HomeMy WebLinkAbout1987 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - JunePlanning and Environmental Commission
January 12, 1987
2:30 PM Site Inspection
3:00 PM Pubic Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of December 22, 1986
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build
a glass enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14
in the Casino Building located on parts of Lots b and
c, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc.
3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding
Section 18.08.050 titled "Property Without a Zone
Designation."
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 12, 19 *7
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Rick Pylman
Peggy Osterfoss
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper.
1. Approval of minutes o_f_December 22. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to
approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0.
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build _a_ glass enclosed
stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the _Casino Building located on
parts of Lots b and c, Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: First Franklin_ Financial, Inc
Kristan Pritz presented the request for exterior alteration. The parking
requirement was actually reduced resulting in 2.2 spaces credit toward future
expansion. There would be no monetary reimbursement. There was no impact by
the addition upon the Urban Design Guide Plan considerations. The staff
recommended approval with conditions as follows:
1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this
project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal
written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the
representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino
Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized.
2. Before a building permit
Casino Building will pay
date as stipulated in th
remodel
3. The owners of the Casino
declarations to indicate
part of the total square
or demo permit is issued, the owners of the
their share of the trash compactor costs to
1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building
Building will change the condominium
that Unit 8 is now residential space and is
footage for Unit 14.
4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of
the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village..
5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval
complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the
property belonging to the Town for Casino building pavers. The
revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by
applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be
released.
to
use of
the
John Perkins, representing the app
the first two conditions followed.
information on the compactor issue
placing these conditions upon this
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, gave
trash compactor.
licant, gave his presentation. Discussion of
Peter Patten gave the background
history. The PEC discussed the validity of
request, and the PEC`s role in enforcement.
the legal background on the issue of the
Peggy Osterfoss questioned the impact on the Village core of the present
handling of the Casino Building trash. She felt the request appeared to be a
slight improvement.
Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the project, and no problem with requiring
First Franklin to pay their share of what the Casino Building owes to the
compactor.
Jim Viele had no problem with the request, and felt he was not well enough
informed about the compactor issue. He was not comfortable in an enforcement
role.
Diana Donovan felt it was not a practical idea in the first place because the
compactor is too far from most businesses for easy access. She felt this owner
should agree to carry through the agreement, the Town should not enforce this.
Sid Schultz agreed with Diana and felt he needed more information on the trash
compactor, but had no problem with the project.
0 Pam Hopkins felt Sid and Diana had good points.
Duane Piper found it was difficult for the PEC to be in an enforcing role. He
felt it was ludicrous to hold up one party because of a requirement for the
whole building. He could not agree with conditions 1 and 2 as written in the
staff memo.
John Perkins was asked to provide the Town of Vail with documentation on trash
handling. He stated that the ground floor commercial was the biggest trash
generator.
A motion was made by Jim Viele, seconded by Pam Hopkins to table the item_ with
the request that the applicant come back with definitive information on how
trash is currently handled. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of tabling.
3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code addin2 Section 18.08.060
titled "Property Without a Zone Designation." Applicant: Town of Vail_
Rick Plyman presented the information. After discussion, Jim Viele moved and
Bryan Hobbs seconded to recommend approval. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
Peggy Osterfoss volunteered to be a the Cemetery Committee. Peter Patten
reminded the PEC of a joint meeting with the Town Council on January 27 at 1:00
PM. on the Village Study.
pec 1/12/87 page 2
a
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 12, 1985
PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Peter Patten
Bryan Hobbs
Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins
Rick Pylman
Peggy Osterfoss
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 PM by the chairman, Duane Piper.
1.
9
Approval of minutes of December 22. Donovan moved and Viele seconded to
approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0.
A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed
stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building located on
arts of Lots b and c Block 5C Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: First Franklin Financial. Inc.
Kristan Pritz presented the request for exterior alteration. The parking
requirement was actually reduced resulting in 2.2 spaces credit toward future
expansion. There would be no monetary reimbursement. There was no impact by
the addition upon the Urban Design Guide Plan considerations. The staff
recommended approval with conditions as follows:
1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this
project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal
written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the
representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the Casino
Building's participation in the trash compactor is formalized.
2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of the
Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor costs to
date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino Building
remodel
3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium
declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and is
part of the total square footage for Unit 14.
4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the owners of
the Casino Building agree to participate in and not remonstrate against
a special improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village..
5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval
complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for the
property belonging to the Town for Casino building pavers. The
revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed and signed by
0 applicant and submitted to staff before a building permit will be
released.
to
use of
the
John Perkins, representing the app
the first two conditions followed.
information on the compactor issue
placing these conditions upon this
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, gave
trash compactor.
licant, gave his presentation. Discussion of
Peter Patten gave the background !1I!
history. The PEC discussed the validity of
request, and the PEC's role in enforcement.
the legal background on the issue of the
Peggy Osterfoss questioned the impact on the Village core of the present
handling of the Casino Building trash. She felt the request appeared to be a
slight improvement.
Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the project, and no problem with requiring
First Franklin to pay their share of what the Casino Building owes to the
compactor.
Jim Viele had no problem with the request, and felt he was not well enough
informed about the compactor issue. He was not comfortable in an enforcement
role.
Diana Donovan felt it was not a practical idea in the first place because the
compactor is too far from most businesses for easy access. She felt this owner
should agree to carry through the agreement, the Town should not enforce this.
Sid Schultz agreed with Diana and felt he needed more information on the trash
compactor, but had no problem with the project.
Pam Hopkins felt Sid and Diana had good points. 4111
Duane Piper found it was difficult for the PEC to be in an enforcing role. He
felt it was ludicrous to hold up one party because of a requirement for the
whole building. He could not agree with conditions 1 and 2 as written in the
staff memo.
John Perkins was asked to provide the Town of Vail with documentation on trash
handling. He stated that the ground floor commercial was the biggest trash
generator.
A motion was made by Jim Viele, seconded by Pam Hopkins to table the item w
q _ _ _ _ definitive information on how
_
trash is currently handled. The vote was 7 -0 i ...
the re uest that the applicant come back d _
_ _ _ n favor of tabling.
3. A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code adding Section 18.08.060
Titled "Property Without a Zone Designation." Applicant: Town of V,
Rick Plyman presented the information. After discussion, Jim Viele moved and
Bryan Hobbs seconded to recommend approval. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
Peggy Osterfoss volunteered to be a the Cemetery Committee. Peter Patten
reminded the PEC of a joint meeting with the Town Council on January 27 at 1:00
PM. on the Village Study.
pec 1/12/87 page 2 ���
t
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 12, 1987
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a
stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14.
APPLICANT: First Franklin Financial, Inc.
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to attach Unit 8 (a commercial unit) on the
second floor to Unit 14 (a residential unit) on the third floor. The
connection will be made by a glass enclosed stairway located on the west
side of the building on an existing second floor exterior deck. The
stairway will add an additional 200 square feet of GRFA. Unit 8 will be
changed from a commercial use to a residential use which will increase
the GRFA by 677 square feet. The total exterior alteration including
the new stairway and existing second floor space will add a total of 877
square feet to Unit 14 (GRFA of 1,181 square feet). After the addition,
the new total GRFA for the unit will be 2,058 square feet. If this
addition is constructed, the project will have 469 square feet of GRFA
remaining.
40 II. ZONING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT
Site area = .179 acres or 7,797 square feet
Setbacks: zero setback allowed, this proposal does not affect setbacks
as it is on the second floor of the building.
Height: The proposal meets the Urban Design Guide Plan limitations
on height. The addition is approximately 30 feet high. The
guidelines call out that up to 60% of the building may be
built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of
the building may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than
43 feet.
Density: Units: .179 acres x 25 units /acre = 4 units allowed
GRFA: Site area, .179 ac x GRFA ratio .80 = 6,237 sq ft of GRFA.
Existing GRFA = 4,891 sq ft
Remaining GRFA = 1,346 sq ft
Proposed GRFA: Enclosed stairway = 200 sq ft
Convert commercial space to residential = 677 sq ft
Total addition 877 sq ft
3rd floor west unit =1181 sq ft
plus addition =2058 sq ft
GRFA remaining after addition = 469 sq ft
kf
Landscaping: Not affected
Parking: The existing residential unit requires 2 spaces and the
office space requires 2.7 spaces. Due to the conversion of
the commercial space to residential, there is actually a net
reduction in parking according to the code requirements.
The new unit has a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces.
677 sq ft existing office = 2.7 spaces
exist residential unit = 2.0 spaces
1181 sq ft
Total 4.7 spaces
expanded residential unit
2058 sq ft = 2.5 spaces
Net reduction = 2.2 spaces
The Town does not reimburse an owner for a reduction in
parking spaces due to a change of use.
The 2.2 parking spaces will be credited to the project in
the event that a future use requires additional parking.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI DISTRICT
Purpose: The Commercial Core I zone 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 district is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations
in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to
ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the Village.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI
district.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The following sub -area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan relate to
the area around the Casino Building (please see the enclosed Urban
Design Guide Plan):
13B. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village
Plaza.
�r
S
0 15. Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increase facade
transparency, entry simplified and oriented to intersection.
16. Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment.
In August 1981 the owners of the Casino Building proposed an exterior
alteration which addressed these three sub -area concepts. The
alteration was approved and built. The present proposal does not
directly relate to any of these sub - concepts.
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 Considerations. The applicant has addressed the
following Design Considerations and received staff approval to exclude
pedestrianization, street enclosure, vehicular penetration, service and
delivery and street edge considerations as these considerations are not
applicable to the project.
Applicant's Response:
Streetscape Framework: The addition of the stairwell is at the second
level or one level above Wall Street, so the Wall Streetscape will not
be altered. The circular form of the stairwell /sunroom will be visible
from the street. This form blends nicely with the round head windows at
is the top floors and the chimney masses of the building and at the same
time contrasts the low pitched roofs.
Building Height: Building height is not a factor, as the stairwell
rises only eighteen feet above the second level deck while roof lines in
the same area are at 26 to 28 feet above the same deck.
Views: Views from adjacent units will not be altered or impacted. The
addition tucks into the building offset on the west side. The addition
is surrounded on two sides (90 degrees) by existing exterior walls of
Unit 12 at the upper level and Unit 8 and mechanical /restroom exterior
walls on the lower level.
Sun /Shade: Sun /shade patterns will not be altered significantly. The
stair location receives very little sun now due to the height of the
Casino and Lazier Arcade buildings. A brief period at mid - afternoon
allows sunlight through the Wall Street corridor, however the southern
orientation of the stairwell with the larger building mass immediately
behind allows no change in shade or shadow patterns. Virtually no
impact.
Essentially, the staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will
have no negative impacts on sun /shade, streetscape, building height, and
views.
er
VI.' STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. When reviewed
ill'
against the Design Considerations, the project does not have any
significant impacts. The approval is contingent upon the applicant
meeting the following conditions:
1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be'released for this
project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal
written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the
representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the
Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is
formalized.
2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of
the Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor
costs to date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino
Building remodel.
3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium
declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and
is part of the total square footage for Unit 14,
4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the
owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not
remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when
formed for Vail Village.
4111"
5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval
to complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for
the use of property belonging to the Town for Casino Building
pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed
and signed by the applicant and submitted to staff before a
building permit will be released.
l
T Jr
..-
Y
KIM
to-IT
r
'r l^ q{" F ��> > ` �'�.:,,r •s c A�.
VIA
'1 1
Ads
fools W
Ali
...........
r
.�i � •} :1f t 'i
-
'�
.ir
f�li i ♦, �, 5' � f -� ,x E._ � �4 11,x- � � Y �.rT �f # � 1
_ _ ,� ti hst- � tit i . _ e t " r'J -z..� •i'' Y - a +.>,.;'. r "'' _ T 3�
a
-y ¢�tFYS. S.. -; ,C •xf r r�-' i ^. _ �S .y.- �„,.F°' t .�`` k5, ``�d �`
....� i ' ti j's.,rr's -4 cA >•. - r�"+s�r�': w x " I "'
--
O:: •S L� & v#x + .� 1 F lot YfA,
a ti y yw[t} ^ A'�r`•� �4yt tI Y .k ti� � fiy� -y,ia 'T' irr'�eL��.1 1 �¢. -�Rf_
t': iTLiS 95r r. -.. '.a '�` - r - i,.j� -; r,•^- ,-,r %� .
f .;fa.�-: Ft look ray amt.' wx. -:-{ 1 +o,r . . . . . . . . . WAS
y, r r w • f''tz.y,+ k „A =']. T ?l �. �L Ft 'a *'� r L ti `ob i r a 4!( _1�jRE'17 �y rfiWR �k
'
- 1! 'i '•�.� fi
r S - J rcrr`'� t sti F.`v ti.,x,��i -& - .� 1C ► f -
a .its. fa. Rr 4r ka -}jam ���
71+n 7 , n
-"
+a f { .,.i � a � � 7 1r •- s v � urn "•'h. c >z -r � .� � y :.1g at .� 44 _ � ''" "'..r 'v �.iJ sue`.. Y '� � ��l -
'��'
iw�
,h - J r Sr{ • % ] INC
a }i "nano, M.4
> r to v 7r v T. 7r1 crr CzF'Fnirs ..
{ a• ,y i'...
n � } 7 -. - t r •` +k,.;w' ti '\ �
4ri- 4 9 A�' +ti x f �f'V�a \( !� tJ+ iF +f .qF -r, i+Y {Tt \"W,• _!¢ 41 "? aft
'r�,�(�
}a~ h} F+
y�a• �b � KPw t. S T '.:,y L � SU hY o � �,�� ?i��yv� G� �. rX �+i' w �a c �1.P tip-'` �'�"!�`�, xR
6 } ti R � i' "r4. r -.- � x- a .Y �' - Uri, r��� '�,,, "� S �' �• srr * � Nn, � r _yr 3, "F'r �a
?- r'h r - ? s �'"k - _. y` ""t 'TF c� trS. -. .r+ + ,h -Y, � ♦ .rz ..w - , ate" ���t']k`F �i.Y: "i.
S
�• S �.s i `r � -1 i ik
w �r
i. ����� tie. ♦�'S f tt t[k i. r• y7�5`,f ii 4�. G 'y 1` fy'�.FS�_
Alto
F �7_ Y
is A
f S'-
�kg l
}'i
r 1> -...
.....................
S.L '+aar ic.Yj,y ,y�� „• �t� ; ;a `- a._ n w,S ; {�Y� t
L{ •i+}�' � '3y'vt.t'3[. 4''�c 'Tim +P'r�laJ J!� � �y a. 1 �`� �y -.c:.� y� -'
b=S ySi> : �. ra.s '�"'"'t! :'tz. r+'-` � .'-k” �.F i.[-. � . � , ''i�a �, �r•+F5 v a'4+, w ¢ r
'y�-. t�lf5+-J ?��' F s"a�'„`,a!'.� � �«� . *. -• ;ash. r �r , �.�itl_�, i -�.; ... "#, .s....:. -� � a� � y it y.- t.j'.`ti. e,. ..
li
• - , - i - ti 4`�ti
sti � E�� a.•�- r �s,
;•, F �
e yM
e r v i r.r
F,.
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE.: February 3, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section
18.08.060 titled "Property Without a Zone Designation"
Applicant: Town of Vail
The Town of Vail is requesting this amendment as a housekeeping operation.
Recently several issues have been addressed by the staff, Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Town Council which related to properties
coming into the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail without an official zone
district designation. In researching the issue, both Community
Development staff and Town Attorney recognized that most municipal codes
contain a clause similar to this requested amendment.
As you may recall, this issue was brought to the Planning Commission and
subsequently addressed by the Town Council on December 2, 1986.
Discussion of the amendment led to a tabling of the request. The staff
has made revisions as discussed at Council and we have taken this back to
Planning Commission. The Planning Commission did unanimously approve the
revised wording of the request. The Community Development Department
feels that the revisions made to this request as suggested by Council are
a benefit, and we recommend approval of this action.
C]
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 12, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend the Vail Municipal Code, adding Section
18.08.060 titled, "Property Without a Zone Designation ":
Applicant: Town of `Jail
The Town of Vail is requesting this amendment as a housekeeping operation.
Recently, several issues have been addressed by the Town staff, Planning and
Environmental Commission and Town Council which related to properties coming
into the jurisdiction of the Town of Vail without an official zone district
designation. Land use law related to this issue is unclear. There have been
arguments made stating that no zoning means that there are no development
restrictions in place, and there have also been arguments made that no zoning
means that no development at all is allowed. In researching this issue, both
the Community Development staff and the Town Attorney recognized that most
municipal zoning codes contain a clause similar to this requested amendment.
Chapter 18.08 of the Vail municipal code refers to adoption and utilization of
the official Town of Vail zoning map. Since this proposed amendment is in
reference to both the zoning code and the zoning map, we felt that the addition
of this amendment as Section 18.08.060 would be the appropriate place within the
. Vail municipal code for this language.
The amendment shall read:
"Any land, lot, or site within the Town of Vail municipal boundary which,
according to the official zoning map, does not have a designated zone
district shall be designated Green Belt and Natural Open Space zone
district. Newly annexed property will not be zoned for a period of not
more than 90 days or any additional period of time agreed upon between
the property owners of said property and the Town for the imposition of
zoning."
There are three criteria with which we normally review proposed zoning
amendments to the municipal code. The first criteria being the suitability of
the existing zoning. The proposed amendment is intended to address zoning on
parcels that have had no such previous designation. This amendment, by
designating unzoned parcels as Green Belt and Natural Open Space, will allow us
to avoid potential legal arguments involved with unzoned property and also will
give us a basis with which to evaluate any potential rezoning requests that the
involved parcels may be subject to.
The second criteria utilized in evaluation of municipal code amendments is
whether or not the amendment is presenting a convenient, workable relationship
among land uses consistent with municipal objectives. The third criteria
relates to whether the proposal provides for the growth of an orderly and viable
community. The Community Development staff feels that the proposed amendment
does meet both of the above mentioned criteria. The amendment will enable us to
review future requests without the confusion associated with zoning requests and
development requests on previously unzoned property, While the recently
approved Land Use Plan provides advisory uses for all property within and around
the Town of Vail, the actual zoning itself becomes a legal parameter for use of
property within the Town of Vail.
Through this amendment, we will provide zoning on all property that may be
within the Town of Vail boundaries. This will avoid the philosophical conflicts
that unzoned property has with the criteria described above.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the request. As we stated previously, we feel
this is essentially a housekeeping operation. Through research done involving
recent issues, we have learned that most municipal zoning codes contain such a
similar clause. We feel that this amendment not only meets our criteria, but
will help us evaluate future proposals against that same criteria and therefore
encourage the Planning Commission to adopt this proposal.
•
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
�- 0 January 26, 1987
2 :00 PM Site Inspections
3:00 PM Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of January 12, 1987.
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass
enclosed stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino
Building.
Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc.
3. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in
order to add an entry and a request for a conditional use permit
to modify the existing dining patio of the Clock Tower Restaurant
in the Clock Tower building.
Applicant: Clock Tower /Roger Riggert
4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in
order to add less than 100 square feet of floor space to the
Lionshead Lazier Arcade Building.
Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties
5. A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to
minimum landscape requirements in order to construct a building
at 1031 South Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter
property).
Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
Note: This is Duane Piper's last meeting. His term has expired.
r�
Planning and Environmental Commission
January 26, 1987
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Betsy Rosolack
Peggy Osterfoss
Duane Piper
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Duane Piper. This was Duane's
last meeting with the PEC.
1. A royal of minutes of January 12 1987
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes as
presented. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to build a glass enclosed
stairwa connectin Unit 8 to Unit 14 in the Casino Building.
Aonlicant: First Franklin Financial Inc.
Kristan Pritz presented the request. She reminded the board that they had
heard the request at the meeting on January 12 when the board had asked to
table the item so that the applicant could provide information on how the
present tenants handle trash. Kristan provided a letter to the board from John
Perkins which described the handling of trash for the Casino Building. The
letter indicated that the building required 10 car trips into the core each
week for trash removal from the various residences and businesses.
The staff felt that First Franklin Financial, Inc. should not be required to
participate in the trash compactor, due to the lack of a signed legal agreement
with the Casino Building's original developer
The staff had serious concerns regarding the adequacy of the Casino Building's
current trash removal system. The staff felt that the Casino Building had not
addressed trash removal on a building -wide basis which resulted in an
unacceptable number of trips into the Village core for each individual's trash
removal. Furthermore, two of the businesses have no system at all and use the
Town of Vail trash receptacles. The staff felt that the building's association
should be responsible for coordinating trash removal in a manner consistent
with minimizing the number of vehicle trips into the core for trash pickup, and
the staff was willing to work with the association toward this end.
John Perkins, representing the applicant, stated that 7 of the extra trips were
from Crazy T- Shirts, and that only 3 trips were made by personal cars. He
stated that the trash compactor inside of the Casino Building was small, only
about 24" x 30 ".
Dave Gorsuch discussed the outdoor trash compactor that he and several others
had invested in, stated that he had been told by the Town that the participants
had no choice but to participate in the cost of the trash compactor if they
wanted to be able to do any remodeling or expanding of their buildings. He
i
J
•
added that at the time, it was a financial hardship, and the cost was about
$50,000. He asked what the Town felt was its responsibility to the people who
abided by the Town's wishes.
Larry Peterson, representing the Slifer Building agreed with Gorsuch, and
stated that they were led to believe that they must participate in the
compactor, and felt the Town should stand behind their requirement.
Duane Piper explained that some members of the Planning Commission felt that it
was difficult to enforce on the applicant the requirement that the whole
building participate in the trash compactor when the applicant was not party to
the original PEC approval requiring the previous owner to participate in the
compactor. He felt the Town could not legally force this with no previous
guidelines and no legal document, and also felt the PEC could not be an
enforcing agent.
Peter Patten stated that in the Urban Design Guide Plan, one consideration is
service and delivery. He felt that the Casino Building had gross inadequacies
in their trash collection system, and that their nonparticipation in the trash
compactor has nearly cancelled the benefits to the town of the trash compactor.
However, without a legal document, the Town could no longer require the Casino
Building to participate in the trash compactor, but could require that the
Casino Building find a trash solution as an association to reduce unnecessary
trips into the core.
Pam Hopkins suggested that perhaps the building could be remodeled to include
an adequate area for trash receptacles with only one pickup. Perkins stated
that the one compactor in the building could not handle boxes or anything
large. The members of the board agreed that the situation'should'be solved by
dealing with the building's association as a group. Diana added that trash
left on the doorstep overnite, as at Charlie's T Shirts was unacceptable.
Ron Riley stated that the Town must think through how to enforce conditions
they put on proposals with specific, hard and fast rules. He felt that the
Town let the Casino trickle through their fingers and he felt victimized by the
compactor costs.
Peggy Osterfoss felt the frequency of trash pick -ups for the Casino Building
should not be any greater than the number of pick -ups for the Village
compactor.
Michael F'laughton stated that the Village compactor required approximately 1 to
2 pick -ups in the winter, 1 pick -up in the summer and 1 every 2 weeks in the
off - season.
Peter Patten stated that there were mistakes made on the staff's part regarding
enforceability, but since that time the Town attorney and director of Community
Development had changed and have better procedures for handling PEC conditions
of approval by requiring written legal documents.
PEC 1/26/87 -2-
Diana Donovan moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request per the staff
memo dated January 12 with conditions 3, 4 and 5 and condition 7 of the memo
dated January 26 with the understanding that the trash must be handled as a
condo association and with the added stipulation that if a trash solution for
the entire building cannot be found, the building must participate in the large
trash compactor as an association with one maintenance person making the
deliveries to the Village compactor for the entire building. „After discussion,
the vote was 7 -0 in favor. _. _
2. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to
add an entry . and a request for a conditional use permit to modify the
existing dining patio of the Clock Clock _Tower
___
Building. Applicant: Clock Tower /Roger Riggert
Kristan Pritz presented the proposal. She showed site and floor plans and
explained the criteria for an exterior alteration within Commercial Core I,
compliance with the Urban Design Guide Plan, and compliance with the Urban
Design Considerations for Vail Village. Sub -Area Concept #17, street access
opened, specifically calls out that the public space between the edge of the
Clock Tower patio and the Gasthof Grammshammer Building be opened up which will
allow for better pedestrian use and maintenance of this area. The applicant is
proposing to pull back the deck stair by 1 foot and to expand the deck area
north and south of the hair by about 1 -2.5' into Bridge Street. A new stone
wall would be built along the front of the patio area. Staff agreed that the
upgrade of the wall was very positive, but felt that the new wall should extend
only as far as the existing wall, and that the stairway could be pulled back
about 3 feet to decrease the encroachment onto public right -of -way as much as
possible.
The staff felt that Bridge Street is extremely narrow at the point of the
proposed deck expansion. The Fire and Public Works departments oppose the
proposal because of the width of the road.
Kristan also explained the criteria for a conditional use within Commercial
Core I. The staff recommended denial of the patio wall and approval of the
entry way addition.
Dave Gorsuch, the owner of the Clock Tower Building, stated that it was the
intention to improve the appearance and function for the Fire Department and
for the Public Works Department. He stated that the stone work was decaying
and needed repair, and that the jogs in the wall were being removed.
Duane Piper asked if the wall location was a function of the dining patio, and
Kurt Segerberg, the architect, stated that a dining layout had not been done,
but that it was the intention merely to straighten the wall as a design
consideration.
Roger Riggert, owner of the Clock Tower Restaurant, stated that the idea was
not to increase seating capacity, but to eliminate corners where trash
collected. The bay window would also not increase seating. He stated that the
improvements would make the restaurant more workable. If the wall is pulled
back, he would probably lose one table. He stated that if it became a
requirement to pull the wall back, he would leave the wall as it was and merely
do the patio.
PEC 1/26/87 -3-
. Dick Duran, Vail Fire Chief, stated that he must look at operating width in the
core, and on Bridge Street access is very minimal. He added that to the north
of the Clock Tower, the road width is workable. He pointed out that on Bridge
Street one is also dealing with many pedestrians. Duran stated that much
street space has been lost in the core by allowing people to build to the lot
line and to have decks on TOV property.
•
Kristan Pritz emphasized that the staff was not asking to decrease the patio,
but to pull only the hair and maintain the existing line of the patio wall as
opposed to increasing the encroachment..
Roger Riggert replied that if he could take out the tree, he could put a table
in its place. He felt he was taking street space for a patio that was
otherwise worthless.
Bill Andrews, Town Engineer, said that Bridge Street was at present a funnel,
and that with the inevitable increase in skiers, more space would be needed.
He suggested perhaps sacrificing the tree.
Dave Gorsuch explained the trash removal situation, stating that in the new
leases with the restaurant and the beauty salon, the lessees were required to
participate in the trash compactor. He described trash in front of fire exits
at present, and barrels of trash behind the building from the restaurant.
Peggy Osterfoss felt uncomfortable that the Fire Department was not in favor of
the deck encroachment.
Riley stated, that in all due respect to Dick Duran, if that space is
congested, the Fire Department can still get through. Peggy replied that if,
in fact, that were the case, she would have to be in favor of the improvement.
Bryan Hobbs said that he was in favor. Jim Viele felt that the project would
be an overall improvement with a curve instead of ,logs. Diana Donovan had
mixed feelings. She had reservations about the wall with regard to
pedestrians. Sid Schultz's concern was the same as Diana's. He did not like
to see any amount of Bridge Street space taken out. Sid asked about the amount
of money the Town charged for lease of space for an outdoor deck. Kristan
replied that it was $2.00 per square foot, and that the lease amount and
agreement was up to the Council. Diana added that the amount was a farce.
Sid stated that the PEC had approved several deck encroachments. He felt that
at $2.00 /square foot, the Town would not likely have any streets left.
Dave Gorsuch stated that they put heat under their patio, and the Town gets the
benefit. He went on to say that it was their intent to make the Town a good
place to live and to do business in.
Pam Hopkins felt that it was a natural process to narrow the pedestrian path
because by the time the pedestrians get to the Covered Bridge, the access is
extremely narrow. She felt that outdoor decks were very important in Town.
Duane Piper agreed with Pam and was in favor of the improvement to the deck.
PEC 1/26/87 -4-
U
Peter Patten said that he would like to amend the recommendation. He read from
the Service and Delivery portion of the Urban Design Considerations and felt
that a third condition should be added to ensure that Clock Tower tenants
participate in the trash compactor. Piper disagreed that the PEC could dictate
what method of trash disposal an individual could use. Dave Gorsuch said that
he had stipulated the use of the trash compactor in the new leases of the
restaurant and beauty salon, and that it made sense to him to clean up his
property. Jim Viele moved to approve the exterior alteration with conditions 1
and 2 and Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 7 -0 in favor. Viele
moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the conditional use request includin
conditions 1 and 2. The vote was 7 -0 in favor..
4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II in order to
add less than 100 s uare feet of floor space to the Lionshead Lazier
Arcade Building. Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties
Betsy Rosolack presented the request and stated that the applicant wanted to
enclose approximately 18 square feet by moving exterior walls on the south side
of the building in order to enlarge shop space. She showed floor plans and
elevations. John Perkins, architect for the project, answered questions.
Jim Viele moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request. The vote was
7 -0 in favor.
5. A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to minimum
landscape requirements in order to construct a building at 1031 South
Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter property
Annlicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
Peter Patten made the presentation. He explained that the potential uses for
the building were not known, and so it was difficult to know if there was
enough parking, etc. Therefore, the PEC were simply to consider the variances
and not the specific site plan. The variances were being requested to allow
for the construction of a one story building on the site. In addition, the
review of any development proposed in the Arterial Business District requires
compliance with the ABD circulation plan. While the developer had agreed to
comply with the circulation plan, there were no specific solutions proposed at
this time. Patten expressed concern about how much of the highway right -of -way
would be taken for highway improvements. The Highway Department indicated that
the 5 foot rear setback variance would not be a problem, but wanted assurances
that a construction fence would be erected defining the limits of construction
during construction.
Patten then showed circulation and access plans for the area. He stated that
in the ABD district, it was planned to consolidate the crosswalks and
intersections and to have deceleration lanes. He stated that the Highway
Department has changed their requirements and may also require acceleration
lanes as well. Peter stated that the parking spaces on the west end of the
property were not acceptable as parking spaces.
PEC 1/25/87 -5-
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, pointed out that the site was a
49 difficult one to build on. He then spoke about the conditions listed at the
end of the memo saying in reference to #1 that he did not have clout, but that
the access is part of the zoning, and if they cannot get access there, they
will have to come back to amend the circulation plan. With respect to #2,
they could not go to DRB without Highway Department approval. As for #3, he
felt that other property owners must also go along with the improvements. They
don't mind funding their part, but not the whole project. As the last building
in, they should not be required to participate unless everyone else
participates.
U
Patten replied that the staff could not get specific because they did have
exact information. He suggested that they put in the left turn lane, as the
Vail Professional Building constructed a right turn lane. He stated that he
was talking about the intersection only. Jay said alright. He asked if the
fence in #5 meant on the north side only, and was told it did. As for #6, Jay
stated that they would submit a 4 foot high berm to DRB, but they might not
approve it. He stated that #7 was ok.
Peter stated that he would feel more comfortable including all conditions of
the approval. He felt that timing and a process could be worked out that all
could agree upon. Jay answered that if he could not get joint use, he would
have to come back again. Peter stated that the landscape plan may depend upon
approval of the plan, and it depends upon the adjacent property. Jay asked if
the Vail Professional Building had been required to promise the right turn lane
when building. Patten replied that the VPB had been required to put in the
right turn lane and that the Vail Professional Building knew all along of the
joint access. Patten added that this was a technicality that was important.
Jay repeated that before he could go to DRB he would have a general agreement
of access. Peter replied that the Town could grant a joint access, but the
landscaping on the Vail Professional Building's property depended upon the Vail
Professional Building's owners to agree to the landscaping.
Jay referred again to #2 and asked if "entire intersection" was what the staff
really meant, when the Glen Lyon office building has not yet constructed their
access plan. Peter replied that the proposed intersection had been approved by
the Highway Department in 1983 for the Glen Lyon Office Building and in 1984
for the Vail Professional Building. He suggested changing "entire
intersection" to "as it relates to this project."
Jay then stated that #3 was OK, that #5 was to be only on the north side.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that the quality of the landscaping was very important at
the access. Diana asked if it would be possible to landscape the back (north)
side of the lot and was told there was not enough room for landscaping. Jim
Morter, architect, stated that if it was possible, they would landscape the
north side. Betsy Rosolack asked if the building would be designed to add a
second story, and was told it was not. Diana felt that the plan did not show
enough parking for AU use. Jay replied that there was plenty of space for the
uses intended, and that these would be short term, not for an office building.
Morter stated that there would be 4 or 5 tenants, likely a restaurant,
convenience store, liquor store, and others.
PEC 1/26/87 -6-
i 0
Viele moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the requ
January 26 1987 with the conditions as listed and
On #2, "as well as the entire intersection propose
it relates to this property." #3 "and access" sha
circulation " #5 "on the north side" shall follow
to #6 it shall read "The applicant shall submit
minimum 4 foot high berm "....... The vote was 7
st per the staff memo dated
with the following changes:
" shall be replaced with "a
1 be added to "ABD
"A fence," and with res ect
plan to DRB showing a_
Q in favor of the motion.
This was Duane Piper's last meeting after serving on the Planning and
Environmental Commission for 6 ears. He was thanked and applauded. A motion
and second followed to have Jim Viele serve as chairman and Diane Donovan serve
as vice chairperson. The votes were 6 -0 -1 for each position.
PEC 1/26/87 -7-
0
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for front and rear setback variances and a variance to
minimum landscape requirements in order to construct a building at
1031 South Frontage Road West (commonly known as the Voliter
property)
Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Variances are being requested to allow for the construction of a one
story structure on the site. While there are no assurances of what the
uses in this building will be, it has been represented that the
structure will accommodate local oriented convenience commercial
establishments. A summary of the variances requested is as follows:
1. A request for a rear setback variance of 5 feet for the structure.
The required setback is 10 feet.
2. A request for a front setback variance to locate a portion of the
parking area within 10 feet of the front property line. Front
setback requirements state that parking areas and structures shall
be no closer than 15 feet from the front property line over 60% of
the length of the frontage, while the setback- °l'in.e.shall be 20
feet or more for the remaining 40% of the frontage. This request
is for a 5 foot encroachment into a portion of the required 20
foot setback along the frontage.
3. Landscaping standards for parking areas with over 30 spaces
require that 10% of the lot be dedicated to interior parking lot
landscaping. This request is for a variance from this
requirement.
The nature of these requests raise a number of interesting issues
relative to the development of this property and the Town's review
process. These issues center around the inability to conduct a
comprehensive review of this development plan. For example, without
knowledge of the precise uses proposed for the structure, the staff is
unable to calculate the parking demand to see if the site plan provides
enough spaces. In addition, the review of any development proposed in
the Arterial Business District requires compliance with the ABD
circulation plan. While the developer has agreed to comply with the
circulation plan, there are not specific solutions proposed at this
time. While the staff would prefer that issues related to the
development of this property be addressed simultaneously, the review
process does not specifically require that this be done.
As a result, the Planning Commission is reviewing this plan with respect
to the three variances requested, and nothing more. Any approvals
granted for this project will not be approvals for the site plan as
proposed, but rather only for the variances as requested.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the _ requested variance to other existing_ or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The two existing structures and related facilities on the site would be
removed in conjunction with this development plan. This is fortunate in
that it allows for the development of this property to begin with a
"clean slate." A key issue then becomes how the requested variances
relate to other existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity. The following addresses each of these variances individually:
1. Rear Setback Variance
. Two issues are significant with respect to the requested 5 foot
setback at the rear of this property. These pertain to the State
Highway Department's deceleration lane which would be constructed
in conjunction with the new east -bound off -ramp, and the ability
to construct and maintain this structure without trespassing on
the Federal Highway property. The staff has relied heavily on
input from the State Highway Department concerning any impacts
resulting from this variance. After review of these plans, the
Highway Department has indicated that the 5 foot setback variance
would not create adverse impacts on the Interstate system. One
concern of the Highway Department centered around the potential
for construction activity to take place on the Federal
right -of-way during the development and maintenance of this
building. To eliminate this potential, a construction fence
defining the limits of construction will be required as outlined
in the Design Review Guidelines.
2. Front Setback Variance
Existing conditions in this area provide a substantial buffer
between the property line and the road edge of the South Frontage
Road. This may indicate that the required setback variance on the
front side of the property is not critical. However, potential
uses in the vicinity could well change with the future widening of
the South Frontage Road. For this reason the staff feels it
. important that the integrity of the required front setbacks be
maintained.
-2-
Interior-Parkin2 Lot Landscaping Requirements
Landscaping is generally required to provide buffers between
developments. A variance from this requirement would effectively
reduce the amount of buffer between this development and adjacent
properties in the vicinity of this project.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a_ specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
7_- - g „
to attai n the ob ectives of this title without t rant o f special
p_rivile e „..
The first step in evaluating a variance request is typically to identify
the physical hardship necessitating relief from the prescribed
development standards. The second element of this review of this review
is to insure that the degree of variance requested is no greater than
necessary to allow relief from the objectives of the zoning code without
a grant of special privilege. In reviewing this parcel, it is evident
that the shape of the lot creates some difficulty in its development.
The issue then becomes to what degree are variances necessary for the
development of this property?
1. Rear Setback Variance
Based largely on the review of the State Highway Department, staff
• feels that the 5 foot variance requested in the rear of the
property is valid. This is due to the lack o'f-- negative impacts
resulting from this location of the building.
2. Front Setback Variance
While the staff feels strongly that landscape buffers be
maintained around the perimeter of this property, we can support
this request because of its minor nature. The area of
encroachment amounts to less than 300 square feet and with
judicious use of landscape materials, the staff feels that this
encroachment can be mitigated.
3. Interior Parking Landscaping Requirements
The surface area of the parking lot is approximately 15,500 square
feet. This would require interior landscaping of not less than
1550 square feet. Just over 700 square feet of interior
landscaping is proposed with this plan. The designers of the
project have indicated that they would be willing to use
decorative brick pavers in lieu of concrete or other surfaces on
pedestrian walkways surrounding the structure. While this
technically does not count as interior landscaping of a parking
area, the staff would accept this as an alternative for mitigating
the lack of interior landscaping on the site.
-3-
The effect of the requested variance on light and
population, transportation and traffic facilities
utilities, and public safety.
distribution of
lic facilities ar
A number of issues related to transportation and and traffic facilities
are relevant to this project. The circulation plan for the Arterial
Business District requires that the development of this property share a
joint access with the Vail Professional Building. Joint access has been
proposed on the site plan submitted. While the staff feels that this
proposal is a workable one, final approval of this access will be
required from the State Highway Department. In addition, approval from
the owners of the Professional Building will be necessary.
The zoning for the Arterial Business District requires that all plans
approved by the Design Review Board shall conform to the circulation
plan that has been adopted by the Planning Commission. This plan
requires access improvements to these properties that will necessitate
the widening of the Frontage Road. Before final decisions can be made
as to the improvements required with this development, input from the
State Highway Department will be required. This input will occur when
the developer formally applies to the State for the access permit to the
property off of the Frontage Road. The developer of this property will
be required to fund the improvements necessary in conjunction with this
redevelopment. At minimum, a left turn lane will be required on the
Frontage Road.
It is the feeling of the staff that the locations-of a number of parking
spaces proposed on the site plan are unacceptable:-,—Parking standards
require adequate width of aisles for "convenient and easy access to each
parking space." Two and possibly three parking spaces at the west end
of the property do not conform with this design standard. It is the
feeling of the staff that the variances requested do not contribute to
these spaces being unacceptable. In addition, without knowing the uses
to take place in the structure, staff is unable to determine whether
these spaces will be required to meet parking demands. As a result, we
are merely pointing out our position on these spaces at this time and
would require that the situation be resolved before the application
proceeds to the Design Review Board.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE LAND USE PLAN
Assuming the property is developed solely as commercial, the project
would generally be compatible with the Community Office designation
which allows for limited commercial uses.
IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
-4-
. V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the followin _findings
before granting the variances:
That the granting of the variances 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 variances will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
improvements in the vicinity.
That the variances are warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulations would result in objectives 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 variances that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
The strict or literal interpretation and enforcement of the specified
regulations would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the
owners of other properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As was stated at the outset of this memo, there are issues relative to this
project that are somewhat removed from the review for the variances
requested. It is important that the Planning Commission understand that
this review is limited to the variances only. Relative to these, staff
would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the setback and
landscape variances as proposed. If approved, the Planning Commission will
not be approving the site plan in its entirety. Rather, approval is limited
to a 5 foot setback variance in the rear of the property, a variance to the
required front setback as indicated on the site plan, and a variance to the
required interior landscaping for surface parking lots.
The staff would recommend the following conditions be adopted by the
Planning Commission with this approval:
Written approval shall be submitted to the Town by the owners of the
Vail Professional Building granting their consent to the joint access
as proposed as well as the landscape materials shown on the site plan
that are located on the Professional Building's property. This
written approval shall be submitted prior to this project proceeding
to any level of review by the Design Review Board.
2. The applicant shall receive approval from the State Highway Department
• for improvements to the South Frontage Road as well as the entire
intersection proposed. This approval shall be obtained prior to any
level of review by the Design Review Board.
-5-
3. The developers of this project shall participate in improvements
required for this project to comply with the ABD circulation
plan. Specific requirements shall be determined based on input
from the Town and the State Highway Department. Improvements
shall be constructed in conjunction with the redevelopment of this
property.
4. The retaining wall proposed for the northeast corner of the
property shall be pulled back off of the property line a minimum
of 2 feet.
5. A fence shall be constructed within the property lines outlining
the limits of construction for this project.
6. The Design Review Board shall approve a minimum 4 foot high berm
on the east end of the property in lieu of the required 15 foot
landscaped buffer around the parking area.
7. Decorative brick pavers shall be used for the pedestrian walkway
around the perimeter of three sides of this building to compensate
for the lack of interior landscaping in the parking lot. If the
pavers or an alternate similar material are not used, the
landscape variance becomes invalid and construction will not be
allowed to proceed.
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order
to add an entry and exterior dining deck expansion to the Clock
Tower Building.
Applicant: Clock Tower, Roger Riggert
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requesting to enclose an area on the west side of the
Clock Tower Building in order to create an entry vestibule and stairway
up to the second floor. He is also requesting to add a new bay window
for the Clock Tower Restaurant. Improvements and a slight expansion are
also proposed for the exterior dining deck (see accompanying memo).
The square footage for the request can be broken down into the following
areas:
Clock Tower Restaurant bay window = 28 sq ft
Clock Tower entry expansion
= 32
sq
ft
First floor common vestibule
and stairway
=120
sq
ft
Second floor common balcony
-65
sq
ft
•
Total for addition,
245
sq
ft
Dining deck addition . 60 sq ft
Parking:
The only portion of the addition that will require parking is the
28 square feet for the bay window. The parking requirement is .23
parking spaces. The other common areas which make up the addition
do not create a parking demand.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CCI DISTRICT
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 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 CCI
district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The following sub -area concept of the Urban Design Guide Plan relates to
the area around the Clock Tower building (please see the enclosed Urban
Design Guide Plan):
17. Street access opened.
The Guide Plan specifically calls out that the public space between the
edge of the Clock Tower patio and the Gasthof Grammshammer Building be
opened up which will allow for better pedestrian use and maintenance of
this area.
The applicant is requesting to pull back the deck stair by 1 foot and to
curve a new stone wall along the front of the patio area. Staff agrees
that this portion of the proposal is very positive, as the deck's
greatest encroachment is being decreased at the narrowest point on
Bridge street. However, we believe that the new wall should only extend
out as far as the existing wall. The stair onto the deck could be
pulled back approximately 3 feet so that the existing stair encroachment
onto public right -of -way is decreased as much as possible.
The staff suggestion will result in opening the street access without
• decreasing the actual patio space, as the new wall would be rebuilt in
the same location as the existing wall. The onlydifference is that the
new wall will be curved and will not have all the jogs along the edge of
the street. Staff also believes that it is very important that both
aspen trees be preserved in the new design for the wall.
IV. COMPLIANCE. WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the
Considerations is to show how the new design strengthens or detracts
from the overall intent of the Design Considerations.
A. Pedestrianization
A major objective for Vail Vill
circulation through an intercor
pedestrian ways. Many of the i
Design Guide Plan and accom an
reinforce and exoand the aualit
Village.
Applicant's Response:
e is to encourage pedestrian
cted network of safe, pleasant
rov - -- g _,.., the recognized in the Ur
U Design Considerations are to
an
to pedestrian walkways throughout the
Bridge Street is a major pedestrian artery to the Vail Village core from
the parking structure. The deck changes proposed for the west side of
the Clock Tower Restaurant improve the quality of the pedestrianway with
-2-
I 0
heated paving at the entry and wide, more inviting steps. The stone
base and iron railings of the deck are places for planters in the
summer. The trees at the entry steps will remain.
Staff Response:
Staff agrees that the improvements to the deck area will greatly enhance
the visual appearance of the stone wall. Morever, staff feels that the
pedestrianway will be further improved if the new wall does not extend
out any further than the existing wall and the steps are actually pulled
back 3 feet from the existing encroachment. The quality of the
pedestrian walkway will be greatly enhanced by the re- alignment of the
wall and by decreasing the existing encroachment.
B. Vehicular Penetration
To the maximum extentpossi_bie,_all non- resident traffic should be
routed along the Fronta a Road to Vail Village/Vail Lionshead parkin2
structures.
Applicant's Response:
The proposal for the Clock Tower deck will improve vehicular access,
especially for snow removal in that the curved stone wall eliminates the
current irregularities for the plows to negotiate. The heated steps and
entry way will reduce the problem of snow shoveling into the street.
The new deck configuration also provides for greater protection of the
trees at the entry steps.
Staff Response:
The new curved stone wall will improve the snow plowing situation for
the Public Works department, as there will no longer be jogs in and out
of the wall. However, this is an extremely tight area for snow plows as
well as emergency vehicles. For this reason, the Public Works and Fire
Departments are opposing the proposal.
Presently, the dimension between the existing stair and the Gramshammer
property line is 19.5 to 20 feet. The applicant is proposing to pull
back the stair 1 foot, but will also extend the wall further onto the
Town of Vail property by an additional 2 -1/2 feet at the greatest point
of encroachment. Granted, we are talking about a few feet in either
direction, but it is important to note that the Fire Department requires
20 feet in width to provide for emergency fire access. In this
particular location in the Village, every foot is valuable. For this
reason, staff believes that the wall must not extend any further than
the existing wall and that the stairs should be pulled back
approximately 3 feet in order to open up this particular spot for
emergency vehicle access.
-3-
C. Streetsca a Framework
. To improve the guality of the walkin,
the pedestrian ways...open space and
soft colorful framework linkage alon
green spaces as open nodes and focal
encouraged. Infill commercial store
visual interest.
Applicant's Response:
experience
landscaping
i pedestrian
points alon
Fronts to gi
_and give continuity to
are to be used. .as a
routes; plazas and par
g_these routes are
je street life and
The deck for the Clock Tower Restaurant maintains the use of trees and
planters along the pedestrian route. The stone base for the deck is in
keeping with the Village core planters along Bridge Street. The deck
capacity will increase for summer time dining which will give more
street life and visual activity.
Staff Response:
The staff agrees that the improvements to the patio wall and entry
addition will provide a nicer streetscape framework as long as the patio
wall does not encroach any further than the existing wall. The staff
also feels that the new bay window will provide visual interest along
the facade of the building.
D. Street Enclosure
While building facade heights should not be uniform from buildin2 to
building, they should provide a comfortable enclosure for the street.
Applicant's Response:
The Clock Tower entry vestibule enclosure shall not exceed existing
building roofs, eaves and ridge heights. The building deck provides an
activity area in front of the building off the main pedestrian
circulation path. Vertical pedestrian circulation will now be enclosed
to alleviate the problems of ice on stairs to the second level of the
building.
Staff Response:
Staff agrees with the applicant's statements and feels that the entry
enclosure will be a great improvement to the existing outdoor stairway
and entry area.
E. Street Edge
Buildings in the Village core should form a strong but irregular edge to
i-ha ctwoc+-
Applicant's Response:
The street edge on Bridge Street shall be maintained with the use of a
low stone wall with box planters and metal rail. The building form
-4-
changes with the vestibule enclosure and a large bay window into the
• restaurant. Building transparency is the goal here to add sparkle of
indoor lights at night and activity visible to the street. This
transparency also provides the undulation of building form desirable to
Bridge Street.
Staff Response:
The proposal is actually decreasing some of the irregularity along the
street edge which, in this situation, staff believes is an improvement.
Staff believes that the proposal will positively define the street edge
in a much better way than the existing patio wall.
F. Building Height
Not applicable.
G. Views and Focal Points
�._ of the of the
First priority should be given__to_ an analysis „ ,. _
ro'ect on views from 2edestrian areas whether designated or not.
Staff Response:
is No impact.
n
u
H. Service and Deliver
Any building expansion should preserve the functions of existina servic
alleys .... and all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids
or reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored and adopted
wherever practical for immediate or future uses e.
Staff Response:
Staff believes that this exterior alteration could slightly increase the
trash demand with additional seating on the outdoor deck for the
restaurant. We believe that the best trash solution for the Clock Tower
Restaurant is participation in the trash compactor project located
directly behind the restaurant. Dave Gorsuch, owner of the building,
has informed the staff that Roger Riggert, owner of the Clock Tower
Restaurant, and Margarethe Christy of the Beauty Salon will be
participating in the trash compactor through their lease agreement.
This participation would be in compliance with the service and delivery
section of the Urban Design Guide Plan as it would reduce vehicle trips
into the core for trash removal.
-5-
. I. Sun /Shade
All new or expanded buildings should not substantially increase the
spring and fall shadow pattern March 21 through Se tember 23 on
adjacent properties or_the public „right-of-way.
Staff response:
This addition will not increase the shade pattern, as it does not extend
above the existing building or further out than the existing facade.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff finds that the project is a positive improvement on the
Village except for the proposed alignment of the dining deck. We would
prefer to see the patio wall not encroach any further than the existing
wall and see the stairway pulled back approximately 3 feet to open up
the pedestrian area and to provide better emergency vehicle access.
The staff is concerned that the re- alignment of the deck does not go far
enough to decrease the encroachment onto the public right -of -way. The
Urban Design Guide Plan also specifically calls out that this area be
opened up as much as possible. The staff believes that to approve the
new patio wall as it is presently proposed would be in conflict with the
Urban Design Guide Plan concept #17 which relates to opening up the
pedestrian way. Secondly, except in one area, the alignment of the deck
• further restricts emergency vehicle access. Staff believes that these
are two important concerns which make it difficult to support the new
patio, even though aesthetically we feel that it is a very fine
improvement. For these reasons, we must recommend denial of the patio
wall and approval for the entry way addition. If the PEC chooses to
approve the new patio wall, staff would ask that the following
conditions be part of the approval:
is
1. A revocable right -of -way permit for the patio wall encroachment on
public right -of -way will be filled out by the applicant and
submitted to the Community Development Department before a
building permit will be released.
2. A lease agreement will be arranged between the Town and Clock
Tower Restaurant for the use of public land for private dining
space. The applicant is responsible for completing the lease
agreement before a building permit will be released.
1b w ..... . . . . . .
L r
i Ed
. 'a -
ys, A
J
KAMA r
j ,
ZZZI..
ju
Q1 A:'
5M,E7�*N'% UT AT.
-,ty , 73
COA.
Mi.
-7 K�
4F-
44,
07w
o.2
IC
N4
IAp
Rol
; Z,u WK
not
, 7 W - .,
how k, X<m
Una
AY I
w: m
1
- _ -
�• �
� -
' it 'i. -- ����
-
-
-���
1 I
it
it�.,i
�
I
•_
f�
4
-
..
-- � a
- _
-.
s.�i.....................
� 0
� 0
1
Ix ti
L
z
x
z
ce
s
r
I
V)Vkl,q
YYYYY N��4 r
r r
r /r r
r r
r r
� 1
1 � �
1\ 1 Na
xl
X111 �,
'zl
am
„t
i
•
:7
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand an existing
deck for the Clock Tower Restaurant in the Clock Tower Building.
Applicant: Roger Riggert
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting to expand slightly the existing patio deck for
the Clock Tower Restaurant. Outdoor patios, and thus this expansion, are a
conditional use in Commercial Core I. The existing stairs will be pulled
back approximately 1 foot and a new wall will be built so that it extends
approximately 1 to 2 feet beyond the existing retaining wall in most areas.
The minor deck expansion will create approximately 50 square feet of
additional space to the south of the entry stairs and approximately 38
square feet to the north of the entry stairs. Due to the bay window
expanding into the outdoor dining area, the net gain in square footage for
the expansion will only be 60 square feet.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.24.070, Conditional Uses... W.i.thin.Commercial Core I
District, the following development factors shall be-app'licable:
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I.
The expansion of the patio will not increase vehicular traffic into
the Core. However, the new patio wall has the following impact upon
street width:
Encroachment Change Due To Project
1. Entry stair onto the patio:
this area is decreased 1 foot
along a length of 22 lineal feet.
2. South of the deck entry:
encroachment increases from 1 to
2 -112 feet along a length of
20 lineal feet
3. North of the patio entry:
encroachment increases from
1 to 2 feet for a length of
15 feet.
Bridge Street Width
Due to New Patio Wall
Existing 20 foot width
increased to 21 feet
Existing width of 22 -1/2 ft
decreased to 20 feet
Existing 23 foot width
decreased to 21 feet
•
C�
The purpose of this table is to show that, in general, a 1 foot
decrease in the area of the stair does open up Bridge Street at
its narrowest point. However, the new wall will also encroach 1
to 2 feet more along 35 feet of Bridge Street. While it is
recognized that portions of the wall's encroachment will be
reduced, it is felt that the additional encroachment of up to 1 to
2 -112 feet in certain areas is inappropriate. The staff has
supported other encroachments on Town right -of -ways and property
in the past, but always in areas where there has been more than
adequate street width for vehicles, pedestrians and Town of Vail
operations. In addition, both the Public Works and Fire
Departments have indicated their opposition to this increased
encroachment. While the Community Development staff is not
opposed to improvements to this wall, we suggest they be done in a
manner that does not increase any encroachment on the right -of -way
in this area.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I
C.
0
E.
F.
G.
Not applicable.
Reduction of non- essential off- street parkin
Not applicable
Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles.
Not applicable
Develooment of public spaces for use by pedestrians
Not applicable
Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and public_
uses in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existing character_
of the area. - - --
Staff feels that it is very positive that the owners are proposing
to improve the patio wall as well as maintain the existing dining
deck which adds a great deal to the character of the area.
Control quality of construction, architectural
landscape design in Commercial Core 1 district
the existing c� haracter of the area.
aes��ana
so as to maintain
The upgrading of the wall will have a very positive impact on the
architectural design of the building and dining deck. The two
aspen trees that exist in the area of the patio wall are
significant elements to the streetscape. The applicant's
representative has stated that:
C:
" We will make all attempts to keep the existing trees on
the site. However, if construction warrants removal and the
safe keeping of these trees, we shall take these precautions
in relocating the existing trees as they appear on our
proposal."
If, for some reason, the trees are removed, staff feels that it is
very important that substantial trees replace the existing aspens.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial of the
request for the deck expansion. It is our opinion that the deck will
narrow an area along Bridge Street which is already very restricted for
pedestrian traffic, but more importantly for emergency vehicle access.
The improvements to the wail are very positive as far as the aesthetic
appearance of the patio and new wall. However, the staff must also
consider whether or not it is truly necessary to expand the deck area.
Our opinion is that it would be better to pull back the stairs
approximately 3 feet and rebuild the new wall so that it does not
encroach any further than the existing patio wall. This solution will
provide the much needed upgrade for the existing wall without creating
any further encroachments.
If the request is approved by the PEC, the staff requests that the
following two conditions be included in the approval:
1. A revocable right -of -way agreement will be submitted by the
applicant to the Community Development Department before a
building permit is released for the proposed construction.
2. A lease agreement will be arranged between the Town of Vail and
applicant for the portion of the deck on Town of Vail
right -of -way. The applicant is responsible for completing the
lease agreement before a building permit will be released for the
project.
■ C
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
SUBJECT: Request for an exterior alteration in order to add less than 100
square feet to the Lionshead Arcade Building.
Applicant: Lazier Commercial Properties
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant wishes to remodel ground level, retail space on the south
side of the Lazier Lionshead Arcade. Exterior space consisting of 18
square feet will be enclosed by relocating exterior walls.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CCII ZONE DISTRICT
The application is in compliance with the CCII zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE. WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Sub -area Concept #12 refers to the Lionshead Arcade and states:
"An opportunity exists for expansion of buildings, arcades,
awnings, etc. to improve scale, shelter, appearance of commercial
facades."
The proposal is to expand the facade and bring it closer to the
pedestrian mall. The transparency will be improved and will relate
better to the pedestrian.
IV COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
A. Height and_Massing
A.2 Building expansions shall 2enerally be limited to one -story
and two- stories as indicated on the Guide Plan, or as can be
demonstrated to have a positive visual and functional effect.
The proposal conforms to the suggested one story addition.
B. Roofs
B.1 Flat, shed or dome roofs are acceptable for building
expansions.
B.2 Connections of roofs to existing buildings should be
respective of any existing strong architectural lines.
• (Spandrel beams, texture /color changes, overhangs, etc.)
The extension will have a fiat roof. It is the intention of the
applicant to place an awning over the entire store facade and it
will also connect the addition to the rest of the store visually.
This will be proposed to the Design Review Board.
C. Facades -Walls /Structure
D. Facades - Transparen
The design of the facade is not changing except to bring it closer
to the pedestrian.
E. Decks and Patios
Not applicable.
F. Accent Elements
The awning will be dealt with at Design Review Board.
G. Landscape Elements
Not applicable.
• V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A parking fee is charged in the Commercial Core II district when a
building is enlarged. The retail addition amounts to approximately 18
square feet. The fee is $3,000 per parking space. One space is needed
for each 300 square feet of retail space. 18 square feet is
approximately b% of 300 square feet. Six percent of $3,000 = $180.
This fee will be collected prior to the issuance of a building permit
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the remodel.
The proposal has no negative impacts and furthers the plans for Sub -area
#12 for L.ionshead.
0
N � 1!
� u�t0
� � L
r p
Bn�
6 �?
��
� � U 'I
T
YYYYIY
�Y
t � M ` Y�Y•
CD0
O C) Q D
O or =3 n
Q O
•0 N CD
CO �' �• �-
O n
. O �
N
n.
cn
z Zv�
z
ou- � z
•
C7
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 26, 1987
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a
stairway connecting Unit 18 and 14.
Applicant: First Franklin Financial, Inc.
I. THE PROPOSAL
On January 12, 1987, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed
the Casino Building exterior alteration and decided to table the item so
that the applicant could provide information on how the present tenants
handle trash. The PEC also wanted the staff to further evaluate the
trash compactor issue.
Enclosed is a letter from John Perkins which describes the handling of
trash for the Casino Building. According to the letter, the building
requires ten trips per week for trash pickup. These trips include:
1. Tenant
3 residential units plus
2 offices
Helga's
Crazy T'Shirts
Car Trips Per Week
1
2
7
J. Cotter's and Hillis Furs have no trash removal provisions and simply
use Town of Vail trash cans located near their shops for their trash
disposal.
The two questions related to the final approval for the Casino Building
are:
1. Should First Franklin Financial, Inc. be required to participate
financially in the trash compactor as a condition of approval for
their exterior alteration request?
2. Does the Casino Building have an adequate trash removal system for
its tenants? If the trash removal system is inadequate, should
the Casino Building be required to provide a more efficient way
for removing trash which would be a stipulation of the exterior
alteration approval?
In respect to the first question, the staff has determined that it is
not feasible to require First Franklin Financial, Inc. to participate in
40 the trash compactor. Due to the lack of a signed legal agreement with
the Casino Building's original developer to require participation in the
project, the staff is legally unable to require First Franklin's
participation in the trash compactor through this Planning Commission
review. The staff has also determined that due to the fact that this
specific request for exterior alteration will not increase the amount of
trash for the building, it is not fair to require First Franklin alone
to improve the trash pickup process for the entire building.
Regarding the second issue, the adequacy of the Casino Building's
current trash removal system, we have serious concerns. Basically, the
association has not addressed trash removal on a building -wide basis and
this has caused an unacceptable number of trips into the Village core
for each individual's trash removal. Indeed, two of the businesses have
no system and rely upon the Town of Vail Public Works Department to
remove their trash.
We find this situation entirely unacceptable and believe that under the
service and delivery Design Consideration of the Urban Design Guide
Plan, this must be addressed.
H. Service and Delivery
In all new and remodeled construction, delivery which avoids or
reduces impacts on pedestrian ways should be explored, and adopted
whenever practical, for immediate or future usage. Rear access,
basement, and below- ground delivery corridors reduce congestion.
Weather protection increases delivery efficiency substantially.
The building's association should be responsible for coordinating trash
removal in a manner consistent with minimizing the number of vehicle
trips into the core for trash pickup. Staff is willing to work with the
association toward this end.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration according to
the memo dated January 12, 1987 with the stipulation that the conditions
of approval numbered 1 and 2 be removed from the approval and replaced
with the following:
1. The condominium association shall work with the Department of
Community Development toward an acceptable solution to trash
removal for the building. An agreement must be reached before a
building permit for this project is issued.
�J
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 12, 1987
SUBJECT: Exterior alteration of the Casino Building in order to add a
stairway connecting Unit 8 to Unit 14.
APPLICANT: First Franklin Financial, Inc.
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is proposing to attach Unit 8 (a commercial unit) on the
second floor to Unit 14 (a residential unit) on the third floor. The
connection will be made by a glass enclosed stairway located on the west
side of the building on an existing second floor exterior deck. The
stairway will add an additional 200 square feet of GRFA. Unit 8 will be
changed from a commercial use to a residential use which will increase
the GRFA by 677 square feet. The total exterior alteration including
the new stairway and existing second floor space will add a total of 877
square feet to Unit 14 (GRFA of 1,181 square feet). After the addition,
the new total GRFA for the unit will be 2,058 square feet. If this
addition is constructed, the project will have 469 square feet of GRFA
remaining.
0 II. ZONING STATISTICS FOR THE PROJECT
Site area = .179 acres or 7,797 square feet
Setbacks: zero setback allowed, this proposal does not affect setbacks
as it is on the second floor of the building.
Height: The proposal meets the Urban Design Guide Plan limitations
on height. The addition is approximately 30 feet high. The
guidelines call out that up to 60% of the building may be
built to a height of 33 feet or less and no more than 40% of
the building may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher than
43 feet.
Density: Units: .179 acres x 25 units /acre = 4 units allowed
GRFA: Site area, .179 ac x GRFA ratio .80 = 6,237 sq ft of GRFA.
Existing GRFA = 4,891 sq ft
Remaining GRFA = 1,346 sq ft
Proposed GRFA: Enclosed stairway = 200 sq ft
Convert commercial space to residential = 677 sq ft
Total addition = 877 sq ft
3rd floor west unit
=1181
sq
ft
plus addition
=2058
sq
ft
GRFA remaining after addition
= 469
sq
ft
Landscaping: Not affected
Parking: The existing residential unit requires 2 spaces and the
office space requires 2.7 spaces. Due to the conversion of
the commercial space to residential, there is actually a net
reduction in parking according to the code requirements.
The new unit has a parking requirement of 2.5 spaces.
677 sq ft existing office = 2.7 spaces
exist residential unit T 2.6 spaces
1181 sq ft�
Total 4.7 spaces
expanded residential unit
2058 sq ft = 2.5 spaces
Net reduction = 2.2 spaces
The Town does not reimburse an owner for a reduction in
parking spaces due to a change of use.
The 2.2 parking spaces will be credited to the project in
the event that a future use requires additional parking.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF CCI DISTRICT
Purpose: The Commercial Core I zone 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 district is intended to
ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate
to the permitted types of buildings and uses. The district regulations
in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations prescribe site development standards that are intended to
ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and
architectural qualities that distinguish the Village.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the zoning for the CCI
district.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The following sub -area concepts of the Urban Design Guide Plan relate to
the area around the Casino Building (please see the enclosed Urban
Design Guide Plan):
13B. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge Street to Village
Plaza.
0 15. Facade improvements. Eyesores removed, increase facade
transparency, entry simplified and oriented to intersection.
