between the Gore Creek
Plaza and Schoeber buildings. The walk -in cooler that
currently protrudes into this service area is being
relocated to the second floor of the Gore Creek Plaza
building. This proposed staircase will be located
approximately where the walk -in cooler presently
exists. The dimensions of this staircase are smaller
than those of the existing walk -in cooler and will
present less protrusion into the alley than is currently
existing. As a part of this application the Community
Development Department has talked to the applicant
about the possibilities of paving or proposing some
other impervious surface for this alley way.
H. Sun /Shade
0 No adjacent properties are attected.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Statt recommends approval of this proposal. The project has
no negative impacts when compared to the Urban Design
Considerations. Statt feels that the removal of the existing
walk- -in cooler and the addition of the stairway improves
both the appearance and the tunctionability of this service
alley.
L�
•
P .
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 2b, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add an
entry vestibule on the east side of the Lodge at Vail.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail
I. THE PROPOSAL
The Lodge at Vail is requesting to add an east entry vestibule
that is located between the Arlberg Cate and Wildflower
restaurants. The vestibule entry is approximately 70 square
teet. The Lodge is proposing the new entry in order to
improve pedestrian traffic and to increase energy conserva-
tion. The Lodge management states that:
•
"At present pedestrian access to the main lodge trom
the Arlberg terrace is via the Wildflower Restaurant's
rather small entryway vestibule. Not only is this
entrance /exit contusing to the general public, but it
has the potential to become seriously congested during
a lite satety situation. The proposed new entrance way
provides a more natural tratfic pattern, and it is a
wider and more direct line for emergency exit." ,
zoning Statistics
LODGE AT VAIL
MAIN WING ONLY (does not include Nortn Wing, Arcade, Condos,
Lodge Promenade)
Total Site Area Lot A: 2.0889 acres or 90,992 sq ft
Site coverage_ 130% x total site area)
Allowable: 72,794 sq ft
Existing: 38,969 sq ft
(Please note site coverage includes buildings, ground level
patios and decks unless otherwise specified in the Urban
Design Guide Plan.)
G .R.F.A.
Allowable: 72,794 sq ft
Existing: 19,192 sq tt
Common Area: (20% of allowed GRF'A)
Allowable: 14,b59 sq tt
Existing: 12,bUb sq tt
West Entry add. 88 sq tt
New Total Common
Including Entry 12,693 sq ft
0 II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CC:I ZONE
Purpose: Section 18.24.UIU. The Commercial Core I district
is intended to provide sites and to maintain the unique
character of the Vail Village commercial area, with its
mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in a predom-
inantly pedestrian environment. The Commercial Core I
district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted
types of buildings and uses. The district regulations in
accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and
Design Considerations prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation
of the tightly clusterea arrangements of buildings tronting
on pedestrianways and public greenways, and to ensure
continuation of the building scale and architectural qualities
that distinguish the Village.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning
for the Commercial Core I district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal does not relate to any of the sub -area concepts
. listed in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparision between the proposal and
considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or
detracts tram the overall intent of the design considerations.
A. Pedestrianization:
Statt:
This submittal has no impact upon the pedestrianization
of Vail Village.
B. Vehicle Penetration
Applicant and statt:
This proposal will not affect vehicle penetration.
C. Street Enclosure
Applicant and statf:
No impact
•
D. Street Edge
• Applicant and Statt:
No impact.
E. Bulldin Hei ht
Applicant and Statt:
The proposed vestibule is considerably lower than the
adjacent main lodge structure. The vestibule will be
10 teet high, while the main lodge is 41 teet high.
The vestibule's height Calls well within the height
maximums within the Commercial Core I district.
F. Views
Applicant and Statt:
No major views are obstructed.
G. Service and Deliver
Not applicable
. H. Sun /Shade
Not applicable
V. STAFF RECOMMENDA'T'ION
Statt recommends approval of this proposal. The project
will help to turther identity the east entry of the Lodge.
The entry vestibule also has an overall positive impact when
compared to the Urban Design Considerations. Statf recommends
approval of this entry vestibule.
^
0
0
0
°
--_--___' m
. ��
JOINT MEETING AGENDA
• August 20, 1985
A. Update on Comprehensive Plan
1. Parks and Recreation Plan
2. Village Study
3. Residential Area Improvements
4. Land Use Plan and Annexation Policies
5. Other Elements
B. Sign Code Amendments
1. Commercial Core III Sign Code Update
2. Chalkboards for Restaurants
C. Vail Associates' Mountain Expansion Plan
• D. PEC's role in Capital Facilities Planning and Prioritizing
n
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 9, 1985
1:30 pm Site Visits
3:O0 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of August 28, 1985.
TO BE TABLED 2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to
the Hill Building @ 311 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Balnche Hill
3. A request for a GRFA variance in order to enclose a deck on a second
floor of Unit 15 -C of the Sandstone Condominiums.
Applicant: Karl F. Scherer
4. A request for exterior alteration of less than 100 square feet in order
to enclose a portion of the dining patio at Blu's Beanery in the Gore
Creek Plaza Building.
Applicant: Blu's Beanery
5. A request for GRFA and setback varinces in order to construct additions
on Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses at Lot 12, Resubdivision
of block 5, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: kobert GAivin
TO BE TABLED b. A request for side, rear and watercourse setback variances in order to
construct a deck and hot tub addition on Unit 5 of Vail Townhor,es,
Lot 5, resubdivision of Block., Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Tiomas J. Pritzker
7. work Session on the Vail Valley Medical Center
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 September 9, 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Eric Affelat
Tom Briner
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins (1st meeting)
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
r 1
LJ
I. Appro of minutes of August 28, 1985
in favor and 3'abstentions.
Peter Patten
Toni Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
The minutes were approved with four
2. Request for an exterior alteration in order to add a third story to the Hill
Building at 311 Bridge St reet. Applicant: Blanche Hill
Due to insuffient notice, staff recommended tabling to September 23. Viele moved
and Donovan seconaed to table to 9/23/85 Vote in favor of tabling 7 -0.
3. A request for a GRFA variance in order to enclose a deck on a second floor
of Unit 15--C of the Sandstone ConQominiums. Applicant: Karl F. Scherer
Tom Braun gave the staff presentation including a recommendation of denial. Brian
O'Reilly, representing Karl Scherer gave a presentation on behalf of the proposal.
Briner felt the proposal was to be an improvement and was not a dangerous precedent.
Affelat wondered how the request related to the ordinance concerning additional
GRFA. Viele had no problem with the aesthetics, but felt it may be a grant of
special privilege. Piper felt that it was difficult to prove a hardship from
the variance criteria. Donovan was sympathetic to the appearance, but felt
the board oia not have the tools to approve the request, and the approval would create
a precedent for allowing additional GRFA that would be difficult to deal with.
Briner moved and Hopkins seconded to approve the request The motion was defeated
by a vote of 2 -5. _
4. A request for
enclose a port
Building.
exterior alteration of
ion of the dining patio
Applicant: Blu's Beanery
Tom Braun gave the staff. presentation. He explained that no UDGP sub -areas were
affected. He added that pedestrianization, streetscape framework and street edge
were not negatively affected. The staff recommendation was for approval.
Tom Armstrong, applicant, restated that only a very small encroachment on outdoor
dining would be made and that the sliding doors would be open to allow for the outdoor
dining experience inside as well. He added that 6-9 additional people would be able
to enjoy the outdoors with this proposal and that it was not precedent setting.
less than 100 square feet in order to
at Blu's Beanery in the Gore Creek Plaza
,, .
PEC 9/11/85 -2-
Donovan asked what the main reason was for requesting the alteration, Armstong said
it was to increase the feeling of "outdoors" in the main dining room. Piper inquired
as to the physical means.of opening doors. The reply was that the doors are tract
mounted and folded.
Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request per the staff memo. Vote
was 7 -0 in favor.
5. A re uest for GRFA and setback variances in order to construct additions
on Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses at Lot 12, Resub of Blk 5,
Vail Vill 1st Filing. Applicant: Robert Galvin
The staff: presentation ` giveri. Pritz..:who stated - that the staff".. :
recorimende6 approval for thE: siae setback variance 1. denial of the GRFA variance.
Kurt Segerberg, representing the applicant, gave a presentation on behalf of the
applicant. Discussion following concerning how Ordinance.4 applied to this proposal.
Gordon Pierce spoke in an attempt to help explain the applicant's intent and the
proposal's relationship to the ordinance. Piper pointed out that Ordinance 4
does not allow for multi- family deck enclosures. He stated that originally the
PEC wanted multi- family exterior remodels addressed, however, multi- family exterior
remodels were excluded from the ordinance. Donovan felt that there was no difference
between this proposal and the Sandstone 70 proposal. Affeldt felt that this was
another special privilege case. Viele felt the issue was identical to the one
at Sandstone 70. He personally did not have a problem with the proposal and felt
it was a good one for the community. Viele felt the PEC needs clear direction
on the issue of multi - family deck enclosures from the Council.
. Affeldt moved and Viele seconded to approve the setback variance because of the
existi 0' setback, and to deny the GRFA on grounds of s pecial privilege.
The vote was 5 in favor and 2 (Briner and Hopkins) opposed.
. i
tract fnr ciAn
and watercourse setback variances in order
Ross Davis, representing several of the owners of other townhouses, felt that
the townhouse association could reject the proposal due to the fact that that
this area was a general common element. Patten said that he would require the
signature of the condominium association before the staff would accept the application.
Segerberg requested the application be tabled indefinitely. Patten stated that
Davis would be notified if and when the application appeared on the agenda in
the future. Donovan moved and Affeldt seconded to table the item indefinitely.
The vote was 7 -0.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: September 6, 1985
RE: Worksession of Hospital Expansion Plans
As the Planning Commission may recall, the Vail Valley Medical Center is in
the midst of developing plans for a future expansion to their facilities.
One of the issues relative to this expansion is that of parking. Because of
the importance of this issue a worksession with the Planning Commission has
been requested by the applicant.
Included, for your information, is a study conducted by the hospital that
was done to evaluate both the present parking situation as well as future
parking needs. It should be noted that the staff has not had ample time
to review this information. As a result, we are unable to provide any
input on this information at this time.
F - I
LJ
•
0% 14 Vail valley
r
Planning Commission
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81658
September 4, 1985
Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff,
181 West Meadow Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -2451
To facilitate discussion regarding the parking needs of the hospital,
particularly in light of the proposed expansion of beds from 19 to 32,
the hospital has undertaken a parking study. The purpose of the study
was to determine how many people use hospital parking, for what purposes,
and what parking is needed for the new expansion.
The following table is a compilation of the study which was conducted from
August 28 through September 2, 1985 to encompass all three work shifts of
hospital employees. To interpret the statistics, the following facts are
relevant:
. 1. The hospital employs approximately 100 employees during ski season and
55 during off- season. There are three work shifts, 7:00 A.M.- 3:00 P.M.,
3:00 P.M. -- 11 :00 P.M., and 11:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. The study was
conducted from 7:30 A.M. with a count of cars in the lot from the night
shift, and extended to 8 :00 P.M. to account for both the day and evening
shifts.
2. At no time during the days surveyed were there less than 30 vacant
parking spaces. In other words, given the heavy traffic for Labor Day
weekend and regular staffing, we had 30 extra parking spaces at all times
even while allowing people to park in the lot who had no affiliation or
business at the hospital.
3. The most congested time during the study was from 7:00 A.M. to 10:00
A.M. Visitors generally come during the evening hours until 8:00 P.M. when
visiting hours end.
4. During the study, the back parking lot was closed, (adjacent to Sports
Medicine) which provides 22 parking spaces.
5. There are 13 physicians who have private offices located within
hospital space. There hours of operation are 8 :00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M.
6. Parking was not controlled during the study. When visitors parked in
the lot for other than hospital business, they were not asked to move their
cars.
0 7. The maximum number of cars in the lot at any time was 130.
Attached is a copy of the Parking Study.
Deborah Jost
Administrator
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING SURVEY
August 28 through September 2, 1985
WEEKDAYS
# OF
AUTOS
REASON
DATE
HOLIDAY
WEEKEND
DATE
AVG. #
OF AUTOS
PER DAY
AVERAGE
TIME
PER STAY
258
Employees
8 -28
8 -29
AVG. #
AVERAGE
# OF
7.1 hrs.
130
Patients
8 -28
OF AUTOS
TIME
AUTOS
REASON
DATE
DATE
DATE DATE
PER DAY
PER STAY
163
Employees
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
54.3
6.7 hrs.
47
Patients
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
158
55.12 min.
52
Visitors
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
26.10 min
59.71 min.
77
Dr. Visits
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
57.72 min.
40
Hosp. Bus.
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
9 -2
38.16 min.
35
Emerg. Rm.
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
53.57 min.
• 24
Unauthorized
8 -31
9 -1
9 -2
16.52 min.
438
WEEKDAYS
# OF
AUTOS
REASON
DATE
DATE
DATE
DATE
AVG. #
OF AUTOS
PER DAY
AVERAGE
TIME
PER STAY
258
Employees
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -3
64.50
7.1 hrs.
130
Patients
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
57.10 min.
109
Visitors
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
53.14 min.
347
Dr. Visits
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
52.50 min
158
Hosp. Bus.
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
26.10 min
36
Emerg. Rm.
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
65.42 min.
88
Unauthorized
8 -28
8 -29
8 -30
9 -2
20.10 min.
1 1T6
•
VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING UPON BUILDING EXPANSION
September 4, 1985
PARKING REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE NSF
HOSPITAL: Existing - 22,107 Proposed -
12,000
Total - 34,107
PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING:
1 space /patient bed -
32
1 space /150 NSF
228
260
MEDICAL OFFICES_ NSF
Existing - 7,181 Proposed
- 6,131*
Total - 13,312
PARKING REQUIRED BY ZONING:
1 space /200 NSF =
67
327
. * Sports Medicine
PARKING PROPOSED
HOSPITAL:
1 space /2 beds
16
1 space /Medical Staff
32
1 space /2 Employees
50
98
MEDICAL OFFICES: (15 physicians)
1 /physician (included w /hospital)
--
1 /Nurse
15
4 /physicians for patients
60
75+
173
+ 13,312 NSF 75 spaces = 178 NSF /Space
R
Following is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees:
Medical Staff: 32
Employees: Off Season
Total Ma Shift Total
55 25 100
Ski Season
Max. Shift
55
VAIL
VALLEY MEDICAL
CENTER
Following is a breakdown
of existing facility
Gross Square Feet
and a breakdown
of approximate Gross
Square Feet for proposed
expansion
for Scheme 1, Scheme 2,
and Scheme 3.
The area of Sports Medicine is
included with the area of
Physicians Offices and
Clinics. Ambulance
Building isnot included.
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
EXISTING FACILITY -
19 BEDS
HOSPITAL
AND CLINIC
First Floor
29,250
- --
'
Second Floor
5,945
15,245
Total.
35,195
15,245
PHYSICIANS OFFICES
PROPOSED EXPANSION TO 32 BEDS
HOSPITAL
AND CLINIC
Sch.1
Sch.2
Sch.3
Sch.1
Sch.2
Sch.3
Lower Level
7.600
9,950
- --
6,700
- - --
- - --
First Floor
17,900
5,745
13,435
- - - --
7,455
7,300
Second Floor
1,800
11,600
19,130
- --- ---
- - --
- - --
Third Floor
- - - --
1,450
950
-- -__
- - --
- - -- ,
27,300
28,745
33,515
6,700
7,455
7,300
TOTAL GSF OF
EXISTING & PROPOSED
62,495
63,940
68,170
22,125
22,700
22,545
Following is a breakdown of Medical Staff and Employees:
Medical Staff: 32
Employees: Off Season
Total Ma Shift Total
55 25 100
Ski Season
Max. Shift
55
•
H � N
O �D 00
N
N �T N
O k.D OD
N
Cr � N
m �10 00
N CO ON
H
N N
M
00 Q
• O u1
P4
Oi Lr)
U H H
• 00
�Y
U
f 00
ul
r�
A
W
Fq
H
A
W
C/]
p'.. N
1-I M
O'
N
W O
i1i C -�
Cl u'1
00 Lr)
O H
W
Va
p
P-1 w
� H
W
W
z
H � N
O �D 00
N
N �T N
O k.D OD
N
Cr � N
m �10 00
N CO ON
H
N N
00 00
00 Q
H
P4
Gu
• 00
�Y
- +
f 00
00
r�
Lr)
U H
H
C/]
A
O H
•
C7
W
z
z
x o,
O
o
+n
A
�
w z
Fu
C
H
z
H
o
m
CA
H
r••I
H
H
d, Tom]
[
I
H
r!
O
w
pi
C7
U
ih
z
�
�
A
4-
:>4 Q,
V)
U)
In
A4
U)
fA
w
N
U]
H
• �
ro
H
W
f
P-i
U
Lo (n
H � N
O �D 00
N
N �T N
O k.D OD
N
Cr � N
m �10 00
N CO ON
H
N N
00 00
00 Q
00
P4
Gu
N
N
m 00
00
P4
Gu
N
- +
f 00
00
O
M �7
a� O o m
%lp 00 a% N
u]
H
W
P4
Gu
CL4
w
O H
z
O
O
O
o
+n
Fu
C
CIA
H
r••I
H
H
t
[
I
H
r!
ih
4-J
4J
4-J
4-
:>4 Q,
V)
U)
In
U)
fA
-4
+-+
ro
f
Lo (n
a)
te a) �
w
a
'b w
41
u
Pa
a) 4"
4-1
4-1
PR �>,
W
fx+
C3
PA " *
H
r 1
O
+3
Cf
) W
4J
P-4
ttS 14
M
"C1
co
--
P
a) W
Pa rJ
a)
b p,
v
P4 W
to
o
4
ai
Pq
Q) 0
m w
H
U)
H
kc
N W N
%0 N
\
PU A
Fq A
M M
r I
r-1
p.
H
r l H�E! 4
H H H
H
H H (1)
H —4 a)
r r-i
Cb
•
•
r
I*
c
K
k
G
F
C
F
C
G
C
F
G
uo
A
q pn
� rn
a
w Z
p; H
U] C!]
W H
CJ 7C
P+
Un U
W
U
H
114 In
W V
O H
z
U
H
U
H
(n
I
• lD 6t N 00 .7 r- N -7 OD 00 I�D c''1 .t
{„' i• [Tl C'7 l!] lD '"� c`"Y lD �Y 61 � Cif iD
u
c
N
• �D rn N 00 --:T r- N _'T 00 co tD CV)
U n CT M �D t-D r~-i M m 1-4 Cr
[q
r-i
,C �D 00 N 00 n N -t 00 00 tQ cn �t
U n D• M
W
m cn m V1 co O m c0 m Ln %0 r
%D I'D N Ln m r� r-i M N co 00 Ln
►s
'd W W
44
W
b
al
Q)
a) 44
t"
4i
O
'd
^d
W
lu
FA
Fil ca x
'd ro
b 44
N A
on
a) Fxa
w
a)
a) Lk
u
a) +J
Q) ca
W cn
FA
m
PP 4a
v]
pa vJ
U} c/)
w
a)
W co
3
O
cd
11
w
R1
, - 1
u W
f 4 O
W
+ ca t4
ca
O
+
W
Ra
+� u] W
P+
PI b G
+J b
ro + +
rn
cd " �
as
ro O
ro
cis
ro
m
cd a)
F +
as M p
r 'IT
- I
P+ CJ] z
--
a« - �
a+
P+
+-I
Pa N -
N
rn � W
Pa �
H �_
r-i
'� �
co
t `�
�
r 1
� '— W
--
1 `� -_
-`
Pa
I e I a
R1 r-!
ca
r1 .-1 'd
-4
1-1 r-I
11
1-1
co
I-1 r-1 U
r-1
.-1 IH rH
1-4 r-i
•
r-,
U r-1 r-I N
V)
i »
w�
O' Q7
W �
H
Cn U]
W H
U D4
-4 W
Pi
U] U
ri
i_
M �O %D N
�p M ON
r-1
n 00 00 00 u,
ill
r - 00
M
00 %O
Ln -zr
-It
7
'T
ul) L
00
00
O
W
W
ul
Fq
A
W N
PC M
H
O
O' H
W
Pw A
W
w q
W z
U W
N
O H
n
+7
110 u1
a, N
,r r-
1.0
O
cn
u
, - a N
z
Us
r-,
U r-1 r-I N
V)
i »
w�
O' Q7
W �
H
Cn U]
W H
U D4
-4 W
Pi
U] U
ri
i_
M �O %D N
�p M ON
r-1
n 00 00 00 u,
ill
r - 00
00
00 %O
Ln -zr
-It
7
00
00
00 M
W
r-r
ON T m u)
.Y N N N m
W
r i--I
44 Cn�
4 l
Q
O H
z
V] H
z r]
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
1
I
1
1
!
I
{
U
00
H
� �
U
44
w
d
•
�
aj aj
rq
w
m
a�i
•d
b
(1)
1 - 3
N
�++
U
Pq
'GQ
44
D aj
d rn
as
ru 0
cd
b�
a O
co
P
W
Cn
CA W
(n
W Gl
4-�
a i
4 1
� ICI
� b
ro a
rd
(a
ca
m
U)
a)
rn
a) 19
ca
o
r
W
w
w,
Pa
•d m
a
s� z W
P. a
o o rd
s r 0
o
+
--
o
0 -H
cd
4-4
o N 0
rd cn
o 60
0-11
m
m
m
rd O
rd �>
H
PL4 M M
ti0 W 4H
O i >r
W M
PG 0
Pa �
r i
r-4
r--1
PL4 N
N
H
-- —�
m
'� r -.e
r ll
-- rr;
H
r--1
,-1
to
p
rl r
- 4 r 4
r-1 r-4
r I r-i
1.J 'C1
r-i r-I
ca
Cd
ca
r-1 r-i
Fj
MEMO
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 9, 1985
RE: A REQUEST FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATION IN ORDER TO ENCLOSE A PORTION OF
THE DINING PATIO AT BLU'S BEANERY IN THE GORE CREEK PLAZA BU''ILDIN.G,
I. THE PROPOSAL
Proposed is a predominately glass enclosure of appropiately 54 square
feet of existing outdoor dining area. The area proposed for enclosure
encompasses appropriately 25 percent of the existing dining area. As
proposed, the existing fixed windows would be replaced with retract-
able door /windows that could be opened during the summer months. As
stated by the applicant, this proposal will allow for a greater
number of people to experience the feeling of outdoor dining by open-
ing the doors during the summer months.
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED I N EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
• As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions or new
constructions in commercial core 1 involve review with respect to the
urban design guide plan. These involve both the subarea concepts as
delineated in the guide plan and map as well as the design considerations
outlined for the Village. In addition to this are standard zoning
considerations. This memo will address this proposal with respect to
these review criteria.
III. COMPLIANCE 14ITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village identifies a number of
subarea concepts which are to be addressed in any redevelopment or
additional development in the village. However, none of these subarea
concepts are impacted by this proposal. As a result, subarea concepts
are not a factor in reviewing this proposal.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The following design considerations are identified as.the primary form-
giving physical features of the village. It is the burden of the
applicant to demonstrate that this proposal substantially complies with
these considerations or that the proposal does otherwise not alter the
character of the neighborhood. How this proposal relates to the nine
considerations is summarized below.
• A. Pedestrianization
One of the major objectives for Vail Village is to encourage
pedestrian circulation through an interconnected network of
safe and pleasant pedestrian ways. While Blu's Beanery
fronts directly onto an element of this network, this proposal
would not effect the pedestrian use of this walkway.
B. Vehicle Penetration
Service /delivery or other vehicular activity is not effected
by this proposal.
C. Streetscaoe Framework
While this proposal would involve extending the existing store
front approximately three feet, it would have little effect on
the streetscape framework. Any effect of this expansion is
mitigated by the existing planter that presently defines the
dining area.
D. Street Enclosure
This consideration is not effected by the proposed expansion.
E. Street Edge
• As proposed, this expansion would give Blu's Beanery a rather
uniform, continuous store front. However, this facade does
not continue over too long a distance to become.mo:notonous...
In addition, the existing raised planter and remaining outdoor
dining area give life to the street and add visual interest
for the pedestrian. These elements would not be effected by
the proposed expansion of the store front.
F. Building Height
This consideration is not applicable to this proposal.
G. Views
This proposal would. not effect any view corridors within the
village.
H. Service and Delive
Service and delivery trips to Blu's Beanery will not be signif-
icantly increased as a result of this expansion.
1. Sun /Shade
• This proposed expansion will not change existing sun /shade
characteristics in this area.
0 V.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The only applicable zoning consideration relative to this request is
with respect to parking. Additional parking requirements would be
generated from this proposed expansion. If approved, the applicant
would be required to contribute to the parking fund prior to the
issuance of any building permit for this construction.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
•
Staff recommendation for this request is approval. In evaluating the
urban design considerations for Vail Village, it is evident that this
proposal will have minimal negative impacts in the area. While this
proposal will reduce the size of the existing outdoor dining area
(and a resultant decrease in actual outdoor seating) , it will in turn
allow a greater number of patrons to enjoy the feeling of outdoor dining
during the summer months. It is important to note the precedents that
have been set in denying applications to enclose outdoor dining decks
in Vail Village. It is felt that this proposal is unique in that a
majority of the outdoor dining area will be maintained as well as the
positive impact of the retractable door /windows.
•
•
Alma
TO: Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September g, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a GRFA variance and east and west setback
variances in order to build an exterior addition to
Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhomes, Lot 12,
Resubdivision of block 5 a part of Gore Creek Drive,
Vail Village, 1st filing
Applicant: Robert Galvin
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting to add additional GRFA to both the
lower unit and upper unit located on Lot 12 of the Vail Townhomes.
In order to construct this addition, a GRFA variance is necessary
as well as east and west side setback variances. Mr. Galvin owns
both units. He is proposing to add 227 square feet to the lower
unit and 144 square feet to the upper unit. The lower unit's
additional square footage will be used to expand a basement
bedroom, as well as the first level living room, dining room,
kitchen, bunk room and ski storage area. The upper unit square
footage will be used to expand an existing bedroom and to redesign
a stairway. Similar to most units in the Vail Townhomes develop-
ment, this particular project is also over the allowed GRFA for
the lot. Given HDMF zoning, the total allowed GRFA is 1,763
square feet. The existing GRFA is 2,732 square feet. At this
time the two units are already 969 square feet over the GRFA
allowed for this property. With the new additions► the GRFA will
exceed the allowable by 1,340 square feet.
The setbacks for the lot are also effected by this proposal.
HDMF zoning requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides of the proper-
ty. Presently, the north and south setbacks meet the 20 foot
standards. However the existing east and west setbacks are
completely encroached upon leaving a U foot setback. The current
proposal will not effect the north and south setbacks. The east
setback will be encroached upon an additional 18 feet and will
create a U foot setback. The west setback will be encroached
upon an additional 12 feet and will create a U foot setback.
•
• Zoning Statistics
HDMF Zone
Lot Area = 2,938 s.f.
Total GRFA Allowed = 1,763 s.f.
GRFA GRFA
Existing Proposed
Lower Unit 16bb s.t. 227 s.f. (includes 25 s.f.
deduction for airlock)
Upper Unit 1076 s.f. 144 s.f.
TOTAL 2732 s.f. 371 s.f.
Total Existing 2732
Total Allowed -1763
Amount over
allowed +969
Total Proposed + Existing 3103
Total Allowed -1763
Total Amount over
GRFA with Additions 1340
SETBACKS: Required 20 ft. on all sid
• Existing Setbacks: East:
West:
North:
South:
Given This Proposal:
East:
West:
North:
South:
GRFA Including
Addition
1883 s.f.
3103 s.f.
es of property
U ft.
0 ft.
29 ft.
20 ft. (16 ft. from front
fence)
Encroaches an additional
18 ft. creating a U ft.
setback
Encroaches an additional
12 ft. creating a 0 ft.
setback
unaffected
unaffected
APPLICANT'S REASONS FOR REQUESTING THESE VARIANCES
"In regard to Units 12A and 12B of the Vail Townhouses, we are
requesting additional square footage by means of exterior addition
and alteration. First, in order to achieve the additional square
footage as ottered under Ordinance No. 4, minor exterior alter-
ations would be necessary. Although Ordinance No. 4 suggests
that additional square footage can only be added to the interior
shell of a multi - family unit, Townhouse Units 12A and 12B have no
practical interior space to enlarge upon. Secondly, the Galvin
family has indicated to us that they are very much interested in
completely upgrading their two Vail Townhome units. The units
have significant visibility within the village core and any
efforts to upgrade the units would be beneficial to all and work
would involve new exterior finishing and detailing to both the
existing and changed portions of the Townhouse units. The Vail
Townhouses have undergone numerable unit remodels of similar
nature through the years and there certainly appears to be an
enough variety to allow exterior changes without altering the
project's architectural character." (Letter August 6, 1985}
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
denial of the GRFA requests and approval of the setback variances
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structure in the vicinity.
GRFA Variances The exterior alterations to the upper and lower
units should not have negative impacts on adjacent uses or
structures in the vicinity. In general, the exterior alterations
will serve to upgrade the structures and should have a positive
impact on neighboring properties.
• Side Setback Variances Both the east and west side setbacks
will be effected by this proposal. However, U foot setbacks
already exist on both sides of the property. The additions will
create a larger area that encroaches into both the east and west
setbacks. However, these encroachments will not negatively
impact neighboring properties as they are basically infill
additions to existing patios and decks.
The decree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta-
tion and enforcement of a specified regulation is necessar to
achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment sites in
the vicinity or to attain the objectiv of this title without
rant of special privilege.
GRFA Variances Ordinance No. 4 was designed to make it easier
for applicants to add GRFA to single family and primary secondary
units as well as multi - family units. The stipulation on multi-
family units was that no deck or balcony enclosures or any
exterior additions or alterations will be allowed for multi - family
dwellings. The reasoning behind this stipulation was that if
multi- family building owners enclosed their decks, or added
exterior additions the bulk and mass of the building would be
greatly increased. It was felt that these types of enclosures
would have a very negative impact on the appearance of the
building as a whole as well as adjacent properties.
• S t a f f does agree with the applicant in his statement that "the
Vail Townhomes have undergone numerable unit remodels of similar
• nature through the years and there certainly appears to be enough
variety to allow exterior changes without altering the project's
architectural character." Staff does not feel that the additions
create a negative bulk and mass for the building. Moreover,
staff feels that the exterior alterations in most cases serve to
upgrade the structure. The statt does have some concerns about
the appearance of the north elevation. However, the critical
point to resolve is whether or not the GRFA additions should be
considered to be a grant of special privilege. Staff cannot
determine any physical hardship which would warrant the approval
of the proposed GRFA. For this reason, staff believes that it
would be a grant of special privilege to allow the GRFA additions.
Setback Variances Staff feels that it would not be a grant of
special privilege to allow the setback variances. At first
glance, this opinion may seem to be in conflict with the staff
position on the GRFA variances. It is important to remember that
each variance request must be treated separately. Even though,
given this proposal, the two requests are interdependent. The
Vail Townhomes have a lot layout which makes it very difficult
to add any square footage to a structure without requiring
variances. In fact, the existing units on each property already
encroach signiticantly into the 20 foot setbacks which are required
on all sides of the property. These encroachments are due to the
fact that the lots are so narrow. Staff strongly believes that
there are extraordinary circumstances due to the lot layouts
. which warrant approval of the side setback variances.
The eftect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution
of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes that there are no significant impacts in respect
to these concerns for either the GRFA requests or side setback
requests.
SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICALBE
TO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES.
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance :.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical handship inconsistent with the objectives
of this title.
There are
exceptions
or extraordinary
circumstances or
conditions
applicable
to the site of the
variance that do
not apply
generally to
other properties in
the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
GRFA Variances Given the stipulations in Ordinance No. 4 which
state that deck and balcony enclosures are not allowed as well as
the fact that there is really no physical hardship concerning
this request, staff recommends denial of the GRFA variances. To
grant the request would be a decision which is inconsistent with
the limitations on other properties within this same zone district.
Side Setback Variances Staff recommends approval of the side
setback variances as there are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances on the site due to lot layout which do not generally
• apply to other properties in this same zone. It is also felt
that the granting of the variances would not be detrimental to
the public health, satety or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity. In the past, staff has
approved side setback variances for properties within this
development. For these reasons, staff believes that it would not
be a grant of special privilege to approve the side setback
variances.
•
fffT 1
_ / UTILITY E�
r4MJ `
13
t�
BA1
ARE
•
I
� 0
(REDUCED)
i
t f
41 '
K
:t
���5 Q:. ` fi r• y � � \J�
.�
•
It
x,01 - r H 5LF-VA, Pro osed (Drawings have been reduced)
''t .
� 0
•
LJ
9 T' (REDUCED)
•
f jc ;, f i H r� (PROPOS ) Drawings have been reduced)
/¢" I'p
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 23, 1985
2:00 Site inspections Meet at Fou nders' Plaza at 2:00
3:00 Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of September 9, 1985
2. Appointment of member to DPB for October, November, December
3. Request for exterior alteration in order to addla third story at
the Hill Building at 311 Bridge st. Applicant: Blanche Hill
4. A request to amend Section 16.04 of the Municipal Code by adding a
new category of "Special Boards" to the Sign Code.
Applicant: Restaurant Association of Vail
5. A request for an exterior altertation of less than 100 square feet
in order to enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch at 263 E. Gore Creek
Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch
TO BE TABLED 6. A request to amend the development plan for Crossroads Center at
143 East Meadow Drive. Applicant: Snowquest Partners
•
i 0
Planning and Environmental Commission
! . September 23, 1988
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
,aim Viele
ABSENT
Eric Afieldt
Tom Briner
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
1. Approval of minutes of September 9 19bb. A motion to approve
the minutes was made by Jim Viele and seconded by Diana Donovan.
The minutes were approved 4 -0.
1. Appointment of member to DRB for October, November, December.
Diana Donovan nominated Tom Briner to be the new Design Review
Board member for October, November and December. Duane Piper
volunteered to be the alternate member. This was approved 4 -10.
3. A request for exterior alteration in order to add a third
story to the Hill Building at 311 Bridge Street. Applicant;
Blanche Hi i 1.
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation for the Hill Building
addition. The applicant► Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to
enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of the
second floor of the Hill Building and to add a third story
addition of 1,141 square feet. The proposed third story addition
is located at the southwest area of the building. The statt.'s
primary concerns were with the proposal's impact on Sun /Shade and
Street Enclosure. Staff recommended denial of the proposal.
Staff felt that the project was not in compliance with the Vail
Village Design Considerations by its effect upon Street Enclosure
and by the additional shading due to the bulk and mass of the
design. In the staff's opinion, the design made very little
attempt to respect the Street Enclosure Design Considerations or
to maintain the original design of the plaza area. The addition
of a two -story element, totalling three stories going straight up
from the property line at the location of the existing deck
compromises the open feeling opt the southern edge of this plaza
which is the major gateway to Vail Village.
Z
. Jay Peterson, representative of the applicant, made a presentation
as to why the proposal was a positive improvement to the village.
Jay Peterson stated that the half to one ratio for Street Enclosure
stated in the Urban Design Considerations was very difficult to
achieve. He stated that the canyon area which has a ratio of .87
to 1 really is only about 5 feet in length. He felt that this
area really did not have a great impact on the overall plaza. He
stated that a pedestrian focus would be maintained by the awning
on the west side of the Hill Building facade. He did not feel
that the proposal created a solid wall area and also that the
upper decks would have flower boxes and would add to the pedestrian
experience on the west side of the building.
With respect to the Sun /Shade consideration, Jay Peterson felt
that the Sun /Shade issue really only had to be addressed at 12:00
noon. Jay Peterson had submitted a Sun /Shade analysis that began
at nine and went on into the afternoon. Jay agreed that shade
was substantially increased during the hours of 9 and 10 in the
morning. However, in the afternoon he pointed out that no
increase of shade occurred. He added that staff's suggestion to
shift the addition over to the east side of the building would be
very difficult due to structural problems, possible view encroach-
ments on the view corridor, and a similar Sun /Shade problem. Jay
stated that Vail Associates had no problem with the deck overhang-
ing onto Vail Associates' property. According to. Jay, Larry
• Lichliter said that the additional shade may affect snow removal
and skiers during a portion of the morning, but in general, he
had no major problems with the proposal.
Jay pointed out that in his opinion the existing approved plan
blocked views up to the ski mountain much more than the new
proposal. He emphasized that the new plan was trying to respect
the view corridor. He gave examples of many buildings in Town
which he felt had significant impacts on the street enclosure.
The A & D Building and Wall Street were mentioned as examples of
enclosures similar to the type of street enclosure that would be
proposed with the Hill Building exterior alteration. He emphasized
that Mrs. Hill wants to simply maintain a viable residence in
Commercial Core I. She is not asking for a maximum height or a
maximum GRFA.
Jim Vieie found it hard to believe that the sun was in the area
of the plaza on December 21st at 9:00 am. It seemed to Viele
that the sun would probably be behind the mountain at this time
on December 21st, the longest day of the year. Jay responded
that, yes, this area is catching sun on December 21st. Viele
stated that there were good arguments on both the applicant's
as well as staff's side of the issue. He felt strongly that the
applicant had an inherent right to develop the property. He
stated that he was inclined to vote for approval of the project.
• Duane Piper questioned why the northeast portion of the building
which was at three stories was not at exactly the same height as
a
the third story addition. Jay Peterson responded by saying that
• the owner did not want to cut into the vaulted ceiling directly
below the addition. For this reason, the new addition is approx-
imately five feet greater than the adjacent northeast portion of
the building. He also stated that they could not step back the
bedroom from the west facade as it would significantly decrease
the bedroom space.
Piper mentioned that the impacts to the shade conditions did not
seem to be all that significant. He also was sensitive to the
property owner's development rights. He stated that his concern
was that the mass seems to be the greatest problem and has quite
an impact upon the pedestrian area. Jay responded by saying that
the existing rooflines in his opinion looked very peculiar and
that the mass of the building in the new proposal tends to
organize the roof lines in a much better manner visually.
.Peter Patten clarified the staff's position on this proposal by
stating that the staff certainly appreciated the development
rights of the owner. He emphasized that the Urban Design Guide
Plan was not a vehicle for denying owners their right to develop
their property. He said that the GRFA is being almost maxed out
in that only 377 square feet of GRFA would remain on the property
atter the proposal was built. Certainly additional commercial
space is possible, however, zoning standards would also have to
be maintained. He clarified that staff is not picking out only
. two items from the list of Urban Design Considerations. In fact,
only several of the considertions happen to apply to this proposal
as it is on the third story of a building. Many of the Urban
Design Considerations address street level additions. Do to this
tact, many of the Urban Design Considerations do not apply to this
particular proposal. He reiterated that street enclosure and
sun /shade were the two Design Considerations most impacted by
this proposal.
With respect to street enclosure, Patten explained that this
Consideration really had to be looked at in a three - dimensional
way. The problem is that the existing One Vail Place has a 3/4
to 1 ratio to the street. In other words, a canyon effect is
already being imposed on the street by One Vail Place. The Hill
Building will only increase this canyon effect with this addition.
The Consideration states that "An external enclosure is most
comfortable where its walls are approximately half as high as the
width of the space enclosed. The height of the addition on the
Hill Building will be 30 feet to the eave line. The height of
One Vail Place is 28 teet to the eve line. The plaza width
varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a ratio that varies from
2/3 : 1 to 1:1. Patten said that the previous proposal focussed
the mass of the building in a smaller area. He stated that the
canyon ettect did not extend along the building to such a degree
as in the new proposal.
