HomeMy WebLinkAbout1989 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes July - December
~
Planning and Environmental Commissian
July 10, 1989
12:15 PM Site Visits
1:00 PM Public Meating/Work Session on VaiZ Village Master Plan
3:00 PM Public Hearing
1. Appraval of June 12, 1989 minutes.
2. A request far a front setback variance for
Lot 6, Vail Village Tenth Fiiing.
Applicant: Michael Katz
tabl.ed to Jul.y 24 3. A request for a flaodplain alteration on Lot
7, Block 3, Vail Village Eleventh Filing.
Applicant: Junge Reich Magee
~ 4. Work session an Art in Public Pl,aces
~
~
I
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
July 10, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Jim Viele Betsy Rosolack
Diana Danovan Kristan Pritz
Sid Schultz
Peggy Osterfoss
Kathy Warren
Chuck Crist
Pam Hnpkins
The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting began at
approximately 3:00 p.m.
Item No. 1 Approval of June 12, 1989 minutes.
The following changes were requested ta be made to the June 12th
minutes:
1. On Ttem Nn. 4, (d) - change "skilful" to "Sigiu."
2, on Red Lion request, delete the sentence on page 3, paragraph 6,
~ beginni.ng, "Since then..."
Diana mationed for approval of the minutes as corrected. Pam seconded
the motion.
Vote• 7-0
Item No. 2 A reauest for afront setback variarace far Lot 6, Vail
Villaqe Tenth Fi1.a.nq.
Appl.icant: Michael Katz
The staff presentation was given by Betsy Rosolack, Sha explained that
the applicant was requesting a front setback variance of 16 feet in
order to constxuct a residence. The front setback requirement is 20
feet and the applicant would like tQ build within 4 feet of the
property line. The 16 foot encroachment would allow the owner to bua.ld
two garages with living space on the level abov'e. The applicant's
reason far moving the structure forward is to help mitigate against
potential damage since the lot is in high avalanche, sno5a avalanche,
and mediuan severity rockfall hazard areas. The app].icant also wished
to reduce extensive cuts and fiJ.].s necessary ta meet setback
requirements.
The staf£'s opinian was that the strict interpretata.on and enfarcement
of the specifa.ed regulation would deprive the appl.icant of privileges
~ enjoyed by the owners of ather properties in the same district.
The staff recommended approval since the construction of a residence on
~ a steep lot in hazard areas can be considered a practical difficulty
and unnecessary physical hardship.
Tom Briner of Briner/Strain Architects represented the appZicants.
Gene McGuire reparasented the owners of a duplex on Lat 5, east af the
subject lot. The adjacent property owners were cancerned about an
interruption of their view from balconies and living areas. They were
not totally opposed to the proposal, but fe1.t that the design of the
residence shauld be sen.sitive to the neighborhood. The owners of lot 7
were also concerned about the diversa.on of avalanche hazards onta athex
properties. Betsy assured Gene that avalanche control would not affect
other property owners. Kristan explained mitigatinn procedures
regarding debris flow, etC.
Peggy felt it was difficult to construe that a denial would be made of
the same variance granted to other prnperty owners. She was a.n favor
of the proposal. She said she appreciated the adjacent praperty
owners' concerns about views but did not feel it applied to this
praperty. Sid agreed with Peggy. Kathy also agreed that since
naighbors on both sides of the applicant's lot have the variance
privilege, it would be wrang if the applicant did not have the same
privilege. Pam also agreed.
Daana disagreed. She said that by looking at the plans, a da.ffarent
. design coul.d be used which would not warrant a variance.
Jim abstained on the item due to a potential canfl.ict of interest.
Peggy motioned for araval as er the staff inemo. Chuck secanded the
motion.
Vote: 5-1-1, Diana opposed, Jim abstaining.
Item No. 3 A re uest for a flood lain alteratian on Lot 7 Block 3
Vail Village Eleventh Fil.ing.
Applicant: Junge Reich Magee
This item was tabled to July 24, 1989.
The meeting adjourned aftar a warksessian an Art in Public Places.
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Devalapment Department
DATE: July 10, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a Eront setback variance in order to
construct a rasidence an Lot 6, Vail Village Tenth
Filing.
Applicant: Michael Katz
I. DESCRXPTYQN OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicanfi is requesting a front setback variance of 16
feet in order to construat a residence. The property is in
the blue and red snow avalanche, high debris avaZanche, and
medium severity rockfall hazard areas. The slope af the lot
under the proposed garages and residence is approximately
0
3p o.
Zoning on this property is Two Family Residential. The
front setback requirement is 20 feet. Mr. Katz would like to
build within 4 feet af the front property line. The 16 foot
encroachment a].laws the owner to build two garages with
living space on the level above. ~ The appli.cant's reasons far moving the structure forward is
to help mitigate against potenti.al damagB from aval.anche,
rockfall and debris flow and also to reduae extensive cuts
and fi11s necessary to meet setback requirements.
TX. CRTTERZA AND``FxNDTNGS
Upon review af Cri.teria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 0f
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval af the requested variance based upon the
following factars:
A. Consideratian of Factors:
1. The relationshi. of the re uested variance to other
existin or otential uses and structures in the
vicinity._
zn 1975, the PEC and Tawn Council approved an
application for 4 foot front setbacks for Lot 5, 7,
and 8. Lots 5 and 7 border Lot 6. Existing
structures already encroach into the front setbaclc
on either side of this 1ot. (Please see the
attached FEC and Town Council minutes for the
~ variances in 1975).
and
2. The deqree to which relief from the strict
lieral interpretation and_en£_o_rcement_of a
s ecified re ulation is necessar to achieve
compatibility and uniformityof treatment among
sites in the vicinit or to attain the ob ectives
of this title without grant_of special privileqe.
The fact that the lots adjacent to Lot 6 received 4
foot setback variances negates the special
privilege factor. A11 0f the lots alang the south
side of Fairway Drive are impacted by numerous
hazards which make the variance requests reasanable
and necessary. Staft believes that the owner of
Lot 6 should receive the same treatment.
3. The effect af the re uested variance an li ht and
air, distribution af population, transportation and
traffic facilities, public £acilities and
utilities, and public safety.
There are no significant impacts on these factors.
HOWeVer, we would recommend that the balconies be
constructed without supporting posts. This will
rasult in the balconies having less of a visual
impact when viewed from the street and neighboring
properties.
~ III. Such factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable
to the proposed variance.._
<
IV. FINDINGS •
The Plannin and Environmental Cammission shall make the
follawin findin s before rantin a variance:
That the grantxng of the variance will not constitute a grant
af special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be datrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for ane or more of the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty nr unnecessary phy5iaal hardship incansistent
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 ownars ot ather properties in
the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The stafP recommends approval of the requested variance. The
construction of a residence on a steep lot in hazard areas
can be cansidered a practical difficulty and unnecessary
physical hardship. The fact that adjacent lots were granted
the identical setback variance indicate there would be no
special privilege in granting the same variance for this
praperty.
•
~
! -
1 4c:Z!~ ' - ~ f ~ .r ~ ~ ~ 1
' ` \ ^~ti.~ • ~
-
~ : ~
,
, .
/ ~ ~.r-~~~~ 9 ~r~ N
~ ~ Q4
1 ~ti f:i' • ~ ! W
~ ~
T~ tit ~ #~b 4A T' ~~Mi
` ~ ~ °f,'~, ~'r~~~ a.~,~~5 1:: - r-r.~'•r,~ ~
r
' ~ l / ~ ' . ~ . ~ . •,.:,'Jl~r ~ ~4 ~ f
/5%a ' ~ ' • f ~I ~ ~ ' i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~A_ Q
~ r ~ v J ~ ~ y 4 y `G ~ . '1 ~ ~1~'~"`~
. . ? ° t-~~-'- . ~ . , ~
~y~' ! ` ' ~ ~ Y`I ~•.i.. ,4'~f 'ry'1 ' i.. ~ ' ~ ~'r~
~'•;'r~r ~~Yl` 'w .f' ^ t 1, . I 1~. , 1
• ~ \ ~ t'
`C~ ..+n:'+. ;3 •~~"ed r.a.r. ~ •~s:.'~..1:jr'1~,~,'~ ..y~ . " ' ~
, ~ . . •If1 ~ ' ~ 1y,~ .J~'' . . . . ~
~ ~ ~F:,. , •x ~
~ ~ , ,~;~``t<~r~,~,~• -,.Q Y~` ~""!'i~ ~i,r,fC. 'Y Q~ Od. V
.~iL ~ 1 f ~ ~ . ~Ir•?' ~ • ~ V'+r 'f-
.Q
•~Yr,'iiY~
. _ • J .j. 'Yw M . . a r~[
~ Ji .Y #-7~ , ~ ~ rf~(LZj^l;~ • a
. . ~ ,~,,,.r ~ ' '~ya, ~r ~'..y K.:rv: :+r_~l' ,,,u. ~ • '
' ~ _ . J' i : ~",,,+''~r i .v.'.,.'~i . ,
~ -Q`~ }Fi ' ~ Y' .~j;,•~~ ~ ir~~ {;~?;,+~'~''s`~'~'`~`,~~~". b~
. `a
~ti,'r z`- • ~ ~ ~ . . ~ ; ~ f~ ' ~ T _ 4 , ~ ~ ~ , ' ~ ~ ~ ~ , .
; . . - YJ . , ~ ,
t r~. .r . - , ~r~~ ~ ~6 ~ ' . ~ \`4. . ) . . . , ti, ' ~ ' •~~•:~r~ ~ '
• 1.~ . - +o-7` ~ •
' • Z . ~_..r-^'~r '.~¢4o7-0~pQr 7 ' .
'~p`, ~ ~ 1..^.« + , •Q~~~~ rr,,,r~r.'!r: ' ~ . . _ ~ i~ ~ . _
IANCE .RE 6E
. _ ~ . ~ 7 6 $9
l~y~
N- ~A
~'yYr~ .A~ R '.I ; ~.r.~ , . , • , .
~ ~ t~.•.~ n ~ , . • , • ~ ~ ' ' . , • ' ~
T.iY'r..~ , c.: r ~ • ~ ' ' !e'. . , . ~ ' ~ ~ ' , ~ . . ' ; : n.. ' . , .
~•ir~ "N~. '.t.~: S. _ . . _ . , • ~ . ~ . . , .
. •.t~L' v.~,.' . Yi ' .1..a. " . 'I , . • „1 . .s. . f
{S y x, rF 4 + , F.~ . •4
~ t ~y ~t" ~ 3;: e Y Q'E. ~ ~ t 7 a ~ . . r' ' ' ~
~FA" r'?4s '';~r~~*J~+j~'r..,l+'~•'i~:El.vt-~,;;3~"+~S'~'4'~ r ~ ..Y~n 5.-. ,~r~y '~x'r.:.Y*. ;y. w 1 ' ' 3- •;•~~,R'~.:x ~t.
f ~ , . . • . , ~ , ~
~~~~~~y~wrt~~t~~+~a'an°~L+k ~F:~i~~ti::`;.xw~s~S~`fx~`...,:n~. r'`'.eu.,:.?:'~pw~i'r4'~:Kxr ~R`S:a~.•.C:Y:?:/r,r,...,. . . • . _ti,...~ . • .
~ atatement
Mr. Michael Katz is applying for a 161 front set back variance
in order to construct a two family residence on J1246,,,,.,.Vai1
VzllaqelOth Fa.lina with a 4' set back. This lot is in the
moderate snow avalanche, debris ava3.anche and rockfall zone.
Final design is not comp],ete, but Mr. Katz is desirous of
locating his residence sn as tv mitigate against potential
damage from snow avalanahe and debris flow and the patential of
environmental damage that might ocaur gram extensive cuts and
filZs neccessary to meet the set back requirements as stated in
in paragraph 18.12.060 af the Town of Vail Zoning Ordinance
Yn August of 1975, the Town of Vail Planning Commission appxoved
an application t'or a4' set back on the two lots adjacent to Lot
6. At a Town of Vail council meeting on september 2, 1975 the
. 4' set back was unanimously approved bX those present. In the
meantime, two 2family residences have been bui1t on these lots,
each taking advantage o£ the 4' set back.
The locatian of Mr. Katz's residance wnu3.d thus be in confarmity
with that of each of his adjaaent ne3.ghbors. Minutes from both
the Planning Commission Hearing'and Town Counaa.l, are attached to
this appliaatian.
. By granting this variance, there would be'na adverse effect on
light, air, distribution of popul.ation, transportation, traffic
faciliti.es, utilities and public safety. •
~
- 1'LAfaNING CUNNI5SI0iJ '
' llugusl: 21, 19/5
3 : OU PM
~ .
Menibers present:
Hc 7mbac f7
1•1right
. Abboi:t;
Wiltio
Others present:'
Lamont •
Toughi 17
SALES 7'AX FIGfJRES i_ariiant p?°e,enCed sales i;ax data suinmarized by Johji 12yan and
suggeste:cf t;hat staff anci Planning Crammissian mi,yht be ab1e ta use this '
, inforination c1a aR aicl in cansidering condtiticnal use permits in CCI.
The general feeli ng was tftiat Ltie Plc1C1t11 C1g CO!]lfil} SSIQn waulct not want
to 1111pU5C' the Totivn in the econonic cieterminants of the conuiiunity, and
the market p]ace shauld detentine what types ofi new businesses are
al1owed. Tt7ey d id , hawever, fec] tf7at tlle. data wi tn some refinenzent,
i could be used by tl7c; staff i,i the geileral review process.
~
SE7 4ACK VARIANCE FOR 1.01"S 5, 7, aild 8 Vail Village 10th Filing
' Jim A€,b.ie, representing owners of l.ots 5; 7, & 8, Vail Vi71age
lOth Filing - application far 4` setbacic in lieu of 20' reguired by the
Loning Ordinance. Diar7a 1'ougfiill explairled that the setback variance was
requestecl by these owners for t4vo reasons; First, to locate the structure
as far fi°om Zone I, {lvalanche Hazard area, as possible, and seconcily to
mitigate the environmez7tal dansage from extensive cuts and ti71s nec-
essary to meet the setback requlrernents. The Community Uevelopment
Depart«iet1t staff recomumended appraval of the variance. Dased on crii;eria
and finciings from IlrLicle 19 read into the rccord, a motion for approval
iyas made by Jeii Wri1hC and secvncEcd by 8i1l Idi1ta. The mation carried
' with Abbatt vpposed,
~
•ino rareUOinE7 tnstrment uns ncki7owlydped befora me thia day of M]r lOr 19$9
e'' r104A~P ki, SusnN Q. BIRNKRAN1'
Minutes
' 2 September 1975
Page 2
With regard to the appointment of a new member to the Lacal Licensing '
Autharity to fi1] the vacancy created by the resignation of Gerry White,
the Cauncil voted by paper ballot. Rpplication was made in writing
to the Town Clerk by the fo11owing persons: Jim Schorsch, Isobel Schober, Kr7stine Keesiing and Rarbara Parker, Barbara Parker received .
• the highest number of votes and was duly appointed by the Tawn Council.
It was then necessary far the CoUnci3 to vate to increase one of the
original board member's terms from twa to four years; the board member .
receiving the highest number of vates was Qill Grassie; thus, his term
on the l.ocal L9censing Fluthority was increased to four years.
With regard ta the cansideration of a request for a setback variance
far Lots 5, 7, and a in Va3l Village Tenth Filing, the zoninq administrator;
Diana Tough111, explained tnat the lots are located on the golf course '
and that the owners are asking'far a1G ft. allowance on the required ,
20 ft, setback requ7rement. If houses could be constructed with3n 4 ft.
' of the property line, which fronts on to the road, then the avalanche hazard woul d be ini nimi zed and deep cuts and fi 11 s on the hi 13 si de waul d
be avaided, Jim Abbie and Johrt Mue]]er were present to represent all
lot owners; the oYrner of Lot 5is Harry Ziegler, Ms. Toughill stated
~ that the P1 anning Camni ss i an and tIre Town staff have recommended approval .
of the setback variance.. Councilman qonovan stated that he understood
~ the problem but could not see how anyone cauld build faur feet fram aproperty line. CotfEicilwoman Klug maved to apprave the request; Councilman
5levin seconded the motion; all present vated in favor; and the motion
• carried to grant the re uest,
, With regard to a_request far an amendment to a var~ance permit already
granted to Bob l.az~ier, the owner~requested that he be allowed to use .
the money designated for covering 15 parking spaces to heat walkways and
, 3andscape the area. The aniount p1us $500 design.funds has been deposited
' with the 1'own of Va31; the praject is to be completed by September 30, 1975,
' It was the opinion of the Counci1 that the Tawn staff should work with Mr, Lazier if the request were granted. Councilman 5taufer maved ta approve
the amendmeiit; Councilman Donovan seconded the motion; all present voted
in favor; and the motion carried.
, .
' W3th regard to a request far a sign variance for the Lift Fiouse Lodge, Doug
'Packy' Walker stated that he needs an additiona1 sign for identification
of his lodge, since the c#irectory sign is not sufftic3ent. The xoning
' admintistrator stated that the Design Rev7ew Board has recommended approval
,of the request for a16 sq. ft. sign. Mr. WaZker stated that he has
Aft - permission from both anb Lazier and Chuck Rosenquis-t to put the sign up.
Councilman Staufer moved to approve the request on the Design Review
E3oard`s recommendation subject to landscaping beinq done simultarieausly
according to plan. Councilwoman K1ug seconded the motion; all present
" voted in favor; and the motzon carried.
With regard to a request far aGRFA variance for the Row F{ouses from
, Geraldjne Cohen, the owners of Unjts #4 and #6 want ta enclose the
second stdry balconies and add 77 sq. ft. and a sliding glass door.
Yhe zoning aciministrai:or conynented tnat it was the opinion of the Design
. , Revjew aoard that.tho Variance woolci improve the bujlding aesthetically.
' 7he Plann3nO Ooted 4;' •r: rcidar of th(s reqiaest, • Cauncilman . ,
Stl uf;q COIi111C'.li (,`i{ nSie t1C@ be
Ju1y, 51 1989.
• Vail Co1o.
Town of Vail
Community Develapment Department,
Vail, Colo.
Re: Item 4- Request far setback variance,
Lot 6, Vail Village, 10th Filing,
Hearing 3PM, July 10th.
Dear Sirs:
I am concerned abaut the above request for setback and
therefore I will be represented by my neighbor to the
west of ine in this duplex on lot 5, just east and adjacent
to lot 6.
We are concerned that the new structure may jut out more
than the 1ineup of existing structures, and block the
view to the west.
Tt is true that our property was built with a4' setback,
permit, but thi$ certainly does not apply to the structure
that is paralle1 ta the straight street, for it is far more
than that. It may more easily apply to the east end of the
~ house and the distance to the round cul-de-sac, which is not
being used in a round form. Actually, the south side of the
cul-de-sac, is a straight line extension of the street to
the west.
My neighbor, Gen.e.McGuire, will be representing me as we11
as thezr property,..which is all of the property, on lot 5,
at the public hearing on Monday July 10.
5incerely,
Vern C. Anderson
970A Fairway Coux-t,
Vail, Co1.o.
vca/me
~
,
r .~ra x s ; P 0 4
ra K-W r~"`i:r". , . "°'r".w,-""-i3' ~ ~ W. . ,
~
. ~
,
ARTHUR 1? MFARS+ P,E,, 1NG. .
Nituraf Hasardi Camultants
ZrZ Eau 0&4se Av..
. c~timf cal1.aosa1s30 2 3 ~
Mr~ Mark Cadmua
Br$Cid@65~CQdml56 ~~al ESt&CBl xi1C, .
281 Srld$e SCreeL ,
vas.i, cn 81657, ,
February 7, 1988
Dear Mrs Cadmus;
At your requesx, I havE completed a recaanaissanca ot snow-avalanche, debria-
avalanChe, debxis-flawp 8nd roakfall hazard aC the 5 Vaii Lats discussed
beaowt The work xeported here constftute$ "siCe-specl fic" appreseala ot
tnese lots with respect ta fha gealQgic hazards 1isCed nbave. Other geologlc
hazards or dcvclopmenG conatrai.nGs, J.g any? have nox been eonsi.daxed as pera
ot this study.
~ HAZARD MATRTX FOEt THE 5 LGTS
xhe 5 lots stiudied are 3isted in the ].efC caXumrt in the matrix below, xht
lots are affectied by vaxious comb2r?akions and sevexities of tnr 4, geolvgia
hazaxds 13sCEd above. Snow avalanche, debris flow, and rackfall are rated ae
"mpderate", oX "high" hazaxd, In ateardance wlGb Criteria adapted by th$
mown n£ Vail, d'ebrisravalanche poxential 3s idenrxf3ed ("Yea" or "N'o")r but
riot broken dpwn ir?ta high and moderate categvxies.
HAxAAn r4ATRIX
M" -
~,o~ V Snow Ava1~ Debria Avgl Debris Flaw RackfnY1
l17, 3rd Filing Moderace No Moderate so #5+ 3rd Filing Na No Moderate Moderate
,
l14, 3rd Fili.ng Mcderate Ho Moderate Moderate
1J3f 3rd ~iling Modexata No Moderate Modezete
t
!16 lOth Filing Moderate Yes Na /wMadax~Ca
StudY thea,~~~.matrix $nche , idebr~s e e a~ roek~a~~s nl~y ~n~ 6, ZOth affected
high hazazd snow a
is affectied by debris avalanche. '
tiAZARD bEFINYTIONS
~ , Bt14W dV619T1CM~ J>,»y
r
~ Moderate Iiazazd: Fteached by snow avalanches witr r&tvrn perfode of 25
yeaxs ov mora, and avalsacres producing impaat prsasuxea of 61S ibs/ftZ or ,
}.eae , 8uildi.ag is permi.tted but avi=aaehe defenss deBigis and/_or
sxxuetuxal reinfarcemenc pay ba naeW':
F' 47
• . . „ u...v...N.mC. ..•T.^.h.~.......... 'P'!... , r . , !11T:C+'. „ i ,...r ...CI'!l•. '+A-ir .».rrr ,
Sr?ow avaianche (cont)
- Ksgh Hazard e Regched by snow avalgnches wttM returrt per#ods of lsss
than 25 yeare, sr,d/or avaZnnches prqduoing #.mpact preasurea af mora than
615 SbaJFtz. 3"ha Tewn of Vafl does not permxt building ilft Chia avalancha
xonc,
DebrSs AvalariChe .