16. Key intersection in Village Core. Feature area paving treatment.
In August 1981 the owners of the Casino Building proposed an exterior
alteration which addressed these three sub -area concepts. The
alteration was approved and built. The present proposal does not
directly relate to any of these sub - concepts.
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 Considerations. The applicant has addressed the
following Design Considerations and received staff approval to exclude
pedestrianization, street enclosure, vehicular penetration, service and
delivery and street edge considerations as these considerations are not
applicable to the project.
Applicant's Response:
Streetscape Framework: The addition of the stairwell is at the second
level or one level above Wall Street, so the Wall Streetscape will not
be altered. The circular form of the stairwell /sunroom will be visible
from the street. This form blends nicely with the round head windows at
• the top floors and the chimney masses of the building and at the same
time contrasts the low pitched roofs.
Building Height: Building height is not a factor, as the stairwell
rises only eighteen feet above the second level deck while roof lines in
the same area are at 26 to 28 feet above the same deck.
Views: Views from adjacent units will not be altered or impacted. The
addition tucks into the building offset on the west side. The addition
is surrounded on two sides (90 degrees) by existing exterior walls of
Unit 12 at the upper level and Unit 8 and mechanical /restroom exterior
walls on the lower level.
Sun /Shade: Sun /shade patterns will not be altered significantly. The
stair location receives very little sun now due to the height of the
Casino and Lazier Arcade buildings. A brief period at mid - afternoon
allows sunlight through the Wall Street corridor, however the southern
orientation of the stairwell with the larger building mass immediately
behind allows no change in shade or shadow patterns. Virtually no
impact.
Essentially, the staff agrees with the applicant that the addition will
have no negative impacts on sun /shade, streetscape, building height, and
views.
•
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
is Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration. When reviewed
against the Design Considerations, the project does not have any
significant impacts. The approval is contingent upon the applicant
meeting the following conditions:
1. Before a building permit or demo permit will be released for this
project, the owners of the Casino Building will enter into a legal
written agreement between the Casino Building owners and the
representatives of the trash compactor project to insure that the
Casino Building's participation in the trash compactor is
formalized.
2. Before a building permit or demo permit is issued, the owners of
the Casino Building will pay their share of the trash compactor
costs to date as stipulated in the 1981 PEC approval of the Casino
Building remodel.
3. The owners of the Casino Building will change the condominium
declarations to indicate that Unit 8 is now residential space and
is part of the total square footage for Unit 14.
4. As was stipulated in the August 1981 exterior alteration, the
owners of the Casino Building agree to participate in and not
remonstrate against a special improvement district if and when
formed for Vail Village.
• 5. The 1981 exterior alteration also had as a condition of approval
to complete a revocable right -of -way agreement with the Town for
the use of property belonging to the Town for Casino Building
pavers. The revocable right -of -way agreement shall be completed
and signed by the applicant and submitted to staff before a
building permit will be released.
•
4 i
topic
snow
NO
Two
n
r
t
t
�V 5.r. U ref' .U.. ?. y -r� sa -• -�t� ' it .+. � �`ix��` � -'L s:.
F
- ` ¢ - •y° t ?
t s - -�
`�t - _.- sk � � s - Ys � Y 7 t `2, k } °+;.�'s��� 3C'. f,P:_ - ✓ - ,*5 s
�- `sy
c�r.'E- 3+.ta'4' _
Y
SA
too
C
Loco ;
0is�t j x
75 r.r i '4 „ - k4s: ..'Y' .•� j r,��,: �:rr yy' x�` -? r� E,,� y�°''{ "��$y t�
Nam
- kh.
ASIA
t }
{ �.j, f
.t Y� oat
Aix
Y.. --
k ? N°
�Aix,
S �, - �. 5ry � &„ l"TF:• x�"� 1 � } �.^ �f�if �d `s`i"• 3��{ -�i �' t•4 =+�`' S� k�'ry' €.;� t �Y �t �'' -s.
4 � x:54
- `{ - tik -�.�
�Y "�°.
�,•. r`�'''4 &t+ #`tY`t �s.rt "iy r i'.J.j�S�4.a {rIrO
r�e�
OKs r'i.4
f � +~ i i -.. ! " � ,y`? L -. n } Y t 7';_ : � s x i• r., '� ..� "1 r.�'�`,�. =ic � � F'h? tr i � �
•' K_�i � � - '- :' fyi. r � L .� _ a Z,,.y� -.- � t '��, 'F � s i:R < y 'r °+s �' r ^r�
�yrr
,r_
.3 �
1 •. 'c 'k' �
kg
Now
�_ L r*f• r •p. 44 9:.w'
i �\ 4` .x '`)�� 4,r.. t rr<. v �` {.c a-rfi< t �' ssai e" 5 �- • v t F.✓s w,rk S4 !'s, iyr -
iy��q',Yy
{¢ I - 4 x _,, -i r, h5 i - ,,;�✓ �` ro r n ss r r . a"`�'' ty r t l 4, ,� < ' *,• y�Ir+ y a'v- r L . ,s,.a _
01% OWN,
out
t+..�3T? a....•i
r
r 'r t y'}i r v '��e^> ♦
- 1 S 'r"e
♦ -a ,yF,y�} - . - -
a
TIM 1
1���
�+ f
f
.sue s' 4
- `{ - tik -�.�
�Y "�°.
�,•. r`�'''4 &t+ #`tY`t �s.rt "iy r i'.J.j�S�4.a {rIrO
r�e�
OKs r'i.4
f � +~ i i -.. ! " � ,y`? L -. n } Y t 7';_ : � s x i• r., '� ..� "1 r.�'�`,�. =ic � � F'h? tr i � �
•' K_�i � � - '- :' fyi. r � L .� _ a Z,,.y� -.- � t '��, 'F � s i:R < y 'r °+s �' r ^r�
�yrr
,r_
.3 �
1 •. 'c 'k' �
kg
Now
�_ L r*f• r •p. 44 9:.w'
i �\ 4` .x '`)�� 4,r.. t rr<. v �` {.c a-rfi< t �' ssai e" 5 �- • v t F.✓s w,rk S4 !'s, iyr -
iy��q',Yy
{¢ I - 4 x _,, -i r, h5 i - ,,;�✓ �` ro r n ss r r . a"`�'' ty r t l 4, ,� < ' *,• y�Ir+ y a'v- r L . ,s,.a _
01% OWN,
out
t+..�3T? a....•i
i -
F-
0
\ • � • � � � � �
;Pt
� �>t
y 2• \� � � \ \� � � � � � � �
� 0
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 9, 1987
1:45 PM: Site Visits
3:00 PM: Public Hearing
I. Approval of minutes of January 26, 1987.
2. A request for an exterior alteration in order to add more than 100
square feet and for a conditional use permit in order to expand an
existing dining deck and construct another dining deck on the Bell
Tower Building.
Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Inc.
3. A request for a setback and size variance in order to install a
satellite receiving dish greater in size than the maximum allowed
at 2271 North Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio
4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to add more than 100
square feet to the Plaza Lodge building located at 281 Bridge
Street.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
ai
•
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
February 9, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
Diana Donovan
STAFF PRESENT
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
1. Approval of minutes of January 26, 1987.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
minutes as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor with Collins
abstaining._
2. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core 1 and
a request for a
existing dining
Tower Building.
deck a
Appli
ional use permit in order to
nd construct another dining_
cant: Bell Tower Associates
ex ana an
deck on the Bell
Inc.
Tom Braun presented the proposal, and showed site plans and
elevations. He reviewed the criteria and Urban Design
Considerations for Vail Village, and conditions of approval.
Craig Snowdon, architect for the proposal, went into detail about
the project. He showed floor plans, landscape plans, elevations,
perspectives and a model. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment and
voting. Sid Schultz asked if the patio on Gore Creek Drive could
be accessed from the street and was told that there would be a
gate on Gore Creek Drive for access, but that most traffic would
be through the main restaurant entrance.
Diana Donovan had mixed emotions about the project. She felt the
Bell Tower Building's architecture was distinctive. Donovan did
not feel that brick pavers were landscaping, especially in the
winter time. She was concerned with the current trend to
continue moving buildings closer and closer to public spaces and
felt that the trend was not a good one for the Town in the long
run. She also suggested heating the walkway because of the icing
of the walkway on the creek side of the building.
Snowdon replied that the drainage problem would be mitigated by
the remodeling, and drainage would drain away from the building.
He showed on a site plan where the interlocking pavers would be
placed. Donovan asked that the signing of the restaurant be
brought up to code with the remodeling of the building.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she liked the proposal, but wanted to
see a net gain in landscaping, especially on the east end.
Snowdon replied that that would be addressed on the Design Review
Board level. He suggested putting in a few more substantial trees
rather than 6 small ones. Snowdon indicated that they would follow
�Y
this up at Design Review Board. He felt that low profile planting was
not visible half of the time.
Discussion followed about the promenade area near the creek. Tom
explained that the Sitzmark Lodge wanted to upgrade their property near
the creek while doing other remodeling, and with the Bell Tower
proposal, the staff felt that this would be a good time to look at the
whole area. Tom Braun added that if the owners of all three properties
did not agree to a comprehensive improvement program that the Bell
Tower would be done as a part of this approval. Jeff Winston was doing
a design which would show the entire area.
J.J. Collins felt landscaping was important, and pointed out that
much landscaping on Bridge Street had been obliterated. Jim Viele felt
that a lot could be done to make the landscaping more visible and felt
that Diana's idea had much merit, which was to have heated pavers and
to drain the building. He referred to the Urban Design Guide documents
and felt that the patio on Gore Creek Drive should be raised a little.
Snowdon stated that he could raise the patio about 3 or 4 inches, but
not anymore because of the existing building.
Diana Donovan felt that there was nothing to draw people's attention to
the stairs near the creek side of the building, and suggested perhaps
placing light posts with hanging baskets to add some kind of height.
Pam felt that the walkway behind the building could have light posts to
make it more inviting.
Craig Snowdon said that that was a main consideration when talking to
Blu's Beanery owners. He suggested that perhaps the property owners
could ==e pavers and the Town of Vail furnish the lighting and
benches that Jeff Winston would design. Diana felt that this area
could be a showcase.
Jack Curtin, representing Mrs. Hill, stated that Mrs. Hill wanted him
to ask the to consider landscaping very closely, and not to allow
asphalt to come up to the building as near the Red Lion. He then said
that loading and unloading must be considered when there were more and
more expansions. Curtin felt that perhaps the project could be put on
the back burner unt11—EHe loading and delivery problems were solved.
Diana felt that people would not wander in and out of the area with the
trees that were planned to be in grates. Snowdon replied that this
design was Jeff Winston's, and that it was not a final solution, but
was showing that the pa Flo area was to be opened up. It was to be
further addressed at DRB. Tom Braun added that although street trees
and a railing had been suggested, the applicant could come back if the
board was uncomfortable with the design. Viele felt that the overall
solution should be looked at to be sure there was no reduction of
landscaping.
Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for an exterior
alteration per the staff memo dated 2/9/87 with the conditions in the
memo. The vote was 4 in favor, 2 against (Donovan and Osterfoss), with
PEC 2/9/$7 -2-
n
LJ
•
Hopkins abstaining.
Hobbs moved and Schultz seconded to approve the request for a
conditional use permit per the staff memo dated 2/9/87 with the
conditions in the memo. The vote was 6 in favor with Hopkins
abstaining.
3. A request for a setback and size variance in order to install a
satellite receiving dish greater in size than the maximum allowed
at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail,, dba
KVMT radio
The applicant was not at the meeting, so this item was tabled until the
meeting of 2/23.
4.
A request for ann exterior alteration in order to
100 square feeY__'Eo the Plaza Lodge building locat
Street. Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
add more than
d at 281 Bridge
Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and elevations.
He reviewed the project with respect to the Urban Design Guide Plan,
Design Considerations and zoning. He followed his explanation with the
statement that the staff was not able to support the proposal as
presented and recommended denial. The staff felt strongly that, in its
present state, the existing Bridge Street frontage of the Plaza Lodge
building is the essence of what is encouraged in the Urban Design Guide
Plan.
Craig Snowdon showed site plans, elevations, perspectives and a model.
He also showed photos indicating that most pedestrians used the street
rather than the sidewalk. Snowdon stated that the stairs and
landscaping were actually a barrier and discouraged the pedestrians
from using the sidewalk. He added that the retail shops were too far
from the pedestrians in the street. Snowdon pointed out that the
proposal would provide a continuous walkway for the pedestrian. The
plan was to line the walkway with lanterns and hanging baskets.
Jack Curtin stated that this proposal was similar to the Bell Tower
proposal in that there was not enough landscaping. He felt that the
hanging baskets would only provide some landscaping from mid -July until
September. Curtin felt the need for trees for relief.
Jack Campbell agreed with Curtin. He added that much .landscaping was
not taken care of or was not the right type for the mountains. He felt
care was important. John Brennan, manager of Vendetta's, spoke in
support of the proposal.
J.J. Collins asked for more information on the walkway and street on
the Bridge Street side of the building. Snowdon stated that the street
• would be 5 feet wider than it is at present, that about 35% of the
present landscaping would be lost, and that he felt the sidewalk would
be used more when it was at the same level as the street. Collins then
asked the tenants present what their experience was with regard to
PEC 2/9/87 -3-
. pedestrian access at present. John Campbell stated that the sidewalk
at present was not used to dodge delivery trucks. He felt that some of
the charm of the Village was that pedestrians were walking in the
street and competing with traffic, unlike Lionshead. He felt that
people liked to walk in the street. It was his feeling that the
sidewalks were used to access shops or to window shop, not as an access
to the street.
George Knox stated that the Rucksack was a good example of pedestrian
access right off of the street and the Lodge promenade was a good
example of a pedestrian barrier. He noted that when people walk past a
shop, they rarely turn around and walk back to the shop.
Sally Cornwall of the Younger Generation stated that she has both a
Lionshead store and one in the Village and that people in Lionshead can
walk right in off of the mall, whereas the pedestrians in the Village
were deterred by the stairs. She added that the alley to Wall Street
was used because there were no stairs involved.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that she was basically in favor of the proposal,
and was also in favor of not eliminating the landscaping. She was in
favor of removing the trucks which she felt did keep people out of
stores more than the stairs did. She wanted to hear more opinions on
the proposal because the proposal included such a long expanse of
Bridge Street and she did not want to rush into a decision. Bryan
Hobbs liked the way the proposal changed the street scene but was
disturbed by the loss of landscaping. Diana Donovan felt that there
should be a compromise between what is existing and what was proposed.
She felt the proposal did a lot for the Plaza Building on the Bridge
Street side, but felt the proposal might impact the street too much.
She did not support the enclosure of part of Vendetta's deck, because
they first asked for more deck on Town of Vail land, and now were
asking to enclose part of that deck.
Sid Schultz had no problem with the deck, but did have with the retail
expansion. He felt the steps could be redesigned, and added that in
the summer they were highly used. Schultz felt that the Town should
make certain that landscape areas were maintained. He felt that if the
sidewalk is dropped to street level, the trucks would block visibility
of the stores. Schultz stated that a 5 foot sidewalk would be 2 feet
in the winter. Jim Viele agreed that the proposal did a lot for the
building. He felt a good job must be done with whatever landscaping
was left. He was not sure if he had enough information to make a
decision, and felt he needed more information on traffic, loading and
landscaping. Viele had no problem with the deck enclosure of
Vendetta's. He added that this was the 7th or 8th modification to the
Plaza Building and felt it must be tough on the neighbors to have
construction every year on the Plaza Building.
Snowdon stated that the majority of the outside work would be done by
July 4. He restated the board's concerns to be the reduction in
landscaping and the nearness of the retail stores to the street.
Snowdon asked if he could separate the proposal of Vendetta's deck from
the proposal on the Bridge Street side, and Viele explained that it was
P£C 2/9/87 -4-
•
appropriate to look at the whole program. Viele suggested possibly
tabling and looking at the proposal at a work session. Snowdon felt
that tabling was appropriate. Diana said that she would Like to see
pocket parks and asked if there were any plans for seating. Snowdon
answered that there were areas 8 feet deep with walls 12" to 3611 high
that could be used for seating. J.J. Collins stated that this was
such a substantial change in such an important part of the Town, he
wished to see a good graphic layout.
Ron Riley agreed with the tenants that this was a vast improvement to
the building.
Snowdon asked to table the proposal for further study and a chance to
meet with the owner to see if there could be further compromise. Viele
stated that there could also be a work session.
Diana Donovan moved and Pe(
The vote was 6
favor of
Osterfoss seconded to table the request
lina with Pam Hopkins abstaining.
PEC 2/9/87 -5-
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
0 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Bell Tower Building in
Commercial Core I located at 201 East Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Bell Tower Building Associates, Ltd.
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
The proposal involves the addition of approximately 800 square feet of
ground floor retail space adjacent to the Children's Fountain area. In
addition, a new dining deck is proposed on Gore Creek Drive along with an
expansion to an existing deck on the creek side of the building. The
dining decks are addressed in detail through the conditional use memo
that is attached.
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS
In addition to standard zoning considerations, review of development
projects in Commercial Core I involve consideration of the Urban Design
Guide Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan involves two elements of review,
the Guide Plan itself and the Urban Design Considerations. As stated in
• the purpose section of the Commercial Core I zone district,
"The Commercial Core I District is intended to ensure adequate
light, air, open space, and other amenities appropriate to the
types of buildings and uses. District regulations in accordance
with the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations prescribe site development standards that are
intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and
public greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale
and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village."
Through adoption by the Town Council in 1980, the Design Considerations
of the Urban Design Guide Plan serve as development review criteria
similar to setbacks, building heights and other more traditional zoning
standards. As a statement to the importance of these design criteria in
evaluating development projects, pre - determined zoning standards such as
building setbacks and density controls for retail space have been
eliminated from Commercial Core I. This is an important consideration
when weighing the merits of a development proposal in the Village.
0
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Diagrammatic in nature, the Guide Plan suggests development and
improvements that are desired in the Village. The Guide Plan works in
conjunction with graphics that indicate where these improvements are
appropriate. Referred to as sub -area concepts, these improvements are
designed to improve the pedestrian nature and overall fabric of the
Village.
There are no sub -area concepts in the area of this property relevant to
this development proposal.
IV. URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The nine Urban Design Considerations to be used in evaluating this
project are as follows:
1. Pedestrianization
This consideration is not affected by this proposal.
2. Vehicular Penetration
This consideration is not affected by this proposal.
0 3. Streetscape_Framework
Streetscape framework is intended to encourage improvements to the
quality of the walking experience and give continuity to
pedestrianways. Two types of improvements, landscaping and
commercial storefront infills, are referred to as ways to improve
the Village's walkways. While the commercial infill will require
the removal of some landscape planters, it is felt that the one
story expansion is a needed improvement to bring the commercial
activity out toward the pedestrian in the area of the Children's
Fountain. At the present time the storefront is recessed behind
the building overhang. The commercial infill will create a better
sense of space that is presently lacking in this area.
4. Street Enclosure
Streets serve as outdoor rooms whose walls are formed by the
buildings on either side. It is the goal of the Guide Plan to
encourage buildings that provide a comfortable sense of enclosure
on the street. The one story expansion will provide a stronger
sense of pedestrian scale as opposed to the existing four story
building. A precise calculation of the building height versus
street width is not directly applicable because of the building's
location adjacent to the Children's Fountain plaza.
• 2
. 5. Street Edge_
As proposed, the storefront expansion will reinforce a fairly
irregular street edge around this property, particularly with the
irregular facade lines and slight building jogs.
0
6. Building Heights
Building heights are not applicable to this project because of the
one story nature of this proposal.
7. Views
There are no significant impacts on either minor or major view
corridors in the Village.
8. Service and Deliver
Service access on the west side of this property will remain
unchanged. Service and delivery functions would be provided in the
loading zones adjacent to this project on Gore Creek Drive.
9. Sun /Shade
Sun /shade patterns are not significantly affected by this infill
development.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
1. Parkin
There is no onsite parking provided on the site. Additional
parking demand generated by this proposal will be met through
payment into the Town's parking fund. The precise amount to
be paid will be determined at the time of building permit.
2. Dining Decks
The new dining deck and modifications to the existing dining
deck require conditional use approval by the Planning
Commission. These considerations are addressed in the
attached memorandum.
3. Landscaped Area
The zoning code allows no reductions in landscaped areas
unless specifically required through the development of
projects compatible with the Urban Design Guide Plan. Staff
feels that each portion of this proposal resulting in a
reduction in landscaping is warranted. The removal of a
portion of two planters along Gore Creek Drive is required to
allow for the development of any dining deck. It is felt
91
that the street life provided by the dining deck will far outweigh the
negative impact of reducing these planters. In addition, interlocking
brick pavers are to be used as a floor surface for this deck. This type
of material technically qualifies as landscape area, resulting in what is
actually no loss of landscaped area.
Staff feels that the removal of planters to allow for the expansion of
the dining deck and expansion of retail space are significant. However,
to mitigate these impacts, the developer has proposed installing
interlocking brick pavers at the base of the stairs. These pavers will
cover an area of approximately 250 square feet. In addition, street
trees will be planted to assist in defining the patio expansion in this
area. While these improvements are technically off site, it is felt that
their positive benefit more than satisfies the loss of other landscaped
area on the property.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the proposal as submitted. The
additional outdoor dining decks and retail expansion will greatly improve
this property and this area of the Village. Staff would encourage the
Planning Commission to adopt the following condition in conjunction with
this approval:
1. At a minimum, the applicant shall install the brick paver treatment
and street trees in the area adjacent to the creekside dining deck
as indicated on the vicinity map and landscape plan.
Efforts are now underway to develop a continuous streetscape improvement
program in this area (see accompanying memo). The applicant of this
project has indicated a willingness to participate in these improvements
and the staff recognizes that the precise design and application of
improvements in the area of the Bell Tower Building may be modified. The
design of these improvements and negotiations with the three property
owners in the area are presently underway. While the ideal situation
would be to have the streetscape improvements finalized and made a
condition of this approval, that is not possible at this time. Our
approach to the overall streetscape improvements has been one of relying
on a spirit of cooperation and participation from these property owners.
For this reason, if agreements are not reached, we feel that it is still
reasonable that the applicant of this project provide improvements as
have been indicated on their application.
2. The applicant shall not remonstrate against a special improvement
district for Vail Village, if and when one is formed.
�
4
M
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to add a new outdoor dining
deck and to make modifications to an existing outdoor dining deck
at the Bell Tower Building located at 201 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Bell Tower Associates, Ltd
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The addition of any new outdoor dining deck, or modifications to an
existing dining deck, requires review and approval by the Planning
Commission. As opposed to standard conditional use requests,
conditional use permits in Commercial Core I are reviewed with respect
to a specific set of considerations. These design considerations are
intended to be responsive to these special characteristics and nature of
development in the core area.
Both of the dining decks proposed in the redevelopment of the Bell Tower
Building are located on Town of Vail land or rights -of -way. The Town
Council has reviewed these applications and given the applicant
permission to proceed through the development review process. It should
be emphasized that the proposed decks have not been approved by the Town
Council, but rather given approval to proceed through the Planning
Commission review process. The dining decks proposed areas follows:
1. The Bell Tower Building sits directly on the property line along
Gore Creek Drive. The planter boxes on either side of the present
entry to Timberhaus Sports are located on Town of Vail
right -of -way. The proposed deck would be located adjacent to this
entry on Gore Creek Drive and the use at this level would be
converted to a bar for the Lancelot Restaurant. As proposed, the
deck would require the removal of approximately 112 of the planter
area. The deck would be defined by a railing between the planters
on Gore Creek Drive.
2. At the present time a dining patio is located on the creek side of
the building at the bottom of the stairs below the Children's
Fountain. Defined by a number of large planter boxes, this deck
is seldom utilized. The property line presently runs through the
center of these planters. The deck would be modified by removing
the planter boxes and extending the deck five feet onto Town
property. The deck would be defined by some type of railing
treatment and the placement of street trees.
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING REQUEST
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
18 At first glance, it may appear as though the dining deck proposed
for Dore Creek Drive would present problems with vehicular circulation in
this area. However, the proposed dining deck projects no further than the
existing planter wall and after site review, it is the feeling of the staff
that this deck does not adversely affect vehicular circulation.
Of particular concern in evaluating the impact of this dining deck
was how it would affect the ability of fire trucks to access the
walkway between the Wall Street Building and the Lodge at Vail. A
three point turn is required for the Fire Department's vehicle to
access this area. In doing so, the fire truck is required to back
into the area of the proposed dining patio. In order to mitigate
any impacts from this maneuver, projections above tables, such as
umbrellas, would be prohibited.
The deck proposed on the creek side of the building would not
affect vehicular traffic in this area.
B. Reduction of vehicular traffic in Commercial Core I
Neither deck would affect this consideration.
C. Reduction of non - essential off- street parking
Neither deck would affect this consideration
D. Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles
A loading zone is located on Gore Creek Drive directly across from
the proposed dining deck. The distance from the outside of the
dining deck to the curb on the other side of Gore Creek Drive is
35 feet. Even with a delivery vehicle in this area, a distance of
approximately 25 feet will remain for circulation in this area.
There is no effect on this consideration from the deck on the
creek side of the building.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians
The new dining deck along Gore Creek Drive involves no additional
development of public spaces. The proposed expansion to the deck
on the creek side of the Bell Tower Building is related to a
significant improvement to a pedestrianized area adjacent to this
deck. This improvement involves removal of the existing sidewalk
surface and replacing it with interlocking brick pavers. The area
to be improved with brick pavers is from the base of the stairs
along the length of the Bell Tower Building frontage, and
extending some 25 feet from the stairs along the Creekside
Building.
The developer's proposal to improve the sidewalk surface in this
area has prompted discussion of a number of improvements to the
entire length of this walkway. The area under study runs from
this location to the west end of the Sitzmark Lodge.
The Town staff has commissioned Jeff Winston (urban design
consultant to the Town) to prepare a number of alternatives for
. streetscape improvements to this area. The staff is presently
working with tenants and property owners along this walkway to
develop these design alternatives as well as funding opportunities
for these improvements. Improvements to this walkway, or
promenade, will include a new walking surface, lighting, seating
areas, landscaping materials, drainage improvements, and at least
two focal points that may one day accommodate public art. The
development of these improvements arose from the redevelopment
proposals from the Bell Tower and Sitzmark Buildings, and interest
from tenants within the Gore Creek Plaza Building. It is the goal
of the staff would hope to see these improvements constructed
simultaneously with the participation of each property owner.
F. Continuance of the various commercial residential and public
uses in Commercial Core I so as to maintain the existin character
of the area.
The addition of the dining deck on Gore Creek Drive will provide
another element of street life that is vital to the success of the
Village. The expansion of the creek side dining deck should
improve its usability and provide additional pedestrian activity
in this area.
G. Control quality of construction architectural design, and
landscape design in Commercial Core 1 district so as to maintain
• the existing character of the area.
The design of both decks are quite simple in nature. In both
cases, interlocking brick pavers will be the surface of the deck,
and the deck will be defined by some type of railing treatment.
This is similar to the proposal that was approved at the Gorsuch
Cafe this past year. At the present time, it is planned to
incorporate the streetscape improvements into the creekside dining
deck by using street trees and railing treatments to define the
dining deck.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of both of these dining decks with the
following conditions:
1. In order to prevent potential conflicts with emergency vehicles,
the placement of any improvements above the height of dining
tables shall be prohibited. It is the applicant's responsibility
to ensure that the tenant of this space is made aware of and
adheres to this restriction.
2. At a minimum, the applicant shall provide, at his cost, those
off -site improvements to the creekside dining deck as indicated on
• the landscape and vicinity plans (inter - locking pavers and street
trees).
3
0 3. The applicant shall not remonstrate against an improvement district
in the Vail Village if and when one is formed.
As has been noted, work is presently underway to develop a continuous streetscape
improvement program along this walkway. The applicnnt has indicated a willingness
to participate in these improvements if agreements can be reached between the three
property owners. It should be recognized that the precise design of the improvements
adjacent to this dining deck may change as a result of the overall streetscape
improvements. Condition #2 is designed to ensure that if agreements are not
reached to develop the entire streetscape, the developer of this project will not be
committed to providing the improvements represented in this application.
4
f"
0 FROM:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration
Plaza Lodge Building located at 291
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates,
THE PROPOSAL
in Commercial Core I to the
Bridge Street.
Ltd.
This proposal centers around a retail expansion to the Plaza Lodge
Building. The majority of this expansion would take place along Bridge
Street by infilling the existing separated walkway and removing the
existing landscape planters. Removal of this walkway would lower the
grades along these storefronts to allow access to the shops at the same
grade as Bridge Street. Additional infill is proposed in the rear of the
building by enclosing a portion of the dining deck of Vendetta's bar with
a fixed glass roof and operable front walls. Other aspects of this
redevelopment include basement and second floor retail space to be
created by converting existing space, and the modification of a number of
lodge rooms and dwelling units on upper floors.
• II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
The Urban Design Guide Plan and zoning considerations are used in
reviewing development proposals in Commercial Core I. The Design
Considerations in the Guide Plan were adopted to augment traditional
zoning considerations. They are intended to allow for greater
flexibility and creativity in designing projects in the Village, while
recognizing and maintaining its unique character. For example, standard
setbacks are not required in the Village except as are established
pursuant to the Guide Plan's Design Considerations and other criteria
relating to Town of Vail operations, etc. This is not to imply, however,
that there are to be no minimum setbacks in the core. Rather, a project
must "earn" its proposed setbacks by virtue of its compatibility with the
Guide Plan's Design Considerations. The importance of maintaining the
integrity of these design considerations can not be overstated. It is
the Planning Commission's responsibility to maintain the overall
character of Vail Village through the utilization of these design
criteria in evaluating any development proposal.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Guide Plan serves to identify desired physical improvements for
strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. These improvements are
generally designed to reinforce the overall character of the Village,
with particular emphasis placed on improving the pedestrian experience.
Sub -area concepts identified in the Guide Plan relative to this proposal
include the following:
1. Sub -area Concept 13A. Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian
. route during delivery periods. Slight widening warranted.
Potential for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk.
Landscape improvements include: New consolidated stairs, tie
retaining walls replaced with masonry, upgraded plantings.
As proposed, the expansion would totally eliminate this separated
walkway. This is in direct conflict with the sub -area concept which
clearly states that the walkway should remain separated from the street.
It is ironic that in 1984 the owners of this property spent a great deal
of time and energy making improvements to this walkway. These
improvements centered around replacing the tie retaining walls with field
stone, as specified in the Guide Plan. These improvements were proposed
in the Guide Plan to strengthen the condition of the separated walkway as
a part of the overall goal to continually improve the pedestrian
circulation system in Vail Village.
2. Sub -area Concept 138. Mid -block connection (covered) from Bridge
Street to Village Plaza.
While not covered, this improvement was completed in conjunction with the
Casino Building construction. Once considered a back alley, this area
now provides a valuable pedestrian link between Wall Street and Bridge
Street. The proposal for the Plaza Building will not affect this
sub -area concept.
• 3. Sub -area Concept 14. Village Plaza. Feature area paving
treatment, central focal point visible from Gore Creek Drive.
Major land form /planting in northwest for quiet corner, with
evergreen screen planting to define west edge. Wall Street stairs,
with mid -level jog landing, opens entry area to Lazier Arcade
shops.
This improvement has been completed and will remain unchanged with this
proposal.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
The Design Considerations address the primary form- giving physical
features of the Village. They provide a description of these key
elements, without which the image of Vail would be noticeably different.
It is the goal of the Design Considerations, that through their
application, future changes will be consistent with the established
Village character and make positive contributions to the Village
experience. These considerations include the following:
Pedestrianizatio
A major objective for Vail Village is to encourage pedestrian circulation
through an interconnected network of safe, pleasant pedestrian ways. It
is stated in this consideration that new or expanded construction should
2
anticipate the appropriate level of pedestrianization adjacent to the
site. The separated walkway on this portion of Bridge Street is a
successful element of the streetscape and constitutes a critical link of
this pedestrian system. The walkway provides for circulation off of
Bridge Street that takes on added significance when considering the
loading zone in this area. During utilization of the loading and
delivery zone, this walkway provides the pedestrian an alternative from
Bridge Street.
As stated in the Guide Plan, "Many of the improvements recognized in the
Urban Design Guide Plans and accompanying Design Considerations are to
reinforce and expand the quality of pedestrian walkways throughout the
Village." The sub -area concepts outlined in the Guide Plan designate
some of the specific street development desired for walkways in the
Village. In referring to these sub -area concepts, one must consider
Sub -Area Concept 13A which states the separated walkways should be
maintained. This further demonstrates the incompatibility of this
proposal with respect to the goals of the Urban Design Guide Plan for
Vail Village.
Vehicular Penetration
Factors addressed in this consideration are not applicable to this
proposal.
Streetscaoe Framework
• This consideration proposes two general types of improvements adjacent to
walkways. These include landscaping improvements as a colorful framework
linkage along pedestrian routes and commercial storefront expansions to
provide activity generators and street life along the Village's streets.
This proposal obviously presents some interesting perspectives with
respect to this consideration.
At the present time the planters adjacent to the Plaza Lodge provide a
very pleasing landscaped statement between Bridge Street and the Plaza
Lodge. On the other hand, it could be argued that the commercial
expansions will bring retail activity adjacent to Bridge Street, thereby
generating more street life and visual interest. This consideration goes
on to state that, "It is desired to have a variety of open and closed
spaces, both built and landscaped, which create a strong framework for
pedestrian walks as well as visual interest and activity."
In evaluating this consideration it again becomes necessary to refer to
the sub -area concepts proposed in the Guide Plan. By virtue of the Guide
Plan's recommendation to leave the separated walkway and landscape
planters in place, one can readily assume that the desired improvements
in this area do not involve a commercial expansion. This is further
reinforced when considering the many other areas of the Village where the
Guide Plan has proposed commercial expansions to provide activity
generators along pedestrian ways. Given that both landscaping and infill
can be used to satisfy this consideration, the sub -area concepts of the
Guide Plan clearly imply that this area should remain in its present
condition.
One element of the proposed infill that is consistent with the
streetscape framework consideration is the partial infill of Vendetta's
deck. At the present time the existing facade is recessed to a degree,
resulting in a facade that is difficult to see. The existing situation
does not provide any visible activity or street life to the pedestrian in
this area. The proposed infill in this area would bring this activity
out closer to the pedestrian way, thereby providing greater visual
interest at this portion of the building.
Street Enclosure
A comfortable enclosure for streets is determined by the width of the
street in relation to the building heights on either side. As the
Planning Commission may recall, this was a particular concern with the
Hill Building expansion as it related to One Vail Place. With this
proposal, the three story facade of the Plaza Lodge along Bridge Street
will be reduced to one story at street level. This provides a more
pleasing pedestrian scale for this building. The sense of enclosure
varies along the length of this frontage relative to the building heights
on the other side of Bridge Street. At no time does the sense of
enclosure become uncomfortable, and the lack of uniformity created by
this situation is consistent with this consideration.
Street Edge
The Plaza Lodge is compatable with this consideration in its present
state. The building jogs in a manner consistent with the slight curve of
upper Bridge Street. The existing planters strengthen this situation by
maintaining a strong, continuous streetedge along Bridge Street. This
consideration would be affected by this proposed redevelopment. While
the building is still sited to "curve with the street ", the strong edge
created by the planters will be eliminated.
Building Height
Building height considerations are not directly applicable to this
proposal because the addition is predominantly one story.
Views
There are no impacts on either minor or major view corridors from this
proposal.
Service and Delivery_
Service and delivery are vital functional elements of any pedestrianized
area. It is the intention of this consideration to insure that these
functions be preserved and enhanced where possible. The elimination of
the separated walkway will directly affect the impact of the existing
loading zone that is adjacent to this property. As has been stated, a
pedestrian has the opportunity to utilize this walkway when loading is
taking place on Bridge Street. The elimination of this walkway will
remove this option for the pedestrian.
4
As proposed, the loading zone will remain unchanged and be located only
five feet from many of the storefronts. This will effectively shield
views of the storefronts and store entrys when vehicles are utilizing the
loading /delivery zones. It is the feeling of the staff that this will
create adverse impacts on the shops in this building. This is due to the
insufficient width of the sidewalk (b feet) and the close proximity of
parked trucks. In evaluating this proposal, one must consider the
existing situation which staff feels to be quite ideal, and the proposed
redevelopment which the staff would consider to be inappropriate.
Sun /Shade
In Vail's alpine climate it is particularly important to consider solar
access to public spaces. This consideration states that new or expanded
buildings should not substantially increase the shadow pattern on
adjacent properties or public right -of -ways. It should be noted that
this proposal will result in slight increases in the shadow pattern on
Bridge Street. However, we feel this increased shadow is not considered
significant.
V. ZONING AND OTTER CONSIDERATIONS
1. Parkin
There is no parking provided on site,
demand created by this proposal would
the Town's parking fund. The precise
• be determined at the time of building
2. Landscaping and Site Development Stan,
and the additional parking
be met through payment into
amount of this payment would
permit.
lards
The zoning code states that no reduction in landscaped areas shall
be permitted without sufficient cause shown by the applicant or as
specified in the Vail Village Design Considerations. This proposal
is clearly inconsistent with the Design Considerations of the Urban
Design Guide Plan. The landscaped planters serve an important role
in establishing the streetscape framework and street edge on this
portion of Bridge Street, as well as defining the separated
walkway.
3. Unit Modifications
At the present time there are a variety of dwelling and
accommodation units within the Plaza Lodge. To facilitate a more
efficient utilization of the kitchen units with lock -off units,
modifications are being proposed to this area of the building.
These changes would be in compliance with existing development
standards and do not require any review or approval by the Planning
Commission.
0 4.
Partial enclosure of Vendetta's deck
The staff has traditionally been very critical of any attempts to
enclose existing outdoor dining areas. This concern has been
upheld throughout the years by the Town Council who have uniformly
denied all proposals to enclose dining decks. While the staff is
not supporting this project as proposed, we are not particularly
concerned with the partial enclosure of this deck. As stated in
the memorandum, it is felt that bringing this facade closer to
pedestrianways will provide greater visual interest during the time
when there is not activity on the deck. In addition, this area of
Vendetta's deck has traditionally been subject to drainage problems
from the Plaza Lodge roof.
In terms of numbers, the enclosure amounts to just under 300 square
feet of the total 960 square feet of deck. It is felt that the
remaining 660 square feet of dining deck is sufficient for this
deck to contribute to the street life in the Village. The design
of the enclosure includes a fixed glass roof with operable doors
running the length of the dining deck. This will allow for the
doors to be opened during the summer months and apre ski. Given
these considerations, the staff does not feel the partial enclosure
of this deck to be detrimental.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is clearly unable to support this proposal as presented and
would recommend the Planning Commission deny this application. The staff
feels strongly that, in its present state, the existing Bridge Street
frontage of the Plaza Lodge building is the essence of what is encouraged
in the Urban Design Guide Plan. The separated walkway and landscape
elements work well together. This is particularly true in considering the
loading function that is a required element of this portion of Bridge
Street. The Planning Commission is urged to carefully consider the
Design Considerations and sub -area concepts as outlined in the Urban
Design Guide Plan when evaluating this proposal.
However, while recommending overall denial of the entire application, we
find merit in the partial deck enclosure for Vendetta's for the above
reasons. Support of this enclosure is conditional on the west elevation
being designed with operable panels to allow the wall to be opened during
apres ski and daytime hours.
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for setback variance and diameter of satellite dish
variance in order to install a commercial satellite dish at the
Chamonix Corners building in West Vail
Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to install a 3.8 meter (13 ft.) diameter satellite
antenna in the northeast corner of the parcel containing the Chamonix
Corners commercial building, which houses the KVMT broadcasting studios.
The requested variance is for both allowable antenna diameter and setback
requirements. These requirements are listed as Section 18.58.320 D, 4
and 6. The zoning code stipulates that the maximum size of any satellite
dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be
limited to 9 feet in diameter. Satellite dish antennas are required to
comply with existing setback requirements of the zone district in which
the dish is installed. The required setbacks in the CCIII zone district
are 10 feet. Proposed location of the dish is within 10 feet of the rear
property line, and thus requires variance.
Included with this memo is a copy of the applicant'.s statement supporting
his request for a dish of a larger size than is currently allowed through
the regulations.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 1.8.61.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends p
ends a proval 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 requested encroachment into the rear setback is approximately 4 to 5
feet. The requested location is adjacent to the existing trasli_..
facilities that serve this parcel. In review of the site, this appears
to be the best location for the satellite dish, and we feel that with the
proposed fencing and screening that the applicant is amenable to, there
will be little negative impact to the existing or potential uses or
structures in the vicinity.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of a specified regulation is necessary to achi-eve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among sites in the vicinit or
to attain the objectives of this title without grant of special
privilege.
The staff feels that due to the desire of both the applicant and the Town
to achieve maximum possible screening of the satellite dish antenna, that
the proposed site is the best possible location and because of this, it
would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment
into the rear setback.
With regard to the request for variance from maximum diameter, the staff
feels that the technical information submitted by KVMT is sufficient to
prove that a 9 foot diameter dish as typically used in residential
installations would not be able to meet the technical specifications of
the FCC that would be required for the operation of this satellite dish
for the KVMT radio station. Therefore, we feel that it would not be a
grant of special privilege to approve the variance of the maximum size of
the satellite dish.
The effect of the re nested variance on light and air distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities and public safety.
The location and size of the requested antenna will have no negative
impacts upon any of the above mentioned criteria. While the proposed
• location is adjacent to both a parking area and a trash facility, the
dish location will not obstruct parking or hinder the trash removal
operations.
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 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:
iThe 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of both the setback and maximum diameter
variance requests. We feel that the proposed location is in an optimum
area to screen this dish from adjacent properties and we feel that KVMT
has proved substantial hardship in request for the size considerations.
We would request the Planning and Environmental Commission pass along
their concerns to the Design Review Board that this dish be adequately
screened from view from adjacent public and private properties as a part
of the DRB approval process. The staff also feels that the applicant
should explore the possibility of utilizing a mesh dish. "
M V
' K M4
AIL • GLEN WOOD SPRINGS • 11RECKENRI
• 1
MEMO
TO: Rick Pylman
From: Bill Sepmeier
RE: Technical specifications, KVMT Satellite Antenna
Since KVMT FM is a a licensed commercial'broadcast station,
it must adhere to all Federal Communication Commission
rules and guidelines regarding program transmission
quality. These are specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 73, and are summerized as such:
Measurements of transmitted signal
strength - to - noise levels must
exceed 53 decibels.
Frequency response must remain essentially
flat in a band from 50 hertz to 15,000 hertz.
Imtermodulation and seperation of left
and right channels: IM must be less
than 1 percent total, Seperation must
be kept at at least 40 decibels, minimum.
While this technical jargan is confusing, translated it
means that the sound must be of as high a quality as
the state of the art will permit.
Now, relating this to the staellite antenna...
In the last year, the FCC has permitted the 'close- spacing'
of satellites used in the domestic service region, that i's,
satellite operators have been allowed to shift satellites
in their orbits, moving them closer together, in order to
operate more satellites in this crowded area of space.
Since all satellites operate on the SAME FREQUENCIES, this
2 °spacing has increased the opportunity for interference
in the reception of satellite signals, ESPECIALLY with
small apature (diameter) receiving dishes. Since a smaller
dish has less surface area, it is less selective in the
area of sky it 'looks' at therefore greatly increasing
the ability of other, unwanted, signals to interfere with
the desired product.
2271 North Frontage Road West * Vail, Colorado 81657 * 303 /476 -KVMT • 1 -800- 843 -8471
In addition, smaller dishes provide substantially less gain
to the desired signals, lowering the signal to noise
ratio levels. ( A 9 foot dish provides only 50% of
the gain of a 13 foot dish.)
Because of the guidelines imposed upon the FM br adcast
service to provide a high quality, interference /kf6iYal
and due to the limitations imposed upon all satellite
users by the 2° spacing, combined with the Single
Channel Per Carrier (SCPC) format that KVMT's incoming
signals utilize (a format more inherent to noise
pack up and interference than, say, digital transmission),
it is imperetive that KVMT utilize the specified
3.8 miter diameter antenna, as requested in its variance
application in order to satisfy federal requirements,
standards of good engineering practice, and to assure
a high quality program signal to listeners in its
service area.
Thank You.
Cite.
0 FCC Rules and Regulations, Parts 73.322, 73.1610, 2.106.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 23, 1987
2:15 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of February 9, 1987
2. A request for a setback and size variance in order
to install a satellite receiving dish greater than
the maximum allowed at 2271 North Frontage Road
West.
Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio
3. Appointment of a PEC member to DRB for the months
of March, April and May
WORK SESSION:
4. A request for an exterior alteration of the Plaza
Building.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
5. A request for an exterior alteration of the
Lionshead Centre Building.
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium
Assn.
6. A request to create a new zone district, Hillside
Residential (HR) to provide sites for low density
single family residential use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
•
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 23, 1987
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
J.J. Collins Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Tom Braun
Bryan Hobbs Kristan Pritz
Pam Hopkins Rick Pylmn
Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of 2/9/87. Donovan moved and Hopkins
seconded to approve the minutes. The vote was 7 -0 in favor.
2. A request for setback and size variance in order to install_
a satellite receiving dish greater than the maximum allowed
at 2271 North Frontage Road West. Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail,_
Inc. dba KVMT Radio
Rick Pylman explained the request and showed photos and a site
plan. J.J. Collins asked how the dish would be screened from the
residents who lived further up the mountain from the dish and was
told it would be screened on all four sides and would be turned
toward the west so that the narrow edge would be visible from
above. Rick explained that this PEC approval would allow the
applicant to proceed to DRB, and DRB would address landscaping and
screening. The PEC concerns regarding the landscaping and
screening could be passed along to the DRB.
J J. Collins moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request
per the staff memo dated 2/23/87 with the request to DRB that
there be adequate screening and landscaping. The vote was 7 -0 in
favor of the request_
3. Appointment of a PEC member to DRB for the months of March,
April and May.
J.J. Collins volunteered to serve on the DRB and Peggy Osterfoss
volunteered to back him up.
A work session followed concerning the Plaza Lodge, the Lionshead
Centre Building and Hillside Residential zoning.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for setback variance and diameter of satellite dish
variance in order to install a commercial satellite dish at the
Chamonix Corners building in West Vail
Applicant: Sky -Hi Vail, Inc. dba KVMT Radio
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant wishes to install a 3.8 meter (13 ft.) diameter satellite
antenna in the northeast corner of the parcel containing the Chamonix
Corners commercial building, which houses the KVMT broadcasting studios.
The requested variance is for both allowable antenna diameter and setback
requirements. These requirements are listed as Section 18.58.320 D, 4
and 6. The zoning code stipulates that the maximum size of any satellite
dish antenna installed for use by a single residence or business shall be
limited to 9 feet in diameter. Satellite dish antennas are required to
comply with existing setback requirements of the zone district in which
the dish is installed. The required setbacks in the CCIII zone district
are 10 feet. Proposed location of the dish is within 10 feet of the rear
property line, and thus requires variance.
Included with this memo is a copy of the applicant,'.s stat.ement.supporting
his request for a dish of a larger size than is currently allowed through
the regulations.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of the Municipal
Code, the Department of Community Development recommends approval of the
requested variance based upon the following factors:.
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested encroachment into the rear setback is approximately 4 to 5
feet. The requested location is adjacent to the existing trash
facilities that serve this parcel. In review of the site, this appears
to be the best location for the satellite dish, and we feel that with the
proposed fencing and screening that the applicant is amenable to, there
will be little negative impact to the existing or potential uses or
structures in the vicinity.
The de ree to which relief from the strict or literal interpretation and
. enforcement of a specified re ulation is necessar to achieve
com atibilit and uniformit of treatment among sites in the vicinity or
to attain the objectives of this title without rant of s ecial
privileLe_
The staff feels that due to the desire of both the applicant and the Town
to achieve maximum possible screening of the satellite dish antenna, that
the proposed site is the best possible location and because of this, it
would not be a special privilege to grant the variance for encroachment
into the rear setback.
With regard to the request for variance from maximum diameter, the staff
feels that the technical information submitted by KVMT is sufficient to
prove that a 9 foot diameter dish as typically used in residential
installations would not be able to meet the technical specifications of
the FCC that would be required for the operation of this satellite dish
for the KVMT radio station. Therefore, we feel that it would not be a
grant of special privilege to approve the variance of the maximum size of
the satellite dish.
The effect of the re nested variance on light and air distribution of
o ulation trans ortation and traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The location and size of the requested antenna will have no negative
. impacts upon any of the above mentioned criteria. While the proposed
location is adjacent to both a parking area and a'trash facility, the
dish location will not obstruct parking or hinder the trash removal
operations.
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 followin
fin din s before rantin 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:
IMThe 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of both the setback and maximum diameter
variance requests. We feel that the proposed location is in an optimum
area to screen this dish from adjacent properties and we feel that KVMT
has proved substantial hardship in request for the size considerations.
We would request the Planning and Environmental Commission pass along
their concerns to the Design Review Board that this dish be adequately
screened from view from adjacent public and private properties as a part
of the DRB approval process. The staff also feels that the applicant
is should explore the possibility of utilizing a mesh dish. '
e �m
r
MEMO
TO: Rick Pylman
From: Bill Sepmeier
RE: Technical specifications, KVMT Satellite Antenna
Since KVMT FM is a a licensed commercial broadcast station,
it must adhere to all Federal Communication Commission
rules and guidelines regarding program transmission
quality. These are specified in the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 73, and are summerized as such:
Measurements of transmitted signal
strength - to - noise levels must
exceed 53 decibels.
Frequency response must remain essentially
flat in a band from 50 hertz to 15,000 hertz.
Imtermodulation and seperation of left
and right channels: IM must be less
than 1 percent total, Seperation must
be kept at at least 40 decibels, minimum:
While this technical jargan is confusing, translated it
means that the sound must be of as high a quality as
the state of the art will permit.
Now, relating this to the staellite antenna...
In the last year, the FCC has permitted the 'close - spacing'
of satellites used in the domestic service region,. that is,
satellite operators have been allowed to shift satellites
in their orbits, moving them closer together, in order to
operate more satellites in this crowded area of space.
Since all satellites operate on the SAME FREQUENCIES,'this
2 °spacing has increased the opportunity for interference
in the reception of satellite signals, ESPECIALLY with
small apature (diameter) receiving dishes. Since a smaller
dish has less surface area, it is less selective in the
area of sky it 'looks' at therefore greatly increasing
the ability of other, unwanted, signals to interfere with
the desired product.
2271 North Frontage Road West a Vail, Colorado 81657 * 303/476 -KVMT • 1 -800- 843 -8471
In addition, smaller dishes provide substantially less gain
to the desired signals, lowering the signal to noise
ratio levels. ( A 9 foot dish provides only 50% of
the gain of a 13 foot dish.)
Because of the guidelines imposed upon the FM brgadcast
service to provide a high quality, interference/ � al
and due to the limitations imposed upon all satellite
users by the 2° spacing, combined with the Single
Channel Per Carrier (SCPC) format that KVMT's incoming
signals utilize (a format more inherent to noise
pick up and interference than, say, digital transmission),
it is imperetive that KVMT utilize the specified
3.8 mate-- diameter antenna, as requested in its variance
application in order to satisfy federal requirements,
standards of good engineering practice, and to assure
a high quality program signal to listeners in its
service area.
Thank You.
Cite:
FCC Rules and Regulations, Parts 73.322, 73.1610, 2.106.
0 TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning Commission
Community Development Department
February 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Work Session on the Plaza Lodge
This work session has been scheduled to allow the applicant an
opportunity to informally present a revised design prior to review
by the Planning Commission. While a decision will not be made on
this proposal at this review, the applicant and staff are desirous
in hearing further comments from the Planning Commission on this
revised proposal.
BACKGROUND ON PREVIOUS REVIEW
The proposal consists of a partial infill of the Vendetta's deck
and commercial infill along the length of the building's Bridge
Street frontage. The staff's strong opposition to this proposal
is centered around the infill proposed to Bridge Street. This
infill would require the removal of the planters as well as the
elimination of the separated walkway on this portion of Bridge
Street. Staff's concerns are based on the goals of the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan that clearly recommends that
• these features remain. The applicant's reasons for this proposal
are to eliminate the perceived barrier to the pedestrian that is
presently existing and to bring the retail storefronts closer to
the pedestrian circulation on Bridge Street.
A wide variety of comments were made by the Planning Commission
concerning this element of the proposal. While comments very
critical of this proposal were made, other commissioners felt
there was potential to modify the design in response to concerns
over the loss of landscaping and the separated walkway. There was
general agreement among the commissioners (and the staff) that the
proposed additions complement the building by introducing a more
human scale to this elevation. At issue with this proposal are
the impacts resulting from this infill, both on the property and
along Bridge Street.
SUMMARY OF CHANGES PROPOSED
A number of modifications have been made to this proposal. While
each of these will be addressed in detail at the work session, the
following summarizes the fundamental changes that have been made;
1. The addition of two planters contiguous to the building
2. Modifications to the shape and size of previously
. proposed planters
3. Modifications to the footprint of the proposed infill
4. An additional street lamp has been added to the
proposal
5. Additional landscape materials are proposed in the area
of Vendetta's deck
6. Two street benches have been added along Bridge Street
7. Modifications to second floor expansions have been
made.
STAFF COMMENT ON THESE MODIFICATIONS
Time does not allow the staf
responses to each of these d
these modifications have in
this proposal. With the exc
proposal is substantially th
by the Planning Commission.
by this proposal as are the
Street. These two changes a
most directly conflict with
the Urban Design Guide Plan.
f an opportunity to provide detailed
esign changes. In general terms,
no way changed the staff's position on
eption of two planter boxes, the
e same as the one originally reviewed
The separated walkway is eliminated
freestanding planters along Bridge
re the elements of this proposal that
the very specific goals outlined in
There are issues directly related to this proposal that go beyond
the application itself. Among these issues is the built
environment versus open space features and the validity and role
of the Urban Design Guide Plan. The built environment is
obviously an important element of Vail. Equally vital elements of
the Village's built environment are the open spaces, plazas and
landscape features that together establish its charm and appeal.
There is no question that from a strictly retail standpoint, the
proposed infills will benefit this property. But the questions go
far beyond this concept. The infill of Seibert Circle and Slifer
Square would also provide great potential for retail development.
Being public land, this is obviously not going to happen. The
point, however, is that a balance must be struck between
commercial interests and the interests of the Village as a whole.
The Guide Plan was adopted as a statement of what the community
feels is important with respect to design and development in Vail
Village.
There is no question as to the Guide Plan's direction for this
area of Bridge Street. In every development review the question
of balance between the built environment and open spaces must be
addressed. With this application, the staff feels strongly that
the public benefits of the landscaped planters and separated
walkway far outweigh the benefit to the property owner that would
be realized from this infill.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Work Session on the Lionshead Center Building
This work session has been scheduled to allow the applicant an
opportunity to informally present design plans prior to formal
review by the Planning Commission. While a decision will not be
made on this proposal at this review, both applicant and staff are
desirous of hearing comments from the Planning Commission on this
proposal.
BACKGROUND OF THIS PROPOSAL
The Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts #11
and #12, both refer to redevelopment and expansion of the
Lionshead Center Building. These sub -area concepts refer to
commercial expansion on both the north and south sides of the
Lionshead Center Building. They provide for the opportunity of
expansion of building, arcades, awnings, etc. to improve the
scale, shelter and appearance of the facade. The majority of this
proposal relates very well to the sub -area concepts outlined in
. the Urban Design Guide Plan. The proposal, however, also includes
building expansion to the west. The proposed design for this area
consists of the removal of a substantial landscaped area and
includes redesign of pedestrian circulation patterns in this area
between the Lionshead Center Building and the Gondola.
SUMMARY OF STAFF CONCERNS
1. The one story commercial expansion proposed on the north side
of the building is basically in concert with that concept
expressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan. The degree of this
expansion, however, has raised some staff concerns. The
building footprint will extend to within approximately one
foot from the property line. The facade proposal includes a
fixed rigid canopy system running the length of the mall
frontage and encroaches approximately four feet over the
property line. This creates a width of only 16 feet from
canopy to the planter and staircase of the Lazier Building to
the north. This design does not include the relocation of
the existing street lighting located currently on the
Lionshead Center property. This distance of 16 feet is below
the required operational widths of the Fire and Public Works
departments.
2. Expansion to the west of the existing building eliminates a
large area of landscaping. Staff believes that this is
probably the largest mature landscaped area within the entire
Lionshed Mall and feel some effort should be made to preserve
and maintain this landscaping. It should also be noted that
the CCII zone district has the requirement of 10 foot
setbacks, unless otherwise specified in the Urban Design
Guide Plan. While the Guide Plan specifies the northern and
southern expansions, the expansion to the west is not
specifically called out in the Guide Plan, and therefore will
necessitate approval of a setback variance.
CONCLUSION
While the staff is riot in a position to make a recommendation on
this project at this point in the review process, we will state
that, although the project generally meets the intent of the Urban
Design Guide Plan, we are concerned with a number of specific
issues and feel that this work session will be a positive climate
in which to discuss some of these concerns.
r�
u
U
L�
Sections:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
2.
3.
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT
Purpose
Permitted Uses
Conditional Uses
Accessory Uses
Lot Area and Site Dimensions
Setbacks
Height
Density Control
Site Coverage
Landscaping and Site Development
Parking
Purpose
M M 8 ff V
The Hillside Residential District is intended to provide sites for low
density single family residential uses, together with such public
facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The
Hillside Residential District is intended to insure adequate light, air,
privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single family
occupancy, and to maintain the desirable low density high quality
residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site
development standards.
Permitted Uses
The following uses shall be permitted in the HR district:
Single family residential dwellings
One caretaker apartment per lot.
Conditional uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60:
A. Public utility and public service uses
B. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
C. Public park and recreation facilities
4. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR district;
A. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports,
swimming pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily
incidental to single family uses
B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation, subject
to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be twenty -one thousand seven hundred
and eighty square feet of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall
have a minimum frontage of fifty feet. Each site shall be of a size and
shape capable of enclosing a square eighty feet on each side within its
boundaries.
6. Setbacks
In the HR district, minimum front setbacks shall be:--twenty feet, minimum
side setbacks shall be fifteen feet, minimum rear setbacks shall be
fifteen feet.
7. Height
For a flat roof or mansard roof the height of buildings shall not exceed
thirty feet. For a sloping roof the height of buildings shall not exceed
thirty -three feet.
8. Density Control
Not more than a total of two dwelling units in a single structure shall
be permitted on each site. Not more than twenty -five square feet of
gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be permitted for each one
hundred square feet for the first twenty -one thousand seven hundred
eighty square feet of site area, plus not more than ten feet of gross
residential floor area shall be permitted for each one hundred square
feet of site area over twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty square
feet not to exceed forty -three thousand five hundred and sixty square
feet of site area, plus not more than five square feet of gross
residential floor area for each one hundred square feet of site area in
excess of forty -three thousand five hundred and sixty square feet. On
any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed
twenty -five percent of the total developed gross residential floor area
(GRFA) of the site. This unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately
from the main dwelling.
f !
•
9. Site Coverage
Not more than fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings.
10. Landscaping and Site Development
At least seventy (70) percent of each site shall be landscaped. The
minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be
ten feet with a minimum area of not less than three hundred square feet.
11. Parking
Off- street shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52.
•
•
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Departmet
DATE: February 23, 1987
SUBJECT: Hillside Residential Zone District
Through the Land Use Plan process, there was identified a need for
a new low density residential zone district. The Land Use Plan
has identified several sites for potential development, but has
stressed that that develoment should be at a density lower than
that identified by our existing residential districts. The staff
has been working with the criteria identified in the Land Use Plan
to develop this zone district. The sections of the Land Use Plan
applicable to this zone district, along with our initial draft
have been included in your packet.
The purpose of this work session format is to allow discussion and
to present an understanding of the reasoning that went into each
section of this zone district. The following is a brief
discussion of each of the 11 sections that make up the Hillside
Residential District:
1. Purpose
. The Purpose section of the district is written as a brief
summary of the intention of the district as outlined in the
Land Use Plan.
2. Permitted Uses
The staff felt that similar to our existing residential zone
districts, the only permitted uses should be the dwelling
units.
3. Conditional Uses
Conditional uses placed in here are those uses often seen in
conjunction with a residential zone district: Public
utilities, public buildings, park and recreation facilities.
One use that we did not include within the conditional uses
that is seen in some of the other zone districts in the
community is that of allowing public and private schools.
4. Accessory Uses
These accessory uses are the common accessories allowed and
permitted in residential zone districts. This is similar to
the existing zone districts in the community.
• 5. Lot area and site dimensions.
The density discussed through the Land Use Plan is two
. dwelling units per acre. The staff then decided that the lot
area should be a half acre minimum buildable area which is
21,780 square feet. We felt that in keeping with the desire
to maintain a quality low density residential zone district,
we should increase the required frontage to 50 feet in order
to minimize the development of flag lots and maintain the low
density appearance. We felt that maintaining the requirement
for the 80 foot per side square ensures the location of an
adequate building envelope.
6. Setbacks
The staff feels that the existing setbacks presently in the
existing residential zone districts are adequate and feel
that we do not need to increase these setbacks for the
Hillside Residential district.
7. Building Height
We feel it is appropriate to maintain the 30 -33 foot standard
S. Density Control
This is the section of the zone district that deals with the
GRFA of both the primary and caretaker units. This is the
section that will control the bulk and mass and in essence
the type of development that we are expecting here. We have
included in this packet a worksheet that details GRFA as set
on our standard formula. This worksheet details the GRFA
that would be allowable on various lot sizes and also several
alternatives regarding the GRFA of the proposed caretaker
units. We feel that this area merits some further discussion
as to what we were trying to accomplish through the inclusion
of a caretaker unit.
9. Site Coverage
We feel that 150 of the total site area is an appropriate
amount of coverage by building.
10. Landscaping and Site Development
This number is slightly increased above our existing
residential districts, but we feel that this is in keeping
with the concept of a low density, high quality district.
11. Parking
This section is dealt with in accordance with the parking
requirements currently laid out within the municipal code.
•
. In conclusion, the staff is comfortable with the majority of the
sections of this zone district as we have drafted them. We feel
that some discussion is warranted in the density control section.
We feel that there must be a clear understanding of what we want
to accomplish with this zone district with regard to bulk and mass
of structures and with regard to the aspect of a caretaker unit.
U
•
b:a
w
J � F
i ti S,4tS
}
i 1 1., is 'lino
i t 1LAl� S4ty
1l r'
f �
f
i
LAND USE PL
F. That hillsides should also be assessed, taking constraints into con-
' sideration.
G. That the Village and Lionshead Core Areas would remain essentially the
same, with the addition of a transition area to strengthen the connec-
tion between the two core areas. Several new land use categories aimed
2 at strengthenng hotel and other tourist - oriented uses were also added.
4. Proposed Land Use Categories
New land use categories were defined to indicate general types of land uses
which should occur within the Town during the planning period. These cate-
gories were varied from the existing land use categories to reflect the
goals of the community more accurately. The specific land uses are listed
as examples and are not intended to reflect an all - inclusive list of uses.
Uses would be controlled by zoning. These categories are indicated below.
LDR Low Density Residential
This category includes single- family detached homes and two family
dwelling units. Density of development within this category would
typically not exceed 3 structures per buildable acre. Also within
this area would be private recreation facilities such as tennis
courts, swimming pools and club houses for the use of residents of the
area. Institutional /public uses permitted would include churches,
fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities.
I,* MDR Medium Density Residential
The medium density residential category includes housing which would
typically be designed as attached units with common wails. Densities
in this category would range from 3 to 14 dwelling units per buildable
acre. Additional types of uses in this category would include private
recreation facilities, private parking facilities and institutional/
public uses such as parks and open space, churches, and fire stations.
HDR High Density Residential
The housing in this category would typically consist of multi - floored
structures with densities exceeding 15 dwelling units per buildable
acre. Other activities in this category would include private recrea-
tional facilities, and private parking facilities and institutional/
public uses such as churches, fire stations and parks and open space
facilities.
HR Hillside Residential
This category would allow for single family dwelling units at densi-
ties no more than two dwelling units per buildable acre. Also permit-
ted would be typical single family accessory uses such as private
1 recreational amenities, attached caretaker units, or employee units
i and garages. Institutional /public uses would also be permitted.
These areas would require sensitive development due to slopes, access,
visibility, tree coverage and geologic hazards. Minimum buildable
area of 20,000 square feet would be required per dwelling unit. (See
Chapter VIII for more specific discussion of implementation.)