41 Patten said that the Sun /Shade Considerations specifically states
I
that Sun /Shade shall be considered and shall influence the
. massing of the building. Staff is requesting that the massing of
the building should be stepped back to avoid the Sun /Shade
impacts as much as possible. Staft is certainly not trying to
deny the owner's right to develop the property. Staff is also
trying to avoid any type of impacts on the Seibert Circle area
due to the new addition.
Donovan stated that she was concerned about the canyon effect
given the new proposal. However, she did feel that this was a
better proposal than the previous proposal, but that this proposal
needed some improvement. Sid Schultz had no real problem with
most of the addition. He did feel that the deck and balcony on
the west side of the building emphasized the mass of the building.
The additional shade did not create a concern for him. Duane
Piper asked if there were any comments from the audience.
Michael Staughton, property manager for the Ore House and Baxter's
felt that the Guidelines were designed to guide. His opinion was
that a proposal fell into a grey area with respect to the Guide-
lines that the Planning Commission should side with the owner's
right to develop property.
Jay told the board that the project was not maxed out at all in
commercial as there is no restriction in Commercial Core I. He
stated that he could turn the project into a commercial building
and then add the GRFA on top of that square footage. Jay felt
• that he would get the same argument from the staff it he were to
try to shift his proposal over to the east side of the building.
He stated that the staft would be concerned from the shade on
this side of the building and impacts on Seibert Circle. Jay
added that it seemed that staff was treating the importance of
views differently between the previous proposal and the present
proposal. Kristan Pritz responded by saying that the views were
treated basically the same in the old proposal as in the new
proposal. In both situations, the views were impacted, however,
they were not approved view corridors. She also stated that the
shade was increased by only Y square feet in the previous proposal.
Donovan stated that she felt that the Casino and A &D Buildings on
Bridge Street were too close. She did not want to see this type
of thing happen again as far as street enclosure was concerned.
Jay stated that given the Hill proposals, the Founders' Plaza
adjacent to the Vail Associates' ticket area diminished the
impact of the street enclosure. He pointed out that on Bridge
Street you did not get the benefit of any large open plazas to
give relief to the high buildings. Jim Viele moved to a212roye
the request which was seconded by Sid Schultz. Peter Patten
requested that the motion include a statement that the applicant
would not remonstrate against a special improvement district.
Jim Viele amended his motion to include this statement. The vote
was in favor, Z against. A tie vote is a vote of denial.
0 4. A request to amend Section 1b.04 of the Municipal Code b
N
addin a new category of "special boards" to the sign code.
Applicant: Restaurant Association of Vail
Rick Pylman presented the staff memo on a display of chalkboards.
He gave a brief background of why the proposal was before the
Planning Commission and on what signage restaurants are presently
allowed under the existing code. He pointed out that they were
allowed one projecting, hanging, or wall sign, one display box,
and one window sign. Staff recommended denial of this request
as it was felt that the existing sign code allows adequate
opportunity for display of the same information that the special
boards would carry. Staff also felt that the requested sign
category, special boards would not meet the intent of the sign
code to minimize the visual clutter. Staff agreed that the
special boards have been an ongoing enforcement problem for the
Community Development Department. After much discussion and
deliberation, staft felt that by legimizing these boards, the
problem would still exist. It was suggested that the restaurant
community begin to utilize methods currently available to them to
display this information, i.e. in their display boxes.
Mike Staughton and Kevin Clair represented the Restaurant Asso-
ciation. Staughton stated that the Restaurant Association did
not want to circumvent the sign code. Their intent was to bring
to the Planning Commission the restaurants' need for this type of
signage. They felt that they were perhaps being discriminated
• against, as they could not have sale signs on clothes racks such
as the retail shops. Kevin Clair pointed out that they would be
happy to work with the Planning and Environmental Commission on
the ordinance. Their intent was to have special boards for
restaurants for their daily specials and promotions as well as
for entertainment. He felt that there was a great deal of
competition among the restaurants in Vail, and that this type of
advertising lets the consumer make intelligent decisions. He
also asked the Planning and Environmental Commission to look at
the petition done to show the broad support of the restaurant
owners in Commercial Core I for this type of sign. Renee Gorsuch
stated that the sale racks that are put out for special sales are
not allowed in the other six areas that she has stores in. She
suggested that perhaps the Town should move to try to stop this
type of situation where stores are putting out store racks
directly on the street.
Peter Patten gave some background on how the retailers were
allowed to have this type of outdoor display. In 1982 the
retailers expressed a need for outdoor display and stipulations
were made on this privilege in that they were required to locate
their displays on their own property, that the displays had to be
directly in front of the store, and that signage was not allowed.
He agreed that enforcement was another problem with respect to
the outdoor displays. Many times large sale signs are placed
next to the racks which is a type of sign that is not allowed.
He stated that chalkboards were a similar enforcement problem.
Originally the state was positive about the proposal due to the
t
• fact that it might be a way to rid the staff of this type of sign
problem. However, after further study and discussion, it seemed
prudent not to allow chalkboards. He pointed out that restaurants
had been treated specially by allowing each to have a menu box.
Duane Piper then read a letter from Pepi Langegger which opposed
the special chalkboards. Kevin submitted a letter from David
Dowell, owner of Cyrano's, that strongly supported the special
boards.
Diana Donovan said that she was on the original sign code commit-
tee. The menu box was intended to serve this exact purpose to
show daily specials and menus. She felt that additional signage
would create clutter and that sign boards became additional
advertising. She stated that patios are probably the best way to
market a restaurant to the customers. She also felt that chalk-
boards looked very cheap.
Sid Schultz basically agreed with Donovan. He stated that many
times the multi- colors of chalk and markers are very unsightly.
He also agreed that chalkboards are a very difficult type of sign
to enforce. He encouraged the staff to develop a stiff penalty
for those restaurants that continued to put up the chalkboards.
He was also in favor of getting rid of the outdoor display tables
for retailers.
. Jim Viele also agreed with Donovan's statements. Personally, he
was not in favor of temporary signs. He also emphasized that he
was sympathetic with the competition among restaurants and that
perhaps the staff should look at changing the dimensions of the
menu box so that daily specials could more easily be placed
inside the menu boxes.
Duane Piper agreed with Pepi Langegger in that the menu boxes
should be used for daily specials. He also felt that the sidewalk
display was not consistent with our other regulations.
Mike Staughton emphasized that the reason for coming to the
Planning Commission was to come up with an acceptable type of
special board. The present chalkboards were a makeshift way to
advertise daily specials. Duane Piper pointed out that the
Restaurant Assocation could also try to encourage members to
assist in enforcement. Kevin Clair stated that most restaurant
owners did not want to point the finger at other restaurants when
they put out menu specials. Kristan Pritz mentioned that this
staff certainly did not enjoy going to restaurants and asking
them to take down their chalkboards. In fact, many restaurant
owners ask the staff why they don't have better things to do with
their time than bother them about chalkboards. She suggested
that it would be helpful if the Restaurant Association would
cooperate with the statt and therefore decrease the enforcement
problem and free up staff time to do more useful things with
their time. Members felt that five square feet was adequate for
display of the menu as well as the daily specials. Viele was the
R
only member that felt that perhaps a larger menu box may be a way
to solve the problem.
The motion was made by Viele and seconded by Donovan to recommend
denial of the proposal. The Planning Commission asked the staff
to pass on the concerns to the Town Council with respect to the
special boards. The vote was 4 -0 recommending denial of the
proposal to Town Council.
5. A request for an exterior alteration of less than 100 square
Feet in order to enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch,
Inc. at 26:3 East Gore Creek Drive. Applicant: Dave Gorsuch
Tom Braun presented the staff memorandum explaining that a
compromise solution had been reached with the applicant and that
the staff was now supporting this request to now enclose the
planter at the southeast corner of the Gorsuch building. Staff
was originally not in favor of the request because of the loss of
landscaping on the site. The applicant proposed installing a
portion of the landscaping as shown on the Gorsuch exterior
remodel plans dated 8/29/83. This would include the three most
westerly trees that are located on the applicant's property as
well as brick pavers running the length of the store along Gore
Creek Drive.
A motion was made by Viele and seconded by Donovan to approve the
plan
as presented with
a portion of the
landscape Elan to be
installed
as an element
of this approval.
The vote was 4 -0 in
favor
of the plan.
b.
A request to amend
the development
plan for Crossroads
Center at 143 East
Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Snow uest
Partners
A motion was made and seconded to table
this proposal and the
vote
to table was 4 -0 in
favor.
•
TO: Town Council
• FROM: Community Development
DATE: October 15, 1985
SUBJECT: Appeal of a Planning Commission decision of denial for
a request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building,
Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Blanche C. Hill
I. THE REQUEST
As outlined in the attached memorandum to the Planning
Commission dated September 23, 1985, this request was to
enclose 430 square feet of deck space on the west side of
the second story of the Hill Building and to add a third
story bedroom 1 square feet. The proposed third story
addition is located at the southwest area of the building.
The staff recommendation for this request was for denial.
It was felt that this project would have significant negative
impacts on the One Vail Place plaza area. Staff feels that
this proposal is not in compliance with the Vail Village
Design Considerations regarding street enclosure and the
effect of the additional shading due to the bulk and mass of
this design.
r1
U
II. ACTION OF THE PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
A Planning Commission motion for approval resulted in a 2 -2
vote. A tie vote is a vote of denial. Those Planning
Commission members voting against the motion indicated
concern over bulk and mass and the impact to the pedestrian
areas. These Planning Commission members felt that further
design work could alleviate these concerns.
•
TO:
! • FROM
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development
September 23, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for exterior alteration of the Hill Building
on Lot 1, Block 5C, Vail Village 1st Filing to enclose
existing second floor deck space and add a third story.
Applicant; Blanche C. H i l l
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant, Blanche C. Hill, is requesting to enclose 430
square feet of deck space on the west side of the second
floor of the Hill Building and to add a third story bedroom
of 1,142 square feet. The proposed third story addition is
located at the southwest area of the building.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI ZONE
Purpose: The Commercial Core I D
District is i
intended t
to
provide sites and to maintain the u
unique character of t
the
Vail Village commercial area with i
its mixture of l
lodges a
and
commercial establishments in a p
predominantly p
pedestrian
environment. The Commercial Core I
I District is i
intended t
to
insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and uses.
The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe
site development standards that are intended to insure the
maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and
public greenways and to insure continuation of the building
scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the
Village.
This proposal is substantially in compliance with the intent
of the zoning for CCI district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
This proposal relates to the sub -area concept 10A. This
sub -area concept refers to mountain gateway improvements and
describes elements such as a landscape screen, minor plaza,
and a pedestrian loop to Wall Street. The area specified
for Sub -area 10A is on land currently under control of the
United States Forest Service. The current Forest Service
position on this property is that it will allow no improve-
ments with regard to this sub -area concept. The Community
Development Department would request that if this sub -area
is ever developed, that the owners of the Hill Building not
- remonstrate against any special improvement district that
may be formed to complete such improvements.
. IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL
VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and
Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or
detracts from the overall intent of the Design Considera-
tions.
A. Pedestrianization. The third story addition and deck
enclosure will have minimal if any impact upon pedes-
trianization.
B. Vehicle Penetration. No impact.
C. Streetscape Framework. Because the additions are
located on the second and third floors, there will be
little impact on the quality of the walking experience
with respect to landscaping and ground level commercial
infill. The quality of the pedestrian experience will
be impacted by additional shade in the area of Le
Petite Cafe (see Sun /Shade analysis) and the ticket
offices and also by some blockage of views of the
mountain as one enters Founders' Plaza from the north.
D. Street Enclosure. The Considerations state that "an
. external enclosure is most comfortable where its walls
are approximately 1/2 as high as the width of the space
enclosed." The Design Guidelines also state that a
ratio of 1:1, height to width, creates a "canyon
effect." The height of the addition on the Hill
Building will be 30 feet to the eave line The height
of One Vail Place is 28 feet to the eave line. The
plaza width varies from 33 to 42 feet. This creates a
ratio that varies from 2/3:1 to 1:1.
The Guidelines state that in some instances the "canyon
effect" is acceptable such as a short connecting
linkage between larger open spaces. The area between
the Hill and the One Vail Place buildings adjacent to
the proposed addition is not an area where we feel the
"canyon effect" is acceptable. Most of this area is
not a walkway, but a very active public plaza. The
ticket window area may be the most highly utilized
plaza in Vail Village during the winter season. In
addition to the ticket office area, there is also an
outdoor dining deck for Le Petite Cafe. It is our
belief that this addition would create a very negative
impact upon this plaza. The One Vail Place building
opens to a wider plaza area as it nears the mountain as
does the current design of the second story of the Hill
Building. It is the staff's position that a three-
. story facade on this area of the Hill building will
severely detract from the original design goals of
this plaza area.
• E. Street Edge. No impact. All additions are above
ground level.
F. Building Height. In Commercial Core 1, up to 60% of
each building may be built to a height of 33 feet or
less and no more than 40% of each building may be higher.
than 33 feet but not higher than 43 feet. The ridge
height of the proposed addition is 37 feet. This
height does meet the 60/40 c r i t e r i a as described. The
new roof will be a pitched roof. It will reflect the
same pitch and materials of the existing roof forms.
G. Views and Focal Points. The proposed addition will
slightly impact views of Vail Mountain from the Founders'
Plaza area. However, this view is not a designated
view corridor, although we feel it is an important
consideration. This view allows visitors an opportunity
to orient themselves with regard to Vail Mountain.
The view from Seibert Circle looking southwest to Vail
Mountain is a designated view corridor. The proposed
addition does not project into this view corridor. The
addition is most visible from the Mill Creek Court
Building looking west. There is a substantial addition
of bulk and mass projected into this view. However,
• views of the forest above have been maintained.
H. Service and Delivery. No impact.
I. Sun /Shade The Design Consideration states that "all
new or expanded buildings should not substantially
increase the spring and fall shadow pattern on adjacent
properties or on the public right -of- way." This
requested addition will increase the shadow pattern by
approximately 350 square feet according to the December
21 study diagram. The March /September diagram indicates
that the size of the shadow would nearly double,
shading a large amount of the plaza area. This shading
will have a considerable negative effect on the people
gathered to purchase lift tickets and also on the
outdoor dining area of Le Petite Cafe. We feel that
this addition does substantially increase the shadow
patterns in this plaza and does not meet the intent of
these design considerations.
•
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Project Statistics.
Allowable GRFA, 6,400 sq ft
Existing 2nd floor, 4,082 sq ft
Existing 3rd floor, 696 sq ft
Total,
4,778 sq ft
Stairway deduction, 372 sq ft
Total existing GRFA 4,451 sq ft
Proposed 3rd floor
addition 1,142 sq ft
•
Proposed 2nd story
deck enclosure 430 sq ft
Total proposed GRFA 6,023 sq ft
Allowable GRFA 6,400 sq ft
Proposed GRFA - 6,023 sq ft
Remaining GRFA 377 sq ft
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denial.
This project would have significant impacts on the Cne Vail
Place plaza area. This proposal is not in compliance with
the Vail Village Design Considerations by its effect upon
street enclosure and by the additional shading due to the
bulk and mass of the design. In the staf'f's opinion, this
design makes very little attempt to respect the street
enclosure design considerations or to maintain the original
design of the plaza area. The addition of a two -story
element, totaling 3 stories going straight up from the
property line at the location of the existing deck compromises
the open feeling of the southern edge of this plaza which is
a major gateway to Vail Village.
•
L9_
i
:7
r �
l�
-_
Appoop
limn ,
� -IPnow vu�,�
112.1
/��,o
�-.A
ikM1q
CSI -�DDW
W�
vio��
7
0 L-
It I I
fxk��Ne�l
dh
��Ktw I llv
�GiHP(�l� 7�I/'�P�I�'1 Ga
-
S
i
I
I
f
F i
s
l
f I /
}
�1
,.r
1
0
t
i •
•
1
7 %
v
v
TO:
FROM:
DATE :
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
September 23, 1985
SUBJECT : Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail sign code
to create a new sign category that would allow the
display of chalkboards. This category would apply only
to restaurants. Applicant: Restaurant Association of
Vail
BACKGROUND OF REQUEST
Recent sign code enforcement actions have resulted in a petition
to amend the sign code. This amendment, proposed by the Restaurant
Association of Vail, involves the creation of a new sign category
that would allow the display of chalkboards. This category would
apply only to restaurants. The Town of Vail sign code as existing
allows restaurants the following signage :
A. Projecting and hanging signs or wall mounted signs or
any combination thereof, not to exceed the maximum
numloer or size of signs as designated. The purpose of
this sign category is to allow or business identifica-
tion. The allowable size of this sign is related to
the business frontage with a one square foot per five
lineal foot ratio with a maximum area of ten square
feet per sign.
B. Display boxes. The purpose of this sign category is to
allow the display of current menus, current real estate
listings, or current entertainment. The size shall be
no greater than 5 square feet.
C. Window signs. The purpose of this sign catetory is to
allow Mentilcication of particular types of services,
products or events. The size is restricted to 15% of
the total window space or no more than 10 square feet.
The proposed new sign category would read as follows:
"SPECIAL BOARDS"
Special boards shall be regulated by the following:
A. Purpose, to announce daily food and drink specials,
promotional events, and entertainment events.
B. Size, no greater than 2'x3' (6 square feet) .
• C. Location, on leased or owned property, within a reason-
able proximity to menu box, subject to approval by the
office of Community Development.
! . D. Number shall be as follows:
I. Permitted, one special board.
2. Permitted, if a business has two consumer entrances
on separate pedestrian ways and has been approved
for two menu boxes, two special boards shall be
allowed.
E. Design, an erasable -type board.
F. Lighting, no additional lighting specifically for
special boards.
EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
In order to evaluate this request, we have utilized the same
criteria used to evaluate an amendment to the zoning code, with
slight modifications. Those criteria are, first, a discussion of
the amendment request concerning the suitability /non - suitability
of the existing code; secondly, the question of whether or not
the proposed amendment is consistent with the intent of the code
as well as municipal objectives; and finally, an evaluation of
the request with regard to fostering the orderly and viable
growth of the community.
• 1. Suitability of Existing Sign Code
The existing sign code allows restaurants the ability to
utilize three categories of signage. The first allows
identification of the establishment and its nature of
business. The other two categories, display boxes and
window signs, allow for display of the specialized infoxma-
tion. Either or both of these categories could adequately
function as a vehicle for the display of daily food and
drink specials. It is the staff's belief that the existing
code provides suitable methods for the display of information
that the proposed amendment is requesting.
2. Is the amendment proposal consistent with the intent of the
sign code as well as municipal objectives?
The main intent of the sign code is to reduce the visual
clutter associated with excess signage. The sign code is
designed to allow the display of necessary and pertinent
information to identify businesses in the most efficient and
aesthetically pleasing manner . It is the staff's position
that the addition of a new "special boards" category is not
consistent with the intent of the Town of Vail sign code.
In light of the fact that there are two categories of
. allowable signage that may display this type of information,
we feel that this requested category is unnecessary and in
conflict with the objectives of the code. The allowance of
these chalkboards could easily, in the long term, produce
significant sign clutter and a congruent negative aesthetic
perception of our pedestrianized areas.
3. Does the amendment proposed provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable c ommuni y
The first paragraph of the Town of Vail's zoning code,
Section 18.59.010, states the following:
V a i l is a town with a unique natural setting, inter-
nationally known for its natural beauty, alpine environ-
ment, and the compatibility of man -made structures with
the environment. These characteristics have caused a
significant number of visitors to come to Vail with
many visitors becoming permanent residents participating
in community life.
This chapter, of the zoning code goes on to establish the
design review guidelines of the Town of Vail. These guide-
lines, along with the related landscaping requirements, the
Urban Design Guide Plans for Commercial Cores I and II, and
our sign code were developed and adopted by the Town in an
attempt to provide for the orderly and viable growth of our
community. It is the staff's position that the requested
amendment would have a negative effect upon the sign code by
giving restaurants an unnecessary special privilege and
therefore would be detrimental to the development objectives
of the Town of Vail.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends denial of this
request. We feel that the existing sign code allows adequate
opportunity for display of the same information that the "special
boards" would carry. We also believe that this requested category
does not meet the intent of the sign code to minimize the visual
clutter. .
The "special boards" have been an ongoing enforcement problem for
the Community Development Department. We do not believe, however,
after much discussion and deliberation, that legitimizing these
boards is the proper solution to this issue. The restaurant
community should begin to utilize methods currently available to
them to display this information.
0
town at VHH
75 south frontage road
vaii, colorado 61657
(303) 476 -7000
Dear Restaurant Owners in Vail Village and Lionshead,
office of community development
The recent proliferation of chalkboards and temporary display boards
throughout both the Village and Lionshead areas has resulted in recent
enforcement action by the Community Development Department. Within
the past two weeks a Community Development staff member has personally
contacted each establishment displaying such signage, requesting
cooperation in the removal of this type of sign. We recognize that
a restaurant has special needs and feel that the Town sign code respects
those needs. The sign code allows restaurants additional signage in the
form of a menu box. This may be used to display information such as
daily specials in a pleasing aesthetic manner.
• We would prefer to rely on a spirit of cooperation rather than utilize
enforcement procedures, however to do so we need the unanimous support
of the entire business community. We do expect your compliance.
Any future violations of the Town of Vail sign code will be strictly
enforced. If you have any questions regarding exactly the type and
number of signs you are allowed or if you would like to apply to the
Design Review Board for a menu box please contact our office.
Thank you for your cooperation.
Best wishes for a successful summer season.
Sincerely,
Peter Patten
Director of Community Development
PP /blf
is
Ea 1e Qu5taurant Company, Incorporated
cyrandes Qckauraft
298 ffamon Qanch Load
Vail Village
Vail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476-5551
C G � . �' -?�' -.-� � ���C'i �2�� --C`. ,.� C" � Lam_..
e<1
o
Z*x
3 The T l
BoxT?go Va1l,Cda-d v 81658 4476 -2204 « r
RECT SEP g
September 13, 1985
VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
Ladies a. Gentlemen:
As a Vail restaurateur for the last l8 years, I would like to express
my opinion about the proposed sign ordinance change for restaurants to allow
handwritten signs on blackboards in front of businesses to advertise specials
and attractions.
The question is what do we want to be -W "a world class resort" or a tinsel
town, cluttered with cheap chalkboards in different handwritings and t- shirts
displayed on sale out on the sidewalks.
It was a big mistake to grant shops to let them display their undesirable
merchanidse "so to speak" in front of their stores. Sometimes it looks more
like a sidewalk rummage sale out of boxes than "quote" Vail's unique boutiques.
I hope, rather than creating another sidewalk sale image with restaurants,
let's learn from the first mistake.
I believe there is no gain for anybody and all we are doing is setting
low standards for the clientele we want to attract. We have to give up short -
sighted fast gains in favor of long -range quality planning.
Sincerely.,
THE TYROLEAN INN
Pep Langegger
PL /jac
0
PETITION
We the undersigned, are strongly opposed to the Town of Vail
regulations prohibiting restaurants from displaying "special boards"
for the following reasons:
1) Special boards are an important marketing tool for restaurants.
These boards are most effective when displayed in conjuction with the
menu. box. I3owever, the menu box , because of its restricted size is
not adequ;,.tespace to explain a number of special dishes or a special
discount offer.
2) It is discriminatory to single out restaurants for sign rest-
rictions when retailers are permitted sale signs, street side clothes
racks, and sale tables.
3) This kind of regulation is not in the best interest of the Vail
visitor or local. Our customers want to know what specials are being
offered. An attractive special board is a excellent means of commun-
icating this information.
Vie urge you to reconsider this regulation.
SIGNATURE
I �" If
/T
TITLE
owner
d�vr"._
0W#ee4*__
RESTAURA17T
&W7_-FW �s
k�WI-00;4
/Z0 G
s�
r
.r
R �
10
OUAA4 AIAA
P-A�
es A •e/
* " Lv 0
£NeG4�E &SrwOoG
R
I t o
.,y
f N
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 9, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance in order to enclose a
second floor balcony of Unit 15 -C, Sandstone 70 Condo-
miniums. Applicant: Carl F. Scherer
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting to enclose a balcony of approximately
88 square feet on Unit 15 -C which is part of a 4 -plex of the
Sandstone 70 Condominiums. The balcony would then become part of
the applicant's living room. In the process of this construction,
the applicant would also change the east (front) elevation with
an alteration of the root line. (See enclosed elevation.)
Currently, the Sandstone 70 development is over its GRFA allowance
by 13,988 square feet. Therefore, any additions to living area
would require a variance. See attached the applicant's request.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findinqs, Section 18.52.000 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development recommends
denial of the requested variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The location of the proposed balcony enclosure will have minimal
impact on neighboring residents because the balcony will not be
extended. However, it the request were granted, it could become
precedent setting and the enclosure of several balconies would
would have an impact. Furthermore, existing development is
dramatically over the allowable density and the enclosure of
several balconies would be an even greater density increase.
The deqree to which relief from the strict or literal interpreta-
tion and enforcement of a specified regulation is _ necessaa to
achieve compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in
the vicinity
Historically, the staff has generally not supported requests for
additional GRFA over what is allowed under existing zoning. The
staff feels that to grant additional GRFA in an already dense
area would be a grant of special privilege.
•
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution
. of population, transportation and traffic facilities, public
facilities and utilities, and public safety.
There are no significant effects on any of the above elements.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
The Community Action Plan encourages the upgrading and remodeling
of structures and sites as well as the maintenance and upkeep of
property within the Town. However, it should not be construed
that these goals were intended to be given preference over
development standards. While the staff does not question this
proposal would be an upgrading of the property, it is important
that any proposals comply with established development standards.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance
FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following
tindin s before granting a variance.
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other
properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following
reasons;
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that do
not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
•
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. While any
physical impacts on the site would be negligible, it is felt that
to approve this request would be a grant of special privlege. In
addition, there is no apparent physical hardship evident to
justify this request.
As the Planning Commission is aware, Ordinance 4 of 1985 was
designed to allow for small additions to existing residences.
During the development of this ordinance, the issue of deck
enclosures was discussed a great deal by the Council and Planning
Commission. With the final adoption of this ordinance came a
very clear message from the Council that they were not in favor
of decks in multi- family structures being enclosed. For this and
the above mentioned reasons, staff is unable to support this
request.
•
•
. i
APPLICATION FOR A VARIANCE
KARL F. SCHERER
UNIT 15--C, SANDSTONE
TOWN OF VAIL, COUNTY
AUGUST 6, 1985
70 CONDOMINIUMS
OF EAGLE, STATE OF COLORADO
RE: STATEMENT OF THE NATURE OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
1. The variance requested is from the GRFA requirements of the
Town of Vail Zoning Code. The purpose of the request is to allow
the applicant to enclose a second floor balcony of approximately
100 square feet; the balcony would thereby become part of the
applicant's living room. Other existing uses in the neighborhood
are primarily residential, the exception being The Printery, a
commercial use.
2. Only a very minor degree of relief from the existing zoning
is necessary to the granting of this application; compatibility
of this residential unit with the neighborhood will not be affec-
ted. It should be noted that the Ted Martin residence at Sandstone
70 has an enclosed balcony.
3. The effect of the variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation, traffic facilities, utilities and pub-
lic safety will be nil.
The applicant wishes to refer the Department of Community Develop-
ment and the Planning Commission to the following considerations:
a. One of the purposes of the Zoning Title of the Code is "to
conserve and maintain established community qualities and econ-
mic values; ". This improvement would help to maintain economic
values.
b. The applicant also wishes to direct attention to Vail's Community
Action Plan; in it's statement of purpose, the Plan specifically
is directed towards "recognizing the special needs of neighborhoods ".
One specific need of this neighborhood, located directly across
from Lionshead, is the upgrading of some of the older condominium
projects. The Plan further recognizes that "New Growth and re-
vitalization are essential to the continued success of Vail ",
and urges the adoption of measures aimed at accomplishing "Neigh-
borhood planning and upgrading" and "Community incentives and awards
programs for upgrading of buildings and sites ".
Respe�tf / itted,
Karl F. Scherer
u
tr1} +tt�T +''� tt * Nt T f It 1 -0 4 1� tt�tt +TtaT.d
- U,
I
=
�M
L
L
w
O
1
!f
- U,
I
1 1
-- 2 , .
Z �.
c
O
•ate
�r
N
=
�M
L
L
w
O
1 1
-- 2 , .
Z �.
c
O
•ate
�r
N
After discusion of a landscape plan, the staff
recommended approval of this plan.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM. Community Development
DATE- September 23, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to
enclose an existing planter at Gorsuch Ltd. in Vail
V i l l a g e . Applicant: Dave Gorsuch
THE PROPOSAL
This proposal is to enclose an existing planter located along
Gore Creek Drive at the southeast corner of .Gorsuch Ltd. The
enclosure is approximately 44 square feet and would be used for
the display of merchandise. Exterior finishes of this enclosure
would be similar to the existing finishing details throughout the
building .
CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR
ALTERATIONS
As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for additions
or new construction in Commercial Core I involve review with
respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. These involve both the
sub-area concepts as delineated in the Guide Plan and map as well
as the Design Considerations outlined for the Village. In
. addition to this are standard zoning considerations. This memo
will address this proposal with respect to these review criteria.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Urban Design Guide Plan identifies a number of sub -area
concepts which are to be addressed in any redevelopment or
additional development in the Village. However, none of these
sub -area concepts are impacted by this proposal. As a result,
these sub-areas are not a factor in reviewing this application.
COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATI FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The following Design Considerations are identified as the primary
form giving physical features of the Village. It is the burden
of the applicant to demonstrate that this proposal substantially
complies with these considerations or that the proposal does not
otherwise alter the character of the neighborhood. How this
proposal relates to the nine considerations is summarized below.
Pedestr. ianization. Gore Creek Drive serves as both a
pedestrian corridor and a vehicle access way in this area.
This proposal will not adversely affect either of these two
functions.
Vehicular Penetration Not applicable to this proposal.
Streetscape Framework. Streetscape framework deals with the
.
quality of the walking experience among the pedestrianways
within Vail Village. Two general types of improvements as
outlined in the Guide Plan include the use of open space and
landscaping as a colorful framework linkage along pedestrian
routes and the infill of commercial store fronts to create
commercial activity and street life along pedestrian corri-
dors. This proposal will add store front display area to
Gor.such's that will in some respects provide visual activity
for the pedestrian. On the other hand, it will also eliminate
a planter that can be utilized in the display of flowers and
other plantings. There presently exists a large amount of
window display and a very small amount of landscaped area on
this site. It is recognized that a variety of these two
features is a preferred alternative. With respect to this
proposal, the elimination of this planter area is seen as a
negative impact on the existing streetscape.
Street Enclosure. This criteria is not impacted by this
proposal.
Street Edge. It is the intent of the. Guide Plan to develop
a Vi age core with a strong but irregular edge to the
street. This type of development gives a certain amount of
life to the street and visual interest to the pedestrian.
While this proposal would enclose a portion of the building
that is recessed from the street, the relatively small size
. of the enclosure deems it to be a fairly insignificant factor .
Building Height. Not applicable.
Views. This proposal does not affect any view corridors.
Service and Delivery Not applicable.
Sun /Shade. Not applicable.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
If approved, this proposal would contribute to the parking demand
created by Gorsuch Ltd. Payment of applicable parking fees would
be required prior to the issuance of a building permit.
Section 18.24.170 of the Zoning Code outlines landscaping and
site development standards for the Village Core. This reads as
follows:
No reduction of landscaped area shall be permitted without
sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as specified in
the Vail Village Design Considerations.
As clearly stated in this zoning criteria, the elimination of
landscaped area is prohibited unless sufficient cause is demon-
strated by the applicant or the elimination of landscaped area is
•
the result of some consideration in the Vail Village Urban Design
. Guide Plan. In this situation, the Guide Plan does not specific- -
ally recommend that this landscaped area be removed.
STAFF RECOMMEND
Staff recommendation for this request is denial. while the total
area to be enclosed is only 44 square feet, it is felt that if
properly maintained, this planter could provide a great deal of
color and life to this site. The intention of the applicant to
increase the store front display is not considered a detrimental
step. However, it is the feeling of the staff that to sacrifice
this existing planter for additional display area is not in
keeping with the Design Considerations outlined in the Guide
Plan. This position is also substantiated by the Summer Quality
surveys that have indicated our guests to be very impressed with
the flowers and color found throughout the Village during the
summer. months.
This proposal would not be nearly as objectionable to the staff
if alternative locations were available on the site to locate a
new planter. However, this building is constructed right to the
property lines (in some cases, over the property lines) in the
area of this proposal. While the applicant has proposed locating
decorative wooden pots with small pines in front of the store,
these are not considered an appropriate trade -off when considering
the loss of a permanent planter.
Planning and Environmental Commission
is October 14, 1985
2:00 pm Site Inspections
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a
low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A,
Potato Patch subdivision.
Applicant: Stephens Communications
2. Request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room at
the Ramshorn Lodge.
Applicant: The .Polar Partnership
3. Request for exterior alteration of an area under 100 square feet
in CCI in order to remodel the existing entries and add 65 square
feet to the Rucksack.
Applicant: Rucksack
TO BE TABLED 4. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an existing neck area
. and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applicant: Snowquest
TO BE TABLED 5. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east entry
to the Concert Hall Plaza Building.
Applicant: Brad Quayle
6. Update by staff on results of appeals to Town Council of Galvin,
Sherer and sign code.
0 Planning and Environmental Commission
October 14, 1985
PRESENT
Tom Briner
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Eric Affedlt
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
The minutes of the PEC meeting of September 23 were moved for
approval by Donovan and seconded by Viele. Vote was 6 -0 in favor.
• 1. Request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a
low power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract
A, Potato Patch subdivision. Applicant: Stephens Communi-
cations
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation and stated that the staff
recommended approval. He summarized the review criteria and
reminded the PEC of the zone amendment previously approved that
would allow low power subscription radio transmitters in the
Agricultural and Open Space zone district. The staff found
that the minimal impacts had been mitigated and were insignifi-
cant. Pylman read into the record several letters from property
owners in the Potato Patch subdivision: Two from Luc Meyer
against the proposal, 1 from Georges Boyer against the proposal,
telegram from Dr. Ivan Mindlan supporting the proposal, and phone
calls from JJ Collins, Larry Mullin, and Bob Charles all in
support of the proposal.
Steve Wherry, the applicant, summarized the process he had
followed to date and expressed concern with the Forest Service's
attitude of requiring him to relocate his transmitter facility.
He explained that he had tested a number of sites for relocation
and most sites did not work because of site constraints. Joe
Macy of Vail Associates explained the process /dialogue that
had taken place with the Forest Service.
Briner asked questions concerning the technical aspects of the
signal. Donovan said the Town needs to put pressure on the
Forest Service with respect to this type of application. Viele
is and Schultz concurred. Briner had problems with the Location
because even though slight, it would have a visual impact on
adjacent property. Pylman stated that from a town -wide standpoint,
staff saw this as a benefit. He added that covenants on the land
would preclude this from happening if adjcent property owners
were to oppose this.
Donovan moved and Viele seconded to approve the request per the
staff memo and with the recommendation that Town Coucil send a
etter to the Forest Service stating that the previous site was
preferred and their change in posture was unfortunate. The vote
was 6 -0 in favor of approval.
2. Request for a setback variance in order to build a sun room
at the Ramshorn Lodge.
Kristan Pritz explained that encroachments into setbacks were
actually being decreased by the removal of the pool equipment
room. There were no negative impacts on snow removal, a future
sidewalk, or adjacent properties. Jim Morter, architect for the
proposal, stated that the proposal actually has a positive impact
on the area. Donovan commented that the design needs to be
compatible with the existing building. she also recommended that
the DRB address the condition of the fence. Viele moved and
Schultz seconded to approve the request per the staff memo wh
. included the condition that the applicant receive approvals from
Public Service and Mountain Bell to construct the sun room on the
gas easement and underground_t_e ep one line. The vote was 6 -0 in
favor of approval.
3. Request for exterior alteration of an area under 100 square
feet in CCI in order to remodel the existing entries and add
65 square feet to the Rucksack. Applicant: Rucksack
Duane Piper stepped down as chairman and Jim Viele assumed the
chair. Tom Braun described the proposal and the criteria for
review. He stated that Sub- -Area Concept #12 was directly related
to the proposal. This is a mid -block connection to Mill Creek.
It was felt that this addition in and of itself would not create
a great deal of difficulty in establishing this mid -block connec-
tion when considering the existing obstacles in place. Braun
reviewed the Urban Design Considerations and recommended approval.
Duane Piper, representing the applicant, gave the presentation. He
explained that the proposal would help increase transparency and
create a more interesting street edge and focus on the entry to
Bridge street. There was a motion for approval by Briner,
seconded by Schultz per the staff memo. The vote was 5 in favor,
with Piper abstaining.
•
4. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an exIstxng deck area
and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant:
Snowquest
This was tabled to 10/28/85 by motion and 6 -0 vote.
5. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east
entry to the Concert Hall Plaza Building. Applicant: Farad
Quay
This ws tabled to 10/28/85 by motion and 6 -0 vote.
Patten gave an update to the PEC on appeals of GRFA variances.
Staff will be resuming study of multi- family buildings. There
was also an update on the Vail Village Study.
F - I
L J
J
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to build a
sunroom at the Ramshorn Lodge. Applicant: Polar
Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Polar Partnership is requesting a side setback variance
in order to add a sun room to Unit 3 of the Ramshorn build-
ing. The sun room will add an additional 125 square feet to
Unit 3. The addition will connect with the living room /dining
room area of the unit. Twenty foot setbacks are required on
all sides of the property in the Public Accommodation zone.
The existing building extends approximately 11 feet into the
setback. The new sun room addition will encroach 13 feet at
the farthest point. The applicant is also proposing to move
an existing pool equipment room which encroaches 18 feet
into the setback. The pool equipment room will be relocted
in an area adjacent to the existing building. By relocating
the pool equipment room, the applicant is decreasing the
greatest existing encroachment into the setback.
L�
Below is a list of zoning statistics for this property.
Please note that the building is under the allowed GRFA as
well as allowed site coverage.
Public Accommodation Zone
Site Area .533 acre or 23,216 sf existing
(Note: project also has another lot of 6,000 sf zoned Parking)
No. Sq. Ft.
Accommodation Units 17 6,266
Dwelling units 7 5,903
Total Density 15.5 12,169
Common Lobby /Lounge 2 1,038
Total Allowed GRFA
Total existing GRFA
Remaining GRFA
Proposed addition
Remaining GRFA after
deduction for addition
18,572 sf
12,169 sf
6,403 sf
125 sf
6,278 sf
Site coverage: Allowed 12,769 sf
Existing 6,595 sf approx
Addition 143 sf
Remaining after addition 6,031 sf
II. APPLICANT'S REASONS FOR REQUESTING THE VARIANCE
"The applicant requests to make his project LESS NONCONFORM-
ING than it currently is, by relocating an existing pool
equipment building, and constructing a new transparent sun
room.
The existing pool equipment building protrudes eighteen feet
into a twenty foot setback area. A new pool equipment
building would be constructed totally within the allowable
building area, totally out of the setback area. The new
pool equipment building would be approximately twenty -seven
percent smaller than the existing one, and would be tucked
under an existing deck in an existing recess in the building.
• By comparison, the proposed transparent sun room would
protrude only thirteen feet at its furthest corner into the
setback (compared to the 18 feet of the existing pool
equipment building). The sun room would be attached to the
existing main building, rather than be detached, as the
existing pool equipment building is."
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
13113777g factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Staff believes that the greenhouse addition will not have a
negative impact on adjacent structures or properties.