_
- 8ecguse debris avalanches 4:ansist of watex, aet snowi mud, ,y0gkp and
v-zg,aAu d,ekris., they Gan be destructivs all the way to thefr ourer edge~*
They also stap Sn shorC dietanne9 Ia the runout zoAe0p thus high and
moderace haxard zonas cannot be defxned. ~z~erd zone$ cat? be shartaae8 by
buildlrg energy-di$eipatilhg barriera (berms a~ d~a~~1"; "perpend~u~.aY to the
P1ow dirsaGtari, thus avold:Lng enCOUnter,
altogerher.
bebri.s Flaw
~ High Haxaxd: These ar8$e car~ expetienco seVere etructurai damggs a~nd
possibla ioss aE it~e tbrough impaoC of muds rackp and debriss auisding
ie usuaily ncC pexmttted in, Ghese arees because struCtur$1 protettl4n ts,
in pneraXj A4G P485ib1C• .
- Modarate Hazardt xhese areas can experience property damage through
~ Ilooding, erosion snd impacC of muddy watiex, soill roak, *nd debrl.n,
Bujiding i,e pexmitk.ed by the Towa at Vsiz becav$a prateceiori at buxldings
1s ea3i3.y aohieved Chraugn various combinations of law barriers=
reinforced lower foundaCiana and wails, and avaidarCe at windoW opsnings
at grade,
ROCl ' • .
~ W High Fiazardt These tireas are ].oceted on or belbw sreep aiopes that
pxodQca or maintaln destru4tiva xonkfaxl, Rook imp$ct wtth eeruccuzex Ia
likely to causa sovere damage, inalvding Aenatratlpt% ot bui3.dtng wel1.e, 'I
-Mode.~ote Hazardt These areas are laeated r?ear the outex limite a!, ,
rol3.ing Vacka-7aitid wi1l rarely be Yeached by rock11I1. SCructux8l .
psOCeckion vl bui.ldings, if neaessaxy, is eaaily aCCOmmpdated inCV deaSgn.
SPECIFYC T1EVELOPMEN'.C CONS'TRAINTS ON LOmS ' Tha fallowing apittiorts ar+ the CongtraintS co davelogmenC an the S laxs raault
tram my f i,eld inspectioto of the Lats Cor?duCCed on Janozy B aad Fabruary 61
19$8 snd from experien~e gaited an aaalysis Ot avalenenes, debr3a Plawas and
xackFall in the Va3.l arta duxing the Faati 15 yeara. SpaciPic deaign criGexin
used for the safe aonstructian ~es~n~ot~~~ tru Su~h jnclud~ns
criter~a $requi~cea
Cannct be prov~.d~.d at the p
i kn4wlaaso of: .
~ Structc3re .tvcatian and orier?tatl.on;
- Stixuatura eita eLnd ghapa; aad
w StruCCUre dexa3,ls that may affscC th6 geol4giC pxoce$9. •
,
~.r r'~••JW^„'."
1
• • Lat 7 3rd Filin~, w~.~,l bs exposed tio 1ight f~.ow end/ar.,powder blagk fro~a the
G~.ubhousa Guach avalanahe path auri.ng ma3ox dry-sriow BV8l8C1Ch8 caaditiona.
~ Debris flows may also reaGh the afce, buC wili corisist, only ot, muddy sraGer
end f106ting vega~~tiva mntter 01 ill8uffictent maes to creata stiructural
damage, The avalanche hazard can ba mieigated by proper bui,lding
orientatl,an, window and door design, and possibYe local rGinforcement. This
additiaRsl work wouid probab7.y constStuCe e smsl,I percentage at the total
bulZding co9t. pebris-fIow m;tigation may not be requixad, but in eny case
cou7.d easily be aocomplished through 14ndscap$ng. .
Laz 5 3rd ~i1ln to exp4sed to debrie f],ow sitaSlar to that affeating Lpt 7,
and requirf,ng aimiXar mitigation, iP any. The buixding site ia located an
tha fringe af roCkfaJ.l hazard and probably wpvld not require etructu~al
protactl.on fram rockf$l1.
i.vt 4, 3rd F13.in is exposed Ca debz3s flow and rockfall eimilar to LoC S. However, it ia also exposed to J.ighC F1,ow and/or powder bYgst pressurea Erora
avelaiiches beginrring on the ateep, north,faairg elepe above Sunbuxet Driva.
Avalanche8 0f a sizs and enerQy sufficienC to causa at leaet s*me mirer
damage may occur every 50-to-100 yearo, and structural praGection ia
juut~fied. The aval.anaho hazard can be miti,gated by proger building '
arientation, windaw aMd doar design, and pnseible 1.oesl reinfoscement,
LoL 3, 3rd Pi1in ia sxposed to debxis fIow and rackfalX similaY to LOCB 4
and 5~ as desoribed above. This Zar is, hd'wever, Ciaser to ths san?e
avaJ.anche path thac axiecte Lot 4. Coneequeat7.y, evalsnches here, elthough
alsa rare (estimated 25-xa-50 yesr rexuYn period), defi.nitely' require
scruntural mlCt,gat3ori, Mitigation can atL$ily be accompl3shad thxough
~ attention to bullding farm, sGreqth, orientacion, and locat3on, ,
r1v.rc= `~~v
Lat b, IOGh Filin is exposed to smell snow_avalgn.GheS, M.
4c_kfa1.11 and
debxis av_alanchesM Snaw avalanches hava 'reached to with3ti app~Qx1ms.r.a,ky...750
_feeti - of~Fairway Arive abave the westexn portion nf Lot 6µduring the past a6veril' winters, - Larger dVal$i1ChE8 can cross the road. Ttoe~c.fcLl hae a].eo
occurxed and depos'itod on the steep elopes apprvximately 2-0-300 feat 4bave
Fsi.rway Driveo antl cauld reac~ tha building site, particularYy if thr forest '
were removed or destrvyed~ Debrls avalanChea, during extrataa Gonditions> '
:
Nill elso depos3t ~n F'a3rway br3v~. JOint 8trtfCtllr&l in.itSgat30l1 0~ Ch8_ OOw-
, .
; av..ale_nche. and ..rnckfal,]. ..hazard._ is fea~ible he-ea. Debris . ~aval.anches can
~ probebly be &eopped bePore the bu3lding_slte ~.s reao~ed, thereby eZSminaGing~ the hAZard, The farm and sY?ape of the building wil1 determSng ii mitigarioa ' is feasible on this lat. .
i
~ The sixa reconnAissance conducted for this study 3ndicate9 that developmerit
i im feasibl.e~ with spme resCxiCtionsp on all S 1ots considered, Plesae
eontact me i,l y4u have any furCher quearions.
Sincerely, "
C~~kzAq.
Arthur X,
~ ' . .
. . r n Y N w ~ ~ t ~ . . ......w . • . • • . . r • . • r . •
^ • • Y 5 x# r~.
14 .1 02 M.
Y
LOT 2
,
d?O . ,;5
LOT 1 4
~ 00 u f p'~~w A~ A0
FAIRWAY
pawar trar~eTorn+~r
B~CrVt~ct~mBnt ,,,.rs 'W'4 AUA?~~G~E
.
28~9
oa 150
4,00` , „ • A t 40,14`
R 9 / 1 I
4 8.6
T m 2 0.19!
ollvl' C zao.az'
a N 860 i31 T~'E
0
w
LoT 7 Lor s w I..oT ~
0,702 t7C . N
NO IMPf;4YEMEN75 m
tl Fcunp pln B Cap na, 4551
3°~ 58 ~~p. ~r.
c~ Found pin a cap nn, 11413
, y sai pln & Cdp aa E2665 ~
N
~ ~ 0
'.O
SCAL4, i"=SO'
Zb 54
r ~r~..r.-.^~• 'r'
• ' March 21, 1989
a9l011
N 8 7 z5 44 w J~Z 4.v4~
YRAGT A .
.
Planning and Environmental Commission
July 24, 1989
~
11:00 Site visits
1:00 Vail Village Master Plan Public Hearing
3:40 Public Hearing
To 3Be Continued 1• An appeal af the staff decision on Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA) for the
Chester residence under construction on Lot
19, B1ock 1, Vail Viliage First Filing, 395
Mill Creek Circle.
Applicant: Mr. E. B. Chester
5, 2. A request for a height variance and an
exterior a].teration in order to construct an
addition to the Gore Creek Plaza Building at
193 Gore Creek Drive.
App].a.cant: Rodney and Beth Slifer
2. v3. A request for side and front setback
variances a.n drder ta construct a garage and
decks on Lot 4, Block E, Vail das Schone
First Fil.ing.
Applicant: Judith Nichols
~ 3. ,_.4. A request for a density variance and height
variance and an exterior alteration £or the
! Enzian Ladge at 705 West Lionshead Circle,
Lat 1, Block 2, Vail Lionshead Third Filir?g.
Applicant: Enzian Lodge
Tabled to `5. A request for an exteri.or alteratian and a
Aug. 14 PEC conditional use permxt in order to enclose a
deck in CCTI at the Chart House Restaurant.
App].icant: Chart House Restaurant
4. ,,-'6. A request for an exterior alteration at the
Lionshead Center Building for modificatians
to ars existing Condominium.
Applicant: 2ker Belansteguigaitia
Tabled 7. A request to amend Special Develnpment
Di.strict No. 19, Garden of the Gods.
Applicant: Mrs. A. G. Hill
I
6, 8. A request to modify the floodplain Lot 7, ;
B1ock 3, Vaz1 Viilage Eleventh Filing, 3070
Booth Creek Drive.
Appl.icant: David and Nancy Nystrom
~ 1, 9. Work session:
A request ta amend the development plan for
the Talon at 1881 Lionsridge Loap, Lot 1,
Blk 3, Li.ansridge #3, and Lot 27, Blk 2,
Lionsridge Subdxvision #3
Applicant: Parkwaod Reaity Company
E • ~
. vi.
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
July 24, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Pam Hopkins Betsy Rosolack
Sid Shultz Kri.stan Pritz
Peggy Osterfoss Rick Pylman
Chuck Crist
The Planning and Environmental Commissian meeting began with a public
hearing tor the Vail Village Master Plan at 1:00 p.m.
The regularly scheduled Planning and Environmental Commission meeting
began at 3:50 p.m. Diana Don4van acted as chairperson in Jim Viele's
absance.
Item No. 1 An a peal of the staff decision on GrassResidential
Floor Area GRFA £or the Chester residence under
construction nn Lot 19, Block 1, Vail Villaqe First
Fiiinq, 395 Mil1 Creek Circle.
Applicant: Mr. E. B. Chester
Larry Eskwith, the Town Attdrney requested the item be continued on
• August 7, 1989 at 10:00 a.m. because of the amount of time that G,rould
be involved in the discussion. The applicant approved of the request
and agreed ta the new meeting date and time.
Ttem No. 2 A request for a hEi.ght variance and an exteriar
al.teration in order to construct an additian to the Gore
Creek Plaza Buildi.ng at 193 Gore Creek_Drive.
Applicant: Rodney and Beth Slifer
Betsy Rosa].ack made the staff presentation. She started with a
descriptian of the exteri.or alteration request, first noting a change
in the plans as made by the appla.cant. The change woul.d axclude the
buildi.ng of a gate origina].ly proposed. She then proceaded to cover
zoning considerata.ons as per the staff inemo. Concerning the Urban
Design Considerations of sun/shade, she explained that there was an
impact on this criteria and referred to the.sun/shade sketch included
in the staff inemo.
The staff recommendation was for appraval with the fol.lowxng two
conditions as per the staff mema:
1. The applicants agree ta construct the improvements on the
attached drawing and pay fnr ail thE improvements at their
expense.
~ 2. The applicants agree ta not ramonstrate against a special
improvement district if and when formed for Vail Village.
. .
Betsy continued the presentation af the Slifer request with an ~
explanation of the height variance request. She referred to an
attached table in the memo, explained the criteria, and then gave the
recommendation for approval. Betsy also circulated photos to the board
members.
Ned Gwathmey spake as representative for the applicant. He offerecl a
chart for viewing to avaid any canfusian on elevations. He reviewed
the chart and answered questions of the PEC members. He also showed
the Snowdon and Hopkins plans of the project.
Peter Patten noted that the attached sun/shade sketch in the height
variance memo was inaccurate. The correct sun/shade sketch was
included in the exterior alteration mema.
Peggy Osterfoss thought the proposal would be an improvement and as
presented would offer appropriate mitigation.
Sid 5chultz had no questi4ns.
Pam Hopkins agreed with Peggy and safd that the height did not bather
her. She had no problems wa.th the request.
Diana Donovan had no problems wa.th the request.
A motion for approval of the exterior alteration request was made by
Peggy Osterfoss, with two conditions of approval as per the staff inemo. .
Pam Hopkins seconded the motian.
Vote: 4-0-1 Chuck Crist abstaining.
A mot_ion af approval PQr the height variance request was made by Pam
Hopkins. The motion was seconded by Sid Schultz.
Vote: 4-0-1 Chuck Crist abstaining.
Item No. 3 A request for side and front setback variances in arder
to_construct a qaraqe and decks on Lot 4, Block E, Vail
das Schone First Filinq. A licant: Judith Nichols
Rick Pylman described the request while referring to the plans. He
lariefly covered the criteria and gave the staff recommendation of
approval. However, he stated, the staff could ndt support the proposed
seating area and suggested it be eliminated from the request.
The appliaant's representative was Grant Riva, He handed out a letter
to the PEC Board from an adjacent praperty owner in support of the
proposal. He explained that the encroachments invo,lved were necessary
ta al1ow access to the garags and said the proposal wauld modernize the
home. He further explained that the main reasan fQr the proposal was .
due to a problem with ice forming around the front doar. Concerning
the seating area, Grant explained that without a seating area, the deck
,
~ would be af littZe use. He went on to say that if the deck was
extended to the back of the house as suggested by the planning staff
instead of in the proposed area, there would be more of an i.mpact on
nea.ghboxs. The proposed deck site is well screened from the neighbors.
Tn summary, Grant asked that the request be approved as submitted.
Chuck Crist said he supported the project as proposed. Pam Hopkins
agreed, as did Sid Schultz. Peggy osterfoss said the proposal made
sense, especially since a neighbor had written a supportive letter.
Diana agreed with Peggy.
A mation was made by Pam Hopkins for apparoval of the request as
submitted. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. Vote: 5-0, a11 in favor.
Item Na. 4 A request for a density variance and heiqht variance and
an exterior alteratian fQrthe Enzian Lodqe at 705 West
Lionshead Circle, Lot 1, Blnck 2, Va"
i]. Lionshead Third
- - - . . . „ _
Filinq.
Applicant: Enzian Lodge
The staff representative was Kristan Pritz. The request involved an
exterior alteration request as well as a height and densi.ty request.
She began the presentation by reviewing the exteriar alteratian
• request. Referring to the memo, Kristan described the praposal which
included requests to add a new entry on the north elevation, construct
an area to be used for accessory lodge use or void space, and add a
comprehensive landscape plan for the entire praperty. She further
explained additional changes, but all were interior and did nat require
any approvals fram the PEC. Kristan explained that the staff approved
the removal of approximately 16 spaces in the basement. The awner
shall be required ta pay into the parking fund for the 15 spaces.
She referred the PEC to her letter explaining the staff position on the
parking issue dated July 10th 1989 to Jay Petersan.
Kristan stated that the praposal was in compliance with the Purpose
Section of Commercial Core II and went on ta cover the criteria
effecting the compliance with Urban Design Consideratians for
Lionshead. Zn keeping with the height and massing criteria, Kristan
said the new entry on the north elevation would be a nice improvement
in appearance. Relating to the £acades and transparency criteria,
Kristan mentioned that the applicants would be expanding the glass area
which is a necessary improvement. The proposed landscape plan will
comply with the Tawn of Vail landscape plan and is considered by the
staff to be an impartant aspect of the proposal.
Kristan stated that the staff strongly supports the exterior alteration
request as the proposal would add many needed improvements to the
existing property. The staff is also very supportive of the landscape
. plan which woul.d be a majar upgrade for the site.
After completing the exterior alteration request description, Kristan
expiained that a height variance and a density variance would be
necessary for the proposal. The height of the dormers on the top floor .
would nat exceed the existing height of the building. The density
variance was for .5 dwelling units. In reviewing the criteria for both
variances, Krzstan said the the height variance made no significant
impacts on the criteria, and that the density variance had little
impact.
The staff recommendation was for appraval with the twa following
conditions:
1. An empZoyee housing unit shali be provided within the building.
2. The three new accommodation units will have gas fireplaces per
town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces.
Jay Peterson acted as representative for the applicant. He stated that
the applicant had not planned on employee housing and had no room tor a
unit in the plans. Ha further said that building an employee housing
unit in the basement would be difficult because of "coda" problems dealing with ventilation. He explained that the upgrading and
landscaping proposals would be enough of a benefit to the community and
that an employee housing unit would not work on site.
Dean Koll, an architect from Zehren & Associates, explained that the
existing mechanical vents were currently undersized and as is were
functional and appropriate £or the hotel. He said that adding emplayee
units would create the need for major mechanical rework. .
Chuck Crist asked if maintenance of the building would be included in
the prapasal. Jay Peterson answered that all necessary repairs would
be done. Chuck said he supparted the proposal without the addition af
an employee unit. Pam Hopkins agreed with Chuck. Sid Schultz also
agreed. Peggy Dsterfoss questioned the location of the landscaping
proposed. She asked if it would end on the bank along the Frantage
Road adjacent to Vail Spa. A discussion regarding landscaping took
place between Jay, the PEC members, and members of the staff concerning
the difficuities af landscapinq on the steep bank.. The staft and PEC
members agreed that landscaping was a very important issue and should
cover as much ot the banked area as possible. Diana Donovan supported
the general idea of employee housing but didn't see that it was a
reasonabie request for this propasal. She said she would rather see
"great" landscaping.
A motion for appr_o_val was made for the exteriar alteratian request by
Peggy Osterfoss. The motion was seconded by Pam Hopkins. _
Vote: 5-0, all in favor.
A motion far a roval for the height and density variance request was
made by Peggy Osterfass, excluding the staff recommendation for
emp].oyee housing, and including a condition that the applicant wark
with Vail Spa to ].andscape the maximum amount of land possible on the ~
bank. Peggy also requested that the DRB carefully review the
landscaping plan. Pam Hapkins seconded the moti,on.
Vote: 5--0, all in tavor.
T
~ ztem No. 5 A re est for an exterior alteration and a conditional
use permit in order to enclose a deck in CCI3 at the
Chart House Restaurant.
Applicant: Chart House Restaurant
Tableci to August 14, 1989 PEC meeting.
The motion w'as made by Peggy Ostexfoss and seconded by Chuck Crist.
Vote: 5-0, all in favor.
Item No. 6 Are est for an exterior alteration at the Lionshead
Center a building for modifications to an existing
condominium.
Applicant: Iker Belanstequigoitia
Betsy Rosolack gave the staff presentation. She cxpl.ained that the
applicant wa.shed to add 348 square feet af gross residential floor
area to their condominium unit. The 348 square feet addition would
include an expansion to the master bedroom by partially enclasing a
deck and remodeling the interior. Betsy covered the zoning
considerations, pointing out that there are 3,170 square feet of GRFA
left to be developed. She stated that the staff was supportive of the
proposed redevelopment and believed it met the zoning and Urban Design
Considerations for Commercial Core II.
~ Tom Briner represented the applicant. He explained the circumstances
cancerning the praposal.
A motion for appraval was made by Peggy Osterfoss. The motion was
seconded by Chuck Crist.
Vote: 5-0, all a.n favor.
Item No. 7 A re uest to amend S ecial Develo ment District Na. 19
Garden of the Gods.
A licant: Mrs. A. G. Hill
Ttem to be tabled to August 14 PEC meeting.
Peggy Osterfnss made the first motion. The motion was seconded by
Chuck Crist.
Vote: 5-0, all in favor.
Item No. 8 A request to modify the floodplain Lot 7, Block 3, Vail
Villaqe Eleventh Filinq, 3070 Booth Creek Drive.
A li.cant. David and Nanc N strom
The staff presentation was given by Kristan Pritz. She referred to a
diagram attachad ta the staff inemo to explain the proposal. She
~ explained that the proposal met all the criteria for a floodplain
madi.fi.cation. The staff recommendation was for approval contingent
upan conditians listed in the staff inemo.
T
r •
hF: ,
The applicant was represented by Jim Reiah. He stated that Kristan was •
tharough in her review and fair in her analysis. Jim stated concern
about condition #6 in the staff inemo which stated, "The owners shall
not remanstrate against a possible future stream walk alang Gore Creek
which would allow for publ.ic access al.ong the creek." The applicants
were uncomfortable about this condition and felt it waul.d force them to
give up their rights to comment on a future streamwalk proposa]..
Furthermore, the applicants did not agree with condition #4 0f the
staff inemo which required the removal of the planter on the south side
of the dining patio.
Peggy 4sterfoss understflod and appreciated most of the staft
reaommendations for this project, as listed in the staff inemv, but did
not support the idea of requiring the applicants to remove the planter
and pu11 back the patio. Peggy felt the applicants should be allowed
to build the patio as presented.
Sid Schultz aqreed with aI1 of the staff recommendations except for the
condition effecting the patio and planter. Also, he felt the condition
concerning the streamwalk was an unfai.r, premature condition since
there was nathing solid proposed at this time.
Peter Patten commented on the streamwalk condition and explained the
condition was put in tQ avoid the item being called up by Town Council.
He informed the PEC members of a previous case (Pitto) that had bean
called up by Council because the streamwalk condition had not been
included in the approval. ~
A discussion contxnued centering around the stxeamwalk condition and
the concern that the condition wou7.d impase on the applicant's rights.
The representative for the applicant remarked that while he was trying
to reserve the applicant's ra.ghts, he did not wai.sh to slow the pracess.
Finally, a mation for appraval was made by Pam Hopkins and seconded by
Chuck Crist, per the staffrecommendations including the follawing
changes:
l.. Remove condition #4 of the staff memo regarding the patio
site and p3.anter removal.