32
5. "Preferred Plan" Land Use Pattern
wThe "Existing Trends" alternative was chosen as the preferred land -use
plan and was carefully reviewed area by area to assess feasibility and
compatibility with adjacent existing land uses. Some modifications
were then made in proposed new areas of medium and high density because
of potential land use and neighborhood conflicts. The pattern which is
reflected on the "Preferred Plan" is discussed below.
A. Residential Uses
1. Low Density Uses.
Low density residential uses are now planned for a total of 699.0
acres, or about 21% of the land in the plan area, which is an
increase of 8% over the area presently in low density residential
use. These areas reflect the completion of existing platted pro-
jects, with some additional areas added adjacent to the single
family areas at low densities. The 8% increase reflects the large
number of undeveloped, platted lots already existing in Vail.
2. Medium and High Density Uses.
Medium and high density residential areas now account for a total
of approximately 15% of the land in the plan area, with 421 acres
in the medium density category and 68.5 acres in the high density
category. This is a 4% increase in land area devoted to these two
• land use designations, reflecting a need to accommodate additional
market demand for multi - family uses. For the most part, these
multi - family areas have been kept consistent with the pattern of
existing land use with additional multi- family occurring within
unfinished projects and adjacent to these multi - family areas. Some
new areas of high density residential have been added, specifically
in east Vail between the frontage road and I -70, where access is
good and surrounding land uses would be compatible for this type of
use. Other areas, north of I -70 where existing land uses are mixed
containing both low and medium density uses have been shown as
medium density to meet the demand for additional multi- family
dwelling units within the 15 -year planning period.
3. Hillside Residential.
The new category of land use types "Hillside Residential" covers a
portion of two large parcels. These parcels account for 33.3 acres
or a total of 1.0% of the land use area within the plan area.
These parcels were designated in this category to allow the possi-
bility for limited development if certain criteria could be met.
Any development proposed would require the evaluation on a case -
by -case basis, accompanied by an in -depth analysis, to assure sen-
sitivity to constraints, provision of adequate access, minimization
of visibility from the Valley floor, and compatibility with sur-
rounding land uses. Any such development would be required to meet
all applicable Town ordinances and regulations. (See Chapter VIII
for more specific information on implementation.)
35
CHAPTER VIII - IMPLEMENTATION
The Land Use Plan developed as a result of this effort will become a part
of the Vail Comprehensive Plan, which in its entirety will serve to guide
growth within the Town of Vail for the next 15 years. The Land Use Plan is
not intended to be regulatory in nature but is intended to provide a
general framework to guide decision making. Specific implementation
measures should be undertaken to assure that the intent of th Plan is
carried forward throughout the life of the Plan.
Such measures should include changes to ordinances and regulations or
policies adopted by the Town. These measures should also include develop-
ing a system by which the Plan may be continuously monitored and periodic-
ally amended. This is important because the planning process is one of
continuous evolution with data, public opinion and market forces changing
over time.
1. Land Use Regulation Analysis
The zoning and subdivision regulations should be analyzed carefully to
assure that objectives of the Land Use Plan may be met. While an in -depth
analysis of these regulations is not within the scope of this project, some
general recommendations may be made concerning new land use categories
developed for the Land Use Plan. The following categories should be
reviewed for compatibility with the zoning regulations.
A. Hi 11 si de Resi denti al
• This new category will require the adoption of a new zoning category,
which would allow for single - family residential units at a maximum
density of two per acre, with a minimum buildable area of 20,000
square feet of contiguous area per unit. Allowance should also be
made for an employee or guest housing unit to be built as an accessory
unit attached to the primary living unit or garage. The existing
regulations for access to subdivisions and for control of hazard areas
should still be applicable.
B. Community Office
This category would require a review of the Arterial Business District
zoning category to ensure that permitted and conditional uses were
broad enough to be consistent with the objectives established with the
Land Use Plan.
C. Transition
This area would require an analysis of the actual zoning along West
Meadow Drive to ensure that the purposes of the transition district
could be met.
' D. High Density Residential
The actual location of the parcels of high density residential should
be analyzed to determine a suitable minimum lot area permissible for
high density development. The present high density zone district has
the requirement of a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet of build-
able area. It is conceivable that this minimum would not be adequate
in some cases and may need to be increased to 20,000 square feet.
59
•
•
•
t
(HR)
fiRFA WORKSHEET
0.25 -21780
0.1-21780 -4356
0,05 -43560
LOT SIZE
SRFA
MAIN UNIT 075%
CARETAKER 025% CARETAKER
020%
CARETAKER 0151
21730
5445
4084
1361
1089
917
22000
5467
4100
1367
1043
820
23000
5567
4175
17092
1113
935
24000
5667
4250
1417
1133
050
i
25000
5767
4325
1442
1153
865
26000
5867
4400
1467
1173
980
27000
5967
4475
1492
1193
895
28000
6067
4550
1517
1213
910
29000
6167
4625
1542
1233
925
30000
6267
4700
1567
1253
940
31000
6567
4775
1592
1273
955
32000
6467
4050
1617
1293
970
33000
6567
4925
1642
1313
965
34000
6667
5000
1667
1333
1000
35000
6767
5075
1692
1353
1015
36000
6867
5150
1717
1373
1030
37000
6967
5225
1742
1393
1045
38000
7067
5300
1767
1413
1060
39000
7167
5375
1797
1433
1075
40000
7267
5450
1917
1453
1090
41000
7367
5525
1842
1473
11070
42000
7467
5600
1867
1493
1120
43000
7567
5675
1892
1513
1135
44000
7645
5734
1911
1529
1147
45000
7695
5771
1924
15709
1154
46000
7745
5809
1936
1549
1162
47000
7795
5946
1949
1559
1169
48000
7045
5884
1961
1569
1177
49000
7995
5921
1974
1579
1104
50000
7945
5959
1986
1589
1192
100000
10445
7834
2611
2089
1567
200000
15445
11584
3861
3089
2317
300000
20445
15334
5111
4099
3067
400000
25445
19084
6361
5089
3817
0
0
0
0
0
•
•
•
t
Planning and Environmental Commission
9 March 9, 1987
1:30 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Heari
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 23.
2. A request for a front setback variance, a variance from
required roof slope, and an amendment to the Arterial
Business District circulation plan in order to construct
a building at 1031 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
3. A request for an exterior altertion and for a density
control variance in order to construct an addition to
the Sitzmark Lodge.
Applicant: Sitzmark Lodgeb Fritch
4. Proposed revision to the Urban Design Guide Plan and a
request for an exterior alteration in order to construct
an addition to the Plaza Lodge building.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct an addition to the Learning Tree Preschool
located at 129 North Frontage Road.
Applicant: Learning Tree Preschool
6. A request for front and side setback variances in order
to construct two dwelling units on Parcel A, a
resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum
I I*
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMMISION
March 9, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of meeting of February 23. Diana
Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the minutes.
The vote was 6--0 in favor of approval.
2. A request for a front setback variance, a variance from
required roof slope, and an amendment to the Arterial
Business District circulation plan in order to construct a
building at 1021 South Frontage Road.
Applicant; Vail Commercial Partnership
. Tom Braun pointed out that there were three requests. He added
that with new survey information, the applicant was asking for a
front setback variance. He showed new site plans. The staff
recommended approval of the front setback request and denial of
the roof slope variance and amendment to the circulation plan.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, explained that based
on a prior survey, the applicant had thought that the highway
right- of--way was a curved line, but the new survey showed a
straight line. Jim Morter, architect, admitted that the first
proposal did show a stairstep building, but that for many
reasons, it was not feasible to design the building in this way.
He added that the applicant was proposing to build only one -
third the allowable building size. He defended his design by
stating that the building would have a low profile and thus a
low impact, that is would preserve views from the highway and
from the Professional Building, that the design screens the flat
roof portion, the flat roof enabled him to screen the mechanical
equipment, the slope roof would allow icicles to drip on
pedestrians, that there was no practical way to put a sloped
roof onto a wedge shaped building, and he claimed a physical
hardship because of the shape of the site. He stated that he
had met with a highway official and was told a second exit would
be beneficial to the town, and well as give the Fire Department
a way to drive their trucks through. Jim was willing to go
Ank with an "exit only" or "or exit right turn only."
Sid Schultz stated that he sided with the applicant with respect
to the second exit and felt that with the new ramp, there would
be additional traffic generated on this road which may then be
made into 4 lanes. He agreed with the staff about the flat roof
and was not convinced that a flat roof would be a better
solution, and wished to see some of the schemes done with a
pitched roof. He felt a flat roof seemed more like a strip
shopping center, and that it did not have as much articulation
as he would have liked.
Diana Donovan stated that she would listen to the rest of the
board regarding the roof and mechanical equipment. She did not
like flat roofs. She wanted her concern about no signs toward
the Interstate passed on to DRB. She asked if a second floor
could be added to the structure, and Jim Morter replied that the
building was not designed for a second floor. Jay Peterson
stated that there would be from 4 to 6 businesses. Diana felt
the second access should not be an entrance. She felt that the
whole concern is that no one had addressed just what impacts the
new ramp would have on the traffic in the area. She was
appreciative of the fact that the applicant was not trying to
maximize his GRFA.
Tom Braun stated that until the exit ramp and intersection are
designed, the staff had no idea what the impacts would be. He
added that he dial not feel that a sign only on the extra access
point would police the exit. He added that the Fire Department
• did want the egress, but only need it for an emergency exit.
Jim Morter stated that he did not have formal approval from the
Highway Department because they wanted to see how the Town felt
about the extra access. Tom Braun answered that in concept
only, the egress would work, but in terms of enforcement, there
were questions. Morter stated that he did not accept the
validity of the ABD circulation plan.
Bryan Hobbs had no problem with the front setback variance, but
felt that the flat roof was not as attractive as a sloped roof.
He felt the second exit could be designed so that one could not
turn into it, but he was concerned that people would drive
further west and turn back at some point.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that Jim Morter's explanation of the flat
roof hiding the mechanical equipment, and keeping the roof low
was convincing. She felt the best solution of the traffic was
to have the road 4 laned. Tom stated that this would have to
be looked at and studied, as there were a lot of questions
concerning the requirements of the State. Viele mentioned that
the right -of -way was generous in that area. Peter Patten stated
that in discussions with the State Highway Department, it was
indicated that a "channelization" only would be done. He added
that the staff had asked for 4 lanes throughout the area and was
told the Highway Department had no interest in having 4 lanes in
. that area. Patten also explained that when the Glen Lyon office
is constructed, acceleration and deceleration lanes would be
constructed and also at Cascade Village.
PEC 3/9/87 # 2
J.J. Collins asked how much of the roof would be visible from I-
70 and Morter replied that the parapet would be visible from
both lanes of 1 -70 and that it would hide the mechanical
equipment. JJ then asked at what point the mechanical equipment
would be visible and was told it would be visible beginning at
Simba Run and above. Morter pointed out that the mechanical
equipment would be visible at any rate, but that the flat roof
would hide it as much as possible. He was asked if the north
side of the building could be treated the same as the south, and
replied that it would not make sense, because the situations
were different. JJ felt the mechanical equipment would be
highly visible from Simba and above. He stated that the
building reminded him of strip shopping centers. Morter felt
that the building was unique and not like a strip shopping
center.
Tom Braun stated that Larry Eskwith felt the PEC approval would
merely allow the appliant to go to DRB with the flat roof.
Peter Patten asked if everyone understood why the sloping roof
was called for. He explained that pitched roofs versus flat
roofs were an ongoing controversy in Vail. It was felt that
this area would be made up of multi -floor office buildings and
the Council decided that they wanted sloped roofs with 3:12 as a
minimum pitch. Viele felt that a pitch of 3:12 did not do
anything, but read as a flat roof and would not look alpine.
. Tom mentioned that the 3:12 was a minimum pitch. Morter felt
that he was meeting the intent of the pitched roof with his
design. JJ remained concerned about the visibility of the
mechanical equipment on the roof. Morter repeated that that was
why he was going with a flat roof.
J.J. felt that the traffic issue seemed to be part of a much
larger issue. Peter told the board that he had had a meeting
with the Highway Department, the Transportation department and
the Parking Task Force. The Highway Department asked that the
Town eliminate one access to the Old Town Shops. Peter felt
that it was difficult to address one issue without looking at
the entire area at this point. Jay felt that there was room in
the whole area to create more lanes. He said the Highway
Department seemed to feel comfortable with the additional access
at the proposed site. J.J. said he had no problem with the
exit, but did with the whole area. He wanted to see more study
to hide the mechanical equipment.
Jim Viele had no problem with the setbacks and felt the flat
roof was the best way to hide the mechancial equipment. He did
not remember the PEC feeling strongly about fiat roofs in the
Arterial Business District. Viele felt that regarding parking
and circulation, each site must be looked at individually
because of changes made since the Circulation Plan was adopted.
Viele did not have any problem having the access be an exit
only and could have signage to that effect. J.J. asked Viele if
PEC 3/9/87 #3
• he meant the signage would be exit only to the right, and Jim
answered that as far as he was concerned people could turn
either way because there was lots of right -of -way to work with
and the acceleration /deceleration lanes could be extended to the
west. Viele then mentioned that at the old Town Shops, people
were backing onto the Frontage Road.
Tom pointed out that a right turn acceleration lane was not
called for in the plans presented. Morter said that with the
speed limit at 25, it was not needed. Diana pointed out that
much of the time the white lines were not visible because of
snow. Peter asked Jay if the speed limit would be reduced near
Cascade when Cascade puts acceleration /deceleration lanes in and
Jay replied that the speed limit would be 35 to Cascade, then 45
beyond Cascade. Peter felt that it was critical that the
Highway Department look at the plan proposed. Morter stated
that he would like to resolve the roof and setback issues and
come back later with the access issue.
Jim Viele felt that there was a consensus to table the issue of
the access.
Hobbs moved and Osterfoss seconded to approve the request for
the front setback request and the roof slope variance due to
physical hardship per the staff memo dated 3/9/87. J.J. asked
if Morter were willing to paint the mechanical equipment the
color of the roof and tuck it into the parapet wall and Morter
said he was willing to do those two things. The vote was 6 -0 in
favor of the two variances.
Donovan moved and Schultz seconded to table the issue of the
second access until the first meeting in April if the staff has
had two weeks in which to review the new submittal. The vote
was 6 -0 to table.
3. A request for an exterior alteration and for a density
control variance in order to construct an addition to the
Sitzmark Lodge.
Applicant: Sitzmark Lodge /Bob Fritch
Kristan Pritz showed a model of the Sitzmark proposal and
explained that the proposal included adding 3 accommodation
units which required a density variance. After explaining the
memo related to the exterior alteration, Kristan added that the
sixth condition asked for by the staff should be amended to
include "Credit will be given the owner in an equitable manner
for expenses incurred in improvements related to this project."
She then explained the density memo.
Duane Piper, the architect representing the owner, summarized
the density request and explained that 3 accommodation units had
been removed when retail was added to the Gore Creek Drive side
of the building. The applicant was now requesting to add 3
accommodation units.
PEC 3/9/87 # 4
• Jim Viele felt the presentation was well done and the request
fell within the guidelines of the Land Use Plan. He stated that
this was obviously a large investment by the owner, that it
would be an improvement to the pedestrian way, and that it was a
good example of expansion within limits. J.J. Collins asked if
there was any reason why the owner would not want to utilize the
remaining allowable GRFA at the present time.
Diana Donovan wished to have a guarantee for 3 or 4 years that
the large tree on the west side would live. Bob Fritch, the
owner and applicant, objected to that requirement, stating that
he paid for the tree originally and did not feel it was fair to
ask him to guarantee the life of the tree when transplanted.
Bob added that it was going to be expensive to move, and he
would have capable people move the tree. Diana replied that it
seemed fair. She discussed the railing on the wall near the
creek and felt it did not seem appropriate. Duane explained
that the creek bank was very steep in that area and the railing
was for safety as well as transparency.
Peter showed plans of the pedestrian area along the creek (Gore
Creek Promenade) and stated that the staff is working with
Winston and Associates, Craig Snowdon, Duane Piper and Bob
Fritch on the design. Diana said she preferred benches like the
ones at Gorsuch because the benches used at the Bell Tower and
at Vendettas were splitting.
Diana moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the density
variance per the staff memo dated March 9, 1987. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
Diana moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request for
exterior alteration per the staff memo dated March 9, 1987 with
the addition to condition #6 as stated by Kristan. The vote was
6 -0 in favor.
4. Proposed revision to the Urban Design Guide Plan and a
request for an exterior alteration in order to construct an
addition to the Plaza Lodge Building.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd.
Tom Braun showed a model and explained the changes made since
the last presentation. He felt that the new changes had no
effect on the street enclosure and the street edge was now
defined. Craig Snowdon, architect for the proposal, added more
information about the changes.
Diana Donovan suggested using tree guards around the aspens.
Peggy Osterfoss asked about the deck enclosure of Vendetta's and
wanted to know if the windows would be able to be opened.
Discussion of the windows followed with the final agreement that
PEC 3/9/87 # 5
the openings would be co-
which would be stackable
be at either end. Peter
they were supporting the
with most of the windows
partially closed.
�rered with 7 sliding glass doors, 5 of
and the 2 panes that did not open would
asked that the PEC explain clearly why
deck enclosure, which could be that
operable, the deck was only being
Discussion followed concerning whether or not to require the
windows to be open a certain number of days. Tom pointed out
that this did not work at the Red Lion. Peter added that with
the Red Lion, there were problems with communication between the
tenant and the owner, with the tenant not realizing that he
could not close the windows at night during the time the windows
were expected to remain open, which resulted in a security
problem for the tenant. It seemed better to make the windows
operable and trust the restaurant operator to keep them open
when possible.
Diana stated that she liked the proposed changes on Bridge
Street but could not support the deck enclosure.
B ran Hobbs moved and Pe ggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the
request with the conditions per the staff memo dated 3/9/87.
The vote was 5 in favor, 1 (Donovan) against.
. 5. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct an additionto the Learning Tree preschool
located at 129 North Frontage Road.
Rick Pylman explained the addition and where it would be
located. He mentioned that the ABC school next door had been
told of the addition and did not voice any objections. J.J.
Collins moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the
conditional use request. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
6. A request for front and side setback variances in order to
construct two dwelling units on Parcel A, a resubdivision
of Lots 14 and 17, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum
Rick Pylman explained that the request was for side and front
setback variances. He reviewed the consideration of factors
necessary in order to approve the request and explained that the
staff recommended approval of the front setback variance and
denial of the side setback variance request. The staff felt
that there was no physical hardship to warrant approval of the
side setback variance.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, stated that even
• before the property had gone through the subdivision process,
the applicant has planned to build in this location in order to
PEC 3/9/87 # 6
save trees. He admitted that all three sites had been designed
at the same time in order to save trees. He pointed out that on
the east was open space owned by the Town so there would be no
impact on that property. He added that many homes were built to
the property line in that-area, so it would not be a special
privilege. Curt Cegerberg staked the home and explained that it
was true that a tree would be lost if the home were moved.
J.J. Collins said that he did not understand how the architect
could not successfully design around the trees and within the
setbacks as required. He added that it was not for Jay and the
PEC to decide how to design a home that would respect the
landscape and maintain the setbacks.
Peggy Osterfoss said that J.J.'s comment described her
perception. In this case she felt concern that if the
subdivision had not been created, there would not be the
problem. She felt the subdivision benefited the applicant, but
that the applicant now had to bear the burden of a smaller lot
to work within. Bryan Hobbs agreed with Peggy and J.J. as did
Diana and Sid. Jim Viele did not agree, but felt that there was
a hardship.
Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to deny the request
for side setbacks and to approve the request for front setbacks
per the staff memo dated 3/9/87. The vote was 5 in favor of the
motion and 1 a ainst Viele .
PEC 3/9/87 # 7
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend the general circulation plan relative
to the proposed redevelopment of the Voliter property.
Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
A general circulation and access plan was adopted in conjunction
with the adoption of the Arterial Business Distict in 1982. This
circulation plan is intended to be used as a guide for the
development of sites and the design and location of buildings
within the district. The plan was seen as a tool for developing a
comprehensive set of circulation improvements in conjunction with
the subsequent redevelopment of parcels within the district. The
applicant has requested an amendment to this circulation plan thwt
requires review and approval of the Planning Commission.
I. BACKGROUND ON THE CIRCULATION PLAN
A copy of the consultant's report for the circulation plan
has been included for your review. The report concentrated
on the areas of trip generation, ingress and egress, and
pedestrian circulation. Projections of trip generation were
made, as well as recommendations for maintaining smooth
operation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation throughout
the district.
11. AMENDMENT REQUESTED
The applicant has requested an additional access point off of
the Frontage Road to serve the westerly portion of the
property. The circulation plan indicates the property to be
served only by a joint access with the Vail Professional
,Building at the easterly end of the parcel. The additional
access way is seen as providing greater ease of access for
the users of this development as well as egress for fire
trucks..
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff has reviewed this requested amendment and finds
little merit for its support. The report's primary
recommendation with respect to ingress and egress is to:
"Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the
• roadway should be constructed to line up with each
other."
The circulation plan recommends the consolidation of access
points to the Glen Lyon Office Building, the Vail
Professional Building, and the Voliter site. The additional
driveway to this property would create another access point
that is directly inconsistant with the goal of the
circulation plan.
It is not difficult to understand why the developers are
desirous of this additional access. One of the primary
design considerations for a convenience center of this type
is to make access and parking as easy as possible for the
users of the facility. In this case, the additional access
way has the potential to create impacts on the Frontage Road
that are in direct conflict with the-goals of the zone
district. The staff would encourage the Planning Commission
to deny this proposed amendment and maintain the integrity of
the Arterial Business District circulation and access plan as
adopted in 1982.
•
•
•
5
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 20, 1983
SUBJECT:. -Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan
Attached please find a copy of JH K's report on the circulation and access plan
'for this area. We have drawn up the proposed Circulation and Access Plan according
to this study's recommendations and from the input from Ed Gebhardt of the State
Highway Department. The plan will be presented to you in a graphic form at
the meeting.
We feel the plan as proposed will adequately achieve the goals of keeping
through traffic flowing smoothly as well as reducing-and consolidating the access
points to the various properties in the district. We recommend approval of the
Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The plan will be
submitted to the State Highway Department for their approval.
1/24/83 Funding must be worked out within 60 days and no building permit
issued until the...funding is worked out.
t
Prepared by:
Town of Vail
Arterial Business District
General Circulation and Access Plan
JHK and Associates
2429 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302
y
hk & ❑SSOMIUCS
A
INTRODUCTION
Through Ia recent ordinance the Town Council has created •
an "Arterial Business District" along the south frontage road
of 170 from about 300 feet east of West Lionshead Circle
across Red. Sandstone Creek to about 760 feet west of Red Sand-
stone Creek. The total length of frontage road adjacent to
the boundaries of the new district is about 2,100feet. Through
ordinance #5 (Series of 1982) the Town Council established a
requirment of the new district that states a general circulation
and access plan must be adopted by the Planning and Environmental
Commission. This report is intended to recommend general design
criteria for use in this first Arterial Business District. This
report will be site specific to the West Vail Arterial Commercial
District as described above.
At a recent Town Meeting, Council asked several questions
that will be addressed in this report. Those questions, as we
Understand them, are as follows:
1. Should the Town of Vail require speed change lanes
at points of ingress and egress in this business district?
2. Should the Town of Vail strive to line up points of
access on either side of the frontage road?
3. Is there a need for a bike /pedestrian overpass near
the intersection of the frontage road with West Lionheads'Circle?
CURRENT CONDITION
This section of 170 South Frontage Road is two lanes with
narro+4 paved shoulders in some areas; there is a 100 foot right-
2.5
of --way. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH; at present there is
over 13 vehicle access points on the frontage road within the
*hk atiti4ClaCC5
business district and no facilities for pedestrians or bikes.
• A recenttraffic count east of the district.near the Town Hall
indicates an ADT figure of approximately S,OOOvehicles /day.
(This figure will be verified the week of August 2nd with a
traffic count near Priest Lionshead Circle.)
The importance of this arterial to the Town of Vail
Transportation System cannot be overstated. The vehicle carrying
capacity of the roadway as well as the person carrying capacity
of�"e., ,corridor_ - should�be_ protected and enchanced where possible.
TRIP GENERATION
. Several assumptions were made for this analysis. They
are as follows=
i. -The large property serving as Vail Associates equipment
.
storage
will
not redevelop in
the foreseeable future.
Therefore,
it will
not
contribute tc.the
vehicle trip generation
rates
in this analysis.
2. Floor Area Patio will be limited to .75 x total site
area as stated in the enabling ordinance:
3. The mix of office space to retail space will be based
on a 9:1 ratio. As stated in the ordinance creating the
district - "Retail stores and establishments (will be) generally
accessory and /or supportive of office uses..."
The development potential of the district (not including
the V.A. Service Yard) is shown in Table 1. Using the assumptions
above, some 202,000 sq. feet of office space could develop in
the near future with 22,000 sq. feet of supporting retail. This
is the development allowed under ordinance #5.
-2-
* Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or.
longer the V.A. service Yard will not redevelop.
C
_.__..._
hk
_ . _...
a.ssodat�s
Table I
Office
and Retail
Development
Assumptions*
PROPERTY
TOTAL
SITE
F.A.R.
OFFICE
RETAIL
SQ- FT.
.75
SQ. FT.
(900)
SQ. FT,
(100)
1.'
Holy,.Cross
60,984
45,738
41,165
4,573
2.
Texaco
:._
39,204 -
29,403 =^
26,463
2,940
3.
Voliter
43,560_
_.-- 32,670 -..
29,403 _
3,267
4.
Glen Lyon
74,052
55,539
49,986
5,553
Office
5.
Chevron
39,204
29,403
26,463
2,940
6.
Old Town
43,560
32,670
29,403
3,267
Shops
Total
300,564
225,423
202,880
22 543 •
,
* Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or.
longer the V.A. service Yard will not redevelop.
- , T
� hk 8: associates
In some cases site conditions wi11 not allow full.
development. As an example, the Texaco property would allow
• 29,403 sq. feet of development. There is, however, a
. plan
under consideration showing 22,000 sq. feet.
Trip generation for this district was again developed
excluding the V.A. Service Yard. (1t should be noted that
the development potential of this site is large compared to
the total district. This one property is over 31% of the
total Arterial Business District.) Table 2 presents a list
of each property and its associated number of vehicle trips
should that property completely develop. On an average weekday
a total of 3,477 trips could be generated in this one business
district. As stated before, there are about 5,000 vehicle trips
per day using the south frontage road in the area of Town Hall.
• There is little question that potential development in this
district could have a significant impact. More importantly,
all of these trips will be turning either left or right in the
space of about'2,100 feet; and peak hour office generated trips
occur during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic.
•
INGRESS AND EGRESS
To maintain the traffic carrying capacity of this section
of roadway the following design criteria are recommended:
A. Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the
roadway should be constructed to line up with each other.
Using this standard,driveways would be locat -d as follows:
-4-
Note: Trip generation rate — 11_0 Trip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet_
�Notez Trip Seneration rate — 50.0tZip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet.
—5—
'hk
-
Table 2
Potential Development (.75 F.A.R
and
Average Weekday Vehicle
Trip Ends
..PROPERTY
OFFICE
SQ. FT.
OFFICE
TRIPS*
RETAIL
RETAIL
(900)
SQ. FT.
TRIPS **
(104)
1.
Holy Cross
41,165
480
4,573
225
2.
Texaco
.26,463
308
2,940
145
3.
Voliter
29,403
343
3,267
1fi0
4.
Glen Lyon
49.986
583
5,.553
277
Office
�.
Chevron.
26,453
308
2,940
145
.6%
Old Town
Shops
29,403
343
3,267
160'
Subtotal Trips
.2,365
2112
• dotal firips
3.477
,
Note: Trip generation rate — 11_0 Trip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet_
�Notez Trip Seneration rate — 50.0tZip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet.
—5—
jhk L`
1. V.A. Service Yard/West Lionshead Circle;
2. V.A. Service Yard/Forest;
3. Common Drive -- Holy Cross and Vail Associates
properties /Chevron and Town of Vail properties;
4. Common Drive - Texaco and Voliter properties/
Glen Lyon Office property.
At such time as the Vail Associates property redevelops,
the driveway at Forest could be closed.
B. At such time as the property redevelops, the driveways
should be constructed with left -turn lanes, as well as, speed
change lanes on either side of'the frontage road.
C. Design of the driveways should conform to the standards
the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town
of Vail were discussed. All frontage roads are given the lowest
access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department
of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in
applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows:
1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing
the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of
Highways.
2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10
of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage
Road from Category Five to Category Four.
In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access
• code for specifications of driveway design.
_(,-
set forth in The
State Highway
Access Code, August 31, 1981.
.
In reviewing
the Business
District with Dave Campbell of
the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town
of Vail were discussed. All frontage roads are given the lowest
access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department
of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in
applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows:
1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing
the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of
Highways.
2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10
of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage
Road from Category Five to Category Four.
In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access
• code for specifications of driveway design.
_(,-
BIKE /PEDESTRI:AN CIRCULATION J
The south -side of the frontage road as well as the
future path along the creek are the best locations for bike/
pedestrian movement through this district. For several
reasons, circulation on the north side of the frontage road
should be limited to local access .between buildings and to
and from crosswalks. This study recommends that the Town locate
crosswalks only at the four driveway intersections.
A bike /pedestrian bridge is needed across Red Sandstone
Creek. First'priority, would be on the south side of the
frontage road.
When the Vail Associates property redevelops, the question
of a bike /pedestrian overpass at West Lionshead Circle should
be addressed. When grade separations for pedestrians and bikes
are used, it is usually necessary to direct.people to the facility
to discourage crossing the highway at grade. Grade separations
should not be considered as traffic control devices, but as a
supplemental technique.
Some of the factors to consider in analyzing the need for
bike /pedestrian separation structures for highways include:
I. Are there other reasonable crossing alternatives?
2. Are the traffic volume and pedestrian volume levels
in excess-of those required by MUTCD to warrant installation
of a pedestrian or school signal?
-7-
•
1 „ . -hk
3. Are there no traffic signals, stop sign control, or
other grade -- separated crossing within 600 feet of the proposed
location?
4. Are pedestrian accident problems evident on the
street under consideration?
5. Is vehicular traffic speed such that it poses
significant hazard to pedestrians?.
6. Is there no way to prevent pedestrians from crossing
at grade?
7. Have organized groups expressed a high degree of
interest.for the separation?
8. From a decision standpoint, is it practical to
construct the separation within existing physical conditions?
The factors to be considered in this determination include
cost, security, vandalism, aesthetics, possible conflict with
utilities, and terrain conditions.
CONCLUSION
Through the use of a Planning and Environmental Commission
adopted circulation and access plan, the vehicle carrying capacity
and safety of the 170 South Frontage Road can be insured. Design
criteria for this district will establish standards that can
be fairly and equally applied to all redevelopment. It is hoped
that this report will assist in that effort.
-8-
s J
Re`.crences
1. "The State Highway Access Cock," adopted by the
Colorado State Highway .Commission. July 16, 1981.
2. "Trip Generation," an ITE Informational Report, 1976.
3. Town of Vail. Ordinance 45 (series of 1982, June 1, 1982).
4. "West Vail Arterial. Commercial District," Development
Plan, Drawing No. Five.
5. Telephone Conversation with Dave Campbell, Colorado
Department of Highways, Safety Engineer, July 30, 1982.
ztz
I TiM M
Z3
11= .
LQ
WEN
I-T4 F-F?
A
r
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: January 20, 1983
SUBJECT;. -arterial Business District Circulation and Access 01-a -n
Attached please find a copy of JHK's report on the circulation and access plan
for this area. We have drawn up the proposed Circulation and Access Plan according
to this study's recommendations and from the input from Ed Gebhardt of the State
Highway Department. The plan will be presented to you in a graphic form at
the meeting.
We feel the plan as proposed will adequately achieve the goals of keeping
through traffic flowing smoothly as well as reducing-and consolidating the access
points to the various properties in the district. We recommend approval of the
Arterial Business District Circulation and Access Plan. The plan will be
submitted to the State Highway Department for their approval.
1/24/83 Funding must be worked out within 60 days and no building permit
issued until the..,funding is worked out.
{
i•
Prepared by:
Town of Vail
Arterial Business District
General Circulation and Access Plan
JHK and Associates
2429 Broadway
Boulder, Colorado 80302
t'
4 1
c C hk
a
J & astioci:lte5
INTRODUCTION
Through'a recent ordinance the Town Council has created
an "Arterial Business District" along the south frontage road
of 170 from about 300 feet east of West Lionshead Circle
across Red Sandstone Creek to about 760 feet west of Red Sand-
stone Creek. The total length of frontage road adjacent to
the boundaries of the new district is about 2,100feet. Through
ordinance #S (Series of 1982) the Town Council established a
requirment of the new district that states a general circulation
and access plan must be adopted by the Planning and Environmental
Commission. This report is intended to recommend general design
criteria for use in this first Arterial Business District. This
report will be site specific to the West Vail Arterial Commercial
District as described above.
At a recent Town Meeting, Council asked several questions
that will be addressed in this report. Those questions, as we
understand them, are as follows:
1. Should the Town of Vail require speed change lanes
at points of ingress and egress in this business district?
2. Should the Town of Vail strive to line up points of
access on either side of the frontage road?
3. Is there a need for a bike /pedestrian overpass near
the intersection of the frontage road with West Lionheads,Circlo?
CURRENT CONDITION
This section of I70 South Frontage Road is two lanes with
narrow paved shoulders in some areas; there is a 100 foot right -
of --way. The posted speed limit is 35 MPH; at present there is
over 13 vehicle access points on the frontage road within the
N.-..
....
:k55UCIJiCS
business district and no facilities for pedestrians or bikes.
.
A recenttraffic
count east
of the district near the Town Hall
indicates an ADT
figure of
approximately 5,000vehicles /day.
(This figure will be verified the week.of August 2nd with a
traffic count near West Lionshead Circle.)
The importance of this arterial to the Town of Vail
Transportation System cannot be overstated. The vehicle carrying
capacity of the roadway as well as the person carrying capacity
o:f,..�he,7,corridor_. sho -uld -be. protected and enchanced where possible.
TRIP GENERATION
'Several assumptions were made for this analysis. They
are as follows:
i. The large property serving as Vail Associates equipment
. storage will not redevelop in the foreseeable future. Therefore,
it will not contribute to.the vehicle trip generation rates
in this analysis.
2. Floor Area Ratio will be limited to .75 x total site
area as stated in the enabling ordinance:
3. The mix of office space to retail space will be based
on a 9:1 ratio. As stated in the ordinance creating the
district - "Retail stores and establishments (will be) generally
accessory and /or supportive of office uses..."
The development potential of the district (not including
the V.A. Service Yard) is shown in Table 1. Using the assumptions
above, some 202,000 sq. feet of office space could develop in
the near future with 22,000 sq. feet of supporting retail. This
is the development allowed under ordinance #5.
-2-
u
•
• _..
Table 1
Office and Retail Development Assumptions*
jhk& associaccs
PROPERTY
TOTAL
SITE
SQ. FT.
F.A.R.
.75
OFFICE
SQ. FT.
(90%)
RETAIL
SQ. FT.
(10 %)
1. Holy-.Cross
60,984
45,738
41,165
4,573
2. Texaco
39,204
29,403
26,463
2,940
3. Voliter
43,560
- 32,670
29,403
3,267
4. Glen Lyon
-
74,052
55,539
49,986
5,553
_ . Office
5. Chevron
39,204
29,403
26,463
2,940
6. Old Town
43,560
32,670
29,403
3,267
Shops
Total
300,564
225,423
202,880
22,543
* Note: For this analysis, it is assumed that for 5 years or
longer the V.A. Service Yard will not redevelop.
-3-
00
i
` � a
•
hk 8: associates
In some cases site conditions wiil-not allow full
development. As an example, the Texaco property would allow
23,403 sq. feet of development. There is, however, a plan
under consideration showing 22,000 sq. feet.
Trip generation for this distract was again developed
excluding the V.A. Service Yard. (It should be noted that
the development potential of this site is large compared to
the total district. This one property is over 31% of the
total Arterial Business District.) Table 2 presents a list
of each property and its associated number of vehicle trips
should that property completely develop. On an average weekday
a total of 3,477 trips could be generated in this one business
district. As stated before, there are about 5,000 vehicle trips
per day using the south frontage road in the area of Town Hall.
There is little question that potential development in this
district could have a significant impact. More importantly,
all of these trips will be turning either left or right in the
space of about 2,100 feet; and peak hour office generated trips
occur during the peak hour of the adjacent street traffic.
INGRESS AND EGRESS
To maintain the traffic carrying capacity of this section
of roadway the following design criteria are recommended:
A. Whenever possible, driveways on either side of the
roadway should be constructed to line up with each other.
Using this standard,driveways would be locat.d as follows:
-4-
Ll
PROPERTY
1. Holy Cross
2. Texaco
3. Voliter
4. Glen Lyon
Office
�. Chevron.
6. Old Town
Shops
Subtotal TriiDs
Total Trips
2,365- 1 1 2;312
3, 477
* NOte: Trip generation rate - 11,0 grip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet.
'k Note: Trip zjenerati on rate - 5 0 _ O tTip Ends /10 0 0 grass sq. feet.
\
*hk & ass <iciates
Table 2
Potential Development
(.75 F.A.R.)
and
Average Weekday
Vehicle Trip
Ends
OFFICE
OFFICE
RETAIL
RETAIL
SQ. FT.
TRIPS*
SQ. FT.
TRIPS **
(90o)
(100)
41,165
480
4,573
225
26,463
30B
2,940
145
29,403
343
3,267
1-60
49,986
583
5,.553
277
26,463
308
2,940
145
29,403
343
3,267
150'
2,365- 1 1 2;312
3, 477
* NOte: Trip generation rate - 11,0 grip Ends /1000 gross sq. feet.
'k Note: Trip zjenerati on rate - 5 0 _ O tTip Ends /10 0 0 grass sq. feet.
1. V.A. Service Yard /ti%'e -t Lionshead Ci.rcic2;
2. V.A. Service Yard/Forest;
jhk
3, Common Drive - Holy Cross and Vail Associates
properties /Chevron and Town of Vail properties;
4. Common Drive - Texaco and Voliter properties/
Glen Lyon Office property.
At such time as the Vail Associates property redevelops,
the driveway at Forest could be closed.
B. At such time as the property redevelops, the driveways
should be constructed with left -turn lanes, as well as, speed
change lanes on either side of'the frontage road.
C. Design of the driveways should conform to the standards
the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town
of Vail were discussed. Ali frontage roads are given the lowest
access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department
of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in
applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows:
1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing
the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of
Highways.
2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10
of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage
Road from Category Five to Category Four.
In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access
• code for specifications of driveway design.
-(y-
set forth in The
State
Highway
Access Code, August
31, 1981.
in- reviewing
the
Business
District with Dave
Campbell of
the Colorado Department of Highways, two options for the Town
of Vail were discussed. Ali frontage roads are given the lowest
access classification (Category Five) by the Colorado Department
of Highways, giving the Town of Vail the-greatest flexibility in
applying design standards. The Town's options are as follows:
1. Use the standards outlined in this report, reviewing
the plans as development occurs with the Colorado Department of
Highways.
2. Using a public review process outlined in Section 2.10
of the access code, change the classification of the South Frontage
Road from Category Five to Category Four.
In either case the Twon should use Section Four of the access
• code for specifications of driveway design.
-(y-
LJ
C --hk
i,Ti,JVPEDESTRIAPI CIRCULATION
The south,side of the frontage road as well as the
future path along the creek are the best locations for bike/
pedestrian movement through this district. For several
reasons, circulation on the north side of the frontage road
should be limited to local access.between buildings and to
and from crosswalks. This study recommends that the Town locate
crosswalks only at the four driveway intersections.
A bike /pedestrian bridge is needed across Red Sandstone
Creek. First priority would be on the south side of the
frontage road.
When the Vail Associates property redevelops, the question
of a bike /pedestrian overpass at West Lionshead Circle should
be addressed. When grade separations for pedestrians and bikes
are used, it is usually necessary to direct.people to the facility
to discourage crossing the highway at grade. Grade separations
should not be considered as traffic control devices, but as a
supplemental technique.
Some of the factors to consider in analyzing the need for
bike /pedestrian separation structures for highways include:
1. Are the other reasonable crossing alternatives?
2. Are the traffic volume and pedestrian volume levels
in excess -of those required by TMUTCD to warrant installation
of a pedestrian or school signal?
-7-
*hk
i 3. Are there no traffic signals, stop sign control, or
. other grade- -se'parated crossing within 600 feet of the proposed
location?
4. Are pedestrian accident problems evident on the
:J
street under consideration?
5. Is vehicular traffic speed such that it poses
significant hazard to pedestrians ?.
6. Is there no way to prevent pedestrians from crossing
at grade?
7. Have organized groups expressed a high degree of
interest for the separation?
S. From a decision standpoint, is it practical to
construct the separation within existing physical conditions?
The factors to be considered in this determination include
cost, security, vandalism, aesthetics, possible conflict with
utilities, and terrain conditions.
CONCLUSION
Through the use of a Planning and Environmental Commission
adopted circulation and access plan, the vehicle carrying capacity
and safety of the 170 South Frontage Road can be insured. Design
criteria for this district will establish standards that can
be fairly and equally applied to all redevelopment. It is hoped
that this report will assist in that effort.
•
•
i a -b , .. .._.__..
Rrc erences
1. "The.State Highway Access Code," adopted by the
Colorado State Highway Commission. July 1G, 1981.
2. "Trip Generation," an iTE Informational Report, 1976.
3. Town of Vail Ordinance 05 (series of 1982, June 1, 1982).
4. "West Vail Arterial Commercial District," Development
Plan, Drawing No. Five.
5. Telephone Conversation with Dave Campbell, Colorado
Department of Highways, Safety Engineer, July 30, 1982.
-9-
.f
Igf
ape
pa
$,wT
49
Ny At
f0i
AL
all-In
w '' r�
000
17'
� .-d *wad•. � '� ".fir+ � � -y . � Jy, �.
NO
WA
At
Tn-
�V':.
—It
t" t 0
wA v
r
t : I
rr-p-. 'Frl
Fp
00
4W�i=
erer
'I OL
S
P.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance and a variance
from required roof slope in order to construct a
building at 1031 South Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Commercial Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
As the Planning Commission may recall, this property
requested and received variances from the Planning Commission
on January 26, 1987. Since that time new survey information
has been obtained that required the redesign of this
structure. This redesign has prompted a request for a front
setback variance to allow a portion of the parking lot to be
located within the required front setback. The degree of
encroachment varies from 4 to 9 feet into the required
setback area.
Section 18.29.070 of the Arterial Business District requires
a minimum slope of any roof to be 3:12. The applicant has
if requested a variance from this requirement to proceed to the
Design Review Board with a flat roof design.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested front setback variance
and denial of the requested variance to the required roof
pitch 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 is a direct relationship between the front setback
variance request and existing and potential uses and
structures in the vicinity. It is the purpose of the
required front setback to require adequate landscape buffers
between parking areas, buildings and the Frontage Road. In
response to this, the applicant has submitted a vicinity map
showing the ultimate future improvements to the Frontage Road
through the widening and addition of left and right turn
lanes. This plan shows 16 feet remaining between the
ultimate impact of road improvements and the site's property
line. This would result in a 27 foot buffer between the
paved area of the parking lot and the beginning of the
Frontage Road. It should be noted that the vicinity plan
submitted by the applicant includes a total of 5 lanes, while
the ABD circulation plan indicates only 4 lanes in this area.
Given this illustrative, the staff feels that the variance
requested can be mitigated by providing landscaping off of
the site between the property line and the beginning of the
paved surface of the Frontage Road.
It is not typical that a design consideration such as
requiring pitched roofs is included in the zoning code.
Nonetheless, the Planning Commission and Town Council saw fit
to include this requirement when the Arterial Business
District was adopted in 1982. The only property to be
redeveloped since the adoption of this district has been the
Vail Professional Building. This structure was designed to
comply with the required roof pitch. The Glen Lyon Office
building has an approved addition that attempts to address
the impact of the existing flat roof. This design includes a
sloped roof feature that visually reads as a pitched roof.
To approve this variance would affect the general direction
the zone district has taken with this redevelopment and
approved addition to existing structures in the area.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The redesign of this structure has maintained the basic
amount of square footage while attempting to provide more
pedestrian area on the front side of the shops. Coupled with
having to position the building closer to the Frontage Road
because of new survey information, this has resulted in the
encroachment of paved area into the required front setback.
This is not unlike the previous setback variance that was
approved in January, although the encroachment is somewhat
greater. Given the information provided by the applicant's
vicinity map, it is felt that the intent of the landscape
buffer can be net and will not be impacted through future
improvements to the Frontage Road. While the issue of
physical hardship may be self- created through the size of the
structure proposed, it has been demonstrated that impacts
resulting from this setback can be mitigated.
It has been recognized that the triangular shape of the lot
creates some constraints in its development. However, with
respect to the roof pitch requirements, it should be noted
that the applicant has submitted previous plans showing a
design with a sloping roof. It is the impression of the
staff that the difficulties in designing a pitched roof to
the structure are driven by the size of the building
proposed. As with the front setback request, there is little
in the way of a physical hardship to justify this request.
. However, in this case there are no mitigating circumstances
to warrant support of this variance request.
The effect of the requested variance on light and aim
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
Neither of the two requested variances affect any of the
above mentioned criteria.
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As has been stated in this memorandum and during previous
meetings, the shape of this site creates some difficulties in
its development. However, the amount of square footage being
proposed is creating an equal, or greater, amount of
difficulty in complying with this zone district's development
standards. The staff is comfortable with the requested front
setback variance in light of the information provided by the
applicant. This information indicates that an ample
landscaped buffer can be provided even with the ultimate
development of the South Frontage Road. With respect to the
required roof pitch, it is the feeling of the staff that a
pitched roof could be accommodated on the stucture with
slight reductions in the building footprints. While the
staff is in support of the requested front setback variance,
our recommendation concerning the variance request to the
required roof slope is for denial.
r]
TO: Ron Phillips
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 3, 1987
RE: Preliminary recommendations on how to proceed with
further evaluation of the Congress Hall proposal
The staff has had an opportunity to consult a number of nationally
known consulting firms following Tuesday's discussion of the
Congress Hall proposal. The purpose of these contacts were to
seek advice from experts on how to proceed with our evaluation of
the Congress Hall proposal. It was a consensus of the people we
contacted that the basic fundamental approach to evaluating a
facility of this nature involves three steps. These include:
Market Feasibility
Economic /Financial Assessment
Site /Programmatic Analysis
The market analysis is generally the first of these three steps to
be completed. Given the results of a thorough market analysis,
determination can be made as to whether it is reasonable to pursue
further study. The economic and site analysis will then provide
more specific information in terms of project feasibility.
The following provides more detailed information concerning each
of the three components of the convention center analysis:
1. Market Feasibilit
The Tourism Techniques study provides a solid basis for a
thorough market analysis of a Congress Hall in Vail. Based
on our conversations with convention center feasibility
consultants, there is a need to further refine the capture
rate as projected for this facility. Generallly, two
additional steps need to be taken:
a. Competitive Market Analysis Within Vail
It is critical to determine what percentage of the
meeting market we are presently capturing. In addition,
close analysis of the existing market can more clearly
define the charateristics of groups who have already
used Vail for meetings or conventions. For example,
usage patterns already established in Vail relative to
seasonality, group size and type, lodging nd facility
needs, and a more clear understanding of business lost
for lack of adequate facilities will all supplement the
TT study.
r
b. Competitive Market Analysis in Region
Somewhat similar to the above mentioned analysis, the
focus of this study would be on competing resort
facilities in the region.
2. Economic /Financial Assessment
The economic /financial assessment of a convention facility
would include estimated building costs, expenses such as
marketing and O and M, anticipated revenues (both direct and
indirect), and financing alternatives. This analysis could
also include recommended management strategies such as how
its operation would interface with established entities
within the Town.
3. Site /Programmatic Analysis
This step would most logically be done concurrently with the
economic /financial assessment. In many respects, the
site /programmatic analysis is driven by the market
feasibility information. For example, the individual markets
for groups sizes will dictate the size of the facility,
number of break -out rooms, etc. Alternataive uses would also
be generated from the market study and refined during this
process. Critical issues in the site analysis include
environmental, planning (i.e. parking), transportation, and
proximity to the Town's bed base.
It should be understood that the information presented in this
memorandum is the result of a limited amount of research conducted
this past week. It is based on information we have received from
experts in the field of preparing feasibility studies for
convention facilities.
While the fundamental approach to evaluating the feasibility of
this type of facility is universal, there are undoubtedly specific
issues in Vail that would need to be addressed. It would be our
recommendation that any further study initiated by the Town be
done in a comprehensive manner to address the multitude of
interrelated issues inolved in this process.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core
I to the Plaza Lodge Building located at 291 Bridge
Street.
Applicant: Plaza Lodge Associates, Ltd
I. BACKGROUND ON THIS REQUEST
Revised plans have been submitted for this proposal following
the Planning Commission's work session on February 23. The
revised proposal is very responsive to issues identified by
the staff and Planning Commission during the course of the
review of this project.
Original concerns of the staff centered on the removal of the
planters along Bridge Street and the elimination of the
separated walkway between the planters and the Plaza Lodge.
The goals of the applicant were to eliminate the grade change
and steps to the walkway, while bringing storefronts out
closer to the pedestrian traffic on Bridge Street. The
compromise proposal that has been submitted appears to meet
the goals of both the applicant and the staff. While the
proposal will still change the appearance of this prominant
section of Bridge Street, staff now feels that the overall
effect of this change, both with respect to the building and
from an urban design standpoint, will be positive. In
addition, the proposal is no longer in conflict with Sub -area
Concept 13 -A and as a result, a revision to the Urban Design
Guide Plan is not required.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
The Guide Plan serves to identify physical improvements for
strengthening the overall fabric of Vail Village. Referred
to as Sub -Area Concepts, these improvements are proposed to
reinforce the overall character of the village with
particular emphasis on improving the pedestian experience.
The primary concern with respect to this proposal centered
around Sub -area Concept 13 -A. This reads as follows:
Sub -Area Concept 13 -A.
Raised sidewalk may become major pedestrian route during
delivery periods. Slight widening warranted. Potential
for open arcade for snow protection over wooden walk.
•
Landscape improvements include: new consolidated
stairs, tie retaining walls replaced with masonry,
upgraded plantings.
The revised proposal maintains the integrity of the separated
walkway along Bridge Street. While a substantial portion of
the existing planters are removed, the walkway is anchored by
two prominent planters at either end of the property. Near
the entrance to the lodge are two additional planters that
serve to define the separated walkway. While two portions of
this wallkway become an extension of Bridge Street, it is the
feeling of the staff that the planters proposed will still
define the walkway and provide a viable alternative route
during those times when the loading zone is occupied.
While modifications are proposed for the walkway, staff feels
that the intent of Sub -Area Concept 13 -A is still being met
with this revised design.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL
VILLAGE
The following considerations address the primary form giving
physical features of the Village. It is the goal of the
Design Considerations that through their application, future
changes will be consistent with the established Village 40
character and result in positive contributions to the Village
experience. These considerations include the following:
Pedestrianization
As proposed, the separated walkway in front of the Plaza
Lodge will be altered, but still serve as a useful and
pleasing separated walkway from Bridge Street. This is
particularly important considering the loading zone on Bridge
Street adjacent to this property. The redesign will also
eliminate the vast majority of the grade change, particularly
at the north end of the property, which should improve the
appeal of this walkway for the pedestrian.
Vehicular Penetration
Factors addressed in this consideration are not applicable to
this proposal.
Streetscape Framework
The two types of improvements generally proposed to improve
the streetscape framework include landsbaping and commercial
expansions. While this proposal originally created an
interesting paradox with respect to this consideration, the
revised design responds well to this consideration by
designing the retail expansion in conjunction with the street
planters. This compromise proposal is consistent with the
consideration as outlined in the Guide Plan.
One element of the proposed infill that is consistent with
the steetscape framework consideration is the paratiall
iinfill of Vendetta's deck. At the present time the existing
restaurant facade is recessed from other portions of the
elevation resulting in a facade that is difficult to see.
The existing situation does not provide a strong impression
of visible activity or street life to the pedestrian in this
area. The proposed infill would bring this activity out
closer to the pedestrian way, thereby providing greater
visual interest at this portion of the building.
Street Enclosure
The sense of enclosure from the building expansion has not
changed from the original proposal. The sense of enclosure
varies greatly along this section of Bridge Street and would
not be negatively impacted by the building expansion. The
one to two story expansion will, however, provide a more
human scale for the Plaza Lodge.
Street Edge
As with streetscape framework, this consideration is
addressed quite well through the most recent re- design. The
building jogs in the proposal are very pleasing, and the
structure follows the slight curve in Bridge Street. At the
same time, the planters and raised curb proposed along the
property line clearly define the street edge.
Building Height
Building height considerations are not applicable to this
proposal because of the 1 to 2 story nature of this addition.
views
There are no impacts on major view corridors from this
proposal.
Service and Delivery
Impacts on service and delivery have been mitigated by the
new design that incorporates street planters. These will
provide some relief between loading vehicles and pedestrians
on the separated walkway.
Sun /Shade
While this proposal will still result in a very slight
increase in shadow patterns on Bridge Street, it is felt that
the impact is negligible and not of sufficient cause to
recommend denial of this proposal.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is in support of this compromise proposal and feel
the overall impacts on Bridge Street will be positive. The
design solution proposed for the building was never an issue
with the staff, and feel that it is a well done addition to
the structure. Our concerns with the addition's impact on
the walkway and street have been mitigated through the
redesign. While there is a reduction in the amount of
planter area, the location and design of the proposed
planters are responsive to the goals of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the integrity of the plan is maintained,•if
not reinforce, through this proposal.
Conditions of Approval
Through previous approvals the owner of this propertyhas
agreed to participate in and not remonstrate against a
special improvement district for Vail Village if and when one 40
is formed. We would recommend the following change to this
condition:
1. The applicant's participation in public improvements
(special improvement distrit), shall be accomplished by
participation in a "mini- special" improvement district
to re- design and relocate Seibert Circle if and when one
is formed. An equitable manner of crediting the
applicant's contribution for Seibert Circle toward an
overall improvement district for Vail Village will be
established, if and when a Village -wide district is
formed.
This condition is recommended to facilitate improvements to
Seibert Circle if they are proposed prior to a Village -wide
improvement program. An equitable credit program would
ensure that the financial burden on the applicant does not
increase (for example, the property owner would not be
assessed twice for both programs. Costs incurred through
Seibert Circle would be credited toward the property's fair
share of a Village -wide improvement district).
2. The windows on the west elevation of the deck enclosure
shall be operable so that "open -air" use of the enclosed
area is possible. 0
P
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
March 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to construct an
addition to the Learning Tree preschool.
Applicant: Learning Tree Preschool
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Learning Tree is a private, non - profit child care center
located on the Town of Vail parcel known as the Mountain Bell
site. This parcel is a 25 acre site owned by the Town of Vail and
currently contains the Mountain Bell microwave facility, the ABC
School, and the Learning Tree School. The parcel is zoned
Agriculture. and Open Space. Schools are allowed as a conditional
use. The existing Learning Tree lease extends through 1993. The
original lease of the Learning Tree which was initated in August
of 1978, stipulates that any buildings or other improvements will
become the property of the Town of Vail upon expiration of the
lease.
The existing building is approximately 1,000 square feet. The
proposed expansion entails the addition of approximately 560
square feet in a 14 x 40 foot addition to the north side of the
building. The addition provides for area for an office, a parent
conference room, increased toilet facilities and increased entry
and storage areas. The existing building, as well as the proposed
addition, are shown to be in a moderate rock fall zone as depicted
on the original Town of Vail geological hazard maps. A site
specific study has been conducted by Nicholas Lampiris. His
determination is that this line can be adjusted and that no
mitigation will be required for construction of this addition.
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 factor:
Consideration of Factors.
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives of
the Town.
The Community Developmen
provide quality day care
of the Town of Vail. We
negative impacts to the
will present no negative
. ability to provide this
stipulations that are in
t staff believes that the ability to
is a benefit to the citizens and guests
feel that this use has existed with no
community and that the proposed expansion
impact but will further enhance the
service to the community. The lease
effect require an admissions priority to
students of parents who reside within the Town and
parents whose major employment is within the Town.
this service is a benefit to the community and see
impacts involved in the addition.
students whose
We feel that
no negative
The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of
pa ulation, transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks
and recreation facilities, and other public facilities needs.
As the proposed expansion is merely providing an expanded working
area for the present operation, and does not include an increase
in the number of students or employees of the facility, the
Community Development staff sees no impact on the above criteria.
The 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.
As previously stated, the proposed addition is an increase in the
current working area available to the school. It does not involve
an increase in the number of employees or in the number of
students. Therefore, there is no reason to believe there will be
an increase in vehicular trips or an increase in parking demand.
We see no impacts on the other factors with the proposed
addition. There appears to be adequate parking and drop -off area
currently.
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 existing building is located on a 25 acre parcel that is
surrounded by open space. The existing structure, along with the
addition, presents no negative impacts to adjacent properties.
The only forseeable impact we do see from this project is to the
existing ABC School which is located immediately adjacent to the
Learning Tree expansion. The applicant is working with the ABC
School on this proposal; to date we have received no comment from
the ABC School.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the propo.sed use.
IV. 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, safaety, 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 RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the conditional use permit
request for the Learning Tree expansion proposal is for
approval. We feel that the use involved provides a benefit
to the community and feel that the only potential area of
impact is to the ABC School.
u
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 9, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a front and side setback variance for
Parcel A; a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block 7
Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Michael Tennenbaum
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant, Michael Tennenbaum, is requesting a 12 foot
variance from the required 20 foot front setback and a 10
foot variance from the required 15 foot side setback for the
newly created Parcel A; a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17,
Block 7, Vail Village First Filing. Parcel A is a relatively
long and narrow lot sloped from the south to north. Total
lot length is 195 feet and the depth varies from 64 feet to
95 feet. The length of the building envelope (minus
setbacks) is 155 feet, and the depth varies from 29 feet to
60 feet. As a result of the subdivision requested previously
by Mr. Tennebaum, the lot was shortened by approximately 20
to 35 feet on the east end.
The front setback entails encroachment of garage areas for
each unit of approximately 12 feet into the required setback.
The slope along this front setback area for the most part
exceeds 30% which allows staff to waive setback requirements
for garages. There is, however, some area on the east end of
the lot that does not exceed 30% and thus technically
requires variance approval.
The requested side setback is for living space on the west
end of the parcel. On the east end of the parcel the
structure is located 30 feet from the property line.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the front setback variance and denial
of the requested side setback 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.
A. Front Setback Request
In a situation where the average slope underneath the
proposed parking areas exceeds 30%, the staff and Design
Review Board may waive the required front setback
standards. The west unit in this proposal does meet
that criteria, however, the encroachment of the east
unit is in an area of less than 30% slopes and thus
technically requires approval of setback variance. In
this area of the community, building lots of slopes
greater than 30% are fairly common. There are many
examples of garages placed within the front setback,
both through staff waiver of request and through
variance request approvals. We feel there is precedent
for this request and that there is no negative impact on
existing or potential uses in the surrounding area.
B. Side Setback Request
The parcel adjacent to the west end of Parcel A is owned
by the Town of Vail as an open space tract, therefore
the request does not present an immediate impact upon a
building site on the adjacent lot.
The degree to which relief from the strict or literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
is treatment to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
A. Front Setback Request
Staff feels that due to the
slope and the narrowness of
precedent of approving front
areas on steep lots in this
grant of special privilege i
variance request.
relative steepness of this
the lot as well as the
setback requests for garage
area, that there would be no
n the approval of the front
B. Side Setback Request
The Community Development staff feels that approval of
this request would be a grant of special privilege. We
believe there is little to no physical hardship on this
parcel which would require a side setback variance. The
length of the allowable building envelope is 155 feet.
The lot was shortened a distance of 20 to 35 feet by the
applicant under a recent application. A building
envelope of 155 feet in width is adequate area in which
to place a primary /secondary structure. Any claim of
hardship due to inadequate length of the lot we believe
is self imposed by the owner as a result of the
. resubdivision and a pre - conceived design imposed on the
�3
site. Furthermore, the design provides for 30 feet from
the eastern property line, giving 15 feet of area wot
work with to avoid a variance situation.
Although there is no building lot to the west of this
proposed variance, we feel that this would be a special
treatment among sites in the vicinity and would
constitute 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
saw
A. Front Setback
Assuming that both structures will accommodate two car
garages, then the parking requirements for this site are
being met within their property lines. There is an
indication on the site plan that a retaining wall will
encroach slightly over the property line onto Town of
Vail right -of -way. This will require final approval of
the Public Works Department prior to Design Review Board
approval. Other than that, we see no effect on the
other factors involved in this criteria.
B. Side Setback
The effect of this proposal upon this criteria if the
side setback variance is approved would be the potential
impact of the proximity of the structure to the Town of
Vail parcel should the Town ever desire to construct any
public facilities on this parcel in the future.
III. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commmission shall lmake 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:
That the strict or literal interpretation and
• enforcement of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
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.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation is for approval of the front setback
variance and denial of the side setback variance request.
We see little negative impact involved in the front setback
request and believe that precedent has been set for this
action. We feel that there is no physical hardship driving
the side setback request and feel that it would be a grant of
special privilege. We believe that this lot provides
adequate space for the siting of a primary /secondary
structure without requiring a side setback variance. We feel
that any hardship is self imposed by the owner through his
previous minor subdivision request and subsequent design.
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 23, 1987
2:30 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Hearin
1. A request for a conditional use permit for commercial
storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell
2. A request for a front setback variance and requests
for conditional uses for a drive - through window and
outdoor dining deck on Parcel A, a Resubdivision of
Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision.
Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership
To be 3. A request for a setback variance to add retail space
tabled by to the Lionshead Centre Building located on Lot 5,
applicant Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assoc.
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
3/23/87
PRESENT
J.J.Collins
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Byran Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. A request for a conditional use permit for commercial
storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell
Rick Pylman stated that the applicant was requesting to utilize
375 square feet of space located on the northwest corner of the
lower level below Bullock's for storage. Dave Tyrrell was
present representing the Vail Mall Joint Venture.
Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
. request for commercial storage. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a front setback variance and requests for
conditional uses for a drive - through window and outdoor
dining deck on Pacel A, A Resubdivi_.sionof Tract D, Vail
das Schone Subdivision.
Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership
Rick Pylman explained that both setback variances and
conditional uses were being requested. The property had
recently been subdivided and rezoned to CCIII. Rick showed site
and landscape plans and stated that the staff felt there would
not be any negative impacts from the request. Jay Peterson
represented the applicant and stated that he had worked with the
staff for 9 months on the subdivision, rezoning and then this
application.
J.J.Collins stated that the applicant had been to DRB concerning
the aesthetics for conceptual review. Peggy osterfoss felt the
use was appropriate for the site. She wondered how snow removal
would work and was told that the applicant had committed to
hauling the snow away. Diana Donovan felt there should be a
small area to store some snow. The applicant stated that there
would be room on the westerly side, but to meet the Town of Vail
•
• code, would require more
answered that many times
away it doesn't quite ge
space than there was available. Diana
when snow is supposed to be hauled
t done.
Peter Patten asked how the parking had been computed, and was
told that there were more spaces than the Town of Vail required,
but the number of spaces was similar to other restaurants the
applicant operated. Sid Schultz was concerned about snow
removal and wanted to make certain that the DRB would focus on
needed landscaping. Jim Vlele felt that regarding the setbacks,
he felt it was better to use some of the unused portion of the
road setback rather than push the building back and have to have
more retainage. Diana asked if it would be possible to have
higher landscaping on the back, and was told that small
evergreens would be planted on the retaining wails.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the
conditional use permit request per the staff memo dated 3/23/87.
The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Sid Schultz seconded to approve the
setback variance request per the staff memo with concern of the
PEC to DRB regarding landscaping and snow storage. The vote was
5 -0 in favor.
. 3. _A request for a setback variance to add retail space too
the Lionshead Centre Building located on Lot 5, Block 1,
Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Lionshead Centre Condominium Assoc.
Rick Pyman stated that the applicant requested to table the
request to an unspecified date.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to table the
request. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
0
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 23, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for conditional use permits in order to have a
drive - through window and a dining deck on Parcel A, a
Resubdivision of Tract D, Vail das Schone Subdivision.