Public Works department has stated that the addition will
not create any problems with their snowplowing. It is also
felt that the removal of the existing pool equipment would
40 actually decrease the encroachment into the setback. The
pool structure is not a particularly attractive building and
it would be a benefit to relocate it as well as rebuild it
in a corner adjacent to the existing building. For these
reasons, staff feels that the proposal actually has a
positive impact on the area.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of a s ecified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity ot treatment
among sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob jectives of
this title without a grant of special privilege.
Staff's opinion is that it would not be a grant of special
privilege to allow the 13 foot setback encroachment for the
sun room. The removal of the pool equipment room creates a
5 foot decrease in the existing encroachment and is a net
improvement for the property. Staff feels that a nonconform-
ing situation is becoming less nonconforming and therefore
should not be considered a grant of special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and _public
safety.
This proposal does not have any great impacts on these areas
of concern.
• III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitatins
on other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the vriance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
. zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other proerties in
the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the variance based on the
opinions that the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and
will not constitute a grant of special privilege, as a
nonconforming situation is becoming less nonconforming given
this proposal. Staff believes that the variance is warranted
due to extraordinary circumstances on this site, such
as the existing building being located in the setback as
well as an existing pool equipment room. These structures
are already encroaching into the setback and the net result
of the proposed variance will be to decrease the degree of
the encroachment by five feet. Staff recommends approval of
the variance contingent upon the applicant receiving approvals
from Public Service and Mountain Bell to construct the sun
room on the gas easement and underground telephone line.
.�
• �
�"'
- w
��
•
J
•
•
•
�
Z �
U -�
4
g
�"►
1 1
c�
71.1
•i
.
�
Z �
U -�
0
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
. DATE: - October 14, 1985
SUBJECT. This is a request for a conditional use permit in order
to erect a low power subscription radio antenna within
Agricultural and Open Space zoned property owned by
Vail Associates within the Vail Potato Patch subdivision.
Applicant: Stephens Communication, Inc.
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
Stephens Communication, Inc. must relocate their existing
transmitter facilities from Forest Service property.
Stephens Communication has entered into an agreement with
Vail Associates to utilize property owned by Vail Associates
in the northwest area of the Potato Patch subdivision. This
land is zoned Agricultural and Open Space. The facilities
consist of an 8' x 6' x 8' equipment shed and an antenna and
mast that, depending upon final location, may be from 15 to
30 feet in height. The applicant states that, "The height
of the antenna and mast will not exceed the height of the
surrounding aspen trees (approximately 30 feet)."
1 •
In a letter sent to Potato Patch subdivision property
owners, the applicant goes on to say, "In order to reduce
the visual impact of the transmitter building, we are
proposing that it be relocated along side of the access road
that goes to the power sub - station. It can be situated on
Vail Associates' property at a point along the road where it
will not be visible from your home or Potato Patch road.
There is a bend in this road just before the property line
to the National Forest which will hide this structure. The
building measures 8' x 6' x 8'. I am enclosing pictures of
these facilities. I think you will see that the antenna and
mast blend into the aspen tree background quite readily.
The mast will be painted so that it matches the color of the
surrounding tree trunks."
The Planning and Environmental Commission should be aware
that there are Potato Patch subdivision covenants which may
not allow this type of use. It is the staff's position that
covenants are private contractual agreements and are not
enforced by the Town. The applicant is aware of this
situation and is working towards resolution with the property
owners.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
•
0 Consideration of Factors
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the e Town. .. —. -
The Agricultural and Open Space zone district was recently
amended to allow "low power subscription radio service" as a
conditional use. The development objectives of this zone
district allow low impact development while maintaining
quality open space. It is the staff's belief that this
request meets those objectives. It is our belief that the
service provided by these facilities provides a benefit to
the citizens of the Town of Vail and to the skiing population
on Vail Mountain.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
p opulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation face sties and other public facilities
and public facilities nee s.
The public may benefit from the utilization of this service
due to the public service announcements regarding skiing,
weather and traffic conditions. No effects on the other
factors are perceived at this time.
• The effect upon traffic with particular reference to conges-
tion, automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience,
trattic flow a control, access maneuverability, and
removal of snow from street and parking areas.
This request will generate very little traffic within the
Town of Vail. The facilities require service on the average
of one to two trips per month. The effect of this additional
traffic upon Red Sandstone Road is minimal. As previously
related, this service may provide information to both
guests and residents that may aid in traffic flow and control.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the 2roposed
use is to be located, including the scale and bulk of the
proposed use in relation to surrounding uses.
Primary use of the Potato Patch subdivision is residential.
Immediately north of the proposed transmitter building
location is a large electric substation located on the white
River National Forest. The proposed transmitter building is
6' x 8' x 6 48 square feet. The proposed location is
completely screened from view of any residential properties.
The proposed antenna and mast location is visible from
several of the residential properties within the Potato
Patch subdivision. The height of this antenna would be a
maximum of 30 feet. The proposed antenna location is within
a grove of aspen trees of approximately 30 feet in height.
Staff feels that the overall effect upon the character of
this area is minimal, if any.
Such other factors and criteria as the Commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
III. FINDINGS
The Community Development Department recommends that the
conditional use permit be approved based on the following
findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the
purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this ordinance.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Department recommends approval of the condi-
tional use request. It is the staff's belief that the only
negative impacts associated with this request are the
visibility from the adjacent properties and that the applicant
has mitigated these effects to the best of his ability.
•
, a 1%, u
SOUNDS
0 GOOD
September 27, 1985
Mr. Luc Meyer
P. 0. Box 176
Vail, Co 81658
Dear Mr. Meyer:
I would like to thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and
discuss the relocation of our antenna site.
You asked me to write to you and explain our request.
As you know, I own a company named Stephens Communications. We provide
a subscription radio service to skiers on Vail Mount4in under the name
"Sounds Good." We rent small Sony FM receivers to skiers who can pick
up four special channels of music to ski with. We also provide
• information to them every half -hour, such as lift line status, groomed
trail announcements, weather reports, safer skiing reminders, ski patrol
"call board announcements," road conditions, and Town of Vail traffic
announcements. We do not sell advertising. Vail Associates uses the
system for emergency communications to skiers when severe weather sets
in or when other emergency conditions present themselves.
As I mentioned to you, I am pioneering this concept in Vail. I have
spent the last four years and most of my personal money developing this
concept. For the last three years i,ae have been operating our prEiiary
antenna site on Forest Service land above your home in Potato Patch.
While we have operated on that site under a Temporary Special Use
Permit, the Forest Service has informed me that they will not review the
permit. I am enclosing a copy of Richard Woodrow's letter. Fie is the
White River National Forest Supervisor.
This Forest Service action has forced us to seek another antenna site.
within the Town of Vail. As I explained to you in our meeting, we use a
low power (10 watt) FM signal that must have direct line -of -sight to the
front side of the mountain. I also mentioned 'that we had tested our
reception from several other sites including Spraddle Creek and KVMT's
translator site, about 2/3 of the way down Potato Patch Road.
Unfortunately, these sites did not have the line -of -sight vantage
. Stephens Communications, Inc.
P.O. Sox 910
Vail, CO 81658
303 476 -4998
Mr. Luc Meyer
September 27, 1985
Page Two
point that is required and the tests were unsuccessful. As a result of
this testing, we have determined that we must be as close as possible to
the Forest Service site that we have successfully operated from.
In looking for possible sites, we found that Vail Associates owns land
to the west of your property that would be a suitable site for our
transmission facility. Vail Associates was in concurrance with our use
of this site so we contacted the Town to see what we would need to do to
use this site. In uu rking with Peter Patton and Rick Pylman, I learned
that we would first have to request a change of the zoning ordinances to
allow for the "conditional use' of a "low power, subscription radio
facility." We made the request that this use be permitted within the
agricultural and open space and the pr imary /secondary residential zoning
districts. The Town's Community Development staff recommended that the
zoning ordinance be changed to allow this as a conditional use for the
agricultural and open space district but not the primary /secondary
residential district. The Town Council approved this in their second
reading on September 3, 1985.
. The next step was to apply for the conditional use through the Planning
and Environmental Commission. Lie have filed our application and I
understand our request will be heard at their October 14th meeting.
I am enclosing a site plan which shows the proposed location of the
facilities. We are proposing that we locate the antenna and mast
approximately 5 feet from your property line on Vail Associates' land,
and within 5 feet of the National Forest land. This gives us the
line -of -sight view that we need of the front of Vail Mountain. The
height of the antenna and mast will not exceed the height of the
surrounding aspen trees (approximately 30 feet) .
In order to reduce the visual impact of the transmitter building we are
proposing that it be relocated along side of the access road that goes
to the power substation. It can be situated on Vail Associates'
property, at a point along the road where it will not be visible from
your home or Potato Patch Road. There is a bend in this road just
before the property line to the National Forest which will hide this
structure. The building measures 8'x5'x8'. I am enclosing pictures of
these facilities. I think you will see that the antenna and mast blend
into the aspen tree badcground quite readily. The mast will be painted
so that it matches the color of the surrounding tree trunks.
Mr. Meyer, you asked me about our operating hours and the amount of
access we would need to the equipment. We operate the transmission
equipment from approximately 8:15 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., for the ski season
. only. Once the transmission facilities are in place and tested, VP-
should only have to access the antenna and mast for repair work.
Mr. Luc Meyer
September 27, 1985
Page Three
•
This is typically infrequent. Last spring no repairs were required of
these components. There should be little impact on you since this is
the only part of the system visible from your property. We will
probably access the transmitter building about twice a month for routine
checks, plus any maintenance required. We hope that the impact on you
will be minimal since it is not visible from your home.
In response to your request, I did talk further with the Forest Service
to see if they would consider leaving the facility or part of the
facility on National Forest land for this coming ski season. I met with
Dave Stark in Minturn and he said they would not consider it. I also
talked to Bob Miller in Mr. '4,bodrow's office and he assured me that Mr.
Woodrow would not consider it. This seems consistent with their
communications to date.
You also asked if the transmission facilities could be placed near your
neighbor's residence (primary /secondary residential zoning) . As I
mentioned, we had originally requested that this conditional use apply
to primary /secondary residential as well, but we withdrew this request
when the Town staff opposed it. I checked with Peter Patten and he said
it is possible tc back through the process of changing the zoning
ordinances, but he reminded me that this is a lengthy process and we
would be well into the ski season before it could even be considered.
He also said the staff mold continue to oppose this change.
Although we could try to pursue this as a long -term alternative, it does
not appear to be a short -term solution. I would suggest that we go
ahead with our plans to put the antenna on Vail Associates property to
support our operations this ski season. This would give us an
opportunity to review the operations and determine if the market for
this service is large enough to justify continuing the operations. It
will also give us a chance to review the impact on the surrounding
property. If, at that time, it appears that.we should reapproach the
Town to ask for the zoning change for primary /secondary residential,'
then we would have the time to try and accomplish it. I am sensitive to
your concerns.
I would like to ask your cooperation with our request to relocate the
equipment as described in this letter and as shown on the accompanying
site plan. I believe we can accomplish this with minimal impact on you
or your property. I sincerely believe in what we are trying to do. It
provides a service to the skier and enhances the product offering that
Vail provides to its resort guests. It also provides an amerg,ency
communication system to the ski area operator. I believe that we fit
into the Vail community and I look forward to your support in this
. matter so that we will have the chance to demonstrate the viability of
subscription radio In Vail this ski season.
Mr. Luc Meyer
September 27, 1985
Page Four
� 0
If you have any questions please let me know. I can be reached in
Denver during the days at 796 -7$00 or in Boulder in the evenings at
499 -5533. I might add that I am certainly available to meet with any of
your neighbors.
Thank you once again for your time and your attention to this request.
Best wishes,
STEPHENS COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
Awe
Steve Wherry
President
SW /1 lr
Enclosures
cc: Larry Lichliter, Joe Macy, Vail Associates,
Rick Pyl ma n, Town of Vail
lie
r • �. United States Forest White River P.O. Box 948
Department of Service National Forest Glenwood Springs,
Agriculture Colorado 81602
Reply to: 2720 ,
Date: November 6, 1984
Mr. Larry Lichliter
Vail Associates, Inc.
P.O. Box 7
Vail, CO 81658
Dear harry:
Vail Associates, Inc. has had temporary permits for the 1982/1983 and 1983/
1984 skiing seasons for 'Sounds Good' radio transmitter sites operated by
Stephens Communications. These sites were used to transmit low power FM
signals for a closed circuit radio subscription system. The purpose of
these permits was to test the marketability of the system. The first year
the system had very limited availability and during the second year it was
operational on 63 days with 20 to 70 rental units available for rent.
On June 15, 1984 you applied for transmitter sites for.the 1984 /1985 season
to District.Ranger Dave Stark. On August 14, 1984 Ranger Stark denied this
application. On September 21, 1984 Vail Associates appealed his.decision.
A response statement was submitted by Ranger Stark on October 12, 1984 and
an oral presentation was made by you and Steve Wherry on October 19, 1984.
Your appeal responds to ten points given in Ranger Stark's August 14, 1984
letter denying you a permit for the 1984/1985 ski season. I agree with
Ranger Stark's reasons for denying your application except in regard to the
opportunity you have had to test the system's marketability. The permits
did provide adequate time for this test. Unfortunately, Mr. Wheery dfd not
have workable radio receivers available in sufficient quantity to do an
adequate test during some of the high season. While this was an equipment
problem and the responsibility of Stephens Communications, as your agent, I
do concede that further marketing tests may be needed to determine the
system's viability.
It is, therefore, my decision to allow you to continue to test the market—
. -' ability of this system for the 1984 -1985 season with the transmitter sites
you used last season. Permits to test the system beyond the 1984 -1985
season will not be issued.
It is not acceptable to permit additional electronic sites in the Vail
area. The existing sites at Dowd Junction, Eagles Nest, PHQ and Far East
provide sufficient coverage for essential services for Vail Mountain,
115
F5.0200.28(7•82)
'a
� 0
9
Mr. Larry Lichliter 2
The effect of this decision can result in a determination of marketability
for this service. It does not, however, provide an opportunity for the new
antenna sites on a long - term basis to provide the quality of reception you
indicated was needed. In addition, the opportunity for providing this
service.at other permitted ski areas on this unit, again using existing
electronic sites, will have had a marketing test.
Should you elect to proceed with the tests this year it must be with the
understanding that my decision has been made in regard to not establishing
additional electronic'sites.
This decision is subject to appeal pursuant to 36 CFR 211.18 (Federal
Register, Vol. 48, No. 63, March 31, 1983, pages 13420 to 13426). Notice of
Appeal must be in writing and..submitted.._to- Richard E. Woodrow, P.O.-Box-948,
Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602 within 30 days from the date of this
decision. A Statement of Reasons to support the appeal and any request for
oral presentation must be filed within the 30 --day period for filing a Notice
of Appeal.
RICHARD E. WOODROW 1 ::
Forest Supervisor
I•
FS- 0200.28(7.62)
•
w
4� 100
U r.
i N E0a10N `
Ik, cu
in
to € to N z rn r 11
.. _ 5 0 3 9 , � \ *
41 LOJ CO 'n
_ a
tip �` �a
�>< bl w I ''�% n` r.: S * .. dip ab ! g
uj ° 0 _. ,
� i
O e G
C��j � N� - ii
� -
�_ w 501 °45
S 00
1'14" E OF O J d 4r "� 143 54 OD AM-
au ID 1 to p M r
t in .Tr
=
in
- N
• M j� 1 . I ` O d am' �,"�'� `.
ul " ° N
1441 6
6� ti
to
OD ,
* 4 10 Gt
0
ff 1�-
tv
42+ .1
��, .� 1 N M
I,
OD
VIP M °llk
/� ? N
�&V
v)
1
zfc
T
r �
4
I,
4 k 1
f 0 9 s
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to add 65
square feet of store area to the Rucksack on the south
side of the Rucksack Building.
Applicant: The Rucksack
I. THE PROPOSAL
This proposed expansion would acrd approximately 65 square
feet of store area to the Rucksack. The expansion would
take place by infilling a small corner on the south side of
the building. An additional element of this proposal are
changes to both the north and south entrys into the Rucksack
as well as modifications to an existing planter along Bridge
Street.
II. CRITERIAS TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR
ALTERA TIONS
As the Planning Commission is aware, applications for
additions or new construction in Commercial Core I involve
• review with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan. While
more subjective in nature, the Guide Plan establishes
parameters to be used in evaluating development. The Design
Considerations and the Guide Plan are intended to be utilized
just as density control, building height, and setbacks are
used in more traditional zoning code. The Guide Plan
involves both the sub -area concepts as delineated in the
plan and map, as well as the Design Considerations that
outline specific urban design considerations. In addition
to these are standard zoning considerations. This memo
will address this proposal with respect to these review
criteria.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The Urban Design Guide Plan for Vail Village identifies a
number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed in any
redevelopment or additional development in the Village.
Sub -area Concept #12 is directly related to this proposal.
It reads:
Sub -area Concept #12-- Future mid -block connection to
further tie Mill Creek Court to core area. Entry
reinforced by pocket pock created on Mill Street.
As you may recall, at one time a walkway did exist between
. the Rucksack building and the Red Lion. This walkway led to
a bridge which spanned Mill Creek into the Mill Creek Court
Building area. Over time this walkway was eliminated by
. infill development. Recognizing that the pocket park has
been established in this area, the primary goal of this sub-
area concept is to re- establish this walkway as a mid -block
connection to the Mill Creek Court area as a key element of
re- opening the Mill Creek Court area for new retail or other
activity.
At first glance, it would appear as though this addition is
in direct conflict with the goal of this sub --area concept
#12. It is felt that this addition in and of itself would
not create a great deal of difficulty in establishing this
mid -block connection when one considers the existing obstacles
in place. This analysis can be more easily explained while
on the site. The attached site plan demonstrates the
relationship between this addition and the existing portion
of the building that would have to be removed in order to
re- establish the mid -block connection.
This proposed addition would have a negligible impact on the
existing pocket park that is to serve as the entry to this
future mid -block connection.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The following design considerations are identified as the
• primary form - giving physical features of the Village. It is
the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that this proposal
substantially complies with these considerations or that the
proposal does not otherwise alter the character of the
neighborhood. How this proposal relates to the 9 considera-
tions is summarized below:
A. Pedestrianization
While improving this store's pedestrian access off of
Bridge Street, this proposal would have no negative
impacts on the overall pedestrian network that has been
established within the Village.
B. Vehicle Penetration
Frequency of serivice /delivery trips or other vehicle
activity should not be significantly increased as a
result of this expansion.
C. Streetscape Framework
149
The proposed expansion is
located some 20
feet off of
Bridge Street and does not
directly
affect
the street -
scape framework. It will,
however,
add to
the trans-
parency at the pedestrian
level
that is
presently
offered by the Rucksack.
It should
be noted
that this
expansion will necessitate
the removal
of an existing
. planter. However, a trade -off exists in that another
existing planter located directly on Bridge Street will
be expanded in size.
D. Street Enclosure
This consideration is not affected by the proposed
expansion.
E. Street Edge
The existing pocket park
adjacent to this proposal adds
a great
deal to the street
edge along Bridge
Street.
This is
accomplished by
the significant jog in
building
frontage
that serves to
create this activity
pocket.
Because
of the small size of this proposal, it
is felt
that it
would not have
any negative impacts
on this
concept.
F. Building Height
This consideration is not applicable to this proposal.
G. Views
I[]
This proposal would not affect any view corridors
within the Village.
H. Service and Deliver
Service and delivery trips to the Rucksack would not be
anticipated to increase significantly as a result of
this expansion.
I. Sun /Shade
Located on the south side of the building, this expansion
would not impact any sun /shade considerations on the
pocket park or elsewhere.
10
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The only applicable zoning consideration is with respect to
parking. While this addition is small, the parking section
requires that a contribution be made to the parking fund for
any expansions in the core areas. Calculated at one space
per 300 square feet, this 65 square foot addition is equal
to .22 parking spces. At $3,000 per space, the total
parking fee would come to $660.00. Payment of this fee, or
the establishment of a payment program, would have to be
done prior to the issuance of a building permit for this
construction.
• VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is approval. Initially
the staff was very concerned with how this proposal would
impact our goal to re-- establish the mid -block connection
between the Rucksack and the Red Lion. However, further
study of this situation indicates that there are far greater
problems in re- establishing this connection than are presented
with this small 65 square foot addition. Our support of
this proposal is conditioned on the following:
1. That the applicant participate in and not remonstrate
against a Vail Village special improvement district if
and when one is formed.
•
0
C7
.
. . r�.••�- - �SYX� n•'_.:,.ra..v�...x�Y+s'. r�wo-sd=
1 1 [ , .` ( {' r ' +' r t T "' ,_ ,.. Ste. i •, ,5 ' �",.k,�- ..°P r � } r k �,' i� ! c
s iV i -r i 3e � -i• �yx s �' .3 �' , -r. r.y .� - �s: _J.�
yt>} •i ! • -�. -. +@J 1 - 1 1+�^��.1 '• 1s � u - J ,° rK, T � i r + S � c> - f .t .•} a F �..}�. ^'r � -, •' i.. • ,
VI
-7 7 7 z
• f - �� 3+ 4 '' J ..fie ` � t r
� �,K ! � s �' • f'x, ., � 4 � � 5 , S � �s - t - r l��t "7 r h ,fir -� iL :} �• -
• � �i � k } {� w � s � r � ya 't '� L-�"�t F 4 •? : + � r ' ;,r _ r '� ? �. r ' ° �� � /S
r'
% 'I"""� � ••• 1 j � "S - .1� •� r + a �r z. � �"�' ? - f � 11 • ! ry i -' r r i � r � , t � " ^ �
�_ _ •a - �-c.. r i d
1x�s4i9 �. }r + "}� r J ps•a.'? + s \ r - Y'i _
r ,! ti � � +'f1 �� :;, ��_� - +hi ,- i��� r�irrf� rr .,i� ,:. •-Y ^' �.'_ r 4'� k`
�1i4 r� i !i�.j � f �;` • - � {� �. r \ { '1 ;��{ i r�i�l rt �:
s } S ��Il r��j� ++. ti{ ate- r "3 � s r � ;, ` •'.' F l . • lrt dt�' - 19; �i�r � >��{�. f1i �1� } }J'� � j '' " F�1,_ �.
i - - s u: S ' x' �, K � t 4/ "`` - ro) s v s'Cr T "�:: �-.. , ..ay •r e , ; %[ S 1 f .' �� - _� � 4 k r -
� '.j • r F i^iC •7�flr �� r-� �i ,,; {_ - %c =i i+ -�- �� :��. _ "t• - � r l +,o ,�.' �`r i
.�� y _sa {•fir lr4s t� !� r4, r..
i'_ i2 t -r ~, ]f r Y - Y � 4".'S • r sz Asa i , - {_ Y ' - - r - _s r..
� � fi :Si _ yrt ' _i. �'r -{ 1• - i � r.lrrs� r ' t� - � „�" � '-. tT
°c y t,, Y 7 `��t1�� ' S• f Y - w r .:r•;Cl r� * = i .? z �t £
-J- it 1ti. �' .'� +'l�tr ' � t ti r "'� F `. .r 'K - Z" s - • s �' �. , ix , x t
°:�.-'} _ � +�- tif.. 7 y. � t ' rr _ °.: - ;:� � 4 +, '� .T�.: s.. �K'a _ .. z. d
�� � f• �� . sx • .. ' S j,„r mss" �:. �: � � t � -i r f - �„ � � t - > � j -= .
y�l.. - .� y7Sr�r s 1' i 7�. ; -�• � _ .' , 3� � •� Z.�L' � � -� '� kp
� .�y fi t'rz. �' s� �c +' \� { t - } -�`•�S .
-
• �t k--, t f Y•�" � 4a- F r]+{ rh -�F Y 4 � f Y' K - "I } JI,� ,.
�t *� . ! r�-t XT ;�I•k it �: � ���•`+ ",i�"{t,` 7. •� .�. _ -� � , ,�," :� t ,.
!•:?� -�: a i - ! '•s � ♦' t.a• _ _ r ���� r ^ � � r. ' k t4wa -.?-' �'��.ci .,� =' ". 'r, y^ `�'� 1 '
r.i • 1s .�- " � -fir'.. y�r >_. „ -�-:- �.+
rr -'� f1•" r , '� 3? !�r l f -} a Vyr �f-' i rr ti �;
+
� .�t
'• Wr. ` •E }, 4- Ci` iiYi' : [f^ F- c_ `^; -:'- j r • ,1,
, .�J..(�, �, .� { '�l ,y.�{Q �•c �s !�'� x�3 x.{li ° � - .r - ?; - •�� + i .
sy 4,,rS'
'��`it}�rh a t ���� ,�. , �7�� y - • Y � Sa �'S'F�h � .i4 �j i• ft -S: t I,�yi 1 $
f. • _ ✓r"' K i _ ' l 7i G .Yy£
. �� }� S ��,� _ .•G�i -f J- �:���� �','�r ^�•_� -G -S i�- -�`�j... Y✓l r°�4��.1!
y • _1iM 1yi, - .�+ ^ " t ' 3 J r _ _ ?� r" , �RT
- � t•� • D S.. �, - i iC.._
• iii ( •1. +^ •�' „%�J �?�C.•Y f+ s r � fif - ` _ ,,x. o '1 f � �*_S" �£ , �-
•'+Z. r �v s�•• iT wx� 9,,.c U � ,� 'T +; � - . q t r • : � �- ,r _a,. �i' +••
'tF �4= � r � + k, n � y ►!•j + ,r +t `3: � { �s[. y ' � ` � � a� 1.y� , �Y -3�ti � - f.!` • . � � Z , fi r -- �{ S;
s� y� �1rr�S! 3N� �c�fr>~w X,�f _ - i fit'} E9•. a .f� 'fr,'Y,% '�• � �� .. )�Yt '-/S : r � f � �S_
`�
i
ft
P,.M .n7 i a
K � `x _ �MJ �� '� ^�� � Z'••. Y :�. y� � � -- KJ.L V Y���� F ; �l s • l " ,'
4 •� r ti
�•}' n 3 ' �k g y i � ^ .i �� t`.=�+t�i' y, �f'. z F j r. J � �, R��7 .'t y - {� .�^ "�` -_ � } rr+ i � ` !" .
i " r�r� :�r { f`v. tr1 Yi�.'•� "Cp � � � � Li t �. -rte '�2s `�"'. Y�' , k `�' x � C'C' 5 ..4
sy '� FY �r fT lr„�� ±' �' ..fi - �i.. _ - • +'h�( _ �r� -,. d,�. yk`s'Se• ��� , ��y � y ,# �§���;
}c��L��' Tti - `�• ,y- � �fr r .�?� f- Lam ,. - k` a I � a S y r ,_ r S , k�_ t � -'2 r - �.
�'�: '� a �i � t "{ 4. �•S\ s I -�`�' �. �'^`�„�r• r j �'S 7 Z �5� � > ;Y f' L ..fr�. k V ' - ''' �' r " r � _ 9: _.
� j , .�i, }.,y#' 3-� i� •�'� �. �' x 5�� -� '�n �• a, -,� � tr 4i 1 i ;r � � /�- r - � -, r
��5�. :vf, 1' •rc .�i � !4.-� s 2' `��• �x { , n, "� 1 •�,� a "'} ms s- � $�ti � JF .7� r t�'i
�:?a.F � +k.._ ;j 1�. _�1 o +�S `"R� x e��- __: Y-�Y rt,�k+� rte-' --.- Y �1 F7. y.- S.i•=� c F *t;: < �h ( ;'i •: - e -s _,
. r '.rli� •+ Y.[Yi �,t`- _-`[�, �.; `' Iy. �••-r f +{ -3 '� - #�. A.�
y � ✓r'. - L ��--yy..,, +4 ti`t
, .:,"?}S, �_',ri. .'f �s�l 7 •- .roc. #_'�� �� �- r #Y y� F�`���'` z r d_ .. � 9Y r"- ,. '�'� 4•
.Jr r 'd_` r :'•'•.!t Yi: Sjs+'{ , �•�, F` � a t ' t �? 1��5r•"r•...,aP _✓ -i r . ,'. �,cT r T; �t>�.s
-. k.x t h 1.yk. s � '�' x r p +,r 3 v r
-,fj. �•- `�- ;t � �� yA. �' " T �y.�
.. t - ", F' ' ,rr�'f,, t� L�"Y�M•�i . ^ �t i .•t_ 7 �' f -W � 4 g ..��„•: •s. i -� w l�
ti-�•4 -rYa+ f A' 3 . F • , .l_.1r, .• t , ,- L -. - ea s'� r• < Y
r rr �7 i rr •i' ' ,! � { s `° ; rr _ f ,xF -3� :�`E �. _ •- � � - --;� ':- �� 3
`� ' �• " � +: .i "�Tii r'"fC 'k 7 - , 4 ' - �F'- � � � y ,�:,_ !+�� 1h. .' •.^ - L _'t• ',5� �«: �. +"'• t
t'` � � . s�,. :"'+t4.S " r?' S `i. �ti"L'��1 v�;.•. ''fiu �,;� y r1 y - k ��c ' ♦ i-� � ,., - y - r � 4 .mss
4 fip � f� � g , � '.'K,"�• 'sf; rT,t'�d' .:.�� �: �_�•. i 1'.r s ,f. � . ��i r�` Y � �� �' t3.� rs i'1 - x,'�.1 �F �-, J�v,y c,
• � r>k •�w�� �t' r� 5- c `'•. s3 j �. �-' t r } � r it r _ F „s �� '
�. ti x �� � _ � � � l �i' "� - � ti ,r5• �C y��„�r r 7 � � : Ci �' i}. �i f � �j�r - . j � - � � �. ,sue -J=T ;-
x +. ., S� �: }� �. 'G � - �,� r � 5� �. xr► 5c.`� 4• `�.iy y ` ; � i s �`' >'� u ^ 3P � '•� � t
.. a 2�+.SA '^'" �±S R-� t;lt '�=3 r � �--�' � -:.'7 ��-'- Y•�K_rr:, ��>t �
> � � � +^� -t �' r' � j. � • �v �a4 � ! tk a 3 d y � i �; s' r • v va 4- -.F +� �~ � a L , r rt f � L � �..�:
x S 35� iL_ � ' - - - '��ti��n�:�� f .''i 3T. iL A"^�.' -r`-i 4 C .o •r. � .�, y' ?� �7
.Frr -.. =e: � �' �.�.' z- �f_te�r�+�= �t�t•�:c<:.x,.1 ;r..� �._..�at . �?'t'�ti a -� sus. .�"�'f''t�:=+
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
October 28, 1985
2:15 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of October 14.
2. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area
and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applicant: Snowquest. Staff Recommendation: Approval
3• Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance,
a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from a
major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice
Building.
Applicants: James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker
Staff Recommendation: Denial
4. A request for a setback variance in order to add an east entry
to the Concert Hall Plaza Building.
Applicant: Brad Quayle. Staff Recommendation: Approval
r� L
Discussion of meeting dates of 11 /11 and 12/23.
Conference at Keystone on 11/14.
GRFA discussion
•
1
Planning and Environmental Commission
. October 28, 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
ERIC AFFELDT PETER PATTEN
DIANA DONOVAN TOM BRAUN
PAM HOPKINS KRISTAN PRITZ
SID SCHULTZ RICK PYLMAN
JIM VIELE
ABSENT
TOM BRINER
DUANE PIPER
1. Approval of minutes of October 14. Donovan moved, Schultz seconded to approve
the minutes as presented. -0 vote
2. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances
in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining at
Burger Kina. Aoolicant: Snowauest.
Rick Pylman made the staff presentation and explained how the Commercial Service
Center zone district works in terms of approval process. There are two steps in
reviewing this request: 1, the amendment to the development plan of Crossroads
and 2, review of setback variances needed to enclose and modify Berguer King's
• outdoor dining deck. Jay Peterson made the applicant's presentation supporting
the staff recommendation.
Hopkins voiced concern over snow shedding and potential loss of cottonwood. Peterson
stated that the retaining wall could be redesigned to save the tree. Hopkins
questioned the accuracy of the retaining wall height as one travels from west to
east. She thought the wall would be higher than indicated on the sections.
Schultz' main concern was with the cottonwood. He also felt that the wall should
be stepped back. Donovan did not think the deck worked, felt the design was not
an improvement, and suggested adding benches to create a more open feeling that
would allow landscaping to be maintained. She expressed philosophical problems
with allowing a deck enclosure, then granting property encroachment on Town of Vail
land for a deck. She felt the patio footprint needed to be redesigned. Affeldt
expressed concern over how design would work with respect to the site lines from
the seating areas. ( ?)
Viele had no problem with the enclosure and agreed with the staff that outdoor dining
is valuable. He felt that there were details to be worked out in the design of
the patio. Peterson requested tabling to 11 /11 to address concerns raised by the
commission. Donovan moved and Affeldt seconded to table to 11 /11. Vote 5 -0.
:7
♦,
0
PFC 10/28/85 -2-
3. Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance, a
a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from a major
watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Buildin .
Applicant: Mike Palmer
Tom Braun gave the staff presentation regarding the requested variances,
the background of the project, impacts of the request, and stt recommendation
of denial. Mike Palmer presented the applicant's request and further described
the proposal.
Affeldt felt this definitely a
could show otherwise. Donovan
restricted any further develops
the building needed remodeling
was critical, although he also
right to develop his property.
grant of special privilege unless the applicant
felt that parking issue was critical and severly
vent. Schultz agreed with Affeldt. Hopkins felt
and a personality change. Viele felt the parking
felt respect for the owner with respect to the
There was general discussion regarding the employee housing restrictions on the
property, with additional concerns from Hopkins and Affeldt were raised about
the stream encroachment request.
The applicant requested to table the request to 11/25. Affeldt moved and Donovan
seconded to table until 11/25 and the vote was 5 -0 in favor of tablIER.
4. A re nest for a setback variance in order to add an east entry to the Concert
Hall Plaza Buildinq in Lionshead. Applicant: Brad Quayle
Rick Pylman gave the Staff presentation outlining the proposal with a staff
recommendation for approval. He explained the location of the,$tairway and
stated that the staff felt the use was compatible with existing uses in the
vicinity and was not a grant of special privilege.
Mark Donaldson gave the presentation for the applicant. Affeldt questioned how
this was not a grant of special privilege. Rick. commented that it wasn't because
of locations of existing buildings. Patten gave some history of the development
of Lionshead. Quayle agreed to improve conditions of the walkway adjacent to
Rat 'n Willie's. Affeldt moved and Sid seconded to ap2ro the request with conditions
That ua le agree to improve the walkway-adjacent to Rat n Willie's, and that
trees and lights be relocated in an area near the site. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
Affeldt asked the staff to write a letter to Montaneros requesting that the roof
be improved atop Charlie's T -shirt shop.
The meeting of 12/23 will be cancelled. Peter explained the Keystone conference
and encouraged the commissioners to attend. A short discussion of GRPA ordinance
was conducted.
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Commission
DATE: October 28, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for side and rear setback variances, a density
control variance, a parking variance, and a variance to
the required setback from a major streamcourse in order
to construct two additional units with a total of 609
square feet of GRFA to the Cornice Building. Applicants:
Jim Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker.
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The five variances requested are necessary in order to
construct the proposed addition to the Cornice Building.
The following is a statistical breakdown of existing develop-
ment on this site:
Lot Size :.084 ac/3,659 sf
Allowable GRFA: 2,195 sf
Allowable # units: 2
• Existing GRFA: 1,677
Existing # Units: 4
Existing Commercial:
Proposed GRFA: 2,286
Proposed # Units: 6
sf
195 sf
sf
Required parking: 7 spaces
Existing parking on site: 0 spaces
Required parking under this proposal: 10 spaces
Parking provided with this proposal: 0 spaces
As this table demonstrates, the existing development on this
site is over its allowable number of units and very deficient
in required on -site parking spaces. The proposed addition
requires variances for the additional two units, a variance
for 91 square feet of GRFA over the allowable, and a variance
from the 3 additional parking spaces that would be required
for this proposal. In addition to these variances, an
exception would have to be granted to the required 50 foot
setback from the centerline of Gore Creek, as well as side
and rear yard setback variances.
The remaining portions of this memo will address each of the
variances requested with respect to the factors to be
considered in evaluating these requests. Following this
analysis, staff recommendations will be given for each
specific request as well as for the project proposal as a
whole.
0 II. CRITERIA AND F INDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62 of the
Municipal Code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variances based on the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
A. Density Control
The additional 9l square feet of GRFA requested with
this proposal would not have a significant impact on
uses or structures in the vicinity in and of itself.
However, the additional units proposed would have a
negative impact. Most significant of these impacts
would be the required on -site parking that is not an
element of this proposal. In addition, 6 units on this
extremely small parcel would generally overcrowd the
site.
. B . Setbacks
The proposed addition would extend to some 3 to 5 feet
from the property's southerly boundary. The proximity
of this structure would have a negative impact on the
existing walkway that is located adjacent to the
applicant's property. While the existing structure is
non - conforming with respect to existing setback require-
ments, this proposal would increase that degree of non-
conformance. This increased encroachment would have
negative impacts on existing and future uses in this
area.
C. Stream Setback
Because of existing development on this site and in the
vicinity, this encroachment into the required 50 foot
setback of Gore Creek is not seen as having significant
negative impacts.
D. Parking
As was mentioned previously in this memo, additional
development on this site would have negative impacts on
this area with respect to parking. While this proposal
did not address the additional parking that would be
• required from this addition, it has been assumed that
the applicant would request some type of variance from
this requirement. One can further assume that parking
demand generated by this addition would be accommodated
• by parking on adjacent properties or in the Town of
Vail parking structure. Neither of these two options
are acceptable to the staff as a solution for meeting
this parking . re"quirement
The degree to ' from" strict or literal
interpretation an en orcement of a specified requ ation is
necessary to achieve compatz i ity ;and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of specxa przvz ege.
With - the exception of - the' - streain course setback requirement,
it is felt that each of these requests would be a grant of
special privilege if they were to be approved. The applicant
has failed to demonstrate to the staff what justification
there would be to grant these requests. Because existing
development on this site and on adjacent sites encroach into
the required setback from Gore Creek in a number of cases,
it is felt that this request would not be a grant of special
privilege. consequently, with the exception of the variance
for the required setback from a streamcourse, each of these
requests would be a grant of special privilege if they were
approved. This is particularly true with respect to the
request for additinal units considering that absolutely no
parking is provided on site.
The effect on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilites, and public safety.
A. Density Control
The additional two units proposed with this application
would increase the density on a site that is already
over developed. The most direct impact with respect to
this increase would be on the distribution of population
and transportation and traffic facilities. It is the
feeling of the staff that to provide accommodations for
any additional number of people is inappropriate.
Effects on transportation and traffic facilites will be
addressed under the parking variance request.
B. Setbacks
The most signficant effect on the above factors would
be on public facilities, specifically the walkway
adjacent to this property. Discussion has taken place
concerning the future development of a pedestrian
connection between this area and Ford Park. The
proximity of this proposal would have a negative impact
. on both the existing walkway and any future development
of this walkway.
•
C. Stream Setback
There will be no significant impacts on the above
mentioned factors with respect to the required stream
setback.
D. Parking ...
The inability of this .si.t.e .t.o provide on- site parking
would have a direct effect on transportation and
traffic facilities. Approving this request would
indirectly encourage additional parking in the Vail
Transportation Center, on adjacent properties, or along
Vail Valley Drive. Illegal on- street parking would
create problems for buses, snow plows, and general
circulation in an area that is already a poor situation.
Staff feels that it is the responsibility and obliga-
tion of this site to be capable of accommodating its
required parking demand. This issue has not been
adequately addressed through this application.
RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
There are no goals outlined in the Action Plan that would be
applicable to this request.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed request.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
on other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons;
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
• difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this - title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other- properties in the same
zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The following are staff recommendations for variances
requested:
A. Density Contro
This request is for 2 units and 91 square feet of GRFA
over what is allowed under existing zoning. The staff
can find no justification for supporting this request.
Physical hardship has not been established, and it is
felt that it would be a grant of special privilege to
grant this request. The site is simply not capable of
handling any additional density.
• B. Setbacks
To grant these setbacks would have a negative impact on
an existing walkway adjacent to this property and in
general overcrowding on the site. Staff recommendation
for the requested setback variances is denial.
C. Str eamcourse Setback
As has been mentioned, there is a great deal of existing
development located within the 50 foot setback from
Gore Creek. The encroachment from this proposal is
minimal. Staff can support this element of the request.
D. Parking
The applicant has not established any basis with which
to recommend approval for a parking variance. The
zoning code requires that development in the HDMF zone
district provide on -site parking (75/% of which must be
enclosed). Because of site constraints, there is
insufficient parking for existing development on the
site. Staff cannot support a request for additional
development which would increase this discrepancy and
feels strongly that it is irresponsible site planning
to ignore the parking requirements for development on
this site.
In considering this request, it is obvious that this site is
unable to accommodate the additional development proposed. Staff
strongly recommends that the Planning Commission deny this request.
TO: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Do- partmeQt
DATE: October 28, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in order to construct
a new entry way into the lower east end of the Concert
Hall Applicant: Brad Quayle
I. DESCRI OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Brad Quayle is proposing to construct a new entry way into
the lower level of the east end of the Concert Hall Plaza.
This entry will be .adjacent to the existing staircase
leading up toward Rat 'n Willie's Restaurant. This portion
of the building is built right up to the property line. The
nropos -�d new entry will require a set of stairs to be
constructed. Beca. -ise of th(- Tocation of the building on the
property line, it is necessary to locate the proposed
staircase on adjacent property. This adjacent property
cc of Tract C, owned by the Town of Vail; and Lot 8,
Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing, owned by the Montaneros
condominiums.
The Commercial Cora 11 area requires Ifs foot setbacks from
all property lines. The location of this staircase will
. require complete relief from this requirement on 2 sides of
Tract C and 2 sides of Lot 8. A graphic representation of
this de_sc - r i.pt.ion is available on the enclosed map. Montaneros
Condominium Association has agreed to allow this encroach-
ment. The staff was informed on Friday that Tract C is
actually owned by the Town of Vail. Due to this fact, the
Town Coranci.l has noc officially signed off on this proposal.
II. CRI TERIA AND FINDING
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
tfie Municip Code tFi Comm unity De ve opment Department
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
T0aw6g factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationsh of the req variances to ot existing
or potenti uses and structures in the vicinity.
The proposed staircase will be located adjacent to a mid-
level landing off of the staircase leading up to Rat 'n
Willie's. The staircase leading up to Rat 'n Willie's is
located on a public easement. Immediately to the south of
this proposed `3t 1i.ccas e is the deck roof area of the ground
• floor commercial space (presently Charlie's T Shirts)
located in the Montaneros building. Above the staircase is
the plaza area adjacent to the Rat 'n Willie's Restaur-
ant. The Community Development staff feels that this new
entry wi.i1. impro}r£� err: sc3 into the lower level of the
concert Hall P.la?�a building, thus better utilizing existing
space. We feel that the surrounding uses are compatible
with this request.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
- - -..
interp and en orremerit o " a specified regu anon is
necessary to ac vo compatibility and uniformity of t reatment
a mon ___
g sites " - �n the vicinify or to attain the objectives of
tM" - t e without grant' af species privilege -
rivi ege
Due to the siting of both the Concert Hall Plaza building
and the Montaneros Condominium building, any improvement or
exterior alteration in Uhl- aro-a will require relief from
,ho -io f,back regulations. The staff believes that this new
<-�ntry is a positive addition to this area and is compatible
with other uses in the area. We also feel that due to the
siting of the existing buildings, the gcanti.ng of this
request would not constitute a special privilege.
The efre(,i- or`_ ;-he requ=ested variance on light and air,
c'fistributI K of population, transportation F and traffic
f`acill es, pub ic� acxl °i t' es an uti tie's, an ua ae
s afety.
. The proposed staircase is located adjacent to a public
aW('0 ;s that leads from the Lionshead Mall into the
Concert Full Plaza building. The proposed staircase presents
no negative effect- to the public saLoty or public facilities
involved here. The construction of this staircase will
require relocation of an existing street light. The applicant
is proposing to relocate this street lamo acr oss to the
north of the public access way, This his been reviewed
and agreed to by the Public Works Department. We see no
tight and air, distribution of population, or
transportation and traffic facilities.
III. FINDINGS
Th Planning and Erivtronmental Commission shall make the
followi find before g ranting a variance:
That the granting of the var. lance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations
'on other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to
the public health, safety, or welfare, or inatorially irijur.iou,s
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
. The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in pract-3.0-al
difficulty or unnecei-3sAry phy:3ical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same
zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of
the specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges Enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
thf� same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested setback variances contingent
upon receiving approval from the Town Council to construct on Town of Vail
land. Staff feels that due to the siting of the original buildings in
this area, the applicant can demonstrate legitimate hardship, and the
approval of this request would not be a grant of special hardship.
•
E
; F�
"'Y'R4
A:
0 ff I a Bar lot
oil AIN
-.90
ilk
dn
-WE SO
w Sc
IN o s,— f
M,
% -K nml
...........
11, 04",
�
49F
TO:
FROM:
*ATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
October 28, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in
deck area and to add other outdoor
Applicant: Snowquest
order to enclose an existing
dining at Burger King
I. DESCR IPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
The Snowquest Partners, relatively new owners of the Burger Kina
restaurant in the Crossroads Shopping Center, are proposing to enclose
a portion of the existing outdoor deck area and adding additional
outdoor dining. This request will require both a setback variance and
an approval for amendment to the development plan of Crossroads
Center. These approvals are addressed in separate memos -see attached
memo on development plan amendment.
The proposal involves enclosing aproximately 2/3 of the existing
outside seating area with a greenhouse -style addition. A new exterior
eating area will be added to maintain approximately the same amount of
outdoor dining area as is currently existing. The proposed greenhouse
enclosure would encroach to within 3 feet of the property line.
The addition of a new exterior seating area would encroach over the
property line and onto Town of Vail. property. This exterior dining
area would encroach up to 8 -1/2 feet over the property line. The
Public Works department and the Vail Town Council have reviewed this
specific area of the request and have agreed to allow this
encroachment. The applicant feels that this proposal will add to
street edge and pedestrian experience by increasing both the
visibility of the restaurant and the transparency of the building.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
U an review of Criteria and Findings Section 18.62.060 of the
Munici al Code the De artment of Communit Develo meet recommends
approval of the re uested variance based upon the followin factors:
Consideration of Factors
The relationship of the requested variances to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The Crossroads Shopping Center is zoned Commercial Service Center.
This zone district requires 20 foot setbacks on front, side and rear
property lines. Crossroads is located on the edge of Vail Village.
The Vail Village area has no required setbacks, and through the Urban
Design Guidelines for the Commercial Core I area, there is
encouragement of both increasing transparency of buildings and
•
4f
r
BurgerKing 2 10/28/85
maintaining or adding more exterior dining decks and patios. The
staff feels that due to the relationship of the Crossroads Center
Building to Vail Village that this is a valid concept and will add to
the vitality of the streetscape and pedestrian experience.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of specified regulation is necessary to achieve com atibilit
and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The portion of the Crossroads Center building where the Burger King
restaurant is located currently encroaches well into the required 20
foot setback. Any exterior alteration or improvement of this portion
of the building will require relief from the setback regulation. The
staff feels that due to the location of the existing building that in
order to achieve compatibility among sites, it would not be a grant of
special privilege to allow this enclosure and the additional exterior
dining space to be located within this setback.
The effect of the re guested variance an light and a,i--rii distribution
p opulation, trans ortation and traffic facilities ublic facilities
utilities, and public safety.
This request has been reviewed by all applicable Town of Vail
departments and we see no additional problem for either snow removal
. or traffic congestion. The staff feels there is no negative effect on
any of the other above mentioned criteria.
Such other factors as the Commission deems a2plicable to the proposed
variance.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followi
findings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of
special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on othe properties
classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of
this title.
i
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply
generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same district.
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of the requested setback variance. Staff
feels that due to the location of the existing building the setback
variance is not a grant of special privilege and that this design relates
very strongly to what is encouraged in the neighboring Commercial Core I
district.
•
W
i
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 28, 1985
SUBJECT: Amendment Request for the Crossroads Shopping Center located
in the Commercial Service Center zone district. Applicant:
Snowquest Partners.
I. THE REQUEST
Snowquest Partners, the owners of the Burger King restaurant in
the Crossroads Shopping Center, are requesting to enclose
existing exterior dining area on the south side of the building
adjacent to East Meadow Driveand to create additional exterior
dining area equal to that which is proposed to be enclosed. The
area of the proposed enclosure is approximately 476 square feet.
A new set of entry stairs and a heated brick paver patio surface
are also a part of the overall upgrading being undertaken. A new
set of entry stairs and a heated brick paver patio surface are
also a part of the overall upgrading being undertaken.
*II. BACKGROUND ON REQUEST
The Crossroads Center is currently the only property within the Town
of Vail zoned as Commercial Service Center. The CSC district is
structured similarly to an SDD, requiring a development plan prior to
any site development approvals.
Section 18.28.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code states the
following purpose for the Commercial Service Center zone district:
"The Commercial Service Center zone district is intended to
provide sites for general shopping and commercial facilities
serving the town, together with limited multiple- family dwelling
and lodge uses as may be appropriate wihout interfering with the
basic commercial functions of the district. The commercial
service center district is intended to ensure adequate light,
air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to permitted
types of buildings and uses, and to maintain a convenient
shopping center environment for permitted commercial uses."
This chapter of the municipal code
adoption of a general development
of any area as Commercial. Service
development plan as stated in the
following information:
goes on to require the
plan prior to the establishment
Center 7cne di - -i ct . This
zoning code must contain the
1.
Existing topography and tree cover
. 2.
Proposed division of the area into lots and building
sites and the proposed uses to be established on each
site
3.
Proposed locations, dimensions and heights of
site and the location of parking and
buildings on each
loading areas, access drives, principle public and
private open spaces and other site plan features.
4.
Relationship of proposed development on the site to
development on adjoining sites
5.
Such additional information as the Planning Commission
and Town Council deem necessary to guide development
within the proposed district.
LJ
The municipal code goes on to state that this development
plan shall be used as a guide for subsequent development of
the site for all buildings and grounds within the district.
The staff required the existing site plan of Crossroads to
be submitted as part of this application in an attempt to
update the development plan. The original site plan has
been altered through the years by small additions and
alterations.
The staff felt that in order to alter the building footprint
and increase the existing setback encroachment, this
proposal would require Planning Commission approval as an
amendment to the Development Plan.
III. IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL
The Public Works Department has reviewed this proposal with
regard to its impacts on snow storage and snow removal from the
public right -of -way. The Public Works Department notes that
this isn't a snow storage area of significance and has no problem
with the r -o -w encroachment. The Vail Town Council has reviewed
this project with respect to the encroachment of the outdoor
dining deck on Town of Vail right -of -way and has given their
approval for this specific portion of the project. With regard
to parking, the Town of Vail requirements are 1 parking space for
every 8 restaurant seats and 1 parking space for every 300 feet
of retail space. The enclosure of the outside dining area of 476
square feet creates a parking demand of 3 spaces. Interior
changes in the restaurant have resulted in creating new retail
space in what was the existing west dining room. This
transformation from dining to retail creates a net demand of a
negative 3 parking spaces. These two actions combined create a
net parking demand of 0 spaces.
•
.
One of the requirements of the CSC district states that the
. development plan should show:
4. Relationship of proposed development on the site to
development on adjoining sites.
The Community Development staff feels that this proposal, in
conjunction with the creation of a new retail space in
Crossroads, relates very strongly to the redevelopment occuring
on the Village Center project.
We feel that the development of a series of defined crosswalks
between Village Center and Crossroads is very important to this
area. We believe that the addition of these crosswalks will
greatly enhance the improvement to the streetscape and vitality
generated by these redevelopment projects. The staff is
requesting that Village Center, Crossroads and Burger King
participate in a 3 -way funding of the crosswalks.
IV. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of
the proposed amendment to the Crossroads Development plan. We
feel the effects of this amendment are positive, and there are no
significant negative impacts. We would recommend as a condition
. of approval that the Burger King restaurant participate in the
creation of a set of brick paver crosswalks between this portion
of the Crossroads Shopping Center and the Village Center
building.
•
.1
F ' _ - .. . '. � - -
IN
� k
le
Planning and Environmental Commission
November 11, 1985
1:30 pm. Site Visit-
2 :15 pm Work Session on Fall Line
3:00 pm
1.
TO BE TABLED 2.
Public Hearing
Approval of minutes of October 28, 1985
A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area
and to add other outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applicant: Snowquest
TO BE TABLED 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low
power subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Vail Potato
Patch subdivision.
Applicant: Stephens Communications
4
Planning and Environmental Commission
November 11 , 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Eric Affeldt Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Tom Briner Rick Pylman
Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz
Sid Schultz
ABSENT
Duane Piper
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order by Diana Donovan in the absence of the chairman
and vice-chairman.
A work session on Fall line preceded the published items. Hopkins left after the
work session.
I. Approval of minutes of 10/18/85 was moved by Donovan, seconded by Schultz
tb approve with a correction by Schultz. Vote was 3 -0 -1
2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances
in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining
at Burger King Applicant: Snowquest
Rick Pylman said the applicant asked to table this item to 11/25. Donovan moved and
Briner seconded to table and vote was 4 -0 in favor.
3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to construct a low power
subscription radio transmitter facility on Tract A, Vail Potato_ Patch Sub.
Applicant: Stephens Communications
Rick Pylman said the applicant asked to table this item to 11/25. Donovan moved and
Schultz seconded to table and the vote was 4 -0 in favor.
F -
LJ
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: November 11, 1985
SUBJECT: Background on Fall Line Apartments proposal to
convert to a time share project
In preparation for the PEC's work session on this proposal on
November 11, we feel it would be helpful to give you some
backgound information as well as identify what we see as the
key issues at this point in time. Basically, the proposal is
for an interval ownership project at the Fall Line
Apartments. The developer, Kaiser Morcus, would convert the
existing 54 one and two - bedroom apartments to 53 one and
two - bedroom time share units, each containing 50 weeks for
sale individually. A major upgrade of the entire project
-- interior and exterior - -is proposed, including a new
recreation amenities addition located in the existing
courtyard. Proposed parking is to remodel the existing
parking area, but to have only the existing 51 spaces for the
entire project.
The project would be physically connected with the Cascade
Village area via a new pathway and /or stairway to Westhaven
Drive.
. The proposal requires a number of different approvals from the
Town including: a condominim approval to convert existing
rental apartments to time share condominiums, an amendment to
SDD7, Marriott Mark, in releasing the employee housing
restriction connecting Fall Line and the Marriott until 1989,
and a conditional use permit for the time sharing use within
the HDMF zone district. If all of these are approved, then
the project will also require approval of the condominium plat
as well as the declarations and covenants.
Enclosed please find the applicant's written application for
this project for more detail and information on the specifics.
The following outlines the staff's major areas of concerns and
the key issues regarding the proposal:
A. Parking
Parking is a major concern in that less than 50% of
the zoning code requirement is being proposed. The
staff is open to studies and information which show
that time sharing may not require 2 spaces per
dwelling unit, but we are extremely sceptical that
less than 1 space per dwelling unit will not create a
major problem for this site as well as the
surrounding neighborhood. The staff has encouraged
the applicant to investigate methods to mitigate this
parking shortage to
parking agreements
unfortunately, this
this time.
B. Employee Housing
the possibility of joint use
with surrounding projects, but
appears to not be feasible at
The proposal eliminates one of the major apartment
projects in the Town of Vail which is currently tied
into the Marriott Mark's employee requirement.
Certainly the 1984 Eagle County Employee Housing
Survey concluded that, in comparison to the late
1 70's and very early '80 we are in a better
position with regard to employee housing, however,
the staff feels strongly that to ignore employee
housing by releasing all requirements on projects at
this point in time is an ignorance of the long term
situation. This area of major concern has been
discussed with the applicant and we are attempting to
work out some type of arrangement which would be a
proposal to mitigate this loss of employee housing
and acceptable to both parties.
n
LJ
The troubled Valli Hi project has a potential to
serve in capacity of mitigating the loss of not only
the Fall Line Apartments for the Marriott, but also
to serve as a centralized employee housing project
for other major employers in Town. Moreover, a
portion of Valli Hi could be utilized for "special
guest housing" such as Coors Bike Classic racers,
Denver Symphony Orchestra, and other amphitheatre
performers, John Curry ice skaters, and other
performers and guests invited into the community to
further special events, etc.
C. HISTORY OF TIME SHARE CONVERSION PROJECTS
The track record of projects converted from one use
to time share is not good. Time sharing has been
most successful when conceptualized, designed, and
built for time sharing from the very beginning.
There are very specific and specialized design
requirements for time sharing projects that need to
be addressed and cannot be left out because a
conversion project will not allow the existing site
to be adapted. There is a major concern of the staff
that this time sharing proposal is a result of a
distressed and unkept property and could be viewed as
a form of "bail out." However, it is hard to argue
with the fact that if approved, the building and
grounds will be substantially upgraded and, in the
case that time sharing fails, could be utilized for
whole owned condos or a short term hotel type use.
D. TIME SHARING INDUSTRY'S TRACK RECORD
Generally, it appears to be true with many projects
that the worries of inadequate maintenance and
management provisions are becoming a reality. The
director of community development for Sanibel Island
in Florida does not have a positive attitude for time
sharing, especially from the consumer's point of
view, after 10 years of experience with it. Some of
the projects on Sanibel Island are becoming run down
and ill kept due to inadequate maintenance funds
because of the extremely high use of the common
faciities provided.
E. LAC OF WEEK PACKAGING
Of course, one of the advantages of allowing time
sharing in a resort community is the increased
occupancy in the shoulder seasons and summer months.
The Fall Line project does not propose to package the
sale of their weeks (i.e. sell an off - season week
with the purchase of 2 high season weeks) and this
could result in the project selling out during high
season only. However, this may be mitigated by the
proposal to sell out four or five units at a time
before putting the next 4 or 5 units on the market.
n
u
On the more positive side of reviewing the proposal, we find
that if and when a lift is constructed out of Cascade Village
and a good connection is made between this project and Cascade
Village, this is a suitable location for a time share project.
Also, as mentioned above, approving the proposal would allow a
major upgrading to the entire site and building and even in
the event time sharing does not work, we have a much upgraded
capital facility. If successful, the project would generally
be in concert with the goals of the community to achieve
higher occupancies for the summer season and off seasons. The
proximity of the project to Donovan Park is also a big plus.
We look forward to working with the applicant and the Planning
and Environmental Commission as well as the Town Council on
this project proposal.
LJ
•
Addendum to Conditional
Use Application
A. Nature of Proposed Use The proposed use for the Fall
Line Apartments is for timesharing in one week intervals. An
owner of a time share unit will have a fee simple interest in a
specific unit for a specific week. As owner of that week, he has
the right to use, rent or exchange the week at other
participating timeshare projects throughout the world. In
addition, the owner can exchange his week at Fall Line for
another week in the same category as his week (i.e. a winter weer
for a winter week) as Long as a unit is available for usage.
This allows flexibility for a person who can't or doesn't want to
take the same vacation week each year.
The usage is compatible with the surrounding properties, in that
much of the surrounding property is short termed (i.e.
Coldstream, Millrace, and Park Meadows). In addition, the
Cascade Village area with a major hotel, commercial space,
educational facilities, athletic club, and anticipated ski lift
49 has created a third village area for the Vail guest which will
add a dimension to Vail Village and Lionshead.
The operating characteristics of the project will be no different
than other time share projects in town, or other projects that
are short termed.
B. Site Plans A Site plan is attached showing the current
improvements, parking layout and landscaping. A site plan is
also attached showing proposed modifications to the above. The
new site work will include improved drainage (underground and
surface), additional landscaping and a new parking lot layout.
C. Elevations Photographs are attached showing current
elevations. Proposed elevations are also attached to show
renovations. Exterior remodeling of the building will include a
new color scheme, new roof, new siding and trim, new covered
stair towers, new balconies, new windows and doors. Interior
remodeling of the building will include an additional bathroom in
the two bedroom unit, new kitchen and bathroom fixtures, cabinets
and countertops, new appliances, new doors and hardware, new
carpet and floor coverings, new light fixtures, general repair
and painting and all new furniture.
. D. Other Information
1. Parking Currently there are 51 parking spaces on
site for 54 employee housing units. This proposal calls for the
same 51 parking spaces but in a reconfigured format for 53 units.
In reviewing parking usage for time share projects in this area,
two projects were consulted:
a) The Christie Lodge Two hundred and
eighty spaces are provided for 280 units.
Approximately 350 of the parking is
utilized by the timeshare owner or guest.
b) Streamside Eagle County has reduced
the parking requirement for Streamside
from two and a half spaces per unit to one
and a half spaces per unit because of
Streamside's documentation showing
parking usage by a timeshare owner.
According to a former representative for
Streamside, approximately 500 of the owners
arrived by automobile and utilized a
parking space. This usage is comparable
with hotel parking in Vail, which shows
approximately 50o usage by guests.
• Parking for on -site sales will not create a problem, in that most
sales will be generated off -site (meaning outside the Town of
Vail) and the busiest period of on -site sales activity will be in
the beginning when there will be only a few owners using the
facilities. Streamside, which is a much larger project than the
proposed project, generates approximately 80 walkthroughs a week
or an average of 11 or 12 per day. Presentations are spread
throughout the day so generally very few parking spaces will be
needed for sales.
2. Recreational Amenities A new recreation amenities
facility will Be created on site. The following will be
provided:
a) New front desk and
b) Swimmina T)ool.
c) Spa /jacuzzi.
d) Steam room.
e) Sauna.
f) Recreation room and
g) Shower facilities.
lobby area.
lounging area.
All recreation facilities will be restricted for owner or guest
usage. No outside memberships will be sold and no owner will be
able to use the facilities except during his stay at the complex.
Obviously the greatest winter amenity is skiing and with the
• proposed lift at Cascade Village, the project will be able to
offer skiing access without use of private or public
transportation. Pedestrian access is achieved from the project
through Glen Lyon to the lift. The owner or guest can also
return to Cascade Village by ski trail, ski over the bicycle path
to Glen Lyon and return by foot a short distance to the project.
During the summer all of Donovan Park is available at the front
door of the project. Unlike most visitors to Donovan Park, no
private or public transportation will be needed by an owner or
guest of the project.
Very few projects of any kind in Vail will be able to offer the
public and private amenities that the proposed project can,
without the use of private or public transportation.
3. Marketing The marketing of the project will
entail many facets, some of which will be:
a) Media Advertising This form of marketing
consists of newspaper ads offering families
the opportunity to spend a mini vacation
in Vail to become familiar with and enjoy
the facilities availabe in the Vail area,
and to attend a sales presentation about
interval ownership. Typically, these ads
are placed in papers in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska and Texas. In addition, other ads
may detail the benefits of interval owner-
ship and offer prospects the opportunity
to find out more by calling the listed
telephone number.
b) Mailings These mailings will offer the
same benefits to a prospective purchaser
as the media advertising described above.
While the media advertising hits the public
at large, the mailings differ, in that they
are specifically mailed to pre - selected
families in general age groups (between
32 and 47 years of age) and a
minimum income level (approximately
$30,000 to $40,000 per year) in order to
reach a qualified prospect. These mailings
will typically be used in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska and Texas. No local mailings will
be done, in that the residents of Vail will
not be generally interested in the project.
. A typical mailing would be a quality phamplet
containing a general brochure on Vail, a
brochure on vacation ownership, a brochure on
answers to frequently asked questions about
interval ownership, and a brochure on the
project itself.
C) Broker Referrals While no broker or sales-
man would be expected to do a sales
presentation or do a showing of the project,
a referral fee would be paid to brokers or
salesmen for procuring an ultimate purchaser.
d) Owner Referrals Once the project sales
program is under way and sales have been made,
an owner will be able to invite guests to
stay at the project and to attend a sales
presentation.
e) Independent Marketing Companies. The
companies will set up booths at different
shows (Sport, Boat and Travel Shows, Home
Shows, and Fairs, etc.).
f) Telephone Advertising Telephone advertising
will most likely take place on the front
range where people are hired to telephone a
qualified prospect (as in the mailings
advertising above), to offer the sales
prospect an opportunity to attend a present-
ation.
g) Information Office at the Marriott An
information office at the Marriott Mark Resort
may be set up to disburse information and
brochures to offer an opportunity to attend
a presentation. The Marriott would obviously
be consulted for their consent.
While the use of "thank you gifts" and paid for mini vacations
may be used in a portion of the advertising program, no deceptive
advertising or promises will be made. Deceptive promises and
practices have had some short term success in other time share
projects, however, the effects have been short lived and most
projects are now abandoning such practices.
The applicant is willing to restrict its advertising program in
such a manner so that no advertising activity will take place on
public property. Any advertising taking place on private
property will have the consent of that owner.
. Prior to the commencement of any advertising program a detailed
outline will be submitted to the Town staff for review and
comment.
In summary, the time share industry has been criticized for its
"marketing excesses" and "boiler room" sales presentations and
some of these problems continue to exist. However, with all but
four sates now regulating the industry and with Colorado now
having a five day recission period for a prospective buyer to
cancel his purchase, such techniques are diminishing. The
marketing of time sharing is changing with the likes of Disney
World, the Marriott, the Holiday Inn, the Sheridan, and Vail
Associates at Beaver Creek entering the field.
4. Details of Sales Proposal Weeks will be sold in
one week intervals and a total of 51 weeks will be sold per unit
with 53 units available for sale. Units will be brought on line
for sale 4 or 5 at a time and until those units are sold out, no
new units will be made available. Sales personnel are to be
given so many winter, summer and shoulder weeks to sell and once
again are not issued more weeks until all are sold. In this
manner, which is now customary in the industry, a project does
not sell out all the prime weeks while 500 of the project remains
to be sold.
5. Management A management contract will be entered
into between the owner's association, a non - profit corporation
and an entity set up by the applicant or other professional
management group. This agreement will contain among other
things:
a) The general purpose of the agreement will
be to provide a broad and complete plan for
the management and maintenance of the project
for the purpose of relieving the members,
officers and directors of the association
from the day to day responsibilities of
management as delegated in the time share
documents.
b) The manager will have the exclusive right to
manage and maintain the project. The manager
will appoint a general manager to oversee
operations, however, the selection of such
general manager will be subject to association
approval and the retention of the general
manager shall be subject to annual review by
the association.
c) The standard of management shall be equivalent
to that maintained by the best condominium
. projects in Vail. The duties of the manager
shall include the following:
1. Fiscal Management
a) Prepare an annual operating budget de-
tailed to reflect expected operations for each
month.
b) Prepare budget projection for five (5)
year sinking fund reserve for capital expen-
ditures.
c) Prepare monthly operating and cash posi-
tion statements including reserve account state-
ments.
d) Analyze and compare operating receipts
and disbursements against the association's
approved budget, explain variations from budget
and suggest corrective action.
e) Collect the annual assessments from
association members, the monthly maintenance fee
expenses and special assessments, if any, charged
to association members; and maintain compre-
hensive records thereof. Establish individual
checking and sinking fund reserve accounts, as
directed by the Board of Directors of the
. association. All funds collected by the manager
from, or on account of members of the
association, shall be deposited in a commercial
bank account specifically established to handle
funds of the association or in an income
producing account on behalf of the association.
No commingling of funds will be allowed and all
employees of the manager will be bonded.
f) Mail notices of delinquency to any member
of the association in arrears, and exert reason-
able effort to collect delinquent accounts.
g) Examine all expense invoices for accuracy
and pay all bills in accordance with the terms of
the applicable agreements.
h) Prepare a year -end statement of opera-
tions for association members.
i) Maintain complete books and records of
the project in accordance with generally accepted
accounting procedures.
2. Physical Management The manager will
provide the supervision for all interior and
exterior repairs including the following:
a) Sewer and water service.
b) Unit interior repair.
c) Garbage service.
d) Electricity and bulbs for common area
lights and interior lights.
e) Maintenace of walkways.
f) Trimming of trees and shrubbery as may
be required.
g) Removal of Leaves and tree cuttings.
h) Cleaning of parking areas.
i) Repainting of parking guide lines as may
be required.
j) Mowing and edging of grass in common
area.
k) Fertilization of grass and shrubbery in
common areas.
1) Painting and maintenance of all outside
areas of the structure of the project as may be
needed.
m) Cleaning of common area rooms and
recreational facilities.
n) Maintenance of driveways and outside
parking areas which are part of common elements.
o) Maintenance of the exterior of the struc-
ture and roof of the structure of the project.
p) Maintenance and cleaning of the sidewalks
in and about the project grounds.
q) Maintenance and cleaning of the garbage
and trash areas.
r) Servicing and maintenance of the central
television cable system.
s) Maintenance and service of the project
facilities, including but not limited to, quest
facilities, desk facilities, porter and bellhop
facilities, management office and related
facilities.
3. Administrative Management The manager would
provide t -ct admInistrative service including
the following:
a) Inspect contractual services for satis-
factory performance. Prepare any necessary
compliance letters to vendors.
b) Obtain and analyze bids for insurance
coverage specified in the bylaws of the
association and recommend modifications or
additional coverages. Prepare claims when
required and follow -up on payment; act as the
association's representative in negotiating
settlements.
c) Exercise close liaison and supervision
over all personnel to insure proper operational
maintenance and to promote good management -
member relationships.
d) Act as liaison for the association in
any negotiations or disputes with local, federal
or state taxing agencies or regulatory bodies.
e) Exercise close supervision over hours
and working conditions of employed personnel to
insure compliance with wage and hour and work-
men's compensation laws.
f) Assist in resolving the problems of
individual members of the association as they
pertain to the association.
d) Term The term would be from year to year with
a cancellation clause of 90 days prior to the
expiration of the calandar year.
e) Management Fees The manager would be paid a
monthly fee for its services.
In summary, the manager of the project would be providing the
same services as any manager for any condominium project except
here the service level is more intense and administrative duties
are more time consuming.
6. Budget The preliminary budget would be as set
forth on the attached exhibit.
7. Transportation A private van would be maintair.e,ji
for the project in addition to public transportation provided -or
that area. A pedestrian and emergency vehicle link does exist
between Cascade Village and the project. The applicant would be
willing to share in the cost of any improvements to such access
along with the other users of the easement.
8. The following time share projects are currently in
the Vail and Avon area:
a) Christie Lodge Christie Lodge is composed
of 280 units and 35 units remain to be sold.
The anticipated sell out should be by winters
end. The pricing ranges from approximately
$6,000 to $12,000 with an average price of
$8,500 per week.
b) Streamside Approximately 250 weeks remain
to be sold in the third building and 33 units
in the newest building are presently being
readied for marketing. The prices range
from $6,000 to $13,000 in the third building
with an average price of approximately
$11,000. A special discounted price was
. offered for the third building to sell the
remaining weeks. The newest building will be
priced between $6,000 to $23,000 per week
(The higher price reflecting the availability
of a 3 bedroom unit). The last building yet
to be constructed will contain 39 units.
c) Sandstone Park Approximately 300 weeks remain
to be sold at prices comparable to Streamside.
Another phase can also be built at Sandstone.
d) Appollo Park and Wren The projects have been
sold out with only resales remaining.
(Beaver Creek time sharing has not been addressed, in
that their product is much higher priced and
basically competes with wholly owned condominium
sales.)
9. Pricing for Fall Line Prices will range from
approximately $4,000 to $12,000. Financing will be offered at
then market rates for 80% to 90% of the purchase price for a term
of 7 years.
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE November 11, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for an amendment to the zoning code to allow as
a conditional use "low power, subscription radio
facilities" in the Primary /Secondary Residential zone
district.
Applicant: Stephens Communications, Inc.
•
BACKGROUND ON REQUEST
Stephens Communications, Inc. operates the Sounds Good radio
rental service available to skiers on Vail Mountain. In August
of this year, Stephens Communications submitted an application to
the PEC requesting an amendment to the zoning code to allow this
use as a conditional use in both the Agricultural and Open Space
and Primary /Secondary zone districts. Because of opposition and
concern over this use in the Primary /Secondary zone district at
both the PEC and Council levels, Stephens Communications dropped
the request for the Primary /Secondary district and received
approval allowing this as a conditional use within the Agricultural
and Open Space District. Since that time, Stephens Communications
has submitted and had approved a request for a conditional use
permit for this use in the Agricultural and Open Space district.
Stephens Communications is resubmitting this request for the
Primary /Secondary residential zone district in order to pursue
an agreement with a lot owner in the Potato Patch subdivision.
The purpose of the P/S zone district is as follows:
This zone is intended to provide sites for single - family
residential uses or two - family residential uses in which one
unit is a larger primary residence and the second unit is a
smaller caretaker apartment, together with such public
facilities as may appropriately be located in the same
district. The two - family primary /secondary residential
district is intended to ensure adequate light, air, privacy
and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single -
family occupancy, and two - family occupancy, and to maintain
the desirable residential qualities of such sites by estab-
lishing appropriate site develoment standards.
U
The Primary /Secondary
utilized zone district
subdivided into very
conditional uses are t
dwellings, public utili
schools, public parks a
residential zone district is a highly
within the Town of Vail and is generally
small parcels. The only permitted and
io family and single family residential
ties, public buildings, public and private
id ski lifts and tows.
• EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
There are three sets of criteria necessary to adequately evaluate
this proposal. First, a discussion of the rezoning request
concerning the suitability /non - suitability of the existing
zoning. Secondly, is the proposed rezoning consistent with land
uses in the area as well as municipal objectives? Finally, does
the request foster the orderly and viable growth of the community?
1. Suitability of Existing Zoning
The emphasis of this zone district is for residential
use although public utilities are allowed as conditional
uses. The Community Development staff feels that to allow
introduction of a private facility of the type requested is
not suitable for residential areas. The average size of the
parcels in this zone district and the proximity of neighboring
residents do not warrant the addition of this use within
this zone district.
2. Is the Amendment Presenting a Conv Workable Relation—
ship Among Land Uses Consistent with Municipal Objectives?
The purpose of the P/S R district states that this district
is intended to "maintain the desirable residential quality
of such sites by establishing appropriate site development
standards." We feel that this use is not consistent with
these objectives or compatible with other allowable uses
within the zone district.
3. Does the amendment proposal provide for the growth of an
orderly and viable community?
As previously stated, we feel the addition of this use in
the Residential Primary /Secondary district may not be in the
best interest of the Town or the property owners within the
P/S district. This use is not consistent with the intent of
the district as a residential area and may create negative
effects upon the growth of our residential areas.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department strongly recommends denial
of this request. Through previous action this year, this use has
been approved as a conditional use permit in the Agricultural and
Open Space district and a conditional use permit request has been
approved for this use for Stephens Communication Inc. Through
the original application in August, both the Planning Commission
and Town Council raised concerns with allowing this within the
Primary /Secondary residential zone district. Staff believes that
the addition of this use in the P/S zone district is incompatible
•
with the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial
of this proposal.
the addition of this use in the P/S zone district is incompatible
• with the intent of the district and, therefore, recommend denial
of this proposal.
0
•
r -0
-I
LJ
ti
it
NO of voi
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 87657
(303) 476 -7000
October 31, 1985
William H. Miller
General Manager
Montaneros Condominium Association
641 W. Lionshead Circle
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Miller:
office of community development
The Town Planning and Environmental Commission and Design Review Board
recently reviewed a development proposal involving the Concert Hall Plaza
Building. During this review process both the PEC and DRS raised concerns
over the appearance of the roof of the Montaneros commercial space occupied
by the Charlie's T -Shirt Shop and Lionshead Liquors. As you are aware, the
Town of Vail and the Lionshead Merchant's Assocation have expended considerable
time and money in the upgrading of the Lionshead Mall. Since completion
of the mall project several building owners within the mall have initiated
property improvement projects. An improvement to the appearance of the roof
would certainly compliment these efforts in continuing to improve the mall
area.
I would like to request that the Montaneros Condominium Association address
these concerns and consider improving the current appearance of this area.
I am,sure that any positive action taken by the Condominium Association
would be appreciated by your neighbors as well as the Town of Vail.
SincE Rick
Town Planner
cc: Planning Commission
cc: Design Review Board
cc: Town Council
•
L�
•
November 4, 1985
Rick Pylman
Town Planner
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Rick,
Thanks for your letter of October 31, 1985. You are quite correct.
The roof is a bit marginal in appearance. Emergency waterproofing
necessitated an overlay of felt to protect the membrane. We have
been reviewing decorative treatments to cover the felt and eliminate
the boardwalk. Hopefully we will have the situation handled shortly.
Now that I have your and the PEC, DRB, and TOVTC's attention, I would
like to bring up a related matter.
On July 30 this summer I sent Stan Berryman the enclosed letter. To
date there has been some improvement, but attention has still been
erratic at best.
As you stated in your letter the Town and property owners in
Lionshead have a substantial investment in the mall. Montaneros
owners paid over $60,000.00, I believe. I'd hope that the DRB, PEC.,
and TOVTC might drop by even more frequently to see how things are
going over here, both from a capital improvement and operational
aspect.
1 imagine it's been a real. roller .coaster at the Tox-m offices with
the West Vail happenings. I hope the outcome has given everyone a
restoration of confidence to know that the populace does trust in the
collective ability of the TOV Administration and that the
overwhelming majority of residents want an already successful format
to continue. I'm glad you gave me a motivational "kick" to get going
on a postponed project and hope you can accept my concern about
"dusting and sweeping" throughout the mall as valid.
Y
General Manager
cc: Planning Commission
cc: Design Review Board
cc: Town Council
Montaneros, 641 West Lionshead Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 / Phone: (303) 476 - 2491
® r
Ako neros
1NWRL
Mr. Stan Berryman
Town of Vaal Public Works
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Stan,
I am writing with regard to the overall cleanliness of the
Lionshead Mall.
Currently, there does not appear to be any consistent level of
sweeping or trash pick --up off the mall surface and it looks
terrible. As pretty as all of the flowers are, the cigarette
butts and trash make a poor compliment.
I understand that there is a regular pick -up of the container
trash and it would seem logical that a person could have a broom
and long handle dustpan with him at the same time.
Better yet, it would also seem feasible that the sweeping
machines used in the parking garage could make short work of
things on a twice -a -week basis.
On at least: 4- during the summer =of:1983, I personally...
ran a Clark push sweeper over the entire mall and it took less
than an hour.
I hope that you will agree that if it makes sense to run the
large truck sweeper on streets used by cars, it surely makes
sense to keep a $2,500,000 improvement clean for people.
If per chance there :is some beaurocratic'glitch'that prevents the
garage sweeper from being used, I'll be glad to ,loan
you our push sweeper and.demonstrate the proper way to operate it.
Yours truly,
i
William H. Mill e7
General Manager
Montaneros Condominiums
cc Lionshead Business Association
J.D. Griffith
Dan Mulrooney
Montaneros, 641 West Lionshead Circle, Vail, Colorado 81657 / Phone: (303) 476 -2491
Planning and Environmental Commission
November 25, 1985
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of November 11.
To be Tabled 2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for
setback variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and
to add other outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applicant: Snowquest
Withdrawn 3. Request for a front in order to construct a new
entry at the Riva Ridge North condominiums located on Lot 6, Block
6, Vail Village First,Filing.