2. Candition #6 0f the statf inemo shal.l be changed to:
"The owners shall not abject to a possible future
streamwalk along Gore Craek which wauld allow for public
access a].ong the creek. This agreement does nat prevent
the owner from participating in any future design
process. "
Vote: 5-0, a11 in favor.
Meeting adjourned.
~
• To: Town Cauncii and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Peter Patten
DATE: July 20, 1989
SUBJECT: Proposed revisions to the Vail Village Master P1an
The following represents the staff's proposed revisions ta the WMP
after the Ju1y 10th public meeting and in consideration of other input
we've received.
I. STREAMWALK
Change the text and graphics to reflect the Streamwalk as only a
study area. Emphasxze it as a concept to provide limited public
access to public land along Gore Creek. The text will state that
the Streamwalk is an improvement project whieh will follow its own
separate public process.
A. S ecific Streamwalk text chan es
Pg. 13, Obj. 3.4 - delete
~ Pg. 14, Pol. 3.4.1 - delete
Pg. 14, Action Steps:
#4, amend to read:
#4. Study the cancept of a walking - anly path on
public property along Gare Creek between the
Cavered Bridge and Vail Road. Conduct a separate
public pracess far this project.
Pg. 16, #4 - delete
Pg. 24, last sentence:
change "establish a pedestrian walkway along Gare
Creek" to "study additional public access to public
land along Gore Creek."
Pg. 33, Amend Sub-area #1-9: Villaqe Streamwalk Study Area
Same language as #4 Action Step - Pg. 14.
Pg. 36, Amend Sub-area #1-9: Villaqe Streamwalk Study Area
Same language as Pg. 33 and Pg. 14.
Pg. 41, Amend Sub-area #3-7: Villa e Streamwalk Stud Area
Same language as Pg. 14
. Pg. 42, Sub-area #5-1: Village Streamwalk (Complete)
Delete from "Precise lacation..." through rest of
paragraph.
~ B. Streamwalk chan es to ra hics
1. Parkinq and Circulation P1an
Delete shaded areas indicating Streamwalk and change ta
a dot pattern encompassing bath sides of the creek.
Change legend on #5 to: Village Streamwalk Study Area.
2. Action Plan
Delete specific graphic on Streamwalk and change to
study area as per above description. De1ete a11
indication of path west of Vail Road.
II. STATEMENT CONCERNING COVENANTS
Pg. 26. At the end of the last paragraph, add a new sentence:
Furthermore, private covenants exist in many areas of Vail Village
and should be a consideration addressed between a developer and
other applicable private property owners.
III. GOLDEN PEAK HOUSE
. Pg. 39. Sub-area #3-2
Delete graphic depicting addition on north side.
Action Plan
Delete same graphic showing north side addition.
TV. BRIDGE FROM EXISTING STREAMWALK BEHIND THE WREN TO MANOR VAIL
Delete all references ta this. We have found that it is a11
private ground and the walk's elevation is not conducive to a
bridge in this area.
~
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 24, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a height variance in order to canstruct an
addition to the Gore Creek Plaza Building.
Applicants: Rod and Beth Slifer
I. DESCRZPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicants are requesting a height variance in order to
construct an addition ta the penthouse unit at the Gore Creek
P1aza Buildzng. The request would result in an addition of
approximately 756 square feet of gross residential fioor
area.
The portion of the roaf being raised consists of a gable
placed in the north-south direction of the west side of the
building, plus the enclosure of a deck with an extension on
the northeast corner. The existing height ot the ridge is 48
feet, making this building height legal, nonconforming. The
existing building slapes down to 37 feet on the north side,
. and the portion an the northeast corner where the addition
will be varies from 40 feet to 43 feet.
The gable addition on the west will match the 48 feet of the
existing ridge and will not be higher than the existing
ridge. The proposed addition on the northeast corner will
vary from 44 feet to 49-1/2 feet. The variations in height
an the northeast carner are partially caused by a change of
grade between Gore Creek Drive and the Gare Creek Promenade.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDZNGS
The main criteria for the variance are compliance with the
Urban Design Considerations relating to height, along with
the standard variance criteria.
A. Compliance With the Urban Design Cansxderations for
Building Height in Vail Villaqe
Building_Heiqht
The Urban Design Cansiderations state:
"Basically, the Village Care is perceived as a mix of
~ two and three story facades, although there are also
four and five story buildings. The mix af building
heights gives variety to the street--which is desirable.
• The height criteria are intended to encourage height
and massing variety and to discourage uniform building
heights along the street.
The definition of height sha11 ba as it is in the Vail
Municipal Cade. Building height restrictions in
Commercial Core I shall be as follows:
1. Up to 60% of the building (building coverage area)
may be built to a height of 33 feet or less.
2. No more than 40% af the building (building coverage
area) may be higher than 33 feet, but not higher
than 43 feet....
4. The abave heights are based on an assumed 3 feet in
12 feet or 4 feet in 12 feet roof pitches. To
accommodate and encourage steeper roof pitches (up
to 6 feet in 12 feet), slight, praportionate height
increases could be granted sa long as the height of
the building side walls is not increased.'!
The percentage of the building over 43 feet is proposed
to be increased as follows:
~ Chanqe in Roof Heiqhts With Pro osal
% of roof % of roof above % of roof
below 33 ft 33 ft & below above 43 ft
43 feet
Existing 17% 32% 510
PrOpOSed 170 110 72%
Although the roof does not match the propartions for
roof height stated in the building height cansideration,
staff believes that the proposed roof plan meets the
intent of tha consideratian. The proposed west roof has
a 6 feet in 12 feet pitch which the consideration
encourages. Despite the fact that the northeast raof
pitch is 1/4" in 12 feet, the roof wi11 not appear to be
flat due td its location on the building. The end
result is that there is variety in building height and
massing which the cansideration strongly supports.
B. Consideration of Variance Factors:
• Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060
of the municipal code, the Department af Community
Development recommends approval of the requasted
variance based upon the fnllowing factnrs:
i
I• 1. The relationshi of the re ested variance to other
axistinq or potential uses and structures in the
vicai.na.ty.
Applicant's Response:
The relationship of building height variance ta
other structures in the vicinity implies that the
Gore Creek Plaza buil.ding may become a break in the
continuous repetition and will increase interest in
articulated roof forrns, add variety and visual
impact to the street and pedestrian travel.
Staff's Response:
The height o£ the Sitzmark Building to the west is
50 feet from the highest point, 43 feet on the east
and south sides, slaping to a small portion on the
west side that is 25 feet h,igh.
The height of the Bell Tower Bua.lding is 43 feEt on
a.ts sauth, east and west sides and 54 feet on its
north side.
. When one considers the heights of the adjacent
buildings, it is clear that the Gore Creek Plaza
Bui.lda.ng i.s in keeping with its neighbors.
2. The de ree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
s ecified re ulatian is necessar to achieve
compatibility and unifarmity of treatment amonq
sites in the vicinity „orto_.,attain the objectives
of this title without grant ofspecial privileqe.
Applicant's Response:
The degree of requested rel.ief from the existing
building height can be seen in the roaf plan height
percentages. The proposed roof area daes not
exceed the present overall height and only exceeds
the roof area above 43 feet by 21%.
Staff Response;
The fact that the adjacent buildings are also
higher than the Urban Design Guida P1an
recommendation of 43 feet, makes the request for a
height variance not one of special privilege.
. 3. The effectaf_ the requested variance on liqht.and
air, distribution of population, transportation and
traffic facilitias, public facilities and
util.ities, and public safety.
I ~
AppZicant's Response:
The effect of the requested variance on light can
be seen in the shade and shadow study. The effect
on air, popuiation, transportation, utilities and
pubiic safety is negligible.
Staff Response:
The factor to be cansidered here is the effect on
light and public facilities. The proposal will add
161 square feet af shadaw to the Gore Creek
Promenade, while adding approximately 160 square
feet of pavers further west. Please see
accompanying memo.
111. 5uch other factars and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to theproposed variance.
ZV. FZNDINGS
The Pl.anninq and Enviranmental Commission shall make the
following fi,ndi,ngs befare qranting a variance:
~ That the granting af the variance will not constitute a grant
o£ special privilege incansistent with the limitations on
other properties classified in the same di.strict.
That the granting of the variance will not be detri.mental 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, interpretatian or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty ar unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this title.
There are exceptians or extraordinary circumstances or
canditions applicabl.e to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other properties in the
same zane.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties a.n
• the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~
The staff recommends approval of the requested variance
because it brings the roof more into compliance with the
Urban Design Considerations and conforms to the variance
Criteria. The fact that the adjacent properties are aiso
higher than the height recommended in the Urban Design Guide
Plan negates the issue of special privilege.
i
•
~
~
~ i
;
~
Yt
t _ ' ~ ~ - - ~ :
_ ~ ~ ' • f.~~ , ~ ~14; 4. f .
• r~
( 4u' ~ rk
~ '
~
~
y
.k
~
~
~ Al
~
1
I ~ .
. ~ ~
g w~
.
• ~ . ~
4p ~ ~ I
~ F w
~ • 1 , l _ J J l `II , S~
• l
~ l l
• ~
'
-ti . . _ _ . j . _ .
C-REEK
PLA-ZA BUILDIN.G... .
w
v
. ~ •
w
u I
'T ~ ~ .
v
4`-
~
~ AC},`~",'"~=:'^-.
~
~ 1 • l :7 ~ . 'a,._~.~y~ r ,.~:_~:~~L:_:~~'
~ O ~ - ~ w.~w'~--._~~~;...~ ? ~
N z ~ ~
0"
- J ~ / I ~ ~
~ 'r / ~
~ ~ .
- . . . . _ . ^ . ~
' .
t-.~._'•w ,K•~'~i~=~ir.~ v.... .~.w--......w.- .~.v...~..r--, ~~r!- 'ii
.:..r.: . _a , - . . _ _ .~~,r
~ .
U
_ CREEK
ILD~N~
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 24, 1989
SUBJECT: Nicholls garage variance, Lot 4, Block E, Vail das
Schone, First Filing.
Applicant: Judith A. Nicholls
1. DESCRIPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUEST_ED
-
The appl,i.cant is requesting a front and side setback ,crariance
in order to construct an attached single car garage and deck
extension. The requested setback at the front ranges fram
approximately 18 feet 6 inches to 15 feet at the northwest
corner of the proposed garage. There is also an encroachment
due to the northwest roof overhang that creates a 12 foot
setback. The deck addition maintains a 15 1/2 foot front
setback. The desired side setback also varies, from
appraxi.mately 12 feet 6 inches to 8 feet 3 inches for the
garage. The deck extension would reduce the side setback to
no less than 5feet. The roof overhang maintains a 3 foot
. side setback.
The site currently contai.ns a duplex structure with a
driveway that runs along the front of the building. The
proposed garage alang the side of the house presents good
access from this driveway while maintaining the use of the
driveway for the applicant as weii as the adjacent praperty
owners. The deck extensian is required in order to pravide
access to the existing entrance to the unit. The garage is
sited in such a way as to not conflict with an existing tree
or with the existing entxance to the house.
At the northeast corner of the house there i.s a proposed
seata.ng area to be constructed into and beyond the existing
deck l.ine. This proposed deck area encroaches beyond the
allowable 10 foot minimum setback requirement by
approximately 3 feet. Zt is the feeling of the staff that
there is no particular hardship for this encraachment and
that there is room in the rear of the lot for a deck
expansion. Although the impacts of this proposed deck are
minimal, we feel that this deck should be eliminated from the
proposal due to the fact that there .is no hardship.
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 variance based upon the
following factors:
• A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existinq or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
At the present time, there is no covered parking
for this structure. We feel that the addition of
covered parking for the unit presents a pnsitive
impact on the neighbarhood and is in harmony with
existing uses and structures in the vicinity.
Given the present siting of the house, the garage
location and size present a very reasonable request
for a variance.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified requlation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment amonq
sites in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
The staff has had a long standing policy of
supparting variances if required for the
~ construction of garages. Due to the siting of the
existing structure on the lot, there is no room to
construct a garage within the allowable setbacks.
The garage has been designed in such a way as to
minimize impacts and has been sized to minimize tha
variance request. The staff feels that approval of
this variance would nat be a grant of special
privilege.
3. The etfect of the requested variance on liqht and
air, distribution of population, transportation and
traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and ~ublic saEety.
The addition of a garage to residential structures
is seen by the Community Development Department as
a positive impact to transportation and traffic
facilities. Other than that, there is no impact in
this propasal upon this criteria.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation tor the proposed variance is for
appxoval. The staff feels that the garage has been sited in
the only feasible location on this property. The siting
. maintains use of the driveway and provides the architectural
connection required by the Design Guidelines. The sizing of
the structure minimizes the degree of variance which is
required. The proposed deck around the garage pravides
~ access ta the front door of the structure and is not
excessive in size.
We do feel that as a condition of approval the octagonal
seating area in the northeast corner of the new deck should
be pulled back to provide a 10 foot setback fram the property
1ine.
•
•
~ T0: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 24, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a density variance and height variance for the
Enzzan Lodge at 705 West Lionshead Circle, Lot 1, B1ock 2,
VaiL Lionshead Third Filing.
Applicant: Enzian Lodge, Alma Equities Corporation, A New
York Corporation
T. THE REQUEST
A. Height Variance:
The applicant is requesting height and density variances in
order to remodel the Enzian Lodge. The variances are
necessary in order to convext the sixth floor conference
space (1,081 square feet) to three accommodation units having
the following square footage:
West unit 893 sq, ft.
. Center unit 1,011 sq. ft.
East unit 936 sq. ft.
A variance to Section 18.26.090 of the Commercial Core II
Zone District is necessary. 18.26.090 states:
For aflat roof or mansard roof, the height of
building shall not exceed 45 feet. For a
sloping roof, the height of building shall not
exceed 48 feet. These restrictions pertain
unless otherwise specified by the Vail
Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan and Urban
Design Considerations.
Tn order to allow far the additional square footage for the
accommodation units, three dormers are added to the roof.
The dormers shall not exceed the height of the existing
building which is approximately 82 feet. Three dormers are
located on the south facing portion of the roof. B. Denszty Variance:
A variance is also requested from Section 18.26.100 Density
Control. This section states that:
. Total density shall not exceed 25 dwelling
units per acre of buildable site area.
~ Under Commercial Core II zoning, the pro]'ect is allawed te
have 23 dwelling units or 46 accammodation units. The
existing project has 52 accammodation units. This results in
the existing building being over the allawable density by 3
dwelling units or 6 accommodatian units. The remodel would
have a net increase of 1 accommodation unit. Two
accommodation units on the first floor (711 square feet), are
converted into conference spacE. The sixth floor conference
spaae is converted intd three accommodation units which
results in an inczease o£ one accommodation unit. The one
new accommodation unit is what causes the need far the
density variance.
(Please see the attached zaning summary at the end of the
memo ) .
II. CRITERTA AND FINDINGS
The Community Development Department recommends approval of the
requested variances.
A. The relationship of the requested variance to other existinq
or patential uses and structures in the vicinity.
Height variance:
. The appla.cant has submitted a view analysis and sun/shade
study. These analyses indicate that there are no significant
impacts due to the addi.tion of the three dormers.
Density variance:
The additional accommodation unit has no impact on potential
or exa.sting structures in the area. The remodel is located
almost entirely within the existing building except far the
dormers on the sixth floor.
B. The degree to which relief from the strict or_literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specifiedregulation is
necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformity of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
abjectives of this title without grant of special privilege.
Height variance:
The staff believes that there is a hardship due ta the height
of the existing roof. It is appropriate to allow for the
dormers as these architectural features do not exceed the
existing height of the bui].da.ng.
Density variance:
• The density increase xs m.inimal, and is specifically for
one additional lodge room. Normally, the staff prefers to
see applicants use the Special Development District process
• as this review allows for more flexibility. HQwever, the
density increase is minimal and other properties have been
allowed to increase the density on their projects if
accommodation units are built. Similar density variances
have been approved for the Sitzmark, Christiania and Tivoli.
Given these previous approvals, staff believes that the
variance request is not a grant of special privilege.
C. E£fect of the re ested variance on li ht and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety. ~
Height variance:
The sun/shade study indicates that are no significant impacts
on light and air.
Density variance:
There are no impacts.
D. Policies in Vail's Com rehensive Plan and Vail Land Use Plan:
• Point 3.1
The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more
efficiently.
Paint 3.2
The Village and Lionshead areas are the best location for
hatels to serve the future needs of the destination skiers.
Point 4.2
Tncrease density in the core areas is acceptable so lang as
the existing character of each area is preserved through
implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan and Vail
Village Master Plan.
Paint 5.3
Affordable employee hausing should be made available through
private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, pravided by
the Town of VaiZ, with appropriate restrictions.
Point 5.5
The existing emplayee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional empioyee housing needs should be
accommodated at varied sxtes throughout the cammunity.
In the Lionshead Plan, the Enzian site is listed as a resort
accommodations and service area. it clearly states:
~ These are the areas where hotel uses will be
concentrated during the planninq periad,
reflecting the community goals to concentrate
hotels within the core areas. (Pg. 36)
• E. Lionshead Urban Design Considerations:
Please see sectian on Height and Massing and Roofs.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staft reaommends approval of the two variances. Both
variances do not constitute a grant of speciaL privilege, nor are
they detrimental to thE genexal welfare of the public.
The height variance is warranted due ta the physical hardship of
trying to add an architectural feature such as a dormer to an
existing roof that exceeds the 48 faot height requirement. There
are aisa no negative impacts due to the variance and the Urban
Design Considerations are followed.
The density variance is warranted as other property owners have
received increases in density for lodge raoms. The staff and
Pianning Commission have supported the addition of lodge rooms by
approving variances for the Sitzmark, Christiania, and Tivoli
Lodges. The Land Use Plan alsa calls for increases in density,
particularly for lodge rooms, as lang as the Urban desiqn
considerations are met. In addition, it is important to note that
the increase in density does not significantly change the existing
building except for the addition of the dormers. Due to the fact
~ that the density increase is only for one accommodation unit and
the project is significantly upgraded, the staff feels the density
variance is acceptable. We support the density variance with the
following condition:
1. An employee housing unit shall be pravided within the
buildinge The employee hausing unit shall have a minimum
square footage of 400 square feet. The owner shall be
responsible for submitting an employee housing agreement to
the Cammunity Davelopment Department before a building permit
wi11 be released for the portion af the remodel. The
employee dwelling unit shall be restricted per Section
18.13.080 B. 10 a- d. This written agreemant sha11 be
submitted to the Community Development Department and Town
Attorney and approved by the staff before a building permit
is issued for the project.
2. The three new accommodation units will have gas fireplaces
per Town of Vail ordinances governing fireplaces.
.
• zoNZNG surMAxx
ENZIAN LODGE
Planning and Envirvnmental Commission
July 24, 1989
Zone: Commercial Core II
Lot area: .9267 acres or
40,367 sq. ft.
Allowed Existing Propased
GRFA: 32,294 19,476 21,605
+2,211 com.over
23,816
Common Area: 6,459 5,319 8,670 prop.
-6,459
• 2,211 added to
GRFA
Density: 46 a.u. 52 a.u. 53 a.u.
or or or
23 d.u 26 d.u. 26.5 d.u.
Setbacks: Front 10 ft. same same
Side 24 ft.
Rear 20 ft.
Hei.ght: 48 ft. 82 ft. 82 ft.
i
~ ENZIAN LODGE
PARKING
EXISTING PROPOSED
Use Spaces Use Spaces
Main floor Restaurant 14 Restaurant 14
Bar 5 Bar 5
Second floor 13 a.u. 10.069 11 a.u. 8.558
Mtg. room 2.96
Third flaar 13 a.u. 10.069 13 a.u. I0.069
Fourth fJ.oor 13 a.u. 10.069 13 a.u. 10.069
.
Fifth floor 13 a.u. 10.059 13 a.u. 10.069
Sixth floor Mtg. room 4.5 3 a.u. 3
63.776 63.725
or or
64 spaces 64 spaces
* 64 spaces exist: 48 surface
16 garage (approx.)
.
• T0: PZanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 24, 1959
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteratian in order to construct
improvements to the Enzian Lodge at 705 West Lionshead
Circle, Lot 1, Block 2, Vai1 Lionshead Third Filing.
Applicant: Alma Equities, A New York Corporation
I. DESCRIPTTON OF REQUEST
The Enzzan Lodge is proposing to make the following changes to the
proj ect :
A. Add a new entry on the north elevation. The exterior
expansion is 42 square feet.
B. Construct an area adjacent to the undergraund garage which
wa.l.l be used for either accessory lodge use, void space, or
perhaps an employee housing unit. The square footage is 130
square feet.
. C. Add a comprehensive landscape plan for the entire property.
The fol].owing improvements are also proposed for the lodge.
Hawever, all of these changes occur within the existing walls of
the lodge. These partions af the remodel are included in the memo
to provide a full understanding of the extent o£ the remodel.
A. The sixth floar meeting space (1,080 square feet) wil1, be
redesigned into three accommodation units having a total
square footage of 2,840 square feet. I
B. On the first floor, twa accammodation units wa.].1 be remaved
(671 sqare £eet) and converted to meeting room space.
C. The basement flaar is presently a garage. There are
approximately 16 parking spaces within this area, plus a
laundry area. The owner has proposed to convert this area
intn accessory lodge uses:
Hal]./stoxage 1,250 sq. ft. ,
Recreation/fitness 1,392 sq. ft. -
Office/Lodge mgt. 578 sq. ft.
Restaurant accessory use 1,461 sq, ft.
Laundry 324 sq. ft.
Housekeeping 275 sq. ft.
. Total 5,280 sq. ft.
This partion of the proposal does not require any approvals from
Planning Commission. Please see the attached letter which
~ explains the staff position on the removal of the parking. The
dwner will be required to pay for the sixteen spaces that have
been removed fram the site. Under Commercial Core IT zoning,
owners are required to pay into the parking fund as opposed to
locating parking on site.
II. COMPLTANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTTON OF COMMERCIAL CORE II
18.26.010 Purpase.
The commercial core 2 district is intended to
provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings,
lodges and commercial establishments in a
clustered, unified development. Commercial core 2
district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
urban design guide plan and design considerations
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, apen
space and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of building and uses and ta
maintain the desirable qualities of the district by
establishing appropriate site development
standards.
The proposal complies with the Purpase Section by upgrading an
existing lodge.