Applicant: The Wend Group Partnership
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting
these conditional uses as well as a setback variance in order
to develop a Wendy's restaurant on this site. This parcel
was identified through the Land Use Plan as having the
potential for a community commercial use. It was
subsequently subdivided and rezoned to Commercial Core III.
Commercial Core ITT requires as a conditional use, drive -up
facilities and also any use which is permitted which is not
conducted entirely within a building. The outside dining
deck falls into this category and thus also requires a
conditional use permit. This memorandum will deal solely
with the conditional use permit requests. The setback
variance request will be covered under a separate
memorandum.
The applicant feels that the proposed drive - through window
will represent a large and essential part of the restaurant
business. It is the applicant's statement that approximately
30% of sales will be from the drive - through window. This
window is situated to allow for the stacking of up to 10 cars
without an encroachment upon traffic circulation or parking.
The drive -up window stacking lane will also be utilized as
the loading area for the restaurant. The applicants have
stated that loading occurs during hours in which the business
is not open to the public. Should loading occur during
restaurant hours, by utilizing the drive- through lane as the
loading area, there would be no encroachment upon traffic
circulation or parking. We feel that utilizing this area for
this secondary use is a positive attribute in that it reduces
the required amount of asphalt on this site.
The conditional use request for outside dining consists of a
small patio of approximately 400 square feet. The patio has
been located on the south side of the building for maximum
sun exposure, will contain several landscape planters and is
separated by a guard rail from vehicular traffic on site.
0 II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permits
based upon the following factor:
Consideration of Factors.
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town.
The Land Use process identified this parcel as a potential
site for community commercial. Subsequent resubdivision and
zoning supported by the Town staff and approved by the Town
Council reaffirmed that development objective. The
conditional uses requested for both the drive - through window
and the outdoor dining patio are incidental uses customarily
found associated with this type of restaurant. The Community
Development Department feels that this use does meet the
development objectives of the community and therefore the
requested conditional use permit requests also meet those
development objectives.
The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
• parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The two conditional use permits requested have no impact on
this criteria.
The 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 proposed outside dining patio has no impact upon this
criteria. The concept of a drive - through window could, if
improperly designed, negatively impact congestion, automotive
and pedestrian safety and traffic flow and control. However,
we do feel that the building and site plan provide adequate
stacking distance for the drive - through window and that the
parking and traffic flow on this site will function well with
no negative impacts.
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 two proposed conditional uses are incidental uses to the
. permitted use on the site (a restaurant). Neither of the
requested uses add bulk or mass to the permitted restaurant.
In fact, the opportunity of a drive - through window reduces
0 the required size of the restaurant as does the availability
of exterior seating.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the pr02Osed use.
IV. 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, safaety, 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of both the conditional use permit
request for a drive- through window and the conditional use
permit request for an outside dining area. We feel that
these uses are incidental to the permitted use on the site
and create no additional negative impacts.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 23, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance on Parcel A, a
resubdivision of Tract D. Vail das Schone Subdivision.
Applicant: Wend Group Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant, the Wend Group Partnership, is requesting a
variance of five feet from the required 20 foot front
setback. The parking and loading section of the CCIII zone
district states that off - street parking and loading shall be
provided with no parking or loading area located in any
required front setback. The proposed site plan (enclsed)
shows a five foot encroachment into this front setback. The
requested encroachment is a portion of an access lane that
leads to the parking area and associated travel lanes.
The applicant states that no viable alternative design
configurations are available other than reducing the width of
the access lane to approximately 15 feet. The applicant goes
. on to state that impact of the encroachment is minimal and is
mitigated by the following factors: 65 - 70 feet of area
exists between the property line and the edge of the
pavement. The owners propose significant landscaping on the
remaining 15 feet of front setback as well as the 65 -70 feet
between the property line and the edge of pavement.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested front setback 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 site plan that has been submitted for this proposal
places the building well back from the required setbacks and
places most of the parking and asphalt to the side of the
property. The minor encroachment of the accessway into the
• front setback still maintains a green space area of
approximately 85 feet to the edge of pavement of the Frontage
Road.
• In relation to the other commercially approved properties
along this area, this is an improvement with regard to the
buffer from the Frontage Road. Many of the commercial
properties developed along this road were developed through
Eagle County and developed without the benefit of this
regulation. Therefore, the buffer between the parking and
the Frontage Road is minimal. We feel that the amount of
buffer along with the intense landscaping plan proposed
present a workable situation for this request.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified reaulation is
The intent of the regulation allowing no parking within the
front setback is to maintain an adequate buffer between
parking areas and the public road. We feel that by
maintaining the 15 foot area of the setback and by
instituting an intensive landscape plan for the area between
the parking lot and the Frontage Road, the intent of this
regulation is being met and therefore granting of this
variance would not be a special privilege. The majority of
the commercial space that was developed along the Commercial
Core III area was developed through Eagle County and does not
maintain this requirement.
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 Community Development staff feels that the requested
variance has no negative impact upon this criteria and in
fact, is an attempt to enhance this criteria. The
requirement could be met by narrowing this access lane to 15
feet in width. The applicant, in attempting to maintain
appropriate safety standards, has submitted the variance
request. We feel that the impacts are minimal and that we
are gaining safe access in travel lanes through this
request.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
•
0
1
J
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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation
specified regulation would
privileges enjoyed by the
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
The Community Development recommends approval of the
requested variance. We feel that the five foot encroachment
into the 20 foot setback presents minimal impact when viewed
in conjunction with the proposed landscape plan, and when
recognizing that the distance between property line and the
edge of pavement is up to and exceeds 70 feet. Discussion
with the Town Engineer indicates that there is very little
possibility of this road ever widening, and therefore this 70
foot distance will be maintained. We feel that this
combination of factors complies with the intent of this
section of the zone district and feel that any negative
impacts are adequately mitigated and that it is not a grant
of special privilege.
r- -I
0
i'
�• � 33
• , i „
.ry N x1
� r
jTII c
F I f x
t
SITE PLAN
•
r:
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 23, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for commercial
storage at the West Vail Mall located at 2161 North
Frontage Road.
Applicant: Vail Mall Joint Venture /Mr. Dave Tyrrell
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting to locate a storage space within
the West Vail Mall. The space would be used as "dead file
storage" for Land Title Guarantee. The space is
approximately 375 square feet. The storage space is located
on the northwest corner of the lower level below Bullock's
and behind the television and film repair shop adjacent to
the Kowloon restaurant. Presently the space is used as
storage for the West Vail Mall.
The West Vail Mall is located in Commercial Core III zone
district which lists commercial storage as a conditional use
in Section 18.27.030. This section of the code reads:
"O. Commercial storage - as long as it does not include
any existing exterior window display frontage on any
public way, street, or mall area, and no existing
exterior window dislay frontage on any public way,
street or mall area is removed in order to provide
commercial storage, and the commercial storge shall be
limited to 10% of the gross commercial square footage of
the building."
The conditional use wording stipulates that 10% of the total
gross commercial square footage: of the building may be used
for storage. The West Vail Mall has approximately 38,000
square feet of commercial area. This results in 3800 square
feet of space being available for commercial storage. The
applicant's request of 370 square feet is well within the
limit of 3800 square feet. At this time, the owners of the
West Vail Mall have not leased out any other space for
storage purposes.
CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
• based upon the following factor:
Consideration of Factors.Relationship and
on development objectives of the Town.
aact of the use
The intent of the Commercial Core III zone distict states:
"The Commercial Core III zone district is intended to provide
sites for community shopping and commercial facilities
serving the Town and upper Eagle Valley residents and guests.
The Commercial district is also more oriented to vehicular
traffic than the other commercial zone districts within the
Town of Vail. Commercial Core III district is intended to
insure adequate light, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to permitted types of buildings and uses and to
maintain a convenient shopping environment."
Staff's opinion is that the West Vail Mall provides a
reasonable location for commercial storage which is a use
that would be difficult to provide in most of the Town's
other zone districts.
The effect of the
population, trans
parks and retreat
. needs.
The storage space
have no impact on
•
use of light and air, distribution of
Dortation facilities, utilities, schools,
ion facilities, and other public facilities
is located in a basement level and will
the factors listed above.
The 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 Aarkinq areas.
The entrance to the space is through an existing loading dock
on the west side of the building. Land Title plans to make a
minimal number of delivery trips to the space. Once the
files are delivered, they will rarely need to access the
information. Impacts on traffic will be minimal.
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.
Staff believes that the storage area will have no effect upon
the character of the area.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
• IV. 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, safaety, 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 RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request for 370 square feet
of storage. The storage area is located in a basement level
which is removed from the high use areas of the West Vail
mall. Staff believes that the storage is a use frequently
associated with commercial areas, and due to the fact that
there are no negative impacts from the proposal, it is felt
that approval of the request is warranted.
•
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 20, 1987
1 :30 P.M. SITE VISITS
3:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23.
2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home
occupancy revocation hearings.
b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of
the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail
East Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and
establishment of a date to hear the appeal of the
revocation of the East Vail Rentals, Inc. home
occupation permit.
3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct a parking lot on top of the west half of the
Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation water plant located
at 846 Forest Road.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated San Dist.
4. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct
a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17,
Block 7, Vail Village lst Filing
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennebaum
5. A request for front, side, rear and stream setback
variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential
floor area variance and a variance from required
landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A
and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation
6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6, Vail
Village Inn, located at 100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Stauffer
7. A request for setback variances in order to construct
additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village
lst Filing.
Applicant: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz
8. A request for a side setback variance in order to construct
a garage at 325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Tim Drisko
9. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new
zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential ".
Applicant: Town of Vail
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 20, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Rick Pylman
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23.
Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
minutes of the meeting of March 9. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the
meeting of March 23. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home
occupancy revocation hearings.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that for the first
time, a home occupancy permit revocation was being appealed. He
explained that this would be a quasi - judicial hearing and the
PEC would act like a judge and would decide whether or not to
uphold or overturn the revocation of the license. Larry gave
the Planning Commission a list of rules of procedure.
Diana Donovan moved to adopt the "Commission Regulations
Setting Forth Procedures Applicable to Appeals of the
Revocation of Home Occupancy Permits by the Zoning
Administrator." The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the
vote to adopt was 6 -0 in favor.
2. b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of
the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail East
Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and establishment of
a date to hear the appeal of the revocation of the East
Vail Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that he felt there was
no harm done by granting a stay of execution, since there would
probably not be very much business until. June.
Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to hold the
hearing of this license on May 27 at 3:00 PM. The vote was 6-
0 in favor of this date.
•
. 3. A request for a conditional use permit In order to
construct a arkin lot on top of the west half of the
Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation water plant
located at 846 Forest Road.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
T)i st-ri rt-
Peter Patten explained that this building was located in the
PUD zone district and the Planning Commission sets the
standards for this zone district as applicable. UEVCSD wished
to relocate their parking facility from Town of Vail land and
Vail Associates property to their own property. He showed site
plans and explained that the staff was concerned that there be
some type of screening to the west as well as to the north.
Dave Mott, applicant, stated that he had no problem with
landscaping to buffer the view to the north, but it was
difficult to do now until the width of the road is known. He
felt that UEVCSD should not be asked to submit a bond to the
Town of Vail since he felt this was inappropriate between two
government entities, but was willing to submit a letter of
credit. He added that he would be willing to raise to 42" the
rail on the parapet wall to the west, but felt that no amount
of screening would be adequate to hide the parking from the
building to the west.
Peter stated that
but that a letter
buffer to the west
adjacent property.
Town Council, and
a bond was standard procedure with everybody,
of credit would be fine. He added that some
was important for future development on the
Peter presented the parking proposal to the
they had no problems with the proposal.
Pam Hopkins was concerned about having enough landscaping to
the north and having it done well. She felt that with the new
road so close to the existing road, enough landscaping was very
important. Sid Schultz and Diana Donovan agreed. Peggy
Osterfoss stated that she did not feel comfortable approving
the request until she had more information on the final design
of the new ramp and whether or not there would be enough room
to landscape the area for adequate screening.
J.J. Collins' main concern was with making certain that there
would be enough landscaping provided when the Highway
Department's design was completed. He felt that there really
was no way to plan the landscaping without State Highway
Department input. J.J.'s second concern was with screening the
lot to the west. He felt that with the present conditions, the
proposed parapet wall was adequate, but was concerned that
future use of the property to the west would change the
•
• required screening.
Peter's concern was that in the future the Town could not go
back and ask for more or different screening.
J.J. moved to approved the request for the conditional use
permit conditional upon Design Review Board review and in light
of requirements for landscaping on the north property line,
especially as it would be related to the new exit. Also
required would be a letter of credit from the applicant. The
motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote for approval
was 5 -0.
4. A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots
14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennenbaum
Rick Pylman showed site plans and explained that the applicant
was requesting a 10 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback
requirement for a lot which had recently been created by the
applicant. Rick stated that the applicants also owned the
property to the east (Parcel A) and were willing to restrict
development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the
property line by use of a deed restriction or covenants. Rick
explained that the staff requested that this area be left as
. undisturbed open space, but the applicants declined to leave
this buffer undisturbed. Rick also stated that the side
setback area requested for encroachment contained several
fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce
trees. The staff recommendation was for denial of the side
setback variance because they felt there was no physical
hardship driving the side setback encroachment and felt it
would be a grant of special privilege.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the
applicants could have achieved the requested setbacks if they
had requested a special development district, but had preferred
to go through a subdivision process instead. They felt that any
problems could be achieved through the variance procedure. He
felt the integrity of the setbacks was being maintained.
J.J. Collins stated that he did not see why a building could
not be designed in such a way that it remained within the
setbacks and did not destroy large trees. Jay replied that
this was the area in which to place the house to take advantage
of the views.
J.J. pointed out that the applicant had a clear lot on which to
build and plenty of room. Jay replied that when the trade -offs
became too great, they decided to ask for a variance. He added
. that hundreds of hours were spent on various schemes on all
three sites.
Peggy asked if there was any interest in protecting the two
evergreen trees that would be lost. Jay replied that they were
already spending a lot of money on landscaping. Peggy said J.J.
did a good job of expressing her views. She felt that she
would work with the proposal if the lost landscaping would be
replaced.
Jay stated that a landscaped buffer could be a condition of
approval. Kurt Cegerberg stated that they were trying to bring
landscaping into the building area and attention would be paid
to bring landscaping into the buffer area.
Diana felt it was too bad that the applicant first created the
lot and then could not design a house to fit the lot.
Jay replied that he could have asked for a special development
distict and gotten rid of the property line and kept within the
interity of the zone code and received approval. He added
that he would rather use the variance procedure as long as he
could keep the integrity of the zone code.
Sid shared a lot of the feelings the other members stated. He
wished it hadn't gotten to this state, but felt if there was a
30' buffer between the houses, it would preserve the distance
factor. He added that he did not feel driven to preserve the
. rock outcropping.
Pam felt that there was no hardship on which to base the
granting of a variance.
Jay replied that any time the PEC is given a variance, they
look at it on a site by site basis, that each project stands
alone.
Jim Viele agreed with Jay with respect to the proces. He added
that if there is no objective judgement involved, there would
be no variance procedure. He stated that in the overall view,
the purpose of the setbacks is to maintain the distance of
separation between dwellings. He wondered if the project would
be a better one if it conformed to the setback regulations and
added that he would rather see the house where is was proposed
to be rather than take out additional trees.
J.J. asked why the house was sited where it was on Parcel A to
the west, and Kurt replied that they were trying to pick up
views of Gore Range and down valley and that the dwelling was
broken up to help to reduce the massiveness of the project.
J.J. stated that on Parcel B he saw plenty of room within the
required setbacks.
0 Curt said he could not argue with the fact that one can fit
something on the lot, but the trees were a major concern. Jay
added that on any given site one can build without going into
setback areas, but it may make an uninteresting town.
J.J. pointed out that each time he had seen the PEC challenge
an architect, the architect had been able to come up with a
plan within the setbacks. He repeated the fact that the
architect in this case had a clean piece of property. Jay
answered that they had voluntarily torn down the existing
structure and should be given latitude to build, that they were
being penalized for making a clean site.
Viele spoke in favor of the proposal as long as the buffer
would remain. Jay answered that there would be a deed
restriction that only the Town of Vail could remove the buffer.
Pam Hopkins pointed out that another owner could hire Jay to
ask to remove the buffer. She added that the PEC was going
through this process because Parcel A had to be a minimum site.
Jay said the purpose of the subdivision was to stop from having
two old homes being added onto. He added that they knew they
might have to ask for variances when they planned the
subdivision.
Peter Patten felt that the natural features should be preserved
within the 15 foot setback area and added that this was a self
created hardship.
Jim Viele moved to approve the variance with the findings that
the strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the zone code. He specified that particular attention be
paid by the DRB of landscaping planned to be in the 30 foot
buffer. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor
and 2 (JJ and Pam) against.
5. A request for front, side, rear and stream setback
variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential
floor area variance and a variance from required
landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A
and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation
Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, stating that the
applicants wanted to build two 2 -car garages and additional
square footage allowed under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The staff
recommendation was for denial as it was felt the additions
could be constructed within the setback areas.
Tom Briner, one of the architects on the project, spoke in
favor of the project and Dan Rickli, another architect,
explained that there seemed to be a discrepancy in the amount
• of square footage that they were adding. Jerry Lewis and John
Kennerly, applicants, also spoke in favor of the project.
Rickli felt that garages should not be counted as site coverage
if they were not counted as GRFA. He also proposed eliminating
4 parking spaces and decreasing the curb cuts from 4 to 3.
Jim Viele asked Betsy if the staff had had time to review the
new proposal, and she replied that they had not.
Craig Snowdon, architect representing the adjacent neighbors
to the west, Steve Berkowitz, read a letter from Berkowitz
objecting to the encroachments, stating that views would be
negatively impacted.
J.J. felt it was difficult to consider the proposal with a
discrepancy in statistics. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and also
felt concern for Berkowitz's views. Rickli disagreed that the
additions would impact the views from the Berkowitz property.
Peggy added that the burying of the garage was a step in the
right direction, but she stated that she would like to see
fewer than 3 road cuts with more landscaping instead of
asphalt. Diana agreed and added that her main concern was the
stream setback.
Sid's biggest concern was site coverage. He also felt there
was too much asphalt. Briner mentioned that this was a DRB
issue. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment because her firm was
. working on the Berkowitz proposal.
Jim Viele stated that when a proposal contains so many variance
requests, it is a good indication that too much is being placed
on the site.
Jerry Lewis asked if he could table and Peter answered that the
item could be tabled until 4/27 if the applicant could get
revised figures and drawings into the Community Development
Departmant by Wednesday morning, the 22nd.
Lewis requested to table to 4/27. Diana moved and Sid seconded
to table the request until April 27. The vote was 5 -0 -1 (Pam
abstained from voting.)
6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6,
Vail Village Inn.
Tom Braun presented the amendment request and stated the staff
recommended denial, citing the need for additional parking,
assurances the Ski Museum would be relocated, and the need for
accommodation units.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, reminded the board
that twice the Vail Village Inn complex had submitted phased
projects, but the potential developers could not fund the
. projects. Now Joe Staufer will develop the new phases himself.
Jay explained the valet parking and stated that it was a
temporary measure until the next phase could be constructed. He
stated that it was not economically feasible for Mr. Staufer to
construct additional parking with this phase.
• Jay stated that the applicant was willing to restrict the
dwelling units per the staff recommendation. Regarding the Ski
Museum, Jay stated that 4,000 square feet of building could be
given to the Town to use free of charge for any use the Town
would want.
Pam asked if valet parking was planned for the commercial area,
and Jay replied that it was not. Joe Staufer stated that he
had 30 - 50 parking spaces that are always empty. He added
that the Sonnenalp, Plaza, and Bell Tower had all expanded and
none had added any parking.
Jay then pointed out that there were no large projects being
constructed at this time which were not phased.
Pam agreed with the parking, and felt that perhaps more locals
would be using this parking lot. Sid also did not have any
problem with the parking and felt that to receive the 4,000
square feet of space in the building was better for the Town
than for the Town to receive $15,000 to relocate the Ski
Museum. He did feel that the new residential units should be
controlled for public use. Diana felt the units needed to be
available for rental. She felt that the Museum relocation must
be worked out and must be a part of this amendment.
Joe Staufer felt that the Town did not gain anything by
"kicking the owner out" especially if the owner wanted to be in
Vail for two months in the summer. Mr. Staufer suggested that
the unit be available for rental and not be the primary
residence of the owner.
Diana stated that she did not patronize many of the stores in
the Vail Village Inn complex because she did not have any place
to park. Diana asked for a commitment to finish the building
as proposed. However, she still felt that there would be a
parking problem. Jay said that for the parking to work, all
the phases must be done.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that the proposal should include assurance
that the developer will relocate the Ski Museum and relandscape
because a landscaped area was being removed in the proposal.
Jay replied that with the new proposal, the Town of Vail would
end up with a large chunk of real estate. He added that the
applicant was willing to participate in redoing the
intersection. Peggy stated that she did not want to see the
landscaping issue lost in the shuffle, and felt the
responsibility rested with the developer.
More discussion followed concerning parking. Peter pointed out
that parking spaces under the condos were controlled by a gate
and were under utilized. Tom felt that it was the responsibil-
ity of the developer to provide parking on the site. J.J.
referred to the memo which indicated a shortfall of 100 spaces.
He was told 18% of the spaces were required to be valet and he
wondered how the decision was made to have 18% of the spaces be
valet. Tom replied that it varied with use. He added that
phases I and II contained 22,000 square feet and phase III
contained 10,000 square feet with no parking provided. He
added that he felt it was the repsponsibility of the developer
to provide parking on the site.
Joe Stauffer said he would like to be able to pay into the
parking fund as did businesses in commercial Core I and II.
J.J. suggested that perhaps Staufer could pay the Town for
parking at building permit time and the Town could repay
Staufer when his parking was complete.
The Ski Museum was discussed. Tom stated that at present the
amended SDD did not address the needs of the Ski Museum. Jay
pointed out that the space offered to the Town was worth $1
Million. J.J. said it seemed like an opportunity for the Town,
the space could be sold for a substantial amount of cash. Tom
pointed out that one condition was that it be used for the
public. Jay stated that they were willing to remove that
stipulation.
J.J. felt the key issue of the owner /rental question was occu-
pancy and this issue was discussed. Also discussed was the
deletion of landscaping for parking. Saundra Smith stated that
they were willing to remove two parking spaces and place
landscaping in place of the spaces.
Peter felt to approve the proposed shortfall of parking would
be inconsistent. He pointed out that the Westin was not able
to do any more construction until the parking structure was
finished. He stated that the Plaza and Bell Tower were
different, in that they were in a pedestrian area and paid into
the parking fund. He pointed out that the proposal under
construction was adjacent to the 4 -way stop with vehicle access
and must have on -site parking.
J.J. discussed the parking figures. Joe Staufer proposed to
make the dwelling units be available for rental when they were
unoccupied.
Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
amendments to SDD 6 as submitted with the following
conditioins:
1. The use of the units be restricted to non - primary
residence and be part of a rental pool.
2. The applicant shall participate in and not remonstrate
against a special improvement district for the
intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive.
. 3.
The vote was 5 -1 in favor.
•
J.J. left at this point.
7.
A request for setback variances in order to construct
additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Vill
lst Filing.
Applicants: Howard Judy and Steven Berkowitz
Rick Pylman showed a site plan and explained the proposal,
adding that the staff recommendation was for approval. Craig
Snowdon, architect for the project, explained the plans. Peggy
Osterfoss suggested the deck be only over the garage, and Craig
said he would reduce the deck.
Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the
staff memo. The vote was 4 - 0 - 1 abstention (Pam).
8. A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a garage at 325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Tim Drisko
Tom Braun showed an improvement survey and explained the
request. Gary Walker, representing the applicant, stated
that the main reason for the location of the garage was to
have access to an existing driveway and parking in front
of the garage.
Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the
request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
9. A_ request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new
zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential."
Applicant: Town of Vail
This item was tabled.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
• DATE: April 2 0,1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District 6,
Vail Village Inn, Phase 4.
Applicant: Mr. Josef Staufer
Final approval for the last phase of Vail Village Inn (Phase 4
of SDD6) was granted by the Town Council in February of 1985.
An 18 month extension of this approval was granted in January,
1987 for the exact plan that was previously approved. in
general terms, the approval of Phase 4 involved the demolition
of the existing hotel, Pancake House, and Food and Deli. To be
constructed were 175 accommodation units, approximately 16,000
square feet of retail space, and 324 underground parking spaces.
The construction of this final phase was to have completed all
development potential as established by ordinance, for this
property.
Application has been made for a number of amendments to the
existing ordinance governing the development of this property,
as well as approval for the phased development of the project.
Planning Commission action on this request involves making
recommendations to be passed on to the Town Council for their
final review. The following memo outlines the issues related to
is these requests for both the proposed amendments and the proposal
to phase the development of the project.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED PHASING PLAN
The existing approval
be constructed in one
is his desire to comp
phases as oppposed to
provided for only one
contemplated.
for Phase 4 was presented and approved to
phase. The applicant has stated that it
Lete this final phase in three separate
one. However, at this time information is
of the three phases that are being
The first phase proposed involves the construction of a building
located at the corner of Vail Road and East Meadow Drive. This
structure would be connected to the existing Food and Deli
portion of VVI with a second and third floor skyway. The
building closely resembles the previous approval in terms of
design and how it would be connected to the main portion of the
hotel. There are a number of issues that will need to be
addressed relative to this phasing plan. They include the
following:
• 1. Design A great deal of time and effort went into
reviewing the massing and siting of this structure
during the previous approval in 1955. The goal of
these efforts was to ensure a design that was
consistent with the original development plan adopted
for this site in 1976. Generally, it was the
intention of this plan for the property to be
developed with greater densities and mass along the
Frontage Road and a gradual "stepping down" of
structures toward Meadow Drive. While this structure
along Meadow Drive has been modified from the original
approval, staff feels these design changes are minor
and still in keeping with the intent of the original
plan for SDD6.
2. Interim Changes to the site in the area of the
proposed Meadow Drive structure_ include a slight
relocation of the access off of Vail Road, the
introduction of a loading zone, and the removal of
approximately 1,000 square feet of landscaped area to
provide additional surface parking. The proposed
location for the loading zone is directly adjacent to
Vail Road. From a design standpoint, this location is
unacceptable to the staff. Concerns over this
location center around the high visibility of the
loading zone in relation to vehicular and pedestrian
ways.
There is also a strong concern over the removal of
landscaped area to provide for surface parking. The
introduction of additional surface parking is
inconsistent with the desired goals for Vail Village
as well as the previously approved plan for this
project. The significance of this additional parking
is magnified by the fact that mature evergreen trees
would be removed to accommodate it.
3. Parking The staff has a number of concerns with
the parking solution as proposed with this phasing
plan. These concerns center around the project's
overall deficiency in providing parking on site, the
utilization of a tremendous number of valet spaces
during the interim plan, and the notion of adding
additional development to this project with no
appreciable gain in on -site parking.
To date, this project has developed in three phases
and over the course of this development has fallen
short of its required on -site parking. Phases 1 and 2
(predominantly the commercial areas along Meadow
• Drive) were developed without on -site parking. The
C
lst phase of Phase 4
Comm. 4,765 16 0
Resi. 14 units 28
44 0
--------------- - --
267 171
(multi --use credit) - 13
254
The information for this table was derived from data compiled
during the last review of Phase 4. The number of spaces
provided do not reflect the valet spaces as proposed with this
application.
3
development of Phase 3 involved a total of 106
structured spaces. These 106 spaces were over and
above what was required for Phase 3 development
(condominiums along the Frontage Road). It was
•
intended that the development of the additional spaces
would go toward making up some of the short fall that
existed from Phases 1 and 2. As the Planning
Commission is probably aware, existing restrictions on
access to this structure has limited the utilization
of these spaces and, as a result, done little to make
up for the existing short fall on the site. We are
now asked to review additional development on the
property, again with little actual new parking being
provided. The following table outlines in greater
detail the parking situation for the Vail Village
Inn.
EXISTING CONDITIONS (PARKING)
Phase
Use Sq Ft Spaces Reg. Spaces Exist.
1
Comm. 16,128 53 0
2
Comm. 6,473 21 0
Resid. 4 condos 8 0
3
Comm. 101600 34 106 (structure)
Resid. 29 condos. 47
VVI Hotel,
Deli,
etc. Cam /rest 5,610 23 65 (surface)
Hotel 52 units 37
223 171
C
lst phase of Phase 4
Comm. 4,765 16 0
Resi. 14 units 28
44 0
--------------- - --
267 171
(multi --use credit) - 13
254
The information for this table was derived from data compiled
during the last review of Phase 4. The number of spaces
provided do not reflect the valet spaces as proposed with this
application.
3
•
The following table outlines in greater detail the proposed
valet parking. The parking section of the zoning code requires
clear and unobsructed access to on -site parking provided within
a development. An exception to this can be granted when valet
service is provided. There are no other standards related to
the utilization of valet parking outlined in the code. As an
interim solution to parking, the applicant has proposed the
introduction of valet parking throughout the project. When
considering these valet spaces, the following changes are made
to the parking provided on site:
PARKING PROPOSED WITH THIS PHASE
Phase
Total
Clear Access
Valet
%
#
Spaces
Spaces
Spaces
Valet
1
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
3
135
51
84
62%
Surface
60
40
20
33%
Spaces
195
91
104
53%
As demonstrated by this table, over one half of the parking
spaces provided on site will require valet service to be
utilized. This percentage is unacceptable to the staff. While
a portion of valet parking for a lodge is acceptable, it is
infeasible to think that valet parking is workable or
appropriate for meeting the demands for commercial space for
this development. The realities of the existing situation on
this property are that a maximum of 64 surface spaces are
accessible for all the commercial uses on the site. This is
assuming that the 106 spaces within Phase 3 are unaccessible to
the general public. In addition, of the 64 surface spaces on
site, a good percentage of those are restricted to specific
tenants. For all practical purposes, there is no additional
parking being provided for these commercial uses.
Another aspect of the valet parking proposed on the surface lot
is the amount of trip generation that will occur between the
properties. Assuming that the valet service will be based out
of the front desk of the hotel, the utilization of valet spaces
adjacent to the Food and Deli would require a doubling of
necessary trips through the 4 -way stop. This trip generation is
serving to congest an intersection that is already at capacity
many times of the year.
4
• REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE APPROVED DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A number of amendments have been requested to Ordinance #1,
1985. This ordinance established the development plan,
statistics, and conditions of approval relative to the initial
review of this project. While many of these amendments are
minor, a number of them have implications relative to the
development of Phase 4. The original ordinance and a copy of
the applicant's amendments requested have been attached to this
memorandum. The following is the staff's response to each of
these amendments.
Amendments 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 are merely housekeeping amendments
to recognize the amended plans as submitted for this first phase
of the competion of the project. In many cases the ordinance
makes reference to the approved plans as previously submitted.
These references address issues such as distances between
buildings, proposed locations and design of structures, parking
provisions, etc. The staff feels there are no pertinent issues
relative to the above amendments.
Amendment 4.
This amendment refers to the density permitted within Phase
4 of the Vail Village Inn project. The existing ordinance
reads as follows:
The gross residence floor area (GRFA) of all districts
in the Special Development District shall not exceed
120,600 square feet. There shall be a minimum of 175
accommodation units and 72,400 square feet devoted to
accommodation units in Phase 4 of SDD6.
With respect to this particular section of the ordinance,
the GRFA numbers were previously established with the
72,400 square feet available in Phase 4 being the
difference between what is existing in other phases and the
overall allowable. A minimum of 175 accommodation units
were specified in the ordinance to insure that accomodation
units be provided in the development of Phase 4. The
amendment requested by the applicant would allow for the
development of dwelling units in this phase of Phase 4. As
proposed, the second, third and fourth floors of this
structure would accommodate 14 units, each with at least
one lock -off unit.
Staff concern with this approach centers around the
utilization and ownership of these units. As per the
written application we have received, the units could be
condominiumized with no restrictions on owners' use or any
. requirements to manage these units in some type of short
5
• term rental pool. While it is true that accommodation
units could be condominiumized, the condo conversion
ordinance establishes restrictions on owners' use as well
as requiring the units to participate in a rental pool. As
proposed, there are no assurances that these units would
not be developed, sold to individual owners, and not
participate in a rental pool. Under this scenario, this
proposal is a dramatic departure from the intent of
Ordinance #1, 1985 as it is presently written.
Amendment #7
This amendment addresses the seven conditions of approval
that were established during the last review of this
proposal. Of concern to the staff are amendments proposed
to conditions No. 5 and 6. These conditions address the
relocation of the ski museum as part of the development of
Phase 4. The existing conditions are worded as follows:
4. "The board of directors of the Colorado Ski Museum
and the developers come to an agreement on terms for
the relocation of the Museum in Phase 4 of the Vail
Village Inn prior to the issuance of a building
permit. In the event that the ski museum would vacate
its space in Phase 4 of the Vail Village Inn, the Town
of Vail shall be given exclusive rights to assume the
Ski Museum's lease of the space. It shall be
understood that in the event the Town of Vail does
assume the use of this space, all uses in this space
shall be of public purpose in nature."
5. The developer fund the demolition and landscaping
of the museum site through one of two options:
a. Deposit to the Town a check for $15,000 to be used
by the Town to complete the work, or, b. The
developer submit a landscape plan to the Town for
approval as an element of the overall plan for Phase
4.
The relocation of the Ski Museum became an essential
element of the redevelopment plan during the last review of
this proposal. This was the result of trying to find a
balance between the needs of the developer and the original
design plan for this property. Generally speaking, the
design plan adopted for this site emphasized the massing of
structures to step down from the Frontage Road to East
Meadow Drive resulting in a pedestrian scale of buildings
along the Meadow Drive pedestrian corridor. In addition,
this plan called for a substantial amount of landscaped
open space at the southwest corner of the property. The
developer's program for the building necessitated placing a
structure in this portion of this property and the solution
proposed was to relocate the Ski Museum to free up that
site to be developed as a park. After much discussion,
this was agreed to as a reasonable compromise maintaining
the integrity of the design plan as well as meeting the
needs of the developers. The two conditions of approval
were designed to ensure that the Ski Museum would be
relocated and that the site be landscaped in conjunction
with the development of this project. These assurances
came in the form of requiring the Ski Museum to agree to
the move before construction was initiated and through the
funding of improvements to the Ski Museum site. The
commitment by the developer to provide these conditions was
seen as a trade off for the opportunity to develop what was
intended to be a landscape portion of the site.
The applicant has proposed the following amendment to these
conditions:
"The developers and /or owners of Phase 4 agree to
transfer by general warranty deed to the Town of Vail
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Such
condominium unit shall be approximately 3986 square
feet in size and shall be located as indicated on the
plans and specifications submitted with the
application."
The applicant has also requested that Condition #5 (that
the developer fund or provide the landscaping of the Ski
Museum site) be completely deleted.
While the developer is still proposing to provide the space for
the Ski Museum, the Town has lost all assurances that the Ski
Museum will in fact occupy that space and vacate its existing
building. In addition, the burden of removing the existing Ski
Museum structure and landscaping the site has now fallen on the
shoulders of the Town or some other entity. Both of these
conditions were established to accommodate the desires of the
developer to construct Phase 4 in locations that were designated
as open space. Two years ago during the final review of this
project, it was agreed upon by all parties that the relocation
of the Museum become the developer's responsibility. These
conditions will effectively absolve the developer of that
responsibility.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
During the last review of this project in 1985, the staff
strongly supported the approval of the project. That proposal
involved predominantly structured parking to accommodate all
phases of Vail Village Inn, a commitment to develop
accommodation units, and strong assurances that the relocation
of the Ski Museum woubd be provided in conjunction with this
•
•
1-1
development. The phasing proposal submitted at this time falls
short on each of these considerations. While it may be feasible
to mitigate the issue over the units by instituting use
restrictions, and the Ski Museum may be resolved through further
negotiation between the developer and the Ski Museum, staff
feels strongly that the issue of parking is not being solved
through the implementation of valet service. We are bound to
view this proposal as what possibly could be built out of the
project. As a whole, the project has been deficient in parking
for a number of years. To allow additional development on the
site without additional parking would be nothing short of
irresponsible. For years the parking that is not provided on
this site has been made up somewhere within.the Town. One can
assume that adjacent properties and the Town parking structure
have absorbed this burden. With the ever increasing utilization
of the Town structure, it is simply infeasible that any
additional burden be placed on this facility by allowing private
development to proceed without carrying its fair share of the
parking requirements.
Although the staff remains positive regarding the quality of the
overall previously approved project and we recognize that our
concerns could be mitigated in the future by immediate follow -
through with the next phase, it is our responsibiity to fairly
evaluate this proposal as if this is the final product. With
this in mind and to be consistent with our position on similar
proposals, we cannot support the present proposal. Staff
recommendation for this phasing program and the proposed
amendments is denial.
k1Q NF} AT�P3ENPUM TO A PL�Os,T�ON
FOR AMF MENT POR
szPF_'r.J.AL EVEL_OPMENT USTTU NQS.Al
The following changes need to be made to Ordinance No. 1
Series of 1985 in order to proceed with the proposed structure to
be located on Meadow Drive.
1. in Section 2 additional reference should be made to the
current set of plans as submitted for the proposed structure
located on Meadow Drive. I would assume that this could be
called the new Phase IV and the remaining portion of the project
would be referred to as Phase V.
2. In Section 6 the paragraph makes reference to Phase IV
regarding the minimum distance between building, the only thing
that should be added should be possibly a date of the current
plans as submitted.
3. In Section 7 Subparagraph Bp once again Phase IV would
be the current Phase IV with the plans dated accordingly.
4. In Section S the 120,600 sq.ft. of GRFA should remain
. the same, 175 accommodation units should also remain the same,
however, the 72,400 sq.ft. should be reduced by the sum of 5.378
sq.ft. which represents one -half of the total square footage of
GRFA in the current Phase IV. This amount of square footage has
been devoted to units with a kitchen. The 72,400 sq.ft. should
therefore be amended to read 67,022 sq.ft.
5. In Section 9 the language pertaining to Phase IV should
once again make reference to the plans submitted by Gordon R.
Pierce with the current date on such plans.
6. Section 10 should be amended to reflect the current
parking plan on the set of plans submitted with our application.
7. In Section 11 regarding conditions of approval the
following changes should be made:
as Once again Phase IV should be reflected by the
current set of plans submitted by Gordon R. Pierce.
b. Subparagraph one should remain the same.
c. Subparagraph two should remain the same.
d. Subparagraph three remains the same, however, we
are not in need of such approval during this phase and that
approval would only be necessary upon the development of the
next phase.
r
Ll
•
e. Subparagraph four should be deleted. The
following language should replace the existing Subparagraph
four:
The developers and /or owners of Phase 1V agree to
transfer by General Warranty Deed to the Town of Vail
free and clear of all liens and encumbrances. Such
Condominium unit shall be approximately 3,386 sq.ft. in
size and shall be located as indicated on the plans and
specifications submitted with the application.
There would be no restriction on the Deed for the use by the Ski
Museum, however, the space should be used for some public purpose
by the Town of Vail.
f. Subparagraph five would be deleted.
g. Subparagraph six can stay the same.
-t -.
f. •/
, I
COMMISSION REGULATIONS SETTING FORTH PROCEDURES
APPLICABLE TO APPEALS OF THE REVOCATION OF HOME
OCCUPANCY PERMITS BY THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
Section I.
In accordance with Section 2.24.050 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail,
the Planning Commission is authorized to adopt rules for the transaction of business
before it.
Section 2.
Section 18.58.190 provides that the appeal of any action of the Zoning
Administrator in connection with the issuance or denial of a home occupation permit
or the conditions attached thereto, may be filed with the Planning Commission by any
resident or property owner within thirty (30) days following such action. In order
to establish a framework for the hearing of such an appeal, the following procedures
are adopted as applicable thereto:
2.1 Parties to the review of such an appeal shall include the resident or
property owner perfecting the appeal and the Zoning Administrator or his
representative who has revoked the home occupancy permit. Notice of the time of the
hearing of an appeal shall be served personally on the parties whereby first class
mail to the last known address of the party to be notified. In the event that the
party perfecting the appeal has obtained legal representation and legal counsel, and
legal counsel has indicated such to the Town, then notification shall be sent to the
office of the attorney representing said party. In fixing the time and place of the
hearing, the Planning Commission will give due regard to the convenience of the
parties and their representatives.
2.2 The Planning Commission or other hearing officer shall have the authority
to sign and issue an administrative subpoena; rule upon offers of proof and receive
evidence given under oath; dispose of all motions; direct the parties to appear and
confer to consider the simplification of issues, admissions of fact or documents to
avoid unnecessary proof; reprimand or exclude from the hearing any person for any
improper or contemptuous conduct in the Commission's presence; and take any other
action con�iFt -4- ir,; +k t1.
having requested the issuance of the subpoena may request a continuance of the
hearing and apply to the District Court for appropriate remedies to compel such
appearance. A witness shall be entitled to fees and mileage provided for a witness
in a Court of record.
2.4 The Zoning Administrator shall have the burden of proof, based upon the
civil burden or preponderance of the evidence, and every party to the proceeding
shall have the right to present his case or defense by oral and documentary
evidence, to submit rebuttal evidence and to copduct such cross examination as may
be required for a full and true disclosure of the facts. Subject to these rights
and requirements, where a hearing will be expedited and the interest of the parties
will not be substantially prejudiced thereby, the Planning Commission or other
hearing officer may receive all or part of the evidence in written form. The
parties may offer such evidence as they desire and shall produce such additional
evidence as the Planning Commission or other hearing officer may deem necessary to
any understanding and determination of the appeal. The Planning Commission or other
hearing officer shall be the judge of the relevancy and materiality of the evidence
offered and conformity to the legal rules of evidence shall not be necessary. The
Town Manager or other hearing officer may receive and consider the evidence of the
witnesses by affidavit, and shall give such evidence only such weight as it deems
proper after consideration the objections made to its admission. All parties to the
hearing may make objections to evidentury offers, which shall then be noted in the
record, in the absence of an objection, the hearing may be conducted informally and
failure to request any procedure shall constitute a waiver thereof.
2.5 It shall be the duty of the Planning Commission or other hearing officer
to consider whether the action taken by the Zoning Administrator or his
representative shall be sustained based on the evidence presented at the hearing and
the home occupancy ordinances of the Town of Vail. The Planning Commission or other •
hearing officer shall have the power to sustain, modify or reject the action of the
Zoning Administrator.
LAE /bsc
>X `
r 1
LJ
r�
LJ
NOTICE OF APPEAL
EAST VAIL RENTALS hereby serves notice pursuant to
Section 18.58.190 of the Vail Municipal Code upon the Town
of Vail, Colorado, and its Planning Commission of its appeal
of the purported revocation of The Home Occupation Permit
issued to East Vail Rentals. In the event the Town of Vail
declines to reverse the purported revocation and reinitiate
the permit without hearing, East Vail Rentals hereby
requests The Planning Commission hold a hearing on this
decision in order to allow East Vail. Rentals to present
testimony and evidence on its behalf.
AS GROUNDS FOR APPEAL and in further support of
this Notice of Appeal, East Vail Rentals states as follows:
1. The revocation is invalid and of no effect
under Section 18.58.180 of the Vail Municipal Code, which
specifies the revocation may be done only by the Zoning
Administrator. The Notice of Revocation, a copy of which is
attached hereto and made a part hereof, marked Exhibit A,
indicates the revocation was made by the Town Planner, of
the Office of Community Development, not the Zoning
Administrator.
2. The revocation was a unilateral decision
without notice to East Vail Rentals or an opportunity to
respond to the issues, charges and accusation, leveled
against it by unnamed person(s).
3. The revocation was in direct response to a
small, yet well orchestrated group of citizens, who do not
accurately reflect the feelings, beliefs and sentiments of
the neighborhood or citizen of the Town. Public statements
of various Town of Vail officials contained in an article in
"The Vail Daily ", attached hereto and made a part hereof,
marked Exhibit B, indicate those Town Officials were unduly
influenced by this group of people and made their decision
based upon public pressure.
4. The revocation was based upon undocumented
and unsubstantiated claims to which East Vail Rentals has
compiled evidence to respond to and refute at an appropriate
hearing in an orderly fashion, including but not limited to
figures in vehicular traffic, citizen opinions and
neighborhood activities.
•
•
c
5. If East Vail Rentals had been given notice of
the proposed revocation and afforded even a minimal oppor -.
tunity to respond, the revocation, in all likelihood, would
not have been issued and East Vail Rentals has a reasonable
probability of succeeding in having its permit restored
forthwith upon granting of such a hearing.
6. The decision of revocation should be stayed
pending full hearing and review as East Vail Rentals will
suffer immediate and continuing irreparable injury, the
injury is likely to continue and compound on a daily basis.
Specifically, East Vail Rentals will in effect be deprived
of its sole place of business which will cause loss of
revenue and business. Staying of the revocation pending a
full and complete hearing will not cause prejudice to the
Town or complainant(s) as there will be little, if any,
rental business after the ski season and these conditions
will continue into June.
7. The revocation was based upon facts which
were presented to the Town by interested, biased persons,
and the Town, by admission of Town employees contained in
the article from "The Vail Trail" attached hereto and made a
part hereof, marked Exhibit C, did not investigate or make
attempt to corroborate.
8. The revocation is unduly burdensome upon East
Vail Rentals especially in light of the fact that numerous
other businesses, operate on a continuing basis in the
neighborhood.
WHEREFORE, East Vail Rentals requests the follow-
ing relief:
a. This appeal be heard at a hearing at which
time East Vail Rentals will be allowed to confront its
accusers and respond to the accusations and present evidence
on its behalf.
b. The revocation of the Home Occupancy Permit
be stayed pending a resolution of all issues herein.
C. That the revocation of the Home Occupancy
Permit be reinstated with or with hearing.
14
DATED this (e_!f_ day of April, 1987.
EAST VAIL RENTALS. INC.
Mlen C. Christensen ---I
Cosgriff, Dunn & Abplanalp
Registration No. 13707
Post Office Box 2299
Vail, Colorado 81658
(303) 476 -7552
0
•
s ,
r
STATE OF COLORADO )
} ss.
COUNTY OF EAGLE }
t
1, Patricia Branca, being first duly sworn upon my
oath, state that I have read the above Notice of Appeal and
the contents therein are true to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
Z22� Zae4 I I
Patricia Branca,
Secretary- Treasurer
East Vail Rentals, Inc.
I hereby certify that the foregoing was subscribed
and sworn to before me this 41A day of April, 1987.
III My commission expires: i _3f j 07 D
ff Witness my hand and official seal.
�i
Public
MN02
•
n
U
•
MIR of uaiv'I
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81G57
(303) 476 -7000
March 11, 1987
Mr. Norman Branca
East Vail Rentals
P.O. Box 1033
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. Branca:
office of community development
The Department of Community Development has received numerous
complaints regarding the operation of East Vail Rentals, Inc.
at 5045 Main Gore Drive. The documentation associated with
these complaints indicates that vehicular traffic related to
this business is in excess of that typically generated by
residential dwellings.
Through the authority granted by Section 18.58.180 of the Town
of Vail Municipal Code, citing Section 18.58.160 of the
Municipal. Code, as well as the conditions of approval stipulated
on the Home Occupation Permit, I hereby revoke the Home
Occupation Permit issued to East Vail Rentals, 5045 Main Gore
Drive, effective April. 15, 1987.
The continuance of this use past April 15, 1987 will constitute
a zoning violation.
This decision may be appealed to the Planning and Environmental
Commission in accordance with Section 18.58.190 of the Municipal,
Code. I have enclosed copies of all referenced sections of the
Municipal Code for your information. If you have any questions,
please call me at 476 -7000.
si.r�. 're y,
Ri Pylman
Town Planner
RP:br
EXHIBIT "A"
Usinesses m, III
E
a st fail resic ents an a7 y
n b hbbrhoocl - business, traffic
Town of Vail planner flick Pylcman said
�3y
Jody Faust a Monday That he granted a }ionic Occupation
Ua:ry Surfwriltr : Business Permit last Sept. 2.4 to East Fail
Rentals, at 5045 Main Gore Dr., owficd and
A "mom and pop" out -of -home property,; . operated by Norman "Corky" 13ranct and
rental business in Fast Vail is embroiled in a his wife, because he believed the colmltc
controversy - pitting- the: Town of Vail business met all the town's rcquircriicnts for
Corriniunily Development., Department ' a permit.
against local residents. •- .: AccordillgL to the permit application
Town leas received nearly a dozen' submitted by Branca last fall, approximately
11kiv5 iii recent weeks from as[ Vail resi- three custoniors per day would enter and exit
dents angry not only abautl;ast Vail Rental's his business. .
Borne Occupancy Pcrmit, but with the town "We didn't regard that as out of the orditn-
- -issuing pcmlits in any residential area. ary," Pylentari said.
RC. Mcrcur . said inn recent letter to the . But, Pylcman included as a condition of
Town Council, "It is difficult to believe that approval, a note on Brarlca's alrlllicatioll stal-
1 a responsible municipal government would ing ih u his department had already received
allow a commercial business to operate in a a complaint regarding traffic from die busi-
wcIl- established residential riciPbborhood." Please scc Cunirgrcr%j rage 15
f
with
a a , CO3at ro ver ">���
.dig or-- -•sma rl, license. r-ecllfir-ecl
for all home, businesses in Vall.
13y Valcnc J. Smith
Pbify S it w'rilc
Qixrating a business out of your honk in
Vail without thc pro per Iiccnsingcould lead to
an apllC:lT:rilcc in municipal couil. Cll:cnccs of
ever being sunlrnoned, however, are quite
slim for bu-sincss people working out of their
homes widlin the town's boundaries,
"We don't h:uldlc it that w•ay," said Vail's
to%vn cicrk Pam Ilrandrncycr. "For die most
part, people are cooperative."
tiLtny operators of small, horde- 11ss0d
busincsscs appear Unaware of the licensing
ploccss.
Such misunderst.mding is often to blame
For the lack of correct business licensing in
Vail. Frequcntly, an individual who isollcrat-
aril Dally tiYedaesaay. March 18. 1987 Page 15
:�ottfroversy
:less. He warded Branca that if the
roblem persisted, the department
Would review his application and
possibly revoke his permit.
Branca said Monday that the
corn -' -irit last fall wasn't legitimate
hec he has only operated his
busiriCss out of the current address
since January:
After receiving l I letters in recent
weeks from Branca's neighbors and
citizens around Vail conccmcd that
heavy commercial traffic way .
disrupting the safety and solitude of
their residential community. Pyic-
man revoked the permit,
The zoning ordinance, passed in
1973, governing such permits slates
``a home occupation shall not
generate significant vehicular traffic
in Excess of that typically generated
by residential dwellings."
"Tfic permit should have been
revoked, and we've done it, said
Community Development Director
Peter Patten Mond.
Pylcman said the revocation letter
he sent Branca March 11, basically
gave him one month to cease opera-
tions out of his home, as well as the
option to appeal the decision before
the Planning and Environmental
Commission at its next meeting.
. Branca said he will "absolutely"
fight for his perniii, and has solicited
the help of several attorneys.
"We put him into the position of
coming into the appeal process,
Pylcman said. "It will bring every -
body together to work th is thing out."
owners of the complaints from resi-
dents about traffic.
Out of 505 Annual Business
Licenscs issued by the Town of Vail
this year, 9 percent involved part- or
full -time out -of -home businesses
which also required a 550 Home
Occupancy Business Permit, accord-
ing to town clerk Pam Brandmcycr.
"Nobody more than the Commun-
isy Development Department wants a
residential community to remain resi-
dcniial," Patten said.
Despite the recent flow of However, Branca said the town
community criticism of Home Occu- acted "hastily" in revoking his'
pancy Business Permits, Patten said permit without first contacting him,
"the system is working." "We've orconducting its own investigationof
had only two problems out of .the actual level of traffic generated by
hundreds of permits issued. *, his business.
"It appears as if this business has
He said that the other case involved reached a level where it should be
a real eswe operation which got too operated out of commercial office
large for home occupancy.That busi -. space," Pyleman said, and added that
ness moved into commercial office his department undoubtedly fell some
space when the town informed the pressure from the comp]ai- letters .
ing sonic kind of business on llic.sidc — in
addition to their full -time occupation — is
unnware di:it birth ail Ammal tlusincss
License and a Home ac(ip.incy Pcimit ;sac
requi rcd.
'If you conduct business in the Tov.li of
Vail, you should llavc a Guist•," Bl:mdll •y-
cr Baal. lii;it applics to activiticS cvi0nriid
principally by IClcphone or mail, lii'lil hand-
Crafts or an ohjrcts, le,!Chinr arld ttiioring
lrlstrlc6oil (if lwo pupils at .1 Bloc, dICSIM;tS -
ing. emillctic sales and lilorv. I lofiw (ILCIIJIAl
tions are unacceptable for such businessCS :Ls a
clinic, rcaaurant, an6gll0 shop or vetCfina-
rian's oft ice.
' I11ec ool10 ob%liil1110101111:rc(lliccm: rin
Vail varies acc'llniing to th sii0 o! l'u.inc >x-
'1Jic fee for an Arnlual BUS:11CI>
Please scc Lice ,
•
F4
w
t�1
x
C
r•
rt
q
.771e Vail Trail — March 20, 1987.— Sectlorl A
ast eta busi-nes-s
Owner says loss of permit
eoul.d destroy. livelihood
By AIARK I-IUFFD1AN
For Corky and Patty Branca,
the revocation this week of the
permit for their home business
could mean disaster.
The 13rancas, owners and
operators of &-ist Vail Rentals,
run what Corky Branca calls a
"mom and pop" rental and
property management service
for East Vail units. It's a low -key
business, Branca says, one that
he never dreamed would ber.6me
the center of a neighborhood
battle.
But it has.
Acting on complaints from
neighbors, the town of Vail this
week revoked Branch's home
occupancy business permit- lie's
pot 30 days to appeal, which he
says he will. if the permit isn't
reinstated, he says it will mean
the end of a business that lie and
his wife have worked years to
build.
The town and The Vail Trail
have received a flurry of letters
in the past two weeks about East
Vasil Rentals. Except for one
letter supporting Branca, at] the
letters have said that East Vail
Rentals is generating a huge
amount of traffic that
endangers local residents and
threatens the nature of the
residential neighborhood, on
Alain -Gore Drive near the
eastern limits of Vail.
Neighborhood hurt
Among the comment in letters
received by The Trail were that
East Vail Rentals "totally
destroys the nature of the
neighborhood," that "traffic
generartecI poses a danger to the
children, Joggers, and those
enjoti-ing it quiet walk in the
area," that operating a
management company at the
location "goes beyond the limits
of coexisting in a secure and
clearly residential environ-
ment," that the permitissued for
the business "is unfair to the
residents and homeowners and
unsafe for the community at
large," and that allowing such a
business in a residential area
means that "the quality of life
here will go straight downhill,"
It's news to Branca, who said
this week he dnesn't think his
business is doing any of the
terrible things people say it is.
He says the issue has been
"overdramatized."
Branca said the only person
who hats talked to him
personally about his business is
neighbor Alike Reid. Branco
said that he creme away from
that talk feeling that any
problems orcomplainIs could be
worked uut. That the matter has
turned into a public brittle "has
been a shock," he said.
Branca moved into the house
last summer, and, after
spending thousands of dollars
on remodeling, opened the
business in January. He says
the amount of traffic the
business creates is small, no
more than three cars a day. That
figure comes from counts by a
traffic engineering firm lie
hired. The firm's study, 11n111a•n
said, also reported that traffic
into his business accounts "for
less than 1 percent of the traffic
on Mnin Cure Drive,-
Branca said he thinks
neighbors who claim. that his
business creates a lot of traffic
have been misled by watching
rite comings and goings -of
contrnetors who did the
remodeling to bcrilcl the office for
the husiness. "I thin% they've
been confused' about the
tremendous amount of remodel-
Ing constructinn work going on
here," Branca said. "'There's
been plumbers and electricians
and contractors. Having this
remodeling going on made us
look very busy, and we have
been very busy with construc-
tion."
But he said that's not a fnir
way to judge what traffic his
business creates. Branca said he
ran the same business the same
way with the same number of
customers out of acondonzinium
at Timberfalls for years and
never heard a complaint. And he
said that since moving in
January "my business hasn't
taken on or lost a unit." If
anything, he said, he expects to
do less business in the near
future because his wife is
pregnant and won't he able W
help as much as in the past.
That the town derided to
revoke his permit without
studying the situntiun also
surf sited Brnnra. The town's
ordinance regulating home
oceutsancy business permits,
aduptcd in 14)7:3, says that such
Permits can he granted if the
business does "not generate
significant vehicular traffic in
excess of that typically
generated by residential
dwellings," Branca said the
town can't really know whether
he)'s vinlntcd that lam:uage
"because no one has really come
out here and done a study of the
traffic."
Petri- fatten, Vail director of
Community Development, said
he dues believe there's a problem
based on the reaction of
neighbors. which he said is the
best way the town has to judge.
"It's the type of ordinance
based oil believing what people•
tc•il us when they come in,"
fatten said, adding that he
thinks 13ranc•a diws generate
more than three visits a tlav at
his business. "We don't have 12
people, six of whom are looking
forzoning violations. Wehave to
go on a complaint basis, and we
-permitis
r
t
I:: - •,,...may
revoKe
n'
An office addition to Corky and Patty Branca's home in East Vail
angered their neighbors about increased traffic in the area. Photo by
Mike Rawlings.
let People who risk for permits
know Chat up front."
Patten said he thinks "the
town's got a good home
occupancy ordinance" based on
allowing businesses in
residential areas. "if we don't
have people noticing it."
When such businessesoperate
without notice, he said. "then
it's fine ... butifitgetsoutofhand
we have to stop it."
Patten said he thinks that
Branca's business is "too
successful for the location --
those are the facts as we
understand them."
Threatens livelihood
For Branca, loss of the permit
is bad, so had that it could mean
the failure of the business.
"When we moved in here, it
was it dream come true," he said.
"This is our sole means of
support. Westarted ihehusiness
with one condo, and we would
work until two or three in the
morning after working at the
West Lail Liquor Mart at night.
lv(e built everything we have on ~ `
merit. we didn't horse• money
from banks or relatives. And
now this is my entire livelihood,
100 percent of my income.
"I can't run my business from
the village, my customers want `
me to be in the area. And
considering there is no other
commercial space available to `
my knowledge that can he
leased in the East Vail area, the _
damage to my business will
mount."
It's especially frustrating for
Branca, who believes that he
does a job that has to be done,
and that helps Vail.
"I believe I offer a valuable.
service here, a service that helps
Promote tourism, that bringsin
People to ski on the mountain
and spend money in the stores ~,
and rent condominiums.
As for the future, especially if
his appeal for renewal of his.
permit fails, Branca said he .
doesn't know.
"
We're out of the shuck part, ".
he said. 4'13ut it's scatry to think
that our only means of income
ends in three weeks,"
TO: Planning and Environmental. commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a residence on Parcel B, a Resubdivision of
Lots 14 and 17, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Mr. Michael Tennebaum
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant, Michael Tennenbaum, is requesting a 10 foot
variance from the required 15 foot side setback for the newly
created Parcel B: a resubdivision of Lots 14 and 17, Block
7, Vail Village lst Filing. Parcel B is roughly 901 x 100'
with a narrow dog leg that extends to the east of the
property. This parcel contains slightly more than 12,500
square feet, which is the minimum lot size for the Single
Family zone district. This parcel was created through a
previous subdivision action by Mr. Tennenbaum. Mr. Tennebaum
resubdivided the Primary /Secondary zoned Lots 14 and 17 into
three parcels. Parcel A which remained a Primary /Secondary
zoned property and Parcels B and C which each became Single
Family zoned parcels.
The applicant, who still controls the adjacent Parcel A, has
stated a willingness to restrict development on Parcel A to a
distance of 25 feet from the property line. By restricting
this development through either covenants or deed
restrictions, the applicant would provide a 30 foot
separation between structures equal to the normal 15 foot
setback from each property line. The proposed site
development which encroaches up to 10 feet into the required
15 foot setback from property line also entails creating an
access easement, retaining wall and asphalt drive through
this 30 foot area. The actual driveway that accesses Parcel
B initiates approximately 20 feet from the property line on
Parcel A.
In an effort toward compromise, the staff requested the
applicant to maintain this 30 foot buffer as undisturbed open
space. The applicant, however, declined to amend the site
plan and design program to allow this buffer. The side
setback area requested for encroachment contains several
fairly significant natural features, including two large
spruce trees.
0
0 II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested setback variance based
upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the re ested variance to other existing
or Potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
In a situation where the average slope underneath proposed
parking areas exceeds 30 %, staff and Design Review Board may
waive the required front setback standards. The garage area
for this proposal meets this criteria, so the location of the
garage in the front setback of this proposal is not an issue.
With regard to the encroachment into the side setback, staff
feels that if the applicant were willing to restrict
development including site work to a 25 foot setback on
Parcel A through a deed restriction or covenant to which the
Town is a party, there would be little impact on other
potential structures in the vicinity.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
• interpretation and enforcement of a specified_ regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The Community Development Department staff feels that
approval of this request would be a grant of special
privilege. We believe that there is little to no physical
hardship on this parcel requiring a side setback variance.
In fact, we see significant natural features on the lot
located within the 15 foot setback which enhance the site and
should be preserved.
The subdivision regulations are designed to ensure that an
adequate building envelope will be created during development
or subdivision of any lot. The applicant, through recent
previous actions, created this lot and should be able to
design within the parameters of that parcel of ground which
he has created. Any claim of hardship due to lot size or
shape is self imposed by the owner as a result of the
previous resubdivision application.
•
Effect of the re
distribution of
facilities, publ
safetv.
nested variance on light and air,
opulation, transportation and traffic
c facilities and utilities. and public
There is little impact upon this criteria by this proposal.
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 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;
40 The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation is for denial of the side setback
variance. We feel there is no physical hardship driving the
side setback request and feel that it would be a grant of
special privilege. Indeed, physical features within the area
of the 15 foot setback warrants its preservation. This lot
was recently created and great efforts were taken at that
time to ensure that this lot did meet the minimum lot
requirement for this zone district. We feel adequate space
exists for the siting of a single family structure without
requiring a setback variance. Finally, any hardship is self -
imposed by the owner through his previous minor subdivision
request and subsequent design.
4,
b
i
SL
} � vj
lid —
C1� t oy r�
Vv
v MV
}I y vg
C
a° o ��
} jj / :f 1 r r \
th 6 p ` P j4r �t
f j4 N n r y
z r
rn
ra r z 7
c., r+to a0tyxr�+
u:1 o r 0 m m a w 0 N f + I D 6
r rr�n •o W W". to
`G 9 M tt N "1 CD 0 LQ
O w w N
-A 0 am �a5•r
m r► m w u 120 m PC!
I.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances for a
garage located at 325 Forest Road, Lot 18, Block 7, Vail
Village lst Filing.
Applicant: Tim Drisko
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
On September 8, 1986, the Planning Commission reviewed
setback requests for a proposed garage on this property. The
requests were for encroachments of 9 feet into the side
setback and 10 feet into the front setback. The application
was approved by a 6 -0 vote.
Construction errors have resulted in the garage being located
closer to the side lot line than previously approved by the
Planning Commission. As existing, the garage encroaches 12.7
feet into the side setback. After learning of the problem
with the location of the garage, the applicant requested
approval from the Punning Commmission for the structure as
presently constructed. The September 8th Planning
0 Commmission memorandum of the original request is attached
j for your information.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested setback variances 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 constructed, the garage is located 2.3 feet from the side
property line. The previous approval granted a variance to
locate the garage 5.75 feet from the property line. It is
the feeling of the staff that the additional encroachment
proposed will not adversely affect properties in the vicinity
of this structure. Existing vegetation should also
adequately buffer the structure from the adjacent parcel. It
should also be noted that the location of the garage is 17
feet from the front property line as opposed to 10 feet as
approved with the original proposal.
10
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The staff has historically been supportive of variance
requests for garage additions throughout the Town. This is
particularly true in the Forest Road area where topography
and the location of existing structures make site planning
difficult. To approve this request would be consistent with
previously approved variances and 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.
There are no significant effects on any of the above
mentioned factors.
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
•
10
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request. The previous
review of this approval established the physical hardships on
this site that necessitated approval of setback variances.