Applicant: Mike Hazelhorst
4. A request to convert Fall Line apartments into time share condominiums
which would entail an amendment to SDD7, a conditional use permit and an
approval to convert apartments into condomniums. Applicant: Kaiser Morcus
1W be Tabled 5. Request for side and rear setback variances, a density control variance,
a parking exception, and a variance to the required setback from
a major watercourse in order to construct an addition to the Cornice
Building. Applicants: James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker
6. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail zoning code concerning leasing
of parking spaces in order to more effectively implement the private
parking leasing program.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
November 25, 1985
PRESENT STAFF "PRESENT
Tom Briner Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Pam Hopkins Kristan Pritz
Duane Piper Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz
ABSENT
Jim Viele .
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman.
The minutes of the meeting of November 11 were approved with changes.
2. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback variances
in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other outdoor dining
at Burger King Applicant: Snowquest
The applicant requested to table this item until 12/9. This was so moved by
Donovan and seconded by Briner. The vote to table was 5 -0.
3. A request for a front setback variance in order to construct a new entr
at the Riva Ridge North condominiums located on Lot 6, Block 6, Vail Vi
. 1st Filing Applicant: Mike Hazelhorst
This application was withdrawn by the applicant.
4. A request to convert Fall Line apartments into time share condominiums which
would entail an amendment to SDD7, a conditional use permit and an approval
to convert apartments into condominiums Applicant: Kaiser Morcus
Peter Patten introduced the project and explained the approval process that
was required, the request and background information.
First the issue of condo conversion was discussed, and the concern about converting
employee housing to condominiums for sale. The staff felt it was important
to mitigate the loss of the 54 employee units, not of 54 additional units, but
with a minimum number of units to perhaps be leased from Valli Hi for the remaining
4 years of the original agreement which restricted Fall Line to employee housing
for the Marriott Mark.
Patten then discussed the issue of the requested conditional use permit to convert
Fall Line to time share following the memo dated November 25. Patten verbalized
the positive aspects of time sharing , i.e. shoulder seasons, etc. He also
dealt with negative aspects from shoddy practices. Patten discussed transportation,
Utilities, parks, public facilities, and parking problems and
recommended denial of the conditional use permit allowing time share, and approval
of the conversion into condominiums and the amendment to SDD 7 with the condition
that the applicant agree to providing a minimun of 10 employee housing units
• at a site acceptable to the Community Development Department
PEC --2- 11/25/85
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, gave a presentation. Andy Norris,
developer of Cascade Village, spoke to the status of the proposed Cascade Village
i chair lift and employee housing agreements of the Westin. Ray Warren of the
Westin Hotel spoke to employee housing concerns of the hotel, stating that
the need is not there presently.
Commissioners' comments:
U
Briner: Discussed the success of Pitkin Creek Park condos.
Donovan: Had concerns with total loss of employee housing agreement, was concerned
about the parking issue, and suggested pursuing the dollar /week /unit tax for
parks purposes.
Schultz: Did not see parking as a problem- -felt parking use is low in time
share /hotel uses in this area. Felt employee housing should be looked at on
a year -by -year basis. He felt that an arbitrary 10 unit requirement did not
seem fair.
Piper: Was concerned about parking and believed that a worst case scenario was
maintaining employee housing with regard to housing. He welcomed the face lift
and felt the program could be a valid program with the amenities of the area.
Piper expressed concern about the tax for parks.
Briner: Felt employee housing may be a serious concern in the future. He expressed
the opinion that the buildings could be redesigned to further upgrade them.
Donovan moved and Schul
z seconded to recommend_app per the staff memo of
ith a mcInage r's unit on site and that l emoloy
vote was 5 -0 in favor
the amendment to
uni is be provide
Schultz moved and Donovan seconded to approve the request for a c.u..for time sh arin
within the zone i s riE wi t e conditions that an on -site shuttle be pro vided
and that a user tax be instituted as discussed b the a licant. Other conditions
added to this were that a letter of credit be submitted to the Town for construction
of a black top path between this roject and Cascade Villa e, and that the Fire
Department review an a rove the parking lot configuration while maintainin ,p
a minimum of 53 arking spaces. The vote was 4 in favor and Briner against.
The s aff offered the following additional conditions, which the PEC did not
incorporate as a part of the approval:
1. There shall be no marketin of the Fall Line time share project within the
p ublic right-of-was of the Town of Vail.
2. An employee housing restriction similar to the on inal. will be laced .on the
amendment to the SDD with an annual review dat in October
3. The project must bear its fair share of under grounding the utilities in the area.
4. The propose budget for the project must be ado ted as a minimum _
5. There shall be an obligation on the part of the project to enforce their own
parking problems
•
PEC -3- 11/25/85
5. A request for side and rear setback variances, density control variance,
parking exception, and variance to required setback from a major watercourse
in order to construct an addition to the Cornice Building.
Applicants; James Palmer and Dr. Robert Baker
The applicant was to have submitted new plans, but none had been received. No
action was taken on this item, and the staff was to re- schedule upon receiving
revised plans.
6. Request for an amendment to the Town of Vail zoning code concerning leasin
of parking spaces in order to more effectively implement the 2rivate parkin
leasing program Applicant: Town of Vail
Patten presented the request on behalf of the Town of Vail. Jack Rush, manager
of Manor Vail, spoke in favor of the amendment.
Donovan questioned the reliability of the parking survey information, noting the
negative impacts that could occur if a property were allowed to lease more spaces
than could be spared. After further discussion, it was recommended that condo
association approval be required on any applicable property.
Donovan moved and Briner seconded to recommend approval per the staff memo
The vote was 5 -0.
r�
u
•
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1985
SUBJECT: Meeting of 12/23/85
The deadline date for submittals for the December 23 meeting has passed
without any applications being received. For this reason, and the potential
conflict with the holiday season, the December 23rd Planning and
Environmental Commission meeting has been cancelled.
•
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Department of Community Development
November 21, 1985
SUBJECT: Request to Amend Town of Vail Zoning Code Section 18.52.170:
Leasing of Parking Spaces
I. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail Department of Community Development proposes to amend the
criteria contained in this section of the zoning code (attached) for the
leasing of private parking spaces. This program was begun and put into place
for the 1977 -78 ski season and has not been addressed or updated since that
time. The program began as a trial program (see attached November 8, 1977
memo) and certain recommendations were proposed following the trial winter
season (see attached October 18, 1978 memo) that were not included as a
revision to the zoning code. Subsequent studies conducted in the reinter
of 1985 (see attached Vail Village Study parking table) have updated the
parking studies called for within the criteria, and we feel there are a
number of necessary changes to the leased parking program according to our
new information.
II. THE PROPOSAL
The following are the revisions being requested:
1. Section 13.52.170 B.1 -- - change the minimum lot size to
q ualify for the program from 10 to 30 spaces.
The staff time in administering the program is substantial
enough to eliminate implementing for program for only several
spaces on any one property.
2. Eliminate 18.52.170 B.4
We feel the owner can come to us with a proposal to lease "x"
number of spaces for approval without having lessees in place.
This year we were intending on setting up a central clearinghouse
of leased parking spaces through VRA. However, only limited
interest has been expressed by the property owners we've
contacted.
3. Change the percentage of spaces which can be leased in Section
18.52.170 B.6. from 25% to 60
The follow -up on the test year indicates that the number of spaces
qualifying for the program can be raised. 25% was proposed as
conservative number to start with. We would like to try 60%
of the "available" spaces and see how that works.
4. Add a new criteria prohibiting leasing of spaces to businesses
based outside the Town of Vail i.e. rental car agencies, etc.)
PEC 11/21/85
The purpose of the program, at this stage, is to help those
local residents affected by other new parking policies to
• find a parking place where it is convenient and where they are
available. We do not want to see excess parking spaces on
private property utilized for other businesses not serving
this purpose.
III. RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Community Development recommends approval of the requested
changes to the leased parking criteria. We feel that with these changes we
will be able to more effectively and responsibly implement this private parking
leasing program and target certain specific areas to solve our present day
problems. These changes will also increase the efficiency of the program
by eliminating the properties which could only lease several spaces.
We are attempting to immediately publicize.and implement a program for
the '85 -'86 ski season to address the problem of displacement of local
resident parking in the Vail Village structure by providing alternatives in
private lots that have vacancies according to our studies for these people.
The Lionshead program at $200 far an entire ski season's pass should provide
adequate parking for that area of town. The leased parking program was
emphasized in the 1985 Parking Task Force and adopted as a policy statement
by the Town Council in Policy Statement 85 -4.
n
u
i
ZONING
e exception of dwelling units or accommodation unit
sh 11 be three thousand dollars per space. The fee or
dwe ing units and accommodation units shall b five
thous nd dollars per space. The town coun l n ill
establis fee rates for uses not listed in Section 1 .52.100.
6. Far addit'ons or enlargements of any existing uildinL_ or
change of se that would increase the tot number of
parking spac required, an additional par ing fee will be
required only ' r such addition, enlarg cat or change
and not for the tire building or use. 'o refunds ill be
paid by the town the applicant o owner.
7. The owner or appli nt has the op 'on of paying the total
parking fee at the tim of buildin permit or paying oN er a
five -year period. If th latter nurse is taken, the fires
payment shall be paid o or efore the date the building
permit is issued. Four rnor annual payments will be due
to the Town of Vail on le nniversary of the building
permit. [merest often rcent er annum shall be paid by
the applicant on the
aid bal ace.
If the owner o applicant do choose to pay the fee _
over a period of t e, he or she steal be required to sign a
promissory no Which describes th total fee due, the
schedule of p ments, and the interest ue, Promissory
note forms re available at the offices of community
developm t,
8. When fractional number of spaces resu s from the
applie tion of the requirements schedul (Section
18.5 .100), the parking fee will be calculated using that
fr tion. This applies only to the calculation f the
arking fee and not for on -site requirements.
(Ord. (1982) § 1: Ord. 47(1979) ti 1: Ord. 8(1973) § 14. MO.
18.52.170 Leasing of parking spaces.
A. No owner, occupant or building manager, or their respecti�e
.] or representative, shall lease, rent, convey or restrict
the use of any parkin;; space, graces or :irv;l to any perm)n
other than :1 tenant, OCCLlt)allt or user of the buildirr, for
which the space, spaces or area arc require] to he prmided
{
444 `
I
.7
•
0
(_ `� : I
OFF- STREET PARKING AND LOADING
by the zoning ordinances or regulations of the town except
as may be specifically provided in this section.
B. Parking spate. spaces or areas may be leased by the owner,
occupant or building manager thereof in accordance with
the followin
I. Any owner, occupant or building manager who owns,
occupies or manages ten or more private parking spaces
located in commercial core 1, commercial core 2, high
density multiple- family, public accommodations or
special development zone districts and provides
sufficient parkins for use by employees may apply to
the zonin;= administrator of the town for a permit to
lease private parking spaces.
�. Application shall be made on a form provided by the
zoni110 administrator and upon approval of the
application by the zoning administrator a leasing permit
shall be issued with or without condition as determined
by the zoning administrator.
The zoning administrator may request that an applicant
conduct a parking utilization study to determine the
difference between the average capacity of the lot and
the peak day utilization, and such other information as
may be necessary for the proper consideration of the
application.
4. Tile applicant shall submit with the application a
proposed lease JL to be reviewed by the zoning
administrator.
5. The proposed Rase a,,reenient shall be for the period of
riot less than one month nor greater than ten months
From the effective date: of" the ordinance codified in
this section.
6. No applicant sliall be permitted to lease more than
twenty - give percent of the parking spaces which are the
Llifference hctwcen the average capacity of tlie lot and
the peal; clay utilization as determined by the Zoning
administrator.
7. No applicant who is operating a private parking area
charging an hourly fee therefor on the effective date
of the ordinance coditicd in this section ,hall be eligible
for approval of his application.
444 -I :N,+ 1-4A 1 ,
C771
L]
I�
ZONING r
t
8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this
title may not be satisfied by the basing of space from
another person under the provisions of this section.
9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or
building manager who has leased spaces to others to
provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see
that the leased spaces are used and occupied in
accordance with the lease agreement.
(Ord. 34(1977) 1.)
8.52.180 Variances.
ng variance which is granted by Cl
of the Vail Mun; ode sh eurecl to contribute
into the town' un rth in Section i$.52 .1b0
ons. (Ord. 50(1978) § 3 1.)
4
(Vail 14-83) 44 4 —2
f .
.
ZONING r
t
8. Parking required for any use in accordance with this
title may not be satisfied by the basing of space from
another person under the provisions of this section.
9. It shall be the responsibility of the owner, occupant, or
building manager who has leased spaces to others to
provide adequate and proper signs therefor and to see
that the leased spaces are used and occupied in
accordance with the lease agreement.
(Ord. 34(1977) 1.)
8.52.180 Variances.
ng variance which is granted by Cl
of the Vail Mun; ode sh eurecl to contribute
into the town' un rth in Section i$.52 .1b0
ons. (Ord. 50(1978) § 3 1.)
4
(Vail 14-83) 44 4 —2
MEMO
TO:' PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER S, 1977
RE: PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW LEASING
OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES
Section 18.52.170 is hereby repealed and reenacted to read
as follows:
Certain private parking spaces may be lrased, after review
and approval by the Planning Commission, in conformance with the
following provisions:
A. Applicant must 10 or more private parking spaces.
B. Parking spaces must be located in Commercial Core 1 and
Commercial Core 2, High Density Multiple- Family, Public
Accommodations or Special Development Zone.Districts.
• C. Lots that charge an hourly fee as of the date of this
ordinance shall not be eligible for approval.
D. Each applicant will be eligible to lease no more than
25% of the difference between the average capacity of the
lot and peak day utilization, " defined by the Town
of Vail.
I
E. Applicant is required to conduct parking utilization
studies as determined by the Town.
F. Lease agreement shall be as approved by the Town of Vail
on a form provided by the Town.
G.' Lease agreement shall be for a period of not less than one
month nor greater than ten months.
H. Leased spaces must be adequately signed and policed by the
owner.
I. A leasing permit must be granted by the Zoning Administrator
in conformance with the regulations herein.
r
MEMO °
T0: TERRELL MItiGER/VAIL TON COUNCIL
FROM: DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE: 11 OCTOBER 1977
.
F
RE: PROGRAH PEIELMITTING LEASING OF PRIVATE PARKING SPACES
}
t
Both the Planning Commission and the Citizens Committee
on Growth Management have determined that a method to better
utilize available parking spaces would be to permit; the leasing
of private spaces on a long—term basis.
SUMMARY OF PARKING UTILIZATION
Based on surveys conducted last season by Town staff,
there are approximately 4,600 parking spaces; 65% of which
are privately owned.
TOTAL
PRIVATE PUBLIC
VAIL VILLAGE 1,968 962 2,979.
LIONSHEAD 1,024 597 1,621
TOTAL, 2,992 1,559 4,600
According to seven surveys conducted since 1975 by V1I
and TOV private parking spaces are generally under,- utilized.
VILLAGE LIONSHEAD OVERALL
Private Public Private Public Private Public
UTILIZATION
RATE 60 0 71% 56 % 80% 59% 75 0
To better utilize private parking; a. program is being
suggested to allow unused private spaces to be leased on a long --
•
term basis. This program has been discussed and endorsed by the
Planning Commission, Vail Associates staff, the Forest Service,
and several local merchants.
Tho following outline includes the major points of the proposed,
expcximcntal program:
Page 2
Program permitting Leasing of.Private Parking Spaces
1.) GENERAL This would be an experimental program
to test the community acceptance for
a program to permit the leasing of
privately owned parkin, spaces; the
principal goal would be to increase
available parking space through increased
utilization.
2. TERM OF PROGRAM
program would begin immediately upon
adoption by the Town Council and would
conclude on the last day of September, 1978.
The results of the demonstration program
would be evaluated and a report submitted
by the Town Staff to the Council by November
1 , 1978).
3.) ELIGIBILITY: Any person or entity ovining 10 or more
parking spaces in one lot would be eligible.
Parking lots located in CC1, CC2, HD11F, PA,
and SDD will be permitted to lease spaces.
Other areas of tovrn are not included. Private
parking lots that are available to the public
on a fee basis shall not be eligible.
4.} NUMBER OF SPACES AVAI LABLE FOR LEASE: for purposes
of this program, the capacity of the lot
shall be the average number of spaces
counted in the parking lot surveys conducted
by the Town during 76--77 season. Each lot
will be allowed to lease out ;o of the
difference between the peak a. count (as
determined by TUV study in 76-77) and the
- ayera7e capacity of the lot The number
will be determined by the staff; exceptions.
will not be granted . during this demonstration
period.
5. }' DOCUMENTATIO : Any person or organization leasin
parking spaces would be required to conduct
parking utilization studies, using ..
TOV forms and an approved dates, and submitted
to the Town.
6.} LEAST AGREE" :M ENT: The responsibility for execution of
a lease agreement will be that of the parking
lot owner a model.-agreement will be developed
by the Town.
7.) RATES The Town will not regulate. the rates for lease
spaces. Revenue and fee information wi11 be
• Page 3 aces S
Program permitting Leasing of Private Parking p
kept by the lessor and made available
to the Town upon request to permit
evaluation of the program.
g,) PERMISSION TO LEASE SPACE: Any parking lot owner
wishing to base out parking spaces wil
apply for a leasing permit from the Town
for the appropriate number of spaces. A
leasing permit of $15 will be required
to cover administrative expenses.
9.) SIGNACE AUlleased parking spaces will be signed
"RESERVID" by the owner. V-L4V6d tom` I'll-,
The formula for determining the number of spaces that could
be leased can be modified. The following table indicates the
number of spaces that could potentially be leased under different
formulas:
Permitted Leasing Limit
(% of Lot Capacity less Total Approximate Private Spaces
weak day use) Available to be Leased
10070 56
75`po
50 478
• %a 2
25% 39
If the propo "sal is satisfactory to the Council, the staff
will draft the necessary legislation for consideration at the
next public hearing.
KI
>-> t44/L tl tAl�
F �
V
0
k
t
i
t
t
MEMORANDUM
TO TERRELL J. MINGER /TOWN COUNCIL
FROM DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DATE OCTOBER 18, 1978
RE LEASED PARKING PROGRAM.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
1.) The program to permit leasing of private parking
spaces should be continued.
2.) During the 1977 -78 season, approximately 64 private spaces
were 'eased out of a potential of 240 spaces. It is assumed that
this low number was a result of the tuning of the passage of
the ordinance in December 1977.
3.) All participants in last year's program have endorsed
its continuation.
4.) The formula used last year, permitting 25% of the
difference between the peak day count and lodge capacity should
• be increased to 657o this year. This is being recommended because
we have more information based on an excellent ski season.
The memorandum summarizes comments from participants in
last year's programs and an inventory of spaces that would be
affected. We recommend that you review the memo to better under-
stand the positions taken by the participants. Interviews were
conducted with Bud Benedict, Antlers; Jeff Selby, Landmark Commercial
Building; Bob Lazier, a local contractor and building owner; and
Jim Clarke of Vail Associates, Inc.
For the past two years, the Department of Community Development,
Vail.Associates, Inc., and the U.S. Forest Service have been
monitoring parking facilities and useage in the Core areas of
Vail and LionsHead in an effort to determine the various needs
for parking facilities and Maximize their utilization. Our studies
have shown that private parking facilities are being under - utilized,
even in times of high parking demand such as during the last year's
excellent ski season. In an effort to permit more efficient useage
of private parking facilities, the Town Council amended Section
18.52.170 to allow Leasing of Parking Spaces (passed on second reading
20 December 1977) where before it had been prohibited. This report
presents updated statistics that suggest further refinements to
the ordinance or other alternatives to increase utilization of
private parking facilities.
Page 2
Memo - Leased Parking Program
Private Spaces, Vail Village & LionsHead
1976 -77 1977 --78
3022 3203
Percent Growth in Private Spaces Available
181
3022
5%
Percent Occupancy, Private Spaces
1976 --77 1977 -78
55.67o 6
Percent Growth in Private Space Utilization
12.1
21% Gross
10- 18 --;78
55.6 -or-
�J
16% Net of 57o Growth in Facilities
Average Number of Unused Private Spaces
1976 -77
1340
•
1977 --78
1033
1977 -78 Private Spaces Leased: 64
1978 --79 Leaseable Spaces
Under current ordinance (257o) - 258
Under recommended revision
(65%) -- 671
RE VIEW OF FINDINGS
Vail Associates, Inc., the major lessee of private parking
space, found that leasing unused private parking space made a
significant contribution to easing its close --in employee parking
needs. VA notes that 2 of its previously used facilities are no
longer available for Leasing - the Sunbird Lodge and the open lot
by the hiontaneros Building. An increase in staff for Beaver
Creek planning and development, has augmented their employee
parking requirements. Jim Clarke of VA's Mountain Planning, is
apprehensive that -- employee parking - will compete with the
Vaal visitor /skier for limited day lot space unless additional
leaseable space can be made available.
Page 3 1
Memo -- Leased Parking Program 10 -18 -78
The Antlers in LionsHead, a lessor of private parking,
felt that the program was helpful and should be continued.
Leasing 9 spaces proved to be an appropriate amount as determined
by the existing ordinance. Even if allowed to ,lease additional
spaces, Bud Benedict said Antlers would not do so because of
administrative problems already experienced with signage and
policing the currently allowed spaces.
Jeff Selby of the Landmark building, states that a landlord
already has sufficient professional and legal motivation to
protect the parking rights of his tenants, be they commercial
or residential. After satisfying the required parking of his
tenants, Selby feels that no other restrictions should be placed
on parking lease arrangements between private citizens or private
property for a permitted use of that property. Asked what he .
would recommend in terms of the existing ordinance, Selby called.
for an increase to 90%- -1007b (from the existing 25 %). " . . , of
the parking spaces which are the difference between the average
capacity of the lot and the peak day utilization . . . - the
leaseable spaces.
Bob Lazier, speaking for the Tivoli, LionsHead Arcade, Lifthouse
. Lodge and Lion's Pride buildings, decided not to participate in
last year's leasing program even though he has an estimated
20 -30 leasable spaces. Lazier complains that item (9) of the
leasing ordinance makes untenable.administrative and policing
demands on the"owner /landlord in light of the persistent abuse
of private parking facilities by Eagle County residents.
Lazier suggests that:
1.) The percentage of leaseable parking space be increased
in the existing ordinance; and that
2.) There be a $10 parking ticket issued to unauthorized users
of the properly signed private parking facilities. Five
dollars ($5) of this fine would be retained by the Town
of Vail Police Department as is current practice. The
other five ($5) dollars would be rebated to the property
owners for recovery of his administrative! costs.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAST YEAR' LESSORS
Vail's private parking facilities are consistently under-
utilized, (parking studies);
The existing ordinance is unnecessarily restrictive (Selby)
and counterproductive (Lazier);
The ordinance should be changed to permit a greater util-
ization of unused private parking spaces between 65% and,
90 0 ,o of the difference between capacity and peak day
utilization, (Selby, Clarke, Lazier);
w.
4'
0
Page 4
Memo -- Leased Parking Program
10-- 18-78
Provision should be included to allow owners to recoup
costs associated with policing unauthorized users of
properly signed parking on private property, (Lazier,
Benedict) .
4
VAIL VILLAGE STUDY
VILLAGE PARKING COUNT
TOTAL
4
PARKING
TOTAL
4
4
4
4
BUSES/
4
%
DATE
LODGE
D.U.
SPACES
RATIO
A.U.
LOCAL
IN /ST.
OUT /ST,RENTAL
R.V.
EMPTY
EMPTY
Avg.
A& D Building
2
1
0.5
1
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Avg.
All Seasons
14
50
3.6
12
13
3
5
0
19
38%
Avg.
Apollo Park
89
80
03
11
18
11
9
0
32
40%
Avg,
Chalet Road **
37
22
6
4
2
0
3
8%
Avg.
Chapel **
22
7
4
1
1
0
9
41%
Avg.
Charter Bus Lot **
50
0
0
0
0
7
0%
Avg.
Christiana
9
30
1.4
25
6
8
3
7
0
6
20%
Avg.
Crossroads
175
62
30
12
10
0
63
36%
Avg.
Edelweiss
20
31
1.6
2
3
1
4
0
22
71%
Avg.
First Bank Vail *
4
36
9.0
13
6
3
0
0
14
39%
Avg.
Garden of the Gods ++
11.5
39
2.0
17
5
8
1
4
0
22
56%
Avg.
Golden Peak **
130
6
67
21
21
4
0
17
13%
Avg.
Holiday Inn /House
80
136
1.0
120
11
42
14
19
0
50
37%
Avg.
Kiandra /Talisman
99.5
125
0.7
139
28
21
15
18
0
43
34%
Avg.
Lodge At Vail /South
132
181
1,1
52
23
27
12
32
0
87
48%
Avg.
Manor Vail
123
190
1.5
21
21
10
25
0
114
60%
Avg.
Ore House **
2
2
0
0
0
0
0
0%
Avg.
Pepi's **
16
4
2
2
4
0
5
31%
2/16
Ramshorn
1515
26
1.1
17
CLOSED
0%
Avg.
Riva Ridge North
10
22
2.2
0
3
2
3
0
15
68%
Avg.
Riva Ridge South
18
13
0.7
1
1
0
3
0
9
69%
Avg.
Riverhouse
10
5
0.5
1
0
0
1
0
4
80%
Avg.
Rowhouses
22
33
1.5
9
6
0
4
0
15
45%
Avg.
Sitzmark Bldg. +
24
36
0.9
34
15
4
1
5
0
11
31%
Avg.
Ski Club Vail **
12
7
0
1
0
0
4
33%
Avg.
Sacoer Field **
80
34
27
17
4
0
-3
-4%
Avg.
Sonnenalp
17
30
0.9
34
7
6
4
7
0
6
20%
Avg.
Texas Townhomes
14
30
2.1
5
6
6
4
0
11
37%
Avg.
Tivoli
20
28
0.7
38
6
9
2
3
0
8
29%
2/16
Tyrolean -
10
18
1.8
0%
Avg.
Vail Associates *
15
4
0
0
0
0
11
73%
Avg.
Vail Athletic Club
7
14
0.7
24
3
3
1
7
0
2
14%
Avg.
Vail Trails East /West
47
61
1.3
18
11
4
3
0
26
43%
Avg.
Vail Village Inn
59
109
1.3
52
25
14
6
11
0
54
50%
Avg.
Villa Cortina
25
23
0.9
3
5
1
3
0
13
57%
Avg.
Villa Valhalla
12
12
1.0
4
2
2
1
0
3
25%
Avg.
Village Center
72
86
1.2
18
5
9
6
0
50
58%
Avg.
Vorlaufer
23
21
0.9
8
6
6
4
0
-3
-14%
Avg.
Ward Residence
4
2
0
0
0
0
2
50%
Avg.
Willows
29
42
1.4
7
3
3
6
0
25
60%
Avg.
Wren
50
80
1.6
9
8
3
7
0
55
69%
TOTALS
1068.5
2,131
1.6
568
483
349
181
226
7
824
Percent of Total
23%
16%
8%
11%
39%
Totals
W /out Commercial Lots 1068.5
1,767
1.7
47%
Notes:
Based on 3 counts, Feb
16, 18
& March 15
20 structure, 16 surface
** no residential units
+ includes Gore Creek
Plaza
(10 spaces)
++ includes Mystery Lot
(11 spaces)
" includes 6 employee
spaces
(west
lot)
- could not access structure
VAIL PARKING STUDY
WITH PROPOSED EXPANSION OF VILLAGE CHAIRLIFTS
8/15/85
FIRST LIFT:
STAYING:
VAIL VILLAGE
OVERALL
GONDOLA
LIFT 8
LIFT 1
LIFT 16
---------------
OVERALL %
- - - ---
---- - - - - -- --------------
20%
15%
- - - - --
19%
- - -----
35%
NO. SKIERS
15000
3000
2250
2850
5250
NO CAR
120
600
518
599
1155
CAR AT HOME
@3.1
387
312
313
644
TRANSPO CTR
@3,1peo /c
58
22
276
576
GOLD PEAK
210
0
0
18
17
FRONTAGE RD
450
0
0
9
11
LIONSHEAD
158
252
196
46
17
OTHER
0
77
29
64
51
STAYING:
VAIL VILLAGE
270
315
LIONSKEAD
1200
900
EAST VAIL
330
225
W. VAIL
510
450
BC
30
23
EAGLEVAIL
240
135
AVON
120
68
OTHER
300
135
TOTAL
3000
2250
SKIERS
3000
2250
LOCAL RES
330
360
FR /RANGE DAY
180
68
SUMMIT DAY
210
45
OTHER DAY
120
45
COLO. O'NIGHT
450
203
0/S 0`NIGHT
1710
1530
TOTAL 3000 2250
SOURCE: ROSALL REMMEN CARES
LIFT 12 LIFT 6
1%
10%
150
1500
44
390
28
213
7
63
0
29
0
0
0
0
0
53
884
1890
86
570
114
210
0
60
656
998
0
315
627
1208
65
255
29
53
0
15
171
368
0
45
114
158
0
90
257
368
0
150
2850
5250
150
1500
2850
5250
150
1500
684
840
21
420
200
210
0
150
86
158
0
30
86
158
0
0
428
735
0
165
1368
3150
129
735
2850
5250
150
1500
rl
TOTAL
15000
3305
1896
1001
64
26
510
275
3773 CARS
0 0 * I
15000
.I
Recommendations on Lodging
XCt7! Time Sharing Discourage conversion of hotel -type units to
j timeshare ownership . Although the real estate transfer tax generates
more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three
M. I\ or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one -time real
_Vbjz estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare
T AIN 4 F VAJ1__ , ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units- -and
4-PP- is g ' higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax
T_ revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens should be
encouraged.
A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the
long -term management commitment after the sales program is
substantially complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales
revenues are committed to sales commissions and/or one -time promotions.
Often, the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too
many of the time -share owners have relatively little at stake to make a
strong commitment during some type of economic setback.
•
Addendum to Conditional
Use Application
A. Nature of Proposed Use The proposed use for the Fail
Line Apartments is for timesharing in one week intervals. An
owner of a time share unit will have a fee simple interest in a
specific unit for a specific week. As owner of that week, he has
the right to use, rent or exchange the week at other
participating timeshare projects throughout the world. In
addition, the owner can exchange his week at Fall Line for
another week in the same category as his week (i.e. a winter week
for a winter week) as long as a unit is available for usage.
This allows flexibility for a person who can't or doesn't want to
take the same vacation week each year.
The usage is compatible with the surrounding properties, in that
much of the surrounding property is short termed (i.e.
Coldstream, Millrace, and Park Meadows). in addition, the
Cascade Village area with a major hotel, commercial space,
educational facilities, athletic club, and anticipated ski lift
has created a third village area for the Vail guest which will
add a dimension to Vail Village and Lionshead.
The operating characteristics of the project will be no different
than other time share projects in town, or other projects that
are short termed.
B. Site Plans A Site plan is attached showing the current
improvements, parking layout and landscaping. A site plan is
also attached showing proposed modifications to the above. The
new site work will include improved drainage (underground and
surface), additional landscaping and a new parking lot layout.
C. Elevations Photographs are attached showing current
elevations. Proposed elevations are also attached to show
renovations. Exterior remodeling of the building will include a
new color scheme, new roof, new siding and trim, new covered
stair towers, new balconies, new windows and doors. Interior
remodeling of the building will include an additional bathroom in
the two bedroom unit, new kitchen and bathroom fixtures, cabinets
and countertops, new appliances, new doors and hardware, new
carpet and floor coverings, new light fixtures, general repair
and painting and all new furniture.
� 0
. D. Other Information
1. Parking Currently there are 51 parking spaces on
site for 54 employee housing units. This proposal calls for the
same 51 parking spaces but in a reconfigured format for 53 units.
In reviewing parking usage for time share projects in this area,
two projects were consulted:
a) The Christie Lodge Two hundred and
eighty spaces are provided for 280 units.
Approximately 35% of the parking is
utilized by the timeshare owner or guest.
b) Streamside Eagle County has reduced
the parking requirement for Streamside
from two and a half spaces per unit to one
and a half spaces per unit because of
Streamside's documentation showing
parking usage by a timeshare owner.
According to a former representative for
Streamside, approximately 500 of the owners
arrived by automobile and utilized a
parking space. This usage is comparable
with hotel parking in Vail, which shows
approximately 50% usage by guests.
• Parking for on -site sales will not create a problem, in that most
sales will be generated off -site (meaning outside the Town of
Vail) and the busiest period of on -site sales activity will be in
the beginning when there will be only a few owners using the
facilities. Streamside, which is a much larger project than the
proposed project, generates approximately 80 walkthroughs a week
or an average of 11 or 12 per day. Presentations are spread
throughout the day so generally very few parking spaces will be
needed for sales.
2. Recreational Amenities A new recreation amenities
facility will be created on site. The following will be
provided:
a) New front desk and
b) Swimming pool.
c) Spa /jacuzzi.
d) Stearn room.
e) Sauna.
f) Recreation room and
g) Shower facilities.
lobby area.
lounging area.
All recreation facilities will be restricted for owner or guest
usage. No outside memberships will be sold and no owner will be
able to use the facilities except during his stay at the complex.
Obviously the greatest winter amenity is skiing and with the
proposed lift at Cascade Village, the project will be able to
offer skiing access without use of private or public
transportation. Pedestrian access is achieved from the project
through Glen Lyon to the lift. The owner or guest can also
return to Cascade Village by ski trail, ski over the bicycle path
to Glen Lyon and return by foot a short distance to the project.
During the summer all of Donovan Park is available at the front
door of the project. Unlike most visitors to Donovan Park, no
private or public transportation will be needed by an owner or
guest of the project.
Very few projects of any kind in Vail will be able to offer the
public and private amenities that the proposed project can,
without the use of private or public transportation.
3. Marketing The marketing of the project will
entail many facets, some of which will be:
a) Media Advertising This form of marketing
consists of newspaper ads offering families
the opportunity to spend a mini vacation
in Vail to become familiar with and enjoy
the facilities availabe in the Vail area,
and to attend a sales presentation about
interval ownership. Typically, these ads
are placed in papers in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska and Texas. In addition, other ads
may detail the benefits of interval owner --
ship and offer prospects the opportunity
to find out more by calling the listed
telephone number.
b) Mailings These mailings will offer the
same benefits to a prospective purchaser
as the media advertising described above.
While the media advertising hits the public
at large, the mailings differ, in that they
are specifically mailed to pre - selected
families in general age groups (between
32 and 47 years of age) and a
minimum income level (approximately
$30,000 to $40, 000 per year) in order to
reach a qualified prospect. These mailings
will typically be used in Colorado, Kansas,
Nebraska and Texas. No local mailings will
be done, in that the residents of Vail will
not be generally interested in the project.
A typical mailing would be a quality phamplet
containing a general brochure on Vail, a
brochure on vacation ownership, a brochure on
answers to frequently asked questions about
interval ownership, and a brochure on the
project itself.
c) Broker Referrals While no broker or sales-
man would be expected to do a sales
presentation or do a showing of the project,
a referral fee would be paid to brokers or
salesmen for procuring an ultimate purchaser.
d) Owner Referrals Once the project sales
program is under way and sales have been made,
an owner will be able to invite guests to
stay at the project and to attend a sales
presentation.
e) Independent Marketing Companies. The
companies will set up booths at different
shows (Sport, Boat and Travel Shows, Home
Shows, and Fairs, etc.).
f) Telephone Advertising. Telephone advertising
will most likely take place on the front
range where people are hired to telephone a
qualified prospect (as in the mailings
advertising above), to offer the sales
prospect an opportunity to attend a present-
ation.
g) Information Office at the Marriott An
information office at the Marriott Mark Resort
may be set up to disburse information and
brochures to offer an opportunity to attend
a presentation. The Marriott would obviously
be consulted for their consent.
While the use of "thank you gifts" and paid for mini vacations
may be used in a portion of the advertising program, no deceptive
advertising or promises will be made. Deceptive promises and
practices have had some short term success in other time share
projects, however, the effects have been short lived and most
projects are now abandoning such practices.
The applicant is willing to restrict its advertising program in
such a manner so that no advertising activity will take place on
public property. Any advertising taking place on private
property will have the consent of that owner.
I[]
Prior to the commencement of any advertising program a detailed
outline will be submitted to the Town staff for review and
comment.
In summary, the time share industry has been criticized for its
"marketing excesses" and "boiler room" sales presentations and
some of these problems continue to exist. However, with all but
four states now regulating the industry and with Colorado now
having a five day recission period for a prospective buyer to
cancel his purchase, such techniques are diminishing. The
marketing of time sharing is changing with the likes of Disney
World, the Marriott, the Holiday Inn, the Sheridan, and Vail
Associates at Beaver Creek entering the field.
4. Details of Sales Proposal Weeks will be sold in
one week intervals and a total of 51 weeks will be sold per unit
with 53 units available for sale. Units will be brought on line
for sale 4 or 5 at a time and until those units are sold out, no
new units will be made available. Sales personnel are to be
given so many winter, summer and shoulder weeks to sell and once
again are not issued more weeks until all are sold. In this
manner, which is now customary in the industry, a project does
not sell out all the prime weeks while 50% of the project remains
to be sold.
5. Management A management contract will be entered
into between the owner's association, a non - profit corporation
and an entity set up by the applicant or other professional
management group. This agreement will contain among other
things:
a) The general purpose of the agreement will
be to provide a broad and complete plan for
the management and maintenance of the project
for the purpose of relieving the members,
officers and directors of the association
from the day to day responsibilities of
management as delegated in the time share
documents.
b) The manager will have the exclusive right to
manage and maintain the project. The manager
will appoint a general manager to oversee
operations, however, the selection of such
general manager will be subject to association
approval and the retention of the general
manager shall be subject to annual review by
the association.
c) The standard of management shall be equivalent
to that maintained by the best condominium
projects in Vail. The duties of the manager
shall include the following:
1. Fiscal Management
a) Prepare an annual operating budget de-
tailed to reflect expected operations for each
month.
•
[7
b) Prepare budget projection for five (5)
year sinking fund reserve for capital expen-
ditures.
c) Prepare monthly operating and cash posi-
tion statements including reserve account state-
ments.
d) Analyze and compare operating receipts
and disbursements against the association's
approved budget, explain variations from budget
and suggest corrective action.
e) Collect the annual assessments from
association members, the monthly maintenance fee
expenses and special assessments, if any, charged
to association members; and maintain compre-
hensive records thereof. Establish individual
checking and sinking fund reserve accounts, as
directed by the Board of Directors of the
association. All funds collected by the manager
from, or on account of members of the
association, shall be deposited in a commercial
bank account specifically established to handle
funds of the association or in an income
producing account on behalf of the association.
No commingling of funds will be allowed and all
employees of the manager will be bonded.
f) Mail notices of delinquency to any member
of the association in arrears, and exert reason-
able effort to collect delinquent accounts.
g) Examine all expense invoices for accuracy
and pay all bills in accordance with the terms of
the applicable agreements.
h) Prepare a year -end statement of opera-
tions for association members.
i) Maintain complete books and records of
the project in,accordance with generally accepted
accounting procedures.
2. Physical Management The manager will
provide the supervision for all interior and
exterior repairs including the following:
•
a) Sewer and water service.
b) Unit interior repair.
c) Garbage service.
d) Electricity and bulbs for common area
lights and interior lights.
e) Maintenace of walkways.
f) Trimming of trees and shrubbery as may
be required.
g) Removal of leaves and tree cuttings.
h) Cleaning of parking areas.
•
� 0
i) Repainting of parking guide lines as may
be required.
j) Mowing and edging of grass in common
area.
k) Fertilization of grass and shrubbery in
common areas.