• TTT. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
This proposal does not relate directly to any sub-area cancept in
the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the
considerations is to show haw the new design strengthens nr
detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations.
Heiqht and Massing
The sixth floor expansion and addition of three dormers relates
only to one criteria that states:
A. Building expansions shall generally be limited
to one story and two stories as indicated ar the
Guide Plan, or as can be demonstrated to have a
positive visual and functional effect.
The new entry on the north elevation will be more functional and
the architecture is upgraded.
~ Urban Design Considerations
Not applicable.
• Roofs
Most of the comments £ar this consideration relate ta first floor
expansions. The remodel does meet the requirement that, "it is
important to integrate expansions with existing buildings so as to
avoid a patch work, tacked on quality for Lionshead. It is haped
that all expansions will appear to have been part of the original
design of each building." The new entry and changes to the roof
comply with this criteria. The dormers also meet the comment that
"where main building roof planes are highly visible from the
ground, expansion should match that pitch. "All roof pitches on
the sixth floor will be 5 1/2 by 12. There are na significant
impacts on sun/shade ar views as documented by the applicant's
studies.
Facade/Wa11s-Structures
This guideline encourages the use of concrete, concrete block,
glass, metal, stucco, and wood for construction. The Enzian Lodge
proposed to continue the use ot stucca and wood in the remodel.
Facades and Transparency
This section states:
• Graund floor commercial facades should be
proportionately more transparent than upper floors.
The remodel includes adding new windows on the south and east
elevations adjacent to the poo1. Even though this area is not a
commercial storefront, the increased transparency will imprave the
appearanae of the building.
Decks and Patias
This criteria states that decks and patios, particularly for
dining, encourage a strong street life and should be promoted in
any remodel. Tn respect to the Enzian Lodge, the pool/patio area
wi11 be improved by adding additionai landscaping and by adding
new stucco to retaining walls.
Accent Elements
Not applicable.
Landscape Elements
This criteria emphasizes the importance of a strang landscape plan
for any project. The applicant is proposzng an averall landscape
plan with emphasis on the steep bank adjacent to the parking area
• on the narth side of the building. This bank presently has no
landscaping and is very visible from the Frontage Road. The
proposed landscape buffer for this area will comply with the Tawn
of Vail landscape plan and will also screen the parked cars from
public view.
• Landscaping is propased for the bank on the south side of the
property which faces the Marriot Mark. This site has been an
eyesore for many years. The proposed landscaping wi1l greatly
improve the appearance vf this area.
V. ZONING CONSiDERATIONS
The overall remodel requires a height variance and density
variance. These issues are addressed in the attached memo.
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The sta£f strongly supports the exteriar alteration request for
the Enzian Lodge. zt is somewhat difficult to apply the Lionshead
Urban Design Considerations to this proposal as the project is not
located in Lionshead MalZ. However, it is clear that the proposal
adds many improvements to the existing property whzch are very
much needed and in general meet the criteria for an exterior
alteration. Staff is very supportive of the landscape plan which
is a major upgrade £or the site.
i
•
~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 24, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in order to
construct an addition.
Applicant: Tker Belausteguigaitia
I. DESCRTPTZON OF PROPOSED REQUEST
Mr. and Mrs. Iker Belausteguigoitia wish to add 348 square feet of
gross residential floor area to their condiminium unit in the
Lionshead Center Building. Presently, Lionshead Center Building
has an excess GRFA of 3,170 square feet. If this addition is
approved, the excess GRFA for the entire building wi11 be reduced
to 2,822 square feet.
The 348 square feet addition includes an expansian ta the master
bedroom by partially enclosing a deck and remodeling the interiar.
As the elevations and exteriar photograph show, the impact of the
building exterior will be very minimal. To further minimize any
~ impact, the new siding and stain calor will match the existing.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics regarding this
extrior alteration request.
1. Zone District:
Commercial Care II.
2. Density:
No change.
3. GRFA:
There are 3,170 square feet af GRFA left to be developed.
This praposal is for 348 square feet, leaving 2,822 square
feet of GRFA available for future use.
4. site coverage:
No change.
s
.
5. Height:
The height af the building is 37 feet. The maximum height in
Lianshead is 48 feet for a sloping rdof. The add.ition wilI
be lower than the highest peak of the roof.
III. GOMPLTANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUTDEPLAN FOR LzONSHEAD
This proposal does not relate to any sub-area concepts.
TV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE OF C4MMERCIAL CORE II
The Commercial Core II district is intended to provide sztes for a
mixture of multiple dwelings, lodges, and commercial
establishments in a clustered, unified development. Commercial
Core II District in accordance with the Vail Liozashead Urban
Design Guide Plan and Desi,gn Considerations is intended to ensure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate ta
the permi.tted types af building and uses and to maintain the
desirable qualities of the district by establishing appropriate
site development standards.
• This proposal is in compliance with the purpose of Commercial Core
IT.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSYDERATIONS FOR VAZL/LTONSHEAD
The purpase of the camparison between the proposal and the
considerations is ta shoy+r how the new design strengthens or
distracts from the intent of the design considerations.
Urban Design Consideratians
This consideration does not apply to this prapasal.
Heiqht and Massing
This addition wi11 nat change the height and massing. Urban
Design Considerations addresses one and two story additions at
ground level.
Roofs
The guide].i.nes say flat, shed, vaulted, or dome roofs are
acceptable for building expansions. This would be a pitched roof.
The guidelines alsa mention the cannection of roofs to existing
buildings and this addition is reflecting the design of the
. existing roof. It does avoid a patchwork, "tacked on" quaZity
that shauld be avoided in Lionshead. We feel that the roof pitch
• and the roof connaction to the existing building are well designed
architecturaZly and are in compliance with the guideline as
outlined.
Facades/Transparency
Not applicable to this application.
Facades-Walls Structures
The applicant is proposing to match the existing materials and
exterior design of the building.
Decks and Patios
Partially enclosed decks are encouraged on sub-area concept No.
12, but that is on the ground level. This deck is on the roof, so
tha consideration is not applicable.
Accent Elements
Not applicable to this application.
Landscape Elements
• Not applicable to this application.
VI. ZONTNG CONSIDERATIONS
This propasal meets all the zoning regulatzons for Lionshead.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff is supportive of the proposed redevelopment. We
recammend approval of this proposal and believe it meets the
zoning and Urban Design Considerations for Cammercial Core II.
~
~
s I.. tt~
~
~
1
• ~ _
~ 1~ r '
.
~
,.t.
r
1 ~
. ~ ~ ~ i• , ; ~
~ Y~ ' . 1~~. ~ ~~~~`i''F
att ; '11,
' •'1 _ ~ 1 ~ I - .
~ 3 1
I. ~ f'I ~kl E I
' ,
;
I
r__-_.-____~_ • 7--- 1 ;'i: ~ i I ~
~ , I~ ~~~E' - . jp:.-=.~ ;
i.-
~
i.t,.=A,-
_ _ _a ~ a I ~i I ~ : i I i . .
.
. ~ .
~
I ~ 1 , ,r _~I I'.,1 E i - ~ ~
• ~ l i - - ~ - _ _ -~t i f ~ F i XC
~ T• ~ ;E I ~ I . ~ I I ~ ~'.1 _ _....~._-.._._V-~
U3 ~ ~
f
Z ~
~
~ •
I
I
. F
# F s ~ • -
~d - 4
- _ . { ~ f ~ ; ~ ~ _ _ •
€ ~ . ~
i
~ i
i r
- - - - - - .p,
------1--
I
I E
I E
----F--
I E ~
~ I I
-I I 1 j { ~
C f l ~ C;
I I
(
I I ~
• `
~ D - - -F~---- - - ~ ~
1 I
I
1 ~
`
~
- - ~ ~ - ~ ~
I E ~ i
I I
I E I ~
f t
r i
t t i
_ _ _ _ _ _ r-
s ,
I I iI
I I ~ ,
I I ~
I I j ~
I I
I I
I I ~ I ~ I
I I ! ~ I
i i i ~ I I I~II ~I
~
I
I
I
..N ,
ft
E..
~
. . t . ; ~ -
~
t 1 1
4
~
~ ?
a ?
~ J 11! 1 1
F'U ~ ~r 1 i
tr+ -
Ob.
~ t
t
~ ~i ! ! 4
i E
? '
~ 1 1
! I ~
~ ~ 1 I
t e
i ~
~ ~ ? R
i
i a
t 1 ~
t 1 ~
? 1
1
1 1
1
1
1 l
^ 1 E
1
~
~
1-- -
___-----°-r
_ _ - - - - ~
~ -
~
l
i
i ~ - ~
1 t ~ltn ~
J
~ i CD
O
I
~ I 1
1 1 ' f -
t ~ ~ 1
1
I t C ~ ~ t
1 f 1 ~
~ 'I I _•Jf f [071 0
~
~
i
~ 1 1 ~ v
~ 1 l
I ~
I 1 1 ~ _
1 i ` t
i~ D i ~ ~i• ; I
--r-
i 1
1 ' ~ I ~ ~ I t?r ~
I ~
t
~-fti--"" r
i I I
f I i`
1 I ~
i i
~
1 1 1 ~ 1
1 1 ' t ~
i l
i ,
i
i ~
.
. /
/
~
O"_..._..~.~~ •
~
/
•
u~ .H
• ,
j y s k atA ~ ~ ~;a v. ~
a
i ~7F1~C~1°~ 1N.~~~~• { .
~
1e
1 i
.
1
Y ~
N'=~r•
. ,
, .
~ To: The Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
SUBJ: Request tor a moditication to the tloadplain on Lot 7, Vail
Village Eleventh Filing, 3070 Booth Creek Drive.
Applicants: Dave and Nancy Nystrom
DATE: July 24, 1989
I. REQ_UEST
The applicants are requesting to modify the floodplain on Lot 7 in
the follawing way:
Alternative 2.
Three floodplain moditication alternatives were
identified for this property in the Hydro-Triad
report dated January 4, 1989. Alternative 2 was
selected by the architect. This alternative
consists of fill placement and structure
constructi.on within a portion of the floodplain
fringe area. Based an the proposed site plan, the
~ maximum depth of fill placement within the
floodplain fringe area, will be approximately 3.5
feet along the north edge of the 100 year
floodplain. There will be no fill placement within
the floodplain fringe outside the south property
Iine. According to the Flood Boundary and Floodway
Maps prepared by the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), the limits of fill placement and
structure construction are autside the 104 year
floodway.
The minimum finished floor el.evatian is identified
as eZevation 8298.0 feet. This is 1.9 feet higher
than the 100 year water surface shown in the FEMA
report (Section Bz) assuming encroachment within
the 100 year floodplain fringe area.
The plan was prepared and is stamped by Ja.m Rea.ch.
Existing contours are based on site survey and
mapping performed by Eagle Va11ey Engineering and
Surveying Tnc.
3I. REVIEW CRITERTA
Section 18.69.040 E of the Hazard Regulatians specifies the
criteria for modification to the floodplain:
• E. The Zoning Admini.strator may require any
applicant or person desiring to modify the
floodplain by fill, constructio n, channelization,
~ grading, or other similar changes, to submit for
review an environmental impact statement in
accordance with 18,56 to establish that the work
will not adversely effectadjacent pra er ties, or
increase the quantity. orvel,ocity_ of flood waters.
III. SUMMARY OF HYDRO-TRTAD FLOODPLATN MODIFICATION REPORT
Hydro-triad has completed one repart and three letters dated June
22, July 5, and July 14, concerning the flaodplain modification.
The first report dated January 1989 states:
Our analyses indicate that none of the project
area is located within the floodway and
approximately 6,090 square feet (40%) is located
with.in the flaodplai.n fringe. Construction or
filling within the floodway is not allowed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency. Construction
within the floodplain fringe area can be
accommodated, provided the upstream water surface
elevation is not increased by more than 0.7 foat.
(Hydro-Triad report, January 1989)
The Hydro-Triad ietter dated July 14, concludes:
. We have further evaluated the praposed floodplain
modifications and the eftects on the 100 year
floodplain upstream of the Nystrom Property. Our
additianal analyses consisted af performing
computer modeling using the Army Corps of Engineers
HEC-2, Water Surtace Profile computer pragram.
Thi.s zs the same program used for the FEMA study.
Cross section data from the 1975 Hydro-Triad, Ltd.
Gare Creek report and the 1982 FEMA Flaod Insurance
Study reports were used. Also, site speci£ic data
from the proposed sita pian for the Nystrom
Property were used. The ana].yses were dane for
cross sections BH, BI, and BJ as shown on the FEMA
maps. These cross sections correspond to sections
49.6.1, 49.7, and 49.7.1 of the 1975 Hydro-Triad,
Ltd. report. Finished floar and patio elevati,ons
for the three residences upstream of the Nystrom
Property were abtained from field survey by Eagle
Valley Engineering and Surveying Tnc. This survey
was performed on June 30, 1989. We also prepared a
cross section of the site shawing the existing
conditions, the propased fill placement, and the
floodplain fringe encroachment limits allowed by
FEMA. Analyses and conc].usions based on these data
are discussed below.
~ a. The proposed floodplain modifications will not
increase the quantity of flow for the lOd year
event. The peak flow used for the Z00 year
• event at this location is 1807 efs. This is
consistent with both the FEMA study and the
1975 Hydro-Triad, Ltd. study.
b. Based on the HEC-2 analyses, the mean flow
veloczties at Sections BI and BJ ar increased
as a result of the floodplain modifications.
The increase is 0.3 and 0.5 feet per secand
respectively for the 100 year event. This
increase does not significantly change the
erosive characteristics of the flow. Whencompared with the flow velocities before fill
placement on the Nystrom Praperty, we da not
feel there will be an adverse impact
resultingfroposed fill placement.
c. Comparison of the 100 year flaod elevations
for the conditions before and after fill
placement was made using the FEMA floodplazn
encroachment criteria. This criteria allows
for a maximum 1 faot rise upstream. Assuming
the worst case canditzan (fzll placement
within the entire floodplain fringe area on
Lots 7, 8, 9 and 10 and alang the opposite
. bank of Gore Creek) the maximum water surface
elevatian increase is 1.1 feet at Section BH,
0.7 feet at Section BI, 0.6 feet at Section
BJ, and 0.8 feet at Sectian BK. These
elevation increases and the corresponding
watex surface elevatinns were compared to the
finished floor and patio elevations of the
three upstream residences. This comparison is
shawn in Table 1. The finished floar and
patio elevations are higher than the 100 year
flaodplain water surface elevations.
The cross section shown on the attached sheet
illustrates the relatianship of the floodplain
fringe, floadway and floadplain encroachment.
The dark area represents the amount of
floodplain encroachment proposed on the
Nystrom Proparty. The cross hatched area
represents the full floodplain encroachment
area anaZyzed by FEMA. The proposed
encroachment area is significantly less than
the FEMA area. Based on this, we anticipate
the upstream water surface elevation
increases will be significantly less than the
worst case condition.
~ Based on these data and analyses, fill
placement_w_it_h_in the floodplain_fringe, as
proposed for the Nystrom Property, will not
adversely affect the adjacent ro erties. If
~ however, filZ placement and construction
within Lots 8, 9, and 10 have been allowed to
encroach within the 100 year floodway, there
may be adverse impacts upstream. These
impacts would not be a direct consequence of^
fill placement on the Nystrom Property.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff reCOmmends approval of the floodplain modification. The
PubZic Works Department has also reviewed the Hydro-Triad wark and
has found the studies meet the Floodplain Madification critaria.
Tn general, we wauld prefer to see the residence pushed closer to
the front setback to avoid building in the 100 year floodplain.
However, a precedent has been established zn that a similar type
of floodplain modification was appraved for the property to the
west, Lot 6, B1ock 3, Vail Village Eleventh Fiiing in 1981. Staff
approval is contingent upan the following conditivns being met:
1. The owner shall be responsible for natifying FEMA of the
modification to the floodplain.
2. The owner sha11 be responsible for obtaining a Zetter of
approval from the Army Corps of Engineers for the floadplain
. modification.
3. Willows, other vegetation, and natural Gare Creek armoring
(rip-rap) shall not be disturbed south of the property line
per the Hydro-Triad letter dated Ju1y 14, 1989. Willows on
the lot shall not be disturbed by fill per the appraved
floodplain modification site plan.
4. The planter on the south side of the dining patio shall be
removed to minimize removal of willows. The dining patia
shall also be pulled back (tQwards the north) 4 feet, to
decrease impacts on creek vegetation.
5. Height for the proposed residence using existing grade sha1Z
be calculated from elevation 8,296 feet.
6. The owners sha11 not remonstrate against a possible future
stream walk along Gore Craek which would allow far public
access alang the creek.
~
, ~
~
~
~ , ti ~ ~
r ~ ~
~ ~ , J 1~ ~`jc ~ , ~ _
, 1 / !J . ~ ' '
4 f` ~ ~"~.j 1,` ~e~
_ r ~
~
ti ~ ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~
r --'u` , ~ ~ t .
r ~ f j jt 7 ~ ` :S ~ ~ ~
~ ,x . , r / ~-~-_f,~ {
_ t r~ ~ I / / t~ !
~ ff i
r• ' ~l / ~ f 1
~ ~
i, 1 I l4 x~i t.; c
~ ~ ~ r ~ ' ~l ~'„f ; 'f
~ j~ t~ ~r .,z
~Ff ~
' ~~„fp J I / r-}~`. ` k tF.
f„~, r f 1 ~I P~ ~~`.'r
, _ ` r- r'~.. ,
. ~ ~ ti r`~ ! ~f ,
l ~l'.1 / ~f~ f~ ~ J
y: _ . .Y 1~ / / , 1 / ~ ~
~ ~:t ~ /a ;
~ _a--_
~w f . ` ~ _ _
~u . -C o t r~ .N ~ ` .t
~,t' ' '
~ ~ ;.,~r ~ i w~~ f~
~ t~ ~ `
'r~ Ss
~ ~ y~~ f ~ ~
~ - ~ ~
~ 1
c :x ~
~ ~
f ~ ~w~ ~
,b _ ~ r -
' ;.a ~ S~
r~ Z
. "R {sl`~~, '~.}',4
pfi L
t t';~ ` Y r ~y ~ ssl 1 'yp
' ~+t~ ' ~9' ~ , ~ 7 Z ~4n
l ' ~s ~ ~
~ ` F' ~ 1 ? ~ -
~ ~ '
' V J _
~ r~
_ r
L r r
~
S
{ , ~
f
l
y ' ¦
i\1 ~
{ ~
~ ~ K ~
~ ;
. . ~ ~ I ~ { y~
9
~ ~
M.
' ~ ~ I ~
yµn
~ A
~ TO Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM community Development
DATE Ju1y 24, 1989
SUBJECT Amendments to the Talon
I. REQUESTS•
The project representative is Steve Gensler. His requests
include.
1. Amend the develapment plan to allow for phasing of the
project. This will a11ow him to receive final certificate
nf occupancies far phase I units without the remainder of
the project being tinished.
2. A request for an increase in gross residential floar area
far phase Ii of 750 square feet.
3. A request to relocate the recreation amenity package to
phase III.
~ 4. A request to build a bus stop adjacent to the Talon which
would be servicad by the Town of Vail bus system.
5. A request to complete the rockfall scaling before a final
certificate of occupancy is released for phase I.
TI. PRELTMINARY STAFF COMMENTS:
l. Phasing: You stated at the meeting that you would be
willing to provide a letter of credit simultaneously during
the closing which is presently scheduled for August 21. As
you know, the August 21 date does nat correspond with the
review process necessary for your request. However, the
staff would like the new recreation amenity package built
before the final CO is released on phase I. You indicated
that this was not possible. In addition, the rockfall work
and the sewer and water improvements must be compZeted
before yau would receive a final CO. If there are
additional code problems that must be rectified, these
issues would also need to be finished before a final CO
would be released. The landscaping for phase I would also
be required to the planted before a final CO.
2. GRFA: The staff recammends that you deduct the 750 squaxa
teet from phase III. Once yau are ready to build phase
~ III, we suggest that you come baak to request to add
whatever amount of GRFA you wish ta have. I must emphasize
that this approach does not in any way mean that the staff
would support your request for additional GRFA for phase
IIT.
~
3. Recreation amenzties package: We would like to see the
recreation ameniti.es built before a final CO is released.
However, the staff is very concerned about getting this
project completed, so we wi1l try to work out an
arrangement that is agreeable ta both you and the staff.
4. Bus stop: At the meeting, you agreed to build the bus stap
and complete the road improvements by the curb on Suffehr
Creek. I will review this proposal with Public Works on
July 17. You also indicated that it would be acceptable if
the bus stop was located on the south side of the road
adjacent to phase III.
5. Rockfall: You agreed to complete this work before the
fina1 closing and final CO on the project. You also agree
that this is an appropriate solution.
s
•
Planning and Environmental Commissian
~ August 14, 1989
12:00 Site visits
u~ 1:00 Vail Village Master Plan Public Meeting
3:00 Public Hearing
3 1. A request for a height variance in order to
place a satellite dish on the roof af the
Lodge at Vail, 174 East Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail
1 2. A request for a setback variance in order to
build a deck an Lot 2, Block 6,
Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicant: Stephen C. Beck
A request for a Conditional Use permit in
order to operate a business office in the
Public Accommodation zone district, at the
Christiana Lodge, at 356 Hansan Ranch Road.
Applicant: Christiana Realty
2 ~4. A request for an exteriar alteration in
. order to enclose a deck at the Chart House
located in the Landmark Building, 610 West
Lianshead Circle, Lionshead Mall.
Applicant: Chart House, Inc.
5. Report on Council actiQn regarding:
l. Enzian Lodge
2. Katz variance
6. Appointment vf PEC member to Art in Public
Places Board.
.
i
t
. Planning and Enva.ronmental Cominission
August 14, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Jim Viele Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Mike Mollica
Peggy Osterfoss Kristan Pritz
Chuck Crist
Kathy warren
Fam Hopkins
The Planning and Environmental Commission -meeta.ng began at
approximately 3:00 p.m.
Item No. 1 A reauest far a height variance in order to place a
satellite dish on the roaf of the Lodge at Vail, 174
East Gore Creek Drive.~
A liCant: Lod e at Vai1.