These physical hardships are still present in reviewing this
application. The same is true with respect to special
privilege. In reviewing the existing location of the garage,
it is the feeling of the staff that there is no significant
increase in any impact on adjacent properties. For these
reasons, the staff is supporting the requested variance.
The location of the existing garage is obviously a result of
human error. The staff has traditionally taken a hard line
on other projects that requested variances after the fact.
This request differs from those in that physical hardship and
special priviege were previously established by the Planning
Commission review this past September. In addition, with the
exception of location, the garage is constucted as approved
. by the Planning Commission and Design Review Board. These
reasons distinguish this proposal from other similar requests
the Planning Commission has reviewed in the recent past.
0
38, i'
ai ,j:z1 1
0'r 8 S t
t N
�-
7
W Z
w m A
m 0,01 1
m
D
Cn
Cl
A
x
Cif
44.2'
G'ZI
0 9Z
Ul
O
_
OI
N
N
N
N
m
20.6 `
2a.9'
^?
N
N O1 005'
E
.o .y
v
m
�
-
+s1
�
iJ
m
v r- -�
n
Cb
r r 0
C
m
X
m CO
(n W
b
G
r
p
N W
cn
in
m
r�
,f
v
D 0
—i A
m r-
0 m
n
W
to
1
0 X
m y
z i
c
G
� v
m
r-
0
N
O
O
OD
146.40'_ "'- y
V
n
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
46 FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 8, 1986
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances in order to
construct a garage at 325 Forest Road, Lot 18, Block 7, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
APPLICANT: Tim Drisko
I. DESCRIPTION_ OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
As proposed, the garage encroaches 10 feet into the required 20 foot
front setback, and 9 feet into the required 15 foot side setback. The
garage has been sited in this location for a number of reasons.
Foremost among these is the 15 foot grade change from Forest Road to the
buildable area of the lot. A second consideration is that there is
development potential for a secondary unit on this lot. The location of
the proposed garage would pose the fewest problems with the future
siting of an additional unit. A final consideration in the location of
the garage is the existence of a driveway bed leading to the property's
parking area. This existing driveway would serve as access to the
proposed garage.
II. 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 variances 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 proposed garage addition is only 6 feet from the property line that
separates lot 18 from lot 20. It is felt that existing vegetation
between these two lots will offset any potential impacts from this
construction. While the structure is located only 10 feet from the
front property line, it is 23 feet from the existing edge line of Forest
Road.
The degree to which relie
enforcement of a s ecifie
compatibility and uniform
to attain the objectives
privilege.
f from the strict or literal
d regulation is necessary to
ity of treatment among sites
of this tit
interpretation and
n the vicinity or
e without grant of special
The proposed location of the garage is reasonable with respect to
minimizing impacts on adjacent properties. Historically, the staff has
been very supportive of variance requests for garage
additions. This is particularly true in the Forest Road area because of
existing road alignments and topographical constraints in the
16 neighborhood. To approve this request would be consistent with
previously approved variances and would not be a grant of special
privilege.
� 10'
The effect of the r
utilities
distribution of
is facilities and
There are no significant effects on any of the above mentioned factors.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN.
Two goals outlined in the Community Action Plan relate to upgrading and
improving properties throughout the Town of Vail. It is felt that this
garage addition would provide a fine improvement to this property.
IV. SUCH OTHER FACTORS AND CRITERIA AS THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPLICABLE TO
THE PROPOSED VARIANCE.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting the _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.
-2-9/8/86 PEC
6
17
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The Department has
traditionally encouraged the development of garages and supports this
proposal. Any impacts resulting from the setback encroachments are
negligible and are far outweighed by the benefits of the garage
addition. .
- 3--9/8/86 PEC
10
7
• d�
10
Q�1
=�f1
lli
t�
o�
.n
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
create a roof top parking lot on the west side of the
Vail waste water plant.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated sanitation District
(UEVCSD) wishes to relocate their parking facility from Town
of Vail and Vail Associates property on the east side of
Forest Road near Gore Creek to their own property. The
property is zoned Public Use District (PUD) and the Planning
Commission sets the development standards for this zone
district as applicable. Basically, this means that the
applicant proposes a development plan which the PEC
subsequently approves, denies, or approves with
modifications. Proposed is a 10 foot wide driveway coming
off the north end of the existing parking lot and curving
around to the west to access the roof top area over the final
clarifiers. The parking area would contain 23 new parking
spaces primarily to be used by UEVCSD employees. Although
the proposed driveway abuts the northern property line in
certain areas, it is located entirely on UEVCSD property.
Very minimal disturbance of existing landscaping will be
necessary to accommodate the new drive. (See attachment)
Originally, the UEVCSD contacted the State Highway Department
regarding the possibility of a small right -of -way
encroachment to accommodate the driveway. The State Highway
Department is not willing to allow any changes in this right -
of -way until final designs have been completed for the I -70
interchange modification project to be completed in 1988.
The applicant has proposed additional landscape screening on
the northwest corner of the site. However, the trees would
need to be located on State Highway right -of -way and, again,
this will not be allowed until final designs are completed
for the new ramps and other roadway improvements in this
area.
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 factor:
I[]
Consideration of Factors.
• Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town.
•
•
The proposal is moving in the right direction with regard to
the development objective of providing required parking on
site. The UEVCSD has utilized Town of Vail and Vail
Associates property for a temporary dirt parking lot for a
number of years. This unscreened parking lot located on open
space was not in keeping with the development objectives of
the Town, and the proposal rectifies this situation.
The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The removal of the existing parking lot will allow the new
recreational path to continue undisturbed all the way to
Forest Road rather than go through a parking lot. This not
only improves the aesthetic experience of the pedestrian and
bicyclist, but also improves the safety factors.
The 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 staff would prefer the access driveway be two lanes in
the interest of automotive safety. However, site constraints
are such that this is not possible, and the fact that this is
a private parking lot, primarily for employees, will help to
mitigate that situation. Pedestrian ingress /egress will be
accommodated via a new stairway on the east side of the lot
to the offices. The layout of the parking area itself
provides adequate access and maneuvering room for the
vehicles. The Town Engineer has reviewed the proposal and
given his approval.
Removal of snow from the parking area itself will be
accommodated by the construction of gates on the south
parapet wall of the roof top structure. Snow will be pushed
toward this area and subsequently off of the roof top
structure through the gate openings. It is important that
the snow removal from the driveway area be stored on UEVCSD
property and not plowed into State Highway right -of -way. The
applicant feels that this can be accomplished without any
problems.
iEffect 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 site of the roof top parking area will be visible as one
descends the new off ramp from I -70 driving south toward the
South Frontage Road. It is important that adequate landscape
screening and /or fencing be provided to minimize the visual
impacts of this parking lot. As mentioned above, the
applicant has agreed to add additional trees on the northwest
corner of the lot (actually occurring on State Highway right -
of -way) once the Interchange design is complete and with the
approval of the State Highway Department, we feel that this
landscaping plan or a possible fence on a parapet wall for
screening purposes can be determined by the Design Review
Board.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
IV. 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, safaety, 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 RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends
approval of the conditional use request for the UEVCSD to
locate a roof top parking lot at their sanitation plant. We
feel the proposal is much superior to the existing dirt
parking lot located off site, and that with adequate
screening, the negative aesthetic impacts of the parking area
will be minimal. Although we have a concern with the narrow
driveway accessing the parking area, we feel that the control
and ultimate safety of those using that driveway are the
responsibility of the applicant. One condition of approval
is conditional:
1. The Design Review Board shall review the project and
approve an adequate method to screen the parking lot
from public view. Included in this Design Review Board
review shall be the consideration of some type of
fencing located on the parapet wall on the west side of
the parking area to screen the parking lot from the
adjacent Town of Vail parcel. A bond or letter of
credit will be required for the landscaping at the time
of building permit.
•
FOREST ROAE)
4 o -t
20 s m
Z yvye W1W jLL1
o dJ O�
w Ul (P
F:£ o
d Y
0
°c fo
f(1 `jam X
O
L 1J
z
z�7
yl
o�
?l k
a
w
IL
c� d
z a
h 3
y V
w -1
4
Y
� o
T
Q �
J
Q.
to
t
0
t
4
a
CD
0
a,
a
o�
S
:%A\
\f 0
N
w
0
U
Z
w
Q
Q 'N
�Zw z
a -a vs o
coq
F �
o'
%
Q -N w a
W
1l
tlti
w
2a
O
a
tL p Z O
z�7
yl
o�
?l k
a
w
IL
c� d
z a
h 3
y V
w -1
4
Y
� o
T
Q �
J
Q.
to
t
0
t
4
a
CD
0
a,
a
o�
S
:%A\
\f 0
N
w
0
U
Z
d
_ Z
4
V
F �
o'
�
F
1l
` N
O
Fi
F6 O�
v
O
Q
x.
1
a.
wu
d
4
u0
[�
pf
U
7
111
F-
�
oLU
m
m
wm
:3 Q
20 w
6 W w
Oa
tj
�nao�
Z Z
ZIuUE
W �l lei. lii
Vw�
u0.
7tLa
l
w
IL a w
bt
T
Y
J S
w p
ww
�'od
z�7
yl
o�
?l k
a
w
IL
c� d
z a
h 3
y V
w -1
4
Y
� o
T
Q �
J
Q.
to
t
0
t
4
a
CD
0
a,
a
o�
S
:%A\
\f 0
N
w
0
U
Z
d
_ Z
4
V
F �
o'
�
F
1l
O
1wi1
v
CJ !7:
Q
0�
1
a.
0.z
4
u0
[�
Q¢
U
7
W
oLU
�
wm
:3 Q
20 w
6 W w
tj
�nao�
ZIuUE
W �l lei. lii
0
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for setback variances in order to construct
an addition to the property at 315 Mill Creek Circle,
Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The existing Berkowitz residence has approximately 30 square
feet of GRFA remaining. By utilizing the additional GRFA
ordinance which allows up to 250 square feet of GRFA per unit
and the credits allowed for garage space, the applicant is
able to add an addition to this property. The majority of
the additional GRFA being utilized is for an addition to the
east side of the house, which is well within setbacks and
will require no variances. Due to the siting of the existing
structure on the parcel, the applicant has chosen to locate a
single car garage on the southwest side of the dwelling.
This siting places the garage within the front and side
setbacks.
By utilizing the grade and the foundation requirement for the
garage, the applicant has extended an existing bedroom in the
structure to the west, thus placing approximately 90 square
feet of GRFA underneath the garage and within this front and
side setback area. There is an additional area of
development above and behind the garage which encroaches
approximately 1 foot into the side setback for an area of
approximately 4 square feet. The flat roof structure of the
garage contains a deck area which extends an additional three
feet to the west beyond the garage, thus creating further
encroachment into the setback.
There is an existing spruce
garage which the applicant
to buffer this garage from
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
tree at the site of the proposed
will relocate further to the west
the adjacent property.
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested setback variances based
upon the following factors:
• Consideration of Factors:
•
The relationship of the re Vested variance to other existin
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The Town of Vail has historically supported front setback
variances for garage additions to existing structures. In
this case, the siting of the existing residence and the
siting of the proposed garage also present a side setback
variance. The Mill Creek Circle area in particular, as well
as other development areas of the Town of Vail present
existing examples of this type of development. If this
application were for new development on a vacant site, the
staff would probably not be able to support this. However,
we do recognize the hardship of the location of the existing
structure and also recognize the desirability of covered
parking.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
The proposed garage is being located in the only area of this
parcel that is viable to develop as covered parking.
Recognizing the existing residence as a physical hardship, we
feel that approval of the setback variance for the garage
would not be a grant of special privilege.
The applicant is also utilizing the additional GRFA ordinance
to further develop his property. A portion of that GRFA is
located below the proposed garage development. Staff has
taken the position that development of additional GRFA
through this ordinance should present no requests for
variances. We feel, however, that this request is an
exception to this position. Due to the location of the
garage and the foundation requirements, this bulk and mass
will be created regardless of the bedroom expansion. We
feel, therefore, that it is an efficient use of space and can
recommend approval of the setback variances without feeling
that this is a grant of special privilege.
The addition to the third floor of the structure encroaches
in such a minor way that we feel the impacts are neglible.
We do feel, however, that the deck extension off the roof of
the garage three feet further toward the property line is
unnecessary and would be a grant of special privilege and we
would not recommend approval of that specific portion of this
design.
C:
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
Currently, the entire parking available to this development
is located on Town property in the road right -of -way. By
developing this covered parking area, the applicant is
constructing required covered parking completely within their
own property lines. We feel that is an improvement to the
current situation on this site and is a benefit to the
transportation and traffic facilities as well as public
safety.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
III. FINDINGS
The Plannina 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval of the
side and front setback variance requests for the garage
structure and the associated bedroom below and the minor
encroachment above the garage on the third floor. We would
condition this approval upon scaling back of the deck on top
of the garage so that it encroaches no further into the
setback than the structural wall of the garage. We feel that
on -site development of parking is a benefit to the community
and a benefit to this site in particular and that the
associated GRFA development is not a grant of special
privilege.
LJ
•
1
k
ju
;•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 20, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for front, side, rear and stream setback
variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential
floor area variance and a variance from required
landscaping in order to contruct additions to duplex
units located on Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting these variances to construct
garages and additions to an existing duplex. The request is
for two 2--car garages and additional GRFA to each unit,
including 250 square feet to each unit as permitted under
Ordinance 4 of 1985. The structures are nonconforming in
that they are already above their allotted GRFA and encroach
into the rear setback by 4 feet.
The applicant's statement is attached.
Zoning Statistics:
Zone: Primary /Secondary
Site Area: 12,583 sf
TOTAL UNIT A
ALLOWED GRFA: 3145 1258
EXISTING GRFA: 3586 sf 1392 sf
EXISTING PLUS 250 4086 1642
REQUESTED: 4462 1689
(plus garages)
GRFA REQUESTED
OVER 250 ALLOWABLE 376 47
Assuming 250 (Ord 4)
to each unit and credits
as listed below.
UNIT B
1887
21.94 sf
2444
2773
329
iREQUESTED CREDITS:
Mechanical 100 50 50
Storage 350 200 150
Airlock 25 25 0
Site Coverage Statistics
Allowed: 2,516, 20% of 12,583 (site area)
Existing: 2,371, 18% of site area
Requested: 4,223.7, 33.5% of site area
Setback Requests
In this zone district, required setbacks are 20 in the front
and 15 on the other three sides. The applicant is requesting
to encroach into the front setback area in three places for
10 feet, 8 feet and 6 feet. The proposal also encroaches 7
feet into the side setback area and and 2.5 feet into the
rear setback area with decks. Decks at this level are only
allowed to encroach 5 feet into the setback area.
Setbacks from minor stream courses is 30 feet from the center
of the stream. The applicant wishes to encroach 11 feet
into the stream setback on the west side of the property.
• 60% of the site must be landscaped in the primary /secondary
zone district. The request is to allow the applicant to
landscape only 51% of the site.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial 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.
1. GRFA.
It is important to other potential uses and structures
in the vicinity that proposals conform to general
development standards. When proposals do not conform,
there is a negative impact on the neighborhood. The
ability of this parcel to handle additional GRFA is
being strained. Ordinance 4 states that "...proposals
L'
for any additions hereunder shall be reviewed closely
with respect to site planning, impact on adjacent
properties, and applicable Town of Vail development
standards." This request entails 376 square feet of
GRFA over and above 250 square feet for each unit
permitted under Ordinance 4. This additional GRFA is
clearly contributing to the impact of the development.
2. Front, Rear and Side Setbacks
The easterly unit presently encroaches into the rear
setback 4 feet. The applicant is requesting six setback
variances. To increase the number of setback variances
to this degree has a negative impact upon the
neighborhood. The degree of encroachment from the
garages on the front setback is directly related to the
additional GRFA proposal.
3. Setbacks for Decks
Decks which are five feet or higher from ground level
must not intrude into the setback areas more than five
feet. Decks at this level which do extend into the
setback area more than 5 feet have a greater visual
impact than decks at ground level. The neighbor to the
east will decidedly be affected. The staff feels the
decks can easily be constructed within the setback areas
by reducing the size of the additions to the dwellings
and /or the decks themselves.
4. Landscaping
The landscaping proposed is 51 %, rather than the minimum
of 60% as required under Town of Vail development
standards. Ordinance 4 states that one criteria which
must be met before additional GRFA is granted is "...any
dwelling unit ... shall be required to meet the minimum
Town of Vail landscape standards... the staff shall
review maiantenance and upkeep of the existing dwelling
unit and site, including landscaping, to determine
whether they comply with Design Review Guidelines."
With this direction, staff feels the minimum 60% of
landscaping must be complied with. This is particularly
true when requesting a GRFA variance and GRFA under
Ordinance 4.
5. Site Coverage
It is this variance request which the staff feels will
have the most impact upon the neighborhood. Excess site
coverage greatly affects other properties in the
vicinity. This lot is small, 12,583 square feet, and
. thus it is most important that there be no more site
coverage than the maximum in order to maintain adequate
open space. Some consideration may be given to this
request if it involved only garages. However, in light
of the requested GRFA, the ramifications of the site
coverage variance request becomes more significant.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of spec rivile e.
1. GRFA
The main reason for Ordinance 4 is to encourage the
upgrading and improvement of property by allowing
property owners to add 250 square feet to older
structures, even those already over their allowable
GRFA. This property can take advantage of this generous
ordinance without requiring even more GRFA than the 250
allowed. The staff believes there is no physical
hardship unique to this property that would dictate an
increase in GRFA to this degree.
2. Setbacks
While it may not be possible to build 2 garages entirely
within the front setback, staff believes perhaps only
. one front setback variance request of possibly 4 to 5
feet may be necessary for the westerly garage. It
appears possible to place the easterly garage and
additions entirely within the front and side setbacks.
The additional GRFA is clearly driving the locations of
these garages.
3. Setbacks for Decks
The staff does not feel there is any physical hardship
related to the rear or stream setback variance requests
for the decks.
4. Landscaping
There is no apparent reason to grant relief from
enforcement of the landscape requirement of 60% of the
site. Presently there is approximately 2,439 square
feet of asphalt on the site. Proposed is to have 1,644
square feet of driveway and parking area. The proposal
would park 12 cars. The applicant could come closer to
meeting this requirement if the large amount of surface
parking aras were reduced. In addition, Public Works
Department has requested fewer road cuts. Four road
cuts are unacceptable.
L�
I•
•
5. Site Coverage
As stated earlier, it is vital on a lot of this size
follow the Town of Vail development standards,
particularly with regard to Ordinance 4. Ordinance
a privilege, not a right, to Vail property owners.
ask for the additional 250 and then to also request
coverage exceeding the allowable (as a result of the
additional. GRFA) is definitely 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 publi c
safety.
This proposal would have no effect on the above factors.
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 findings before granting a variance:
to
4 is
To
site
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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial
of the requested variances. Though the Town passed Ordinance
4 to allow extra density of 250 sgyare feet, the ordinance
specifically addressed the fact that in granting this extra
density, proposals would be reviewed closely with respect to
site planning, impact on adjacent properties and applicable
Town of Vail development standards. Staff feels strongly
that this development proposed has shown no consideration for
existing development guidelines as outlined in the zoning
code and in Ordinance 4.
The staff would be willing to work with the applicant to
solve site development problems if a proposal is made which
complies more closely with the development guidelines. It
should be understood that the staff will be unable to support
any requests for additional GRFA, and any variances to
site /development standards resulting from additional GRFA
(under provisions of Ordinance 4) will be reviewed very
critically. It will be the burden of the applicant to
clearly demonstrate the physical hardship involved in any
revised proposals. However, our recommendation of this
proposal is for denial.
•
•
F aE
,�3 d
uj
WZ
Nil f
f i �ta \
iymi I/
1i k
�` •'FAA 'Y2£
% .\ •�,. �_��$� r_- _�1 iii "-4
Ir
•
Q)
�
�
0
a
r
Q)
11r
�i
•
4--)
Q)
co
S_
O7
R
-)
C
F—
�
A
S�
O
Q)
vOi
Q
C
O
b
Q
Q)
(L)
c)
CO
.F)
cti
as
Q)
O
V)
•r
V)
S-
Qi
C
O
(1)
�
0)
a
O
•I-)
ca
Jr
co
O
C
O
)
U
:3
Q)
Q)
07
p)
C
U
I
N
3
N
4-
O
C
O
•r
4-'
.r-
ti
a)
i-)
Q)
• r
VI
V)
•r
•N
O
V)
4-)
-r
C
r
+'
_
C
i
U
Q)
4--)
¢
a
b7
4-3
V)
•r^
X
Q)
(D
4-)
Q)
>
O
.C]
c0
"O
(3)
S-
+�
Q)
U
S-
(b
V)
V)
Q)
Cr
S-
S
Q)
^
Vl
^
V)
4)
G
o
Q.
V)
4
V)
r
Q
O
V
fo
O
1—
Q)
4-
O
v)
O
U
o
r
0
�
r
1'
R
O
O.
4--)
ctl
O
Q)
i
d
U
S-
•r
U
Q)
U
r
r
0)
C
O
r
c6
V)
U
co
-I-
(3)
�
•
co
Q)
[c5
S2
1'
VOi
Q)
O
F�
G
^
O
0O
4'
R
:::3
cUd
L)
(3)
o
V)
C
O
i-)
•r^
'�
co
Q)
O
O.
O
S-
R
•
N
(3)
•k)
4-
v)
S-
D
U
1'
co
'a
°
O
U
O
•I�
Q)
S-
(b
V)
(3)
L
co
U
a
Q)
V)
Q)
•1-)
O
N
Q)
S-
�
I--
>
N
V)
d)
7
0)
C
G
ON
. •
4-•'
co
w
"O
C
N .10
Q)
+)
U
o
U
V)
X
Q)
r
V)
r-
4.3
O
U
C
Cn
•r
co
�
U
3
U
N
O
O
C-)
(a
R
V)
C2
O
C
cu
O
O
T
cd
4--
(D
N
-C--
i-)
U
o
Q)
U
ftl
U
Q}
Q)
V)
Q)
�
r
r
V)
C))
+-)
O
C
O
4-
•c
c6
S-•
c0
Q)
Q)
Q)
S-
(1)
(n
d!
o)
co
>
A
-0
Q)
Q)
Q)
S-
U
V)
?.
N
(d
V1
•r^
cd
3
O
_-
'r
O
{�
°
�
'Y
4-3
C O
G
•r
o
4
(L)
•r
Q)
>
c0
O
r
ro
r
r
r
�
V)
)
-I-'
4--)
0
co
�-
O
4--)
=5
-0
+�
V)
C7
O
O
R
O
Q
i-
(a
4-)
-c-
Q)
•r^
r
-F,
o
r
r
Q)
U
(6
r^
(ZI
V)
r
fi
t--
A
Q)
4-
co
U
r-
Sfl �
S_
°
r
=1
V)
Q)
r
4-)
•r
r-
•r
ray
4-
U
4-
4-
co
S-
W
a
W
Q
C1
U
..
ci
0
C
U
Q)
U
(3)
U
a �
;
L
Nm1Y1
co
a
�..
o
C
C)
O
Z
0
n
C
E-=
`
3
4
3
E
W
FC)
u
I�
r
Q)
4--)
Q)
co
S_
O7
R
-)
C
F—
�
A
S�
O
Q)
vOi
Q
C
O
b
Q
Q)
(L)
c)
CO
.F)
cti
as
Q)
O
V)
•r
V)
S-
Qi
C
O
(1)
�
0)
a
O
•I-)
ca
Jr
co
O
C
O
)
U
:3
Q)
Q)
07
p)
C
U
I
N
3
N
4-
O
C
O
•r
4-'
.r-
ti
a)
i-)
Q)
• r
VI
V)
•r
•N
O
V)
4-)
-r
C
O
u•)
N
(O
'a
C
co
cn
•O
(3)
O
Q3
J_-
{
3
C
Q)
V)
p
U
b7
c
•r
R
m
N
co
r
_0
r
U
5.-
•m
W)
�)
(3)
C
U
r
•r
+'
_
C
i
U
Q)
4--)
¢
a
b7
4-3
V)
•r^
X
Q)
(D
4-)
Q)
>
O
.C]
c0
"O
(3)
S-
+�
Q)
U
S-
(b
V)
V)
Q)
Cr
S-
S
Q)
^
Vl
^
V)
4)
G
o
Q.
V)
4
V)
r
Q
O
V
fo
O
1—
Q)
4-
O
v)
O
U
o
r
0
�
r
1'
R
O
O.
4--)
ctl
O
Q)
i
d
U
S-
•r
U
Q)
U
r
r
0)
C
O
r
c6
V)
U
co
-I-
(3)
�
•
co
Q)
[c5
S2
1'
VOi
Q)
O
F�
G
^
O
0O
4'
R
:::3
cUd
L)
(3)
o
V)
C
O
i-)
•r^
'�
co
Q)
O
O.
O
S-
R
•
N
(3)
•k)
4-
v)
S-
D
U
1'
co
'a
°
O
U
O
•I�
Q)
S-
(b
V)
(3)
L
co
U
a
Q)
V)
Q)
•1-)
O
N
Q)
S-
�
I--
>
N
V)
d)
7
0)
C
G
ON
. •
4-•'
co
w
"O
C
N .10
Q)
+)
U
o
U
V)
X
Q)
r
V)
r-
4.3
O
U
C
Cn
O
Ln
A
.Q
cn
•r
(n
CO
(3)
co
Q)
Q)
r
r
f
•>
ctl
"O
U
Z3
qZ3
N
S-
�
U
3
U
N
O
O
C-)
(a
R
V)
C2
O
C
cu
O
O
T
cd
4--
(D
N
-C--
i-)
U
o
Q)
U
ftl
U
Q}
Q)
V)
Q)
�
r
r
V)
C))
+-)
O
C
O
4-
•c
c6
S-•
c0
Q)
Q)
Q)
S-
(1)
(n
d!
o)
co
>
A
-0
Q)
Q)
Q)
S-
U
V)
?.
N
(d
V1
•r^
cd
3
O
_-
'r
O
{�
°
�
'Y
4-3
C O
G
•r
o
4
(L)
•r
Q)
>
c0
O
r
ro
r
r
r
�
V)
)
-I-'
4--)
0
co
�-
O
4--)
=5
-0
+�
V)
C7
O
O
R
O
Q
i-
(a
4-)
-c-
Q)
•r^
r
-F,
o
r
r
Q)
U
(6
r^
(ZI
V)
r
fi
t--
A
Q)
4-
co
U
r-
Sfl �
S_
°
r
=1
V)
Q)
r
4-)
•r
r-
•r
ray
4-
U
4-
4-
co
S-
W
Planning and Environmental Commission
April 27, 1987
3:00 P.M.
1. A request for variances in order to construct additions at
303 and 305 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation
2. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new zone
district to be entitled "Hillside Residential."
Applicant: Town of Vail
19
Planning and Environmental commission
4/27/87
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Pam Hopkins
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. _Request for variances to construct additions at 303 and
305 Hanson Ranch Road. �-
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis
The staff presentation was made by Betsy Rosolack who ended her
discussion by saying the staff recommended denial. The staff
felt the additions could be accomplished within the setback
area. Tom Briner began the presentation for the applicant,
followed by the architect, Dan Rickli, who described the
amendments since the previous submittal. Jerome Lewis, the
applicant stated that he felt he was being penalized by owning
. a small lot and pointed out that there was quite a bit of open
space on three sides of the dwellings.
Jay Peterson, respresenting Steve Berkowitz, the adjacent
neighbors to the west, stated that he agreed with the staff in
that the additional GRFA was driving the need for setback
variances. Berkowitz still objected to the front setback
variances.
Sid Schultz stated that with the amount of open space around,
the setback variances did not bother him. The amount of site
coverage did bother Sid, but he felt that perhaps the size of
the lot did constitute a hardship regarding site coverage. He
felt that the DRB should take a close look at the parking and
pointed out that in other zone districts, parking was usually
screened.
Diana Donovan had mixed emotions about the setbacks requested.
She felt that burying the garage helped to mitigate the east
side encroachment, but would have liked to have seen the front
setback encroachments decreased and necessary only for garages.
Peggy Osterfoss stated that the applicant had undoubtedly
worked to reduce the amount of requested variances from the
last PEC meeting and felt that the added landscaping on the
east side helped to mitigate the encroachment. She said that
since Rickli stated he could eliminate the deck encroachment,
. that he should do that. She did not feel that the size of the
lot was a particular hardship.
J.J. Collins stated that although the adjacent open space did
mitigate the proposed construction, there seemed to be enough
space within the setbacks to accomplish what the applicant was
trying to do without going outside of the setback line.
Regarding views of the Gore Range from the Berkowitz property,
Collins repeated that he felt the applicant could accomplish
the additions within his own setbacks.
Jim Viele felt the additions were satisfactory and an
improvement in the previous plan. He agreed with Peggy with
respect to site coverage and felt the size of the lot was not a
particular hardship. Viele did feel the front setback was a
special circumstance and stated that a 60 foot right -of -way was
a lot of room for traffic.
Viele moved and Schultz seconded to approve the requested
variances with the findings including "The strict and literal
interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by the owners of
other proerties in the same district." There would not be any
deck encroachment. The vote was 5 -0 -1 with Pam Hopkins
abstaining.
2. Hillside Residential Zone
• After discussion, Donovan moved and Collins seconded to
recommend approval to Council with 1/2 acre as the minimum
lot size and the density control to be 20% of each 100
square feet up to 30,000 square feet and 5% over 30,000;
plus equestrian centers added to conditional uses if they
are located on a minimum of 5 acres of common area.
The vote was 4 -1 in favor. (Peggy had left.)
u
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback variances and a
site coverage variance in order to contruct garages and
additions to a primary /secondary residence located on
Parcels A and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Jerome A. Lewis
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting these variances to construct
garages and additions to the primary /secondary residence.
The request is to add to each unit a 2 -car garage and
additional square footage, including 250 square feet as
permitted under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The existing structures
are nonconforming as they are already above their allowed
GRFA and encroach into the rear setback by 4 feet.
The applicant presented the proposal at the April 20th PEC
meeting, and asked to table in order to verify GRFA
statistics. He has reduced the GRFA request with the result
that he no longer needs variances to GRFA, landscaping, or
rear or stream setback requirements.
Zonina Statistics:
Zone: Primary /Secondary
Site Area: 12,583 sf
Site Coverage
Allowed: 2,515 200 of 12,583 (site area)
Existing: 1,908 15% of site area
Requested: 3,511 270 of site area
gPtharkc
Required: 20 ft front
15 ft each side
Roof overhang may be 4 ft into setback.
Decks 5 ft above ground may encroach 5 ft into setback.
•
.7
L�
Requested:
Secondary Unit West
A front setback variance of 8 ft for a garage and GRFA
addition over the garage plus a setback variance for an
additional 4 feet for a 12 foot variance of the roof
overhang.
Primary Unit (East)
• front setback variance of 6 feet for the garage.
• front setback variance of 1 foot for a deck.
• side setback variance of 6 feet for the garage.
r_n'+a
Primary (East)
Secondary (West)
Allowed GRFA
1887
1258
-------------------------------------------------------
Existing
2038
1378
Plus credits
Mechanical
50
30
Storage
57
Proposed GRFA
(credits excluded)
2038
1378
Total credits used
Mechanical
50
50
Storage
173
200
Airlock
23
25
Ordinance 4 additions
230
208
Total Proposed
including Ord 4
and credits 2514 1861
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial 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.
1. Front and Side Setbacks
Although the encroachments have been reduced, the staff
believes the garage to the east could be moved further
north and west to avoid setback variances. The garage
is being pulled into the setback due to the proposed
location of the additional square footage. It is felt
that the proposed encroachments have a negative impact
upon the neighborhood.
2. Site Covera
It is this variance request which the staff feels will
have the most impact upon the neighborhood. The site
coverage has been reduced from the previous proposal of
33% to 27% The effects have been partially mitigated
by berming the easterly garage and placing a patio over
it. However, the staff feels that it is important on a
lot of this size (12,583) that there is no more site
coverage than the maximum in order to maintain adequate
open space.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
1. Setbacks
While it may not be possible to build 2 garages that do
not encroach at all into the front setback, staff
believes that the encroachments can be reduced if the
additional square footage is added to the site in areas
that will not create the need for setback variances.
2. Site Coverage
As stated earlier, it is vital on a lot of this size to
follow the Town of Vail development standards,
particularly with regard to Ordinance 4. it is true
that the garages contibute to the excess site coverage.
However, the 250 s.f. additions also contribute to the
site coverge which is a grant of special privilege.
0 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 would have no effect on the above factors.
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 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.
0 That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department staff recommends denial
of the requested variances. Though the Town passed Ordinance
4 to allow extra density of 250 square feet, the ordinance
specifically addressed the fact that in granting this extra
density, proposals would be reviewed closely with respect to
4
•
•
•
site planning, impact on
Town of Vail development
development proposed must
development guidelines as
Ordinance 4.
adjacent properties and
standards. Staff feels
conform more closely to
outlined in the zoning
applicable
that the
existing
code and in
We also believe that the garages are an improvement to the
site. However, it is staff's opinion that the garages could
be sited in a manner that would minimize if not negate the
need for setback variances.
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 20, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Rick Pylman
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of March 9 and March 23.
Diana Donovan moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
minutes of the meeting of March 9. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to approve the
meeting of March 23. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2. a. A request to adopt rules of procedure for home
occupancy revocation hearings.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that for the first
time, a home occupancy permit revocation was being appealed. He
explained that this would be a quasi - judicial hearing and the
PEC would act like a judge and would decide whether or not to
uphold or overturn the revocation of the license. Larry gave
the Planning Commission a list of rules of procedure.
Diana Donovan moved to adopt the "Commission Regulations
Setting Forth Procedures Applicable to Appeals of the
Revocation of Home Occupancy Permits by the Zoning
Administrator." The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the
vote to adopt was 6 -0 in favor.
2. b. Consideration of a request for a stay of execution of
the order of the zoning administrator revoking Vail East
Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit and establishment of
a date to hear the appeal of the revocation of the East
Vail Rentals, Inc. home occupation permit.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, explained that he felt there was
no harm done by granting a stay of execution, since there would
probably not be very much business until June.
Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to hold the
hearing of this license on May 27 at 3:00 PM. The vote was 6-
0 in favor of this date.
0
. 3. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
construct a parking lot on top of the west half of the
Upper Ka,le.Valley Water and Sanitation water plant
located at 846 Forest Road.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Consolidated Sanitation
District
Peter Patten explained that this building was located in the
PUD zone district and the Planning Commission sets the
standards for this zone district as applicable. UEVCSD wished
to relocate their parking facility from Town of Vail land and
Vail Associates property to their own property. He showed site
plans and explained that the staff was concerned that there be
some type of screening to the west as well as to the north.
Dave Mott, applicant, stated that he had no problem with
landscaping to buffer the view to the north, but it was
difficult to do now until the width of the road is known. He
felt that UEVCSD should not be asked to submit a bond to the
Town of Vail since he felt this was inappropriate between two
government entities, but was willing to submit a letter of
credit. He added that he would be willing to raise to 42" the
rail on the parapet wall to the west, but felt that no amount
of screening would be adequate to hide the parking from the
building to the west.
• Peter stated that a bond was standard procedure with everybody,
but that a letter of credit would be fine. He added that some
buffer to the west was important for future development on the
adjacent property. Peter presented the parking proposal to the
Town Council, and they had no problems with the proposal.
Pam Hopkins was concerned about having enough landscaping to
the north and having it done well. She felt that with the new
road so close to the existing road, enough landscaping was very
important. Sid Schultz and Diana Donovan agreed. Peggy
Osterfoss stated that she did not feel comfortable approving
the request until she had more information on the final design
of the new ramp and whether or not there would be enough room
to landscape the area for adequate screening.
J.J. Collins' main concern was with making certain that there
would be enough landscaping provided when the Highway
Department's design was completed. He felt that there really
was no way to plan the landscaping without state Highway
Department input. J.J.'s second concern was with screening the
lot to the west. He felt that with the present conditions, the
proposed parapet wall was adequate, but was concerned that
future use of the property to the west would change the
is
0 required screening.
Peter's concern was that in the future the Town could not go
back and ask for more or different screening.
J.J. moved to approved the request for the conditional use
permit conditional upon Design Review Board review and in light
of requirements for landscaping on the north property line,
especially as it would be related to the new exit. Also
required would be a letter of credit from the applicant. The
motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins and the vote for approval
was 5 -0.
4. A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a residence on Parcel B, a resubdivision of Lots
14 and 17 Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicants: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Tennenbaum
Rick Pylman showed site plans and explained that the applicant
was requesting a 10 foot variance from the 15 foot side setback
requirement for a lot which had recently been created by the
applicant. Rick stated that the applicants also owned the
property to the east (Parcel A) and were willing to restrict
development on Parcel A to a distance of 25 feet from the
property line by use of a deed restriction or covenants. Rick
explained that the staff requested that this area be left as
undisturbed open space, but the applicants declined to leave
this buffer undisturbed. Rick also stated that the side
setback area requested for encroachment contained several
fairly significant natural features, including two large spruce
trees. The staff recommendation was for denial of the side
setback variance because they felt there was no physical
hardship driving the side setback encroachment and felt it
would be a grant of special privilege.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that the
applicants could have achieved the requested setbacks if they
had requested a special development district, but had preferred
to go through a subdivision process instead. They felt that any
problems could be achieved through the variance procedure. He
felt the integrity of the setbacks was being maintained.
J.J. Collins stated that he did not see why a building could
not be designed in such a way that it remained within the
setbacks and did not destroy large trees. Jay replied that
this was the area in which to place the house to take advantage
of the views.
J.J. pointed out that the applicant had a clear lot on which to
build and plenty of room. Jay replied that when the trade -offs
became too great, they decided to ask for a variance. He added
that hundreds of hours were spent on various schemes on all
three sites.
Peggy asked if there was any interest in
evergreen trees that would be lost. Jay
already spending a lot of money on lands
did a good job of expressing her views.
would work with the proposal if the lost
replaced.
protecting the two
replied that they were
gaping. Peggy said J.J.
She felt that she
landscaping would be
Jay stated that a landscaped buffer could be a condition of
approval. Kurt Cegerberg stated that they were trying to bring
landscaping into the building area and attention would be paid
to bring landscaping into the buffer area.
Diana felt it was too bad that the applicant first created the
lot and then could not design a house to fit the lot.
Jay replied that he could have asked for a special development
distict and gotten rid of the property line and kept within the
interity of the zone code and received approval. He added
that he would rather use the variance procedure as long as he
could keep the integrity of the zone code.
Sid shared a lot of the feelings the other members stated. He
wished it hadn't gotten to this state, but felt if there was a
30' buffer between the houses, it would preserve the distance
factor. He added that he did not feel driven to preserve the
rock outcropping.
Pam felt that there was no hardship on which to base the
granting of a variance.
Jay replied that any time the PEC is given a variance, they
look at it on a site by site basis, that each project stands
alone.
Jim Viele agreed with Jay with respect to the proces. He added
that if there is no objective judgement involved, there would
be no variance procedure. He stated that in the overall view,
the purpose of the setbacks is to maintain the distance of
separation between dwellings. He wondered if the project would
be a better one if it conformed to the setback regulations and
added that he would rather see the house where is was proposed
to be rather than take out additional trees.
J.J. asked why the house was sited where it was on Parcel A to
the west, and Kurt replied that they were trying to pick up
views of Gore Range and down valley and that the dwelling was
broken up to help to reduce the massiveness of the project.
J.J. stated that on Parcel B he saw plenty of room within the
required setbacks.
Curt said he could not argue with the fact that one can fit
something on the lot, but the trees were a major concern. Jay
added that on any given site one can build without going into
setback areas, but it may make an uninteresting town.
J.J. pointed out that each time he had seen the PEC challenge
an architect, the architect had been able to come up with a
plan within the setbacks. He repeated the fact that the
architect in this case had a clean piece of property. Jay
answered that they had voluntarily torn down the existing
structure and should be given latitude to build, that they were
being penalized for making a clean site.
Viele spoke in favor of the proposal as long as the buffer
would remain. Jay answered that there would be a deed
restriction that only the Town of Vail could remove the buffer.
Pam Hopkins pointed out that another owner could hire Jay to
ask to remove the buffer. She added that the PEC was going
through this process because Parcel A had to be a minimum site.
Jay said the purpose of the subdivision was to stop from having
two old homes being added onto. He added that they knew they
might have to ask for variances when they planned the
subdivision.
Peter Patten felt that the natural features should be preserved
within the 15 foot setback area and added that this was a self
created hardship.
. Jim Viele moved to approve the variance with the findings that
the strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives
of the zone code. He specified that particular attention be
paid by the DRB of landscaping planned to be in the 30 foot
buffer. Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 4 in favor
and 2 (JJ and Pam) against.
5. A_request for front, side, rear and stream setback
variances, a site coverage variance, a gross residential
floor area variance and a variance from required
landscaping in order to construct additions on Parcels A
and B, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicants Jerome A. Lewis, Downing Street Foundation
Betsy Rosolack presented the proposal, stating that the
applicants wanted to build two 2 -car garages and additional
square footage allowed under Ordinance 4 of 1985. The staff
recommendation was for denial as it was felt the additions
could be constructed within the setback areas.
Tom Briner, one of the architects on the project, spoke in
favor of the project and Dan Rickli, another architect,
IP explained that there seemed to be a discrepancy in the amount
of square footage that they were adding. Jerry Lewis and John
. Kennerly, applicants, also spoke in favor of the project.
Rickli felt that garages should not be counted as site coverage
if they were not counted as GRFA. He also proposed eliminating
4 parking spaces and decreasing the curb cuts from 4 to 3.
Jim Viele asked Betsy if the staff had had time to review the
new proposal, and she replied that they had not.
Craig Snowdon, architect representing the adjacent neighbors
to the west, Steve Berkowitz, read a letter from Berkowitz
objecting to the encroachments, stating that views would be
negatively impacted.
J.J. felt it was difficult to consider the proposal with a
discrepancy in statistics. Peggy Osterfoss agreed and also
felt concern for Berkowitz's views. Rickli disagreed that the
additions would impact the views from the Berkowitz property.
Peggy added that the burying of the garage was a step in the
right direction, but she stated that she would like to see
fewer than 3 road cuts with more landscaping instead of
asphalt. Diana agreed and added that her main concern was the
stream setback.
Sid's biggest concern was site coverage. He also felt there
was too much asphalt. Briner mentioned that this was a DRB
issue. Pam Hopkins abstained from comment because her firm was
working on the Berkowitz proposal.
Jim Viele stated that when a proposal contains so many variance
requests, it is a good indication that too much is being placed
on the site.
Jerry Lewis asked if he could table and Peter answered that the
item could be tabled until 4/27 if the applicant could get
revised figures and drawings into the Community Development
Departmant by Wednesday morning, the 22nd.
Lewis requested to table to 4/27. Diana moved and Sid seconded
to table the request until April 27. The vote was 5 -0 -1 (Pam
abstained from voting.)
6. A request to amend Special Development District No. 6,
Vail village Inn.
Tom Braun presented the amendment request and stated the staff
recommended denial, citing the need for additional parking,
assurances the Ski Museum would be relocated, and the need for
accommodation units.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicant, reminded the board
that twice the Vail Village Inn complex had submitted phased
. projects, but the potential developers could not fund the
projects. Now Joe Staufer will develop the new phases himself.
Jay explained the valet parking and stated that it was a
temporary measure until the next phase could be constructed. He
stated that it was not economically feasible for Mr. Staufer tc
construct additional parking with this phase.
Jay stated that the applicant was willing to restrict the
dwelling units per the staff recommendation. Regarding the Ski
Museum, Jay stated that 4,000 square feet of building could be
given to the Town to use free of charge for any use the Town
would want.
Pam asked if valet parking was planned for the commercial area,
and Jay replied that it was not. Joe Staufer stated that he
had 30 - 50 parking spaces that are always empty. He added
that the Sonnenalp, Plaza, and Bell Tower had all expanded and
none had added any parking.
Jay then pointed out that there were no large projects being
constructed at this time which were not phased.
Pam agreed with the parking, and felt that perhaps more locals
would be using this parking lot. Sid also did not have any
problem with the parking and felt that to receive the 4,000
square feet of space in the building was better for the Town
than for the Town to receive $15,000 to relocate the Ski
Museum. He did feel that the new residential units should be
controlled for public use. Diana felt the units needed to be
available for rental. She felt that the Museum relocation must
be worked out and must be a part of this amendment.
Joe Staufer felt that the Town did not gain anything by
"kicking the owner out" especially if the owner wanted to be in
Vail for two months in the summer. Mr. Staufer suggested that
the unit be available for rental and not be the primary
residence of the owner.
Diana stated that she did not patronize many of the stores in
the Vail Village Inn complex because she did not have any place
to park. Diana asked for a commitment to finish the building
as proposed. However, she still felt that there would be a
parking problem. Jay said that for the parking to work, all
the phases must be done.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that the proposal should include assurance
that the developer will relocate the Ski Museum and relandscape
because a landscaped area was being removed in the proposal.
Jay replied that with the new proposal, the Town of Vail would
end up with a large chunk of real estate. He added that the
applicant was willing to participate in redoing the
intersection. Peggy stated that she did not want to see the
landscaping issue lost in the shuffle, and felt the
responsibility rested with the developer.
More discussion followed concerning parking. Peter pointed out
that parking spaces under the condos were controlled by a gate
and were under utilized. Tom felt that it was the responsibil-
ity of the developer to provide parking on the site. J.J.
referred to the memo which indicated a shortfall of 100 spaces.
He was told 180 of the spaces were required to be valet and he
wondered how the decision was made to have 180 of the spaces be
valet. Tom replied that it varied with use. He added that
phases I and II contained 22,000 square feet and phase III
contained 10,000 square feet with no parking provided. He
added that he felt it was the repsponsibility of the developer
to provide parking on the site.
Joe Stauffer said he would like to be able to pay into the
parking fund as did businesses in Commercial Core I and II.
J.J. suggested that perhaps Staufer could pay the Town for
parking at building permit time and the Town could repay
Staufer when his parking was complete.
The Ski Museum was discussed. Tom stated that at present the
amended SDD did not address the needs of the Ski Museum. Jay
pointed out that the space offered to the Town was worth $1
Million. J.J. said it seemed like an opportunity for the Town,
the space could be sold for a substantial amount of cash. Tom
pointed out that one condition was that it be used for the
public. Jay stated that they were willing to remove that
stipulation.
J.J. felt the key issue of the owner /rental question was occu-
pancy and this issue was discussed. Also discussed was the
deletion of landscaping for parking. Saundra Smith stated that
they were willing to remove two parking spaces and place
landscaping in place of the spaces.
Peter felt to approve the proposed shortfall of parking would
be inconsistent. He pointed out that the Westin was not able
to do any more construction until the parking structure was
finished. He stated that the Plaza and Bell Tower were
different, in that they were in a pedestrian area and paid into
the parking fund. He pointed out that the proposal under
construction was adjacent to the 4 -way stop with vehicle access
and must have on -site parking.
J.J. discussed the parking figures. Joe Staufer proposed to
make the dwelling units be available for rental when they were
unoccupied.
Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
amendments to SDD 6 as submitted with the following
conditioins:
1. The use of the units be restricted to non - primary
residence and be part of a rental pool.
2. The applicant shall participate in and not remonstrate
against a special improvement district for the
intersection of Vail Road and Meadow Drive.
• 3.
The vote was 5 -1 in favor.
10 J.J. Left at this point.
7.
•
A request for setback variances in order to construct
additions to the property at Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Vill
1st Filing.
Applicants: Howard, Judy and Steven Berkowitz
Rick Pylman showed a site plan and explained the proposal,
adding that the staff recommendation was for approval. Craig
Snowdon, architect for the project, explained the plans. Peggy
osterfoss suggested the deck be only over the garage, and Craig
said he would reduce the deck.
Diana moved and Peggy seconded to approve the request per the
staff memo. The vote was 4 - 0 - 1 abstention (Pam).
8. A request for a side setback variance in order to
construct a garage at 325 Forest Road.
Applicant: Tim Drisko
Tom Braun showed an improvement survey and explained the
request. Gary Walker, representing the applicant, stated
that the main reason for the location of the garage was to
have access to an existing driveway and parking in front
of the garage.
Diana Donovan moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the
request per the staff memo. The vote was 5 -0 in favor.
9. A request to amend the zoning code in order to add a new
zone district to be entitled "Hillside Residential."
Applicant: Town of Vail
This item was tabled.
•
C]
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1987
SUBJECT: Hillside Residential Zone District
In late February, the Planning Commission and Town staff held a
work session on the proposed Hillside Residential zone district.
Four main issues that came out of that work session were: 1)
minimum lot size, 2) allowable GRFA, 3) size of the caretaker
unit, and 4) location and siting of the caretaker unit. The
staff has since revised the proposed Hillside Residential zone
district to reflect these concerns.
The minimum lot size has been increased from 21,780 square feet
to 30,040 square feet. We have developed a formula to assess
GRFA to these lot sizes. The formula is enclosed in your packet
as a work sheet. The formula that was derived allows 15% of
buildable area up to the minimum lot size and 5% of developable
area above the minimum lot size. The staff chose this formula
over many others because we felt it met the directions given by
PEC in the work session. That direction was to allow enough
GRFA at minimum lot size to accommodate the type of development
desired but to also prevent over - development of the lot by
allowing too much GRFA.
The allowable size of the caretaker unit had been discussed as
possibly being a ratio of the allowable GRFA or as a prescribed
maximum size. Discussion at the Planning Commission meeting
revolved around what we were trying to accomplish with the
caretaker unit. If it was a true caretaker unit, it did not
need to be a ratio of the allowable GRFA, but a set maximum
size. The staff has set this at 1200 square feet, which was
felt an adequate size for a caretaker unit.
The location of the caretaker unit was discussed and it was felt
that a carriage house type of development with the caretaker
located in the garage structure would be appropriate. The
Planning Commission did feel that the caretaker unit should be
integrated into the main unit or into a garage structure and
should not be a separate freestanding structure. We have
attempted to reflect this desire in the wording of this
district.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
In conclusion, the staff is comfortable with this zone district
as currently written. We feel that the changes in
recommendations which have been worked out with the Planning
• Commission will be beneficial to this districts and we feel that
this district now represents a clear direction of what the Land
Use Plan states as a desire for a Hillside Residential zone
district. The staff recommends that the PEC recommend adoption
of the Hillside Residential Zone District as presented.
0
40
4. Accessory Uses
The following accessory uses shall be permitted in the HR district:
A. Private greenhouses, tool sheds, playhouses, garages or carports,
swimming pools, patios, or recreational facilities customarily
incidental to single family uses
B. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home occupation, subject
to issuance of a home occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through 18.58.190.
C. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory to permitted or
conditional uses, and necessary for the operation thereof.
5. Lot Area and Site Dimensions
The minimum lot or site area shall be thirty thousand square feet
(30,000) of contiguous buildable area. Each site shall have a minimum
frontage of fifty feet. Each site shall be of a size and shape capable
of enclosing a square eighty feet on each side within its boundaries.
6. Setbacks
. In the HR district, minimum front setbacks shall be twenty feet, minimum
side setbacks shall be fifteen feet, minimum rear setbacks shall be
fifteen feet.
7. Height
For a flat roof or mansard roof the height of buildings shall not exceed
thirty feet. For a sloping roof the height of buildings shall not exceed
thirty-three feet.
8. Density Control
Not more than a total f t dwelling units shall be permitted on each
site. Not more than -�..a.,�� square feet of gross residential floor area
(CRFA) shall be permitted for each one hundred square feet for the first
t- W_rt_y__t w4saM square feet of site area, plus not more than five square,
feet of gross residential floor area shall be permitted ¢for ,eA, h_..o.ne..�r- `
hundred square feet of site area over th4�y t4ra a�square feet. On
any site containing two dwelling units, one of the units shall not exceed
twelve hundred square feet of gross residential floor area (CRFA). This
unit shall not be subdivided or sold separately from the main dwelling.
This unit may be integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated
within a garage structure serving the main unit, but shall not be a
separate freestanding structure.
r�
9. Site Coverage
is Not more than fifteen (15) percent of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings.
10. Landscaping and Site Development
At least seventy (70) percent of each site shall be landscaped. The
minimum width and length of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be
ten feet with a minimum area of not less than three hundred square feet.
11. Parking
Off- street shall be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52.
C]
� 0
•
•
MIN) LOT @ 21190
611FA(.20,.05)
4356
4367
4417
4467
4`17
4567
4617
4667
4717
4767
4617
4667
4917
4967
5017
5067
5117
5167
5217
5267
5317
5367
;417
5467
5517
5567
5617
5667
5717
5767
5445
9801
11479
14157
0
MIN. LOT @ 30
LOT SIZE
-------------------------------------
66FA {.15,.05}
tit'iFAt.15,.10)
21760
3257
3267
22000
3300
3300
23000
3450
3450
24000
3600
3600
20JO00
3750
3750
26000
3900
3400
27000
4050
4050
26000
4200
4200
29000
4350
4350
30000
4540
4500
31000
4550
4600
32000
4600
4700
33000
4650
4600
34000
4700
4900
35000
4750
5000
36000
4600
5100
37000
4850
J21J0
38000
4900
5300
39000
4950
5400
40000
5000
5500
41000
.10O
5600
42.600
5100
5700
43000
5150
5800
44000
5200
5900
45000
5250
6000
46000
5300
6100
47000
5350
6200
48000
5400
6300
44900
5450
6400
50000
5500
6500
43560
5176
5856
130680
9534
14569
174240
11712
18924
217800
13390
23L80
0
0
•
MIN) LOT @ 21190
611FA(.20,.05)
4356
4367
4417
4467
4`17
4567
4617
4667
4717
4767
4617
4667
4917
4967
5017
5067
5117
5167
5217
5267
5317
5367
;417
5467
5517
5567
5617
5667
5717
5767
5445
9801
11479
14157
0
,
HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL (HR) DISTRICT
Sections:
1�S yrj U1L�
Purpose
2., cD� Permitted Uses
3. ,o'2)OConditional Uses
4.,olo Accessory Uses
S..(�,w Lot Area and Site Dimensions
6. .t:�(,,;,Setbacks
7. Height
8. Density Control
9. -'Site Coverage
10.- `)F�Landscaping and Site Development
11. • ObParki ng
i. Purpose
The Hillside Residential District is intended to provide sites for low
density single family residential uses, together with such public
facilities as may be appropriately located in the same district. The
Hillside Residential District is intended to insure adequate light, air,
privacy and open space for each dwelling, commensurate with single family
occupancy, and to maintain the desirable low density high quality
residential development of such sites by establishing appropriate site
development standards.
2. Permitted Uses
• The following uses shall be permitted in the HR district:
Single family residential dwellings
One caretaker apartment per lot.
3. Conditional Uses
The following conditional uses shall be permitted, subject to issuance of
a conditional use permit in accordance with the provisions of Chapter
18.60:
A. Public utility and public service uses
B. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
C. Public park and recreation facilities
I•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 11, 1987
2:15 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Hearing
1. A request for density and setback variances in
order to construct additions to the Christiania
Lodge located at 356 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicant: Mr. Paul. Johnston
2. A request for an amendment to a special
development distict in order to change a tennis
court to a parking lot at Vail Run Resort (SDD5)
Applicant: Mr. William Fleisher
3. Work session on Blu's and Sweet Basil deck
enclosures
El
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
May 11, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Vi.ele
ABSENT
Pam Hopkins
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 3:00 P.M. by the chairman,
Jim Viele.
1. A request for density and setback variances in order to
construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at
356 Hanson Ranch Road on Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Mr. Paul Johnston
Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed view analysis
• drawings, elevations and site and floor plans. She explained
that the staff recommended denial, but if the PEC approved the
request, the staff recommended 4 conditions of approval.
John Perkins, architect for the project, stated that the
project was not giving the Christiania a lot of reimbursement,
but was more back -of -house space to improve the operations.
Paul Johnston, the applicant, stated that up to this time, the
Christiania had not had enough common area, that whoever
designed the Christiania did not design a large enough entry
and lobby area. He mentioned that competition has escalated
among lodges. Regarding the landscaping of the parking area
next to Hanson Ranch Road, he felt that the landscaping might
not survive because of snow plows. Kristan answered that the
landscaping may need more design work but could be designed
with snow removal considerations.
Sid questioned how much landscaping could be put between the
parking lot and street. He felt that since the plan basically
supported the goals of the Village Master Plan, he felt it was
not right to penalize the applicant because the Plan was not
finished. Sid felt amenities should be encouraged.
Paul added that the addition to Sarah's was mainly for
serving breakfast. He also mentioned that he has had ongoing
conversations with VA concerning making the parking lot into
underground parking, but that so far the conversation was more
of a monologue.
Peggy agreed with Sid. J.J. wondered why the Christiania did
not take advantage of the attic space and add even more rooms
to maximize the addition. Paul responded that the basic roof
line should be maintained and that the attic space had a very
low ceiling. J.J. felt that the unit development was not an
issue as GRFA, landscaping and site coverage standards were
maintained. Jim Viele agreed. Diana felt the DRB should find
out which trees would be removed and which saved.
J.J. moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the request with
findings including "there are exceptions or extraordinary
cirumstances or conditions applicable to the same site of the
variance that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone." Also given as the reason was the fact that the
proposal conformed to the Village Master Plan. The vote was 6-
0 with conditions 1 through 4 in the memo and landscaping must
be addressed at DRB, especially trees that will be lost.
2. A request for an amendment to a special development
district in order to change a tennis court to a par_ king
lot at Vail Run Resort SDD5 .
Applicant: Mr. William Fleisher
Kristan Pritz presented the memo and showed a site plan. She
stated that the staff recommended approval of the request.
Bill Fleisher, the applicant, added information about the •
present parking situation. He proposed building a berm with a
wall of railroad ties with 8' -10, trees. If there is no berm,
he proposed that the trees be 15' high. He said he may also
put trees in front of the bubble.
Ann Sullivan, manager of
read a letter of protest
pollution, and reduction
were the reasons for the
distributed and read froi
parking lot.
Simba Run to the west, distributed and
stating that noise, lighting,
of value of Simba Run condominiums
protest. A letter was also
n Nicholas Giancamilli protesting the
Bill Fleisher responded that he felt the parking lot would be
15 feet from the property line and that there was another 30
feet to the Simba Run building. He felt that the upper Simba
units would not be affected because people look out, not down.
He stated that there were two courts in the tennis bubble. He
also stated that the parking lot would be used mainly for cars
which park all day long, so the noise factor would be minimal
and that Vail Run did not experience undesirables in their
parking lot. He felt that Simba was aware of the propety line
when they built their units.
Ann Sullivan replied that the 12 units that she was referring
to would look down at the parking lot. She did not feel that
15 foot trees would buffer the parking lot from the higher
units.
-2-
Kristan confirmed that the southwest corner of the tennis court
was 12 feet from the property line.
J.J. Collins felt that this was a situation that ought to be
addressed between neighbors. He did not feel comfortable
making a decision with the amount of information available. He
saw no reason Vail Run could not provide parking on their site
but J.J. felt the parking lot impacts should be mitigated and
some compromise should be reached.
Peggy Osterfoss felt that the lack of adequate parking for Vail
Run needed to be addressed. She stated that the fact that Vail
Run was in the County when it was constructed did not help to
make a decision. Peggy felt that to have parking within 30
feet of a condo would not be pleasant for the condo owners
unless there was a significant amount of landscaping between
the parking lot and Simba Run. On the other hand, parking was
needed for Vail Run. Diana wondered if the lot would work in
the winter, with regard to drainage and also asked where snow
would be pushed. Fleisher responded that there would be a 10
foot opening in the fence toward the Frontage Road and the snow
would be pushed out of that opening. Diana wondered if a
wooden fence would help reduce the amount of noise and light
from headlights. Fleisher stated that 3/4 of the lot was
pointed away from Simba.
Diana asked if parking could be restricted to people staying a
week and Fleisher said the lot would probably be used that way
because a lot of people arrive with two cars and leave one
parked for a week or two. He stated that the underground
parking was used for owners of the condos, and the people
leasing the commercial spaces were not allowed to use the
underground parking. Sid stated that he could see the need for
additional parking for Vail Run, but wanted more information to
see how the parking related to the improvement survey with
regard to the Simba Run property. He felt additional
landscaping should be used, and DRB should address low impact
lighting.
Jim Viele asked if the lot fell under the size requirement to
have interior landscaping, and Kristan read the requirements
which stated that 10% of parking lots which contained 15 or
more spaces must have interior landscaping. Viele felt this
was a DRB issue. Kristan noted that this would decrease the
number of spaces, but the applicant would still be gaining many
parking spaces. Fleischer said that with the cost of the ramp,
it was important to keep all spaces, but if he lost only 3, the
ramp would still be worth while. Viele stated that studies of
parking requirements for commercial space in Vail found that
parking was generally adequate, but that there was an obvious
. need at Vail Run for parking for residential purposes. He felt
that the DRB should be made aware of the need for landscaping
-3-
and reduction of any lighting impacts on adjacent properties.
Discussion followed concerning putting the parking lot where
the bubble exists, and Kristan stated that the staff had looked
at that possiblility, but that the grades appeared too steep to
allow a ramp to be built in that area.
Bryan Hobbs moved and Sid Schultz seconded to recommend
approval to the Town Council of the parking lot request with
direction to the Design Review Board that specific attention be
placed in negating the negative impacts of the parking lot with
respect to simba Run via landscaping, low lighting and ways to
reduce noise. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
A work session followed concerning deck enclosures at Blu's and
Sweet Basil restaurants.
The board was reminded that the next meeting was to be the
special hearing of the home occupation permit revocation and
would be May 27 at 1:30 P.M. The meeting of May 25 would be
held on June 1.
•
-4-
L
• T0:
FROM:
� 0
10
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
May 11, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to amend Special Development District #5,
Development Area A, Vail Run in order to convert an
existing exterior tennis court to parking, creating a
total of 21 additional parking spaces.
Applicant: Vail Run Resort
I. BACKGROUND OF REQUEST:
The applicant, Vail Run Resort, is requesting to amend
SDD #5, to allow for the conversion of an existing tennis
court to parking. Construction of the access ramp to the
tennis court would eliminate five existing parking spaces.
The proposed parking plan for the tennis court area shows
the creation of 26 parking spaces for a total new
additional parking of 21 spaces. The Vail Run project was
developed within the jurisdiction of Eagle County and upon
annexation to the Town of Vail was zoned SDD5. Ordinance
6, Series of 1986, established Special Development
District No. 5 and describes the development plan simply
as the existing conditions on site. The ordinance goes on
to list permitted and conditional uses. However, there is
no mention of parking requirements or site requirements
such as certain recreation facilities and the maintenance
thereof, or any criteria related to site coverage,
landscaped areas, etc.
The applicant, in a previous submittal, detailed a parking
analysis that shows a shortfall of 97 spaces when
comparing existing conditions to current Town of Vail
parking standards.
11. IMPACTS OF PROPOSAL
The ordinance establishing Special Development District 5
states no specific requirements regarding the recreational
facilities available to Vail Run Resort. The loss of the
existing exterior tennis court is mitigated by the fact
that there remains two existing covered courts within the
adjacent bubble. The applicant has certainly proven a
need for additional parking on this site and is going to
some length in order to secure parking that they feel is
necessary for the functioning of their property.
The only concern of the Community Development Department
is the impact of the conversion from recreational facility
to parking on the adjacent Simba Run units. The applicant
has proposed a buffer of 15 foot tall Colorado spruce
trees. We would encourage the Planning Commission to
carefully examine the adequacy of this proposed buffer and
pass along any concerns to the Design Review Board.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommendation is
Development Department feels
sufficiently demonstrated a
parking and we feel that the
is the southwest corner of t
Simba Run property. We do f
could be increased to furthe
for approval. The Community
that the applicant has
need for additional on- -site
only impact of this proposal
he lot that is adjacent to the
eel that the proposed buffer
r reduce this impact.
• TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental commission
Community Development Department
May 11, 1987
SUBJECT: Request for density and setback variances in order to
construct additions to the Christiania Lodge located at
356 Hanson Ranch Road on Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Paul Johnston
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED REMODEL
Mr. Paul Johnston, owner of the Christiania Lodge, is
requesting to add a third floor of five accommodation units,
to rearrange the existing lodge units, and to add common
area. This request requires density and setback variances.
Below is a list of the expansions and adjustments made to
each floor.