1) Painting and maintenance of all outside
areas of the structure of the project as may be
needed.
m) Cleaning of common area rooms and
recreational facilities.
n) Maintenance of driveways and outside
parking areas which are part of common elements.
o) Maintenance of the exterior of the struc-
ture and roof of the structure of the project.
p) Maintenance and cleaning of the sidewalks
in and about the project grounds.
q) Maintenance and cleaning of the garbage
and trash areas.
r) Servicing and maintenance of the central
television cable system.
s) Maintenance and service of the project
facilities, including but not limited to, quest
facilities, desk facilities, porter and bellhop
facilities, management office and related
facilities.
. 3. Administrative Management The
provide total administrative service
the following:
manager would
including
a) Inspect contractual services for satis-
factory performance. Prepare any necessary
compliance letters to vendors.
b) obtain and analyze bids for insurance
coverage specified in the bylaws of the
association and recommend modifications or
additional coverages. Prepare claims when
required and follow -up on payment; act as the
association's representative in negotiating
settlements.
c) Exercise close liaison and supervision
over all personnel to insure proper operational
maintenance and to promote good management -
member relationships.
d) Act as liaison for the association in
any negotiations or disputes with local, federal
or state taxing agencies or regulatory bodies.
e) Exercise close supervision over hours
and working conditions of employed personnel to
insure compliance with wage and hour and work-
men's compensation laws.
f) Assist in resolving the problems of
individual members of the association as they
pertain to the association.
d) Term The term would be from year to year with
a cancellation clause of 90 days prior to the
expiration of the calandar year.
e) Management Fees The manager would be paid a
monthly fee for its services.
In summary, the manager of the project would be providing the
same services as any manager for any condominium project except
here the service level is more intense and administrative duties
are more time consuming.
6. Budget The preliminary budget would be as set
forth on the attached exhibit.
� 0
7. Transportation. A private van would be maintal -ned
for the project in addition to public transportation provided -or
that area. A pedestrian and emergency vehicle link does exist
between Cascade Village and the project. The applicant would be
willing to share in the cost of any improvements to such access
along with the other users of the easement.
8. The following time share projects are currently in
the Vail and Avon area:
a) Christie Lodge Christie Lodge is composed
of 280 units and 35 units remain to be sold.
The anticipated sell out should be by winters
end. The pricing ranges from approximately
$6,000 to $12,000 with an average price of
$8,500 per week.
is
b) Streamside Approximately 250 weeks remain
to be sold in the third building and 33 units
in the newest building are presently being
readied for marketing. The prices range
from $6,000 to $13,000 in the third building
with an average price of approximately
$11,000. A special discounted price was
offered for the third building to sell the
remaining weeks. The newest building will be
priced between $6,000 to $23,000 per week
(The higher price reflecting the availability
of a 3 bedroom unit). The last building yet
to be constructed will contain 39 units.
c) Sandstone Park Approximately 300 weeks remain
to be sold at prices comparable to Streamside.
Another phase can also be built at Sandstone.
d) Appollo Park and wren The projects have been
sold out with only resales remaining.
(Beaver Creek time sharing has not been addressed, in
that their product is much higher priced and
basically competes with wholly owned condominium
sales.)
9. Pricing for Fall Line Prices will range from
approximately $4,000 to $12,000. Financing will be offered at
then market rates for 80% to 90% of the purchase price for a term
of 7 years.
U
W 1 •
T0: Peter Patton
DATE: November 20, 1985
FROM: .Tay K. Peterson
RE: Fall Line Apartments
Dear Peter,
The following are my responses to your questions from your
November 11, 1985 memo:
A. PARKING
As you are aware by my previous memo attached to the application,
the parking for a timeshare project is in actuality much less
than it is for a normal employee housing project or a condominium
project. In contacting the various projects around the town, the
following is what I have found:
1. Streamside. The Streamside project has a parking
requirement of 1.5 spaces per condominium unit.
The project has shown by experience that this amount
of parking is more than ample to meet the needs of
the project. Prior to the current requirement the
county had a requirement of 2 spaces per condominium
unit. In addition, the Streamside project has much
larger units than the Fall Line Apartments with
large one bedrooms, two bedrooms and three bedroom
units making up the complex. Each unit sleeps from
six to twelve people while our project will sleep
from four to a maximum of six people per unit.
2. Vail Run. The Vail Run project provides 1 underground
parking space per unit plus some overflow parking for
the commercial enterprises and if needed for the
timesharing project. In talking to an employee it
was noted that the project contains plenty of parking
underground for the timeshare project and the project
has shown no parking difficulties.
3. Christie Lodge. At the Christie Lodge 1 parking
place is provided per unit and approximately 35%
of the parking places are being utilized with over
70% of the project being sold out.
•
In talking to people that have had experience with the time-
sharing industry, they inform me that the parking requirements
are much like those of a hotel in this town, where approximately
50% of the people arrive by car and keep a car. In addition,
only one car per unit is brought when the people do desire to
maintain a car at the project. For your scenario requiring 2
spaces per unit to be valid an assumption is needed that two
different families would be using the unit at the same time and
that both families would be bringing a car. This hardly seems a
likely scenario given the fact that most of the timeshare owners
do not drive nor does more than one family generally stay in one
unit.
Currently, the project provides less than 1 parking space per
unit for an employee housing project which is the most intensive
use of parking for the town. By changing the use of the project
from employee housing to timesharing, we would actually be
improving upon the current parking situation by lessening the
number of cars on the site. Rather than proposing as you have
stated in your memo less than 50% of the current zoning
requirements for parking we are actually improving upon an
already legally non-conforming use for the property.
in addition, during the period of initial sales activity when you
suggest the parking might be a problem the developer would be
willing to valet park the cars at the Marriott lodge and provide
shuttle transportation back and forth to the project. There is
very little on -site sales activity during the winter months
because of the expense of bringing people to the project during
our high season. Almost all on --site sales activity occurs during
the shoulder season and summer season when there is a good
availability of parking at the Marriott.
B. EMPLOYEE HOUSING
While the proposal does eliminate an apartment complex for
employee housing in the Town of Vail, experience has shown that
the project cannot survive as an employee housing complex nor
does the Marriott Mark desire to use such complex for their
employees. It seems unfair to us that the Westin. Hotel which
also had an employee housing requirement has been relieved of
such burden and is under no requirement to provide employee
housing for the future. In order to remain competitive with
other hotels in town, none of which have an employee housing
requirement, it becomes necessary to discontinue providing
employee housing where there is no need. In talking to Andy
Norris, of the Westin Hotel, he stated that they had rented
twenty Valli Hi units at approximately $8,000.00 per month and
considered it an absolute waste of money and would not be doing
that in the future because there is no need.
• The applicant, however, would be willing to work out some type of
an arrangement whereby all major employers in town would be
required to address the problem if the need should arise in the
future. However, to require us to provide something where there
is no need and not to require it of all like type operations in
town seems unfair.
At the time the Fall Line Apartments was closed in the spring of
1985, nineteen of the units were occupied out of a total of
fifty -four.
•
C. HISTORY OF TIMESHARE CONVERSION PROJECTS
Contrary to your memo, the track record of projects being
converted from condominiums to timesharing in this area has been
an excellent one. Vail Run which was originally conceived as a
condominium and a commercial project was converted to timesharing
some time ago and has been tremendously successful. In addition,
it is a well maintained project. The Wren was also converted
from a condominium project to a timesharing project and once
again was a total success. It also is a well maintained project.
Apollo Park was converted from an employee housing project to
timesharing after substantial renovation and was a successful
project. That project is also well maintained. The Christie
Lodge was converted from condominiums to a timeshare project and
has enjoyed total success with just a few units remaining to be
sold. Streamside and Sandstone Creek Club were conceived and
constructed as a timeshare project. While it would appear that
this is a form of a bail -out of an unkept and distressed
property, nothing further could be from the truth. Timesharing
of the Fall Line Apartments because of its location, substantial
proposed renovation and amenity package is an ideal candidate for
a timesharing project, whether conceived originally as
timesharing or as a conversion from an existing project.
D. TIMESHARING INDUSTRIES TRACK RECORD
I agree with your concern that if a timeshare project is not
adequately maintained it could become a burden on the town.
However, this is true with any condominium or commercial project.
In reviewing the Addendum to my application I think you can see
that the provisions which would be part of the management
agreement are certainly adequate and in reviewing the budget you
will notice that approximately $107,000.00 per year is earmarked
for interior and exterior upgrading and renovation. The total
budget represents a budget which is approximately six to eight
times the normal budget for a condominium project of the same
size and scale. In looking around the town at the local
timesharing projects it becomes apparent that all of the projects
are well maintained and are run in an orderly fashion. While the
timesharing industry has enjoyed somewhat of a blemished record,
at the current time major leisure oriented corporations are
entering the field which will have nothing but a positive
influence on the industry as a whole. Currently, the Marriott,
the Sheridan, the Holiday Inn and Disneyland have entered the
.� field of timesharing projects.
E. LACK OF WEEK PACKAGING
Because of the type of timesharing project Fall Line will become,
it is impossible to package the weeks in four to five units at a
time. This would simply destroy the marketability of the project
and would do nothing to insure the success of the project. The
purchaser of an individual week, however, is certainly encouraged
to purchase more than one week and will be given financial
incentives to do so if he so desires. By packaging four or five
weeks at a time the town would not be insured of an off season
increase in occupancy because the person that was forced to buy
four to five weeks at a time would probably not use the week
during the off season. However, if a person knowingly purchases
a one week interval during the off season generally that person
would use the week, otherwise he would not purchase that specific
period of time.
I would appreciate your reviewing my Addendum to the application
where you will find some of these areas of concern expanded upon.
JK P
•
•
ASSOCIATION BUDGET
. 1. Real Estate Taxes and
Personal Property Taxes
2. Holy Cross Electric
(not indluding heat and hot
water or common electrical)
3. Public Service and Holy Cross Electric
(common electric, total heat, total
hot water, pool and Jacuzzi)
4. Water and Sewer
5. Trash
6. Snow Removal
7. Cable T.V.
8. Maid Service and Supplies
and Unit Maintenance
9.
Insurance
10.
Transportation
Lease on Van
•
Fuel
Maintenance
11.
Janitorial and Maintenance
of Common Areas (including
landscaping)
12.
Association Management
13.
Supplies
14.
Telephone
15.
Employees (office personel
and
van drivers)
16.
Professional Fees
17.
Interior of Unit Reserve
18.
Common Area Reserve and
Capital Improvements
19.
Possible Town of Vail Time
Share
Occupancy Fee $1.00 per day
per unit
4D
TOTAL
$ 40,428.00
$ 19,344.00
$ 36,000.00
$ 16,200.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 2,400.00
$ 8,650.00
$ 94,605.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 4,800.00
$ 4,200.00
$ 1,800.00
$ 35,000.00
$ 60,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 12,000.00
$ 45,000.00
$ 4,000.00
$ 67,575.00
$ 40,545.00
$ 18,921.00
$562,268.00
Average Weekly Cost = $ 208.02
5��J c9. - SAC mac= ��,�� (- iq�
vajme-� 0, 4
CHAPTER VI - CONCLUSION
In 1994, it appears that the housing situation has
improved from what it was four years ago. The information in
this study seems to indicate that housing has diminished as both
a perceived and an actual issue facing residents in Eagle
County. Although the issue has diminished in visibility from
four years ago, it has not disappeared. In fact, it has
apparently shifted from a situation where there was a major
identifiable group in "need' of housing to a middle level
professional group that "desires" something more than the
economy is providing.
The survey showed that the labor force is maturing in
age, remaining in the area for longer periods of time, and
broadening its residential location. The growth at Beaver Creek
has played a large role in strengthening the economics of the
lower valley communities and dispersing the location of both
residence and employment. As Beaver Creek continues to grow,
and Arrowhead comes on line, we can expect this trend to
continue. In the past, Vail has been the community where the
housing problem was most critical.. Today, we see that this is
no Longer the case. Housing has become more of a critical.
concern for the middle income group than for the lower service
workers. Seasonal employees tend to want to be where the action
is and are willing to spend a disproportinate amount of their
income on housing.
But as the new ski areas in the County mature, job
oportunities will become more concentrated in the lower paid
service sector and job advancement will become even more
difficult. This could lead to a shortage of housing for the
lower incomes similar to what happened in the Vail Valley in
late 1970s. With many of the lower income jobs also being
seasonal in nature, it makes the provisions of this housing
difficult to economically justify. For these reasons, it is
important to not dismiss housing as a solved problem.
a
a
t
35
the
very
k
From this study, we learn that people prefer to live in
housing which is integrated within communities rather than in
projects which are labeled as "employee housing ". Accordingly,
Solutions to the affordable housing problem should be directed
in a decentralized fashion. Affordable housing is also
perceived as a very real problem for middle income groups.
Specific programs should be developed to assist these people.
One desirable method is to add affordable housing units
to the current housing stock through the concept of a "Granny
Flat ". The term "Granny Flat" is used to describe small
secondary units which are allowed to be attached to single
family houses. This provision for affordable housing has a
variety of advantages. First and most importantly, it creates
housing which integrates the employee into the community while
minimizing the visual impacts commonly associated with large
employee housing projects. It benefits senior citizens who are
able to obtain additional income from a rental unit and helps
them remain in their home town. This concept also does not
involve the creation of new subdivisions, thereby more
efficiently utilizing existing urban land. Governmental
agencies should provide zoning regulations which allow for the
"Granny Flat" concept and encourage such units when reviewing
subdivision proposals.
Local governments should encourage small lot subdivisions
which reduce the price of housing. Home ownership brings with
it a more serious involvement in the affairs of the community.
Provisions should also be made for the creation of mobile home
subdivisions. Because of their relatively low cost, many people
purchase mobile homes but because of the lack of subdivisions
designed for mobile homes, they are required to rent a space in
a mobile home park. Considerable progress has been made in the
field of manufactured housing and land use policies should be
adjusted to provide an attractive location for this form of
housing within our communities.
In conjunction with programs aimed at reducing the cost
of housing, efforts should be directed at making mortgage money
available at reduced rates for local residents. The high
interest rates of the past few years have been a problem for
locals who want to purchase a house. In this rase as well as in
all our efforts to reduce the cost of housing, public /private
cooperation is very important.
36
t
The original affordable housing commitments of Beaver
Creek and Arrowhead called for housing to be built on rather
concentrated areas in their respective projects. We recommend
that this requirement be relaxed to allow more flexibility in
both the type, location, and tenure of this housing.
The question which we should ask in evaluating any
proposal of affordable housing is, "How well does it blend into
the community ?" In order to create a more normal or average
living situation, we recommend that the rental housing provided
by these large developments be open to the general public and
not restricted to employees that work for that company. A
re- evaluation of the rental policy used by the "Tarnes" should
be undertaken in an effort to broaden its occupancy.
The results of this study give us direction in which to
move our efforts to provide housing for our residents. However,
the housing market is dynamic and changes, when they do occur,
can happen in an extremely short time frame.
Our recommended solution for the next few years is to
continue to monitor the situation closely. If occupancy rates
show signs. of increasing and rental units become more difficult
to find, the County, municipalities and various other affected
entities must be ready to respond. A survey similar to the one
discussed here should be done at least every four years, if not
at shorter intervals. Such a survey can provide a great amount
of useful information especially when it can be compared with
those done in the past.
This committee should remain intact and prepare annual
reports on "affordable housing" within Eagle County. New
proposals for the provision of affordable housing in both the
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county should be
reviewed by this committee and its comments forwarded to the
respective Planning Commissions.
It is hoped that this report can and will lead to
continued efforts to study the housing issue and to formulate
_ policies. It is again important to re- emphasize the need for
the various entities, both governmental and private, to work
with each other in understanding and responding to changes in
the housing market. As conditions change, policies also have to
be re- examined to test their effectiveness. By doing this,
future housing needs can be planned for in an orderly fashion.
l
1
-0
CHAPTER V - CURRENT HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES
In this section, we will review the current status of 11
resident housing projects of various types and summarize the
results of an overall market review of Housing for Sale in the
price range of less than $150,000.
The eleven projects which were included in our review
include two mobile home parks: The Eagle River Park and The
Benchmark Park; six rental projects: River View Apartments,
Valli Hi, Benchmark Condominiums, Sunridge, The Tarnes, and Fall
Tine; and three for sale projects: Homestead Meadows, Pitkin
Creek Park, and Cliffside.
a) Rental Market
7
I
I.
00
Generally speaking, the level of occupancy of the rental
projects change quite markedly with the season. The exception
to this being the River View Apartments. This project is
operated as part of the Federally Subsidized "Section S" program
in which the renter pays 30% of his income with the remainder of
the rent being paid by the government. The River View
Apartments continually maintain 100% occupancy. The remainder
of the projects generally maintain 110% occupancy during the
winter and drop to 50 -60o during the summer. This situation is
to be expected in a county whose winter employment requirement
is significantly greater than that required during the summer.
As the Vail Valley moves toward becoming more of a four season
resort, we can expect a smoothing oiit of rental occupancy
levels.
Mobile Home Spaces are occupied at close to 100%
throughout the year. However, the occupancy of the unit
themselves fluctuates with the season. Because the majority of
mobile homes for rent within a park are not controlled by any
one management entity, we do not have reliable occupancy rates.
However, we believe the summer occupancy rate to be somewhere
close to 75 %.
b) Ownership Market
Two of the three
surveyed are sold out.
which was constructed i
severe housing problem.
with favorable interest
Mortgage Bond Money.
For Sale Housing Projects which we
Pitkin Creek was the earliest project
n 1980 during a period when there was a
The project offered low prices coupled
rates obtained through Municipal
32
i
5.
RN
J
.. 7
11
Sunk
Description: This project was built as a condominium
project in 1981 and many of the owners
have placed their units on the rental
market. Management company survey
controlled 50 d.u.
Location: Town of Avon opposite the West Parking
Lot of Beaver Creek.
Size Phase 1, 165 units and Phase 11, 202
Units.
Tenure: Rental.
Rental Rate: 5400 - 450 - 2 bedroom unfurnished
$550 - 600 - 2 bedroom furnished
$575 - 650 - 3 bedroom unfurnished
$600 - 700 - 3 bedroom furnished
For Sale: $ 85,000 - 2 bedroom
$100,000 - 3 bedroom
Benchmark Condominiums
Description: This project was built in early 1970 = s
and is a dormitory appearing building.
Management agency survey controlled 43
units.
Location: Town of Avon
Size: 92 dwelling units
Tenure: Rental
Rental Rate: $300 - 350 - 1 bedroom (plus utilities)
$400 - 450 - 2 bedroom
$450 - 500 - 3 bedroom
Fn1 1 T inc
Description: Early employee project constructed in
West Vail currently reserved for the
employees of the Mark (Marriott).
Location: West Vail
Size: 53 units
'7
Tenure:
Rental Rate:
8. Homestead Mead
Rental
$325 - 1 bedroom furnished
$450 - 2 bedroom furnished
Description: This condominium project was built as
the first phase of a residential
development of some 500+ mixed density
units.
Location: Edwards
Size: 56 dwelling units
Sale Price: $75 - 77,000 - 1090 sq.ft.
$83,500 - 85,600 - 1210 sq.ft.
Comments: These units are part of a cooperative affordable
housing program worked out between the developer
and the County. The developer committed to for
sale prices and through a purchase option clause
controls the resale for a period of 3 years of
owner occupancy. Project is a fine example of
public /private cooperation.
9. The Tarnes
Description: This project was built in partial
fulfillment for the provision of
affordable housing within Beaver Creek
P.U.D.
Location: Northwestern portion of the P.U.P.
Size: 60 units - 30 - 1 bedroom
30 - 2 bedroom
Tenure: Rental
Rental Rate: $345 - 1 bedroom unfurnished (all
utilities included)
$400 - 2 bedroom furnished
$500 - 2 bedroom unfurnished
$580 - 2 bedroom .furnished
J
AN OVERVIEW OF THE RESORT TIMESHARING MARKET:
CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LOCAL COMMUNITY
A Summary Of
THE RESORT TIMESHARING INDUSTRY
A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort TimeSharing
in Two Volumes
This summary made possible by a grant from:
Captran Resorts International
P.Q. Box 06100
Ft. Myers, FL 33906
(813) 472 -6400
Prepared for
THE NATIONAL
of the
TIMESHARING COUNCIL
AMERICAN LAND DEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATION
Washington, D.C.
by
RICHARD L. RAGATZ ASSOCIATES, INC.
Eugene, Oregon
Under the Direction
of
The Socio- Economic Task Force of the National TimeSharing Council
George I. David, Chairman
0
Grateful Acknowledgement
ALDA /NTC Officers During Preparation NTC Socio-Economic
of The Resort Timesharing Industry Task Force
ALDA President and Chairman — 1980 -82
Norman B. Conkle, President
Consolidated Development Corp.
Phoenix, AZ
ALDA President and Chairman ---- 1978 -80
Richard Norman, President
All- American Realty Company, Inc.
Wayne, NJ
Chairman, National Timesharing Council
of ALDA — 1981 -1983
Carl G. Berry, Partner
California Resorts
San Francisco, CA
Chairman, National TimeSharing Council of
ALDA — 1979 -81 .. _
Keith Romney. President
Keith Romney Associates
Salt Lake City, UT
Chairman, National TimeSharing Council of
ALDA — 1978 -79
Keith W. Trowbridge, President
Captran Resorts International
Ft. Myers, FL.
Chairman:
George I. David, President
The David Time Share Group Inc.
Stamford, CT
Members:
Carl G. Berry, Partner
California Resorts
San Francisco, CA
Carl H, Burlingame, President
The CHS Company, Inc.
Los Altos, CA
John Reinhardt, Vice President
The David Time Share Group Inc.
Stamford, CT
Keith B. Romney, President
Keith Romney Associates
Salt Lake City, UT
Ex officio
Gary A. Terry, Executive Vice President
American Land Development Association
Washington, D.C.
Keith W, Trowbridge, President
Captran Resorts International
Ft. Myers, FL
Sponsors and - Contributors Whose Generous Contributions
Made This Slfrvey and Analysis Possible
Sponsors
American International Vacations, Inc.
Las Vegas, Nevada
The Bank of California, N.A.
Los Angeles, California
Captran Resorts International
Ft. Myers, Florida
DEL Marketing, Inc.
Palmyra, Virginia
Dunes Marketing Group, Inc.
Hilton Head Island, South Carolina
Fairfield Communities
Knoxville, Tennessee
Helmsley -Spear Hospitality Services, Inc
New York, New York
Lehigh Corporation
North Miami. Florida
Leisure Resource Group
Austin, Texas
Platinum Exchange Group
Grand Rapids, Michigan
Resort Condominiums International
Indianapolis, Indiana
Resort Marketing Associates, Inc.
Honolulu, Hawaii
Keith Romney Associates
Salt Lake City, Utah
San Diego Country Estates
Ramona, California
Shawnee Development, Inc.
Shawnee -on- Delaware, Pennsylvania
Snowmass Inn Resort & Club
Snowmass Village, Colorado
South Seas Plantation, Ltd.
Sanibel Island, Florida
Paul G. Spining & Associates, Inc.
Dallas, Texas
Suncoast Resorts Pty. Ltd.
Melbourne, Australia
Sweetwater Properties
Salt Lake City, Utah
Contributors
All-American Realty Co., Inc.
Wayne, New Jersey
California Resorts
San Francisco, California
Carriage House at Pocono Manor
Pocono Manor. Pennsylvania
Club Land'or Ltd.
Ladysmith, Virginia
Cox, Castle & Nicholson
Los Angeles, California
Driftwood Resorts
Vero Beach, Florida
Holiday Clubs International
Memphis. Tennessee
Investment Corp. of Florida
Ft. Lauderdale, Florida
Lehman -Pike Development Co.
Bushkin, Pennsylvania
Lyanne Rennie
Indio, California
ill
Mid - Continent Associates, Inc.
St. Paul, Minnesota
Vacation Resorts
Houston, Texas
Vacation Spa Resorts
Las Vegas, Nevada
The American Lana
Development A .. .
is an independent, nonprofit trade association formed, in 1969, to represent the recreational and resort development
industry.
Since then it has grown to represent residential developers as well and today ALDA's membership is interna-
tional in scope. It includes property owners who are holding land for future development or investment purposes, and
companies that build, sell and develop:
• Primary residential homes
• Vacation homes
• Condominiums
• Planned unit developments
• Destination resorts
• Retirement and new communities
• Recreational vehicle parks and campgrounds
• Mobile home parks
• Timesharing projects
• Marinas
ALDA is also fortunate to count among its members professional firms and individuals who provide products
and services to the developer — lenders, marketing experts, attorneys, architects, accountants, engineers, adver-
tising specialists, real estate agents, consultants, homebuilders.
To represent a membership which includes such a wide diversity of speciallzed interests, ALDA organized the
first of its present seven councils in 1976. In addition to the pioneering Resort Timesharing Council (now the National
TimeSharing Council), ALDA's other councils are: International Council; Marina Owners, Developers and Operators
Council; Property Owners Council; Residential Development Council; Resort and Recreational /Secona Home
Council; and RV Park and Campground Council,
With a full range of professional and membership services, ALDAserves as a medium forthe exchangeof infor-
mation and ideas among its members and between the industry and the general public, media, governmentani regu-
latory bodies, and interested business sectors and individuals.
A monthly newsletter, annual magazine, council reports and special publications, such as this survey, provide
the ALDA membership and the industry with important industry research results and a forum for news, feature articles
and advertising. An annual industry -wide conference /exposition in addition to specialized conferences and seminars
throughout the year provide opportunities for ALDA members and non - members to meet, discuss and hear aoout the
latest trends in the business. A strong government relations program ensures that ALDA members are represented on
Capitol Hill and before government agencies and kept informed of legislative/ regulatory issues and activities affect-
ing development interests.
ALDA was founded in response to the real estate development industry's greatest needs in the late'60s and
early '70s — a strong code of ethics and an industry -wide response to the Interstate Land Sales Full Disclosure Act
(ILSFDA), enacted in 1968. In the latter half decade of the 1970s and now in the 1980s, timesharing became a major
new focus within ALDA. Serving the members of ALDA who are involved in timesharing is the National TimeSharing
Council (NTC).
Director of Publications & Research: Jeanette E. Smith
iv
Table of Contents
Page
Introduction........................................... ............................... 1
Sources oflnforriation ................................. ............................... 2
Consumer Characteristics and Motivations .............. ............................... 3
Consumer Satisfaction ................................. ............................... 4
Use of Timeshare ...................................... ............................... 5
Consumer Expenditures ................................ ............................... 6
Government Revenues and Costs ....................... ............................... 11
Employment Patterns .................................. ............................... 11
Other Expenditures .................................... ............................... 12
OtherImpacts ......................................... ............................... 14
• A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects ......................... 19
Footnotes............................................. ............................... 23
Addendum............................................. ............................... 25
U
v
Table of Contents
•
Page
Introduction........................................... ............................... 1
Sources oflnfor6 atio n ................................. ............................... 2
Consumer Characteristics and Motivations .................. . ........... . . . .... . .... . . . 3
Consumer Satisfaction ................................. ............................... 4
Useof Timeshare ...................................... ............................... 5
Consumer Expenditures ............................................................... 6
Government Revenues and Costs ................................
E m ploy m ent Patterns .................................. ............................... 11
Other Expenditures .................................... ............................... 12
Other pacts ......................................... ............................... 14
A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects ......................... 19 0
Footnotes............................................. ............................... 23
Addendum............................................. ............................... 25
v
• Introduction
Timeshare ownership of resort accommodations is growing rapidly throughout North America, Europe,
Japan, Australasia, and elsewhere. Timeshare projects are now found in over 30 countries around the world.
In the United States, it is estimated that 300,000 timeshare owners now exist in about 500 different projects.
Projected sales in 1981 are $1.5 billion. As recently as 1978, the market consisted of only 250 projects with an annual
sales of roughly $309 million.'
Nearly any resort area with an established tourist trade is experiencing timeshare development through the
construction of new units or the conversion of existing resort condominium or other overnight lodging units. In
addition, timeshare development is becoming apparent in communities with little previous experience with tourism.
Although the bulk of timeshare development is in the form of condominium units, otherforms of accommodations are
also being offered on an interval basis, including detached units, and facilities such as yachts, ocean liners,and camp-
ing and recreational vehicle facilities. It is evident that timesharing, as a form of ownership, can be applied to a wide
range of recreation and other facilities as consumers continue to become increasingly receptive.
In light of such rapid and recent growth of the market, it is natural that resort and other commum ask
about the effects which timeshare development will have on their residents, economy, government, and tourism in-
dustry. Timesharing is a relatively new concept which is not always consistent with commonly held conceptions
about ownership of property. Its uniqueness has contributed to questions arising in a number of communities about
whether timeshare development will bring in a less desirable tourism group, result in excessive and uncompensated
government costs, and perhaps even displace current residents.
Thus far, resort timesharing has encountered mixed reactions from public regulators and local comriunities
in this country. Reactions range from encouragement to neglect to restriction. Several states and municipalities
already have proposed, and in several instances actually implemented, regulations that could readily be generalized
beyond the local situation.
S In the past, most public regulations in the real recreational property market have been created for two
reasons, including: (1) to protect the individual consumer, such as the various SEC, FTC, and OILSR pieces of legis-
lation; and /or (2) to protect the host community or the public at large, such as the various taxing, environmental, and
land use regulations.
The image that many persons hold of resort timesharing often has been created by the negative publicity
coming forth from the raw land sales industry of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This image frequently consists of a
product for which a demand has been falsely created, one that is permeated by consumer fraud, one that is unused
and unusable, and one that does not pay its way in regard to societal costs and benefits. Hence, decisions are made
and legislation is created that could irrationally hinder future development of the timeshare market.
The broad question of timeshare desirability in a local community involves several specific issues which
should be addressed in a non - biased fashion by local decision makers before rendering recommendations. Some of
the most important issues include:
1. Are the typical consumers of resort timeshares of the "appropriate quality" to make them desirable to
attract to the local community?
2. Are timeshare consumers satisfied with their purchases or is the market wrought with many of the con-
sumer fraud problems associated with the old raw land industry of the past decade?
3. Do timeshare buyers use their purchase or do the units sit idle, again like the hundreds of thousands of
unused and unusable recreational lots developed throughout the country in the late 1960s and early
1970s?
4. Are the public revenues generated by timeshare development adequate to cover associated public
costs?
5. Is employment generated by timeshare development adequate and of a form considered to be desirable
to a community?
6. Are overall patterns of public facility use generated by timeshare development appropriate to a healthy
tourism sector and the community in general?
Information on the above questions is contained in a recent study sponsored by the National Timesharing
Council of the American Land Development Association, The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic
Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes,
Results from this study are summarized in the document at hand. The vast majority of the findings are posi-
tive toward the resort timeshare industry in regard to the above set of questions. However, two additional points
should be emphasized:
1. The study did not address three evident impacts that improperly developed, marketed, and managed
timeshare projects can create in a local community:
a, sales techniques — the hard sales "peddling on the street" approach which frequently results in: (1)
pressure sales to persons who probably should not be purchasing recreational property with their
limited discretionary income; and /or (2) disruptive activity to local residents and tourists.
b. Integration of timeshare with primary housing — industry data has shown that opposition to time-
sharing is more likely to occur in ownership developments than in right -to -use resorts since right -to-
use timeshares are often contained within a hotel or motel where transiency is expected and accepted.
c. conversion of other units to timesharing — the change in use from apartments or other types of resi-
dential shelter to timesharing which implies a loss of year -round primary housing for local residents.
2. Results of the study cannot be generalized to all real estate projects which are termed "resort time-
shares". Many small, marginal- quality projects in poor locations and without proper construction,
amenities, marketing and management cannot be included in the positive remarks. However, if properly
developed, marketed and managed, there is a wealth of evidence to conclude that a quality resort time-
share project will greatly benefit all involved, including the consumer, the developer, and the host
community.
Sources of information
Volume One of The Resort Timesharing Industry was concerned with characteristics of timeshare buyers.
Questionnaires were mailed to 26,730 buyers from 13 sponsoring companies who either had developed and /or mar-
keted timeshare projects. Some 33 projects were represented by these 13 companies. Another 6,000 questionnaires
were mailed to members of the two major exchange companies, including 3,500 members of Resort Condomir ;ums
International (RCI) and 2,500 members of Interval International (11),
The questionnaires were mailed in December 1979and January 1b80, with a cut -off date being establisr ed of
March 15, 1980. Some 9,685 usable questionnaires were returned fora very high reponse rate of 36.2 percent. it is
estimated by industry experts that roughly 215,000 timeshare owners existed in the United States in spring 1980. If this
represented the true total, then roughly five percent of all existing timeshare owners in the country participated in the
survey. Based upon statistical sampling theory, the high rate of return coupled with the sizeable representation of the
overall population, were more than enough to ensure reliability of the results.
The 9,685 respondents owned timeshares in 183 different projects throughout the United States, Mexico, and
the Caribbean. The 183 projects included almost all of the large resort timesharing projects in the country, and about
one -half of the 350 total projects estimated to have existed in spring 1980.
Volume 11 was most directly concerned with the economic impacts that resort timeshare projects have on
their host community. In this regard, in -depth case studies were conducted of the following three projects:
Kuleana Club near Lahaina, Maui, Hawaii. This project contains 30 timeshare units which are integrated
with 60 wholly owned condominium units. All units contain one - bedroom with 625 square feet. The pro-
ject is adjacent to the Pacific Ocean and contains a swimming pool, tennis court, and clubhouse. At the
time of the study, 570 buyers had purchased 1,531 weekly intervals for an 80 percent sellout. •
The Good Life at San Diego Country Estates near the small town of Ramona in San Diego County, Cali-
fornia. It contains 64 units in eight separate eight -unit buildings, with 32 units having one - bedroom and
the other 32 having two - bedrooms. it is in the midst of the several thousand acre San Diego Country
Estates, a large residential- recreation community. Some 1,400 buyers have purchased a two -week
minimum package for a 100 percent sellout.
3. Sanibel Beach Club II on Sanibel Island, Florida. This project was newly constructed fortimesharing. It
contains 29 two - bedroom units in eight separate buildings. Each unit contains 1,260 square feet. On -site
amenities include ocean frontage, swimming pool, tennis court, and sauna. Here, 785 buyers have pur-
chased 1,479 weeks for a 100 percent sellout.
Involved in the three case studies were dozens of interviewswith local public officials (both elected and staff),
a review of numerous public documents and local budgets, and research into relevant literature describing impacts
from other tourist- recreation types of markets. Whenever possible, comparisonswere made between impactscreated
by resort timesharing projects and those created by othertypes of overnight recreation lodging such as resort condo-
miniums, hotels and motels.
Consumer Characteristics and Motivations
An initial question that many local communities seem to ask is, "Are the typical consumers of resort time-
shares of the 'appropriate qualify' to make them desirable to attract to our community "? In this regard, when aggre-
gating the demographic variables of age, education, income, and family type, itappears the timeshare market iscom-
posed of a very stable and high quality population. Due to their high income and educational attainment, their age
profile and marital status, it would seem they are relatively protected from extreme problems of recessionary trends
in the country.
Over one -half (56.3 percent) had household incomes in 1979 of $30,000 or more, and 17.1 percent had in-
comes of $50,000 or more. The approximate median annual income was about $33,500. By way of comparison, the
median income of all households in the United States in 1979 was only about $16,500. In a 1977 survey of timeshare
buyers, the median income was only about $23,000. If the medians from the two surveys are accurate, itwould mean
that the median income of timeshare buyers increased about 45 percent in two years. A significant portion of this
increase was due to nationally inflating incomes during this period. (Average income for all households in the United
States increased roughly 22.2 percent between 1977 and 1979.) However, it is suspected that a greater portion of the
increase was due to: (1) increasing costs of timeshare units; (2) the increasing degree of credibility that timeshare is
gaining amongst higher income households; and (3) the increasing availability of higher quality timeshare projects in
more expensive and higher quality locations.
The average age of the head of household for timeshare buyers was 45.4 years. Over one -half (527 percent)
were between the ages of 35 to 54. The vast majority of buyers were married couples (89.4 percent). By contrast, only
about 62 percent of all households in the United States are now composed of married couples. Only 3.2 percent were
under 25 (most likely due to lack of discretionary income) and only 4.8 percent were over 65 (most iikelydueto either
lack of discretionary income, already having owned other types of recreational properties, or finding the timeshare-
concept unattractive for a variety of reasons such as health, inconvenience of travel, etc.). It is significant, however, that
almost one- quarter (19.2 percent) of the buyers were in the relatively young age group of 25 to34years. These people
can probably not afford to buy a detached vacation home nor wholly owned resort condominium, but are able to
afford the relatively low cost of a timeshare unit for a week or so, and thereby gaining access to a quality resort.
One of the most interesting findings from the survey was the extremely high level of education attained by
timeshare buyers. Over three- quarters (75.8 percent) of the respondents had attended college, with over one -half
. (54.9 percent) being college graduates, and 31.4 percent having done graduate work. The median numberof years of
education attained by respondents was 15.4 as compared to the national average of only 12.5.
In regard to why people buy timeshares, the mostfrequent responses werethe opportunity to save moneyon
future vacation costs and the exchange opportunity. Thus, respondents appear primarily influenced byflexible vaca-
tion plans while at the same time being interested in holding down future vacation costs. Resort timesharing is per- •
haps the only type of recreational real property which simultaneously offers these advantages.
A wide array of response was found in regard to the distance between primary home and timeshare unit. Very
few (10.6 percent) live within 50 miles of theirtimeshare; however, about one -third (32.5 percent) live within 100 miles.
The most common distance seems to be just about 100 miles. While most owners live within close vacation -com-
muting distance of their timeshare, over one - quarter (26.4 percent) live 1,000 or more miles distant. These respon-
dents primarily represent: (1) all owners in Hawaii, Mexico, and the Caribbean; (2) mid -West owners who have pur-
chased in Florida; or (3) East Coast owners who have purchased in the Rocky Mountain states.
The average number of weeks purchased was about 1.8. The vast majority (90.0 percent) of resper,d3nts
owned their timeshares at just one resort location. While the remaining 10.0 percent proportion may appear low, it is
interesting that some timeshare buyers are already beginning to collect not only multiple weeks but also multiple
locations, even though being offered the exchange privilege with other locations.
Consumer Satisfaction
Respondents in the survey were asked, "In general, how satisfied are you with your timeshare purchase"?
Answers were overwhelmingly favorable with a very high 86.3 percent stating they were either "very satisfied" (44.6
percent) or "satisfied" (41.7 percent). Some 72.5 percent said they would again purchase theirtimeshare in hindsight.
High satisfaction was most apparent amongst respondents who:
1. have owned their timeshare longer
2. have purchased multiple weeks
3. have purchased higher priced units
4, have purchased larger units
5. have purchased for use or because they like the unit as opposed to just purchasing to take advantage of
the exchange opportunity
6. have used their timeshare
7. have requested an exchange
8. have had an exchange confirmed
9. received their own first trade choice in regard to the exchange
10, were very satisfied with their trade
11. felt the exchange privilege was fairly represented by their salesperson
12, are middle age and above
13. have attained higher educational levels
14. have higher incomes
15. have purchased fee -type units
16. have purchased units in projects originally built for timeshare.
4
Another question in the survey asked respondents to rate their degree of satisfaction for 13 specific items.