The staf£ was represented by Rick Pylman on this item. He exp].ained
that the Lodge at Vail was requesting a height variance in order ta
place a 29 inch diameter satellite dish on the x'oof of the building.
The proposal a1.so included enclosing the satellite dish with four walls
~ that would match the siding and color of the Lodge at Vail. Rick
reviewed the criteria connected with the proposal as per the staff
memo.
Chris Farringtan, representing the applicant, saa.d that it was fe3.t
that locating the satel,lite dish on the roof would be 1.ess noticeable
and offered more security from vandalism.
Someone from the audience asked what side of the building the dish
would be placed on. Chris said it would be on the szde facing the
Sitzmark (on the narth).
Chuck Crist asked why a satellite dish was necessary versus the use af
a cable. Chris said that thexe was no type of "cable" music that he
knew of. He added that the Lodge had been using taped music but had
~ deci,ded that the satel.l.ite woul.d allow for a more efficient system that
i would require less employee operation.
~ A motion was made by Peggy Osterfoss for approval per the staff
finda.ngs since the location was thaught to be the 1east conspicuous,
therefore the most favorable. Kathy Warren seconded the mation.
Vote: 7-0
~
. ~
Item No, 2 A re uestfor a setback variance in order ta build a •
dack on Lot 2 block 6 Tntermountain Subdivision.
Applicant.. Staphen C. Beck
Krxstan Pritz presented this item for the staff. she explained that
the existing building invalved in this proposal encroaches 9feet into
the 50 foot stream setback on the north side and 7.5 feet into the east
side satback, thus making an addition of a deck impossible without a
variance. Two variances would be necessary; one for a stream setback
and one for a side setback. Kristan went on to describe the criteria
involved with the proposal. The staff recommendation was for appraval
with the condition that the trea in the area of the proposad deck would
not be cut down.
Peggy said she was concerned with the side setback in relation to the
possibility of the pool being removed. A disaussion taak place
regarding the trees and the complaint of the adjacent property owner.
Peggy made a motion for approval of the variance request with the
conditions that (1) the tree would not be removed, and (2) that there
will be excavation and tree wells installed for the trees between the
project and stream bank for the trees that shaw evidence of backfil1.
The motion was seconded by Chuck.
V4tA: 7-0
Item No. 3 A request £or a Conditional Use pe,rmit in order to .
operate a business office in the Public Accommodation
zone districtat the Christiana Lod eat 356 Hanson
Ranch Road.
A licant: Christiana Realt
Mike MQllica presented this item. He explained that the intent of the
proposal was to allow the Christiana Lodge to open a small business
office in the location of the front desk area. The office would be
used as a real estate brokerage and management office. Mike reviewed
the criteria Por the proposal and gave the staff recommendation for
approval.
The applicant gave a brief description ot the history af the business
and offices.
Chuck asked if there would be any change in signage. The applicant
answered that there would be one window sign on the front entrance
doors and that currently a directional sign was being used.
Peggy motioned for appraval as presented in the staff memo. Chuck
seconded the motian.
Vote: 7-0
41
r
~
~Item No. 4 A rec{uest for an extera.or alteration in order to enclose
a deck at the Chart House located in the Landmark
Bua.ldina, 610 West Lianshead Circle, La.anshead Ma3.l.
Applicant: Chart House, Inc.
This item was presented by Rick Pylman. Ha explained that the main
element a.nvolved with this prQposal is the partial enclosure of an
existing second ].avel patia space adjacent to the Chart House
Restaurant. This patio is not currently being utilized. The applicant
is requesting to enclose approximately 830 square feet af this area and
leave 320 square feet open. The enclosure would allow the Chart House
to create a new vestibule entry with direct access from the mall. The
enclosure as proposed would consist of a store front gl.azing system
similar to that being tzsed on the other elevations of the Chart House.
Rick rev'iewed the criteria for this project. The staff recommendation
was for approval with the condition that an operable window system be
incorporated into the proposal.
Roy Ricks, the architect for the project, explained that the original
intentian of the appla.cant was to enclose the whole deck area. Since
then, the applicant has worked with the staff to reach an acceptable
compromise. The applicant said they were concerned with the operable
windows. Roy said that the Chart Hause was strictly an evening
operata.on and does not utilize the deck. He also said that a fixed
window system would be preferred as it would be more camfortable and
the cost of the operable windaws is a concern Ear the Chart House. rt
• was also a concern that the operab3.e window system would allow insecfs
inta the open kitchen.
Chuck asked af there wera any thaughts af putting up an awni.ng to cover
the open space. He thought it would 1ook nice and attract peaple. The
applicant replied that there was no problem attracti.ng people, but
instead, the problem was in seating people.
Pam asked why such a dark glazing was to be used and said she would
like to see a change to a light gl.azing. The applicant said he didn't
think the Chart House would be opposed to putting c7.ear glass in.
Peggy stated that mitigation for this proposal was important and felt
; that a window system would be an apprapriate condition. Sid agreed
that clear glazing would be an improvement. He didn't feel that the
Urban Design Guide Plan applied to the Chart House since the p1.an is
directed toward pedestrian ways. He did not think that the effect of
operable wa.ndows would be noticeable to pedestra.ans either way since
the Chart House is alevated.
Susan Scanlan, the Tawn's Environmental Health Officer, had cancerns
about the operable window system since the Chart House gri1l area zs
immediately insi.de the entxance. She thought that a problem with
insects coming into the kitchen would be a passibility, especially in
the evening. She also mentioned that most of the restaurants that
uti.lized operable windows had their kitchens back inside the building.
i
~
.
Chuck agreed with Sid about operable windows and fe].t that an apen
window system was nat necessary. Jim alsa agreed with Sid. A7.though ,
Jim felt that beinq consistent with these type of "window" decisions
was impartant, he did not feel that the Urban Design Guide Plan applied
in this case.
Diana asked the Board if deck enclosures were not usually discauraged.
She felt the proposal was simil.ar to that of Blu's, 8he also di.sliked
the dark glass. .
Kathy pointed out that the unused deck is not only an eyasare duri.ng
the winter, but alsa a snow cal].ector that is unsafe. She viewed the
proposal mare as an addition than as an enclasure.
Peggy stated that she was even more convinced that the windows should
be aperable. She did not agree that pedestrians are not affected by
second story buildings. She thaught it was crucial to maintain
cansistency in utilizing pperable window systems i.n this kind of
propasal.
Jim asked Roy if the project was important enaugh ta go ahead with i.f
operable windows were requxred as a condition. Roy sa.id that the
appl.icant would probably go ahead.
Discussion continued concarning operable window systems and other
restaurant's success with such systems.
Jim stated that he was convinced of the importance of maa.ntaining •
consistency with this type af proposal. He could nat think of a reason
why the condition of operable windows should be applzed to one
project and not another.
Peggy Osterfoss made a motion of approval per the staff inemo and added
the condi.tion that the glazing be clear in the new operable windows.
It was also suggested that the applicant study the possibility of using
clear glass in all other windows. Alsa, a directive was given to the
DRB to add .landscaping tn the praject.
Kathy seconded the motion.
Vote: 5-2, Chuck and Sid opposing.
The meeting adjourned after a report an Council actions and an
appointment of a PEC member to the Art in Public Pl.aces Baard.
•
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Other WMP issues to address before adoption
1. TMPACT FEES
Peggy and Diana suggest the fallowing revisions:
Objective 1.3:
Enhance new development and redevelopment through public
impravements done by private developers working in cooperation
with the Town.
Policy 1,3.1:
PubZic improvements shall be developed with the participation of
the private sector working with the Town,
Action Steps - #2:
Study an impact fee system to reduce the publza burden of
providing intrastructure and public services to new development.
2. OPEN SPACE DEFINZTION ISSUE
A. Accessible greenspace - Peggy's suggestion:
Add a statement in the Sub-area Section indicating that new
greenspace accessible to the public is one af several
possible requirements for each infill project.
B. Open space as it relates to underground buildings underneath
(i.e. parking structure at Ford Park or ski base facility
behind Gold Peak House).
3. SEIBERT CIRCLE
Should this be a study area to look at location, design, etc.,
rather than specifically proposed to be moved? Design wauld occur
through Village Streetscape Zmpravement Plan.
4. SUGGESTIONS FOR REVISIONS TO GOALS 5 AND 6: {as per Peggy, Diana
and Peter}
Goa1 #5:
Change Policy 5.1.3 to Policy 5.1.4.
Insert new Policy 5.1.3.:
~ Seek locations for additional structured public parking.
Policy 5.3.1:
The Vail Transportation Center shall be the primary pick up and
~ drop nff point for publie transit and private shuttle vans and
~ taxis.
Action Step #3:
Continue to study the feasibility of a"people mover" or other
public transportation alternatives to augment or replace the
existing shuttle system.
Add Action Step #6:
Study the feasibility of an underground parking structure in Ford
Park (Recreation fields would remain).
Goal #6:
Objective 6.2:
Provide for the safe and efficient functions of fire, police and
public utilities within the context of an aesthetically pleasing
resort setting.
Policy 6.2.2:
Add "brick" before paving and "open" before dining decks.
i
•
~
~ ~~G-
.~i~,~-yy '
~ ~ ~~(1~~~ . _
,
_ ~
.
,
~ ~
. ~ l
~
~ .
,,~~~,,,~~j ~
4l i!~ " _ _ j ` I .
~f ~v~
~ ~ ,
i
ti.~
GOAL #1 ENCOURAGE HTGH QUALITY REDEVELOPMENT WHILE PRESERVING THE
UNIQUE ARCHITECT[TRAL SCALE OF THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO
SUSTAIN IT'S SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND IDENTITY.
1.1 abjective:
Implement a consistent development review process to
reinforce the character of the Village.
1.1.1 Policy:
Development and improvement projects approved in the
Village shall be consistent wi,th the goals,
objectives, policies and design considerati.ons as
outlined in the Vai1 Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide Plan.
1.2 Objective•
ENCOURAGE.the upgrading and redevel.opment of residential
and commercial facilities.
1. 2. 1 Policy:
As an incentive, additianal develapment shail be
allawed as identified by the Action Plan and as a.s
consistent with the Vail Village Master Plan and Urban
Design Guide P1an.
~ 1.3 Objective:
Mitigate the impacts ot new development through public
improvements and an impact fee system.
1.3.1 Polic '
y
Public.improvements shall be developed with the
participatian of the private sector by a system of
impact fees ta be assessed an new develapment as
permitted under the Vail Village overlay zone
district.
Action Steps:
1. Develop and adopt an overlay zane district
implementing the Vail Village Master Plan.
2. Develop and implement an impact fee system which
will reduce the public burden of providing infra-
structure and public services to new
development.
3. Prioritize public impravement projects witha.n the
Village area.
.
10
~ GOAL *2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND PROMOTE YEAR-AROUND
ECONOMIC HEALTH ANI7 VIABILITY FOR THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE
COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE
2.1 Objective-
Recognize.the variety of land uses found i.n the 10 sub-
areas throughout the Village and allow for development that
is compatible with these established land use patterns.
2, 7. . 1, Pol icy :
The zaning code and development review criteria sha11
be consistent with the overall goals and abjecti.ves of
the Vail Village Master Plan.
2.2 objective:
Recognize the "historia" Commercial Core as the main
activity center of the Village.
2.2.1 Policy:
The design criteria in the Vai]. Village Urban Design
Guide Plan shall be the primary guiding document to
preserve the existing architectural scale and
character of the core area of Vail Village.
• 2.3 Objective:
Increase the number of residential units available for
short term overnight accommodations.
2.3.1 Policy:
The development of short term accommodation units is
strongl.y enCOUraged. Residential units that are
developed above existing density levels are REQUIRED
to be designed or managed in a manner that makes them
available for short term overnight rental.
2.4 Obj ective :
Encourage the development of A VARIETY OF new commercial
activity where aompatible w.ith existing land uses.
2.4.1 Policy:
Commercial infili development consistent with
established horizontal zoning regulations shall be
encouraged to provide activity generators, ACCESSIBLE
GREENSPACE, PUBLTC PLAZAS, and streetscape improvement
ta the pedestrian netwark throughout the Village.
2.4.2 Policy:
Activity that pravides night life and evening
entertainment for bath the guest and the community
shall be encouraged.
•
11
•
2.5 Obiective!
Encourage the continued upgrading and renovations AND
MAINTENANCE af exa.sting lodgi.ng and commercial facilities
to better serve the needs o£ our guests.
2.5.1 Pol
Recreation amenities, common areas, meeting facilities
and ather amenities shall be preserved and enhanced as
a part of any redevelopment of lodging properties.
2. 5. 2 Pal a.cy :
The Town will use the maximum flexibility possible in
the interpretation of building and fire codes in order
to facilitate build.i.ng renovations withnut
compromising 1.ife, heal.th and safety consideratians.
Action Steps:
1. Tnitiate zoning code modifications ta clarify the
Urban Design Guide Plan's autharity to cover
those areas outside of Commercial Care I that are
referenced by the UDGP.
2.6 OBJECTTVE:
• AFFORDABLE EMPLOYEE HOUSXNG SHDULD BE MADE AVAILABLE
THROUGH PRTVATE EFFORTS, ASSISTEU BY LIMZTED INCENTIVES,
PROVIDED BY THE TOWN OF VAIL, WITH APPROPRTATE
RESTRICTIONS.
2.6.1 POLICY•
EMPLOYEE HOUSING UNITS MAY BE REQUIRED AS PART OF ANY
NEW OR REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT REQUESTING DENSITY OVER
THE ALLOWABLE BY EXISTING ZONING.
i
12
~ GDAL 43: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE ENHANCING OF THE WALRTNG
EXPERIENCE THI20UGHOUT THE VILLAGE.
3.1 Objective:
Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate
streetscape improvements (such as paver treatments,
landscaping, lighting and seating areas) along
adjacent pedestrian ways.
3.1.2 Policy:
Public art shall be encouraged at appropriate
locations throughout the Town.
3.1.3 Policy-
Flowers, trees, WATER FEATURES, and ather landscaping
shall be encouraged throughout the Town in locations
adjacent to, or visible from, public areas.
3.2 Objective'
Minimize the amount of vehicular traffic in tha Village to
• the greatest extent possible.
3.2.1 PoliCy:
Vehicular traffic will be eliminated or reduaed to
absolutely minimal necessary levels in the
pedastrianized areas of the Village.
3,3 Objective-
Encaurage a wide variety of activities, events, and street
life alang pedestrian ways and plazas.
3.3.1 Policy'
The Tawn encaurages a regulated pragram of outdoor
street activity in predetermined locations throughout
the Village.
3.3.2 Policy:
Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and
shall be encouraged in commercial infill or
redevelopment prajects.
3.4 Objectives.
DEVELOP ADDTTTONAL SIDEWALKS, PEDESTRIAN-ONLY WALKWAYS AND
ACCESSIBLE GREEN SPACE AREAS, including pocket parks AND
STREAM ACCESS.
~
13
•
CIRCULATION PLAN
The Ci.rculation Plan recognizes the established hierarchy of streets
and circulation throughout Vail Village. This circulation system is
an important element in maintaining the pedestrianized character of
the Village. This is accomplished by limiting vehicular access at
strategic points, while a1l.owing for necessary operations such as bus
service, loading/delivery and emergency vehicle access.
Equally important to cantrolling vehicular access is the role of the
Town's bus system. Moving over 3 million people each year, the bus
system greatly reduces the reliance on private automobiles. The
product of these efforts i.s an overall reduction of vehicular traffic
in the Village's pedestrianized areas.
In addition to the function aspects af the Village's circulation
system are aesthetic considerations. A long standing goal for the
Village has been to improve the pedestrian experience by the
development of a continuous network of paths and walkways. As a
resuZt, the irregular street pattern in the Village has been enhanced
with numerous pedestrian connections linking plazas and other forms
of open space. Located in and along thi.s network are most of the
Village's retail and entertainment activities. While the majority of
the circulation system within the Village is in place, a number of
. major i.mprovements are proposed to reinforce existing pedestrian
connections AND fuxther reduce vehicular activity in the core area.
•
24
i
ACTION PLAN
PotentiaZ development and improvement projects that would be
consistent with the desired physical form of Vai]. Village are
indicated on the Action Plan. The Acta.on Plan is a composite of the
Land Use, Open Space, Circulation and Building Height Plans,
indicating only those desired pro7ects which have not yet been
develaped in the Village.
Areas identitied for additional development on the Plan process have
previ.ously reaeived Town approvals or have been recognized as being
consistent with the goals and objectives outlined in this Plan. The
Action Plan is not, however, intended ta be an all-inclusi.ve list of
improvements which may occur. Praposals other than those indicated
on the Action Plan may be considered. The review of any deveZopment
proposal will be based upon campliance with al1 relative elements of
the Vil.lage Master Plan.
Numerical references found on the Action P1an map reter to detailed
descriptions of propased improvements. Located in the Sub--Area
section oF this P1an, these descriptions provide a detailed account
of the goals and design considerations relative to each of the
development and improvement projects. Graphic representation of
improvement projects on the Action Plan are not intended to provide
~ design solutions. They are only general indications of desired
improvements for the Village. Design sub-area concepts, applicable
goals, objectives, and paiicies of this Plan, zoning standards and
design considerations outlined in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan are important criteria in the evaluation of any devel.apment
proposal. FURTHERMORE, PRYVATE COVENANTS EXIST IN MANY AREAS OF VAIL
VILLAGE AND SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION ADDRESSED BETWEEN A DEVELOPER
AND OTHER APPLICABLE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS.
i
26
•
#1-5 Wi11ow„Br,idqe Road Walkway
A brickpaver pedestrian walkway,
accented and separated from the
street by a strang landscaped area
to encaurage pedestrian
circul.ation along Meadow Drive.
Loss of parking will need to be
relocated on site.
. #1-9_ Village_Streamwalk
Development of packet parks along
Gore Creek TO PROVIDE PUBLTC
ACCESS TO THE CREEK.
GOAL #5 ZMPROVE THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND
ZNFRASTRUCTURE BY INCREASING BOTH
TTS CAPACTTY AND EFFTCTENCY
THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE AREA.
~
33
~ GOAL #2 TD FOSTER A STRONG TOURTST
INDUSTRY AND TO PROMOTE YEARWROUND
ECONOMTC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VTLLAGE AND FOR THE CQMMUNTTY
AS A WHOLE.
Objective #4 Encourage the
development of new commercial
activity where compatible with
existing land uses in the Village.
#2-2Summers Lodge
This property has recently been
redeveloped into a small number of
condominiums. Ground floor
commercial expansion fronting
toward the Village wiZZ serve to
reinforce pedestrian circulation
throughout the Viilage core. West
side of property shalI maintain
residential character consistent
wa.th the sub-area. Covenant
restrictians presently restrict
cammercial activity, amendments
• would be required. (A1so see Goa1.
#3, Objective #3).
GOAL #3 TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP
PRIORTTY THE TMPORTANCE OF
MAINTAINING AND ENHANCING THE
WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT
THE VILLAGE.
Objective #4 Develop the
"VilZage Streamwa7.k", a path and
pocket park system, through the
Vi1l.age al.ong Gore Creek.
#1_ -9V i 11 aqe POCKET PARKS
Development of pocket parks alang
Gore Creek TD PROVIDE PUBLIC
ACCESS TO THE CREEK.
~
36
~
The Action Plan £or this sub-area does not indicate all the sub-area
concepts a,denti.fied in the Vai1 Village Urban Design Guide Plan.
Please refer to the Urban Design Guide Plan for greater detail.
•
~
41
~ TRANSPORTATION CENTER
The only existing facility within this subWarea is the Vai1 Vi11age
Transportation Center (TRC). The TRC serves as the transportation
hub of the Village and the entire community. There is potential for
future expansion of the parking structure eastward alang with other
ancillary development potential. Foremost among these is the air
rights development aver the expansion of the parking structure.
The primary purpose of this sub-area is to provide parking for the
entire Village area. The top priority of any expansion ta this
facility should be to maximize the amount of additional public
parking available at this site. Any additional activity proposed for
this site should be considered only after maximizing the number of
additional parking spaces. In conjunction with this expansion are
proposed improvements to pedestrian walkways between the structure
and the Golden Peak area.
GOAL #5 IMPROVE THE
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM AND
INFRASTRUCTURE BY ZNCREASING BOTH
TTS CAPACTTY AND EFFICZENCY
THROUGHOUT THE VILLAGE AREA.
~ Ob7ective #l Meet the parking
demands throughout the Village
by the utilization of both public
and private parking facilities.
#4-1 TRC Expansion
This site has long been considered
the logical location for future
expansions ta the Vail Trans-
portation Structure. Any
expansion should maximize the
number of additional public
parking spaces. In conjunction
with this expansion, a one to two
story air rights structure could
be developed aver this development
to accammadate some type of public
purpose facility suCh as a
convention center, visitors
center, or performing arts center.
~ (Also see Goal #5, Objective #3).
42
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: Lodge satellite dish height variance request
Applicant: Lodge Properties, Tncarporated
T. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
Section 18.58.320 of the Vail Municipal Code describes the
regulations regarding satellite dish antennas. This request
relates specifically ta Section 18.52.320 D-3 which states:
"The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish
antenna, when measured from the top of the
satellite dish antenna dawn to existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall not
exceed 15 feet."
The Lodge at Vai1 is requesting a height variance to piace a 29
a.nch dimeter satellite dish on the roof of the building. The
purpose of this dish is to receive a commercial music signal which
will be piped inta the common areas of the hotel. The stand for
. the dish is approximately ane Foot high so the total hei.ght of the
dish and it's stand totals approximately 40 - 42 inches. The roof
of the Lodge at Vail is approximately 35 feet above grade so the
top of the dish will be approximately 38 39 feet above grade.
The proposal entails building afour foot high wall around tour
sides of the di.sh. Tha.s wall will match the siding and color of
the waZl of the Lodge at Vail that is immediately behind the dish.
II. CRITERIA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
municipal code, the Department of Comznunity Deve].opment recommends
approval of the requested variance based upQn the following
factors:
A. Cansideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existinq or potential uses and structures a.n the
vicinity.