A. Ground Floor !Garden Level
Expand Unit 105 and combine Units 107 and 109 for an
increase of 95 square feet of GRFA.
Convert 1 dwelling unit to housekeeping office, 300
square feet.
New laundry space, 378 square feet.
B. First Floor
Expand Unit 205 and combine Units 207 and 209 for an
increase in GRFA of 83 square feet.
Lobby and storage area: 186 square feet.
Lobby office: 103 square feet.
Sarah's Bar: 366 square feet.
C. Second Floor
Expand Unit 305 and combine Units 307 and 309 for
additional GRFA of 83 square feet.
Add Unit 301A = 418 square feet.
Common space: 402 square feet
D. Third Floor
Five new accommodation units = 2,015 square feet GRFA.
Loft expansion for existing dwelling unit of 284 square
feet.
Common space: 344 square feet.
Essentially, three accommodation units and one dwelling
unit are being lost due to the re- arrangement of rooms.
Six new accommodation units are created through the
expansion for a net increase of 1 accommodation units.
E. Parking Lot Paving and Landscaping
The proposal also includes the upgrading of the existing
Christiania parking lot located across the street from
the lodge. V.A. owns the entire lot and uses the
western portion of the parking area. The Christiania
leases the eastern half of the lot from Vail Associates.
The owner proposes to asphalt his portion of the lot as
well as to add landscaping to the entire property.
Landscaping is proposed for the south and north sides of
the lot.
F. Mill Creek Path Landscaping, Trash Enclosure
A foot path with a small seating area is proposed to be
built along the east side of Mill Creek. The path would
be an informal stepping stone path with a seating bench
adjacent to the creek. The path would be located
between the Christiania split rail fence and Mill Creek.
The owner is also proposing to create a trash enclosure
that screens the lodge's trash area from this path as
well as from pedestrians on Hanson Ranch Road. A
landscape buffer would also be added on the west side of
the trash area.
II. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES
A. Density Variance
The property is located in the Public Accommodation zone
district which allow 9 dwelling units or 18
accommodation units. (Please note that 2 accommodation
units or units without kitchens = one dwelling unit or a
unit with a kitchen.) The existing lodge has 25
accommodation units and two dwelling units which equals
14.5 dwelling units. This creates a nonconforming
situation in that the property is already 5.5 dwelling
units over the allowable 9 dwelling units. The proposal
calls for a total of 28 accommodation units plus one
dwelling unit which equals 15 dwelling units. A
variance is needed for the additional accommodation
unit (.5 dwelling units
-2-
•
� 0
The request does not require a GRFA
may have up to 13,232 square feet of
GRFA is 7,397 square feet. Proposed
new third floor would be 10,075 squa
property would have 3,157 square fee
after the remodel is built.
B. 20% Common Area Variance
variance. The lodge
GRFA. The existing
GRFA including the
re feet. The
t of GRFA remaining
Common area includes halls, closets, lobbies, stairways
and common enclosed recreation facilities. The allowed
common area is 2,646 square feet. Presently, 2,255
square feet of common area exists. The proposal adds
1,955 square feet of additional hall space, lobby area,
accessory office, and storage. A variance is necessary
for the 1,574 square feet of common area over the
allowable of 2.646 square feet.
C. Setback Variances
The Public Accommodation zone district requires 20 foot
setbacks on all sides of the property. The existing
front setback is 15 feet due to the encroachment of the
northwest corner of the lodge. A zero setback exists on
the east side of the property as the Christiania Lodge
connects directly with the Christiania Condominiums to
the east. A 17 foot setback exists on the west side of
the property as the southwest corner of the building
encroaches three feet into the 20 foot setback area.
The rear setback is 20 feet.
The proposal maintains all of the existing setbacks
except for the front and west side setbacks. A
second floor cantilevered office and accommodation unit
over the Christiania's main entrance creates a three
foot encroachment into the 20 foot front setback. The 3
foot encroachment requires a variance.
A proposed porte cochere off of the main entrance will
have a support column that will be located at the
property line. A zero setback is needed for the support
column. The roof of the porte cochere would also
overhang 3 feet onto the
overhang would not exten
planter encroachment.
blic right-of-way. The roof
eyond the existing 3 foot
The new third floor of accommodation units expands an
additional 3 feet into the west setback creating a 14
foot setback. A variance is necessary for the 3 foot
encroachment.
MIS
. III. CHRISTIANIA LODGE ZONING STATISTICS
Zone District: Public Accommodation
Site Area: .3797 acres or 16,540 sf
Density: [25 dwelling units (d.u.) /acre] [2 a.u. = 1 d.u.]
Allowed: 18 a.u. or 9 d.u.
Existing: 25 a.u. + 2 d.u. or 14.5 d.u.
Existing units over allowable: 5.5 d.u.
Proposed: 28 a.u. + 1 d.u. or 15 d.u.
Difference: 1 a.u. or .5 d.u.
Total amount over
allowed after remodel: 12 a.u. or 6 d.u.
GRFA: (.80)
Allowed:
Existing:
Proposed:
10 Remaining
after addit.
20% Common Area:
Allowed:
Existing:
Proposed:
Amount over
allowed:
13,232
7,397
10,075
3,157
(.20 of allowable GRFA: Halls, closets,
lobbies, stairways, common enclosed
recreational facilities)
2,646 sf
2,255 sf
4,220 sf (30 % as opposed to 20 %)
1,574 sf
Note: 80 sf of common area is added to the Christiania
condominiums
10% Accessory Lodge, Rest /Bar, Recreational, Retail: (10% of
GRFA)
Allowed: 1323 sf
Existing: 780 sf
Proposed: 1146 sf
-4-
Setbacks: Required, 201 all sides
Existing: Front: 15 '
E. Side 0'
W. Side 17'
Rear 20'
Proposed:
Front:
Porte cochere, support columns and roof = 0'
Roof overhangs 3' on T.O.V. right -of -way
Second floor office + a.u., 3' encroachment =17' setback
Expanding third floor, 4' encroachment, maintains
existing encroachment = 15' setback
East Side:
Same, 0 setback
West Side:
Expanding . third floor, additional 3' encroachment = 14'
setback
Rear:
Same, 20' setback
Site Coverage: (.55 of site area)
Allowed: 9,097 sf
Existing: 5,235 sf
Proposed: 6,090 sf
Remaining 3,007 sf
Landscaping: (.30 of site)
Required: 4,962 sf
Existing: 7,490 sf
Proposed: 6,635 sf or 40% of site
Height:
Allowed: 48' sloping roof, 45' flat roof
Existing: 36'
Proposed: 401- 6"
Under by: 71- 6"
-5-
� 0
PARKING
Existing Proposed
Use # Spaces Use # Spaces
Grd Flr 8 a.u. 5.27 7 a.u. 4.97
1 d.u. 2.0
lst Floor 8 a.u. 5.27 7 a.u. 4.69
Sarah's 714 sf= 6.00 714 sf + 32 seats 10.00
2nd Floor 9 a.u. 5.85 9 a.u. 6.15
1 d.u. 2.00 1 du + loft 2.00
3rd Floor 0 5 a.u. 4.02
26.39 31.83
Christiania
Condos 9.00 9.00
35.39 40.83
or
36 spaces required 41 spaces reqd
33 on site - 36 grandfathered
3 space grandfathered 5 spaces
for addition
The new parking requirement of 5 spaces is handled on site. An
additional two spaces are also available due to the restriping of
the lot and the use of valet parking.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Density Variance:
The remodel of existing lodge rooms and the new accommodation
unit are very compatible with the existing uses and
structures in the area. A view analysis also indicates that
the third floor addition willl have minimal impacts on views
from adjacent properties. The surrounding properties are
either zoned Public Accommodation or Commercial Core I. Both
zone districts promote lodge uses.
-6-
� 0
The 20% common area variance is directly related to the
density variance. in order to add new rooms and upgrade the
lodge, it is necessary to add adequate lobby, hallway, and
accessory office space. The additional common area that is
proposed will improve the functioning of the lodge and is not
in excess of what is a reasonable amount for these uses.
Setback Variances:
Front:
The porte cochere support column and roof overhang
provide an improvement for the entry to the lodge. The
encroachment is an unenclosed structure which decreases
the impact of the encroachment. Town of Vail Public
Works and Fire Departments have also reviewed the
encroachment and have no problem with the location of
the structure. There is also an existing planter in
this area that encroaches three feet beyond the property
line. The Porte cochere would not extend the
encroachment beyond this point.
The second floor office and accommodation unit expansion
does decrease the 20 foot setback to 17 feet. However,
the front setback is already 15 feet at its narrowest
point. For this reason, staff believes that the second
floor expansion will have no negative impacts on
adjacent properties.
The expansion of the third floor merely maintains the
existing front setback of 15 feet.
West Side Setback:
The expansion of the third floor decreases the west
setback from 17 feet to 3 feet. However, an existing
roof overhang and second floor balcony already create a
14 foot setback. It is felt that the new third floor
bay windows that create the three foot encroachment will
have minimal impact on adjacent properties.
East Side Setback:
With respect to the zero setba.
encroachment maintains what is
property.
In general, the staff believes that
not impact the property or adjacent
pre - existing setbacks do. For this
variances are considered to have no
adjacent properties.
-7-
ak on the east side, this
already existing on the
the setback variances do
uses any more than the
reason, the setback
major negative impacts on
• B. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Density Variance:
To approve the additional accommodation unit under the
existing review criteria for a variance would be considered a
grant of special privilege. However, staff's opinion is that
this is the type of proposal which the Village Plan is
designed to encourage as long as zoning standards are met.
Due to the fact that the Village Plan is not approved, the
staff must continue to work with the variance criteria.
Given this situation, the approval of the accommodation unit
is considered to be a grant of special privilege as there is
no hardship that warrants approval of the project.
Setback Variances:
The staff believes it would not be a grant of special
privilege to approve the setback variances, as the
encroachments due to the remodel do not increase beyond those
that already exist on the property except for the west
setback which has minimal impacts, as the encroachment is due
to several third floor bay windows.
C. The effect of the requested variance on li ht and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
This proposal will have no impacts on this criteria.
D. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
Vail Village Master Plan
Even though the Village Plan is not approved at this time,
staff's opinion is that the plan's preliminary goals and
objectives generally reflect the opinions of the Planning
commission and Town Council as well as community members who
have reviewed these statements at public meetings. The plan
emphasizes the upgrading of lodges, the addition of
accommodation units, the improvement of the pedestrian
experience, as well as the enhancement of open space.
i• a
• This proposal supports the plan's objectives by improving
existing lodge units and adding new units while complying
with site development standards. The paved parking area and
landscaping improve the appearance of an existing eyesore in
a very visible portion of the Village. The pedestrian path
and seating area also enhance open space for pedestrians.
Please see the attached list of Village Plan Goals and
Objectives which relate to this project.
Urban Design Guide Plan
Sub -Area Concept No. S: Mill Creek walking path, west side
Mill Creek. Path completes linkage from pirate ship and
mountain path to Gore Creek Drive.
The Urban Design Guide Plan calls out for the path connection
between the bike path and Hanson Ranch Road. The owner
proposes to add a stone foot path which is a positive
improvement to the pedestrian experience in the Village
area.
Even though the path was originally proposed for the west
side of Mill Creek, staff believes that the east side
provides a nicer walking experience. The west side of the
. creek has a trash room for Cyrano's as well as several
utility boxes which make it an unpleasant area to walk
through.
10
Parking Improvements
The proposal includes upgrading the parking lot by adding
landscaping and paving. The owner leases this parking space
from Vail Associates.
It is true that under any expansion plan for the lodge, even
if it did not require Planning Commission review, the staff
would request that the parking area be landscaped and paved.
However, the owner is also proposing to landscape the
remainder of the parking lot which is owned by Vail
Associates. It is felt that this landscaping will provide a
much needed buffer between the parking lot and adjacent uses.
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.
MIZ
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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the setback variances and denial
• of the density request. The setback variances can be
supported, as the encroachments are not increased from those
that presently exist on the site. Due to the fact that the
Village Plan is not yet approved by the Town Council, staff
is unable to support the density request. Our opinion is
that this is the type of proposal that the Village Plan
encourages, as all zoning standards are basically met. Staff
would like to be able to support this type of prject once the
Village Plan is approved. However, the staff feels that we
must try to be consistent with our decision making and use
the existing criteria for variance requests. For these
reasons, we must recommend denial of the project.
If the Planning Commission approves this request, staff would
recommend the approval include the following conditions:
10
1. The Christiania parking lot be paved and landscaped. The
proposal would also include landscaping the western portion
of the lot owned by Vail Associates.
2. The owner would complete the pedestrian path between the
existing bike path and Mill Creek Court Building. This path
would also include a small seating area.
-10-
�J
I•
3. The existing trash room on the northwest Corner of the
site would be enclosed and screened by landscaping.
4. One of the new accommodation units will be restricted as
short term rental units permanently and will not be taken out
of the short term rental program at any time. The
restriction will continue to apply even if the project is
condominiumized or the ownership changes. This condition
shall be written in a legal statement submitted to staff by
the owner before a building permit will be issued.
-11-
•
•
APPLICABLE VAIL VILLAGE PLAN GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
Goal #1: Encourage high quality redevelopment while
preserving the unique architectural scale of the Village in
order to sustain Vail's sense of community and identity.
Objective #2: Provide incentives for the upgrading and
redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
Policy: Allow increased levels of development as
identified by the Action Plan or
consistent with the Vail Village Master
Plan.
Goal #2: Foster a strong tourist industry and to promote
year - around economic health and viability for the Village and
for the community as a whole.
Objective #3: Increase the number of residential units
throughout the Village area available for short -term
overnight accommodations.
Policy: The development of accommodation units are
strongly encouraged. Any residential units that
are developed above existing density levels shall
be designed or managed in a manner that makes them
available for short -term rental.
Objective #5: Encourage the continued upgrading and
renovation of existing lodging and commercial facilities
to better serve the needs of our guests.
Objective #6: Identify and implement improvements
throughout the Village to embellish the physical design
features and pedesstrian amenities of public spaces.
Goal #3: Recognize as a top priority the importance of
maintaining and enhancing the walking experience throughout
the Village.
Objective #1: Physically improve the existing
pedestrianways throughout the Village by landscaping and
other improvements.
Policy: Require streetscape improvements in and
along pedestrianways in conjunctioin with any
infill development projects.
-12-
•
Goal #4: Preserve existing open space areas and expand
greenbelt opportunities.
Objective #1: Recognize and improve the open space
found throughout the Village (landscaped buffers,
plazas, parks, active recreation areas and open space)
and to cognizant of the different role each plays.
Goal #5: Improve the transportation system and
infrastructure by increasing both its capacity and efficiency
throughout the Village area.
objective #1: Meet the parking demand throughout the
Village by the utilization of both public and private
parking facilities.
-13-
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 11, 1957
SUBJECT: Proposed exterior alterations to Blu's and Sweet
Basil
Applications will be made to the Planning Commision for
exterior alterations involving deck enclosures for both Blu's
and Sweet Basil. The applicants have requested a work session
with the Planning Commission to make a preliminary presentation
of these projects. While we have not held work sessions for
projects of a similar nature in the past, we feel that this
work session has merit with respect to the proposals'
relationships to the proposed Gore Creek walkway. While the
Planning Commission will not be asked to make commitments as to
their reaction on these projects, any comments would be helpful
to the applicants in the preparation for their formal submittal
later this month.
At the time this memo was prepared, staff had not seen drawings
relative to these proposals. We have met with the applicants a
number of times and offered conceptual comments concerning our
attitude toward these deck enclosures. It is generally the
feeling of the staff that north facing decks such as these may
be enclosed under certain circumstances. These would include,
or necessitate, totally operable windows. The enclosure should
also be as transparent as possible. As a staff, we have felt
for some time that given operable windows, any restauranteur
will open these windows when weather permits. This opinion has
been supported by Blu's small enclosure of two years ago. As
the PEC may recall, this expansion was for operable windows,
and it was demonstrated that when weather complied, Blu's had
the windows open, providing not only deck space, but a strong
sense of activity along the street from the indoor dining area.
We feel that this concept is valid, and if the proposals for
these decks are consistent with the idea of using operable,
transparent enclosures, the staff does not have a fundamental
problem with enclosing the decks.
As stated, the staff has not seen the material that will be
presented to the Planning Commission on Monday. For this
reason, we are unable to provide any further information
concerning design and compliance with the Urban Design Guide
Plan. With respect to Blu's, a proposal will also be made to
expand a portion of the dining deck onto Town of Vail land.
The Town Council has authorized the applicant to proceed to the
Planning Commission in much the same manner that the Lancelot
Restaurant and Gorsuch Cafe have done in the past few years.
As a result, we have no staff recommendation at this time.
Planning and Environmental Commission
May 27, 1987
1:30 P.M.
Public Hearing:
1. Hearing of an appeal of the revocation of a home
occupancy permit.
2. Preliminary review of exterior alteration requests in
Commercial Cores I and Ii
f a. Blu's
b. Sweet Basil
!( C. Gasthof Gramshammer
d. Lionshead Center
e. Antlers
f. Treetops
j g. Golden Peak House
h. Plaza Lodge
3. Appointment of a member of PEC to the Design Review
Board for June, July and August.
10
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 1, 1987
2:30 P.M. Site Inspections
3:00 P.M. Public Hearing
I. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11.
2. A request for a front setback variance in order
to enlarge an existing residential area above a
garage on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th.
Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian
3. A request for an exterior alteration and a
density variance in order to enclose a 8
balconies and 2 decks at the Treetops
Condominiums located at 450 East Lionshead
Circle.
Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
•
• Planning and Environmental. Commission
June 1, 1987
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
J.J. Collins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11. A motion was made
by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan Hobbs to approve
both minutes. The vote was 6--0 in favor.
2. A request for a front setback variance in order to
enlarge an existing residential area above a garage on Lot
8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th.
Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian
• Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and
elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered
stairway currently project about 2.1 feet into the front
setback at the structure's northwest corner. The variance
requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The
staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold,
architect representing the applicants further explained the
request.
Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the
primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to
construction of the requested addition.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo
plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary
unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in
favor.
3. A request for an exterior alteration and a densit
variance in order to enclose 8 balconies and 2 decks at
the Treetops Condominiums located at 452 East Lionshead
Circle.
Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and
elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval
of the exterior alterations and denial of the density variance.
Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the
board that the staff must look at the property in black and
white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with
respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase
in GRFA was minimal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed
were useless because they were so small and that they were
unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for
storage.
Pam Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the
variance requested, but stated that she did not have a legal
way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would
enhance Treetops Condos. Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked
if the staff would look at Ordinance 4 again to try to find a
way to include small changes to multi - family buildings. Diana
Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she could
not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that
the space was used as a walkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 was
that balconies and decks would be enclosed and result in flat
facades which impact mass and bulk. It was difficult to know
where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA
would be appropriate.
Peter asked if all the units which would enclose their decks
had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that all of the
units did have other outdoor space. Briner also stated that
all of the windows would become bay windows which would give
relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be
added.
Jim Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward
improvement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that
the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements
to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it
would be good to go back to Ordinance 4 to see if changes could
be made with reference to multi- family units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one
reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989
World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the
scapegoats because she felt they would set a good example for
the rest of the community and inspire others to fix up their
property.
Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner
estimated that 75% of dollars to be spent on the project would
be for enclosing the decks, and possible 15% for landscaping.
Diana felt there must be some way to allow projects which
benefit the community to such an extent as this. Peggy
Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session
and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3 -4 months
before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy
change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minimal
amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to base a
policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance
on the basis that this is the type of project the town would
like to see for three reasons:
1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping and substantial improvements to
the structures will be done in excess of that required.
(This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does not
include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be
required.)
3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed
balconies will remain for each unit.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6 -0 in
favor.
•
•
C7
TO. Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 1, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance to enclose 10 decks at
the Treetops Condominium Building #2
APPLICANT: Treetops Condominium Association
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting a density
variance to enclose 10 existing outdoor decks on the south
side of the building. The Treetops Building #2 is the east
building behind the Treetops commercial building. Five of
these decks are 39 square feet each and five are 46 square
feet each, which creates a total additional GRFA request of
425 square feet. The existing GRFA on the site is 36,369
square feet. The allowable GRFA in Commercial Core 11 for
this project is 30,952 square feet. The project is presently
over the allowable GRFA by 5,417 square feet. If this
request is approved, the project would be 5,842 square feet
over the allowable.
II. BACKGROUND ON THE REQUEST
In August of 1983, the Treetops Condominium Association
requested a rezoning of their property from High Density
Multi - Family (.60) to Commercial Core II (.80) zoning. This
request was made in order to construct the commercial
expansion to the north of the two residential buildings.
Under High Density Multi- Family zoning, the project was
allowed 23,214 square feet of GRFA. Due to the rezoning, the
project is now allowed 30,952 square feet. The rezoning
increased the allowable GRFA by 7,738 square feet.
In January of 1984, the Condominium Association requested an
exterior alteration in order to add the retail expansion
above the existing parking structure.
In July of 1986, a request was made to enclose 10 decks for
an additional GRFA of 665 square feet. Staff recommended
denial of the request. The Planning Commission moved to deny
the request, as it was felt that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the additions. The vote was 6 -0
in favor of the motion. The Treetops Condominium Association
appealed the Planning Commission's decision to the Town
Council. The Town Council upheld the Planning Commission's
decision to deny the request.
LJ
III. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone District: Commercial Core II
Site Area: + 38,690 square feet*
GRFA: (.80)
Allowable:
30,952
sf
Existing:
36,369
sf
Amt. over
allowable:
5,417
sf
Proposed: 5
decks @
39
sf
= 195
5
decks @
46
sf
= 230
Total Proposed:
425 sf
Amt over after
additions:
5842 sf
Total GRFA
after additions: 36,794 sf
Units:
Allowed:
22
d.u.
Existing:
26
d.u.
Proposed:
0
Common Area: (200 of Allowable GRFA)
Allowed: 6,190
Existing: 4,390
Proposed:
bridge 80
lobby 260
Existing
& Proposed 4,730
Remaining 1,460
site Coverage: (70 %)
Allowed: 27,083 sq
Existing: 21,670 sf
Proposed; 300 sf
Exist & Addit. 21,970 sf
Remaining 5,113 sf
Setbacks
Required 10 ft all sides. No impact with proposal
0
Landscaping: (200 of site area required)
Required: 7,738 sf
Existing: 12,000 sf approx.
Height: Allowed: 48' sloping, 45' flat
Existing and proposed: same
Parking: The units that have deck expansions have existing
GRFA totals that range from 1315 sf to 1326 sf.
The deck expansions of 39 sf or 46 sf do not
increase the square footage above 2,000 sf which is
the breaking point for additional parking.
* Total site area was calculated by Bud Stikes, The
Engineering Group, Inc. Property lines do not close, so
square footage is + 38,690 square feet.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
. Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The additions are compatible with the existing uses in the
area. The general upgrade of the entire project will have a
positive impact on uses in the vicinity.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Staff's opinion is that this request would be a grant of
special privilege due to the fact that there is no physical
hardship which would warrant the variance.
It is the applicant's responsibility to prove physical
hardship and the fact that the granting of the variance will
not be a special privilege in order to get approval for the
LJ
•
•
density variance.
Due to the fact that it is difficult to make the arguments of
physical hardship and lack of special privilege when
reviewing a density request, Ordinance #4 of 1985 was adopted
to allow for small GRFA additions without the need for
variance approval. Unfortunately, this ordinance does not
provide a means for allowing additions to units in multi-
family buildings. Units of this type were omitted, as the
Town Council and Planning Commission were concerned about the
potential to increase the bulk and mass of multi - family
buildings to a point where there would be negative= impacts
due to the additions. Legal issues also contributed to the
inability of this ordinance to accommodate multi - family
additions. In respect to this request, Ordinance #4 does not
provide any relief from having to review multi - family
additions with the density variance criteria.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities ublic facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
There are no significant impacts on any of the above factors.
V. RELATED POLICY IN VAIL'S COMMUNTY ACTION PLAN
Community Design
2. Upgrading and remodeling of structures and site
improvements should be encouraged.
5. Maintenance and upkeep should be a priority of property
owners and of the Town.
This proposal for the deck enclosures and the other general
improvements to the project supports the Community Action
Plan policies.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
VI. 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.'
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The proposal involves both a density variance and exterior
alteration request. The exterior alteration criteria are
used to review the design issues related to the request.
Even though the proposal compares favorably given the
alteration criteria, the staff must recommend denial of the
overall request, as we cannot support the density variance.
The original concern of the Council and Commission concerning
multi- family additions was that the building's bulk and mass
may be increased to a point where negative impacts would
occur from the expansions. In this situation, the
expansion and overall improvements to the property are
considered to be positive. However, staff must abide by the
variance criteria, and therefore must recommend denial of the
request.
Basically, the staff has the same position that was outlined
in the July 14, 1986 memo when 10 deck enclosures were also
being considered for this project. It is true that there are
no significant impacts resulting from this proposal.
However, the staff does feel that it would be a grant of
special privilege to approve the request. It must also be
noted that the property is over the allowable GRFA and number
of units for development under Commercial Core II zoning.
III A. VARIANCE REQUEST
In accordance with that provision of Ordinance No. 4 allowing for an
. increase of 250 square feet to single and duplex dwelling units as an
inducement for the upgrading of existing structures, the Treetops Condominium
seeks a variance to allow a total addition of 425 square feet to the
existing GRFA total of 35,971 square feet - an increase of 1.1%
The proposed additional GRFA comprises of 4 balcony enclosures and
1 deck enclosure at 39 square feet and 4 balcony enclosures and 1
deck enclosure at 46 square feet each.
The balconies to be enclosed are 3.5 feet wide. They provide little
to no room for outdoor furniture, i.e. no outdoor activity, but have
been utilized as storage areas visible from the vicinity of the bike path.
The area is being added to the living rooms, not the bedrooms thus the bed base
and /or density will not be increased.
The request and subsequent approval of this variance is necessary for
the Association's approval of the entire up- grading package which
includes:
1. Added protected entrances to both buildings.
2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path.
3. An increase of landscaping at the west building entrance.
This feature faces East Lionshead Circle and will provide
a more attractive public foreground to the building.
4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and remodeling
Is of the east building balcony railings to provide a visual
consistency of materials, detail and color between the
two residential buildings.
5. An upgrade of exterior lighting.
A -1
The requested variance does not effect other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity.
A -2
The literal interpretation of the ordinance:
a. Makes impractical the use of existing balcony space for
its intended use as an outdoor sitting area
b.- Promotes continuing difficulty of policing and maintaining
the given balconies due to their propensity to be utilized
as general storage areas
c. Precludes unit owners from taking advantage of inducement
offered other (single and duplex) unit owners to upgrade
their properties
d. Disallows at this time a structured, unified and visually
consistent approach to balcony enclosures that otherwise
might not occur if and when Ordinance No. 4 was to be
amended to include multi - family projects
e. Precludes any of those advantages to unit owners through
additional GRFA that have accrued to unit owners in other
. projects who have clandestinely enclosed their balconies
S
a �
VISUAL IMPACT OF REQUEST
500 sq.ft.
1W allowable
Duplex addition
5000 sq.ft.. to GRFA
<--- w 10%
of total
•
Treetops
35971 sq.ft.
Requested
425 sq.ft.
addition to
actual GRFA
= 1.1%
of total
Comparison indicates that the allowed visible impact of a duplex may be 9 times
greater than that requested by Treetops.
COMPARISON OF IMPACT ON ALLOWABLE GRFA VS ACTUAL GRFA
Allowable
GRFA:
31240
Requested
425 sq.ft.
addition
�- ----� = 1.3%
Actual
GRFA
35971
The requested 425 sq.ft. has almost equal significance when compared to the
Allowable GRFA and Actual GRFA. The difference is .2% or 60 square feet.
The applicant believes that the variance request is a reasonable trade off
against the several upgrading improvements that will add benefit as well to
the Lionshead appearance.
Requested
425 sq.ft.
addition
A -3
The request variance does not effect distribution of population, transportation,
traffic facilities, utilities and public safety.
• TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 1, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to enclose 10
decks and redesign entries to the Treetops II
Condominium Building
Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
I. THE PROPOSAL
The Treetops Condominium Association is requesting an
exterior alteration and density variance* for the
following construction at the Treetops II Building (east
condominium building):
1. Enclosure of:
5 existing decks @ 39 sq ft per deck = 195 sq ft
2. Enclosure of
5 existing decks @ 46 sq ft per deck = 230 sq ft
• 3. Enclose pedestrian bridge, = 80 sq ft
4. Redesigning the existing lobby and
creating a new lobby entry, = 280 sq ft
The association is also proposing to do an entire upgrade
of the existing project which would include:
1. An added protective entrance at the east entry.
2. An increase of landscaping along the bike path (south
side of the project).
3. An increase of landscaping at the west building
entrance.
4. Additions of wood siding to the east building and
remodeling of the east building balcony railings to
provide a visual consistency of materials, detail,
and color between the two residential buildings.
5. An upgrade of exterior lighting.
* A density variance is required for the 10 deck
enclosures, as the project is already over the
allowable GRFA. Please see the memo concerning the
density variance for a more detailed analysis of this
request.
iII. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE II
ZONE DISTRICT
Section 18.26.010 Purpose
The Commercial Core II zone district is intended to
provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings, lodges,
and commercial establishments in a clustered, unified
development. Commercial Core II district in accordance
with the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Considerations is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of buildings and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the district by establishing
appropriate site development standards.
This proposal is in compliance with the intent of the
Commercial Core II zone district.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
There are no sub --area concepts that relate to this
proposal.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
T,TnNRRRAD
A. Height and Massing: This consideration emphasizes
the creation of a well defined round floor
pedestrian area to overcome the canyon effect of
tall buildings. It states that "building expansions
shall generally be limited to one story and two
stories or as can be demonstrated to have a positive
visual and functional effect."
Staff's opinion is that the improved entry ways,
landscaping, lighting and new sidewalks will further
define pedestrian areas. The height and massing of
the entry is only one story which complies with this
consideration.
B. Roofs: Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are
acceptable for building expansions. It is important
to integrate expansions with existing buildings so
as to avoid a patch work, "tacked on" quality for
Lionshead.
C.
The applicant has proposed an entry addition and deck
additions that are compatible with the existing
condominium building. The proposed entry addition to
building No. 1 has a form and pitch matching that of
the sloped roofs on both condominium buildings.
l+r�r�r.rol -e ��r�r.ro�a hl r'�r.lr
This proposal complies with these materials. The
entries will be stucco. Horizontal wood siding will
be added to Building #2 to match Building #1. Trim
colors and stain colors will match for both
buildings.
D. Facades /Transparency: This consideration addresses
primarily round floor commercial facades and
encourages the use of windows for storefronts.
Even though this proposal is a residential expansion,
it should be noted that the new construction will
have an adequate amount of transparency throughout
the expansion. The new entry has many windows and
shallow bay windows are proposed at the ten locations
of the balconies for Treetops II.
E. Decks and Patios: 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 consideration refers primarily to commercial
decks. As the applicant has stated, "Narrow
existing balconies on Building #2 are proposed to be
enclosed by bay windows. These existing balconies
are not functional in terms of providing seating for
dining, sunning or any other outdoor activity."
Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building #2
are to be replaced with railings matching Building
#1.
F. Accent Elements: Judicious use of colorful accent
elements, consistent with existing character of
Lionshead are encoura ed.
The applicant has stated that, "To assure that there
is no loss of relief to the south facade at Building
#2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings are proposed to
be integral with the bay window assembly. Awnings
will be canvas, with a color and pattern acceptable
to Design Review Board. Additional landscaping at
the west entry and along the bicycle path will
include annual flowers and shrubs. New lighting is
also proposed for the entire project. Staff's
opinion is that the accent element guideline refers
mostly to commercial areas. However, the lighting
and landscape improvements will only improve the
appearance of this project. Our opinion is that the
awnings are not necessary to maintain relief to the
south facade. However, this is a Design Review Board
issue.
G. Landscape Elements
The proposal adds additional landscaping in the area
of the west entry and on the south side of the
project.
Staff believes that these improvements are in
compliance with this consideration which encourages
the use of plant material to accent buildings.
0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the exterior alteration
request. It is our opinion that the proposal complies
with all of the Design Considertions for Lionshead. The
project creates significant improvements to the Treetops
project.
•
0 flay 4, 1987
briner /scott
architects
143 e. meadow dr.
nail, Colorado 81657
(303) 476.3038
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Community Development Department
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd'
Vail, Co. 81657
As you requested attached is a synopsis of how the proposed Treetops
Condominium additions and upgrade relates to the Urban Design Guide
Plan for Vail Lionshead.
The location of the project is east of that area described in the Urban
Design Plan; there being, I guess, a rather tenuous connection at the
"East Mall Entry" due to Treetops Plaza building. The improvements
we speak of in our proposal are of course behind (south of) that
commercial building and actually "out of the way" of that part of
Lionshead for which the Urban Design Guide Lines were most intended.
Never the less:
I. re: Subarea Concepts
A. East Mall Entry
There are no concepts directly related however:
1. Proposed increase of landscape and formalizing of
pedestrian entrance will provide improved building
foreground as viewed from East Mall Entry.
2. Proposed enclosed and covered entrys and bridge
will provide increased pedestrian protection and
security.
3. Proposed landscaping along bike path separates private
areas from public way; gives stronger sense of entry
into Lionshead sector.
II. re: Design Considerations
A. Height and Massing
Al A one story enclosed entry lobby is proposed to extend
approximately 12' from the south face of Building No. 1.
A2 A proposed portico entrance, one story, would parallel
the drive and connect with the existing entry /stair
Of Building No. 2.
Both entrys would be further defined by sidewalks, exterior
lighting and planting.
B. Roofs
B1 The proposed entry addition to Building No. 1 has a
B2 form and pitch matching that of the sloped roofs on
B3 both condominium buildings,
Ms Kristin Pritz
May 4, 1987
Page Two
B. Roofs
The proposed portico roof at the entry to Building No. 2 is
flat to permit as much light as possible into the court behind
(to the south).
B4 The proposed entry addition roof will overhang approximately
B5 5' the entry doors to provide protection from snow. Snow
B6 will slide on to the proposed landscaped terrace. The
portico roof is flat to limit the amount of snow sliding
on to the adjacent driveway. An approximate 1' - 6" roof
overhang is being proposed for Building No. 2.
B7 The roof materials will be a single ply membrane (gray)
not requiring rock ballast.
C. Facades - Walls /Structure
Cl The proposed entry structures will have walls stuccoed.
horizontal wood siding will be added to Building No. 2
to match Building No. 1.
C2 Wall planes on both buildings will be painted white to
match one another.
Wood siding on Building No. 2 will be stained to match
existing wood color on Building No. 1.
C3 Trim colors will match Building No. 1.
C4 Facade colors will be limited to three.
is D. Facades - Transparency
Dl The proposed entry to Building No. 1 will be glazed on
D2 two of three sides from entry level floor to ceiling.
D3 The proportion of glazing to solid wall of the proposed
entry is 75%: west wall -solid = 168 sq.ft.
south wall -solid = 132 sq.ft.
east wall -solid = 96 sq.ft.
D4 Windows at entry will be grouped together. Proposed
windows in entry stair of Building No. 2 are to be
located in the west wall above the fourth floor
landing.These will be "pierced" openings approx-
imately 30" square in order to fit within the existing
masonary unit module.
D5 Window units at the entry will be large,broken by a
horizontal million at 7' + (door head height).
D6 Shallow "Bay" windows are proposed at 10 locations of
narrow blaconies on Building No. 2. These will protrude
only 1' - 0" with a "reveal" at head and sill to set these
windows off of adjacent wall surface (please see page 3
of accompanying sketches of accent features.) These
windows will be divided into units with proportions
comparable to those elsewhere on building.
•
Ms Kristin Pritz
May 4, 1987
Page Three
D. Facades - Transparency
D7 Window trim will match trim on Building No. 1.
D8 Entry doors will have a full lite of glass.
D9 Both proposed building entrances will appear recessed
due to the depth of roof or portico overhang above.
Dl0 The proposed addition to Building No. 1 allows for a
secure and controlled entrance. There is at present
no control of access to open condominium corridors.
E. Decks and Patios
El Narrow existing balconies on Building No. 2 are proposed
to be enclosed by "Bay" windows. These existing balconies
are not functional in terms of providing seating for
dining, sunning or any other outdoor activity.
E2 The decks to be enclosed are visible from the public
way below (bicycle path). Some of the decks have
been utilized for general storage. Others have not
been maintained. The proposal to enclose these decks
will improve the overall appearance of the building.
(E3) Remaining deck and balcony railings on Building No. 2
are to be replaced with railings matching Building No. 1.
F. Accent Elements
Fl To assure that there is no loss of relief to the south
facade at Building No. 2 due to balcony enclosures, awnings
are proposed to be integral with the bay window assembly
(see sketch, page three).
Awnings will be canvas color and pattern acceptable to DRB.
Additional landscaping at entry and along bicycle path will
include annual flowers.
Exterior lighting will be handled in consistant manner on
both Buildings No. 1 and No. 2.
Exterior lighting is to be incorporated into ceiling of
proposed portico entrance to Building No. 2.
Ambient lighting from fixture within the proposed entrance
to Building No. 1 will highlight this space. (See pages 7
and 5).
Graphics are being studied (See page 1 and 2).
V �No
•
E 6 MP%Ll.., ��TF�y
=14
'Z4
1c;
I
.�
vAA
-Wou
p�
rk
4,A4 C
t'4 Y¢'" s-�viti r
Y
•
•
•
M�
aV
IA
�Q
r
/r
}
1
Planning and Environmental Commission
June 1, 1987
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Bryan Hobbs
Pam Hopkins
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
J.J. Collins
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of 4/27 and 5/11. A motion was made
by Diana Donovan and seconded by Bryan. Hobbs to approve
both minutes. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
2.
A request for a front setback variance in order to
enlarge an existing residential area above a garag
8, Block 1, Vail Village 6th.
Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian
e on Lot
Kristan Pritz explained the request and showed site plans and
. elevations. She stated that the existing garage and covered
stairway currently project about 2.1 feet into the front
setback at the structure's northwest corner. The variance
requested was for 2.1 feet into the front setback area. The
staff recommended approval of the request. Buff Arnold,
architect representing the applicants further explained the
request.
Kristan added that there were at present, two kitchens in the
primary unit, and that one must be removed prior to
construction of the requested addition.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request per the staff memo
plus the condition that one kitchen be removed from the primary
unit. Bryan Hobbs seconded the motion. The vote was 6--0 in
favor.
3. A request for an exterior alteration and a density
variance in order to enclose 8 balconies and 2 decks at
the Treetops Condominiums located at 452 East Lionshead
Circle.
Applicant: Treetops Condominium Association
Kristan Pritz explained the request, showing site plans and
elevations. She explained that the staff recommended approval
• of the exterior alterations and denial of the density variance.
ri
Tom Briner, architect representing Treetops, pointed out to the
• board that the staff must look at the property in black and
white, but that the board could look at the grey areas with
respect to the zoning regulations. He stated that the increase
in GRFA was minimal, that the decks proposed to be enclosed
were useless because they were so small and that they were
unsightly because the owners merely used the decks for
storage.
Pam Hopkins felt that these were good arguments in favor of the
variance requested, but stated that she did not have a legal
way to approve the decks. She felt the improvements would
enhance Treetops Condos. Sid Schultz agreed with Pam and asked
if the staff would look at Ordinance 4 again to try to find a
way to include small changes to multi- family buildings. Diana
Donovan felt the enclosures were not decks, and that she could
not vote for the enclosures as enclosed decks. She felt that
the space was used as a walkway, not a deck.
Kristan stated that the concern when writing Ordinance 4 was
that balconies and decks would be enclosed and result in flat
facades which impact mass and bulk. It was difficult to know
where to draw the line, perhaps a percentage of existing GRFA
would be appropriate.
Peter asked if all the units which would enclose their decks
had other outdoor space, and Briner replied that all of the
• units did have other outdoor space. Briner also stated that
all of the windows would become bay windows which would give
relief to the facade. He added that awnings would also be
added.
Jim Viele thought perhaps there could be a way to reward
improvement to the property with additional GRFA. He felt that
the set of criteria was narrow and added that the improvements
to Treetops were more beneficial than negative. He also felt it
would be good to go back to Ordinance 4 to see if changes could
be made with reference to multi- family units.
Linda Average, one of the Treetops owners, stated that one
reason Treetops wanted to do this now was because of the 1989
World Cup races. She stated that they were willing to be the
scapegoats because she felt they would set a good example for
the rest of the community and inspire others to fix up their
property.
Percentages of GRFA increase were discussed. Tom Briner
estimated that 75% of dollars to be spent on the project would
be for enclosing the decks, and possible 15% for landscaping.
Diana felt there must be some way to allow projects which
benefit the community to such an extent as this. Peggy
Osterfoss asked how long it would take to have a work session
and effect change, and Peter answered it could be 3 -4 months
before there would be a change in the law. Peggy felt a policy
change was needed. Pam felt that this was such a minimal
amount of GRFA it would be a good standard on which to base a
• policy related to percentages.
Diana Donovan moved and Hobbs seconded to approve the variance
on the basis that this is the type of project the town would
like to see for three reasons:
1. There is a minimal percentage of increased GRFA.
2. Substantial landscaping and substantial improvements to
the structures will be done in excess of that required.
(This is a major emphasis of the proposal and does not
include maintenance and upgrading which would normally be
required.)
3. Useable balconies on the same elevation as the enclosed
balconies will remain for each unit.
The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
Diana Donovan moved and Bryan Hobbs seconded to approve the
request for the exterior alteration. The vote was 6 -0 in
favor.
•
•
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 1, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance in order to
construct an addition on Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village
6th Addition
Applicants: Neil and Nancy Austrian
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The Austrians are requesting a variance to allow an
encroachment of approximately 2.1 feet into the 20 foot front
setback of Lot S. Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing.
The existing garage and covered stairway currently project
approximately 2.1 feet into the front setback at the
structure's northwest corner. This encroachment decreases to
zero at the eastern portion of the garage. The applicants
wish to enlarge the existing space by 138 square feet above
the garage by extending the floor out to the front building
line. This creates a small triangular piece of habitable
floor space which will be within the front setback at the
• second floor level. The expanded living space will be made
into a dwelling unit.
II. APPLICANTS' JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST
The applicants feel that:
... "there exists a practical difficulty resulting from
the location of the existing structure, and feel that a
variance is clearly allowable under the zoning
ordinance. Adjacent properties are developed out to the
front setback lines, and the property to the west
appears to have habitable space well into the front
setback. Thus, this variance would not be a grant of
special privilege. The variance would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare and
would not be injurious to other properties, since all
construction would be within the existing building line.
New construction would also be masked in height by the
existing stair tower to the west, and would be no higher
than the existing garage roof. Thus, the new space
would not significantly increase the mass of the
garage.
. In summary, the applicants feel that there are no
adverse impacts generated by this variance, and that an
unnecessary hardship would result from respecting the
front setback. All of this encroachment is permitted by
Sections 18.58.070 (Supplemental Regulations) and
18.69.050 L. (Hazard Regulations)."
•
III. ZONING STATISTICS
Total Site Area: .98 acres or 43,076 square feet
GRFA:
Allowable
5,904
sf
Existing:
3,543
sf
Proposed:
primary unit
164
sf
garage unit
138
sf
Total
302
sf
Total GRFA
(exist and remodel):
(new stair and living space)
3,845 sf
Allowed: 5,904
Remaining
after addit. 2,059 sq
The project has 2,059 square feet of additional GRFA even
. after the remodel and additions are made to the project. The
only variance that is needed is for the 2.1 foot encroachment
on the northwest corner of the garage.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The 2.1 foot encroachment will have no impacts on adjacent
properties. The addition will merely enlarge an existing
second floor space. The expansion is also adjacent to the
stair tower which will minimize any visual impacts of the
addition.
• The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
It is felt that there is a physical hardship due to the
existing location of the garage. It should be noted that
when the project was originally built, the garage was not
proposed to encroach into the 20 foot front setback.
However, according to the section of the code relating to
development in areas having an excess of 30% slope, the
garage could have encroached into the front setback, as the
slope beneath the garage was 42% according to the original
plans. This design consideration was not used in the
original proposal.
Staff's opinion is that there is a physical hardship due to
the existing location of the garage and that the applicants
deserve relief from the strict interpretation of the front
setback requirement. It is not considered to be a grant of
special privilege, as many other homes in this area have
encroachments into the front setback.
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 will have no impacts on these factors. Public
Works Department has reviewed the request and has no problem
with the encroachment.
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the request, as it will not
be a grant of special privilege and the variance will not be
detrimental to the public or adjacent properties. Our
opinion is that the variance is warranted as there is an
• unusual circumstance in that the garage has been constructed
so that a slight portion of the structure already encroaches
into the front setback. It is also true that other
properties along Forest Road have built to an even greater
extent into the front setback. It would be unfair to deprive
these owners of privileges that are enjoyed by other owners
of properties in this area. For these reasons, staff
recommends approval of the request with the understanding
that the owners will remove the second kitchen in the primary
structure before the new space above the garage is converted
into a dwelling unit.
C7
Robert L.
Architects,
1000 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81567
(3031476-1147
Associates
Kristin Pritz
Department of Communit,
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Kristin:
REQUEST
The Austrians are requesting a variance to Section 18.13.060 of the
zoning ordinance to allow an encroachment of approximately 2.1 feet.
into the front setback of Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing.
BACKGROUND
The existing garage and covered stairway currently project approxi-
mately 2.1 feet into the front setback at their western edge. This
dimension declines to zero at the eastern edge, thus defining a tri-
angular piece of construction within the setback. All of this
encroachment is permitted by Sections 18.58.070 (Supplemental Regu-
lations) and 18.69.050 L (Hazard Regulations).
DISCUSSION
The Austrians wish to enlarge the existing space above the garage by
extending the floor out to the front building line. This would result
in a triangular piece of habitable space within the front setback at
the second floor level. The applicant feels that there exists a prac-
tical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing structure,
and feels that a variance is clearly allowable under the zoning ordi-
nance. Adjacent properties are developed out to the front setback
lines; and the property to the west appears to have habitable space
well into the front setback. Thus, this variance would not be a grant
of special privilege. The variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, or welfare and would not be injurious to other
properties since all construction would be within the existing building
n 1_
� J l 41
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 1, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance of 10 feet for the
proposed Gerwig residence, Lot 34, Vail Meadows Filing 1
APPLICANT: Mr. Ron Gerwig
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant, Mr. Ron Gerwig, owns Lot 34, Vail Meadows
Filing #1. This lot contains an existing single- family unit.
Mr. Gerwig wishes to add a second unit and attached garage as
allowed by zoning and also add a garage for the existing unit
on the site. A similar proposal involving no variance
requests was initially submitted to and approved by the
Design Review Board. This decision was appealed by an
adjacent property owner and was remanded to the Town Council.
The Town Council overturned the Design Review Board approval.
The applicant then resubmitted a proposal that was also
approved by the Design Review Board and subsequently appealed
by the adjacent property owner. This design was approved by
. the Town Council. The applicant then, in a further redesign,
submitted the current site plan to Planning Commmission for a
variance review.
The current proposal involves a to foot encroachment into the
side setback on the southern portion of the lot, adjacent to
the White River National Forest.
II. APPLICANT'S STATEMENT:
"Although approvals for the proposed structure have been
obtained from DRB and upheld by the Town Council, the
applicant is desirous of minimizing what some neighbors
have claimed to be an unfavorable impact on their views
due to the closeness of the approved structure to an
existing residence on the lot. Thus the proposed
variance is in response to a "hardship" presumably being
placed on neighbors to the east. As currently approved,
the added unit is approximately 15 feet away from the
existing residence. With approval of the variance, this
distance would be more than doubled at 35 feet + (at the
narrowest point).
1. The variance is in a setback adjoining Forest
Service land; thus there is no impact to structures
on the adjacent land.
•
• The increased distance between proposed and
existing structures will enhance the viewing
corridor from properties to the east.
2. The literal interpretation of the setback
regulation restricts the applicant from developing
an open space between buildings comparable to that
between other structures in the vicinity (the
distance between structures on Lot 32 and 33,
immediately to the east, is approximately 40
feet).
The increased distance between the proposed
structure and the existing residence will permit a
view, otherwise blocked, from the kitchen of the
existing residence. As there are no windows in the
proposed structure that face the open space between
the two units, the occupant of this unit gains no
advantage over the previously accepted location.
3. The variance will have no effect on light, air,
distribution of population, transportation, traffic
facilities, utilities or public safety."
Is II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested setback variance based
upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existi
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The property line from which the applicant is seeking a
variance borders on the White River National Forest. As
there will be no development on the adjacent Forest Service
property, there is no immediate negative impact to potential
development in the vicinity. There are, however, significant
natural features in the area which would benefit from the
buffer of the 15 foot required setback.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The Community Development Department feels that approval of
this variance would be a grant of special privilege. While
we do recognize that development of a second unit on a site
with a previously existing unit presents unique and difficult
site constraints, we feel that the applicant, through
previous submittals through Design Review Board has proven
that he can meet the design objectives of the Town of Vail
without requiring a variance from the zoning regulations. We
feel that there is no physical hardship driving this request
and feel that the further separation and isolation of the two
units on site may create the appearance of a density beyond
that of the Two - Family Residential district.
The effect of the requested variance on light and airy
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
The requested variance does not significantly impact the
above criteria.
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
• same zone.
• The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is for denial. The applicant has
proved that there are design solutions to the problems
associated with this lot that do not create conflict with the
zoning regulations. We feel that there is no physical
hardship necessitating this particular design request and
feel that approval of this request would be a grant of
special privilege.
•
•
0 Planning and Environmental commission
June 8, 1987
1:30 P.M. Site Visits
3:00 P.M. Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of June 1, 1987
2. A request for an extension to the approval for
Special Development Distict #14, the Doubletree
Hotel, for an additional 18 months.
Applicant: Vail Holdings
3. A request for a density control variance in order to
enclose a balcony on the second floor of Unit 2,
Capstone Townhouses on Lot 21, Buffer Creek.
Applicant: Mr. Lee C. Rimel
4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core I zone district and for a conditional use permit
in order to enclose a deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant.
Applicant: Sweet Basil Restaurant
5. A request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core
I and for a conditional use permit in order to expand
an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
6. A request for a major subdivision review and to
establish a special development district for
Lionsridge Filing 2, The Valley, Phase III to be
known as Elk Meadows Subdivision.
Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation
7. A request for a side setback variance and a density
variance in order to enlarge an entry on Unit 6B,
Vail Townhomes.
Applicants: Bud and Gretta Parks
8. A request for a conditional use permit in order to
have a retail shop in the Mountain Haus.
Applicant: Daniel Allard
9. Revisions to Old Town Shops landscaping plan.
r:
L
Planning and Environmental Commission
0 June 8, 1987
PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Diana Donovan
Pam Hopkins
Sid Schultz
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
Peggy Osterfoss
Jim Viele
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Tom Braun
Kristan Pritz
Rick Pylman
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order by the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. Approval of minutes of June 1, 1987.
Betsy explained that the minutes would not be presented today.
2. A
t for an extension to the approval for S
ent District #14, the Doubletree Hotel,
ep cial
for an
additional 18 months.
Applicant: Vail Holdings
Tom Braun showed site plans and elevations and explained the
request. He pointed out that the staff had had two concerns
the first time the SDD was proposed 18 months ago: that the
project was 50 parking spaces short and the staff had been
concerned about the additional density. However, with the Land
Use Plan being completed, the staff was no longer concerned
about the additional density, but was still concerned about the
lack of parking spaces and recommended denial of the
extension.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicant, stated that he firmly
believed that the parking requirement was too high and added
that the applicant would probably come in and ask that the
parking fee be waived. Jamar felt there was a need for an
independent study to be done concerning parking requirements.
Pam Hopkins stated that she was in favor of the addition to the
Doubletree, and was not convinced that the parking needed to be
so stringent. She added that it appeared to her that the
landscaping was not finished and she hesitated to approve the
addition again if the Doubletree had not finished what had been
approved previously.
Sid Schultz did not see any change from the original
application. He felt the Town should have some other recourse
to get the unfinished landscaping done without tying it to this
extension.
J.J. Collins wondered if the staff was generating any
additional factional material to see what other hotels were
doing with regard to parking spaces.
Tom Braun told of surveys the staff had done of condos and
lodges, one for three days and one for 2 additional days. He
felt it would be important to do a year -round survey with a
more definitive study.
J.J. agreed that the landscaping should be finished. He was
also concerned about the lack of parking spaces. Jamar agreed
about the need for more landscaping. He explained that the
Doubletree did not want to put landscaping in until they knew
when they would be finishing the addition. He added that some
landscaping was being done on the north side of the Doubletree.
J.J. pointed out that much of what hd been originally planned
was not installed. Jamar said he would be happy to go over the
plans to make certain things that were approved get done.
Pam Hopkins felt that the issue was not trees, but goodwill.
She had not been aware that the project was to be phased over
a period of years.
Diana explained that the hospital was now contemplating a
• parking structure with the possibility of working with the
Doubletree regarding joint parking and access between the two
properties. Peter Jamar replied that the Doubletree had made
an agreement to have an access through their land for the
hospital's use. J.J. asked if the extension could be for a
shorter period of time, and was told that because of the
building season, 18 months was a reasonable amount of time.
Tom added that the Council could make a decision to modify the
length of the extension.
J.J. Collins moved to recommend approval of the request for
extension of the SDD for one year with concerns to be passed
along to the Council regarding Town parking requirements and
incomplete landscaping. The vote was 4 -0 in favor.
3. A request for a densitv control variance in order to
enclose a balcony on the second floor of Unit _2,
Capstone Townhouses on Lot 21, Buffer Creek Subdivision.
Rick Pylman explained the request and added that the staff
recommended denial because approval had the potential to set a
precedence and felt that there was no physical hardship.
Kathy Warren, representing the applicant, stated that she felt
that there was a practical difficulty in that because the
property was down zoned by the Town at annexation, the
• applicant had neither the advantage of being in the Primary/
Secondary zone which would have allowed the addition, nor the
advantage of being in the Multi- family zone which would have
allowed for greater density.
Diana asked if there were many other units annexed in West Vail
that would fit into this category, and was told there were many
and that this zoning was chosen to freeze additional density.
Kathy felt that this would not be precedent setting, and cited
the Torrissi addition in the Riverhouse as an example. Peter
reminded her that the PEC had denied Torrissi, but that the
Town Council had overturned the PEC decision.
J.J. Collins asked if the Treetops situation was similar and
was told that it was different in that the whole condo
association was involved along with many general improvements
to the property. There were three reasons Treetops had been
approved. One was that there remained unenclosed balconies
for use, a minimum amount of GRFA was requested and great
amounts of improvements were being made to the whole property.
Pam noted that the project was well under its allowable GRFA.
Kathy felt that a practical hardship was involved and was a
reason to allow the variance. Diana stated that since this was
a deck enclosure, this board did not have the leeway to deal
with the variance.
• Pam moved and J.J. seconded to approve the density variance
listing the findings dealing with practical difficulty
regarding the rezoning of the property. The vote was 3 in
favor and 1 (Donovan) against.
4. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
zone district and for a conditional use permit in order to
enclose a deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant.
Applicant: Sweet Basil Restaurant.
Tom Braun explained the request and showed floor and site
plans. He reviewed the design considerations and criteria and
stated that the staff recommended approval with three
conditions.
Craig Snowdon represented the applicant. He explained the
operable windows and stated that if they must be inside the
planters there would be complications within the dining room.
He felt that there would be an appearance of second floor
greenery with pfisters which would in time hang from the
planters. He also felt the added architectural interest of
exposed beams, deck and sky light would visible from the ground
level, especially with a low opening. Kevin Clair, owner of
Sweet Basil, stated that if the windows were accordion, there
would be difficulty with moving tables back to open or close
the windows.
J.J. asked how dripping onto Blu's below would be handled, and
Craig said there would be a gutter over Blu's skylight. J.J.
was also concerned that construction be completed as quickly as
possible. Snowdon replied that that the Sweet Basil project
would be quick, but that Blu's would take 4 -6 weeks.
Pepi Gramshammer spoke against enclosing the Sweet Basil deck.
Diana was also against enclosing decks, but stated that since
this was on the second floor, she was not opposed to it.
Sid Schultz moved and J.J. Collins seconded to approve the
exterior alterations with the three conditions per the staff
memo. The vote was 3 in favor, none against, with Pam Hopkins
abstaining.
i
A request for exterior alteration in Commercial Core I
zone district and for a conditional use permit in order
expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
to
Tom Braun explained the request and showed site plans and
elevations. He stated that the staff recommended approval with
three conditions.
Craig Snowdon, architect on the project, reminded the board
that at a work session they had asked for more relationship of
. the outside space to the inside space, a stronger definition
between the walk and the patio, and a larger barrier around the
deck. He presented the new plans and received comments from
the board. Sid had no problem with the exterior alteration,
but was not in favor of enclosing the deck. Tom Braun reminded
the board that the proposal had first gone to Town Council and
as property owner, the Council had given the applicant
permission to proceed to the PEC. Sid stated that because this
was public land, he did not like to see the infill. Snowdon
stated that if Blu's could not expand, they could not
participate in the upgrade of the walkway.
Further discussion continued regarding using Town of Vail land,
and the upgrading of the walkway.
Craig Snowdon asked to table this proposal until June 22. Sid
moved to table with J.J. seconded the motion. Vote was 3 -0 in
favor of tabling.
6. A request for a maior subdivision review and to establish
a special development district for Lionsridge Filing #2,
The Valley, Phase III, to be known as Elk Meadows
Subdivision.
Applicant: Lamar Capital Corporation
Kristan Pritz reviewed the history of The Valley and showed
preliminary sketch plans. She reviewed necessary criteria and
read a list of conditions. The action by the board would be a
recommendation to the Town Council regarding the special
development district, and the board would make the final
decision regarding the major subdivision request. Peter Jamar,
representing the applicant, stated that there had been many
changes in review processes in the proposal due to the
project's being deannexed out of the Town and felt that the
proposal was a considerable improvement over previous plans.
Jamar discussed the conditions and suggested "or another
engineer or geologist as approved by the Town" be inserted
after "Pettigrove" in condition No. 1. He felt uncertain as to
whether or not they would have to comply with Town of Vail
hazard regulations, and suggested the individual lot owners
comply. He suggested that their legal counsel meet with Larry
Eskwith to discuss this point. He was in agreement with the
other points except suggested changing 111987" to 111989" in
condition 43.
J.J. Collins felt the plan to be better than the previous
submittal, but that it was inadequate with respect to design
guidelines. He also felt that the EIR was inadequate with
respect to complying with Pettigrove's recommendation and
design criteria. Collins also mentioned that the uphill
elevations had not been addressed as far as the structural
design of the north elevations in respect to the rockfall
hazard. His opinion was that the unit should be required to be
dug into the hill for protection against the rockfall hazard.
. He felt strong wording was needed in the EIR concerning the
mitigation measures required. Collins stated that the Town of
Vail's responsibility should not stop with acknowledging the
existence of the rock hazard, but should insist that the EIR
include definite measures to be taken by the developer. He
added that the design guidelines said nothing about the rock
hazard, and that this should be pointed out in the condo
declarations.
Kristan Pritz stated that if someone came in to get a building
permit for this area, the staff would require that they follow
the requirements of the EIR or get the opinion of another
qualified geologist. She added that the staff recommended that
the design guidelines not be included in the declarations, but
instead in the Special Development District regulations.
J.J. stated that the declarations would supercede anything said
at this meeting. He was concerned as to what the present
hazard report stated and what another engineer would say in the
future. Larry Eskwith discussed the Town's immunity to
liability and stated that the Town was protected to some
extent. Sid felt that each building site should be mitigated
according to an overall plan. J.J. repeated that he felt that
design guidelines and structural mitigation requirements should
be part of the covenants.
. Peter Jamar pointed out that the Town of Vail had recommended
moving the building envelopes into the hillside if adequate
mitigation for rockfall was feasible. Essentially, the entire
site is in a rockfall area. J.J. felt the EIR needed to be
. redrafted because the project was inappropriate for what the
applicant wished to construct. Peter Jamar replied that then
the issue should be tabled and he would come back with design
issues, but he wanted to know what level of design was needed
at PEC.
Sid stated that the applicant had a recommendation from an en-
gineer that as each site came in for a building permit, a site
specific study should be done, otherwise the building would be
constructed with the present recommendations. He felt the
architecture design should be looked at more closely. Pam
Hopkins felt that with such small envelopes, the result would
be 7 tall structures not far from the road. Jamar felt that
this was another issue, and that the fact that the sites were
steep was because the Town of Vail recommended building on the
steep hillside away from the meadow. Peter Patten replied that
the Town did encourage the developer as to where to place the
structures, but did not suggest tall structures or terraced
structures. Kristan added that the meadow was also important
to preserve and that the staff had encouraged multi - family
approach to the design of the buildings. Pam suggested that
the applicant not go up three stories, but perhaps give up the
space between the units so that the structures could be
terraced.
Mike Lauterbach stated that it appeared that only the north
elevations were affected by the rockfall. J.J. replied that
also some east elevations were affected. Discussion followed
concerning design guidelines. Diana pointed out that anything
included in the SDD was a design guideline. Peter Jamar
suggested that a condition of approval could be that the Design
Review Board decide the design guidelines. Diana replied that
a motion of approval would have to include design standards and
requirements that affect design. Kristan pointed out that if
the PEC felt something specific should be included in the SDD,
it could be incorporated into the conditions of approval.
Discussion about mitigation followed, as to whether it would be
better for each home owner to mitigate or for the developer to
have to mitigate. Larry Eskwith stated that he was
uncomfortable giving the responsibility for mitigation to each
individual owner. J.J. felt the EIR should be revised to
reflect the input given from the PEC. He felt the PEC would be
malfeasant not to require the developer to do the mitigation to
meet the hazard. Diana felt there should have been a work
session on the SDD. She was concerned about the treatment of
the mitigation. Larry replied that this developer should not
have to be treated differently from any other developers. He
did feel that the Town was passing the risk on to the
individual owners.
•
• The PEC also expressed
areas required for fire
decrease the asphalt if
meadow.
n
U
great concern over the large turn - around
trucks. Staff said they would try to
possible to minimize the impact on the
Pam Hopkins moved to approve the major subdivision of The
Valley Phase III with the condition of final approval of the
SDD by the Town Council with the conditions:
1. The development of each building envelope will comply
with the environmental impact report, especially the
design recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in
a letter concerning design mitigations for rock fall
hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible
for completing the rockfall mitigation measure per
the Pettigrove letter. Studies will meet the
standards outlined in Section 18.69.052 of the Town
of Vail zoning code. An owner may choose to have
another qualified engineer /geologist design
appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as long as
the mitigation solution does not have negative visual
impacts and is approved by the Town of Vail Community
Development Department and Town Engineer.
2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design
review guidelines will be reviewed by the Design
Review Board for their approval before final plat
submittal.
3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if
the general subdivision improvements are not
completed by September 1, 1989. General subdivision
improvements are defined in Section 17.16.150 of the
Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations.
4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk
Meadow Subdivision states that design guidelines may
be adopted. The staff would require that the wording
be changed to state that design guidelines shall be
adopted. The full paragraph would read:
"Guidelines for the development of the building
envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the
Committee, which shall, among other things,
interpret and /or implement the provisions of
these protective covenants. Guidelines may be
amended from time to time with the majority vote
of approval from the Committee and approval of
the Town of Vail Design Review Board. The
guidelines will be available from the chair of
the Design Committee and Town of Vail Community
Development Department."
0 5. The following engineering information will be
submitted to staff by June 15, 1987.
a. The revised master drainage plan.
b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the
new turn--around dimension on the west end of the
property .
C. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp.
The preliminary plan will be adjusted for square
footage totals due tot he removal of the four
guest parking spaces on the west end of the
project.
d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to
address the rock fall design requirements. A
graphic shall be submitted.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on
the utility plan in the appropriate areas.
* For information purposes, the staff would like to
note that the major subdivision regulations require
the completion of general improvements for the
subdivision as completion of general improvements for
the subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to
be installed within for years of the date of PEC
approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid.
All right to improve or develop the property on the
• part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be
relinquished. This requirements is stated in Section
17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD
approvals, the applicant must begin construction of
the special development district within 18 months
from the time of the project's final approval
according to Section 18.40.100 of the Town of Vail
Zoning Code.
Sid seconded the motion and the vote was 3 -1 with J.J. Collins
voting against.