Results are summarized below by listing the percent of respondents who said they were "dissatisfied" with the
specific items,
Percent of Respondents
Percent of Respondents
Stating "Dissatisfaction"
Stating "Dissatisfaction"
With Items Relating to the Unit
With Items Relating to the Area or Site
Item:
Item:
1. cleanliness of unit
2.9
1, shopping
6.4
2. storage space
2,2
2. restaurants
5
3. kitchen facilities
1.3
3. recreation for children
4.6
4. quality of construction
1.2
4. responsiveness of management
4.3
5. size of unit
1.2
5. on -site recreation
3
6. furnishings
1.1
6. nearby recreation
1.9
7, bathroom(s)
0.8
The vast majority of timeshare buyers appear very pleased with their purchase. None of the items ir. the first
column which related directly to the unit itself had a negative response rate of overthree percent. Only two (cleanli-
ness of unit with 2.9 percent and small storage space with 2.2 percent) had more than two percent of the buyers check-
ing "Dissatisfied ". It is to be remembered that these responses came from almost 10,000 timeshare owners repre-
senting 181clifferent projects around the United States and elsewhere.
Rates of dissatisfaction were slightly higher for items in the second column, but again almost negligible.
. Several of these items were checked by more than four percent of the respondents, including shopping (6.4 percent),
restaurants (5.6'percent), recreation for children (4.6 percent) and responsiveness of management (4.3 percent).
An extremely high 61.5 percent intended to buy additional timeshares, either at their present resort location
(24.6 percent) and /or at another location (36.9 percent). Such findings not only indicate a high degree of satisfaction
amongst present owners of timeshares, but also a vast potential demand increase in the overall market. In other
words, a potential market not only exists with untapped buyers but also with almost two-thirds of the existing buyers.
Only 18.6 percent of the respondents said they intended to sell their present timeshare and not buy another.
Some 40.2 percent stated they did not plan to buy additional timeshare but rather just keep what they presently own.
Use of Timeshare
A frequent argument made in the past against traditional types of recreational real properties (recreational
lots, detached vacation homes, and wholly owned resort condominium units) was that they rarefy are used by their
owners. Such does not seem to be the case with resort timeshares. Some 62.0 percent of the respondents already had
vacationed in their own timeshare unit. When combined with the respondents who have taken advantage of the
exchange privilege, it appears that about three - quarters of the respondents already had used a timeshare unit of some
kind. This is true even though 38.7 percent had made their purchase only within six months prior to the survey.
Some 58.1 percent said they planned to use their interval every year in the future. Another 28.3 percent
* planned to use the exchange privilege every year, for a total planned timeshare annual use of 84.6 percent. 1. these
figures are generalized to all projects for all seasons of the year, it appears that the issue of this type of property sitting
idle for long periods of time is much less relevant than it has been for the traditional types of recreational property.
5
About one -half (55.7 percent) of the respondents had vacationed in their timeshare for a seven -day period,
with the average stay being 8.2 days. The average number of visitors per party for the overall stay was 4.0, including
3.0 adults and 1.0 children.
Timesharing frequently has an image of attaining popularity only in peak vacation periods; for example,
winter for skiing in the Rockies or beaching in Florida, or summer for hiking in the Rockies or boating at Lake Tahoe,
and so forth. Many observers of timesharing have criticized the concept due to perceived severe peaks and declines
in seasonal use periods. However, according to the survey of almost 10,000 buyers, timeshare intervals have sold well
during all seasons of the year. Based upon a sample of the almost 17,000 weeks purchased by the respondents,
seasonal- purchase ranged from a low of 23.9 percent in the fall to a high of 26.3 percent in the summer.
Consumer Expenditures
A major reason for positive response toward resort timesharing by some local public officials and others
knowledgeable about the market relates to the economic impacts created by this land use. One very direct way of
analyzing this issue is to describe the extent of expenditures that timeshare occupants make in the local community.
Respondents in the survey were asked, "During your most recent vacation in a timeshare unit, what would you esti-
mate your party's average daily expenditures to be in the local area for each of the following items "? This question is of
special importance, so please be as careful as possible ".
For eight different items, the respondent was to write in a dollar estimate in regard to: (1) only the most recent
visit; (2) the daily expenditure average; (3) expenditures for the entire party; and (4) expenditures only made in the
local area. Some 6,005 respondents completed this question.
Overall average daily expenditures for the eight items are listed below:
Overall Average
Item Daily Expenditures
1. Eating out and nightclubs $25.47
2. Groceries and liquor bought in a store 17,02
3. Recreation (movies, green fees, tours, lift tickets, etc.) 14.00
4. Local shopping (souvenirs, gifts, apparel, etc.) 13.90
5. Rental car 5,10
6. Other overnight lodging besides timeshare unit 2,67
7. Local transportation (public bus, taxi, etc.) .76
8. Other 6.42
$85.34
If averages for the eight items are accumulated, the overall average daily expenditure was $85.34. The follow-
ing paragraphs provide additional detail in regard to consumer expenditures.
1. Eating out and nightclubs. This item resulted in the highest average daily expenditure ($25.47). Appar-
ently, even though kitchens exist in the vast majority of timeshare units, occupancy of a timeshare is
viewed as a true vacation and does not involve extensive cooking by the user. More than one -half (52.8
percent) of the respondents spent an average of more than $20 a day on this item.
2. Groceries and liquor. Many respondents included a hand - written comment in the questionnaire for this
item and "eating out and nightclubs ", stating they brought most of their food from home and did little
local shopping or eating out. However, only 14.6 percent spent an average of less than $10 per day ar�
31.7 percent spent more than $20 per day.
101
• 3. Recreation. Over one - quarter (27.5 percent) of the respondents stated they spent no additional money
on recreational activities during their timeshare vacation. This implies that either many timeshare users
are content just to relax and /or that all necessary recreational activities are provided free on -site. On the
other hand, about another one - quarter (25.2 percent) spent an average of $20 or more per day.
4, Local shopping. This was another item with a fairly high daily average ($13.90). It also was an item with
extensive disparity between respondents. For example, 32.8 percent spent less than $5 per day while
23.5 percent spent more than $20 per day.
5. Rental car. About one - quarter (22.2 percent) of the respondents rented a car at some time in the local
area during their timeshare vacation.
6. Other overnight lodging. Only 11.3 percent of the respondents stated they spent any money on this item,
which implies the vast majority of timeshare users travel directly from their home to theirtimashare unit
without any intervening overnight stops. It also appears they mostly return to their timeshare unit at night
even if touring the surrounding area during the day.
7. Local transportation. Here, the average daily expenditure was only $76, with the vast majority of respon-
dents (90.2 percent) stating they spent no money at all on this item.
Another question in the survey was, "Please estimate your party's expenditures in the local area during your
most recent vacation in a timeshare for the entire time you were there. Do not include the occupancy or maintenance
fees charged for the timeshare ". Hence, respondents were requested to give a singular overall estimate of their expen-
ditures during their timeshare vacation, rather than a daily itemized estimate as requested in the earlier question.
It was found that about one -third spent a total of less than $100, probably representing the few respondents
whose most recent visit to a timeshare was only for one or two days. At the other end of the expenditure range were the
13.3 percent who spent more than $1,000.
An attempt was made to compare expenditures by timeshare occupants and other tourists /overnight recrea-
tionists at the three case study areas. Unfortunately, comparable data were not available for the same groups in all
three areas. However, some findings include:
i. Timeshare occupants at Kuleana Club had average total per party expenditures that were: (a) 62.7
percent higher than for all tourists to Hawaii;^ and (b) 46.7 percent higher than for occupants at wholly
owned resort condominium units on neighboring islands.' Comparisons are shown in Table 1.
2. Timeshare occupants at The Good Life at San Diego Country Estates had average daily per party
expenditures that were 38.7 percent higher than for all tourists to San Diego County. Comparisons are
shown in Table 2.
3. Timeshare occupants at Sanibel Beach Club 11 had average daily per party expenditures that were 11.0
percent higher than for all tourists to Lee County, Florida (the county in which the timeshare project is
located).' Comparisons are shown in Table 3.
• See page 8 for TABLE 1
• See page 9 for TABLE 2
• See page 10 for TABLE 3
0
In summary, it appears that timeshare occupants spend considerably more (either on atotal visitor on a daily
basis) than do other tourists /recreationists. Differences are especially significant in expenditures for groceries, rental
cars and shopping,
TABLE 1 •
Average Party Total Expenditures,
Kuleana Club, All Tourists to Hawaii and Condominium Visitors
Y Kuleana Neighbor
Club Hawaii Island Condo
Expenditure C ategory Owners' Tourists Visitors'
Groceries
$ 318.30
$ 32.57
$ 97.42
Restaurants, nightclubs
395.85
294.69
205.79
Rental car
288.60
41.59
157.20
Inter- island a1r
126.52
51.21
103.;;4
Other transportation
12.15
27.86
18.25
Recreations -
155.55
89.27
62.28
Shopping 6
334.05
235.83
136.89
Other
75.30
62.20
59.53
Subtotal (excluding lodging)
1,706.32
835.22
834.60
Timeshare maintenance and use fees
283.29
Lodging or other lodging
86.55
440.86
580.64
Total
$2,076.16
$1,276.08
$1,415.24
'Includes only those who used their own timeshare unit.
2 Hawaii Visitors Bureau, "1977 Expenditure Study ", as reported in Hopkinsand Penseyres (1979);
correctedto reflect
prices of July 1979, using the authors' methodology.
3 Hopkins and Penseyres (1979); Maui and Kauai only; corrected
to July 1979.
'Assumes one round trip from Honolulu to a neighbor island
for timeshare and
condo users,
cost equivalent to
average common fare for 1979.
'Includes tours, attractions, admission fees, etc.
' gifts, apparel, other retail goods.
9
LJ
TABLE 2
Average Party Daily Expenditures
San Diego Country Estates and All Tourists to San Diego
•
San Diego
Country Estates San Diego
Expenditure Category Owners Tourists'
Groceries
Restaurants, nightclubs
Rental car
Other transportation'
Recreation
Shopping
Other
Subtotal
Timeshare maintenance and use fees
Other lodging
Total
$18.34
$ 5.43
29.02
24.25;
2.94
9.6
.41
12.52
6.62
4.41
7.24
2.69
70.33
16.04
.97
$87.34
53.23
$62.93
'Total from San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (1979); distribution by categoryfrom San Diego Chamber of
Commerce, n.d. Assumes average visitor size of 2.7
2 Does not include air or auto travel to the point of accommodation.
r �
f�
0
TABLE 3
'Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Weighted average of air and auto travelers assuming equal proportions each.
Data for air travelers are statewide and probably under - represent actual Lee County expenditures.
10
Average Party Daily Expenditures,
Sanibel Beach Club II and All Tourists to Lee County
Sanibel Beach Club II
Lee County
Expenditure Category
Owners
Tourists'
Groceries
$17.13
$ 4.25
Restaurants, nightclubs
23.22
22.90
Rental car
9.07
Other transportation
0.32
12.90
Recreation
4.77
9.29
Shopping
18.58
5.07
Other
7.71
3,81
Subtotal
80.80
58.22
Timeshare maintenance and use fees 7.47
_
Other lodging
3.43
24.39
Total..
$91.70
$82.61
'Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Weighted average of air and auto travelers assuming equal proportions each.
Data for air travelers are statewide and probably under - represent actual Lee County expenditures.
10
Government Revenues and Costs
Given that a community has embarked on economic development which involves tourism, a major concern
is the balance between the public sector revenues and costs associated with the various forms this development may
take. Public policy might seek to enhance development with beneficial net effects on the public sector, or at least
avoid development having clearly adverse effects.
Therefore, an important part of the economic impact study was to develop a set of reliable revenue /cost
ratios in regard to the three case study projects. Unfortunately, reliable "leakage rates ", (i.e., the proportion of local
expenditures that filter out of the local community due to the parent company being located elsewhere) were not
available in any of the case study communities. However, even if a leakage rate as high as 60 percent were assumed
(which is quite unlikely), very positive revenue /cost ratios were found for the three timeshare projects.
Such ratios were calculated by employing an in -depth regression analysis. Public revenues from consumer
expenditures, taxes, licenses, etc., were compared with public costs of servicing the timeshare project and its occu-
pants (e.g., police, fire, roads, sewer, and water).
When a revenue /cost ratio is greater than 1.0, it means that the project is more than paying its way its the local
community; in other words, creating more public revenues than public costs. Revenue /cost ratios directly generated
by the three case studies, assuming a leakage rate of 60 percent, for the counties in which the projects are located
were calculated to be:
Kuleana Club: 2.8
Sanibel Beach Club II: 6.6
. San Diego Country Estates: 3.5
These results were based on the most conservative treatment of timeshare accommodations expenditures.
They would indicate an even more favorable revenue /cost balance if a greater proportion of timeshare investments,
beyond just maintenance and use fees, were included as income to the community. For example, timeshare sales
bring funds into a community which can in turn result in investments and enterprise which bring further economic
benefits. Such benefits are not associated with hotel or other rental accommodation development, although rental
income does accrue over a much greater period of time.
A very important factor related to expenditure patterns and public revenues /costs was the finding that con-
siderably less seasonality in occupancy is found in timeshare projects than in comparable quality hotels or wholly
owned resort condominium projects. Year -round occupancy is more stable in timeshare projects because owners
probably feel some type of psychological obligation to vacation there forthe time they have purchased. Such patterns
are, of course, very important to local merchants, many of whom would appreciate more steady year -round expendi-
ture patterns.
For the two case study projects for which the information was available, the overall annual occupancy rates
were 78 and 85 percent, high by visitor accommodation standards. In the three case study communities, only San
Diego rental accommodations (80 percent) approached these figures. Amore general comparison of timeshare occu-
pancy conducted in 1979 showed that in a nationwide study of 60 developers, the average occupancy of theirtime-
share units was about 78 percent, compared to 50 percent for rental units."
Employment Patterns
Employment considerations in the three case studies included direct employment in timeshare projects, plus
employment created in the surrounding community through timeshare visitor expenditures. The nature of timeshare
18 accommodations limits the direct employment it offers compared to that associated with most rental accommoda-
tions. Hotei and motel operations not only provide greater number of direct services than timeshare, butalso include
more restaurants, shops, or other facilities which offer employment.
11
The data indicated that timeshare units are among the lowest providers of such direct on -site employment. It 41
was also evident, however, that this employment was not subject to strong seasonal variations, such as was evident! n
many resort communities. It also consisted of a high proportion of full -time positions which are useful as primary
family income.
Although on -site timeshare employment is limited, employment occurs off -site in restaurants, stores, and
recreational facilities which attract timeshare visitor expenditures. The relatively high non- accommodation expendi-
tures of timeshare parties, compared to the average tourist party will lead to relatively greater indirect employment
generated by timeshare development. The low seasonality of timeshare use also fosters a steady stream of expendi-
tures in the community, hence minimizing seasonal variations in employment opportunities. The greater the propor-
tion of timeshare in a community, the greater this smoothing effect will be.
Whether overall timeshare related employment, on -site as well as off -site, is greater than for rental accom-
modations was not determined in the study. Timeshare visitor party non - accommodation expenditures well in excess
of those for the average party will probably produce indirect employment which will easily offset the more limited
employment in accommodations firms. A more similar level of such spending, however, given the labor intensity and
relatively low leakage of accommodations firms, will probably be associated with greater direct and indirect employ-
ment created by rental accommodations. In any event, the community with a relatively diverse and well developed
commercial sector will capture a greater proportion of visitor expenditures, and this ability is of greater importance
than small differences in expenditure levels among types of visitors.
Timeshare development also offers employment during an initial sales phase, setting it apart from other
accommodation types. This is in addition to employment associated with construction and/or renovation. The data
indicates, however, that much of this employment is created outside the communities in which the timeshare projects
are located, limiting local benefits. Study data showed that sales employment and expenditures were located pre-
dominately outside the local community in all but Hawaii; in addition, the average local proportion for construction
and renovation expenses was about half, Those communities with relatively developed economies will be able to cap-
ture a greater portion of these development expenditures, particularly if the developer is committed to patronizing
local firms, and employing local residents.
Other Expenditures
In addition to the economic impacts already mentioned, timeshare projects also contribute other monetary
expenditures to the economic base of both the local area and elsewhere. Such expenditures can be divided into three
categories including development, sales, and on -going expenditures.
Development Expenditures. As an example of variations in expenditures amongst timeshare projects,
some comparisons can be made between the three case studies. For instance, land costs ranged from
$1.5 million for the 5.7 acre site for Sanibel Beach Club II to $200,000 for the 5.0 acres at San Diego
Country Estates. Also, while the latter project contributed $194,000 in government fees and applications
(including a$120,000 systems development charge), no permitsof any kindwere required forconverting
condominium units to timeshare units at Kuleana Club. San Diego Country Estates paid outside attor-
neys some $70,000 to prepare the California timeshare registration forms, while this fee was only$7,500
for Sanibel Beach Club 11 and not originally required for Kuleana Club (although the project was regis-
tered in the State of Hawaii since the conduct of the case study).
Design and land planning fees ranged from $11,500 for the 30 converted units at Kuleana Club to
$160,000 for the 29 new units at Sanibel Beach Club 11. The former project, being a conversion, had no
site development costs, while San Diego Cotantry Estates required about $500,000 forthis Item. The high
costs of building a new project compared to converting from condominiums is highly emphasized with
the costs of construction. For instance, Kuleana Club expended only $240,000 in this category while
Sanibel Beach Club 11 cost about $2 million and San Diego Country Estates about $3.5 million. On a per
unit basis, these totals represent about $8,000, $68,200, and $54,700, respectively.
12
• Due to the lack of complete information from one of the projects, it is impossible to provide overall
summary figures for development costs. However, it is known that over $4.5 million was spent at San
Diego Country Estates in development costs, and about $3.8 million at Sanibel Beach Club 11. It is
assumed that considerably lesser amounts were spent at the other project since it was a conversion
rather than a newly built project.
These figures represent an average of about $71,000 for the 64 units at San Diego Country Estates and a
very high $132,000 for the 29 units at Sanibel Beach Club 11.
Despite the effort to document thoroughly development expenditures made by resort timeshare pro-
jects, it is realized that some items have been neglected. An obvious item concerns contributions made
to leading institutions in the local community orelsewhere. Such contributions include: (a) interest pay-
ments made by the developer on construction loans; (b) interest payments made by the consumers on
take -out loans; and (c) income to designated companies from pre -sales escrow deposits.
2. Sales Expenditures. Variations in total sales costs were less extreme than for development costs ranging
from $1.2 million at Kuleana Club to $3.0 million at San Diego Country Estates. However, the ranges are
quite wide when comparing specific items. For example, Kuleana Club only spent $78,000 on advertis-
ing and promotion whereas this figure was $1.2 million at San Diego Country Estates. On a per- interval-
sold basis, it cost an average of $965 at Kuleana Club, $1,404 at Sanibel Beach Club II and $1,875 at San
Diego Country Estates.
Estimates by two of the developers in regard to the proportion that sales costs were of total gross sales
ranged from 22 percent at Sanibel Beach Club 11 to 27 percent at San Diego Country Estates.
. 3. 'On-Going Operating Expenditures. Developers of the three case study projects also were asked to
estimate their annual on -going project costs. These total annual costs ranged from $262,000 at Sanibel
Beach Club I1 to $465,000 at San Diego Country Estates. One of the more significant variations in these
expenditures is the high property tax paid by Sanibel Beach Club 11 ($95,000) compared to the other
projects, especially Kuleana Club ($3,640).
Wide variations occur amongst the projects when reviewing the proportion of expenditures which were
made in the local community. For instance, 95 percent of the development expenditures for Kuleana
Club were made in the local area of Maui County (probably due to the expense of bringing in outside
workers and the availability of local contractors), and 70 percent of these expenditures for San Diego
Country Estates were made in the small town of Ramona (primarily due to the policy of the employer to
employ local people). Conversely, this proportion was only 13 percent at Sanibel Beach Club ii (pri-
marily due to the lack of local labor force).
The bulk of sales expenditures, both for commissions and advertising, were made outside the local areas,
ranging from 43 percent at Kuleana Club to 77 percent at Sanibel Beach Club 11.
When aggregating 46 different expenditure items for the three case study projects, it appears that 41.2 per-
cent of the total expenditures were made in the designated "local areas" and 58.8 percent were made elsewhere. The
123 total units and 4,300 sold intervals generated about $7.0 million in development expenditures and $63 million in
sales expenditures. On a per unit /interval basis, this would represent $56,900 per unit for development. expenditures
and $1,465 per interval for sales expenditures. Some 52.3 percent of the total development expenditures were made in
the local areas, as were 28.3 percent of the total sales expenditures.
In regard to on -going operational costs, the 123 units and 4,300 intervals generated about $1.1 million of
expenditures from July 1979 through June 1980. This represents $8,943 per unit and $186 per weekly interval. Some
43.3 percent of these expenditures were made in the local areas.
•
13
Other Impacts
The purpose of this concluding section is to provide some brief and rather subjective! nsights into compara-
tive impacts on public services created by resort timeshare projects, wholly owned resort condom inium projects, and
transient overnight accommodations. in regard to the two latter categories, emphasis is on: (1) condominium projects
containing organized rental pools; and (2) larger hotels /motels.
Comments are based primarily upon conjecture offered by the author and /or the various interviewees as part
of the field research for the three case studies. Actual verification on the impacts is dependent upon more extensive
research. In each of the case study projects, interviews were held with staff from numerous public agencies toascer-
tain whether variations in demand for services existed amongst different forms of tourist accommodations. Un-
fortunately, these dozens of interviews resulted in little usable information. No public agency in any three corn -
munities had any quantitative comparative data. Several interviewed persons expressed subjective comments but
could provide no supporting numbers. Most conversations resulted in reactions of the, "on the one hand,..., but t' en
again on the other hand ..." variety. From the three case study communities, at least, it appears safe to conclude that
no definitive answers yet exist as to which type of tourist accommodation creates most demand for public services:
resort timeshare, resort condominiums, or hotels /motels. The following sections simply provide some qualitative
insights which may br may not be entirety accurate. It should be noted that many of the insights reflect positively on
resort timesharing. Again, these comments are directed toward the larger, higher quality projects. They cannot be
generalized to the numerous small, marginal quality projects containing, for example, a handful of converted motel
units with neither_- recreational amenities nor adequate management.
1. Police. Tourists in general usually place more demands on the public service of police protection in
resort areas than do permanent residents, not because they themselves commit more crimes, but because they are
more vulnerable to burglaries. Concentrating on enjoyment and recreation, they frequently forget the usual protec-
tive procedures of locking doors, not leaving valuables in the car, finding a safe place in the residence to hide valu-
ables, and so forth. 0
Resort.timeshare occupants perhaps are less vulnerable than the more transient hotel occupants due to
being better acquainted with their living space (for safe storage) and hence being less apt to keep valuables in their
cars.
Timeshare projects tend to have higher year -round occupancy rates than do hotels and especially resort
condominium projects. On the one hand, this is positive toward timesharing because burglary rates tend to be higher
in these units. However, larger hotels often have an internal security force which frequently handles many problems.
in timeshare projects and most resort condominium projects, the first telephone call upon the occurrence of a pro-
blem is made to the local police station.
2. Fire. Interviewed staff from local fire departments in the three case study communities report that more
serious fires probably tend to occur in hotels due to a higher degree of transient occupancy, the possibility of major
kitchen or electrical fires, etc. However, these buildings are probably better serviced with fire preventive facilities.
They also more frequently have their own internal fire brigade which has received advanced training. Fewer trained
employees usually exist in timeshare and resort condominium projects. Also, the frequency of fires in the latter two
types of projects is probably greater because most units have their own individual kitchen. Occurrence of fires in
tourist accommodations was not cited as a serious problem in any of the three communities.
3. Roads. Shorter -term, more highly transient residents in hotels probably use the local road /highway sys-
tem more intensively because they spend a greater proportion of theirtime sight- seeing. Timeshare and resort condo-
minium occupants probably undertake sight - seeing in a more leisurely manner due to their longer average -stay -per-
visit. The amount of sight - seeing is, of course, dependent upon the surrounding attractions and the supply and quality
of on -site recreational amenities.
Impact on local roads raises an important question which can be generalized to a series of other impacts and
is basic to the entire tourism industry. The issue concerns a community's willingness or hesitancy to welcome tourists
14
on a year -round basis versus just during seasonal peaks. For example, local opposition to resort timesharing h2s been
raised by some sectors of the Sanibel Island community. There, occupancy of resort timesharing is quite high
throughout the year, whereas occupancy of resort condominiums and hotels/ motels tends to peak during spring and
winter and fall off considerably during summer and fall. Many Sanibel Island residents are opposed to high year -
round occupancy because it creates constant use of local public services, road congestion, etc., and does not allow
periods of low -use. Other sectors of the Sanibel Island community support resort timesharing because year -round
high occupancy creates a more stable economic situation due to consistent expenditure patterns in locat stores,
restaurants, and other places.
4. Recreation. Since occupants of timeshare and resort condominium units tend to have longervisits than
do hotel occupants, they perhaps place greater demands on local public parks and recreational facilities. This, of
course, depends upon the extent, type, and quality of on -site recreational amenities. Local residents probably prefer
timeshare projects which provide a full -range of on -site amenities, thereby making them more self- contained.
5. Solid Waste Disposal. According to interviewed local staff, limited variation probably occurs with
demand for this public service amongst the three types of tourist accommodations. Larger hotels generate much solid
waste due to their extensive kitchen /restaurant facilities. On the other hand, occupancy rates tend to be higher in
timeshare projects and the vast majority of the units have their own individual kitchens.
6. Public Utilities and Energy. It is probable that hotels make more per visitor party demands on energy
sources (electricity, gas, and oil) and water and sewer facilities than do resort timeshare and condominium projects.
This assumption depends upon occupancy rates, extent of internal facilities, and so forth.
Most larger hotels have their own kitchens, restaurants, laundries, and other support facilities, all of which
require extensive servicing by water and sewer. Potential major servicing problems are greater in larger kitchens due
to clogging of grease traps and breakdown of other machinery.
. On a per unit basis, timeshare and resort condominium units probably make greater demands because of: (a)
the higher frequency of individual kitchens; and (b) the fact that the occupants probably spend more time in their units
than do the more transient hotel occupants which creates more opportunities for showering, hand washing, toilet
flushing, and so forth.
Complaints about perceived high - number -of- persons- per - visitor -party have been made about resort time-
share projects. Accusations concern a perceived "piling -in" of large numbersof persons perunit, which intern would
create greater demands on water, sewer, roads, and other public services. Responses from interviewed timeshare
developers negate these accusations and imply that their occupancy numbers are more highly regulated than those
in resort condominium projects (where on -site management frequently does notexist) or in motels (where itmight be
economically advantageous to accept more people because higher rates can be charged).
It also is possible that timeshare occupants are more careful about the amount of water and electricity they
use than are occupants of hotels and rental pool condominiums because they (as a group of many owners) end up
paying utility charges through their annual dues /assessments. Occupants of hotels and rental pool condominiums
might be more inclined to think, "Since I am paying a high priceforthe use of this facilityand since I am not personally
being charged for the utilities, why be careful about conserving electricity and water ?" Admittedly, the extra charges
created by overuse of energy and water during a one -week stay ina timeshare unit are rather minimal, and may or may
not actually effect use - habits of the occupants.
r1
15
A Model for Assessing Economic Effects of Timeshare Projects 4
A review of the overall methodology of these case studies is worthwhile for those who are interested in their replication in
other communities or situations. This concluding section summarizes the broad research and offers a model for timeshare analysis
which is intended to facilitate the assessment of timeshare development in a range of circumstances and in a manner which relies
on a minimum of primary data collection and sophisticated analysis.
The approach and primary components of the model are illustrated on the following page. Overall, there are three phases;
data collection, analysis, and the assessment of the results. Each of these phases has a number of components as well,
f. Data Collection. The diversity of information required, and the number of locations from which it must be collected,
lead to a considerable time commitment, First, the future timeshare visitor must be described requiring a survey, or the use of avail-
able data if possible, of estimate expenditures, average party size, length of stay, and other timeshare visitor characteristics. Data
from other Communities must be used if timeshare is not established locally. This information is used primarily for the revenue/
cost analysis. Second, comparable data describing non - timeshare visitors is necessary for purposes of comparison, Data allowing
more than one comparison group is most useful since comparisons provide some of the most illuminating resuffs of the study.
Sources for this information include visitor bureaus, government research units (such as state or regional tourism office;), plan-
ning departments, or private sector development or banking firms. A certain amount of investigation may be necessaryto unearth
all that is available.
Third, the proposed timeshare resort itself must be described, using data which are generally collected from the owner
and /or operator. This includes a wide range of descriptive and economic data covering expected operations, expenditures, and
income and sales, Much of this material is most useful ifthe study involves comparisons among several timeshare projects or com-
parisons between timeshare and rental accommodations. However, certain data will be necessary in any case, including antici-
pated tax payments, employment, and occupancy and seasonality figures,
The fourth category consists of information on rental and other accommodations against which timeshare will be com-
pared. Such °data include tax payments, employment, and occupancy figures.
Finally, a considerable amount of data must be collected from the community. This includes data on government costs
and revenues by category, the latter for a period of at least several years. Such data are collected from each level of government*
for which a revenue /cost analysis will be conducted (municipal and county are used in the current study) and may require visits to
a number of different government units. Population and visitor estimates for several years are also necessary for the community,
Certain other data used in the revenue /cost analysis are available from the U.S. government in regular publications.
2. Analysis. The analysis stage of this study is organized into three components. The first, and most detailed, is the com-
parison of public sector revenues and costs for timeshare projects, and a limited comparison with rental accommodations. The
second component includes an estimation of the direct employment generated by timeshare developments, a brief discussion of
indirect employment, and a comparison with other forms of accommodation. Overall, the level of detail is more limited than forthe
first component. A final component reviews a range of timeshare project characteristics and presents a qualitative comparison
between timeshare and other visitor use of public facilities and services, The analytic procedures used for each component are
related to the level of detail involved and the quantity of data available.
3. Direct Revenue /Cost Analysis. The procedure used for the direct revenue /cost analysis is illustrated on page 22,
Analysis begins by estimating public sector costs per visitor -day. Budget expenditure figures loran appropriate and recent period
are used to represent costs. Departments, programs, or other budget categories are chosen which represent expenditure areas
directly related to visitor activities. There is some discretion regarding what is included here, but recreation, transportation, public
safety and perhaps facilities such as water and sewer are probably appropriate. Care should be taken to assess whether these
figures are reasonably representative of the expenses of a typical year, considering inflation. Also, capital items in these categories
should be included; the capital expenses for the year chosen can be simply taken as the typical expenditure, or capital
expenditures can be averaged over several years so as to smooth the year -to -year variations one typically sees in capital expenses.
A final step in estimating total direct costs is to remove thost costs which are covered by transfers such as federal revenue sharing,
block grant, transportation or other funds. Removing these amounts yields the net expenses which must be covered by local
revenue sources.
A portion of these costs are allocated to visitors depending on their average proportion in the area's population over the
Period studied. Average population figures are summed with the annual average visitor census to yield the total number of resi-
dents and visitors to whom government costs can be attributed. Deriving the averages can be difficult in communities with highly
seasonal visitor and /or resident population, However, it is important to include all visitors, if possible, so as to avoid over-
estimating per - visitor costs. Finally, the total net direct cost figure is divided by the average resident /visitor population to yield the
average cost per visitor -year (assuming the period study in one year). Note that this is the same cost one would assign to a resident
for a year, an assumption implicit in this cost allocation approach, This cost per visitor -year, multiplied by the total number of
visitor -years generated by the project under analysis, gives the total direct costs the project generates,
19
•
r�
•
Evaluation Model
Timeshare Impacts
z
O
w
J
J
O
U
a
90 ,
TIMESHARE DATA (individual Projects and Visitors)
OTHER VISITOR DATA (Projects and Visitors)
LOCAL ECONOMIC DATA 1 1 n F
REVENUE /COST
EMPLOYMENT
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
• Direct Effects
• Direct Effects
• Total Effects
• Total Effects
0 TIMESHARE TIMESHARE
W
OTHER OTHER
Q TOURISM TOURISM
Q COMPARISONS COMPARISONS
H
z
W
COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT
GOALS
U)
QUALITATIVE
COMPARISONS
• Project
Characteristics
• Facilities Use
TIMESHARE
OTHER
TOURISM
COMPARISONS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
OF TIMESHARING
i
0
Estimating visitor - related public sector income is somewhat more complex due to the variety of sources from which it is
derived. The model used is based on the premise that certain revenues derive from visitor expenditures and the economy activity
they generate in the local community, and a portion from property tax and other levies on the timeshare project itself.
Direct revenues derived from visitor expenditures are considered in two categories. The first consists of tax and other
income on that portion of expenditures which is leaked out of the community immediately after being received by individuals and
firms in the area. If leakage rates are available in the community under study they can be used at this stage. The current study em-
ploys a range of leakages to compensate for these values being unavailable for the case study communities. Local taxes which
most commonly apply to such leaked expenditures are sales or excise taxes, but other taxes, such as a roorh tax, might be included
as well. To summarize, the total revenues from this source consist of:
revenues from leaked expenditures = (total visitor
expenditures) x (proportion leaked from the community)
x (local tax rate on expenditures),
In some cases, there is no income in this category since the government unit had no sales or other expenditure tax.
Estimating government income on the portion of expenditures which is retained in the community makes use of his-
torical data on tax and other revenues for the government unit involved. Estimating this relationship involves analyzing govern-
ment revenues over a period of at least several years, comparing changes in revenues tc changes in personal income of community
residents. The major assumptions are: (a) that historical relationships between the income of community residents and govern-
ment revenues will hold; and (b) that all visitor expenditures which do not leak out of the community can therefore be considered
direct income to community residents. The formula is as follows:
revenues from detained expenditures = (revenue elasticity)
x (revenue proportion of income) x (income from tourist expenditures)
Revenue elasticity is the change in government revenues which is associated with a change in community income. In a
community with a tax system which is responsive to increases in its residents' incomes, this would have a value of more than 1.0.
Elasticity values can be estimated using relatively simple tabular techniques as in this study, or if more data are availale, the use
of statistical regression analysis is appropriate. 0
The revenue proportion represents that percentage of community income which is collected as government revenues
Transfer payments should be excluded from the revenue figures so as to be consistent with excluding such payments from the cost
figures calculated earlier, Most other forms of income should be included, however such as property taxes, fees, assessments, or
other sources of local government income. These figures are typically available from budget documents of the government units
involved. It is necessary that these documents list transfer payments separately, on both the revenue and cost sides, so they may
be deleted.
The income gained from this portion of tourist expenditures will always be larger than that gained from leaked expendi-
tures since it includes whatever direct levies exist on visitor expenditures but adds to these the less direct income gained from indi-
viduals and firms who receive this income. In some communities, the only direct revenues from tourist expenditures derive from
the proportion of expenditures which is not leaked.
The revenue elasticity and revenue proportions of income figures are derived from past financial records of the com-
munity and hence represent conditions of the past. In some cases, these conditions may show considerable change, limiting the
appropriateness of using these figures to represent the situation in the future. This was the case in San Diego County, where
changes in tax laws altered the means by which local government is funded and made past tax collection performance unrepresen-
tative of future conditions. In such cases, the use of this methodology requires estimating the necessary figures from other
sources, such as previous studies, secondary data, or professional judgments, and decreased the reliability of the revenue esti-
mates derived,
The third and final component of revenues are those levies paid directly by the project in the form of property taxes,
license fees, or other on -going assessments. Only those levies which accr,te to the government unit under study should be
included; that is, if the municipality is the unit of study, non - municipal levies should be excluded, such as county or state taxes. In
study, school taxes were excluded from direct revenue calculations since school costs were considered indirect costs of
'ourism development. These taxes were included in estimates of the total revenue gained by the community. The total direct reve-
"uQ figure can then be derived by summing the revenues from leaked and retained expenditures and from direct levies.
21
r�
LJ
•
Evaluation Model
Timeshare Impacts
z
O
1=
w
J
J
O
U
LO
TIMESHARE DATA (Individual Projects and Visitors)
OTHER VISITOR DATA (Projects and Visitors)
LOCAL ECONOMIC DATA I F
REVENUE /COST
EMPLOYMENT
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
• Direct Effects
• Direct Effects
• Total Effects
• Total Effects
CQ TIMESHARE TIMESHARE
U)
OTHER OTHER
Q TOURISM TOURISM
Q COMPARISONS COMPARISONS
z
w
COMMUNITY
U) DEVELOPMENT
CO
w GOALS
+)
U)
Q
QUALITATIVE
COMPARISONS
• Project
Characteristics
• Facilities Use
TIMESHARE
OTHER
TOURISM
COMPARISONS
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
OF TIMESHARING
20
ANALYSIS MODEL
DIRECT REVENUE COST
VISITOR DIRECT DIRECT PUBLIC
EXPENDITURES TAX RATE SERVICES AND
FACILITIES COSTS
IMPORT
CONTENT
r --
HISTORICAL
REVENUE/
PERSONAL
INCOME
RELATIONSHIP
REVENUES
ON LEAKED
EXPENDITURES
REVENUES
ON
RETAINED
EXPENDI -
TURES
REVENUES FROM
EXPENDITURES
DIRECT
TAX REVENUES
TOTAL
REVENUES
PER VISITOR
22
POPULATION
AND VISITOR
CENSUS
AVERAGE DIRECT
COST PER
VISITOR
DIRECT
REVENUE /COST
COMPARISON
L
FOOTNOTES
1. The CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos, CA
2. Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. (1981). The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic Impact
Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes, American Land Development Association, Washing-
ton, D.C.
3. Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc. (1978). Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy,
CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos, California.
4. Hawaii Visitors Bureau (1978). "1977 Hawaii Visitor Expenditure Survey," Honolulu.
5. Hopkins, Michael, and Marjorie Penseyres (1979). "Study of Resort Condominium Visitor Expendi-
tures," prepared for the Hawaii Resort Developers Conference, June 1979,
6. San Diego Convention and Visitors Bureau (1979). Visitor Industry Digest, December.
7. Florida Division of Tourism (1980). Statewide Quarterly Reports, Office of Marketing Research,
Tallahassee,
8. Romney, Keith and Associates (1979). Unpublished report produced by Keith Romney and Associates.
n
1 1
23
u
t
a
f
t
ADDENDUM
During the interim period of time between completion of The Resort Timesharing Industry; A Socio-
Economic Impact Analysis of Resort Timesharing in Two Volumes and the publication of the Summary
contained herein, Richard L. Ragatz Associates, Inc., has completed three additional nation -wide surveys of
the resort,timesharing market. These include: (1) a 1981 survey of about 300 timeshare owners in the United
Kingdom=from 70 different projects in Europe, which was conducted forthe International Property Timeshare
Conference; (2) a 1981 survey of about 1,500 timeshare owners in Canada from 102 different projects in
Canada and the United States, which was conducted for the Resort Timesharing Council of Canada; and (3) a
1982 survey of about 5,200 timeshare owners in the United States from 244 different projects, which was
sponsored by Resort Condominiums International. The purpose of this Addendum is to briefly summarize
some of the additional data in order to provide the reader with the most current information available on the
timeshare market.
The.following tables show how selected items have varied amongst these four national surveys (and an
earlier 1978 survey conducted in cooperation with RCI). For the most part, results have been quite similar,
although some subtle variations are apparent and are more fully explained in the five individual documents.
25
•
w
Survey
Selected Items
1982
1980
1978
1981
1981
US'
USz
U5 3
UK
Canadas
1. Consumer Characteristics
Average Age
45.8
45.4
44.5
48.8
44.1
Median income
$37,500
$33,500
$23,000
$30,400
$40,000
Average years of education
15.1
15.4
15.0
n/a
14.5
Average children at home
1.0
1.5
1.2
0.6
1.4
Percent of married households
88.3
89.4
92.6
90.7
87.7
II. Timeshare Characteristics
Average weeks purchased
1.6
1.8
1.2
2.1
1.9
Average maintenance fee
$144
$119
$95
$101
$123
Percent studio units
16.7
10.8
26.9
5.0
30.8
Percent 2- bedroom units
41.9
60.2
30.1
72.9
24.0
Percent paid cash
28.8
32.4
32.0
92.8
50.