The small size of this satellite dish lends itself to a
rooftap installation. By being only approximately 40
inches above the raaf, it is fairly simple to build a
screened enclosure to this dish that will blend in well
• with some of the existing architectural and mechanical
features that exist on the roof of the Lodge. This dish
• does not extend above the ridgg ling ef any 6f thg rnef
areas nor above the light weiis o£ the loft areas or any
of the existing mechanical equipment that is currently
visible on the raof of the lodge. The staff feels that
due to the size of the dish and the proposed screening
involved, that this dish wi11 not draw attention to
itself and relates very well to the architectural and
mechanical features existing at the present time.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement af a specified regulation
is necessary to achieve compatibility and uniformitY af
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain theT
objectives af this title withaut grant of special
privileqe.
As this dish has a total height of 42 inches, it could
easily be ground mounted and meet the Town of Vail
criteria for satellite dishes. However, the size and
the ability to screen this dish lends itself well ta a
roof top installation. Though roof top installations
are not always desirable for satellite dishes, somatimes
that is the best possible way to screen a dish and in
this particular circumstance, seems to be the best
• location for the dish on the Lodge properties. We
therefore feel that this location is not a grant of
special priviiege
3. The effect of the re uested variance on 1i ht and air
distribution of populationr transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safety.
There is no impact on this criteria.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
ta the prapased variance. ~
IV. RELATED POLTCIES IN VAZL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
V. FXNDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the followinq
findings befare 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 varianee is warranted for one or more of the following
reasons:
The strict or Ziteral interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical difficulty ar
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions appxicable 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 enjayed
by the owners of other properties xn the same district.
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATZON
The staff recommendation for this request is tor approval. The
height requirements were written into the Satellite Dish Ordinance
ta discourage roof top applications. Althaugh this was dane
intentionally, it was recoqnized by the staff at the time, that
there may be the rare occasion where a roof top installation is
more desirable than a ground mounted location. We realized this
• would require an applicant to go through a varxance procedure, but
still felt that this was the best way to handle the issue. We
have reviewed this request carefully and with the neighboring
property owners. We have examined the rest af the Lodge property
and tee1 this is aesthetically a gaod location for this satellite
dish. Therefore, the staff recommendation is for approval of this
height variance.
•
me
~
atVail
Ju1y 17, 1989
RE: The Lodge at V'aiI
Satellite Proposal
The Lodge at Vail is proposing a satelZite dish for the expzess purpose
of receiving signals for music in our public areas.
The satellite dish would be put on the raof, centralized above the Gore
Creek Drive en.trance and shieldeci from view by an enclosure.
. The enclosure wi11 match existing materials already on the roof
atic1 will be painted to match existing roof structures, as to
b_I.end into the roof view.
The structure wi11 be central on the roof and not visible from
the streeC.
5pecial priveledge should not be a factor, as this has already been
done in Vai1. (Sonnenalp)
The structure shoul.d not rise from this roof anymore than the existzng
windows, or other structures on the roaf, ie, E1eva.tor and tnechanical
rooms.
There wi11 be no change or ef£ect on light or air from this installation.
i
174 East Gore Creek Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 303-476-5011 Te1ex 45-0375
~ T0: Planning and EnvironmentaZ Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: AuguSt 14, 19$9
SUBJECT: A request for a stream setback variance and a side
setback variance in order to construct a deck on Lot 2,
Block 6, Intermountain Subdivision.
Applicant: Stephen C. Beck
2. DESCRZPTZON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is proposing to build a deck around his unit at
the Bellflower Condominiums which were built under Courity
regulations. The existing building encraaches 9feet into
the 50 foot stream setback on the north side and 7.5 feet
into the east side setback, making an addition of a deck
impossible without requesting a variance.
The proposed deck would be ad7acent to the first floor level
of the unit. The deck wraps around the northwest (rear) and
east (side) of the unit. Because of the steep bank nn the
~ north or creekside of the unit, the deck is more than 5 feet
from the ground. Decks that are at alevel of 5 feet or
higher above the ground may only encroach 5 feet into any
setback area. For this reason the following variances are
necessary:
A. Stream Setback Variance: 8 feet
The request is for an 8 foot variance from the 45 foot
setback for decks above 5 feet high fram the stream
centerline. A 37 ft. setback will be maintained.
S. Side Setback Variance: 2 feet
A side setback of 2 feet is necessary for a small
portion of the deck that encroaches beyond the 5 foot
side setback on the east side of the unit. An 8ft.
setback wi11 be maintained.
XZ. CRITERTA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the municipal aode, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
fallowing factors:
. A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshi af the re uested variance to other
existin or otentiai uses and structures in the
vicinity._
~
Th2 surrounding struetures vary in distance from
the centerline of Gore Creek. Across Gore Creek
are two homes, one of which is 50 Peet trom the
creek's centerline, the other has a deck which is
29 feet from the centerline. To the east is an
abandoned swimming pool structure which is 33 feet
form the creek's centerline. The requested
variance would place the proposed deck 37 feet from
the centerline. There are already existing
encroachments which exceed the requested
variances.
2. The de ree to which relief trom the strict and
iiterai interpretation and enforcement of a
s ecified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to_attain the objectives
of this title without rant of s ecial rivile e.
Tt raould seem that of four structures in the
vicinity, only one is within the required distance
from the centerline of Gore Creek. The adjaeent
pool bui.lding to the east maintains a 9.5 Et.
setback instead af a 15 ft. setback. This
• encroachment warrants cdnsideration of the proposed
deck encroachment into the side (east) setback.
Therefiore a variance of 8 feet to allow this deck
to be 37 feet from the creek centeriine would not
be a grant of special privilege.
The residence was constructed while in the county
and therefore was not placed on the lot with
consideration for Tawn of Vail setbacks. The
buil.ding already projects 9feet into the stream
setback an one corner and 7.5 feet into the side
setback, making a variance necessary in order to
buil.d a deck.
3. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and
air, da.stribution of o ulation trans ortation and
traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The deck does not encroach into the 100 year
floadplain. There are no other impacts on these
criteria.
111. Such other factors and criteria as the comma.ssian deems
appZicable ta the proposed varianae.
IV. RELATED POLTCIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
~ Not applicable.
V. FINDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the
foll.awinq findinqs befare granting a variance:
• That the granting of the variane2 will not ba d2trimental 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
follawing reasonss
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship incansistent
with the ab7ectives 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 af other properties in
the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested variances.
• The variances will not constitute a qrant of special
privileqe as other properties in the area encroach inta the
stream setback and the building to the east of this project
encroaches into the side setback. There will be no negative
impacts on public health or safety. We believe that the
variances are warranted due to extraordinary circumstances on
the lot which are that the building already encroaches
substantially inta required setbacks. We a1sQ believe that
the strict interpretation ot our setback requirements would
deprive this owner of privileges enjoyed by other owners of
property in the area. It is our opinion that the deck has
also been kept to a modest size and does not encroach beyond
the necessary dimensions far a reasonably sized deck.
•
. *
-7- 3
•
~ ~n~i~/f~ T C~ o•~.~-~ ~.,f; ~ 4~/ ~'~~e .S~~~i,/
K
V ,
e
- ,C~r,~G~ i ~C ~efc ~ u~~ ss t/~t /J ~ ~r?~~~
~
C) C/,< Lo 7, .
~ 1~5 fi~i &4 ~7'~ ~i e -7`l4<0
a~e55
-T11e ~<eog ",-i95
~
(~r~ `7`!~`E? ~ciQ~ c~1 i?'~i~..; /~•~/c~ ?'~5 L°
~~~C~S G,1~i~~ ~i ~~~.g•z. ,h S~v'
~
Fe-P i Q,~ ~Q~~~ , a~v'~rr~~•~ccc~ ~
< 4Wc( 7,4~
~ ee ~x~°~°~ 7- Gc~ov
111s~~Ge .~4 ~ ej e
crry, 5 uc t4 7-lociez ~'~1 vca~ ~ P
. ~ 41 ~`xer~ 0, 4 r o s -l 09
~ r14 .
.~eC-~-rC,-, Z91'-::'
~ liV/Z-c /1/o`r- Z:;e ?p~~J 49.J
<a~-~ ~
j ~S /,o,~~Crf i
CDUCc(
~•2 ~°vo 6/~e6v1--5 U/1?~ /c,
~
'TiVe S ~~--•g~? ~l~ ~Pii~~P -7-- 3,1-&
C~ ~ G
~
,
'
,-x
N 7.~' 1
t (ti~.~..
r. ~ ~ ~ - r. ~ ;l ~
~ 39
.
• : ~ ~ ~
. ~ , ..r_. . _v~~' 4„~~,; ~ `1t~, • .
d- f~"~ ~~~4 ~Y • ! ~ • ~ ' _ 5.1' ~
~l. ;~S ~
' • ~ 4'.`, ? 1`Y
• ~y~ t f , . :I ~ ` ~ 4 1+.~ ~ t -
L.. ~ ~~Iu ~.V'/r ~A..,' ~.t.>.A :r..
r
~ k ~ ~ r. p i ~ • ;
~ r r~ .r~r .:l~ < y,''• S .a~ ti~•, r
_s r ~ ~~:i ~1Ti.. ._=1k , " ~ . . • ~i~.;.
+
.Yy'-
I .
t.f~ ~'r X.`y+ TM
_
F? .v
r
2+
~
r`
N4-.
i
Es~~ ~ • ~ s'. ~ ~:~y?r.~,J' . ~ '`4,a_.
"•i 7 ' ~I ~ ~~~y~ ~:rr . ~ ~ t~~', ~
i . . , •
~ ~j~ ~ '!1Q'•~i:. .v;~'1'~''~. -;,iyi~ t+r~ .~j~ e ~..1
- ~
~ ~ 9. ~ ~-i ' 19~
-T
~ APPK4X .
~
2
~
~ CIAFIG/NAL I~ROR,
i •
/ i
~ l05. 23 ~
_ - r X" /
~r 9,3'3
~ / • ~ - ' - ~ T _ - -
ABANDONED R.4.W.
0.035 00/ .
. ~ ~ • i /
r
i ~ Lor I/
0.250o
`i~.°~~ ,~i/ ~ i~ i~ r---- l~~ o i
Af7EA OF FLOOD PLAlHf3400a 1 ?h
f 'I . + / ~(e3PPf70N.1 8A5E0 ONTOlVN OF
YAlL fLDOD PLAlN MAPS
r ~
d h
/ ~ / o ~ \
p. 6
R= f01, 69~ :
ip. 6=37104'06"
i-----•q i
L=65.79' !
. s
CH= S 57°43~33"E ~
64.65'
~ ?Q l ~
' £NCLOSEO SY/lAlM1NG POOL
f ~y ! ` ` ~'0 4 ~
I
y
~ Fv t 68~
0,6,^ , •
° %
$o / I il J/:
f
!r ' / .
. ~
~
~
~
DECK $~$9
_ 9o 46 00
~ 3
f
49.
3a,o ; f
7
:
, • ; ,
;
~ f rl r / ! . .
1~ ,r'' j' • jr~ ~ , ~
r*~
f~ ~ / f ? ~ / / ! t
i ~ - - 1
J J ~ f'r 4 -
. .
4y
f ~1
1
t ~
o j `y
~ 1
tD
~ TO: Planning and Enviranmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to operate a busines5
office at the Christiania Lodge, at 356 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicant: Paul Johnston
T. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
The Christiania Ladge is located in the Public Accommodation zane
district. Within this zone district, professianal and business
offices are required to have a Canditianal Use permit. The
Christiania Lodge is proposing a small (72 square foot) business
office in the location of the original front desk area. The
proposed business office would be used as areal estate brakerage
and a management office for the following properties: Christiania
at Vai1, Chateau Christiania Condominiums, Villa Valhalla
Condominiums, the Golden Peak House, and the Garden of the Gods.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDYNGS
~ Upon review af Section 18.60, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the conditional use permit based upon the
following factors:
A. Consideratian of Factors.
1. Relationshi and impact of the use on develd ment
objectives of the To_wn._
The purpose section of the Public Accommndation zone
district (Section 18.22.010 of the Town of Vail Zaning
Code) states that "The public accommodation zone
district is intended ta provide sites for lodges and
residential accommadations for visitors, together with
such public and semipublic facilities and Iimited
professional affices, and related visitor-oriented
uses as may appropriately be located in the same
district." It goes on to state that "Additional
nonresidential uses are permitted as conditional uses
which enhance the nature of Vail as a winter and summer
recreatian and vacation community, and where permitted
are intended to function compatibly with the high-
density lodging character of the district." The
praposad business office in the Christiania Lodge will
meet the intent af this section af the zoning code.
~ 2. The effect of the use on li ht and air, distribution af
popuiation, transportation facilities, utilities,
schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other
public facilities needs.
~ The proposed business office will have no significant
effect on any of the above considerations.
3. The effect upon traffic with articular reference to
con estion automotive and edestrian safet and
convenience traffic flow and control access
maneuverabilitv, and removal of snow from the street and
parking are_as.
The staff can find no significant effect on any of the
above considerations. Thexe are no additional parking
spaces required as a result af this proposed buainess
oftice; the breakdown is as follows:
Existing parking requirement 35.39 spaces
Proposed parking requirement 4.288 spaces
Total 35.678 spaces
The Town of Vai1 currently recognizes the Christiania
Lodge as having 36 parking spaces, hence the reason for
not requiring additional spaces for this proposed use.
4. Effect u on the character of the area in which the
propased use is to be located includinq the_scale and
bulk of the proposed use in relation to surroundinq
~ uses.
The praposed use wi11 involve no changes to the existing
buiZding, either interior or exterior and it should have
no etfect upon the character of the area.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applieable
ta the proposed use.
IV, FTNDINGS
The Community Development Department recommends that the
conditional use permit be approved based an the following
findings:
That the proposed lacation 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 ba
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 pravisions of this ordinance.
~
~ V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department finds that this request meets
the Conditional Use Permit criteria, as stated above, and the
staff recommendation is for approval.
•
~
~ T0! Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE; August 14, 1989
SUBJECT: A requESt for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core Z in
order to enclase an existing outdoor deck area at the Chart
House Restaurant located in the Landmark Building in
Lionshead.
Applicant: Chart House, Inaorporated
I. DESCRIPTTON OF REQUEST
The main element involved in this praposal is the partial
enclasure of an existing second level patio space adjacent to the
Chart House Restaurant. At present, the patio is not utilized by
the applicant and totals approximately 1200 square feet. The
applicant is requesting to enclose approximately 830 square feet
of this area and leave 320 open. The open area would be an 8 foot
by 40 foot area closest to the public areas of Lionshead Mall.
Enclosure of a portion of this deck would allow the Chart House to
create a new vestibule entry with direct access aff of the mall.
While it is possible to access the Chart House at present by
. crossing this deck, the main entrance that is utilized is between
two shops in the lower level of the south elevation of the
Landmark BuiZding. The Chart House feels this enclosure will qive
them more visibility and provide a better entrance from the public
areas of Lionshead Mall. While the applicant does not currently
utiZize the patio and has na stated plans to utilize the
unenclosed area in the future, they have agreed to leave this 320
square foot area open.
The staff has also requested that the applicant usE an operable
window system for the enclosing wa1Z adjacent to the Lionshead
Mall. The applicant has declined to add this type of system to
his proposal. The enclosure as proposed would consist of a store
front glazing system similar to that currently utilized on other
elevations of the Chart House Restaurant. As praposed, the
materials of the new addition would match all existing materials
on the building.
II. REVIEW CRTTERIA FOR THIS PR4JECT AS OUTLINED ZN THE ZONING CODE
Review criteria for requests of this nature are established by the
Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. The emphasis of this
review is on the project's compatibility with both the Urban
Design Guide Plan and the Lionshead Design Considerations.
Detailed architectural and landscape considerations become the
. purview of the Design Review Baard if this project is approved.
The Planning Commission is alsa charged with addressing standard
zoning issues, such as parking, not covered in the Urban Design
Guide Plan.
~ III. COMPLTANCE WITH THE URBAN DESTGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
Expressed as Sub-area concepts, the elements of the guide plan
identify physical improvements to improve the overall fabria af
Vail Lionshead. There are no specific proposals identified in
this element of the plan relative ta this particular project.
TV. COMPLIANCE WITH URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR LIONSHEAD
The purpose of the comparison between the proposal and the
considerations is ta show how the new design strengthens or
detracts from the overall intent of the design considerations.
Hei ht and Massin
The architectural guideiines recommend that building expansions be
limited to ane story unless a two story expansion is specifically
called out for in the Guide Plan,
While this is an expansion of a second story area in relation to
Lionshead Mall, it will not encroach heyond the existing patio or
beyond the existing roof area that delineates the first flaor
pedestrian retail level for the Landmark Building. Therefore,
the staff feels there is no negative impact fram this deck
enclosure with regard to the height and massing af the building.
~ By leaving a portian of the deck open, the architect is
maintaining a stepping effect from the pedestrian level to the
mass of the rest of the building.
Urban Desiqn Considerations
By staying behind the first floor retail projections of the
Landmark Building, and by leaving a portion of the existing deck
unenclosed, there is very little impact in this proposal upon the
Urban Design Considerations. The matching of the materials and
colors to the existing building also decreases any additional
massing impacts due the partial enciasure of the deck.
Roofs
The roof above a portion of the existing Chart House Restaurant
exists as a flat roof. This new deck enclosure will mimic that
form and extend that flat roof further towards the pedestrian
areas of Lionshead Ma11. Althaugh a fZat roof is not a preferred
architectural roof form, it is not at the first tloor pedestrian
1eve1. It is an extension of the existing raof and by leaving a
portion of the deck open, it does mai.ntain a stepping pattern back
to the greater mass of the existing building. It appears that due
to the existing architectural features af this portian of the
building, there is very little opportunity to create any other
. type of viable roof system for this partial deck enclosure.
~ Facades-WaZZs/Structures
The guidelines for facades/walls encourages the use of concrete,
concrete bZock, glass, metal, stucco, and wood for construction.
The appZicant is proposing to match the existing facade on the
west elevation of the building as his new wall treatment. This
store front glazing system will contain two doors that will access
the 320 square feet af patio that is left unenclosed. The staff
feels very strongly that this partial deck enclosure should
include a wa11 system consistent with what we have approved in the
past. We would request and recommend very strongly that the
applicant utilize an operable floor to ceiling window wall system,
so that the restaurant along the 40 foot facade of the enclosed
patio may be opened entirely to the remaining patio and ta the
Lionshead Mall. We feel that this is very important in allowing
this partial enclosure and is very consistent in aur
recommendations on the Red Lion, Blu's, Up The Creek Bar & Grill,
Sweet Basil, and Vendettas. We feel the operable floor ta ceiling
window system creates a tremendous opportunity for interaction
between the restaurant and the public areas of Lionshead Mall and
increases the vitality to the public areas. This walZ system has
proved very sucaessful in the past and has in fact been used in
a secand floor application on the north elevation of Sweet Basil.
The operators of Sweet Basil appear to be happy with this system
~ and the staff has noticed that they utilize this system and have
it open fairly often in the evening in the summer time.
Decks and Patios
The Vail Lionshead Design Guideiines state that "functional decks
and patios, primarily for dining, are strong street life elements
in Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground or
second floor level.
While it is true that the Chart House has never utilized this
deck to any great extent, we do £eel strangly that a portion of
the deck should remain unenclased and that the enclosed area
should utilize the floor to ceiling operable window system. We
feel this window system is essential to this approvai and cannat
suppoxt this request if the system is not utilized. The decks and
patios provide a qreat interaction to the public spaces of
Lionshead and the village. We have previously mentioned Sweet
Basil. We feel this is a positive example of how a second floor
restaurant can utilize this system with great success. The
operators at the Chart House state that they have no intention of
utilizing this type of system or of utiiizing the unenclased
portion of the deck. The staff is looking at this space in lang
term and recognizing that the Chart House Restaurant may not
always be the restaurant,operator in this space. We feel it is
: • very important to maintain an apen area on this deck and to
' utilize an operable window system so that any future aperator may
be able to utilize this system.
~ Accent E1ements
There are no accent elements related to this proposal to be
discussed at the Planning and Environmental level. New accent
elements that are related to this proposal are best addressed at
the Design Review Board level.
Landscape Elements
There are no landscape elements proposed in relation to this
project.
V. Z4NING CONSIDERATIONS
There is only one zoning consideration relative to this propasal.
The increase in approximately 832 square feet of dining area will
create an additional parking demand. This parking demand must be
satisfied by payment into the municipal parking fund. This
payment is assessed at a rate of $3000,00 per parking space.
Parking demand is calculated as one parking space per eight seats.
This fee will be calculated and assessed at the time a building
permit is issued for this expansion.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• The staff is generally supportive of this proposed expansion. We
feel that this deck has been under utilized in the past and see an
opportunity to create a greater interaction between the restaurant
and the public areas of the Lionshead Mall. There are very little
impacts of this propasal upon the majority af the Design
Considerations in the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan. We do
feel very strongly however, that in order to support this praject,
it must include an operable window wall system along the 40 faot
wall that fronts the Lionshead Mall. We wauid recommend approval
~ of this request with the condition that this wall system be
~ incorporated into the proposal. If the applicant chaoses not to
incorporate this wall system into the proposal and maintazn the
existing store front glazing situation, then the staff would
request that the Planning CommissiQn deny this project. The
project would not conform with the facade/walls, and decks and
patios criteria of the Vail Lionshead Urban Design Guide P1an.
.
• PZanning and Environmental Commission
August 28, 1989
12:15 Site visits
1:00 Vail Village Master PZan public meeting
3:00 Public meeting
1. A request for a side setback variance to
construct an addition on Lots 33 and 37, Vail
Village West First Filing.
Applicant: Ellen C. Gury
cancellad 2. A request for side setback variances and a stream
setback variance to construct an addition and a
new roof to a residence on Lot 18, Bighorn
Subdivision.
Applicant: James & Helen Green
Tabled to 3. A request to amend the development plan for
Sept. 11th the Talon at 1881 Lionsridge Loop, Lot 1, Block
3, Lionsridge #3, and Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge
Subdivision #3.
~ Applicant: Parkwood Realty Company
4. Natification of staff approval af minar
amendments to Special Development District No. 4,
Glen Lyan Property, Area D.
5. Wark session on air quality.
~
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Cammunity Develapment Department
DATE: August 28, 1989
SUBJECT: Staff approval of a minor amendment to the Special
Development District for Cascade Village No. 4, Area D, Glen
Lyon Office property.