Sid moved and Pam seconded to recommend approval of the Special
Development District to the Town Council per the staff memo
dated June 8 with the five 5 conditions as amended in the
motion for approval of the major subdivision.
The vote was 3 -1 with J.J. voting against the motion.
7. A request for a side setback variance in order to enlarge
an entry on Unit 6B of the Vail Townhomes.
Applicants: Bud and Gretta Parks
Betsy Rosolack explained the request and explained that the
staff was recommending approval of the request. J.J. Collins
moved and Pam Hopkins seconded to approve the request. The
vote was 4 -0 in favor.
8. A request for a conditional use permit in order to have a
retail shop in the Mountain Haus.
Applicant: Daniel Allard
Betsy Rosolack gave the staff presentation and told the PEC
that the retail shop would be a jewelry store. The staff
recommendation was for approval. Peter emphasized that there
would be little demand on loading and delivery. Betsy pointed
out that this space had previously been used for retail. J.J.
Collins moved to approve the request per the staff memo, but
was concerned that this site be looked at per future demands on
loading and delivery. Pam seconded the motion and the vote was
4 -0 in favor.
Peter led a discussion about landscaping at the
and asked that landscaping be postponed because
the right -of -way of the new highway exit ramp.
to. Peter also stated that there would be a jo
the Town council on June 30 to discuss the Vail
Plan and density variances.
•
Old Town Shops
it would be in
This was agreed
int meeting with
Village Master
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of The
Valley Phase III from Residential Cluster to Special
Development District with underlying Residential
Cluster.
Applicants: Lamar Capital Corporation
I. THE REQUESTS
The requests involve two Planning Commission reviews:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major
subdivision request
2. The review of the Special Development District zoning
request.
The applicant's request is summarized below:
"The current proposal being made by Lamar Capital
Corporation, the owners of Phase III, is the
subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into seven
building sites or 'envelopes.' Five of these
envelopes would allow construction of single family
dwellings and two (envelopes 5 and 6) would allow
construction of duplex residences. Therefore, a
total number of nine dwelling units would be
constructed on the site....
The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA)
designated for Phase III in The Valley PUD agreement
is 16,000 square feet. This will allow each dwelling
unit within the project to be a maximum of 1,777
square feet.
Access to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22
foot wide common access drive. This road is
currently under construction and was given building
permit approval previously by Eagle County.
The owner of the property has chosen to create the
building envelopes rather than construct one single
10 unit development for various reasons: ... The
creation of the building sites allows the development
of the parcel to be phased and at the same time
provides an overall plan to guide the placement of
dwelling units, access, and common open space within
the parcel over time.
The development of 9 individual free standing
dwelling units and duplex units will be more
compatible with the adjacent developments than would
one single structure containing 10 dwelling units.
The creation of the building envelopes allows for a
variation in residential product type in Vail. A
purchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as
common open space, guest parking, and a common access
drive which are typically found in a multiple family
development and also enjoy the opportunity to
construct his /her own home much like the owner of a
single family or duplex lot."
11. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL
The Valley project was originally designed as a planned
development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973,
the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan
with a Planned Development zone designation. The approval
of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In
July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval
expired. However, the Planned Development zone
designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation
for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and
preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the
planning files, it appears that several requests to extend
the approvals from the preliminary plan were granted by
the Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and
protective covenants were filed with the County. Once
again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of
16,000 square feet exists for Phase III.
In 1980, the West Vail area was annexed to the Town of
Vail. The Town accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as
the allowed development for Phase III of The Valley in
March of 1981. Subsequentlly, The Valley was de- annexed
from the Town of Vail and re- annexed in May of 1987.
(Please see the enclosed summary of events relating to The
Valley Phase III attached to this memo.)
The following information indicates that it is very clear
that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000
square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary plan
approvals have lapsed since the time of their review by
the County. The most recent sketch plan review for this
project occurred in April of 1980. Even after this review
of the sketch plan by the County, the developer still
needed to return with a preliminary plan for Phase III. A
preliminary plan for this project was never finalized
through the County and considered to be a part of the
approval when the project was accepted into the Town of
Vail in 1980.
In 1981, the Town of Vail merely accepted the zoning of 10
units and 16,000 square feet as the development standard
for the property. Ordinance 13 of 1981 acknowledges the
land use restrictions of 10 units and 16,000 square feet
of GRFA but states that, "for any zoning purpose beyond
the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals, agreements, or
actions, the developments of parcels of properties
specified in this subsection (E) shall be zoned
Residential Cluster." For this reason, the Special
Development District is compared to the underlying zone
district of Residential Cluster which serves as a guide
for the development standards of this phase.
III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found
in Section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as
follows:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the
PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations made by public agencies,
utility companies, and other agencies consulted under
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its approPriateness in regard to Town of
Vail policies relating to subdivision control,
density proposed, regulations, ordinances and
resolutions and other applicable documents,
environmental integrity and compatibility with
surrounding land uses.
A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews:
The following comments were made by each agency:
1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District: We have no problems with this
project. Water and sewer are available in the
area. We recommend approval.
2. Public Service Company: The original
preliminary plan did not show gas as a utility
being provided by the developer. The developer
has agreed to include gas as a utility for the
project.
3. Holy Cross Electric: No problem.
4. Mountain Bell: No problem. Mountain Bell
requested that the developer fill out one of
their land development agreements as soon as
possible.
5. Heritage Cable: No problem.
6. National Forest Service: At this time, the
adequacy of water and fire protection service is
questioned. The need for adequate response to
fire emergency suppression and availability of
adequate fire hydrants should be considered in
the review for approval. Evaluations should
include concerns of the Vail Fire Department
about water pressure, emergency fire call
response time, location of hydrants, etc. in
terms of both structural and wild land fire
protection, suppression and control.
These issues have been addressed by the Vail
Fire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water and
sanitation District.
7. Western Slope Gas: No problem
B. Relation of Proposal to Town of Vail Policies:
Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and
recommendations made in the environmental impact
report will create a project that meets the intent of
Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually
less than what was originally approved for the site
by one unit.
The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of
the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts
associated with the location of the site within a
rockfall hazard area." Staff's opinion is that the
developer has designed a plan that protects the
meadow area as much as possible, given the high
severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the
northern portion of the lot. In addition, design
guidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoning
which will "ensure architectural and visual
continuity with regard to building design and
materials." (EIR p.4)
The Public Works and Fire Departments have also
reviewed the request and the proposal meets their
standards as far as road design, drainage, fire
protection service and adequate fire turn - around
areas.
The staff finds that the proposal does meet the major
subdivision criteria and actually is a significant
improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase
III that was reviewed under the County in April of
1980 and the preliminary plan proposal that was
reviewed by the County Last summer. The main area of
improvement is the preservation of the primary
natural feature of the site- -the meadow. This has
been accomplished by proposing the building sites on
the north side of the access road.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW
A. Design Standards
Section 18.40.080 lists a set of standards that a proposed
SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the
review is to show how the development meets the standards
or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with
the public interest has been achieved. The design
standards, along with the applicant's and staff's
responses are listed below:
1. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special
development district that is adjacent to a low
density residential use district. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and
must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural
features so that adverse effects on the surrounding
areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone
of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms
of visual privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air
pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially
incompatible factors.
Applicant's Statement:
The "buffering" provided by the project is
appropriate for the type of project proposed and the
nature of the existing and proposed surrounding land
uses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen this
buffer.
Staff's Statement:
Phase III is adjacent to Lionsridge Loop on the
northern side of the project, The Valley
Condominiums (Phase I) on the east, and The Valley
Phase VI on the south and west. The northern
property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet
from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop.
Most of the trees in this area will remain. Staff's
opinion is that this area provides an adquate buffer
on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to
the east provides access to units directly off of
Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public
right -of -way in its natural state, as opposed to
having paved access and parking areas adjacent to
Lionsridge Loop. It should also be noted that the
special development district will require that no
structure be located less than 3 feet from the
northern perimeter line of the building envelopes.
On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building
from The Valley Condominiums is 190 feet from the
easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open
area ranging from approximately 15 feet at the very
narrowest point to 60 feet from the property line is
maintained as open space adjacent to the eastern
building envelope. The rest of the site on the
eastern portion of the project is designated as open
space.
On the west property lines for Phase III,
approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained
between the building envelope and the western
property line.
On the south side of the project, the road and fire
turn - arounds are within several feet of the property
line. However, no buildings are proposed for this
area. Staff would recommend that the four western
parking spaces in this area be removed from the plan.
Phase VI proposes to maintain as open space the
portion of their project that meets the southern
property line of Phase III. Therefore, the slight
impacts of the pavement should be minimized.
In general, the staff finds that the proposal
maintains adequate buffer spaces on all sides of the
project. We would recommend that additional
landscaping be located by the west fire turn around
and the 4 guest parking spaces be removed.
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic
generated, taking into consideration safety, separa-
tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise,
and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be
permitted if they can be used by police and fire
department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle
traffic shall be considered and provided when the
site is to be used for residential purposes.,
Applicant's Statement:
The access drive has been designed so as to
adequately serve the traffic needs of the
development. Due to the size of the project, the
need for a separate bicycle path does not exist.
Staff's Statement:
The project has been designed to meet Fire Department
and Public Works' design standards. Staff agrees
with the applicant that a project of this size does
not require a separate bicycle path. There is a
possibility that the road could be continued west
into Phase VI at a future date if desirable.
3. Functional Open Space in Terms of Optimum
preservation of natural features (including trees and
drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and
function.
Applicant's Statement:
Approximately 70% of the site is devoted to open
space use in order to preserve significant features
of the site.
Staff's Statement:
The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve
the meadow area and wooded hillside as open space.
Staff believes that the road is necessary in order to
provide safe access into the project. It is true
that the access could have been directly off of
Lionsridge Loop to the structures built into the
hillside. However, staff did not prefer this site
planning approach, as it would have required very
high retaining walls which would have negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct
access to the units off of Lionsridge Loop encourages
parking problems along the Lionsridge Loop right -of-
way as well as snow plowing problems. The staff
prefers to see parking and access removed from the
Lionsridge Loop areas.
Once again, the staff would also recommend that the
western four parking spaces on the access road be
removed from the proposal to free up more open space.
Our opinion is that the 10 guest spaces on the
eastern portion of the site provide adequate overflow
parking for the 9 units. Even with the removal of
the four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed
space, one space in front of the garage, and one
guest parking space. Staff believes that three
spaces are adequate for each unit.
4. Variety: Variety in terms of: housing type,
densities, facilities and open space:
licant's Statement:
Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the
character of the buildings. While these guidelines
will result in a certain uniformity among building
design, a certain amount of flexibility in building
design will exist.
Staff's Statement:
Staff supports the idea of using design guidelines to
provide some compatibility among the nine units that
will be constructed within this phase. If anything,
staff would like to ensure through the guidelines
that the units are developed in a compatible manner
so that there does not become too much variety in
terms of design.
5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals,
families and neighbors:
Applicant's Statement:
Building envelopes are adequately separated in order
to provide spaces between residences and provide
privacy.
Staff's Statement:
The building envelopes are separated from each other
from a distance varying from approximately 18 feet to
27 feet. This separation provides a reasonable
amount of privacy between the residences.
6. Pedestrian Traffic in Terms of: Safety, separation,
convenience, access to points of destination, and
attractiveness:
Applicant's Statement:
Due to the small size of the proposed project,
separated pedestrian ways are not needed.
6 Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
7. Building Type in Terms of: appropriateness to
density, site relationship and bulk.
Applicant's Statement:
The building bulk requirements as established are
appropriate for the scale of the site and its
surroundings.
Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
8. Building Design in Terms of: orientation spacing,
materials, color and texture, storage, signs,
lighting, and solar blockage,,__
Applicant's Statement:
The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of
views into the open space and southern exposures.
The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the
site plan and provides areas for landscaping, light,
and air.
Materials have been specified within the design
guidelines for the project.
Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the
Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design
Review Board. Landscape provisions have been
included in the proposed covenants and are as
follows:
The concerns of the Committee shall be to improve the
appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of
such appearance. Owners and their representatives or
builders will be required to:
a. Minimize disruption from grading.
b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion
and appearance reasons.
C. Use indigenous species of plant materials as
established by the Committee.
d. Select the man -made elements that blend and are
compatible with the land.
e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever
possible.
f.
9.
Conserve and protect top soil, rock formations
and unique landscape features.
Sod such areas as determined by the Committee.
V. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The applicant has requested SDD zoning in order to allow
for greater design creativity and flexibility in certain
areas that would not be permissible under straight
Residential Cluster zoning or Single Family,
Primary /Secondary zoning. Below is a summary of the
special development district standards which have been
written to correspond to the Residential Cluster zone
district. Following the narrative for the special
development district is a comparison of the SDD standards
to straight Residential Cluster zoning.
A. Proposed Special Development District:
Purpose: The purpose of the establishment of the Elk
Meadows Special Development District is to allow greater
flexibility in the development of the land than would be
possible under the current zoning of the property. In
order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of
the site, building envelopes will be established which
dodesignate the areas upon the site in which development
will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes
will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed
according to each individual owner's ability to construct
a residence.
Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are
proposed to be:
1. Single family residential dwellings
2. Two - family residential dwellings
3. Open space
4. Public and private roads
Conditional Uses:
1. Public utility and public service uses
2. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
3. Public or private schools
4. Public park and recreation facilities
5. Ski lifts and tows
6. Private clubs
7. Dog kennel
Accessory Uses:
• 1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,
attached garages or carports, swimming pools,
patios, or recreation facilities customarily
incidental to single- family or two - family
residential uses.
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through
18.58.190;
3. other uses customarily incidental and accessory
to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary
for the operation thereof;
4. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a
horse grazing permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.58.
Development Standards: Proposed development standards are
as follows:
1. Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopes
govern.
Building Envelopes
1.
.07
acres
2.
.07
acres
3.
.06
acres
4.
.05
acres
5.
.10
acres
6.
.08
acres
7.
.05
acres
Tract
1:
2.53
Tract
2:
.61
acres open space
acres roadaway and parking
* Tracts 1 and 2 acreages should be adjusted if
the west guest parking is removed.
2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of
structures with relations to building envelope
perimeter lines shall be as follows:
a. No structure shall be located on the
utility easement as so designated on the
final plat of the subdivision.
b. No structure shall be located less than two
feet from either the east or the west
perimeter line.
C. No structure shall be located less than
three feet from the north perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained
hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs
and decks may encroach into the setback
areas described in b and c so long as such
roof overhangs and decks are totally within
the perimeter lines of the building
envelope.
3. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): A building
situated on a single unit residential building
envelope shall not contain more than 1,777
square feet of GRFA; a building situated on a
two unit residential building envelope shall not
contain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA.
4. Building Height: Building height shall be 33
feet for a sloping roof.
5. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided
per unit with one of the two spaces being
enclosed.
6. Landscaping: The entire portion of the building
envelope not covered by pavement or buildings
shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside
the building envelope disturbed during
construction.
7. Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be
adopted for the site are as follows:
a. Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet.
b. Roof material shall be metal and be either
charcoal grey or marina blue in color.
C. Siding material shall be either cedar or
redwood and shall be applied horizontally
as indicated on the prototypical building
elevations. only light colored stain shall
be applied to siding.
d. Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walls. If
stucco is utilized, it shall be light in
color.
e. All windows shall be white metal clad
windows.
f. All decks and balconies shall be
constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings and
posts that are at least 4" x 411.
g. All roofs shall have overhangs of at least
1 foot in order to protect walls and wall
openings from rain and snow and to
contribute to the building's character.
8. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation
amenities tax is .30 per square foot.
B. PROPOSED 5DD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER ZONE
DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PROPOSED SDD
.07
.07
.06
.05
.10
.08
.05
.48
20,
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
to
909
single
single
single
single
duplex
duplex
single
tal bld,
sf.
unit
unit
unit
unit
units
units
unit
3 envelopes or
SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope line
Rear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line
18' -27' between bldg envelopes exists
HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof
30' for flat roof does not apply
as design guidelines requires
sloping roof
40 SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes
GRFA: 16,000
DENSITY: 9 units
RES CLUSTER
15,000 sf,
containing
no less than
8,000 sf of
buildable
area
front 20'
side, 15'
rear, 15'
33' slope
30' flat roof
25% of site
16,000 per
annexation agree.
10 units per
annexation agree.
LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.53 acres 60% of site
open Space or 70% of the shall be
site is open space landscaped
PARKING: Requires 1 enclosed space, also Requires 1
will have 1 open space within enclosed spc,
bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces
The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying
Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that
building envelopes are being used, it is difficult to
compare the SDD to Residential Cluster zoning in respect
to lot size. The density is actually one unit less than
would be allowed without the SDD approach. Site coverage
is also difficult to compare in that the building
envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what degree
the coverage will occur is impossible to determine until
the units are constructed. However, staff believes that
Is there is adequate open space around the building envelopes
to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of open space
and separation among the units. Setbacks also vary from
those that are required in a Residential Cluster zone
district. The separation among the building envelopes
varies from 18 feet to 27 feet. Staff believes that this
separation provides adequate space among the units. All
other development standards meet the underlying zone
district requirements for the Residential Cluster zone
district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends
approval of this proposal. Staff believes that the
request meets the intent of the major subdivision
regulations and special development district's zoning.
The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential
Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning
originally approved under Eagle County. It departs from
these guidelines in areas that are appropriate to revise
due to the need to preserve the meadow area and the site
constraints of the rockfall hazards and steep slopes.
Staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
ELK MEADOWS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. The development of each building envelope will comply with
the environmental impact report, especially the design
. recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in a letter
concerning design mitigations for rock fall hazards. Each
individual owner will be responsible for completing the
rockfall mitigation measure per the Pettigrove letter.
Studies will meet the standards outlined in Section
18.69.052 of the Town of Vail zoning code. An owner may
choose to have another qualified engineer /geologist design
appropriate rockfall mitigation measures, as long as the
mitigation solution does not have negative visual impacts
and is approved by the Town of Vail Community Development
Department and Town Engineer.
2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design review
guidelines will be reviewed by the Design Review Board for
their approval before final plat submittal.
3. The applicant agrees to revegetate the access road if the
general subdivision improvements are not completed by
September 1, 1989. General subdivision improvements are
defined in Section 17.16.150 of the Town of Vail
Subdivision Regulations.
4. The declaration of protective covenants for the Elk Meadow
Subdivision states that design guidelines may be adopted.
The staff would require that the wording be changed to
state that design guidelines shall be adopted. The full
paragraph would read:
•
"Guidelines for the development of the building
envelopes and tracts shall be adopted by the
Committee, which shall, among other things, interpret
and /or implement the provisions of these protective
covenants. Guidelines may be amended from time to
time with the majority vote of approval from the
Committee and approval of the Town of Vail Design
Review Board. The guidelines will be available from
the chair of the Design Committee and Town of Vail
Community Development Department."
5. The following engineering information will be submitted to
staff by June 15, 1987.
a. The revised master drainage plan.
b. The preliminary plan will be revised to show the new
turn- around dimension on the west end of the
property.
C. The road plan will have an engineer's stamp. The
preliminary plan will be adjusted for square footage
totals due to the removal of the four guest parking
spaces on the west end of the project.
d. A letter from Nick Lampiris will be submitted to
address the rock fall design requirements. A
graphic is suggested.
e. Gas line and fire hydrants will be indicated on the
utility plan in the appropriate areas.
* For information purposes, the staff would like to note
that the major subdivision requlations require the
completion of general improvements for the subdivision as
outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be installed within four
years of the date of PEC approval or the plat shall become
instantly invalid. All right to improve or develop the
property on the part of the owner or subdivider shall
thereby be relinquished. This requirement is stated in
Section 17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations.
It shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals,
the applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within 18 months from the time of the
project's final approval according to section 18.40.100 of
the Town of Vail zoning Code.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III
April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary
plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley
Planned Development (PD)
July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley
preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is
good for three years. The approval
includes 150 units on 61.2 acres.
July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting
to confirm Valley approval.
July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD
approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of
the units are under construction. The 120
units that have not been built will require
a new submittal starting with a sketch plan
and preliminary plan review (letter from
Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977).
May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the
Eagle County Commissioners in favor of
extending the Valley's approval as long as
is development is carried out according to the
preliminary plan and recreation amenities
are provided.
May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an
extension of the Valley preliminary plan
approval. This approval would expire on
June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it
would be required that sketch plan and
preliminary plan review information be
submitted. Also, if any change is made to
the present plan, it would have to be
reviewed by the County Commissioners.
November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch
plan and have several concerns.
March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu-
ment is filed with the County which indi-
cates that Phase 111 is subject to the land
use restrictions of 10 units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80 -20 allowed the phases of
The Valley to be sold separately without
any further compliance with the subdivision
regulations.
April 16, 1950: The Eagle County Planning Commission
reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The
Planning Commission suggests that the units
be tucked into the hillside on the
northeast side of the project and that the
developer use berming and landscaping to
buffer the project. Staff recommends
approval of the sketch plan.
April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the
Eagle County Planning Commission which
recommends more tighter, clustered layout
of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail
staff also recognizes the steep hillside
and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter
from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan.
April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviews the
sketch plan that the Planning Commission
saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan
shows 10 townhomes on Phase III.
May 5, 1980: A resolution is passed by the County
allowing three years for the developers to
file preliminary plans from the March 26,
1980 PUD plan approval date.
December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexes the West Vail area
including Phase III of The Valley.
March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applies zoning to
The Valley which was recently annexed. The
ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981.
March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series of 1983, the Town
Council approves rezoning of The Valley.
Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de- annexed from the Town.
Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to
Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation.
The proposal begins with a sketch
plan /preliminary plan review.
Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III
proposal is withdrawn from the County due
to complications with the time lines for
review and how they will relate to the
property being re- annexed to the Town of
Vail.
•
May
16,
1986
A grading permit is released by the County
for an access road into Phase III. The
applicant is Lamar Capital Corporation.
May
6,
1987
The road work on Phase III is red - tagged by
Eagle County.
May
7,
1987:
Red tag is removed by Eagle County.
May
11,
1987
The Valley is re- annexed into the Town.
May
11,
1987;
The Road is red - tagged by the Town of Vail
May 11, 1987: The Road is red- tagged by Eagle County.
May 11, 1987: Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major
subdivision and special development
district zoning request for Phase III.
TO: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
permit a retail shop in the Mountain Haus located on
part of Tract B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Daniel Allard
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Mountain Haus is in a Public Accommodation zone district
and requires the granting of a conditional use permit for
retail uses. The applicant proposes to locate a jewelry
store in the lower level of the Mountain Haus. The location
previously held a brass rubbing shop and contains approxi-
mately 550 square feet. The space has been vacant for at
least the last three years.
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 factor:
consideration of Factors.
Relationship and impact of the use on development objectives
of the Town.
One of the purposes of this zone district is "...to provide
sites for lodges and residential accommodations for visitors,
together with such public and semipublic facilities and
...related visitor oriented uses as may appropriately be
located in the same district." Section 18.22.030 Conditional
Uses, M. lists "Eating, drinking, recreational, or retail
establishments not occupying more than ten percent of the
total gross residential floor area.." This proposal meets
the purpose of the zone district.
The effect of the use of light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities, schools,
parks and recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
No effects on these factors are foreseen.
•
The effect upon traffic with particular reference to
con estion automotive and pedestrian safety and conveniencel.
traffic flow and control access, maneuverability, and
removal of snow from the street and parking areas.
This use will require minimal deliveries. Deliveries that do
occur will use the short term loading located in front of the
Mountain Haus. The space is well suited for pedestrian
access via the Village parking structure and the bus route.
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.
This space is designated by the Mountain Haus Condomnium
Declarations for commercial use. Commercial use has occurred
here in the past with no problems noted. While the location
does not have direct exposure to pedestrian traffic, it is
located adjacent to the Village's busiest pedestrianway. The
location is also near the Village Core. This goes to support
the appropriateness of the proposed use.
• III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed use.
IV. 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.
0
•
•
•
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's recommendation is to approve the request as
submitted. The proximity of this location relative to the
Village Core, coupled with it being adjacent to Slifer Squ
and Bridge Street support this use in this location. In
addition, the nature of this use (jewelry store) mitigates
the need for more convenient loading facilities than
presently exist. While the exposure of the space is not
great, the use willl serve to reinforce the established
pedestrian network in the Village.
are
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to enlarge an
entry on Unit 6B, Vail Townhouses, on Lot 6 Block 5,
Vail Village lst Filing
Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants wish to change the south entry to their
townhome for the purpose of handicapped access. This change
involves redesigning the entries to both the Parks unit on
the first floor and the unit above the Parks. The change
will not increase the total GRFA of either unit.
The Vail Townhomes are zoned High Density Multi - Family and
require 20 foot setbacks on all sides. However, each
Townhome is 26 feet wide, with zero lot lines, making them
nonconforming with regard to side setbacks. Hence, the
changed entry requires a side setback variance.
. II. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone: HDMF
Lot Size: 2,853.27 square feet
Setbacks: 20 feet on all sides
Requested: 0 setback on east side
Existing: 0 setbacks on sides, 30 ft front, 25 ft rear
III, APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
"The parks would like to reconfigure their entry for the
purpose of handicapped access on the south side of their
home. This involves a 6' -5" projection south of the
existing structure, along the east property line. No
GRFA will be added to the Parks' or Welles' units.
Due to the existing zero lot line condition of the
condominiums and the fact that the property is only 26'-
0" wide in the east /west direction, it would be
impossible to have any structure on the property that is
not within the 20' -0" required side setbacks.
"This is a pre - existing condition, and the granting of
the variance would have no effect on existing utilities,
traffic, public safety, transportation, or light and
air, but it would provide a covered access to the Parks'
and Welles' units. Your consideration of this issue is
appreciated."
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested side setback variance
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the req
or potential uses and struc
sted variance to other exist
res in the vicinity.
Zero side setbacks already exist on all 13 townhomes of the
Vail Townhomes. The east side setback of zero clearance will
be continued for 6.5 feet. This addition is on the lot line
adjacent to Unit 7. This neighbor was notified of the
addition and has not objected to this construction.
The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is .
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity• or to attain the
ab'ectives of this title without grant of s ecial privilege.
Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege
to allow the setback variance since zero setbacks exist on
all of the other townhomes in this complex and we have
granted many setbacks variances in this complex previously.
The effect of the requested _variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety. - —._...
Staff feels that there are no significant impacts with
respect to these concerns.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
F
V. 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
• The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, 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 variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety 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 variance.
If this variance is granted, staff would call attention to
the Design Review Board with respect to trying to relocate
the large evergreen tree which will be displaced.
•
T.-
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request to extend the approval of Special
Development District No. 14 (Doubletree Hotel).
Applicant: Vail Holdings, Ltd. Partnership
The approval of a special development district expires after 18
months if construction of the project is not initiated.
Approval of SDD No. 14, which allows for a major expansion of
the existing Doubletree Hotel, expires in July of 1987. The
applicant has requested an extension of this approval for
another 18 month period. The Planning Commission's action on
this application is advisory. Any final approval of extending
this zoning requires the review and approval of a resolution by
the Town Council.
ISSUES RELATED TO THIS PROPOSAL
The two main issues relative to this redevelopment centered
around parking and additional density (see enclosed memo to
Planning Commission dated February 24, 1986.) Specifically,
the staff was uncomfortable with the significant amount of
additional density with the absence of an overall land use
plan, and the proposed parking that was 50 spaces short of what
is required. The applicant has requested approval for the
identical project as was approved in 1986.
The recently adopted Land Use Plan has enabled some re-
evaluation of our previous position relative to
density. Given the outcome of the Land Use Plan, the staff
would not present such strong concerns for the additional
density as was stated in 1986. This is due to the fact that
there was a preference in the community for concentrating
density in the existing core areas, and more specifically, near
the Frontage Road.
Goals from the Land Use Plan include:
2.1 The community should emphasize its role as a
destination resort while accommodating day visitors.
3.2 The Village and Lionshead areas are the best
location for hotels to serve the future needs of the
destination skiers.
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
long as the existing character of each area is
preserved through implementation of the Urban Design
Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market
place demands for a full range of housing types.
The shortfall of parking spaces proposed with this development
is still a major concern to the staff. We continue to hold the
position that private developments should build the required
parking to avoid the significant problems in the longer term.
As Vail Mountain becomes more and more developed and skier
numbers increase, there will not be available overflow parking
in public structures to make up the short fall. For this
reason, we cannot support the extension of this special
development district.
0
T '
t4
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
February 24, 1986
SUBJECT: A request to rezone Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 2nd Filing from
High Density Multiple Family to Special Development
District in
order to develop
an additional 92 lodge rooms, 5 condominiums,
and
3,350 square feet
of meeting rooms /conference space
at the
Doubletree Hotel.
Applicant: Vail
Holdings, a Limited Partnership
I.
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
A request has been made
to the Town of Vail to rezone the
Doubletree
Hotel site from High Density
Multiple Family zoning to a Special
Development District.
This proposal is requested in order
to allow for
additional development
on the site. The rezoning is required
because the
present level of development
is over that allowed under existing
zoning.
The development proposed
with this application includes 92
lodge rooms, 5
condominiums, and 3,350
square feet of additional meeting
room space.
The following table illustrates
how this proposal relates
to the existing
development on the site
as well as that allowed under the
existing
zoning:
ZONING ANALYSIS OF DOUBLETREE HOTEL
Site area 2.6298 acres
or 114,554 square feet
ALLOWED DEV.
EXISTING PROPOSED
TOTAL
UNDER EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENT
HDMF ZONING
Units:
65 du's
83 du's 51 du's
134 du's
(19 condos (5 condos
(24 condos
128 lodge rooms) 92 lodge rooms)
220 lodge
rooms)
25 units /ac
31.5 units /ac 19 units /ac
50.95/ac
GRFA:
68,732 sq ft
73,577 sq ft 42,576 sq ft
116,153 sq ft
Parking Req'd
52 enclosed 200 enclosed
200 enclosed
198 spaces
115 surface 11 surface
11 surface
Req'd 261 spaces
Meeting room space:
4040 sq ft 3350 sq ft
7350 sq ft
V �
2
While this table illustrates some of the more significant elements
related to this proposal, there are other zoning considerations to be
made when evaluating this application. These and other aspects of this
development plan will be highlighted throughout this memorandum.
II. BACKGROUND ON REVIEW PROCESS TO DATE
Following the acquisition of this property by Vail Holdings, Inc., a
major renovation of the existing facility was completed during the summer
and fall of 1985. It was at this time that the staff first began a
dialogue with the developers and their designers concerning the
feasibility of additional development of this site. To date, the staff
has spent a considerable amount of time with the designers of this
project resulting in a number of additions and modifications to the
originally proposed development plans. To assist in this process, the
developers agreed '60 Pay Lire U1 r L, o ui'111y Jeff i Winston in as a design
consultant for the Town. This is similar to the role Jeff played in the
review of Phase IV of the Vail Village Inn proposal last year. In
addition to this review, a work session was held for the Town Council and
Planning and Environmental Commission in November to brief them on the
concepts being proposed in this plan.
As is the case with any rezoning request, final decisions concerning this
application are made by the Town Council. The Planning Commission review
is advisory to the Council and any approval of this plan would involve
the adoption of a new ordinance granting the rezoning request.
III. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
As stated in the zoning code, the purpose of special development
districts is to . ._.._�
18.40.010 Purpose
The purpose of the special development districts is to encourage
flexibility in the development of land in order to promote its
appropriate use; to improve the design, character and quality of
new development; to facilitate the adequate and economic
provisions of streets and utilities; and to preserve the natural
and scenic features of open areas.
Historically, SDD's have been proposed in Vail to allow for the
development of sites that would be unable to do so under conventional
zoning. Examples of these projects would include Valli Hi where density
increases were allowed in exchange for restrictions on the property to
ensure their use as employee housing, or the Vail Village Inn whose mixed
use character required the SDD zoning. More often than not, however, SDD
zone districts have been requested to allow for increases in densities
over what existing zoning on the site would allow. This is the case with
this application.
There are a number of criteria to be evaluated when reviewing a request
of this nature. Foremost among these are the nine design standards that
3
are listed in the zoning code. As stated in the code, "The development
plan for the Special Development Districts shall meet each of the
following standards or demonstrate that either one or More of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with the public
interest has been achieved." In addition to these criteria, it is
important to consider the underlying zoning as a point of reference in
evaluating this request. These zoning considerations as well as other
issues that have been raised during the course of this review will be
addressed in this memo.
IV. DESIGN STANDARDS IN EVALUATING SDD PROPOSALS
The following are staff comments concerning how this proposal relates to
the design standards as outlined in the zoning code.
A. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special development district
that is adjacent to low density residential uses. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and must be
landscaped, screened or protected by natural features so that
adverse effects on the surrounding areas are minimized. This may
require a buffer zone of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms of visual
privacy, noise, adequate light and air, air pollution, and other
comparable potentially incompatible factors.
The buffer zone referred to in this design standard is specifically for
SDD's proposed adjacent to low density residential uses. Zone districts
adjacent to this property include high density multi - family and the
public use districts. Consequently, this standard is not directly
applicable. However, with a few exceptions, the proposal is within the
existing zone district's required 20 foot setback.
B. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic generated,
taking into consideration safety, separation from living areas,
convenience, access, noise, and exhaust control. Private internal
streets may be permitted if they can be used by Police and Fire
Department vehicles for emergency purposes. Bicycle traffic may be
considered and provided when the site is to be used for residential
purposes.
The proposed site plan involves a number of changes to the existing
vehicular access.to the property. Among these are the addition of a new
access point to service the loading and trash facilities, the removal of
an existing road cut to the hotel entrance, and the development of a
newly aligned entry to the hotel. As a part of the environmental impact
report for this project, a traffic report was done that evaluated trip
generation anticipated from both the existing and proposed development on
the site. One conclusion of this study is that both left and right turn
lanes be provided as an element of this development proposal. In
addition to satisfying the recommendations of the traffic report, if
approved, slight grading changes would be necessary to the main entry to
the facility as per Town of Vail engineer's request. It should be noted
that any changes to the road cuts requiring State Highway approval would
have to be obtained prior to the issuance of any building permit for this
development.
4
C. Functional open space in terms of: Optimum preservation of natural
features (including trees and drainage areas), recreation, views,
convenience, and function.
One change proposed in this plan relative to functional open space is
with respect to the Middle Creek area. At the present time this area is
overgrown with vegetation with no real relationship to the existing
facility. Landscape improvements are proposed in this area of the site,
as well as on the Town of Vail stream tract, in order to open the access
to this stream. While a limited amount of landscape materials would be
removed to allow for this development, a preliminary landscape plan has
been submitted indicating a substantial increase in plant materials on
the site. The views /spacial analysis provided in the environmental
impact report indicates that there are no real significant view impacts
with respect to vantage points along the Frontage Road and Interstate.
The scale of the buildings, coupled with the grade change from the
Frontage road to the site, has mitigated the potential view blockage from
this addition. Short range views from some units in the Vail
International Condominiums would be affected by the expansion proposed to
the north of the existing building.
D. Variety in terms of: housing type, densities, facilities and open
space.
With the exception of the five condominium units, the residential
development proposed with this SDD is short term lodging. Other
facilities on site in addition to the meeting room space include indoor
Jacuzzis, an outdoor pool, a restaurant, a nightclub, and limited
commercial. Also, see Section VI on Lodge Rooms and Condominium
Restrictions.
E. Privacy in terms of the needs of: Individuals, families and
neighbors.
Given the nature of the uses on this site, as well as the uses on-
adjacent sites, staff can see no factors with respect to privacy.
F. Pedestrian traffic in terms of: Safety, separation, convenience,
access to points of destination, and attractiveness.
At the present time, guests of the Doubletree are provided with a
pedestrian linkage to Meadow Drive in order to utilize the Town of Vail
bus system. With this proposed addition, an extension of this walkway is
included linking the existing walkway with the Post Office /Municipal
Building area. This walkway runs along the south side of the property.
5
G. Building type in terms of: Appropriateness to density, site
relationship and bulk.
It is felt that the designers of this project have done a commendable job
in relating this addition to the existing structure. Specifically, the
additions are done in a way that helps reduce the mass of the existing
tower. As was referred to earlier, the grade change from the Frontage
Road to the site has allowed for a design that does not appear to add
considerable bulk to the site and works to enhance the overall visual
quality as compared to the existing building.
H. Building design in terms of: Orientation, spacing, materials,
color and texture, storage, signs, lighting, and solar blockage.
As is the case with the massing of this proposal, the siting of the
proposed additions work well with the existing tower. The extensions of
the existing building help "step" the building off the Frontage Road.
Considerations such as materials, color /texture, signs, and lighting
would all be addressed at the Design Review Board level if this project
were approved. A sun /shade analysis in the environmental impact report
demonstrates that the proposed expansions would have a negligible effect
on the Frontage Road.
I. Landscaping of the total site in terms of: Purposes, types,
maintenance, suitability, and effect on the neighborhood.
The proposed landscape plan shows 37% of the site being landscaped. This
does not include portions of adjacent property between the Doubletree
site and the State Highway Department right -of -way that would also be
landscaped. It should be noted, however, that this area is required to
be landscaped. Particular attention has been paid to the loading /trash
area as well as the surface parking that is on the site. A considerable
amount of material is proposed in this area in order to screen this
portion of the site.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS RELATIVE TO THIS PROPOSAL
With the approval of an SDD, the development plan submitted establishes
the development standards for the property. These would address the
standard.zoning considerations that are outlined in other zone districts.
In evaluating this development plan, it is important to consider the
standards established in the underlying, or existing zoning. The
following is an analysis of these considerations:
Uses
There are no changes to existing uses that would not be allowed
under HDMF zoning.
r
M
Density
Aside from the important site planning issues which must be
discussed, the overriding issue is how to deal with the request for
significant additional density. While the Town deals with requests
for additional density quite frequently, seldom are requests made
of this magnitude. Historically, the staff has not supported
requests for densities above that allowed under existing zoning.
While there have been notable exceptions, the Planning Commission
and Town Council have also been quite critical of requests for
density increases. The growth management report of 1977 and a
general concern of allowing additional development in what is
perceived by many to be an overdeveloped Valley, are often cited as
reasons for denying additional density requests.
Prompted in large part by the Sonnenalp request in 1984, the Town
has been working on the Vail Village Study for over a year. One of
the goals of the study is to evaluate the potential for additional
density in the Village area. This potential is evaluated based
more on design considerations than on what is necessarily allowed
under existing zoning regulations. In conjunction with this
evaluation, goals and objectives are being established to outline
improvements that should be done to the Village in conjunction with
this development. A trade off, or bonus system, is to be developed
that would allow for additional densities in exchange for
substantial return to the community in the form of public
improvements or other exactions. It is important to note that this
system i.s .being proposed after a comprehensive evaluation of the
entire study area that has identified both the improvements to be
made as well as where additional density could be accommodated in a
sensitive manner. It is also important that during the public
process that has taken place for the Village Study, there was not a
uniform response in favor of considering additional density in the
Village. However, there has been support for a system that would
allow density increases in conjunction with the comprehensive study
of this type combined with a substantial return by the developer in
the form of public improvements.
Given the submittal before us, it is unfortunate that the
Doubletree Inn is not located within the Vail Village Study Area.
It is equally unfortunate that a Town -wide land use plan is only in
its early stages of development and not near completion as is the
case with the.Village Study. The land use plan would provide the
staff a better understanding of the implications that this project
may have relative to other development potentials in the Valley.
r
7
Arm While specific analysis of the Doubletree site would indicate that
some degree of additional density could be accommodated, the
concern of the staff is how this request relates to Town -wide
development issues. For example, the traffic report for the
Doubletree suggests that trip generations to the site can be
accommodated off of the Frontage Road. But what would a cumulative
impact have on the Frontage Road if similar requests for density
increases were to be granted in this area? Likewise, it has been
stated that the design impacts on the Doubletree site are positive
from a standpoint of reducing the mass of the existing tower.
However, without a comprehensive analysis, the staff is
uncomfortable of what implications this proposal may have on other
properties located along the frontage road. Another important
consideration is a system of trade -offs that would be established
for increased density in the Village. While there has been a
formal discussion with the developers on what public improvements
could be provided in conjunction with this development, without a
Town -wide analysis, the staff is unable to provide recommendations
as to appropriate trade -offs for this grant of additional density.
4
Setbacks
The proposed addition encroaches into the required 20 foot setback
in four areas. While three of these areas are along the Frontage
Road and involve only a few feet, there is a considerable
encroachment along the west end of the property adjacent to Middle
Creek. A portion of this encroachment involves the infill of an
area underneath an existing deck. However, new construction to
accommodate a pre - function area for the meeting rooms is proposed
to be constructed up to the property line. The staff had requested
this area to be re- evaluated in an effort to reduce this
encroachment on Middle Creek. It is important to maintain some
amount of setback of buildings from the property line in this area.
Height
The proposed additions do not exceed the 48 foot height limitation
in the HDMF zone district. The existing tower is 72 feet in
height.
Site Coverage
Site coverage allowed under the HDMF zone district is 55 %. This
plan includes 47% of the site being covered by buildings.
Landscaping
As has been mentioned, 37% of the site is landscaped. This exceeds
a 30% requirement for the HDMF zone district.
f
Z
Parking
There are a number of approaches that can be taken in evaluating
what the required parking is for this development. Regardless of
how the numbers are calculated, the proposed development does not
meet the parking that would be required for this level of
development. There are 167 parking spaces on the site that can be
considered a grandfathered situation (current requirements for the
existing development on the site would be 198 spaces). The new
development proposed for the site would require 94 spaces (this
includes a 5% multi -use reduction as well as a 50% reduction for
the required parking for the meeting room space). Considering the
167 grandfathered spaces, an additional 44 spaces are being added
to the site to accommodate the new development proposed. This
results in a net deficit of 50 parking spaces on the site. In
evaluating the parking required, the staff is comfortable with a
total of 261 spaces to be provided on site. It should be noted
that this figure of 261 spaces gives the applicant consideration
for a 50% reduction of spaces for a meeting room facility as well
as an interpretation that acknowledges a 25 space shortfall that is
present at this time. Without these considerations, the required
parking on the site could be as high as 316 spaces. It is felt
that the 261 figure is both realistic from a planning standpoint as
well as reasonable in terms of the interpretations that have been
made.
VI. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS IN EVALUATING THIS PROPOSAL
Fire Department Issues
At the present time, the Fire Department has not signed off on this
design because of inadequate access and operational widths for the
additional development proposed for the site. Final determinations
regarding code requirements will be made at the building permit
review if this project is approved. Any significant changes to the
site plan that may result from this review would require Planning
Commission approval if made.
Easements
As - proposed, the underground parking structure and portions of the
lodge addition would encroach on existing utility easements. If
approved, the design of the underground parking structure would
allow access to these utility lines. Construction on these
easements would require approvals of all utility companies prior to
the issuance of any building permit for this project.
i
4
Restrictions on Lodge Rooms and Condominiums
The staff has requested and the applicant has agreed that the
accommodation units proposed in this plan would be developed as
lodge rooms. This would mean that if a proposal to convert these
units to condominiums were to be made, they would be reviewed with
respect to the criteria outlined in the condominium conversion
ordinance (i.e. if approved for conversion to condos, they would be
restricted to short -term rentals). In addition, the applicant has
agreed to restrict the conversion of these units to a time share
form of ownership for 20 years. The staff has also requested that
the use of the 5 condominiums be limited by those restrictions
outlined in the condominium conversion ordinance. This would
assure the Town that these units would be in the rental pool 48
weeks of the year.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As demonstrated in this memo, the proposed development plan
satisfactorily addresses a number of design standards outlined in the SDD
zone district. The plan presented provides a number of significant
improvements to the existing site conditions on the property. However,
the plan is significantly short of what the staff feels to be the
required parking for this level of development. In addition to the
shortfall of 50 parking spaces, staff also questions the high percentage
of valet spaces within the structured parking area. As proposed, 76 of
the 200 spaces would require valet service for utilization. Staff is
also disappointed to see the proposed surface parking on the site. While
the location of these surface spaces is not highly visible, it would be
much preferred to have the parking entirely enclosed.
It is the feeling of the staff that this project's inability to meet the
parking requirements is an indication that the development proposed is in
excess of what the site is capable of handling. The development proposed
includes 134 dwelling units. This number is over twice that allowed
under existing zoning. To even consider supporting a project that is
requesting this dramatic increase in density while not meeting its
parking requirement is inconceivable to the staff. It is the feeling of
the staff that it is the burden of the applicant to demonstrate how it is
satisfying the development standards of the Town. With an SDD rezoning
request to allow for this increase in density, it is the feeling of the
staff that.this application should meet and exceed the respective minimum
or maximum development standards of the Town to show the highest quality
development possible. This project has not demonstrated that it is
meeting this objective.
The staff feels the parking requirements as described in the zoning code
for those types of uses on this site are valid. Here again, it should be
emphasized that the required parking acknowledges a 50% reduction in
meeting room space, the multi -use credits, as well as acceptance of the
grandfathering of the existing situation. The Town simply cannot afford
to make concessions with regard to parking. We cannot risk the creation
of a parking problem with respect to private developments as this will
aggravate the problem of providing skier parking. This becomes
particularly true when considering a request for such a significant
increase in density.
I
10
Without the information afforded us through the completion of a land use
plan and policies applicable to these types of density increase
proposals, the staff is not in a position to support density increases of
this magnitude. Approval of this proposal would establish a significant
precedent with respect to a Town policy on density increases within the
Town. A land use plan is an important tool in evaluating proposals of
this nature or other issues such as the potential land trade at the Lodge
and 5praddle Creek sites. The planning Commission is strongly urged to
consider these implications when evaluating this request.
To: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision and rezoning of The
Valley Phase III from Residential Cluster to Special
Development District with underlying Residential
Cluster.
Applicants: Lamar Capital Corporation
I. THE REQUESTS
The requests involve two Planning Commission reviews:
1. The review of a preliminary plan for the major
subdivision request
2. The review of the Special Development District zoning
request.
The applicant's request is summarized below:
"The current proposal being made by Lamar Capital
Corporation, the owners of Phase III, is the
subdivision of the 3.6 acre parcel into seven
building sites or 'envelopes.' Five of these
envelopes would allow construction of single family
dwellings and two (envelopes 5 and 6) would allow
construction of duplex residences. Therefore, a
total number of nine dwelling units would be
constructed on the site....
The total Gross Residential Floor area (GRFA)
designated for Phase III in The Valley PUD agreement
is 16,000 square feet. This will allow each dwelling
unit within the project to be a maximum of 1,777
square feet.
Access to the site is off of Lionsridge Loop via a 22
foot wide common access drive. This road is
currently under construction and was given building
permit approval previously by Eagle County.
The owner of the property has chosen to create the
building envelopes rather than construct one single
10 unit development for various reasons: ... The
creation of the building sites allows the development
of the parcel to be phased and at the same time
provides an overall plan to guide the placement of
40 dwelling units, access, and common open space within
the parcel over time.
• The development of 9 individual free standing
dwelling units and duplex units will be more
compatible with the adjacent developments than would
one single structure containing 10 dwelling units.
The creation of the building envelopes allows for a
variation in residential product type in Vail. A
purchaser will be able to enjoy amenities such as
common open space, guest parking, and a common access
drive which are typically found in a multiple family
development and also enjoy the opportunity to
construct his /her own home much like the owner of a
single family or duplex lot."
TT. BACKGROUND ON THE PROPOSAL
The Valley project was originally designed as a planned
development of 150 units on 61.2 acres. On July 26, 1973,
the Eagle County Commissioners approved a preliminary plan
with a Planned Development zone designation. The approval
of the preliminary plan was valid for three years. In
July of 1976 the original preliminary plan approval
expired. However, the Planned Development zone
designation remained on The Valley. The zone designation
for Phase III allowed for 10 dwelling units and a total
GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
The developer was required to resubmit a sketch plan and
preliminary plan once the approval had expired. From the
planning files, it appears that several requests to extend
the approvals from the preliminary plan were granted by
the Commissioners. In March of 1980, the PUD plan and
protective covenants were filed with the County. Once
again, this document indicates that 10 units and a GRFA of
16,000 square feet exists for Phase III. In 1980, the
West Vail area was annexed to the Town of Vail. The Town
accepted the 10 unit and 16,000 GRFA as the allowed
development for Phase III of The Valley in March of 1981.
Subsequentlly, The Valley was de- annexed from the Town of
Vail and re- annexed in May of 1987. (Please see the
enclosed summary of events relating to The Valley Phase
III attached to this memo.)
The following information indicates that it is very clear
that Phase III is allowed 10 units and a GRFA of 16,000
square feet. Any sketch plan and preliminary plan
approvals have lapsed since the time of their review by
the County. The most recent sketch plan review for this
project occurred in April of 1980. Even after this review
of the sketch plan by the County, the developer still
•
needed to return with a preliminary plan for Phase III. A
preliminary plan for this project was never finalized
through the County and considered to be a part of the
approval when the project was accepted into the Town of
Vail in 1980. In 1981, the Town of Vail merely accepted
the zoning of 10 units and 16,000 square feet as the
development standard for the property. Ordinance 13 of
1981 acknowledges the land use restrictions of 10 units
and 16,000 square feet of GRFA but states that, "for any
zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners'
approvals, agreements, or actions, the developments of
parcels of properties specified in this subsection (E)
shall be zoned Residential Cluster. For this reason, the
Special Development District is compared to the underlying
zone district of Residential Cluster which serves as a
guide for the development standards of this phase.
III. MAJOR SUBDIVISION EVALUATION CRITERIA
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found
in Section 17.16.110 of the regulations and are as
follows:
The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance and other pertinent regulations that the
PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations made by public agencies,
utility companies, and other agencies consulted under
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its approriateness in regard to Town of Vail
policies relating to subdivision control, density
proposed, regulations, ordinances and resolutions and
other applicable documents, environmental integrity
and compatibility with surrounding land uses.
A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews:
The following comments were made by each agency:
1. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District: We have no problems with this
project. Water and sewer are available in the
area. We recommend approval.
2. Public Service Company: The original
preliminary plan did not show gas as a utility
being provided by the developer. The developer
has agreed to include gas as a utility for the
project.
3. Holy Cross Electric: No problem.
4. Mountain Bell: No problem. Mountain Bell
requested that the developer fill out one of
their land development agreements as soon as
possible.
5. Heritage Cable: No problem.
6. National Forest Service: At this time, the
adequacy of water and fire protection service is
questioned. The need for adequate response to
fire emergency suppression and availability of
adequate fire hydrants should be considered in
the review for approval. Evaluations should
include concerns of the Vail Fire Department
about water pressure, emergency fire call
response time, location of hydrants, etc. in
terms of both structural and wild land fire
protection, suppression and control.
These issues have been addressed by the Vail
Fire Department and Upper Eagle Valley Water and
Sanitation District.
7. Western Slope Gas: No problem
B. Relation of Proposal to Town of Vail Policies:
Staff believes that the design of the subdivision and
recommendations made in the environmental impact
report will create a project that meets the intent of
Vail's subdivision controls. The density is actually
less than what was originally approved for the site
by one unit.
The EIR states that the potential negative impacts of
the proposal include the "visual impacts and impacts
associated with the location of the site within a
rockfall hazard area." Staff's opinion is that the
developer has designed a plan that protects the
meadow area as much as possible, given the high
severity rockfall hazard and slope constraints on the
northern portion of the lot. In addition, design
guidelines are incorpoarated into the SDD zoning
which will "ensure architectural and visual
continuity with regard to building design and
materials." (EIR p.4)
The Public Works and Fire Departments have also
reviewed the request and the proposal meets their
standards as far as road design, drainage, fire
protection service and adequate fire turn - around
areas.
The staff finds that the proposal does meet the major
subdivision criteria and actually is a significant
improvement from the original sketch plan for Phase
III that was reviewed under the County in April of
1980 and the preliminary plan proposal that was
reviewed by the County last summer. The main area of
improvement is the preservation of the primary
natural feature of the sate- -the meadow. This has
been accomplished by proposing the building sites on
the north side of the access road.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW
A. Design Standards
Section 18.40.080 lists a set of standards that a proposed
SDD development plan must comply with. The purpose of the
review is to show how the development meets the standards
or to demonstrate that either one or more of them is not
applicable, or that a practical solution consistent with
the public interest has been achieved. The design
standards, along with the applicant's and staff's
responses are listed below:
1. A buffer zone shall be provided in any special
development district that is adjacent to a low
density residential use district. The buffer zone
must be kept free of buildings or structures, and
must be landscaped, screened or protected by natural
features so that adverse effects on the surrounding
areas are minimized. This may require a buffer zone
of sufficient size to adequately separate the
proposed use from the surrounding properties in terms
of visual privacy, noise adequate light and air, air
pollution, signage, and other comparable potentially
incompatible factors.
Applicant's Statement:
The "buffering" provided by the project is
appropriate for the type of project proposed and the
nature of the existing and proposed surrounding land
uses. Landscaped areas will serve to strengthen this
buffer.
Staff's Statement:
Phase III is adjacent to Lionsridge Loop on the
. northern side of the project, The Valley
Condominiums (Phase I) on the east, and The Valley
Phase VI on the south and west. The northern
property line of Phase III is approximately 25 feet
from the edge of the pavement of Lionsridge Loop.
Most of the trees in this area will remain. Staff's
opinion is that this area provides an adquate buffer
on the northern portion of the project. Phase I to
the east provides access to units directly off of
Lionsridge Loop. Staff prefers maintaining the public
right -of -way in its natural state, as opposed to
having paved access and parking areas adjacent to
Lionsridge Loop. It should also be noted that the
special development district will require that no
structure be located less than 3 feet from the
northern perimeter line of the building envelopes.
On the east side of Phase III, the nearest building
from The Valley Condominiums is 190 feet from the
easternmost building envelope. In addition, an open
area ranging from approximately 15 feet at the very
narrowest point to 60 feet from the property line is
maintained as open space adjacent to the eastern
building envelope. The rest of the site on the
eastern portion of the project is designated as open
space.
On the west property lines for Phase III,
approximately 25 feet of open space is maintained
between the building envelope and the western
property line.
On the south side of the project, the road and fire
turn- arounds are within several feet of the property
line. However, no buildings are proposed for this
area. Staff would recommend that the four western
parking spaces in this area be removed from the plan.
Phase VI proposes to maintain as open space the
portion of their project that meets the southern
property line of Phase III. Therefore, the slight
impacts of the pavement should be minimized.
In general, the staff finds that the proposal
maintains adequate buffer spaces on all sides of the
project. We would recommend that additional
landscaping be located by the west fire turn around
and the 4 guest parking spaces be removed.
2. A circulation system designed for the type of traffic
generated, taking into consideration safety, separa-
tion from living areas, convenience, access, noise,
and exhaust control. Private internal streets may be
permitted if they can be used by police and fire
department vehicles for emergency, __purposes. Bicycle
traffic shall be considered and provided when the
site is to be used for residential purposes.
•
0 Applicant's Statement:
The access drive has been designed so as to
adequately serve the traffic needs of the
development. Due to the size of the project, the
need for a separate bicycle path does not exist.
Staff's Statement:
The project has been designed to meet Fire Department
and Public Works' design standards. Staff agrees
with the applicant that a project of this size does
not require a separate bicycle path. There is a
possibility that the road could be continued west
into Phase VI at a future date if desirable.
3. Functional Open Space in Terms of: Optimum
preservation of natural features (including trees and
drainage areas), recreation, views, convenience and
function.
Applicant's Statement:
Approximately 700 of the site is devoted to open
space use in order to preserve significant features
of the site.
Staff's Statement:
The applicant has made a strong effort to preserve
the meadow area and wooded hillside as open space.
Staff believes that the road is necessary in order to
provide safe access into the project. It is true
that the access could have been directly off of
Lionsridge Loop to the structures built into the
hillside. However, staff did not prefer this site
planning approach, as it would have required very
high retaining walls which would have negative visual
impacts on adjacent properties. Secondly, direct
access to the units off of Lionsridge Loop encourages
parking problems along the Lionsridge Loop right -of-
way as well as snow plowing problems. The staff
prefers to see parking and access removed from the
Lionsridge Loop areas.
Once again, the staff would also recommend that the
western four parking spaces on the access road be
removed from the proposal to free up more open space.
Our opinion is that the 10 guest spaces on the
eastern portion of the site provide adequate overflow
parking for the 9 units. Even with the removal of
the four spaces, each unit would have one enclosed
. space, one space I front of the garage, and one
guest parking space. Staff believes that three
spaces are adequate for each unit.
4. variety: variety in terms of: housing type,
densities, facilities and open space:
Applicant's Statement:
Design guidelines will be adopted to govern the
character of the buildings. While these guidelines
will result in a certain uniformity among building
design, a certain amount of flexibility in building
design will exist.
Staff's Statement:
Staff supports the idea of using design guidelines to
provide some compatibility among the nine units that
will be constructed within this phase. If anything,
staff would like to ensure through the guidelines
that the units are developed in a compatible manner
so that there does not become too much variety in
terms of design.
5. Privacy in terms of the needs of: individuals,
families and neighbors:
Applicant's Statement:
Building envelopes are adequately separated in order
to provide spaces between residences and provide
privacy.
Staff's Statement:
The building envelopes are separated from each other
from a distance varying from approximately 18 feet to
26 feet. This separation provides a reasonable
amount of privacy between the residences.
6. Pedestrian Traffic in Terms of: Safety, separation,
convenience, access to points of destination, and
attractiveness:
Applicant's Statement:
Due to the small size of the proposed project,
separated pedestrian ways are not needed.
. Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
7. Building Type in Terms of: appropriateness to
density, site relationship and bulk.
Applicant's Statement:
The building bulk requirements as established are
appropriate for the scale of the site and its
surroundings.
Staff's Statement:
Staff agrees with the applicant.
8. Building Design in Terms of: orientation, spacing,
materials color and texture stora e si ns,
lighting, and solar blockage.
Applicant's Statement:
The buildings will be oriented to take advantage of
views into the open space and southern exposures.
The spacing between buildings is indicated upon the
site plan and provides areas for landscaping, light,
and air.
Materials have been specified within the design
guidelines for the project.
Landscaping will be strictly controlled by the
Homeowners' Association as well as the Vail Design
Review Board. Landscape provisions have been
included in the proposed covenants and are as
follows:
The concerns of the Committee shall be to improve the
appearance of the subdivision and the maintenance of
such appearance. Owners and their representatives or
builders will be required to:
a. Minimize disruption from grading.
b. Revegetate and restore ground cover for erosion
and appearance reasons.
C. Use indigenous species of plant materials as
established by the Committee.
d. Select the man -made elements that blend and are
compatible with the land.
e. Use existing or natural drainage paths whenever
possible.
f. Conserve and protect top soil,
and unique landscape features.
g. Sod such areas as determined by
V. SDD ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
rock formations
the Committee.
The applicant has requested SDD zoning in order to allow
for greater design creativity and flexibility in certain
areas that would not be permissible under straight
Residential Cluster zoning or Single Family,
Primary /Secondary zoning. Below is a summary of the
special development district standards which have been
written to correspond to the Residential Cluster zone
district. Following the narrative for the special
development district is a comparison of the SDD standards
to straight Residential Cluster zoning.
A. Proposed Special Development District:
Purpose: The purpose of the establishment of the Elk
Meadows Special Development District is to allow greater
flexibility in the development of the land than would be
possible under the current zoning of the property. In
order to help preserve the natural and scenic features of
the site, building envelopes will be established which
ifdesignate the areas upon the site in which development
will occur. The establishment of these building envelopes
will also permit the phasing of the development to proceed
according to each individual owner's ability to construct
a residence.
Acreage: The total acreage of the site is 3.6 acres.
Permitted Uses: The permitted uses for the site are
proposed to be:
1. Single family residential dwellings
2. Two-family residential dwellings
3. Open space
4. Public and private roads
Conditional Uses:
1. Public utility and public service uses
2. Public buildings, grounds and facilities
3. Public or private schools
4. Public park and recreation facilities
5. Ski lifts and tows
6. Private clubs
7. Dog kennel
Accessory Uses:
1. Private greenhouses, toolsheds, playhouses,
attached garages or carports, swimming pools,
patios, or recreation facilities customarily
incidental to single - family or two - family
residential uses.
r�
•
2. Home occupations, subject to issuance of a home
occupation permit in accordance with the
provisions of Sections 18.58.130 through
18.58.190;
3. Other uses customarily incidental and accessory
to permitted or conditional uses, and necessary
for the operation thereof;
4. Horse grazing, subject to the issuance of a
horse grazing permit in accordance with the
provisions of Chapter 18.58.
Development Standards: Proposed development standards are
as follows:
1. Lot Area - Not applicable; building envelopes
govern.
Building Envelopes
1.
.07
acres
2.
.07
acres
3.
.06
acres
4.
.05
acres
5.
.10
acres
6.
.08
acres
7.
.05
acres
Tract
1:
2.53
Tract
2:
.61
acres open space
acres roadaway and parking
* Tracts 1 and 2 acreages should be adjusted if
the west guest parking is removed.
2. Setbacks - Minimum setbacks for the location of
structures with relations to building envelope
perimeter lines shall be as follows:
a. No structure shall be located on the
utility easement as so designated on the
final plat of the subdivision.
b. No structure shall be located less than two
feet from either the east or the west
perimeter line.
C. No structure shall be located less than
three feet from the north perimeter line.
d. Notwithstanding anything contained
hereinabove to the contrary, roof overhangs
and decks may encroach into the setback
areas described in b and c so long as such
roof overhangs and decks are totally within
the perimeter lines of the building
envelope.
3. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA): A building
situated on a single unit residential building
envelope shall not contain more than 1,777
square feet of GRFA; a building stivated on a
two unit residential building envelope shall not
contain more than 3,554 square feet of GRFA.
4. Building Height: Building height shall be 33
feet for a sloping roof.
5. Parking: Two parking spaces shall be provided
per unit with one of the two spaces being
enclosed.
6. Landscaping: The entire portion of the building
envelope not covered by pavement or buildings
shall be landscaped as well as any areas outside
the building envelope disturbed during
construction.
7. Design Guidelines: Design Guidelines to be
adopted for the site are as follows:
a.
Roof pitch shall be 4 feet in 12 feet.
b.
Roof material shall be metal and be either
charcoal grey or marina blue in color.
C.
Siding material shall be either cedar or
redwood and shall be applied horizontally
as indicated on the prototypical building
elevations. Only light colored stain shall
be applied to siding.
d.
Either stucco or siding shall be applied to
exposed concrete foundation walls. If
stucco is utilized, it shall be light in
color.
e.
All windows shall be white metal clad
windows.
f.
All decks and balconies shall be
constructed utilizing 2 x 12 railings and
posts that are at least 4" x 411.
g.
All roofs shall have overhangs of at least
1 foot in order to protect walls and wall
openings from rain and snow and to
contribute to the building's character.
8. Recreation Amenities Tax: The recreation
amenities tax is .30 per square foot.
•
B. PROPOSED SDD IN COMPARISON WITH RESIDENTIAL CLUSTER TONE
DISTRICT:
LOT SIZE: 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
PROPOSED SDD
.07
.07
.06
.05
.10
.08
.05
.48
20,
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
ac
to
909
single
single
single
single
duplex
duplex
single
tal bld,
sf.
unit
unit
unit
unit
units
units
unit
3 envelopes or
SETBACKS: Sides, 2 ft from bldg envelope line
Rear, 3 ft from bldg envelope line
between bldg envelopes exists
HEIGHT: 33' sloping roof
30' for flat roof does not apply
as design guidelines requires
sloping roof
RES CLUSTER
15,000 sf,
containing
no less than
8,000 sf of
buildable
area
front 20'
side, 15'
rear, 15,
33' slope
30' flat roof
SITE COVERAGE: no standard for bldg envelopes 25% of site
GRFA: 16,000 16,000 per
annexation agree.
DENSITY: 9 units 10 units per
annexation agree.