Ili. Satisfaction with Purchase
Per expressing satisfaction
78.5
86.3
84.8
89.8
88.1
Percent who would purchase in hindsight
62.5
72.5
78.1
84.7
73.6
Percent who would buy more
49.3
61.5
47.6
74.0
78.6
Percent who would sell
20.7
18.6
13.9
14.4
13.5
Percent satisfied with exchange
87.6
89.6
90.7
92.8
90.1
IV. Percent Who Purchased For:
Exchange privileges
79.1
71.4
75.3
50.6
74.2
Save money in future
65.4
59.4
63.0
71.4
71.8
Investment or resale
37.3
38.8
38.0
49.6
31.6
Like timeshare unit
27.7
30.4
30.0
34.5
28.1
V. Miscellaneous Items
Percent used own timeshare
60.3
62.0
57.2
32.9
66.7
Percent requested exchange
55.4
36.7
32.9
12.6
35.0
Total vacation expenditures
$540
$507
n/a
$430
$644
Average distance from home
585
598
n/a
364
1,441
1. Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy - 1982 Edition. Available from Richard L. Ragatz
Associates, Inc., 998 Ferry Lane, Eugene, Oregon 97401, (503) 686 -9335.
2. The Resort Timesharing Industry: A Socio- Economic Impact Analysis of Resort TimeSharing in Two
Volumes. Available from National Timesharing Council, American Land Development Association, 1000
16th St., NW, Suite 604, Washington, D.C. 20036, (202) 659 -4582.
3. Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Published by the CHB Company, Inc., Los Altos,
CA.
4. United Kingdom Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Available from Richard L. Ragatz
Associates, Inc.
5. Canadian Timeshare Purchasers: Who They Are, Why They Buy. Available from Resort Timesharing
Council of Canada, Ste 1903, P.O. Box 12, Toronto'Dominion Bank Tower, Toronto, Ontario, M5K 1A8,
(416) 361 -1207, 868 -1900.
26
J �
The Authors
RICHARD L. RAGATZ has been active in research and analysis of the vacation and recreational land markets
since 1965. His Ph.D. dissertation from Cornell University is recognized as the first thorough document written on
these topics, and he has published extensively in both scholarly journals and trade magazines.
His academic background includes a Ph.D. degree in City and Regional Planning from Cornell University, a
Master's degree in City and Regional Planning from the University of California, and a Bachelor's degree in Geo-
graphy from the University of California. In addition to consulting activities, his related professional experience in-
cludes: Professor, 'Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Universityof Oregon (1969 -81), Assistant Professor,
Department of Housing and Design, Cornell University (1966- 1969), and research positions with the Center for
Housing and Environmental Studies at Cornell University.
DEAN RUNYAN has participated in a number of research studies regarding tourism and vacation housing.
His work has emphasized the economic and social aspects of tourism and recreation and has been published as
reports and in academic journals.
He received his Ph.D, in Urban and Regional Planning from the University of Michigan. Previously, he earned
a Master's degree in Industrial Engineering from Michigan and a Bachelor's degree in Engineering from the University
of California at Los Angeles. He currently holds the position of Associate Professor in the Department of Urban and
Regional Planning at the University of Oregon (1978- 1981). Previously, he was Assistant Professor in the Department
of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Hawaii (1973 - 1978), and held research positions at the Hawaii
Environmental Simulation Laboratory in Honolulu and the Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor.
btatement or Purpose
Community leaders, sensing the serious nature of the economic, social and environmental challenges that face Vail, have
organized a concerted effort to plan for the future rather than wait for the future to happen. The focus of the plan is the near
future, and the objective is to make as much progress as possible during the next several years.
Given Vail's location, physical configuration, programs, facilities, human resources, recognized markets, and current product
orientation, overall community goals for the next several years should be:
. 1. To recognize that Vail is moving quickly from an economy based on recreation and real estate to a mature resort
community with a stronger more diverse economic and social base. Marketing the community and providing service
to guests remains extremely important.
2. To recognize and strengthen Vail's principal products and services:
• Quality of life
• Outdoor sports
• Social recreation
• Business and professional meetings
• Education and the arts
i The mountain environment
1 To set community direction through united leadership.
Reaching these broad goals will require achieving a series of other goals.
1. To develop, maintain and improve community support programs that sustain and enrich the lives of residents.
2. To assure continuing public and private maintenance and enhancement of major community products and
facilities.
3. To create or expand programs in undeveloped or new product areas.
4. To market and promote all community products within the framework of a community marketing program that is
coordinated when appropriate with regional programs.
5. To create a master plan that provides guidelines for action, establishes procedures for monitoring progress, and
recognizes the special needs of neighborhoods.
There are nine sections to the plan that have been developed by community and business leaders. The sections are Social/
Cultural /Educational, Parks and Recreation, Economic Considerations, Transportation, Community Design, Utilities /Public
Services, Water Use /Water Quality and Air Quality.
Social /Cultural /Educational Considerations
1. The community should improve communications with residents and guests.
• Establish central information clearing house
• Improve use of radio, community television and print media
. • Place kiosks in key locations
• Continue improvement of guest relations programs
• Produce weekly and monthly community bulletins
2. Vail should develop and improve educational, recreational and social programs for children.
3. Vail should improve as an educational and intellectual cultural center.
• Promote Colorado Mountain College
• Research opportunities for attracting other educational institutions
• Promote seminars and conferences
• Develop facilities to provide for these activities
• Develop process and encourage art in public places
4. The Vail Town Council should appoint an ad hoc six -month committee to study the desirability of establishing a
permanent committee on arts and education that would develop art and education programs for community
enrichment and for economic development.
5. Programs should be encouraged that develop the human, spiritual, physical, social and mental resources of the
community.
• Support drug awareness and education programs
• Support mental health programs
• Support other social programs
Parks /Recreation
1. Vail should make every effort to maximize the use of its recreational facilities and resources.
• Comprehensive use plan for Dobson Arena
• Bike paths
• Gore Creek and other streams
• Vail Mountain
• Forest Service lands
• Cross- country trails
• • Eagle County schools
• Eagle County
• Parks
• Open Space
• Tennis facilities
- Vail should recognize that recreational opportunities expand its economic base and should promote the recreational
product effectively.
• Produce recreation guide
• Encourage recreational events that provide national and international stature.
10 3. Vail should develop a parks and recreation master plan.
• Ford Park is the top priority.
4. A short -term commission should be created to:
• Evaluate the economic potential of greater use of Dobson Ice Arena
• Research the potential for expanding recreational opportunities (e.g. Olympic training facilities, sports medicine)
• Evaluate advantages and disadvantages of establishing a recreational board
• Explore creative ways of funding recreational programs and facilities
5. Vail should provide relatively undeveloped open spaces accessible to the core areas (e.g. walking paths and benches
along Gore Creek, conversion of portions of those paths to cross - country ski trails).
Economic Considerations
1. New growth and revitalization are essential to the continued success of Vail.
• Hotel rating system
• Neighborhood planning and upgrading
• Special improvement districts
• Community incentives and awards programs for upgrading of buildings and sites
• Other rating systems to evaluate community products and facilities
2. Develop a comprehensive marketing program.
3. The summer season should be significantly developed and promoted.
• Maximize current summer programs, opportunities and facilities
• Study new . summer programs, opportunities and facilities
• Set up marketing programs to promote the summer season
• Survey summer guests
4. The shoulder seasons also should be significantly developed and promoted.
• Expand shoulder season educational and cultural activities
• Encourage complimentary alternative business
. • Identify and promote opportunities for recreation, shopping, etc.
• Survey shoulder season guests
5. Study the feasibility of an economic development commission to organize efforts to direct this activity.
• Town of Vail, Vail Associates, Vail Resort Association and other interested people represented (5 members)
• Economic information
• Study summer economy
• Study the feasibility of building a convention facility
• Develop a reliable economic data base
• Define the role of municipal government in economic development
6. Employees who provide goods and services to guests should be trained to promote Vail's recreational opportunities.
Transportation
1. Streets, drainage, bike paths, street lights, and signs should be maintained, upgraded and completed.
• Develop ways to finance street improvements
2. Vail should continue to have a high quality bus system and should look for long -term funding.
3. Transportation problems should be studied, solutions found and implemented.
• Develop master circulation plan for Gore Valley
• Four -way stop
• East Lionshead Circle
• Golden Peak
• East and West Vail Interchanges
• Service and delivery vehicles in Vail Village
4. The Town should continue to review the need for additional parking.
5. The Town should continue to explore fixed systems of transportation and other systems to determine the economic
feasibility of using these systems in Vail Village and Lionshead.
� 6. Transportation links between Stapleton Airport and Vail should be strengthened and promoted.
. The feasibility of implementing a transportation system for the upper Eagie Valley should he further explored.
8. The problems and opportunities of transporting people to Colorado and Vail by air and rail should be explored.
9. A long -term funding mechanism for transportation systems should be provided.
I0. Develop strong and effective relationship with Colorado Highway Department to resolve problems on Interstate 70 and
the frontage roads.
'
Community Design
1.
Detailed physical planning should take place to insure planned, informed decisions about land use.
• Develop a comprehensive series of plans: Gore Creek and its tributaries, master plan and landscaping plan for the
entire Gore Valley, master plan for Vail Mountain, landscape plan for Town of Vail, master plan for parks and
recreation, neighborhood and land use plans.
• Create design guidelines for the community and for neighborhoods.
2.
Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site improvements should be encouraged.
• Stimulate community awareness
• Incentives
3.
The Town of Vail should make long -range plans to meet needs for employee housing.
4.
` - A process should be established for defining neighborhoods and for planning neighborhood improvements.
• A sense of neighborhood identity should be fostered
• Inform. neighborhoods of zoning and land use decisions
• Set up private /public joint ventures for improvement
5.
Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property owners and of the town.
• Completely finish site improvements and ! andscaping
• Create special improvement districts
6.
The Town of Vail and Vail Associates should formalize Vail Associates' dedication of land to the Town.
7.
The Town should continue to preserve unique natural features as open space or park land to enhance the uuality of life
in Vail.
8. When pine bark beetles, Canadian thistles, or other natural infestations threaten the environment, the Town should
set up a preventative program.
• Reforestation plan
4. Acquiring key parcels of land through the purchase of development rights, fee simple gifts or purchases financially
feasible and other measures should be a Town priority.
10. Landscaping and signs that complement the environment should enhance entryways to the Town and to neighborhoods.
11. The community should stimulate activity and improve ambience within the core areas.
• Street lighting
• Streetscape planning and design
• Street events, entertainment and special events
• Aesthetic and effective signage
Utilities /Public Services
1. All new utility distribution and service lines should be located underground and the Town should work with utility
companies to bury all above - ground lines.
2. The Town should continue to work with utility companies to develop contingency plans that can be used when there are
power outages or when various utility systems are unavailable.
3. The Town should institute a system to regulate the design and placement of all utility systems for safety, aesthetics, and
other factors affecting the welfare of the community.
4. The Town should continue to supply the various public service companies with development statistics and other data
so the companies can measure present and future demands.
Water Use /Water Quality
1. Surface water, underground water, and related ecosystems should be protected from depletion and degradation.
2. The Town should continue the use of water saving devices and techniques in existing and proposed developments.
3. The Town should make the strongest possible efforts to keep Gore Valley water for the Gore Valley.
4. Minimum stream flows should be determined and maintained.
5. Reservoirs and other water projects should promote the most beneficial, efficient use of water resources.
6. The Town should work with the Colorado Division of Wildlife to improve the fish and wildlife habitat of Gore Creek
and other streams within the Gore Valley.
• Gold medal stream designation for Gore Creek
7. The Town should continue to work with the Upper Eagle Valley and Sanitation District to ensure the efficient, cost
effective provision of water and sanitation services.
0 Air Quality
1. The Town should continue to monitor air quality in the Gore Valley and, when deemed appropriate and necessary,
should study and implement measure to control air quality.
Thanks to the task force members, Town Council, Planning and Environmental Commission, citizens of the community and
Town staff who have spent many hours working on developing this plan. Success of the plan will be in implementation of the
policies over the next few years.
kn
Recommendations on Lodging
Time Sharing Discourage conversion of hotel -type units to
timeshare ownership . Although the real estate transfer tax generates
cQ►tl' ��_� more revenue than the sales tax on hotel room revenues, within three
COMM. N X:_ or four years the tax on room occupancy will exceed the one -time real
T6 estate transfer tax. However, conversion of condominiums to timeshare
7 WA OFVAIL, ownership has the potential of increasing utilization of the units- -and
44L. ��/ ��.� higher utilization means more visitor spending, more jobs, more tax
T_ ( Z
•
revenues. In new time share projects, units without kitchens should be
encouraged.
A continuing concern regarding time sharing, however, is the
long -term management commitment after the sales program is
substantially complete. Approximately 40 percent of the project's sales
revenues are committed to sales commissions and/or one -time promotions.
Often, the developer is completely out of the picture; and typically too
many of the time -share owners have relatively little at stake to make a
strong commitment during some type of economic setback.
L ,M..___ A
11 0
Planning and Environmental Commission
December 9, 1985
1:45 pm Site Visits
3:00 pm Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of November 25, 1985
2. Request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage
on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition.
Applicant: Names R. Horton
To be 3. Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand the Potato
tabled Patch Restaurant by including condominium unit #44.
Applicant: Campbell /Heilman, a general partnership
To be 4. A request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback
tabled variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other
outdoor dining at Burger King.
Applicant: Snowquest
5. Request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public parking
on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail Associates
6. Preliminary review of exterior alteration proposals concerning:
a. Treetops, Lionshead
b. Hill Building, Vail Village
c. Hong Kong Cafe, Vail Village
d. Plaza Lodge, Vail Village
7. Announcement of ,point work session with Town Council
December 17 concerning Doubl
•
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
December 9, 1985
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Tom Briner Tom Braun
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 pm by Duane Piper, chairman.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of November 25. Donovan moved and Schultz
seconded to approve the minutes. Vote was 5 in favor with Viele abstaining.
2. Reauest for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage on Lot
9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition. Applicant: James R. Horton
Tom Braun gave the staff presentation explaining that saving a number of trees
justified the 4.5 foot encroachment. Viele moved and Hopkins seconded to
approvethe request per the staff memo. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
3. Request for a conditional use permit to expand the Potato Patch Restaurant
by including condominium unit #44. Applicant:Campbbell /Heilman
• The applicant requested to table until January 13. Donovan moved and Viele
seconded to table. Vote was 6 -0.
4. Request to amend the development plan of Crossroads and for setback
variances in order to enclose an existing deck area and to add other_
outdoor dining at Burger King. Applicant: Snowquest
The applicant requested to table until January 13. Viele moved and Hopkins
seconded to table. Vote was 6 -0 in favor
5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public parking
on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail Associates
Kristan Pritz made the staff presentation. She presented background, the
description of the proposed use, and criteria involved in the evaluation of a
conditional use permit. The staff recommendation was for approval. It was
stated that the proposal provided a short term solution to the Town's lack of
parking. Due to the fact that the land used for parking would be disturbed for
two years anyway, it was felt that the proposal would not negatively impact the
site. Staff did point out that the proposal would only be appropriate for two
years.
Joe Macy, representing Vail Associates, spoke on behalf of the proposal. He
stated that this was to be a short term solution creating 110 -120 parking
spaces.
•
Duane Piper opened the floor for public discussion. Alice Cartwright, golf
course property owner, registered her reservations regarding the proposal. She
was concerned about the additional traffic and slipperiness of the road for
drivers trying to enter and exit the lot. Lou Meskimen asked several questions
regarding project design. Jay Peterson felt that the area was not meant to be a
parking lot and that it would not remain a short term solution. He stated that
once on a site, you do not get rid of parking because the Town has such a great
need for parking. £die Hudson, the manager of the Wren, was concerned about the
road design and the impact on the Wren condos. Pritz also stated that she had
received one call from Louie Pintowski who was against the proposal and one
letter from Monie Beal who was also against the proposal. Piper read into the
record a letter from Marka Moser stating her reservations regarding the project.
PEC comments:
Tom Briner: He asked about the number of spaces in the Golden Peak conversion.
Macy replied that there were 120 spaces converted from employee to public fee
parking. Briner wondered where VA had assumed those employees would park. Macy
answered that they were to be assimilated into other lots such as Chalet Road,
the soccer field, and the golf course. Briner was leery of the short term claim
and felt that there would be problems with day skiers trying to use the lot if
there would not be a permanent parking attendent. He also felt that the parking
had the potential to impact the Nature Center, micro climate along the creek, as
well as views from the Wren and Vail Valley Drive into the park.
Jim Viele: He also shared the concern of the lot being used as a long term
i parking area. However, he pointed out that the area to be used for parking is
currently disturbed and therefore he saw little impact if the use would only be
short term. He did state that if the solution was for more than two years, he
would have reservations about the long term use.
Diana Donovan: Diana stated that she did not see how the proposal met the
approval criteria for a conditional use permit. She felt that it would be
difficult to draw the line on short term /long term use. She stated that Vail
Associates had agreed to lose employee parking at Golden Peak. She pointed out
that the parking on Chalet Road that VA utilized was actually on All Seasons'
property and was lost when the All Seasons' condo association decided to upgrade
and landscape their parking area. She stated that during the Ford Park study
process there were strong community voices stating that there were to be no cars
in the parks. She also felt that there would be negative impacts on cross
country skiers due to the parking. She pointed out that the amphitheatre was
planned to open in the fall of 1986 which seemed to be a conflict with the two
year time frame for the parking. She was concerned that the area around the
amphitheatre not be left without landscaping in 1987 if the amphitheatre was
actually to be opened in the fall of 1986. She felt there seemed to be no
control over who would be parking at the lot, and felt that Vail Associates
should be looking at long range solutions to their parking problems. Donovan
stated that every other employer /business is required to provide parking. She
questioned why Vail Associates did not have the same obligations. She felt the
club house was a good alternative and perhaps the Beaver Creek transit bus could
be used to provide additional bus service to employees using the club house lot.
. She felt that the parking would conflict with the alpine garden. She stated
that originally in the Park master plan the road was thoroughly discussed and
purposely designed with a curve. She felt that a road 20 feet wide would have a
negative impact upon the park. She stated that the curve worked for the number
of vehicles in the summer seasonal use that was required for the amphitheatre.
She also felt that the drop -off from the road down to the creek was very
dangerous for drivers. She emphasized that the traffic from the parking lot
would create congestion on the Frontage Road. She stated concern about
pedestrians walking from Manor Vail to the lot in the dark. She summed up her
comments by stating that she felt that to approve the request would be a grant
of special privilege.
Sid Schultz: Sid asked about the number of parking spaces VA owned in
Lionshead. Macy stated that there were 120 spaces in the North Day lot and that
this proposal was merely making up for the loss of employee parking due to the
Golden Peak conversion. Shultz stated that he felt that VA should be
responsible for providing parking like other employers /businesses, and should
look at long term solutions. He stated that the proposal was a short term band
aid solution.
Pam Hopkins: Pam asked at what level the Town Council had discussed this
project. Staff responded that as land owners, the Council had given their
approval to allow the application to proceed through the conditional use process
at Planning Commission. She suggested that perhaps the $20,000 for the road
could instead pay for a bus driver to handle the route from the golf clubhouse
lot to the mountain. She asked Joe Macy why the golf clubhouse lot was not
used. Joe stated that it was inconvenient for the employees. She was also
concerned with the possibility of drivers sliding into Gore Creek, mud during
nice winter weather, and other traffic concerns. She pointed out that if by
chance this is not a big snow year, the lot will become very muddy.
• Duane Piper: Duane asked Joe Macy when VA would like to begin work on the lot.
Macy stated that construction would take approximately 10 days and that they
would like to begin as soon as possible. VA hoped, if the request was approved,
that they could use the lot by Christmas, 1985. Duane asked if there was
lighting on the Manor Vail bridge. Staff responded that there was no lighting.
It was stated that if the road was constructed, construction may be possible for
the amphitheatre throughout the winter. This construction would involve
bringing in fill for the amphitheatre. Duane asked if the Manor Vail parking
lease would continue if this proposal was approved. Joe responded that they did
have a lease agreement with Manor Vail for 30 spaces and that the 30 spaces are
allocated per department according to numbers in each department. Duane felt
that the parking task force recommendations and the Vail Associates' decision to
allow parking at Golden Peak were good decisions, but that to turn around and
request to use public property to make up that need was questionable. He
questioned the actual benefits to the Town. He felt that the loss of the curve
in the road was a problem, however he felt that the revegetation plan was a
definite plus. Duane suggested that perhaps the land for parking could be
leased from the Town and the money would then be used to develop the lower bench
according to the master plan. He also felt that more control at the entry would
help the proposal and that perhaps the lot should only be used for VA people to
make it easier to distinguish employees from day skiers. Macy responded that
the proposed lot really would be a benefit to the entire community and not just
Vail Associates, as it would help out with our short term parking needs. Duane
stated that it is probable that we were looking for short term solutions through
out 1989 World Championships. Joe again expressed VA's concern over long term
parking solutions. Duane also agreed that parking was very important but that
we need to take great care in the solutions that we come up with.
Alice Cartwright mentioned again that really all VA needed to do was get a bus
from the clubhouse to Golden Peak and that would help out greatly with parking.
Diana mentioned again her concern about the steepness of the road's drop off to
the creek and traffic congestion. She felt that employees need to accept
parking away from the base of the mountain.
Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to deny the request based on the fact that it
did not meet criteria for a conditional use permit. The vote was _5_in favor of
denial and 1 (Viele)against.
6. Preliminary review of exterior alterations _c oncernin
a. Treetops, Lionshead
b. Hill Building, Village
c Hong Kong Cafe, Village
d. Plaza Lodge, Village
Viele moved and Donovan seconded to make Treetops and the Hill Building 60 day
studies and the Plaza Lodge and the Hong Kong cafe 90 days studies. The vote
was 6 -0 in favor.
The meeting adjourned at 4.50 pm.
U
i TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 9, 1985
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to permit public
parking on Ford Park's lower bench. Applicant: Vail
Associates
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE:
Operation of Parking Lot
Vail Associates is requesting to locate a temporary parking area on
the lower bench of Ford Park. Ford Park is zoned as a Public Use
District. Under this zone district, public parking requires a
conditional use review. The staff has also checked with a title
company to make sure that there were no development restrictions
prohibiting parking on the site. The title company checked back to
1969 for any type of restrictions. To the best of the staff's
knowledge, parking is allowed on the site.
Vail Associates is going to pay for the construction of the access
road down to the lower bench parking area. The temporary parking
• area is proposed to be used for the winter of 1985 -86 and 1986 -87.
Hours of operation of the lot would be from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm. The
area will be used to provide parking only for V.A., Village, and
Golden Peak based employees. The Town has requested that the lot be
used for skiers only if both parking structures are full and it is
after 10:00 am in the morning. It is felt that this allowance would
decrease the number of skiers parking on the Frontage Road when the
structures are full. A parking attendent will patrol and
periodically check the parking area. This person will not be
permanently stationed at the lot. The maintenance of the lot and
road will be the responsibility of Vail Associates. The Town of
Vail will assist in sanding the road only when extremely snowy road
conditions exist. Vail Associates will also be responsible for
checking the condition of the lot. If the ground begins to thaw, or
other problems occur, VA will close the parking area. VA will
revegetate the area in the spring of 1987.
Phvsical Lavout of the Parkinq Area
The lot will be able to handle approximately 100 to 130 cars. Truck
access will also be maintained for the amphitheatre. The road is
approximately 20 feet wide. A 2% grade is proposed for the first 80
feet of the road. The next segment of the road has an 8% grade.
The road extends approximately 300 feet and then evens out to a
grade of about 2 %. The maximum dropoff from the shoulder of the
road to the existing grade is approximately 8' - 10' at the greatest
grade change. This portion of the road is 100 feet long. The
roadway will be covered with pit run road base. Originally, the
2
master plan proposed a curve in the access road to discourage traffic down
• into the park. The curve of the road was taken out due to the dangerous
situation that the curve would create for semi trucks entering the
amphitheatre as well as cars entering or exiting on the slippery roads.
The actual area of the parking lot is 55,000 - 75,000 square feet. The
lot is located only on the disturbed area of the park. This area has been
disrupted due to the construction of the amphitheatre, and will remain
disturbed for the two ski seasons proposed whether winter parking is
implemented or not. The parking area will also provide for an adequate
fire turn--around. The turn - around will have a radius of 50 feet. No
lighting is being proposed for the entrance or the main parking area.
Signage for the lot will include a sign stating "employee parking only" at
the Frontage Road entrance, "no parking" signs along the access road, and
fire lane signage at the end of the parking area. A "full lot" sign will
also be hung on the "employee parking only" sign when the lot is full.
This will hopefully discourage people from driving down into the park when
the lot is full.
As property owners, the Town Council has given their approval to Vail
Associates to proceed with the review of the request at Planning
Commission.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS:
0
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Commu_nit
recommends approval of the conditional use
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of the
Town
Development objectives of the Town are reflected in the Community
Action Plan, Ford Park Master Plan, Economic Development Commission
report, and Parking Task Force recommendations for 1985. The
excerpts from these reports relate to this proposal in the following
way:
•
COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
Parks and Recreation Section
3. Vail should develop a parks and recreation master plan.
B Ford Park is the top priority
Community Design
1. Detailed physical planning should take place to ensure
planned, informed decisions about land use.
i Develop a comprehensive series of plans: Gore Creek and
its tributaries, master plan and landscaping
Development Department
ermit based upon the
3
plan for the entire Gore Valley, master plan for Vail Mountain,
landscape plan for Town of Vail, master plan for parks and
recreation neighborhood and land use plans.
7. The Town should continue to preserve unique natural features of open
space or park land to enhance the quality of life in Vail.
Transportation
4. The Town should continue to review the need for additional parking.
There are certainly many statements in the Community Action Plan that relate
to this proposal. The staff has chosen only the statements that most
directly relate to the parking proposal. It is very clear from these
excerpts that the Town of Vail places a great deal of value on Ford Park and
the proper development of this land. One of the primary reasons for
completing the Ford Park master plan was to prevent ad hoc uses appearing on
Ford Park. The staff and Town Council agreed that a master plan would
provide the blue print for the most effective development of Town park land.
This approach also allowed for informed decision making about the development
of our town parks.
Parking is also an important issue that the community must address. Staff
feels that this proposal provides a temporary solution to the parking
problem. However, this proposal should not be viewed as a long term
solution, as it is diametrically opposed to the development objectives of the
Town for Ford Park.
FORD PARK MASTER PLAN
• Throughout our public input in the planning process, it was stated that the
lower bench should be used for passive recreational uses such as picnicking,
a tot lot, bike paths, an informal playing field, and a historic building
area. This preference also was compatible with the site constraints on the
lower bench. The final report states:
"Areas with difficult access routes have been improved through
the addition of a well planned system of bike paths, bridge
crossings, and pedestrian trails. Parking areas have been
sensitively planned to provide needed parking without impacting
the natural or recreational use areas and are visually screened.
Vehicles have been prohibited from park areas except for periodic
maintenance and service visits." (page 35, final report)
Parking was definitely considered at Ford Park. Proposed parking is to be
located in the present area now used for the tennis courts. This location
has the least impact on the park as a whole. Staff feels very strongly
that this is the most appropriate location for parking on the site for the
long term. As a temporary solution, the parking on the lower bench is
feasible. The staff recommends that this solution only be temporary and
that the master plan provides the most appropriate long term parking
solution.
0
4
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION REPORT 1985
The report states: "After moving the tennis courts to Golden Peak from
Ford Park, provide landscaped parking in their place for overflow and /or
Village employee parking." (page 18 of the report)
The comission recognized the importance of the parking issue and the
potential role Ford Park could play in meeting the Town's parking needs.
PARKING TASK FORCE POLICY STATEMENTS 1985
5. Create new parking at Ford Park
a. Construct a new parking lot in 1986 at Ford Park to the
size needed for the park facilities and activities.
b. Initiate discussions with VMRD for possible utilization
of tennis courts as parking for the 1985 -86 ski season.
C. If current 15 minute bus service provided by the Bighorn
bus is not adequate, additional bus service would be
added.
Once again, this policy is a long term suggestion on how to address
parking.
In general, the proposal complies with these policies only if it is
considered to be a short term solution. If parking were to remain in this
location long term or even during the summer of 1987, the staff's opinion
• would be that the proposal is in conflict with the development objectives
of the Town. Recreation and the preservation of the Town's unique natural
features are equally as important as parking to Vail's success as a first
class resort community.
The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities utilities schools parks and recreation
facilities and other public faci lities needs.
As long as the proposal is only a two year solution, it should not have
many negative impacts on these areas. If the proposal remains for more
than two years, it will definitely impact the amphitheatre as well as the
entire plan for the park.If the alpine garden proceeds through the
approval process this winter, Vail Associates has agreed that they would
cooperate with the Town and alpine garden supporters so that any problems
between the parking area and construction of the alpine garden would be
cooperatively resolved.
•
I
Through our Ford Park planning process, it became clear that residents
would like to expand the use of the park throughout the year. Staff
believes that using this area for parking for only two years will have
minimal impacts on recreation in the area, as this site will be under
construction anyway, at least for the first season of use. The proposal
will probably impact cross country skiing through the park to some
extent. However, the current construction activity also makes it more
difficult to ski through the area. Staff would like to emphasize that
this proposal should not be precedent setting and should not be considered
as an indication of approval on the part of the staff to use other park
lands for parking.
Effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control access
maneuverability, and removal_ of snow from the street and parking areas._
The access road was definitely planned into the master plan. However, the
access road was never intended to provide easy auto access into the park.
The primary purpose of the road was to provide access for trucks going to
the amphitheatre. The curve in the road was used to discourage people
from driving into the park. By straightening the road, truck access and
maneuverability is made much safer. Once construction is completed on the
amphitheatre, the Town will use wooden decorative posts to prevent auto
access into the park.
i The master plan recommends
the park. Minimal traffic
the park as well as not to
of the access road should
congestion on the Frontage
access road is very close
traffic should be only for
the Wren and Frontage Road
that traffic be as minimal as possible through
was recommended so as not to impact users of
impact the natural park setting. Traffic off
also be as minimal as possible to avoid traffic
Road. The ingress and egress point of the
to the Wren's entrance. In the long term,
the amphitheatre to avoid traffic problems with
circulation.
Effect upon the character of the area in which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The width of the unpaved road is proposed to be 20 feet. The master plan
calls out for a paved road width of 8 to 10 feet with grasscrete shoulders
extending 2 feet on either side of the road. R long term solution for the
road should be a narrower road. Oil from the cars will impact the natural
vegetation. The Wren and to some degree, Manor Vail will also be affected
by the number of cars going in and out of the park as well as the
headlights of cars parking on the site. Due to the existing construction
on the site for the amphitheatre, winter impacts will be increased only
slightly, as construction is already occurring on the site. Staff
believes that a revegetation program is absolutely necessary to remedy the
damage done to the site due to the parking.
•
I
• III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable_
to the proposed use.
IV. The environmental impact report concerning the proposed use, if an
environmental impact report is required by Chapter 18.56.
V. FINDINGS
The Community Development Department recommends that the conditional use
permit be approved based on the following findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes
of this ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of this ordinance.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
A balance must be found between the parking needs of the community
. and the development of Vail's recreational facilities. It will be
important to have well designed parks with complimentary recreation
facilities that function together as a whole to maintain Vail as a
quality resort. It will also be critical to uphold the goals of the
master plan and community action plan throughout our future
planning. The solution of one issue should not mean the demise of
the success of our other goals.
When compared to the conditional use permit findings, it is only
feasible to recommend approval of this project contingent upon it
being only a two year solution. The first criteria states that "the
proposed location of the use should be in accord with the purposes
of the ordinance and the purposes of the district in which the site
is located." This proposal is only appropriate due to the existing
construction on the lower bench. Due to the fact that the site is
already disturbed, the parking should not have a great impact on the
site.
The second criteria states that "the proposed location of the use
should not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity." Staff believes that the proposal will meet this criteria
as long as the following conditions are met:
•
7
0 1. An insurance liability agreement is entered into between Vail
Associates and the Town of Vail.
2. An appropriate revegetation plan is committed to by Vail
Associates which will be implemented in the spring of 1987.
3. Vail Associates is responsible for cleaning up the site during
the summer of 1986 and 1987. Glean -up includes removal of
trash and other debris left from the winter parking.
4. Signage on the road and fire lane is provided by Vail
Associates.
5. A State highway access permit is approved for the road with
assistance from the Town of Vail.
6. All commitments in the letter dated December 5, 1985 from V.A.
to the Town are met.
The third criteria states that the use should comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this ordinance. The proposed use complies with
the provisions of the conditional use review only when viewed as a short
term solution. A long term proposal for parking in the lower bench is
impossible to support given these three conditional use criterias. Staff
• would like to caution that there are unusual circumstances due to the
existing construction on the site that make it feasible to locate the
parking on a short term basis on the lower bench. The staff's
recommendation for approval should not be seen as precedent setting or an
indication that further parking on park sites is condoned by the staff.
•
-0�.
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creamrs and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek
December 5, 1985
Ms. Kristen Pritz
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristen:
The purpose of this letter is to provide further
information regarding the proposed amphitheater parking
project. The purpose of the parking lot would be to provide
interim ski season parking for Vail Associates and other
village employees for a minimum of two years or until
long -term solutions to the village parking shortfall can
be found.
. Signage the lot will be signed "Employee Parking Only ".
A stop sign was suggested at the intersection with the
South Frontage road. We believe that providing the above
signs should be the Town's responsibility since the signs
are needed whether the lot is developed or not. Several
no parking signs will be provided by Vail Associates to
prevent parking along the access road to the lot. The
lot will be signed appropriately to prevent vehicles blocking
the turnaround for fire equipment at the east end of the
lot. "Lot Full" Signage will be posted when needed by
Vail Associates.
Hours of operation the lot will be signed "Lot Opens
6:00 a.m. -- Closes 6:00 p.m." Some of our employees will
be there as early as 6:00 a.m. and will be on the mountain
until 6:00 p.m.
Parking Attendant: the lot will be patrolled and checked
periodically by our parking personnel. However, we will
not permanently station an attendant at the lot.
Lighting: we will not light the entrance of the lot since
the great majority of use will be during daylight hours.
•
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • (303)476 -5601
r]
•
Ms. Kristen Pritz
December 5, 1985
Page Two
State Highway Access Permit we believe that obtaining
the required state highway permit should be the Town's
responsibility. The proposed amphitheater road is a project
which the Town had committed to do previously. The project
is on Town of Vail property and it is therefore appropriate
that the Town be the applicant. Vail Associates will do
everything possible to assist the Town in the application
process.
Fire Turnaround: Please refer to the attached site plan.
Maintenance Vail Associates will plow the lot and perform
the necessary maintenance on the surface of the lot as
needed.
Checking Condition of the Lot Vail Associates will check
the condition of the lot and close it due to mud or other
problems if necessary.
Removal of Road Base Vail Associates will either remove
the road base or cover it up with top soil and revegetate
the area when use of the lot ends (restore the area to
its original condition at present).
Sanding Barrels Several sanding barrels will be placed
by Vail Associates along the steeper section of the road.
Insurance Vail Associates, Inc. has already named the
Town of Vail as'additional insured on Vail Associates insurance
policy pertaining to the Ford Park lot.
If you have additional questions and /or concerns,
please refer them to Joe Macy or Mike Larson.
Sincerely,
J y E. ichliter
utive Vice President
Mountain Operations
LEL /k1
•
r
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 9, 1985
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a garage
on Lot 9, Block 3, Bighorn 3rd Addition, 5197 Main Gore Drive.
Applicant: James R. Horton
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
This proposal involves the addition of a garage to an existing residence
located at 5191 Main Gore Drive. The garage is of standard size (20'6" x 21')
and is proposed to be located on the north side of the existing residence.
This garage would encroach 4 feet 6 inches into the required 15 foot setback.
The applicants have proposed the garage in this location so as to utilize an
existing driveway area as well as to save a number of mature pine trees.
In addition to this garage, the applicant is proposing an addition to the
living area of their home. This does not involve the issuance of a variance
and need not be considered by the Planning Commission at this time.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Municipal Code
the De artment of I 11:111 Development recommends L1111proval of the requested
variance based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential uses
and structures in the vicinity.
As an accessory use to an existing residence, the garage is obviously
compatible to existing and potential uses in the vicinity. With respect to
structures, the adjacent property to the north would be the only impacted
property from this project. In evaluating this proposal with respect to the
neighbor's property, it would appear that this location is more sensitive with
respect to their view corridors than a location within the required setbacks.
Please see the attached letter from the adjacent property owner supporting this
request.
The d� ee to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enfor cement of a s ecified regulation is necessar to achieve com e o e and
uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain thhe objectives
of this title without grant of special rivile e.
I
� Provided there are no negative impacts from the proposal, the staff has
generally been supportive of setback variances required for garage additions.
This location is not unlike others the staff has supported over the past few
years. The effort to save a number of pine trees on the property, in addition
to the location of the existing structure on the lot, serve to justify this
. request. Staff would not consider this to be a grant of special privilege.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities
utilities, and_public safety
It is not felt that any of these factors would be negatively affected by this
proposal.
Related policies to Vail's Community Action Plan.
Under Community Design of Vail's Community Action Plan, the upgrading and
remodeling of structures and site improvements are encouraged. The addition
of this garage would definitely fall under the category of upgrading.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable to the
proposed variance
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following find
before arantino a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
• the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
applicable to the site of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners
of other properties in the same district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As has been stated, it is the feeling of the staff that this request would not
be a grant of special privilege if it were to be approved. In addition, the
. attempt to save existing pine trees has been accepted as a physical hardship
in the past. The staff feels this request has merit with respect to these two
considerations. Staff recommendation is for approval of this request as
proposed.
Gilbert E. Johnson
' 310 South 14th Street
Colorado Springs, Colorado 80904
October 29, 1985
Mr. Peter Patten
Town Planner - City of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Bear Mr. Patten:
We have a home at 5187 Main Gore Drive in East Vail and it
has been brought to our attention that Dr. Jim Horton, who
is the homeowner just south of our property, is planning
to build a garage on his lot. The garage, as we
understand it, would be built on the back side of his
property.
As you are probably aware, we just recently finally
approved plans for an extension of the deck area on the
south side of our property. This was done to expand our
i views and take advantage of the quality of the environment
in the area. If Dr. Horton was to build his garage where
planned, this would block our view and create a very
undesirable situation.
review and favorable consideration
o the location of Dr. Norton's garage.
4
LA A
W y
i
f
1 F
�}
J �
. 4J � � 1
_ ~� i �{ ,�
* I 4, i
r � } � i � 1 � � � � 44 _
� � 1 3 � � r }} � �? �. # is - � �l 1
��t��� �� ��� � ����
.:� �
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: December 12, 1985
SUBJECT: Work Session on Doubletree
The enclosed memo is a preliminary analysis of the Phase II development of the
Doubletree Inn. The work session is scheduled to provide the Council and
Planning Commission an opportunity to express any comments, concerns, or
questions that they may have concerning this proposed development. A formal
submittal and request to rezone the property to SDD is anticipated within the
next few weeks. Your input at the work session on Tuesday, December 17th, will
be appreciated by both the staff and the applicant. The meeting is to start at
2:00 pm with the Doubletree presentation estimated to begin at 2:30. Please
don't hesitate to call our department with any questions you may have concerning
this proposal. We look forward to seeing you on Tuesday.