Applicant: Glen Lyon Office Building, A Colorado Partnership
The purpose of thzs memo is to infarm the Planning Commission of the
minar amendment approval which is required by the SDD Ordinance.
Andy Norris, representing the applicant, has requested to add 400
square feet of office space to the existing Glen Lyon Office Building.
The space xs located on the south side of the buiiding. The additional
office space wi11 require 1.6 parking spaces. This results in a
parking requirement for scenario i of 103 parking spaces, and scanario
2 of 114 parking spaces.
The statf considers this request to be a minor amendment as it does nat
change the basic intent and character af the approved Special
pevelopment District and the request is also consistent with the design
. criteria far an SDD. The minar amendment is considered to be a change
to gross floor area of not more than 5% of the approved office square
footage for the Glen Lyvn Office Building. For these reasons, staff
has recommended approval of the minor amendment.
.
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 25, 1989
SUBJECT: Air Quality Work Session
The air quality here in the valley has been an issue for the
last 5-10 years. Air monitoring has been ongoing and various
studies have been conducted since 1976. The completion of the
Emissions Inventory this spring now brings us one step closer to
the development of possible control measures and/or fuarther
testing in an attempt to resalve the air qua].ity problems.
Looking at the clear skies we experience approximately 10 months
a year and even most days during peak ski season make it
difficult at best to bring about awareness of air quality
problems. However, I am sure we have all experienced a few days
of seeing the smoke hang in the valley or tried to ga for a walk
on a winter's night and inhaled the almost unpleasant ador of
woodsmake. The btzilding boom we have experienced this summer
~ will translate to more fireplaces/woodstoves this winter in
addition to increased vehicular traffic.
Historically, Vail has exceeded air quality standards when the
standard was based an TSP, total suspended particulates. Since
PM 10 monitoring began we have nat experiencad any exceedances
of the standard, but it is also important to remember that PM 10
is measured on an every other day basis. Yt is entirely
possxb].e the Town could experience an exceedance of this
standard. It only takes one violation for the requirement
cal.ling for the development of a local implementatian plan to
become ef£ective.
The pasition of the Town of Vail in this issue, as in many
others, is to take a praactive stanca in the development and
impl.ementation of necessary contral measures to maintain the
quality of our environment. It is our position that it is
easier to avoid a problem than ta a.mplement measures to clean-up
the environment ance the problem has became more obvious.
There are several issues to be examined in determining the
necessary control measures.
(1) Our two main sources of particulate pallution are
woadsmoke from woodstoves/fireplaces and resuspended
~ dirt from road sanding.
(2) I-70 will continue to run through the Tawn of Vail and
although it is a large cantributing factor in our air
quality picture, it is not ane which is under our
immedi.ate contral.
.
(3) Current canstructian statistics indicate a large
increase in the number of single family homes in Vail
which are currently antitled to one fireplace and one
clean burning woodstove.
Several questions which this board needs to address are:
(1) Do you perceive an air qual.ity problem in Vail?
(2) Da you feel we should institute more restrictive
cantrol measures xn the i.nstallation of solid fuel
burninq devices?
{3} Do you have any suggestions far cantrolling the sanding
material which is resuspended after the roads dry?
(4) Wauld yau like to see further testing done in the form
of chemical fingerprinting to determine more exact
percentages of woodsmoke vs. resuspended dirt in the
overall particulate picture?
(5) Any others issues you feel are pertinent?
~
~
~ TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 28, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a side setback variance to construct an
addition on Lots 33 and 37._Vail Villaqe West_First
FiZinq. -
Applicant: E11en C. Gury
T. DESCRIPTION OF VARYANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is the owner of the above named property
located at 1765 Alpa.ne Drive. The lot has an existing
primary/secondary dwell.ing located on it, which is in a
current state of disrepair. The owner is proposing to
remodel the entire structure, and in doing so, the praperty
will be braught up to current building and zoning develapment
standards. The applicant has also agreed ta restrict one of
the dwelling units as employee housing.
The existing structure already encroaches into the side yard
~ setbacks, as noted on the attached site p1an. The
applicant's proposed remodel will not expand the building
footprint, hawev'er, a proposed gable roof addition above the
flat roof of the secondary unit does require a varzance. The
requested variance is for a maximum encroachment of 3 feet
into the side setback, which is similar to the existing
encroachment. The applicant has also requested the use of
Ordinance No. 36, Series of 1988, for an additional 250
square feet of GRFA for the primary uni.t.
TI. ZONING CONSIDERATSONS
Zone district: Primary/Secondary Residential
Lot size: 5,998 square feet
Maximum GRFA: 1,499.5 square feet +
250.0 square feet (Ord No. 36/1988)
= 1,749.5 square feet
Proposed GRFA: 1,716.5 square feet
Site caverage: No change requested
4D
~ ITT. CRTTERIA AND FINDTNGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
follawxng factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existing or patential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
There is no question that the proposed remodel will
be a tremendous impravement on the state of the
exiting struature. By replacing the secandary
unit's flat raof with two gabled raofs, it is the
staff's opinion that the structure will be more
architecturally compatible with existing buildings
in the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant has agreed to upgrade the parking
areas for this lot and is proposing an asphalt
surface for all parking. The current parking areas
~ are gravel.
2. The deqree to which relief fram the strict and
literal interpretation andenforcement of a
specified requlation is necessary to achieve
com atibilit and uniformit of treatment amon
sitas in the vicinity or to attain the abjectives
- - - -
of this title withaut grant of special privilege,
The staff believes that approval of the requested
variance would not be a grant of special privilege.
The lots in this area of Vail village West are
particularly small, and many other adjacent
structures exhibit similar setback encroachments.
3. The effect of the requested varianc_eon1_iqht_and
air, distribution of population, transportation and
tratfic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety._
This variance request, it approvad, would not block
any light ox air on adjacent praperties and, 3ts
overall effect would enhance the quaiity of
deveZapment wi.thin the neighborhood.
~
• IV. RELATED POLICrES xN VAIL'S COMMLTNITY ACTTON PLAN
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan (qoals/policies) addresses
residential growth as follows:
Section 5.3:
"AffordabLe employee housing should be made avaiiable
through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives,
provided by the Town of Vail, with appropriate
restrictions."
Section 5.5:
"The existing employee housing base should be preserved
and upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should
be accommodated at varied sites thraughout the
community."
V. Such ather factors and criteria the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
Vr. FTNDINGS
~ The Plannin and Environmental Commission shall make the
fallowinq findinqs befare 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 ta
the public health, safety or welfare, or matera.ally injuriaus
to properties ar impravements in the va.cinity.
That the variance i.s warranted far ane or more of the
foll.owing reasons:
The strict ar literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficul.ty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
wai.th the objectives af this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the varianca
that da not apply general.l.y to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specitied regulati.an would deprive the applicant of
• privileges enjoyed by the owners af other properties in
the same district.
~ VTT. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation is far approval of the variance
request. Because the existing building fontprint will not
increase in size, staff believes that a hardship would be
impased upon the applicant if the strict interpretation of
the zoning cade were to be enforced and the applicant was not
allowed to caver the secondary unit with a gabled roof.
The staff recammendatzon for apprnval includes the following
conditions:
1. That the applicant agree ta restrict one of the dwelling
units as emplayee housing and enter into such agreement
with the Town prior to issuance of a building permit for
the remodel. The agreement shall be per Section
18.13.080 (B,10) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code.
2. That the applicant propose a trash enclosure or some
permanent method of trash storage on his property.
~
•
.
~e
~ ~ ° ~'a
• p ~
O ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ 'px •-o $ ~
~ ti . ~ ~ ~.a ~
F, r ~ ~ p[
~ ~ ~a pO ~/l ~ a
~ ~ ~ , P •A• ~ ~ , ~ W ~
~ • 8a~e ~ ~ ~ ; .fl ~ ~ ~C
~ ` ~a ~ ~ ~ ~
v e` . b ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q~
~ ~ _ ~ ~1 ~
1~~( / 1~~.. ~ ~ ~
~ V`
~ ,O ' Q
? ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~
0 1 1 , ~ ~I
- ~ ~ , sI
` ~ p p , ~ j ~ ~
1 - ~Y N ~ • Y p ~ I ~
~ L I
L ~ +
,~~1 • ~ ~
I:~r _ ? (
1- ~ fl ~ ~ ~
~
1 ~ ~ ~ ~ . I ~
_ ~ ~t ~ ~ ~ ~
~ fl~~'N ~ ~ ~ ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~
. . 3 z ~ F
~ 1 ~
;~t i' ~°A ~ ~ L ~ 4~ ~
~1 e a ~ i
~ ~ ~ ~ il
i'
O~ ~ r
1~ ° ~ ~ i + ~
CS~ • • ~ ~ 1 9
1
~ a ~ ~ 'F V
IJ
~ (
~
1
~1 4~
: s ~ I ; ~ ~
~ . , ~
~ ' ~
~ o ; ~
~ ~ ' ~ n_ J ' ~
_~~1 _
- ~ ~ ~ ~
C~I r+ ~
~Z ~ ;I o
~ , ~
~z ~~I ~ ~ ~
~ ~~1 ~ yR ~
. ~ J1 , ~ ~ I I ~ L
I t ~ . ~ ' ~J ~ ~ ~
~ x,~~l, ~ r
~ =i, : , ~ ~ ~
~ i ,n
~ ~ z ~ ~
f' ~ .
` AA Fj I ~
p~ ~ ~ s! ~ 1 `
. . ' ~ ~
~ rl~ `h
. a._. 1'f 3': V
!
. . , ,
ope.,°wa 'P~e"
. . ~ Lti1a xoq 'o-d . .
jallantu [w aul
~ . .
~ ~ - _ - -
~
• . ' ~ .
,
~
t
~
M
u
a
N
J
(
.m
M
_ Z
~
I
. , ~
`
~ ~ -
;
1 ~ .
i
~ ~
~
x~~ 8~ a OD C rt0U0t O i6+~ ~ OK r vL L -
k e . ~ m OY+iG ~ V V e7a7 w'*~b L U y4~o t~ r, .
4AOa~qm314 O+mCO ~ucCUL~r^r+.+~ ~ , .
t~p' 33 ~dA
E~G e1 N sL.. % Yi ~ C' y. r~ r. r. r. p
C1 " ~
l9l.*' 0
. . ' . ..~.N~MOO~40?3!~3~o4~frAV~'4U0~0
N
- 1~
~
, ~ ~ , ' ~
Np
~
~r
u ~ . .
~
~
Planning and Environmental Commission
September 11, 1989
12:00 Site visits
1:00 Executive sessian on legal matters
1:15 Worksession on the Vai1. Village Master Plan
3:00 Public meeting
2 1. A request for arear setback variance for a deck
on Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows First Filing.
Applicant: Firooz Zadeh
1 2. A request to amend the development plan for
the Talon at 1881 Lionsridge Laop, Lot 1, BZock
3, Lionsridge #3, and Lot 27, Block 2, Lionsridge
Subdiva.sion #3.
Applicant: Parkwood Rea].ty Campany
3. Discussian of Vail National Bank landscaping
i
v
Planning and Environmental Commission
~ Minutes of
September ].l, 1989
Present Staff Present
Jim Viele Peter Fatten
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Peggy Osterfass Mike Mo1.l.ica
Kathy Warren
Absent
Sid Schultz
Chuck Crist
Pam Hopkins
The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting began at 3:15 p.m.
Item No. 1 A request for a rear setback variance far a deck on
Lot 2 Gore Creek Meadaws First Fi1.a.ng.
Applicant: Firooz Zadeh
Kristan Pritz started the staff presentation by giving some backgraund
on the request. She noted that a si.de setback variance request had
been approved on June 27, 1988 by the PEC. The variance had been
. requested to construct an additian to the Zadeh resa.dence. Concerning
the cuxrent request for a rear setbaCk variance, Kristan explained that
the variance is necessary due to the fact that during construction, the
deck had been chanqed and extended. The deck now maintains a 2 foot, 2
inch setback from the rear property line and the stairs are 4 inches
from the rear property line.
The staff's xecommendatian was for denial. Aithough it was conceded
that it is unfartunate when mistakes occur i.n construction, the staff
did not feel that the error in the construction justified an apprnval
of the vaxiance request. No representative for the applicant was
present. Discussion took place between PEC members and the staff.
Jim Viele made a motion for approval based on the fact that the
adjacent property owner did not object and the fact that the adjacent
property owner had made changes which necessitated tha requested
changes. The motion was seconded by Diana Donovan.
Vote: 2-1-1, Peggy Osterfoss opposed, KathyWarren abstaining.
Item No. 2 A re uest to amend the develo ment lan far the Talon at
1881 Lionsridqe Loop, Lat 1, Block 3, Lionsridqe #3, and
Lot 26, B1.ock 2, Lionsridge Subdivision #3.
As staff representative, Kristan Pritz axpl.ainad the background of the
. request, covering the Ta1.on's annexation and zoning. She informed the
PIO, .
~ Board members that there was a specific review process for the Talon
that was defined at the time of annexation. The process would include
(1) Planning Commission approval for any significant changes to the
devalopment p1an; and (2) final approval by the Town Council at a
worksession.
Kristan went on to explain the requested amendments. The first request
was to amend the development plan to allow far phasing of the praject.
Cancerning the phasing of the praject, Kristan stated that Phaae I was
already constructed, but because both Phase I and Phase TT were
cambined on one building permit and Phase I3 had not yet been
campleted, no certificate of occupancies could be released for the
completed units in Phase I.
The developer is requesting to abtain a final certificate of occupancy
fox Phase I and agrees to submit a letter of credit to cover the cnst
of filling the foundations and revegetating Phase II should the work
nat be completed.
The second request is for an increase of 750 square feet of GRFA for
Phase II to convert an open deck inta an enclased space to allow for
adding additional badrooms to 5 type B units. The developer agrees
that the requested 750 square feet be deducted from the total GRFA
allowed far Phase III. The third request is to amend the recreation
amanities package. The fourth request of the developer is nnt for any
type of approval, but for PEC comments nn the conceptual site pian for
. Phase IZI.
The staff recommendation for all four requestad amendments was Por
approval. Kristan discussed the requasts separately and gave
recammendations and conditions for each. Regarding the phasing p1an,
Kristan discussed the condition that a letter of credit be provided to
cover 150% af the cost to fill and revegetate the foundations for Phase
IZ if construction of Pase ZI was not completed by Ju1y 1, 1990. The
staff would a1sQ require that the recreataon amenities package be built
under the first building permit issuad for Phase II. In respect to the
GRFA request, the staff's approval was contingent upon the 750
additianal square feet being deducted from the total GRFA for Phase
III. Cancerning the recreation amenities package, Kristan restated
that the package should be constructed when tha first building parmit
for Phase TT is released. It was noted that the DRB is stron 1
encouraqed to look closely at the qradinq and landscaping in the paol
and tat lot area.
Tn regard to Phase III, Kristan stated that the staff did not support
the two proposed road cuts and felt that one access paint would be
reasonabie for the amount of units. Tn addition to the conditions for
the requests, Kristan noted several mare conditions that would have to
be met before a final certificate of occupancy would be released for
Phase T. They included that (A) all fire code and building code
requirements be met far Phase T; (B) the landscaping for Phase I be
completed per the plan approved by the DRB on August 18, 1982; (C) that
~ periodic inspections be required to ensure that rockfall problems wauld
not reoccur as recommended by Mr. David C. Chamberlain, P.E. in a
letter concerning geologic sensitivity; and (D) that the rackfall
mitigation be certified. Also, it should be understood that it is the
respansibility of the condominium association to do periodic rock
inspections.
~
~ The applicant, Steve Gensler, explainad that the plan for rockfall
mitigation was ta anchor the rocks in place with steel, rebar, and
grouting. He said that far this type af plan fox maintenance waul.d be
necessary every ten yeaxs. He stated that this plan would propose a
long term fix for the rocks.
Peggy asked about the repair and maintenance of the grauting aver the
years. Steve explained that a yearly inspection cauld be done during
spring and repair would be done if necessary.
Kathy questioned the phasing for the project. Steve reviewed the
phasing and foundataans for the plan. The Board discussed the time
schedule involved for the project's building permits and certificates
of occupanci.es. Steve Gensler expressed some confusion regarding
building permits and certificate of occupancies. He stated that he
wanted to build Phase II first, and build Phase III along with the
recreation amenities next year. He stated Par the recard that he would
nat build Phase IIz until Phase II was complete.
Mark Donaldson asked if there was any flexibility with the July 1st
date. After discussion, the Baard, the staff, and the applicant agreed
ta change the date to September I, 1990.
Diana asked if it was possible to apply candita.ons of approval on the
passibility of Phase IIZ being sold. She asked if the
conditians/approval would run with the 1.and.
. Steve felt that not releasing any certificate of occupancies would be
unfair due to the fact that he would have to pay develapment costs
without being abl.e to produce any income through the sale of units. He
offered to exclude Phase IZZ from the project as a compramise for the
release of certificate of accupancies for Phase Y.
After discussian, the PEC and applicant agreed that final certificate
of accupancies for the first ten units of Phase TI may be released
without the recreation amenities package being completed. However, the
next ten units within Phase II sha11 nat receive final certificate of
occupancies until the recreatian amenities package is built.
As requested by the appl.icant, the Commission discussed the cQnceptual
plan far Phase III. The staff did not support two road cuts for Phased
ITT. The applicant had no problem with only one road cut.
A motion was made to recommend approval to the Town Cauncil as per the
staff recommendations in the memo and with the following additianal
conditions:
1. Final certificate of occupancies for the first ten units within
Phase II may be released without the recreation amenities package
being completed. The next ten units within Phase II shall not
receive final certificate of occupancies until the recreatian
amena.ties package is built.
i 2. The date the Town would have the right to util.ize tha letter af
credit would be September 1, 1990, (instead of Ju1y 1, 1990 as in
s
staff inemo) for the infill and revegetata.on o£ the Phase zI
foundations.
3. Phase TIT shall not be started until Phase II is completed
including the recreata.on amenities or revegetation far the
foundations in Phase II.
4. Final certificate of accupancies shall not be released far any
units within thc Ta1on until tha rockfal.l mitigation has bean
certified by a registered geo].ogist to be satisfactory.
5. The periodic inspection of the rockfall mitigation shall be the
responsibility af the ocndominium association and/or owner of the
Talan.
6. The PEC was concerned about the appearance of the groutzng and
asked the staff to make sure that the grouting blended with the
calor of the natural rock.
The motion was seconded by Diana Donovan.
Vote: 5-0
The mceting adjourned after a discussion abaut the Vail National Bank
landsCaping.
.
~
~ To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 11, 1989
SUBJECT: Vai1 Village Master Plan changes
Please find attached, the revisions to the WMP that the PEC has
discussed regarding the Open Space Plan and a1sQ suggested revisinns
fox the Parking and Circulation and Building Height elements. Please
review and be prepared to discuss these issues on Monday.
Thanks.
•
.
.
~ ; . , . • . - : ~ .
i l 'C: r:'s ~r... s J. :I r . i:.... ;:3 i. '1. [:+!"S -t~ if:i
I..c t :I. I. 4;:
:7 FE. I°i , j°s t::: 'I. .1 f::l J. i::: z:k t E:'r~ {::l ±"i f'1
fl i_•lC.: f,xS '..rll'1<~ ~i'4{•=•` J::3(:•::fii f::l'f" ti~:i{•::.'i'i t:5 1:.fi.Lv i::ll'..y ..P"{!tP1
1°jr11..n.. F:: u r L_JI .I.I.
".:iN:~?I.1 <pE'sC:li'cci::
n. ~'1Cl i.'} }
I:ry t Ir~J:i.:l.:i.{:aq:::> sI LsIY 11:..,3 t_i f:,:i.:i.I;_,SW li:i.J.(_= k:l°)
, . . .
C:: t':) I"' f? 1 i;:3'3' ~7 f.•:` I°t SE>j,:) V.-S E'.. j'~ ~l tc:1 .1. I l.~:. k.l'~'.:
. 11 i::: I'° .a :~i:: t
3'4;::I {:.i~..I~~?:L , ZfI. 7141 l"1
.i: c, . . . f 3-{-
i <cl J. i:3 1"1 . „ r:
e..I . .L L. 'r.1
Vi..I. . i. r::tc:J r::., r:.I rt:"r ~.,i..tr..i::,cx . c. f{::~•;' ~t.:i ~:i. ~,:t :l. fi r~ p ~:r;..~ _.~1:: ' y
<-s . a t~tt:: a. s
~4j J. ! 4 , c ..i .~:a . "1 . t?i. )5 11 t".: 'G: ` f i .ii _l.~.. ~..a.:. . , .,i r,-s>. .I:. J. t"ff~ C:! 1~. . .F..:t»lf c:1.. ' !:)'p
. , ~..1c:a'
,~~i i:5r .I. I'i i i . , :I. • .~7
)'S' ,f'
~ 'i'l.f.~. .~.(.i 41j.{. ~.~!1..~ 'i' L.(~~_.~..1~~5 (iif i..1 s." k Fr} :~i~ ~:r} r.il 1..: 1..
t..w_
i.:y;::is•:;~-:s (::3'i. i:3p ic?i'1 r--, 1-) .::tc
~krr:-r:I. 1.: 1. C,1 E::ars 1::ic:::r::r
e t'r.'{L}.1.N i:il'I:.1_U'°a i. {::1r3Ei:•tf3 c':li::€i?.' :i.`.`.ii (:3ic'iii:l.(,~1...f{.:c?t::~ 4:'.c} p 1:.c!t4?ti::~.-.
~ . ~ ' .,ir+ J. c: J. ~i r:7 E' :lE t,:..'4' i'ii .I.. ~'.Y ~1 i:3 .1. i::i ~:,i ii~ ~
~ .i rrr ~-~~~..1'~~..sr.t. y c... ~i I i i f (.}i...i
f". i. l(::: 1:. l,.l I.. t'., r,I (;:l I:. (':6 i-~ I'.. i_::< f:i' v o 1::1 S:3 j:: :I. I'i :S. "l:. 5y I,..I .:~1. ld 1" t:1 1. t:'.
: ~.t C~
ii;' ~?~~c't '4.4.; h-'s~il.~. G.1~::}4~s1"1
•t' I_l I.AI::3 J. f::: l..l 4!'ri~~ r•i~:.