LANDSCAPING: Tract 1: 2.53 acres 600 of site
Open Space or 70% of the shall be
site is open space landscaped
PARKING: Requires 1 enclosed space, also Requires 1
will have 1 open space within enclosed spc,
bldg envelope + 1 guest space 2 spaces
The proposed SDD varies only slightly from the underlying
Residential Cluster zone district. Due to the fact that
building envelopes are being used as opposed to lots, it
is difficult to compare the SDD to Residential Cluster
zoning in respect to lot size. The density is actualy one
less than would be allowed without the SDD approach. Site
coverage is also difficult to compare in that the building
envelopes will be covered by buildings, but to what
degree the coverage will occur is impossible to determine
until the lots are constructed. However, staff believes
that there is adequate open space around the building
envelopes to maintain an aesthetically pleasing amount of
open space and separation among the units. Setbacks also
vary from those that are required in a Residential Cluster
zone district. The separation among the building
envelopes varies from 18 feet to 27 feet. Staff believes
that this separation provides adequate space among the
units. All other development standards meet the
underlying zone district requirements for the Residential
Cluster zone district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Community Development recommends
approval of this proposal. Staff believes that the
request meets the intent of the major subdivision
regulations and special development district's zoning.
The proposal basically follows the underlying Residential
Cluster zoning and Planned Unit Development zoning
originally approved under Eagle County. It departs from
these guidelines in areas that are appropriate to revise
:7
•
•
due to the need to preserve the meadow area and site
constraints due to the rockfall hazards and slopes. Staff
recommends approval with the following conditions:
1. The development of each building envelope will comply
with the environmental impact report, especially the
design recommendations cited by Mr. Dan Pettigrove in
a letter concerning design mitigations for rock fall
hazards. Each individual owner will be responsible
for completing the rockfall mitigation measure per
the Pettigrove letter.
2. The proposed preliminary landscape plan and design
review guidelines will be reviewed by the Design
Review Board for their approval before final plat
submittal.
* For information purposes, the staff would like to
note that the major subdivision regulations require
the completion of general improvements for the
subdivision as outlined in Section 17.16.150 to be
installed within four years of the date of PEC
approval or the plat shall become instantly invalid.
All right to improve or develop the property on the
part of the owner or subdivider shall thereby be
relinquished. This requirement is stated in Section
17.16.330 of the Vail Subdivision Regulations. It
shall also be noted that in respect to SDD approvals,
the applicant must begin construction of the special
development district within 18 months from the time
of the project's final approval according to Setion
18.40.100 of the Town of Vaal zoning code.
3. The applicant agrees to revegetage the access road if
a building permit is not received and acted upon to
complete the general subdivision improvements by
September 1, 1987.
SEQUENCE OF EVENTS CONCERNING THE VALLEY PHASE III
April 25, 1973: Conditional approval of the preliminary
plan by Eagle County which zoned The Valley
Planned Development (PD)
July 26, 1973: County Commissioners approve The Valley
preliminary plan and PUD. This approval is
good for three years. The approval
included 150 units on 61.2 acres.
July 30, 1973: Eagle County Commissioners' special meeting
to confirm Valley approval.
July 26, 1976: The Valley preliminary plan and PUD
approval of July 26, 1973 expires. Some of
the units are under construction. The 120
units that have not been built will require
a new submittal starting with a sketch plan
and preliminary plan review (letter from
Ms. Susan Vaughn, 1977).
May 20, 1977: The Vail Town Council sends a letter to the
Eagle County Commissioners in favor of
. extending the Valley's approval as long as
development is carried out according to the
preliminary plan and recreation amenities
are provided.
May 24, 1978: The Eagle County Commissioners grant an
extension of the Valley preliminary plan
approval. This approval would expire on
June 1, 1979. If the approval expires, it
would be required that sketch plan and
preliminary plan review informtion be
submitted. Also, if any change in the
present plan, it would have to be reviewed
by the County Commissioners.
November 13, 1979: Eagle County Commissioners review a sketch
plan and have several concerns.
March 26, 1980: A PUD plan and protective covenants docu-
ment is filed with the County which indi-
cated that Phase III was subject to the
land use restrictions of 10 units and a
total GRFA of 16,000 square feet.
March 27, 1980: Resolution No. 80 -20 allowed the phases of
The Valley to be sold separately without
any further compliance with the subdivision
10 regulations.
April 16, 1980: The Eagle County Planning Commission
reviews a sketch plan for Phase III. The
Planning Commission suggested that the
units be tucked into the hillside on the
northeast side of the project and that the
developer use berming and landscaping to
buffer the project. Staff recommended
approval of the sketch plan.
April 16, 1980: Town of Vail staff sends letter to the
Eagle County Planning Commission which
recommends more tighter, clustered layout
of the buildings toward the hillside. Vail
staff also recognizes the steep hillside
and sensitivity of the meadow area. Letter
from Peter Patten and Dick Ryan.
April 30, 1980: The Eagle County Commissioners reviewed the
sketch plan that the Planning Commission
saw on April 16, 1980. The sketch plan
showed 10 townhomes on Phase III.
May 5, 1980: A resolution was passed by the County
allowing three years for the developers to
file preliminary plans from the March 26,
. 1980 PUD plan approval date.
December 1980: Ordinance No. 43 annexed the West Vail area
including Phase III of The Valley.
March 17, 1981: The Town of Vail Council applied zoning to
The Valley which was recently annexed. The
ordinance was No. 13, Series of 1981.
March 15, 1983: Resolution No. 6, Series of 1987, the Town
Council approved rezoning of The Valley.
Sept. 11, 1985: The Valley is de- annexed from the Town.
Summer 1986 A development proposal is submitted to
Eagle County by Lamar Capital Corporation.
The proposal begins with a sketch
plan /preliminary plan review.
Nov. 5, 1986 The Lamar Capital Corporation Phase III
proposal is withdrawn from the County due
to complications with the time lines for
review and how they will relate to the
property being re- annexed to the Town of
Vail.
•
•
:7
•
May 16, 1986
May 6, 1987
May
7,
1987:
May
11,
1987
May
11,
1987;
May
11,
1987:
May
11,
1987:
A grading permit is released by the County
for an access road into Phase III. The
applicant was Lamar Capital Corporation.
The road work on Phase III is red - tagged by
Eagle County.
Red tag removed by Eagle County.
The Valley is re- annexed into the Town.
The Road is red - tagged by the Town of Vail
The Road is red - tagged by Eagle County.
Lamar Capital Corporation submits a major
subdivision and special development
district zoning request for Phase III.
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at
the Sweet Basil Restaurant located at 193 East Gore
Creek Drive.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSAL
This request is for the enclosure of the second floor
creek side (north facing) dining patio of the Sweet Basil
Restaurant. The existing deck is utilized exclusively in
the summer months and at the present time is covered with
an awning. The proposal would enclose the entire dining
patio, but would include totally operable windows /walls on
the north and east sides.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
. As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for
requests of this nature are established by the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this
review is on the project's compatibility with both the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape
considerations become the perview of the Design Review
Board if this project is approved. The Planning
Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning
issues not addressed in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN CRITERIA
Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide
Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall
fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals
identified in this element of the plan relative to this
project.
IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
These Urban Design Considerations address large scale
land planning issues, as well as form- giving
considerations that go beyond the property lines of a
project proposal. These considerations include the
following:
• Pedestrianization: There is no direct impact on
Pedestrianization from this project.
Vehicular Penetration: Given the nature of this project,
there are no direct or indirect implications relative to
vehicular penetration.
Streetscape Framework: Located on the second floor of the
Gore Creek Promenade, the implications of this project
relative to streetscape framework are subtle. The
enclosure of the dining patio does allow for activity in
this location throughout the year. In addition, the
totally operable windows will provide for essentially the
same effect as presently takes place in the summer
months.
A small planter area is proposed on the north elevation in
conjunction with this infill. Minor changes may be
required to maximize the impact of this planter area.
These changes can best be expressed during the staff
presentation. In addition, it would be a positive step to
incorporate planter boxes along the entire north exterior
wall of this enclosure. This treatment will provide a
colorful framework along the Gore Creek Promenade.
. Street Enclosure: The proposed infill will provide a
"cleaned up" appearance to the Gore Creek Plaza Building.
Because of the open space adjacent to this development,
there is no consideration to be given to the sense of
space typically associated with this criteria.
Street Edge: As was stated with the Street Enclosure
criteria, the infill of this deck, in conjunction with the
recommended landscape treatment creates a more unified
street edge. The impact of this improvement is obviously
relative to its second floor location.
Building Height: Building height is not affected by this
proposal.
Views: Views are not impacted by this building
expansion.
Service and Delivery: Existing service and delivery is
provided in the loading zones along Gore Creek Drive.
While the increase in the seating capacity will require
greater volumes of products, it is not anticipated that
this expansion would require any greater number of trucks
than presently service this restaurant.
•
• Sun /Shade: As indicated in graphic form, the infill is
within the existing planes of the Gore Creek Plaza
Building. The expansion has been designed in a manner
directly responsive to the Urban Design Guide Plan,
thereby eliminating any increase in shade along the Gore
Creek Promenade.
V. OTHER ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The expansion will require payment into the Town parking
fund for the square footage being enclosed.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is approval. The
reasons for the support of this project are based on the
northern exposure and lack of utilization of this site
during the majority of the year. The enclosure, incorpor-
ating the operable windows, will allow for a very similar
situation to what presently exists. The staff feels that
when weather permits, the restauranteur will open the
windows, creating the feeling of an outdoor dining
experience.
While on second floor, the applicant has been involved in
discussions concerning the completion of the Gore Creek
Promenade. Because there are no direct impacts from this
expansion on the walkway, staff is unable to impose a
condition requiring the applicant's participation in the
funding of the walkway's completion. However, the owner
has agreed to participate in the cost of completing the
walkway. Based on this, we will include this as a
condition of approval. However, his participation is
voluntary, and we will not attempt to establish any
minimum level of participation through this approval. The
staff commends the applicant for his willingness to assist
in this public improvement.
The conditions of approval for this propoal include the
following:
1. That the windows on the east and north elevation of
the proposed deck enclosure be totally operable.
2. That planter boxes running the entire length of the
north elevation be provided, as well as the planter
area identified on the submitted plans. In addition,
a redesign of the portion of the operable windows
shall be made to allow for plantings to be located in
this planter that are visible from the walkway.
3. That the owner /applicant
final improvements to the
area immediately adjacent
property) .
11
agree to participate in the
Gore Creek Promenade (that
to the Gore Creek Plaza
•
TO: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at
Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek
Drive.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The two elements involved in this proposal are the
enclosure of a portion of the existing dining patio
adjacent to Blu's and the expansion of the existing
outdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosure
incorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls on
the south elevation of the restaurant. Another aspect of
the enclosure includes an airlock entry vestibule in the
location of the existing restaurant. The dining patio
expansion is located predominantly on Town property.
Earlier this year, the Town Council granted Blu's the
opportunity to proceed through the review process with
this basic design. The potential expansion of this dining
patio was planned for and incorporated into the overall
design of the Gore Creek Promenade.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for
requests of this nature are established by the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this
review is on the project's compatibility with both the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape
considerations become the purview of the Design Review
Board if this project is approved. The Planning
Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning
issues not covered in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide
Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall
fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals
identified in this element of the plan relative to this
project.
0 IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land
planning issues, as well as form giving considerations
that go beyond the property lines of the project proposal.
These considerations contain the following:
Pedestrianization: This consideration is intended to
reinforce and expand the quality of the pedestrian's
walking experience throughout the Village. The proposed
patio expansion encroaches into the existing walkway, now
referred to as the Gore Creek Promenade. This linkage is
a key element to the success of the pedestrian system in
the Village. If approved in conjunction with improvements
to the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain during those
times when the patio is in place. This 10 foot width is
over a span of 32 feet. Remaining portions of the
promenade are generally 15 feet in width. It is felt that
over such a short distance that this reduction in width is
not a detriment to the walkway. To the contrary, staff
feels that the activity provided by the dining deck works
well with the narrowing of the sidewalk's width. It
should be noted that the railing enclosure of the patio is
removable and during winter months the walkway will
maintain its 15 foot width.
Vehicular Penetration: There are no impacts related to
vehicular penetration from this proposal.
Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight
modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street
trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the
existing wooden planter. Coupled with a new planter
immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this
treatment will provide a colorful framework along this
portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency
inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible
activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In
addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will
provide outdoor activity when feasible. overall, the
proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this
area of the promenade.
Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly
adjacent to this property, the street enclosure
considerations are not directly applicable. However,
there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion
in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal.
Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway
• is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the
buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the
patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building
forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular
facade lines of this streetscape are maintained and
reinforced by this patio expansion as well as the Lancelot
patio.
Building Height: There are no considerations applicable
to building height as a result of this proposal.
Views: Views are not impacted by this proposal.
Service and Deliver : While the seating capacity for the
restaurant will be increased, it is not anticipated that n
increased number of delivery trucks will be needed to
service this expansion.
Sun /Shade: As was the case with Sweet Basil, this
enclosure is designed in complete compliance with
recommendations made in the Guide Plan.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Additional parking demands created by
will be met by payment into the Town's
exact amount will be calculated at the
permit.
• VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
the enclosed space
parking fund. The
time of building
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
While this recommendation, along with the Sweet Basil
recommendation, are contrary to other actions by the Town
concerning deck enclosures, staff feels this proposal is
warranted. Our position is based primarily on the
northern exposure of the deck. In addition, the walls on
the north elevation are totally operable. Blu's has
demonstrated their desire to open their existing operable
walls when weather permits. This creates a very pleasing
experience and, in fact, allows for more people to enjoy
the feel of outdoor dining. This increases the sense of
activity along the street on a year around basis.
Another consideration relative to our support of this
enclosure is the patio expansion. While located
predominantly on Town land, the outdoor dining area is
being maintained. However, there is a direct impact on
the patio expansion with respect to the existing walkway.
Without improvements to the walkway, the width of the
sidewalk would be reduced at its narrowest point to 5
feet. This is unacceptable, and improvements to the
walkway are required to facilitate this project proposal.
Given the level of improvements on both sides of this
is property, it is reasonable to expect a similar treatment
along this frontage.
Another consideration not directly applicable to the
Planning Commission's review is the railing treatment
proposed to define the deck. The staff has a significant
concern over the wooden railing treatment and question its
appropriateness. With a few exceptions, wrought iron has
been used to define many of the recent dining deck
expansions in the Village. Another design consideration
for the applicant is that the railing defining the deck
must be removable. While supporting the enclosure and the
basic footprint of the expansion, staff cannot support the
design of the railing as proposed.
The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to
adopt the following conditions of approval:
1. The walls on the north elevation be totally
operable.
2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the
railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review..
3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek
Promenade design be made in conjunction with this
proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean
identical materials and design. The upgrading of the
walkway shall be made over the entire length of the
Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done
in conjunction with construction and expansion of the
existing patio.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant
located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
I. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED
While all significant issues relative to this project have
been addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the
zoning code requires a separate conditional use approval for
the expansion of the dining patio. The following criteria
are to be used in this review.
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District:
There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative to
this proposal.
0 B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District:
This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular
traffic into the core.
C. Reduction of nonessential off - street parking.
There is no effect on this consideration.
D. Control of delivery, pickup and service vehicles.
There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of
deliveries to this establishment.
E. Development of public spaces for use by edestrians.
As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a
significant improvement to the existing walkway will be
done in conjunction with this proposal. If approved and
constructed, the applicant is to be commended for his
participation in this public improvement. While
necessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the level
of improvement is of high quality and consistent with
the improvements on adjacent properties.
0 F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and
public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to
G.
maintain the existing character of the area.
As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the
staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase
the level of activity along the promenade.
Control quality of construction, architectural design,
and landscape design in Commercial Core T so as to
maintain the existing character of the area.
The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quality
found in the Village, the landscape improvements
maintain or improve the existing landscaping of the
patio, and the design of the enclosure is an improvement
over existing conditions of this property.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval as per
the conditions outlined the exterior alteration memorandum.
is
iTO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to enlarge an
entry on Unit 6B, Vail Townhouses, on Lot 6 Block 5,
Vail Village 1st Filing
Applicants: Bud and Greta Parks
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicants wish to change the south entry to their
townhome for the purpose of handicapped access. This change
involves redesigning the entries to both the Parks unit on
the first floor and the unit above the Parks. The change
will not increase the total GRFA of either unit.
The Vail Townhomes are zoned High Density Multi - Family and
require 20 foot setbacks on all sides. However, each
Townhome is 26 feet wide, with zero lot lines, making them
nonconforming with regard to side setbacks. Hence, the
changed entry requires a side setback variance.
• II. ZONING STATISTICS
Zone: HDMF
Lot Size: 2,853.27 square feet
Setbacks: 20 feet on all sides
Requested: 0 setback on east side
Existing: 0 setbacks on sides, 30 ft front, 25 ft rear
III, APPLICANT'S STATEMENT
"The parks would like to reconfigure their entry for the
purpose of handicapped access on the south side of their
home. This involves a 6' -5" projection south of the
existing structure, along the east property line. No
GRFA will be added to the Parks' or Welles' units.
Due to the existing zero lot line condition of the
condominiums and the fact that the property is only 26'-
0" wide in the east /west direction, it would be
impossible to have any structure on the property that is
not within the 20' -0" required side setbacks.
n
U
•
"This is a pre - existing condition, and the granting of
the variance would have no effect on existing utilities,
traffic, public safety, transportation, or light and
air, but it would provide a covered access to the Parks'
and Welles' units. Your consideration of this issue is
appreciated."
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested side setback 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.
Zero side setbacks already exist on all 13 townhomes of the
Vail Townhomes. The east side setback of zero clearance will
be continued for 6.5 feet. This addition is on the lot line
adjacent to Unit 7. This neighbor was notified of the
addition and has not objected to this construction.
The deg
interpr
necessa
to which relief from the strict and literal
ion and enforcement of a specified regulation is
o achieve compatibility and uniformity of
Staff feels that it would not be a grant of special privilege
to allow the setback variance since zero setbacks exist on
all of the other townhomes in this complex and we have
granted many setbacks variances in this complex previously.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety. ^
Staff feels that there are no significant impacts with
respect to these concerns.
Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
• V. 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the side setback variance, 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 variance would not be detrimental to the
public health, safety 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 variance.
If this variance is granted, staff would call attention to
the Design Review Board with respect to trying to relocate
the large evergreen tree which will be displaced.
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHWAYS
4201 East Arkansas Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757 -9011
STATE of COL IZADo
May 29, 1987
COORDINATION /SCOPING LETTER
PROJECT CC 44- 0070 -20
MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE
f� r cy4
"
q vN
yT �. /O
9rB OF C�t'�PP
This letter is intended to provide public coordination and scoping information
on an interchange improvement project being proposed by the Colorado Department
of Highways and the Federal Highway Administration. The project would close the
existing eastbound off-ramp at the Main Vail 170 interchange and construct new
eastbound on- and off -ramps approximately one mile to the west (see Attachment 1).
This project will require the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to
evaluate the impacts of this proposed project.
Vail's primary transportation problem occurs at the Main Vail interchange, which
provides access to two large public parking garages and the town's commercial
center. The Main I 70 interchange with Vail Road is a diamond configuration with
ramps closely spaced to the 170 mainline traffic lanes. In addition, the east-
bound on- and off -ramps of the interchange are close to the intersection of Vail
Road and South Frontage Road.
. The deficiencies of this roadway configuration in handling competing turning and
weaving movements during peak traffic periods have resulted in traffic congestion
that has been a publicly voiced concern of the Vail community for over five years.
As a separate project, the Town of Vail plans to signalize the intersection of
Vail Road and South Frontage Road, which is currently a four -way stop.
Construction of the proposed ramps would require extension of an existing culvert
that carries Red Sandstone Creek beneath 170 and the two frontage roads, and
addition of some fill material to the existing creekbed. The proposed ramp site
includes approximately one acre of mature trees near the banks of the creek. Some
of these trees would be removed to construct the proposed off - ramp. This project
will also require a Corps of Engineers 404 Permit and S.B. 40 certification from
the Colorado Division of Wildlife for the modifications affecting fled Sandstone
Creek.
If you have any issues, concerns, or comments that you wish to be considered
during the preparation of the EA, please send them to Ms. Robin Geddy, Project
Environmental Manager, Colorado Department of Highways, Room 218, 4201 E. Arkansas
Avenue, Denver, Colorado 80222. If you do not wish to comment but would like to
be kept informed about the project, please send your name and mailing address to
the above address. Your name will be placed on the project mailing list and you
will receive notices and information regarding this project. The scoping comment
period will end on June 19, 1987, and preparation of the EA will begin. The EA
will be made available for public review in late summer of 1987.
R. P. MOSTON
DISTRICT ENGINEER
L�
u
•
PROJECT LOCATION MAr
CC 44- 0070-20
MAIN VAIL INTERCHANGE
ATTACHMENT 1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 22, 1987
2:00 PM Site Visits
3:00 PM Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of June 1.
2. Request for exterior alteration and a conditional use
permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at
Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
3. A request for a density variance and a side setback
variance to enclose a deck on Lot 27, Vail Village
Filing #2.
Applicant: Albert D. Weiss
4. A request for a setback variance in order to relocate
a pool building at the Ramshorn Condominiums on Lot
A, Block 3, Vail Village 5th Filing.
Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership
5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core 11 for expansion of common office space at the
Antlers Condominiums.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association
6. A request to amend Section 17.26.075 of the
Subdivision Regulations related to owner restriction
for the conversion of lodges to condominiums.
Applicants: Mr. Dave Garton and Mr. Tim Garton
7. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C.13 concerning
the physical connection in the design of
primary /secondary and duplex residential units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
16 June 22, 1987
PRESENT
STAFF PRESENT
J.J. Collins
Peter Patten
Diana Donovan
Tom Braun
Pam Hopkins
Rick Pylman
Peggy Osterfoss
Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
ABSENT
Bryan Hobbs
1. Approval of minutes of June 1.
The minutes were approved with corrections with a motion from
Diana Donovan and a second from J.J. Collins.
2.
A request for an exterior alteration and a conditional use
permit in order to expand an outdoor dining deck at Btu's
Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
{This item had been tabled from June 8.
Pam Hopkins left the table to absent herself from this proposal
due to conflict of interest.
Tom Braun presented the proposal and explained that Blu's
wished to enclose part of their deck and expand the rest of the
deck. The enclosed portion would have a greenhouse effect. The
staff recommended approval with the following conditions:
1. The walls on the north elevation must be totally
operable.
2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the railing
treatment to be submitted at DRB review.
3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek
Promenade design shall be made in conjunction with this
proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean identical
materials and design. The upgrading of the walkway shall
be made over the entire length of the Gore Creek Plaza
building frontage and shall be done in conjunction with
construction and expansion of the existing patio.
Craig Snowdon, representing the applicant, showed dimensions
and described indoor and outdoor dining. Craig explained that
• the planter elements would be in place only in the summertime.
Sid Schultz felt the deck interrupted the flow along the
sidewalk. He also did not feel comfortable with the fact that
the applicant was enclosing deck space and then asking for more
• deck space on Town land. Craig said that he met with the
staff, owners, and consultant to try to come up with a solution
that would be acceptable to all and Jeff Winston, the
consultant suggested having the patio come out into the
sidewalk area and interrupt the pedestrian area.
Diana agreed with Sid and felt that the project also blocked
the view from the west. Peggy Osterfoss liked the greenhouse
and planters, but felt that there should be more continuity in
design between the building and the sidewalk. She felt the
third circle should be part of the design and that it was
important to work out the details in advance. She wanted
assurance that the work on the pedestrian way would be
completed. J.J. Collins felt that the cart came before the
horse in this project, but that he had no choice but to approve
the proposal. He agreed with Peggy and felt that this was not a
final design. J.J. felt that the Town should budget to finish
the pedestrian way. J.J. also mentioned that the rental should
be a fair market value. Jim Viele agreed with J.J.
Peter appreciated J.J.'s viewpoint that this was not a final
design. He explained that this was a master plan and that he
tried to accelerate the review process, but could not, and felt
that it was wise to get the best solution now until the Town
could get the third circle financed.
• J.J. moved to approve the exterior alteration per the staff
memo which included the three conditions listed above along
with the comments that the PEC's concerns be directed by the
staff to the Town Council and that the staff propose to Town
Council that there be a budget to help to complete the
promenade and the landscaping.
The motion was seconded by Jim Viele. More discussion
followed, with Peggy being concerned that the Town Council
might not go along with the idea of helping to finance the
project. Tom explained the process of capital improvement
projects. Diana felt that the need was immediate, not next
year.
The vote was 3 in favor with 2 (Sid and Diana) against the
motion.
J.J. moved and Jim Viele seconded to approve the request for a
conditional use permit to expand the dining deck. The vote was
3 -2 in favor, the vote following that of the exterior
alteration.
3. A request for a density variance and a side setback_
variance to enclose a deck on Lot 27, Vail Village West
. Filing #2. Applicant: Albert D. Weiss
Tom Braun explained that the proposed deck enclosures required
two variance requests. He stated that the staff could not
support the requests as presented because they were strongly
opposed to the additional GRFA requested beyond the 250 square
feet allowed under Ordinance 4.
John Perkins, architect for the applicant, felt that there was
a legitimate hardship. Mr. Weiss mentioned that only 168
square feet was for living space. J.J. Collins suggested that
the applicant consider scaling back the request too 250 square
feet. Peggy Osterfoss stated that perhaps if snow removal was
the only problem, a roof could be in place without enclosing
all the space beneath it. She could not see a reason to go
beyond the 250 square feet. Diana and Sid agreed. Jim Viele
felt the hardship was self imposed.
Weiss pointed out that he was not enclosing beyond the
perimeter of the house. He felt the hardship was dampness to
the house.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to deny the
request per the staff memo dated 6/22/87. The vote was 6 -0 for
denial.
4. A request for a setback variance in order to relocate a
pool building at the Ramshorn Condominiums on Lot A Block
3, Vail Village 5th Filing.
Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership
Peter Patten presented the proposal. He stated that this was
an amendment to a previous approval and showed the old proposal
and the new proposal on a site plan. He said the staff felt
the proposal to be an improvement with respect to adjacent
uses. Jim Morter, architect for the project, answered
questions.
Diana Donovan moved to approve the request for the front and
side setback variances per the staff memo dated 6/22/87 with
the condition that the trash dumpster be enclosed. Peggy
Osterfoss seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor.
5. A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I1
for expansion of common office space at the Antlers
Condominiums.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association
Rick Pylman explained that the applicant were requesting an
addition 14' x 21' to create additional office space. He
reviewed the Design Considerations for Lionshead and noted that
the staff recommended approval, as any impacts were
negligible.
J.J. Collins moved and Diana Donovan seconded to approve the
request per the staff memo dated June 22, 1987. The vote was
6 -0 in favor of the request.
6. A request to amend Section 17.26.075 of the Subdivision
Regulations related to owner restrictions for the
conversion of lodges to condominiums.
Applicants: Dave and Tim Garton
Peter Patten explained the request. He stated that the
applicants had been meeting with the staff and the Town Council
for several weeks and this was a compromise that had been
reached. Although the staff still had concerns about the
ordinance change, they felt the compromise still met the
purpose of this section of the Subdivision Regulations.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, stated that he felt
the amendment was a good one. J.J. Collins asked about useage
of unsold condominiums and was told unsold condominiums would
have to be furnished and placed on the rental market. Peter
suggested that there be definition of how long "unsold" was.
other compromises were discussed. Dave suggested that this be
a "sunset" amendment, that is, that it be reviewed periodically
to see how it was working. Peter recommended a two year
review. Discussion followed concerning when to assume the
units were unsold.
Jim Viele felt the amendment was a step in the right direction.
Peggy Osterfoss and Diana Donovan agreed. Pam stated that she
felt it was long overdue, but that she had concerns about
unsold condominiums having to be furnished. Peter pointed out
that the "flip side" was that lodge rooms could be converted to
condominiums and not be sold.
J.J. moved to recommend approval to the Town Council of the
proposal to amend the condominium conversion section per the
staff memo dated 6/22/87 with the following additions:
1. 17.26.075 A.4 Add "or more" to the second
sentence.
2. 17.26.075 C. Change "unsold" to "if unsold 30 days after
the date of the recording of the condominium map."
Pam Hopkins seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor.
7. A request to amend Section 18.54.050 C 13 concerning the
physical connection in the design of primaryLsecondary and
duplex residential units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Rick Pylman explained that this amendment has been discussed a
lot between the Design Review Board and the Town Council. Peter
suggested that the language be tried for a year and then
reviewed to see if changes should be made. J.J. was concerned
that all lots would become two dwelling lots. Pam spoke in
favor of the amendment, suggesting it be a sunset amendment.
Diana felt the wording should be more restrictive, perhaps
something that would address visual impact. Peter suggested,
"Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be
designed in such a manner that units are strongly connected.
However, in the event of separate structures,....."
Rick agreed with J.J. that the first sentence should perhaps be
strongly in favor of one structure. J.J. felt that the Town
Council had perpetuated the change by allowing the Design
Review Board to approve two structures.
In the audience, Mike Sanner stated that the important thing to
be concerned about was the relationship of mass to the site.
Diana felt that there needed to be some phrase concerning size
and bulk to give the DRB an out. Peter suggested "However, if
the relationship of mass of the building to the size of site is
within an appropriate scale and a unified site plan for the
entire lot is proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of
structures..."
J.J. moved to recommend approval to the Council to amend the
code to incorporate the revised wording as proposed by Peter.
Diana seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor.
u
I
LJ
•
40
tows
75 south frontage road
vail, coiorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
office of community development
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE June 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Primary /Secondary Connection
The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla-
tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording
will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the
Municipal Code.
Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to
be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass
of the building to the size of the site is within appro-
priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is
proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of
structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the
appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or
primary /secondary lot. Unified site development shall
require the use of similar and compatible architectural
design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim,
stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and
window treatments, railings and other design elements.
The unified site development shall include a coordinated
landscape and grading plan that creates a visual
appearance of a single development project. Common
elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and
walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The
design of units as a single structure and the utilization
of a single road cut is encouraged.
If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact
Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience.
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: Amendment to Section 18.54.050 C.13, Section 18.12.090
and Section 18.13.080 of the Municipal Code
(Primary /Secondary Connection)
Earlier this year, the Town Council, the Design Review Board and
the Town staff met in a work session to discuss the existing
wording of Section 18.54.050 C. 13 of the Vail Municipal Code,
which concerns the requirement for physical connection in the
design of primary /secondary and duplex units.
That existing wording concerning the primary /secondary
and duplex connection in the Design Review Guidelines currently
reads as follows:
Section 18.54.050 C. 13. Duplex and Primary /Secondary
Residential dwelling units shall be designed in a manner
that contains the two dwelling units and garages within one
single structure. However, in the event that the presence
of significant site characteristics necessitate a site
. design which includes a physical separation of the two
dwelling units and /or garages into separate structures, the
DRB may approve the design. Such a design may be approved
only when the separate structures are visually attached by
means of the use of similar and compatible architectural
design, colors, and materials and /or physically connected
with fences, walls, decks or other similar architectural
features.
At the first work session in December, the staff presented
several possible options for rewriting and amending this section
of the Design Review Guidelines. After much discussion of the
pros and cons of both options and discussion relating to what
specifically the guidelines were trying to accomplish, the
Council gave direction to the staff to refine and re- present the
basic concept that was presented under the Option A. That
Option A as presented at the work session read as follows:
Option A.
Rewrite Section 18.54.050 C.1 to eliminate the requirement
for a physical connection of the units, and at the same
time strengthen and clarify the design criteria which would
be required in order to create a visual connection. This
criteria could include a unified landscape plan for the
entire lot, utilization of one road cut, compatible
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The intent of the Council, Design Review Board and the staff is
to create this guideline in such a manner that it will enable
more freedom of design and siting of structures in development
of primary /secondary and duplex residences. The concern of the
parties involved is to maintain the ability to ensure that
development is occuring in the spirit of the primary /secondary
and duplex nature and is not an abuse of the zoning and
subdivision regulations by creating separate and unrelated
single family structures on duplex lots.
The staff feels that this proposed amendment satisfies our
intent while recognizing the concerns. We recommend approval of
this request as written.
The Design Review Board has reviewed the proposed wording and is
in substantial agreement. They did request the staff to
investigate the possibility of addressing the issue of adding a
unit to existing development.
Our attempts at addressing this issue have created awkward
wording. The staff feels this issue is best addressed by
applying the design criteria proposed in the amendment.
i
i
�1
�J
•
10WH of MO/
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476 -7000
office of community development
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE June 24, 1987
SUBJECT: Primary /Secondary Connection
The following paragraph is a transcript of the final legisla-
tive wording as devised during our 6/22 meeting. This wording
will replace the existing Section 18.54.050.0.13 of the
Municipal Code.
Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to
be in one structure. However, if the relationship of mass
of the building to the size of the site is within appro-
priate scale and a unified site plan for the entire lot is
proposed, the DRB may consider the separation of
structures. The intent of this section is to avoid the
appearance of two unrelated dwellings on one duplex or
primary /secondary lot. Unified site development shall
require the use of similar and compatible architectural
design. This includes materials (siding, roofing, trim,
stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony and
window treatments, railings and other design elements.
The unified site development shall include a coordinated
landscape and grading plan that creates a visual
appearance of a single development project. Common
elements of linkage such as courtyards, common entries and
walkways are encouraged to unify site development. The
design of units as a single structure and the utilization
of a single road cut is encouraged.
If there are concerns regarding this language, please contact
Rick Pylman at your earliest convenience.
. TO: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: Request for front and side setback variances in order to
relocate an existing swimming pool equipment room at the
Ramshorn Condominiums.
Applicant: Ramshorn Partnership
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant requests to amend the variance granted by the
Planning and Environmental Commission on October 14, 1985.
This approval allowed for a setback variance of 13 feet for a
sun room on Unit 3 and to relocate an existing pool equipment
room. The previous variance placed the new pool equipment
room under an existing deck adjacent to the pool.
The present request would move the existing pool equipment
room to the south side of the pool. The new pool equipment
building would be built into the hillside below Vail Valley
Drive. The existing pool fence would also remain to screen
views of the pool equipment room from the road. The sunroom
is no longer a part of the proposal. The Ramshorn is located
in the Public Accommodation zone district which requires 20
foot setbacks around the entire perimeter of the property.
The existing pool room encroaches into the setback up to the
property line. The new location decreases the encroachment
by 3 feet. A side (east) setback encroachment of 14 feet is
also created by the proposed location of the pool equipment
room.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested setback variances 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 staff agrees with the applicant that the proposal
replaces an "aging, utilitarian structure with a new, less
• visible structure." The applicant has chosen to relocate the
. pool room on the southeast corner of the property instead of
under the deck, as the equipment room had negative impacts on
the units adjacent to the deck. The new location on the
southeast corner of the property has minimal impacts on the
Ramshorn project, general public, and All Seasons lodge to
the east. The structure will be built into the hillside
which will minimize the visibility of the building. Directly
to the east of the Ramshorn property is a parking lot that is
also owned by the Ramshorn. The All Seasons manager has also
reviewed the request and had no problems with the new
location.
•
•
Public Works has reviewed the request and has no concerns.
The Ramshorn property line varies from 12 feet to 11 feet
from the edge of pavement in the area of the new pool
equipment room. Public Works did not feel that this would
create any problems for the new sidewalk. More importantly,
the encroachment is decreased by 3 feet which adds space for
the walkway.
In addition, the existing pool utility room encroaches onto a
utility easement. The new location will move the equipment
room off of this easement. Staff considers the new location
to be a positive improvement in respect to adjacent uses, as
the visibility of the pool equipment room is decreased and
the appearance of the equipment room is improved.
The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
The existing Ramshorn building already encroaches 10 feet to
13 feet into the 20 foot setback in certain areas. The
relocated pool room actually decreases the front setback
encroachment and does not increase the side setback
encroachment to a degree that negative impacts result.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of o ulation transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety, -
Staff finds that there are no impacts on these factors.
r�
U
•
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation
specified regulation would
privileges enjoyed by the
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
or enforcement of the
deprive the applicant of
owners of other properties in
The staff recommends approval of the setback variances for
the new pool equipment room. The granting of the variances
is not a special privilege, as other encroachments already
exist on the property. The front setback encroachment is
decreased which is an improvement over the existing
situation. The east (side) setback encroaches 14 feet, but
will have no impact on the Ramshorn's adjacent parking lot to
the east. The variances also do not have any negative
impacts on safety and welfare. In general, the staff feels
that the new design of the pool room and location is an
improvement over what presently exists on the property.
May 26, 1987
Application For A Variance
Rams -Horn Lodge
416 Vaal Valley Drive
Precise Nature Of The Variance Requested
The applicant requests to amend a variance granted October
14, 1985 (see accompanying drawings in regards to the vari-
ance granted).
The granted variance places the new pool equipment room
under an existing deck (see drawings). The applicant re-
quests that the new pool equipment room be relocated to the
southeast end of the existing pool. As shown on the draw-
ings, the new pool equipment building would be approximate-
ly 30% smaller than the existing pool equipment building
and would be well below street level and screened by the
existing pool fence.
The regulations involved are Section 18.22.060, Public Ac-
commodations District - Setbacks, and Section 18.58.02.0,
paragraph A, Supplemental Regulations - Recreational Ameni-
ties, of the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinances.
Relationship To Other Uses & Structures In The Vicinity
This proposal could only be welcomed by the users of this
area. The changes will:
1. Replace an aging, utilitarian structure with a new,
less visible structure.
2. In general, greatly improve the appearance and function
of this area. This area deserves the best design ef-
forts, as literally every user of Gold Peak travels by
here, either on foot, by bus, or car.
Degree To Which Relief From The Strict Or Literal Interpre-
tation & Enforcement Of A Specified Regulation Is Necessary
SotAchieVe- CompatibilityOrndoUniformity Of Treatment AmoR2
• - -- The _ _ _- - - ....
Attain The Objectives Of This
Title Without Grant Of Special Privileae
MORTER ARCH
May 26, 1987
Application For A Variance
Rams -Horn Lodge
Page -2-
No special privilege would be granted by the requested
amendment to the granted variance of October 14, 1985. As
stated in Section 18.58.020, paragraph A, Supplemental Re-
gulations - "Recreational amenities may be exempted from
setback requirements based on the review by the Design Re-
view Board."
The accompanying drawings show the degree of impact the new
pool equipment building will have environmentally and /or
aesthetically.
Effect Of The Variance On Light & Air, Distribution of Pop-
ulation_,_ Transportation, Traffic Facilities, Utilities, &
iPublic Safety - This proposal's effect on light, air, distribution of popu-
lation, utilities, transportation, traffic facilities, and
public safety is nil.
Summary
To quote portions of Chapter 8.02, General Provisions, of
the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance:
18.02.020 Purpose
A. These regulations are enacted for the purpose of promo-
ting the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of
the town, and to promote the coordinated and harmonious
development of the town in a manner that will conserve
and enhance its natural environment and its established
character as a resort and residential community of high
quality.
B. These regulations are intended to achieve the following
more specific purposes:
5. To conserve and maintain established community qua -
lities and economic values;
� 0
n
MORTER '
May 26, 1987
Application For A Variance
Rams -Horn Lodge
Page -3-
6. To encourage a harmonious, convenient, and workable
relationship among land uses, consistent with muni-
cipal development objectives;
8. To safeguard and enhance the appearance of the
town;
10. To assure amenities adequate open space, recreation
opportunities, and other amenities and facilities
conducive to desired living quarters;
11. To otherwise provide for the growth of an orderly
and viable community.
The applicant requests to amend a previously granted vari-
ance without effecting the quality of the environment of
this very prominent location in our village. The result of
his efforts will be the successful realization of the pur-
poses of the Town of Vail's very Zoning Ordinance.
Cyyyy_1:1g
POOL:,
.. r�'x -� "i' ��t Y .t 1 � �. i .'� •4. ..'1 52+1��u;,4 fT ��:� G dt � 3 J 1�5 A°� �' J � �P k � G
i.
r�
u
-F oe
vp
Ll
ct
a�yxaa�iaR .
fifilzi lk a
-41
tk
IZ,
tn LL
Lq
rx
L
4 nn
y0 No
ct
a�yxaa�iaR .
fifilzi lk a
-41
jill
1
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core II in order to expand an existing office lobby
area at the Antlers located on West Lionshead Place
in Lionshead.
Applicant: Antlers Condominium Association
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The existing Antlers reception and front desk area is
located on the north side of the building on the top level
of the existing parking deck. The Antlers is requesting a
14' x 21' extension of this front desk area to create
additional office space for the administration of the
Antlers Condominium building. The existing reception
front desk area is located within part of the precast
concrete structure which makes up the Antlers building.
The 14'x 21' addition will be constructed of wood and will
be finished with horizontal siding to match the siding
areas of the existing Antlers Condominium building.
•
II. CRITERIA TO BE USED IN EVALUATING APPLICATIONS FOR
EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS.
Applications for additions or new construction in
Commercial Cores I and II involve review with respect to
the Urban Design Guide Plans. These consist of the Sub-
area Concepts as delineated in the Guide Plans and maps,
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 DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
The Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead identifies a
number of sub -area concepts which are to be addressed when
applicable in any redevelopment proposal. The area
covered by the Urban Design Guide Plan is mainly the
Lionshead Mall. The Antlers is not addressed in the Guide
Plan and there are no applicable sub -area concepts with
respect to this proposal.
•
0 IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
There are seven Design Considerations to be reviewed when
considering development in Lionshead. Because of the
location and nature of this proposal, these considerations
are generally not applicable. The following outlines each
of these considerations:
A. Height and Massing The 21' x 14' addition, 8 feet
in height, on the second floor of the Antlers
Condominium building does not affect the height and
massing criteria.
B. Urban Design Considerations These architectural con-
siderations deal primarily with development in the
mall area. They are not applicable to this
proposal.
C. Roofs The roof pitch is one -half inch slope in one
foot. This criteria is really not applicable to this
minor addition.
D. Facades, Walls, Structures Identical materials to
that which exists on the rest of the Antlers Condo-
minium Building will be used on this addition. This
is generally compatible with design guidelines for
Lionshead.
E. Facades, Transparency This criteria is not
applicable to this office expansion.
F. Decks and Patios Not applicable to the proposal.
G. Accent Elements Not applicable to the proposal.
H. Landscape Elements This element is not directly
applicable to this proposal. The addition is infill
of a concrete parking deck. There is no landscaping
being removed or being added through this proposal.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The expansion of this office does affect one parking
space. This parking space can be relocated in front of
the office area without loss of any maneuvering ability
within the isle way. Therefore there is no overall impact
to parking through the proposal.
•
0 VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
While the property does lie in Commercial. Core II and
therefore requires exterior alteration review for any
addition over 100 square feet, the impacts of this
proposal upon these guidelines are negligible. There are
no negative zoning considerations or impacts. Town staff
sees absolutely no negative impacts to this proposal and
recommends approval.
C
•
•
Duplex and primary /secondary structures are encouraged to be in
one structure. However, if the relationship of mass of the
building to the size of the site is within appropriate scale
and a unified site plan for the entire lot is proposed, the DRB
may consider the separation of structures. The intent of this
section is to avoid the appearance of two unrelated dwellings
on one duplex or primary /secondary lot. Unified site
development shall require the use of similar and compatible
architectural design. This includes materials (siding,
roofing, trim, stone), roof forms, architectural style, balcony
and window treatments, railings and other design elements. The
unified site development shall include a coordinated landscape
and grading plan that creates a visual appearance of a single
development project. Common elements of linkage such as
courtyards, common entries and walkways are encouraged to unify
site development. The design of units as a single structure,
and the utilization of a single road cut is encouraged.
•
•
- i
v
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
•
Planning and Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June.,8f, 1.987
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial
Core I in order to enclose an existing dining deck at
Blu's Restaurant located at 193 East Gore Creek
Drive.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL
The two elements involved in this proposal are the
enclosure of a portion of the existing dining patio
adjacent to Blu's and the expansion of the existing
outdoor dining area. The design of the patio enclosure
incorporates a glassed roof with totally operable walls on
the south elevation of the restaurant. Another aspect of
the enclosure includes an airlock entry vestibule in the
location of the existing restaurant. The dining patio
expansion is located predominantly on Town property.
Earlier this year, the Town Council granted Blu's the
opportunity to proceed through the review process with
this basic design. The potential expansion of this dining
patio was planned for and incorporated into the overall
design of the Gore Creek Promenade.
II. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS REQUEST
As outlined in the zoning code, review criteria for
requests of this nature are established by the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this
review is on the project's compatibility with both the
Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Design
Considerations. Detailed architectural and landscape
considerations become the purview of the Design Review
Board if this project is approved. The Planning
Commission is also charged with addressing standard zoning
issues not covered in the Urban Design Guide Plan.
III. URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
Expressed as Sub -Area Concepts, the elements of the Guide
Plan identify physical improvements to improve the overall
fabric of the Village. There are no specific proposals
identified in this element of the plan relative to this
project.
r,
Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight
modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street
trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the
existing wooden planter. Coupled . with a new planter
immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this
treatment will provide a colorful framework along this
portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency
inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible
activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In
addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will
provide outdoor activity when feasible. Overall, the
proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this
area of the promenade.
Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly
adjacent to this property, the street enclosure
considerations are not directly applicable. However,
there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion
in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal.
Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway
is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the
buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the 41
patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building
forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular
IV. VAIL VILLAGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
These Urban Design Considerations address large scale land
planning issues, as well as form giving considerations
that go beyond the property lines of the project proposal.
These considerations contain the following:
Pedestrianization: This consideration is intended to
reinforce and expand the quality of the pedestrian's
walking experience throughout the Village. The proposed
patio expansion encroaches into the existing walkway, now
referred to as the Gore Creek Promenade. This linkage is
a key element to the success of the pedestrian system in
t the Village. If approved in conjunction with improvements
�. to the promenade, a 10 foot width will remain during those
times when the patio is in place. This 10 foot width is
over a span of 32 feet. Remaining portions of the
promenade are generally 15 feet in width. It is felt that
over such a short distance that this reduction in width is
not a detriment to the walkway. To the contrary, staff
feels that the activity provided by the dining deck works
well with the narrowing of the sidewalk's width. It
shoul o It the r & ling enclosure of the patio is
`'-removable and during winter months walkway w3
maintain its 15T�oot width.
Vehicular Penetration: There are no impacts related .elated to
vehicular penetration from this proposal.
Streetscape Framework: While there may be slight
modifications to the landscaping of this deck, 4 street
trees have been proposed to mitigate the loss of the
existing wooden planter. Coupled . with a new planter
immediately west of the patio and dining enclosure, this
treatment will provide a colorful framework along this
portion of the promenade. The high degree of transparency
inherent in the greenhouse enclosure will provide visible
activity for the pedestrian on the promenade. In
addition, the operable front walls and dining deck will
provide outdoor activity when feasible. Overall, the
proposal will improve the street - scape framework for this
area of the promenade.
Street Enclosure: Because of the open space directly
adjacent to this property, the street enclosure
considerations are not directly applicable. However,
there is a nice stepping effect created by this expansion
in conjunction with the Sweet Basil proposal.
Street Edge: While the overall appearance of the walkway
is linear, there is a fair amount of variety found in the
buildings along the promenade. To a slight degree, the 41
patio enclosure eliminates a slight "jog" in the building
forms along the walkway. Nonetheless, the irregular
r
facade lines of this streetscape are maintained and
reinforced by this patio expansion as well as the Lancelot
patio.
Building Height: There are no considerations applicable
to building height as a result of this proposal.
Views: Views are not impacted by this proposal.
Service and Delive While the seating capacity for the
restaurant will be increased, it is not anticipated that n
increased number of delivery trucks will be needed to
service this expansion.
Sun /Shade: As was the case with Sweet Basil, this
enclosure is designed in complete compliance with
recommendations made in the Guide Plan.
V. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Additional parking demands created by the enclosed space
will be met by payment into the Town's parking fund. The
exact amount will be calculated at the time of building
permit.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
While this recommendation, along with the Sweet Basil
recommendation, are contrary to other actions by the Town
concerning deck enclosures, staff feels this proposal is
warranted. Our position is based primarily on the
northern exposure of the deck. In addition, the walls on
the north elevation are totally operable. Blu's has
demonstrated their desire to open their existing operable
walls when weather permits. This creates a very pleasing
experience and, in fact, allows for more people to enjoy
the feel of outdoor dining. This increases the sense of
activity along the street on a year around basis.
Another consideration relative to our support of this
enclosure is the patio expansion. While located
predominantly on Town land, the outdoor dining area is
being maintained. However, there is a direct impact on
the patio expansion with respect to the existing walkway.
Without improvements to the walkway, the width of the
sidewalk would be reduced at its narrowest point to 5
feet. This is unacceptable, and improvements to the
walkway are required to facilitate this project proposal.
Given the level of improvements on both sides of this
property, it is reasonable to expect a similar treatment
along this frontage.
r Another consideration not directly applicable to the
Planning Commission's review is the railing treatment
proposed to define the deck. The staff has a significant
concern over the wooden railing treatment and question its
appropriateness. With a few exceptions, wrought iron has
been used to define many of the recent dining deck
expansions in the Village. Another design consideration
for the applicant is that the railing defining the deck
must be removable. While supporting the enclosure and the
basic footprint of the expansion, staff cannot support the
design of the railing as proposed.
The staff would encourage the Planning Commission to
adopt the following conditions of approval:
1. The walls on the north elevation be totally
operable.
2. The applicant consider design alternatives for the
railing treatment to be submitted at DRB review..
3. Sidewalk improvements consistent with the Gore Creek
Promenade design be made in conjunction with this
proposal. Consistent improvements shall mean
identical materials and design. The upgrading of the
walkway shall be made over the entire length of the
Gore Creek Plaza building frontage and shall be done .
in conjunction with construction and expansion of the
existing patio.
c �
TO: Planning and Environmental commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit in order to
expand an outdoor dining deck at Blu's Restaurant
located at 193 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Blu's Restaurant
1. CRITERIA TO BE ADDRESSED
While all significant issues relative to this project have
been addressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the
zoning code requires a separate conditional use approval for
the expansion of the dining patio. The following criteria
are to be used in this review.
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on Commercial Core I
District:
There are no effects upon vehicular traffic relative to
this proposal.
T B. Reduction of vehicular traffic on commercial Core I
District:
This proposal will not reduce nor increase vehicular
traffic into the core.
C. Reduction of nonessential off- street parking.
There is no effect on this consideration.
D. Control of deliver pickup and service vehicles.
There is no anticipated increase in the frequency of
deliveries to this establishment.
E. Development of public spaces for use by pedestrians.
As indicated in the exterior alteration memorandum, a
significant improvement to the existing walkway will be
done in conjunction with this proposal. If approved and
constructed, the applicant is to be commended for his
participation in this public improvement. While
necessary to facilitate the patio expansion, the level
of improvement is of high quality and consistent with
the improvements on adjacent properties.
F. Continuance of the various commercial, residential, and
. public uses in Commercial Core I District so as to
maintain the existing character of the area.
As expressed in the exterior alteration memorandum, the
staff feels strongly that this proposal will increase
the level of activity along the promenade.
G. Control quality of construction, architectural design,
and landscape design in Commercial Core I so as to
maintain the exist_ ing character of the area. ^�
The sidewalk improvements are of the highest quality
found in the Village, the landscape improvements
maintain or improve the existing Landscaping of the
patio, and the design of the enclosure is an improvement
over existing conditions of this property,
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation for this request is for approval as per
the conditions outlined the exterior alteration memorandum.
•
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1987
SUBJECT: A request for a density control variance and a side
setback variance in order to enclose existing decks on
Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing 2.
Applicant: Albert D. Weiss
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The proposed deck enclosures entail two variance requests,
one for encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback,
and the other for GRFA over what is allowed under existing
zoning. The enclosures proposed affect two existing decks on
the north side of the property located on the first and
second levels. While the existing structure is located
within the side setback, a variance to the proposed enclosure
is required because the degree of this encroachment is being
increased by the deck enclosure. The extent of this
encroachment is 4 feet, leaving 11 feet between the structure
and the property's easterly boundary line.
Allowable GRFA for this property is 2,616 square feet (not
including allowable credits). Existing GRFA within both
units is 3,476 square feet. The applicant has requested 250
. square feet under Ordinance 4, and an additional 58 square
feet under the variance process. The total additional GRFA
amounts to 308 square feet.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.61.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing
or potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Because many of the structures in this area were constructed
prior to incorporation into the Town of Vail, the
neighborhood abounds with nonconforming situations. These
would include setback as well as density considerations. As
proposed, the setback requested is consistent with the
previous requirement under Eagle County (10 foot side
setbacks). The degree of encroachment proposed does not
adversely affect existing or proposed uses in the area.
•
Existing GRFA
is presently ;
situation may
inappropriate
allowed under
on the property is nearly 50% greater than what
allowed under Vail's zoning. While this
continue due to its nonconforming status, it is
to consider additional development beyond that
Ordinance 4.
The dearee to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
As stated, there are numerous nonconforming situations in
this neighborhood. Because of the existing location of the
structure and lack of physical impacts on adjacent
properties, it is felt that there is legimate cause to grant
a setback variance. However, the applicant has requested
GRFA beyond that allowed under the provisions of Ordinance 4
and the staff feels strongly that to approve this request
would be a grant of special privilege. The ultimate goal of
any development controls are to limit the amount of
development in a community. Ordinance 4 has gone beyond this
to allow for small additions under special circumstances. To
consider GRFA beyond the 250 square feet that may be
permitted, particularly on a property that is dramatically
• over its current allowable square footage, is unacceptable to
the staff.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety. �4
There are no direct impacts on any of the above
considerations.
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 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 or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficultly or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff is unable to support the request as presented.
While we see legitimate hardship for the requested side
setback variance, we are strongly opposed to the additional
GRFA requested (beyond the 250 square feet allowed under
• Ordinance 4). If the proposal were within the 250 square
foot allowance, the staff would feel comfortable supporting
the setback variance. However, as proposed, the staff would
recommend denial of this application. We recommend that the
Planning Commission encourage the applicant to consider
scaling back the addition to be within the provisions
permitted under Ordinance 4.
r�
U
� 0
John M. Perkins / Architect, AlA / Post Office Box 266 / Vail, Colorado 81658 / 303 - 949 -4637
18 Tune 1987
Mr. Tom Braun, Planner
Town of Vail
North Frontage Road West
Vaal, Colorado. 81657
Re: Snow Slide Damages to the Weiss Residence
Consideration of Hardship
• Dear Tom;
I have made a visual inspection of.Mr. Weiss' residence on Gore
Creek Drive in West Vail. I have verified the following damages,
potentially dangerous conditions and general concerns:
Snow falling from the roof has annually seriously dam-
aged the deck and stair railings. Currently, a make-
shift railing is in place, providing a bare minimum of
protection.
Moisture is currently causing discoloration, cracking,
peeling and spalling of the stucco - covered north wall..
Potential structural damage to the concrete masonry units
at the sill of a sliding glass door on the grade level is
evident.
There is a generally dangerous condition of snow and ice
build -up on both of the decks.
It is my opinion that the above mentioned concerns constitute a
serious hardship to Mr. Weiss' maintaining his residence in a safe
•
•
and attractive condition. f urge you to recommend approval of
Mr. Weiss' applications for variance to the density and side
setback regulations on the basis of these obvious hardships.
If you have any further questions regarding Mr. Weiss' applications,
please do not hesitate to call me.
Thank you, )
A ► A 1 !
Yin M. Perkins
c: Mr. Al Weiss
r E
r•
DENSITY CONTROL DISCUSSION
PEC AND TOWN COUNCIL
6/30/87
A. EXISTING APPROVED POLICIES
1. LAND USE PLAN
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional
growth in existing developed areas (inf'ili
areas) .
3.2 The core areas are the best location for hotels
to serve the future needs of the destination
skiers.
* 4.2 Increased
desirable
each area
the Urban
Question: Does
Poli,
density in the core areas is
so long as the existing character of
is preserved through implementation of
Design Guide Plan.
this include CCI? Answer relates to
-y 4.3.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is important to the
identity of Vail and should be preserved
whenever possible (i.e. scale, alpine character,
small town feeling, mountains, natural setting,
intimate size, cosmopolitan feeling,
environmental quality).
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur primarily in existing, platted areas and
as appropriate in new areas where high hazards
do not exist.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the
market place demands for a full range of housing
types.
2. PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
* 1.2.1 Allow increased levels of development as
identified by the Action Plan or consistent
with the Vail Village Master Plan.
Note: No residential increases are found on
the Action Plan for CCI.
2.2.1 Preserve the existing architectural scale
and character of the core area of Vail
Village.
r
* 2.3 Increase the number of residential units
• throughout the Village area available for
short term overnight accommodations.
* 2.3.1 The development of accommodation units are
strongly encouraged. Any residential units
that are developed above existing density
levels shall be restricted per Section
17.26.075 (owner can only use unit 4 weeks
in high ski season).
* 3.3.2 To maintain existing outdoor dining decks
and encourage the development of new
outdoor dining areas through infill or
redevelopment projects.
B. OTHER APPROVED POLICIES
1. Ordinance 4, 1985
Allows a maximum of 250 additional square feet to
single family and duplex structures if they are over
five years old with an agreement to upgrade the site
as necessary. Does not allow for the addition of any
exterior additional square feet for multi - family
structures (e.g. interior space can be utilized but
. no mass or bulk additions for balcony enclosure or
additional living area).
2. Approvals (or denials) over the last 10 years
indicate the PEC's and Council's policy is to not
allow multi - family balcony enclosures because they
cannot prove physical hardship, there is no special
privilege and that the request is generally . "for the
convenience of the applicant."
C. PROBLEM
Density variance applications (or SDD's for the same
purpose) are on the increase. Some recent approvals
(Sitzmark, Christiania) appear consistent with adopted and
proposed policy toward encouraging accommodation units if
other criteria are met.
However, this month the PEC has approved two multi - family
deck enclosures (one has been affirmed by Council, one is
pending Council action). Both of these decisions appear
to set new direction toward these types of density
variances.
. Question: Is new policy warranted (i.e. changes to Ord.4
of 1985? If so, what are the new criteria
multi- family deck enclosures must meet?
. Density variance requests for dwelling units are now in
various stages of the approval process for three CCI
properties and one immediately outside the core. At least
two of these will also require height variances (and
possibly others). Only one of these requests has agreed
to owner's use restrictions, and in that case, only a
portion of the additional density would be restricted.
Without discussing individual projects, we must determine
a policy direction to fairly and intelligently deal with
these and other similar proposals.
•
Finally, we must understand that at least one existing but
unfinished townhouse project will be applying shortly for
additional density. This appears to be consistent with
Land Use Policy 5.1 as far as accommodating the long term
growth needs of the community. However, an appropriate
question concerns the timing of implementing this portion
of the Plan. Due to the continued presence of available
unsold, constructed and approved but unbuilt units, is it
prudent to allow additional density at this time? A
policy direction is necessary.
STAFF POSITIONS
While we haven't had ample opportunity to thoroughly
discuss all of these issues and develop firm staff
positions on each, we would offer the following:
1. Multi-Family Balcony Enclosures
Do not approve any more until revisions to Ordinance 4 of
1985 can be made. This will allow ample time to complete
any necessary revisions and to analyze their short and
long term implications.
2. Density Control Variances Outside CCI
Should be approached only if lodge rooms or restricted
dwelling units are proposed- -bath now and after adoption
of the Village Master Plan. The planning approvals should
include substantial public improvements adjacent to the
project (Gore Creek Promenade with the Sitzmark as an
example) in return for the density. Density allowances
should be made only in instances where it is clearly in
keeping with the mass, bulk and general scale of the
immediate area.
3. Density Control Variances in CCI
We have major concerns that the design guidelines are firm
and clear enough to control this most sensitive of areas.
Absolute strict adherence to the guidelines and the
elements of the Vail Village Master Plan may provide
enough control, but we question whether this will occur or
whether it is desirable. The public input in developing
the Plan was very strong in the direction of not allowing
much additional mass and /or bulk in this area. However,
certain small additions, if lodge rooms or restricted
dwelling units, could still be desirable in certain areas
of the core. This will take more discussion.
•
•
n
C1
J
DENSITY CONTROL DISCUSSION
PEC AND TOWN COUNCIL
6/30/87
A. EXISTING APPROVED POLICIES
1. LAND USE PLAN
1.12 Vail, should accommodate most of the additional
growth in existing developed areas (infill
areas) .
3.2 The core areas are the best location for hotels
to serve the future needs of the destination
skiers.
* 4.2 Increased
desirable
each area
the Urban
Question: Does
Poli,
density in the core areas is
so long as the existing character of
is preserved through implementation of
Design Guide Plan.
this include CCI? Answer relates to
Dy 4.3.
4.3 The ambiance of the Village is
identity of Vail and should be
whenever possible (i.e. scale,
small town feeling, mountains,
intimate size, cosmopolitan fe,
environmental quality).
important to the
preserved
alpine character,
natural setting,
cling,
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to
occur primarily in existing, platted areas and
as appropriate in new areas where high hazards
do not exist.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the
market place demands for a full range of housing
types.
�2. PROPOSED VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
* 1.2.1 Allow increased levels of development as
identified by the Action Plan or consistent
with the Vail Village Master Plan.
Note: No residential increases are found on
the Action Plan for CCI.
2.2.1 Preserve the existing architectural scale
and character of the cone area of Vail
Village.
•
* 2.3 Increase the number of residential units
throughout the Village area available for
short term overnight accommodations.
* 2.3.1 The development of accommodation units are
strongly encouraged. Any residential units
that are developed above existing density
levels shall be restricted per Section
17.26.075 (owner can only use unit 4 weeks
in high ski season).
* 3.3.2 '"aintain existing outdoor dining decks
and encourage the development of new
outdoor dining areas through infill or
redevelopment projects.
B. OTHER APPROVED POLICIES
1. Ordinance 4, 1985
Allows a maximum of 250 additional square feet to
single family and duplex structures if they are over
five years old with an agreement to upgrade the site
as necessary. Does not allow for the addition of any
exterior additional square feet for multi - family
structures (e.g. interior space can be utilized but
no mass or bulk additions for balcony enclosure or
additional living area).
2. Approvals (or denials) over the last 10 years
indicate the PEC's and Council's policy is to not
allow multi - family balcony enclosures because they
cannot prove physical hardship, there is no special
privilege and that the request is generally "for the
convenience of the applicant."
C. PROBLEM
Density variance applications (or SDD's for the same
purpose) are on the increase. some recent approvals
(sitzmark, Christiania) appear consistent with adopted and
proposed policy toward encouraging accommodation units if
other criteria are met.
However, this month the PEC has approved two multi- family
deck enclosures (one has been affirmed by Council, one is
pending Council action). Both of these decisions appear
to set new direction toward these types of density
variances.
Question: Is new policy warranted (i.e. changes to Ord.4
of 1985? If so, what are the new criteria
multi- family deck enclosures must meet ?)
0 Density variance requests for dwelling units are now in
various stages of the approval process for three CCI
properties and one immediately outside the core. At least
two of these will also require height variances (and
possibly others). Only one of these requests has agreed
to owner's use restrictions, and in that case, only a
portion of the additional density would be restricted.
Without discussing individual projects, we must determine
a policy direction to fairly and intelligently deal with
these and other similar proposals.
Finally, we must understand that at least one existing but
unfinished townhouse project will be applying shortly for
additional density. This appears to be consistent with
Land Use Policy 5.1 as far as accommodating the long term
growth needs of the community. However, an appropriate
question concerns the timing of implementing this portion
of the Plan. Due to the continued presence of available
unsold, constructed and approved but unbuilt units, is it
prudent to allow additional density at this time? A
policy direction is necessary.
STAFF POSITIONS
While we haven't had ample opportunity to thoroughly
discuss all of these issues and develop firm staff
positions on each, we would offer the following:
1. Multi - Familv Balconv Enclosures
Do not approve any more until revisions to Ordinance 4 of
1985 can be made. This will allow ample time to complete
any necessary revisions and to analyze their short and
long term implications.
2. Densitv Control Variances Outside CCI
Should be approached only if lodge rooms or restricted
dwelling units are proposed - -both now and after adoption
of the Village Master Plan. The planning approvals should
include substantial public improvements adjacent to the
project (Gore Creek Promenade with the Sitzmark as an
example) in return for the density. Density allowances
should be made only in instances where it is clearly in
keeping with the mass, bulk and general scale of the
immediate area.
3. Density Control Variances in CCI
We have major concerns that the design guidelines are firm
and clear enough to control this most sensitive of areas.
Absolute strict adherence to the guidelines and the
elements of the Vail Village Master Plan may provide
to enough control, but we question whether this will occur or
whether it is desirable. The public input in developing
the Plan was very strong in the direction of not allowing
much additional mass and /or bulk in this area. However,
certain small additions, if lodge rooms or restricted
dwelling units, could still be desirable in certain areas
of the core. This will take more discussion.
to
0