Eryi::l:'Si !fi:'t'.:5:4. t:;fi"? s
i f.:l f .
(,:?n +'.1"li:' i:i::}t.A'i.i'i b jr {.l9"ll..I f:~gJi:.i, i:::lp fY,s{:: cJ4`. t L C]f'tC:3f . c':t .
t:. . c.f k: , 1'.1 f I J. J. r:.~ ~ i r.. . .1t:. r.. r.(c:: i::s i ~•,y
t: ~:a . i;•::~ ~ ~ t.: r~ .
4?' .I. ,I. .I. f::k I- i::i C] f'3 iclI» i:::'?':l c:i fci C':! i:' f.f 1"3 P`a ea'L.. l..l I,-.. fil 1..~ I::i j::# 'r7 i: ~
1,) V i`.} p i l'I li:! 1 i"1 'l:, i°l (,:z wii i,i l" ¢i'r? %.7 s~i :t. J. f i't J. L. d L. ti:i S` . C.: r <iil'i.-. 3 i::i f l I. f•i:' t siiF(A
ci{fii'ri!fl:l. ~~;.3. (a:'~[ir 1:r b ea. r ~ . . ; . E..; :
:I. :c1,'r.i c'r.. f' i::l i:.: I. ..I. 1. :I. G rr
t,. . i t:.z I' 9 lP3 i»t .I..!: Y~ i?y t,.r y
s I•.
.t~...#i. r..'t...s
~ ~ • t:~ :4? C:: f. tr: ,1 :i. (::P l")
t.. ~y : . . v
J. k 1'.J i:..1 > c l I.
4. u. s;:• u
i' l"'.l i" . r.~ n~c ~ r~
.i . ._r
r... c i t :I. a::E
• „ i_~. i::r :l. :i. :1. s_
~ J Y ~'.a .
~ ~ t•' r.:> {•'ri7 .I. r.:t I...I i;1 ,:t I"1 t::l a::t I'.. l::)
t:- 1 LJ E s t.a
i:i1::) c:-~ c.1 l:.in v alfsq il 4:_Sg~.-. e i::>n
I 1 I ..l i:.. J. rri <::t .:1 r.:. r.. ..i t •fi~ c:: :i, a. J. ~i.: s~
t'•~ ~ E t I 1
. . . . .
L.1: ii j':. F~! 1•.. 'j/ 4~-? C:~ (:;f I' 3 C_ ~'vk :t. 1. I_} P„ v:{. I:i Li5 I'_' t I". C.~.:t t :i. i... I. F ci~
~ .Y 5 5 :4 . t«. {..1 ~ 1~ C_~C.i
I.: :i. ~ ~~.i. ~1~. c) t• i:. i...1•~: :i. r. e::, c:: t::; ir~~ irli.~ ri :i. ~i-.: ks ~ ~ ~:i. ~l: f, i a.:k ~ , : ,.1.~ SI M:y .1 7.1..1 . fm t
7.t'ilp €,.='ii! ].I"li.:.I.l.li1 :l.l"it::f 'Li`.4,Ai'::ll''(:?'.i;.~} i°, d Id e v1.(::ij:.it::';:l i:7p tr1•.j
tiir j::3 i::i 4:. F;,:? i:il I'.. <::1 `.iii
Li„ f~I t::: :I. L' G'r' ~°ti F:r?i,::i'.. i:i~i::)t'3 3 t. i..[#:::I"i i Li.. •
~ . .C~?!14'l C::i::)l_!1°...:'.:is s,:sl"id 'L i::l'E.
J. i.:l1: ?:i> ri I". c:3 V]. (::1 f-:' i_S p p- i::3I.. L.i!' i 7. 7. .i= c_Y i"' c:5 1::) f•:.? c 3. C:: 1'" r. cc t '.I. f::E I'i a]. r::c C:.. t v :1. 1:. r
i:.ii''s !c;:l.'L,.i:i't'ii w :f.h d li?4'(r'r'.I.i:i[':td 1.{ll(;1t'..s::)vtr?Sllt:'r?I i?ii~-
. . - ~ ~
1`ll.lfi"l~::i1. (:S''t; "
~f:sl•.. i:' ';t :l.l'.:7.f°lS:: (~)i'"
tiifPlC:1~. .1 ~_~l c:tl'...C? 'C'.~"3
G
~
f:r:I. r7rtr.:i t.I ii- c::iLaci1..7LJ i..c•t. V LA i. :I. V :i :I. :I. &.k~;;}t;:•r,~ c::i,:c.,t. I- s 1::~ r ED v:i c:i
V::;.~. l.li:~I:3I (r' i'::1i:a{:.ku:4{:: ia! t':)r L, 4:!t j'i `r'e 1"1d f,:}'e:tEiii~'s:I. iE'"('ril t! i'"i [:.]i"1 :l;i::
•
r f; l..r c~::r I r •v r•,. i;:1 I...i rY3
, <':l'.::.. 4 (...(..kri r'' ...tr .l ' F t..t:t
Pr;'.~~ r 1:°~ ~ .;L ~ ii: i..k i~ ' . . ti; S.
. Gi. 4 1. ' I"' i"; b'1,Tk ii
. a::l l 1 4ir f::~ (''s 1..1 E' {::i \f:~. f_F i:~~.y : . ~..ii P i~:J ist i': 5 e.4 f I{::
.y . • w sr~ . ; . a • ~ _
i I1 Gi.{l'S.:i ~ f lN~clj.:- 7.i-'i{..J ~:.I'Ie
....~%I'...s't:l i:_ J_Sa:ii', f~: 7. !"iC] i::if' t:::.~..i..t f_Ii:
tJ :i. J. Eu. 4: i,.. :i. i°r s-1:i, c:: c:J t I...E ~ i . :l. <~:t rs r :i. ri ; q:r r::w...1°.: 4:.
s»U'ldalrl'i' [~~?r.'.1t f_k i'-S-.)~iii :zlE"i{:~ t^:I.-iC:3t,.1I C:1 1_3rr? E:,_l re:3:.,v Cu1;i
t=itF::.)3"#(:::tir?~ z r:1~:1c?.(:::G:! f'_f;:? ;ii..IY~- I..lr~~l°4 ~~J(::l~'1
. . .
i'.. :I. L? l.l' 'ai q f'1 J. 's' Y. i:;: ::iE I..~ y ta' . 5_'s 1::'i
i. 3. i::' C:'s •F i:. I"i 4:r) 'v' :I. T J. F" i:31'"' fYi t::I J. I°l I l-k 'cki'. t. 13 y t f.,.i f::i L} i..t :i. 1, cl J. I"1 C:I :~'s
.
:":11'1 ~:af:3 i::iti:: t•:-!~i:> c'3i'.. i:]f_k!' i(:~ I..i C~~i'sl q ~:1 r.'~::°_ <::1:::i t;~!`" i-q;a{"? {:'rf :3 wA{ce v.. 4~'1'`.% 3. 1+.4i:' 3. t:'r:f
3: r.. c:; r-o J~ s e l::i 4..t J. :I. •i:. C,:, ti: :i. r• . c) r~ i s -I t::, I..I t. r', t::: c:? 4 t:l r 1::: L: f:~) p :i. c:-~ i:: t::l <•::t ~ E:•+r° t::w,
I"<:txy ~-I i't'r:SiclSir's 'f't::il~. si3F1F,.''.1.c.a.{. (ail:i°.C":)P=.t.-a :f.!€i1it::'Tl1'.: t:)r i:)'I':I"IC;ti" r.:l~:..:t 3.v :i.t :i.:i::?:'i rl~a
~ . . t, .
-t r . r . . `Y.: 3. ..l i'1 5.:; 3' t..i I,.. . _:f I . l.., ii[S . .
- . t:
4~d {r:i ~:7 ~::;.I, t:J G: l. 7. I~ ! L€ ~ i~^d a:l t" ' : c.i i,.t P.. G::
1;:i I.'t C.: 1 "3 t4:l I`I Cl #::i l..i L1 I :I. C: a;il i'. t
.
. • G:~
<~,s r i c:: t;. ~:i. r _ i..k .i. a s,:r i. s l:.' <:c s i
l':f ~ t 5..~ . . . ~ . .
cll'Y I`"{ci't~:C:3l:jf"t:t.'i::
c: I , t:r 1::= x.:; J. r 3 g i -i E::i c: J. r.. c: t..t J. G:c -1.: J. t. t -I r t,:r i..k g I.1 c::r I..I V J. :f. :i. :L i <::t c:,l
i»li"If:l ifiiY?i5'L:ei'!3 i:iE"i
ri) ~a:i. i°rrss. it l I.aE".], Cic;::,r,:. :i r-I :i.c':I c:I--~ r::r• c:t~..>r.. 1~1 c,.? V:i. :i. :I. <::E
. . . . .
I I'1 t::: f.5 fi'i ~':1 :i. ~"Y i:F? `y~ :I. i I'i :i. 't:. I"1 f: j '`a' ei'r? h J. t_: l..i .I. r. ic1;::: e ii:i ~,-l t
i.-.. i;ili:;•i J. C 1.. ~i f•::: ~ ~ r ~ _ . .
, l i :l .i. r.1.L J. f::) I._i 'E~ (::i I...t i:: f::
f°? ~ E:i ~::t 1~.. ;;i i:.l 1::1€•:! 1:,. <::tt :1, t:,? I'l s
{:',i :L . I t~J
i.i i:" 1"1 i=c S:ii L-! (.A s ia (a? k'"'%:!. C: f~:? y I t:3 a i::I 1'1 I: i J. J. v e i'' aiti°3 {:I i'c'. iYi iri?;`" i"I i::: ~ ''v` i'e?
c;:l C:: i:::
.}..I... 4,.. i i:;)bVl..i ~=:ii Li i.,! (::i'y'si;>"~:' i11 3. Y. l..il'::: J. <:il i,: f::? t::: t::il-ii'.. i:t.~. ~:I. I"i t :I, f71'f. 'i:. :l I"1 i;:j
.
-f . . . . . . .
k . }r i3' " '1~~ ~?'Yl \e 7 y;.. ~ 3 Gi. I -i :i. f:;: i..f .L ~:i 1- . i:t i:;; .I.
C~ t... t..~ ~1 <:'t:i. .I. ? .1. 1::. p fYti:? : . i'.i i_f { `d i_ I i €1. 1. :f'. (_Yl"1
J. r:l 1"4 k'tr';r:c i.. i,: [..1 L) t..4 fr:i s y s:, t Cj P° i::-'f 1. y r"li:7 d :_l L': {c5 i:i t I,.,I C:4 J. i::i I'i t:::
. . . .
i::i f.3 F_ :I. Vi_l t i a i^" C•::? 4.1 f:: 3. I"'~ 4:i'3'
~ s i ~
V 3.. u . 1 . c
s;~ t: s~ :i. ,_a z s:•~~ d <a r
f"3 t:. J. l~J k:? e:t?a: 't' l.lf'1 C='f.: J. i_S I"S t::l n 1':.~ t~l'C. .i. k..~ fia (ill.
-L~c) L. t i Va. 1. :I. c:i. 4.:c ti c:a~ -l
;~i.: r:~ r s c1 i. ~ ~ e.~ f:;J c::, s::~ ~ f~ r.a i• ..l_ I i F~;~ ':t :i. .L :i. z:t c:4r., h;.v:; ~:i r.~ ~:•:•s f..~ I._ i. fr., f,:; r c::) v k 5 •i ~
. . .
i`. J. ii:t i'1 i•i'ri I::} f: i::.? ! 1 i:;: ir'ri L. I' i 1, i::i l..l I"i t I"1 i:A I:::> V e::? J. i;:i j::i 4 i Y i:' 3"1 'i:: cat i:t 1"1 t i I'i t..i l..i
f'i t W (_I t. f) t:t''l°, t:, l'l 1j 4'•d w 'j/ .4c :z r:A 4~.L i°. 1.1 J. ~i . 3 ~ ~ .1. . ~ .
I-t t::t =::s l:~ c;t F::> I~ c~: t:;r c: l 6~ ~1:• . ~.1
~ . • : ~
f:
~ f::?
tii, f'.(~. .iii P.. Z<:~ I'l Ci I'l f l(:-, 3. t:1 ~"1 .F_ :I. i"i ~•S :i. i'3 {r:'~
s~t,.ll' ff1L':3'S' ~....i::]t.:: t::l '~::(:t C.l :i.l .l r:iit(::~ wii.l.{:'Ji"iS::~ '~::{'l:l?:~>
. : ' ~...:.~a.t , GA i. . ..1 s•_.~ ~ . ..r t ~ l L. ,_-t : i. i - -r i Y i . I. ~~,r i~_ . ~
l~ r ~.ry , i~ .I. <•,:rc;. c~r _a _ ~ s;~°~ ss l " 1 G:~ t::: ~s~. ~ a.
r.~~S' t
t.7 s::y r:i. I.: y I it:: J. r f::: t..E :I. a i i"1 t:> ;f <.:.; -l : c.,, s,; (Ai J. •t:.'r r:i. rr .t.: l—[
V :I. 11. :I. ?I_ I"1 i'I4_ffYl1:--v t-'i:•. {~S'Y' 4y Yrk.,It•.) r• .L G1'. 1 ::)I. "{::)v eT», fS1Eili-l~~-,r:>
. _ ~ . . ~ r : c a; -.a , i ; : . L . . ~
F.ar~ ~s~:st:i::,3:~.t::4 c~.. t.;;r:i c:~r ~::xr~~c:l .t. ric:: i~~.:.~ s~. ~ 3...i;,a
f:7!"f!'1~:!(:::'~::I. r.';t'1':.e.:;(.,i_.I'.:3s .1,_I_! 1:j.~. :i. cil"li~l rt.~. C:sl'"ii;7 ~~i"G:?r:1fT1
. . . : • ~
I`" i::~ l.E C:: Fc:F '+f k•:~ I'"i t;
J. : 's..f i' i.:
t :I. v i y i.
r.a Fr? i::t
~
ii•::F Si:i` S:rf .r. '..r I:.l s~.l <iil I' <^l!:1
f.rr:i. i,:l, t'I:.:#. •f .i. i::l •i~ c:,r.. ;::fcii -i::i r::fri ,:a.l f::kvt~::r:l. i.:r..l -t.: c::;r,i t 1'.1s:•:= c:in
Fl.c~tl'1 I'1~::1`fl:•? I::)P"11.L)f r.5•:?c:t':?:I.'•Y`i'I _T t9UJl'i ::Aj:;11".r::1V e'lt:3i- 1..ii:3'.!(::? k,:!¢i?S"1
c~•:~ , c::~ ~,;a ~..i :f. n: c r s::l k:; i::;~ :i. r~~ r:) c::: i::, r s!::: :i ;~t: r::5; a~~ :i. 'i:: ~ i l:. l...~ t;::~ 1:) s::~ t.:~ <.::t , t;:~ i::s . i c::., i:,: i. ~f Y•: ~ i:~ ~ i€::i
s::~ :i. ;i. s; i.:x G.i '.i. :i. r 3 c_=~:~ i. t ~ i:: i°i :i. ~::s i :_s r ~ . I...I c::a ~a ~4r c_~ i•.. s:. i i~ _ c:: a. ;,:F~°r :I. a~~ ~ t :i. s:~r
: , ~ . . :i. <.::s~k: i.~~•~~ : .
i^1l1:1. (::l'l ifla'y 4',:#C::(:.4..f1'. (:if ..;:i s:}[_liiti"i~lil'i:.f:'f::~ t:3'i~ :~c~:}~:il• i"1`~'~:3.I C'~?i'" #czi:ae.ts:~:i. t~ a, s:~
. .
~l@:°?4fc-.'! 1 f::'sJ.--)it€F:'r?i"it
~.i~.-. ~V4;:1.L (::i1::)iflIl'#:. pI (::q:it::)F.f,<::c.~.F:;.~, 1It•_ i•"c.'3\;'rd f::}'9' iclf'l y
I..}(:J4d:I. J. T I;?Ci'~ 4..(p c_rrI w:i. i:.!-) zk:I. I I,..o:i. ~a t J. v
~l::I~~c:•:: ~.'=::t:i.:k ~a'i:l:I.<.,~;~4:~ ~`'~~:E~~,>l;:c~::~~... ~::~:l.~:;~r.<,
lt:s:> cr+
I_ . ,:n i:.. r_. c::! ~ ~ # ; 1:1 :i. c::: ; :r :i 3. .::a :"s. :
i.. ~{::1 i,: ~..1 <::l I" r:i t:j I` i:t ~::Y i ~~:d i::i C:i l..l' I. 't .I. !•Y c:i f': I:: f: . F. `u :i. ::;i 1 t::! I' i ~
• . . . . . .
r : ~ ~ y ~ r: i~ i i.., i..::, .I. i..i , <::t r ~ t r::: c ~ i..~ :i. r°~ r::: 3~.. .i. c:. ~ w •9~ I.: t~ t~t : r.. E;:~ <::t „
~
~
. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 11, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a rear setback variance for a deck and
stair on Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows First Filing.
Applicant: Firooz Zadeh
I. DESCRYPTION aF VARIANCE_REQUESTED
On June 27, 19881 the Planning and Environmental Cammission
approved a side setback variance in order to construct an
additidn to the Zadeh residence. The encroachment wauld
maintain a 2 toot side setback. The existing building
encroached 10 feet, 3 inches into the side setback. During
the building pracess, the owner also requested to add a deck
aff of the addition. The deck was staff approved. The deck
encroached a maximum of 5 feet inta the rear setback. Decks
are allowed to encroach 71/2 feet into setbacks as long as
they are not higher than 5 feet from ground level. The steps
off of the deck may not encroach more than 7 1/2 feet into
any setback.
~ A variance is needed due to the fact that during construction
the deck was altered. Variances are requared as the deck now
maintains a 2 foot, 2 inch sEtback from the rear property
line and the stairs are 4inches from the rear property 1ine.
II. CRITERTA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criterza and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends denial of the requested variance based upon the
following factors:
A. Consideratian o€ Factors:
1. ThE relationship of the requested variancetoother
existin ar otential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
The deck and stair encroachment will have very
little impact an adjacent praperties. HowevEr, the
staff does believe that more than a 4 inch
separation from development on this property and
the property to the east should be maintained.
~
~ Apparently, during the construction procoss, the
owner agreed ta adjust the location of the deck to
work with the adjacent property owner, Mr. Roger
Tilkemeier. Unfortunately, at that time, Mr. Zadeh
did nat realize that it would create setback
problems. Please see the attached letter fram Mr.
Roger Tilkamier supporting the variance request.
2. The degree ta which reIief from the strzct and
Iiteral interpretation and enforcement of a
specifiad regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment amonq
sites in the vicinity or to attain the_objectiyes
of this title without grant of special privilege.
The staff does not believe that is appropriate to
allow for flexibility in a setback requirement in
this situation as the encxoachments cauld have been
avoided. It is unfortunate when mistakes occur in
construction. However, the staff cannat condone
these eneroachments.
3. The effect of the requested variance an lzght and
air, distribution of population, transportation and
'traffic facilities ublic facilities and
~ utilities, and public safety.
There are no significant impacts on these factors.
TTT. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the propased variance.
IV. RELATED POLICIES IN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTTON PLAN
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
followinq findinqs before qranting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other praperties classified in the same district.
That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental ta
the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injuriaus
to praperties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons.
• The str3ct or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the abjectives af this title.
~ There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of tha 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.
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATZON
Although there are na major negative impacts that result from
this request, the staff feels that the error in construction
does not justify approval of the variance request.
~
~
~ Frrzovz E. zADEH 50t b Ma,i.n Gahe Dnive
Vait, Cotosuzdo 81657
~
July 26,89
Department af Cammunity Development,
Town of Vai1
This is a request for variance on a small qpen patio withaut
roof or covered structure on the bacEc of my duilding, 5016 Main
Gore Dr. The S.E. corner needs 3' af variance and the N.E. is
in need of 7". The distance between thp taw points is 8'9"
7his variance has no effect on any property, poep3e, safety and
whatsoever. The need mainly came from accommodat7ng my neighbor
who did not want the deck to be at the same level of his k9tchen.
Tn the praccess we had to drop a couple of steps and the deck
space became taa sma11.
Mr. Tilkemeier's letter is attached for this approval.
THIS VARIANCE HAS ABSOE.l1TELY NO IMPACT QF ANY KIND TO OTHERS dR
THE TOWN OF VATL.
Because of existing iandseaping and greenary around the deck any
cutting or other construction activity wi1T have more of a wrang
~ or negative impact rather than a value. And since the pro erty
line is no-t a stteLit one it wi11 laok strange to have a pat3o
with an angle to fit the seeack requirements.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.
Respectfu11y,
Firooz Zadeh
~
, .
~ T Quarter Circle Box T
Land Company. division of Quarter Gircle Sox T, Inc,
~ i
d
~
~
~~Z~ij~•~ ~
E
~
Roger W. Tilkemeier, Broker Box 742 7ai1, Colarado 81658 303/476-5801
- -44~ c
i~
re
IOOYR FL00D PLAIN.._ 4C 00,
(W7ERPOLATECFHOM - ---,EDGE OF CREEK
T.O.V. F, I.S, 1982) ~ TOTAt. ARFA=27905,F
~ PART OF LOT ~ 500
U 3:38-'AG~J.O
]°io SLOPE TOTaL
~iEA = 188 SQ, FT. ~ .
. D~
~
~ 40% j s~oPE ~,`L \ LOT 2
~
~
EDGE 0F pSPHAL7
_ OHIVE
ROOF ~
OVERNANG
~ AJ
i ~
R o 4 p
y
ME/Vr
~ Nc~~= !~"`rr O
_ ~ ~T ~U'• ,
~-TWO STORY DUPLFiX
DECK
--54 PAR7Y WALLi O
QO ' y3~ ~1F;: !j j I EAS'f HALF OF DLIPLE ENGRO CHES A
oc~h IN70 WESTERLY P T O
F ~21 O~'j y~ ~6 ` / 5' 'r1'~, \
0 • ~r /
\
c
511 p0~~ "'.(WEST HALF)
pARKING
~ EASEMENT
3 r~A,
xwaoN
lp
E,2 \ 6 pp jl•
~ ,;ZA ~ ~fn - ~S
a/ ~oECK GORE Cf~EEK
WOOD FENCE ~h
SUQDIVISlON
~
a T ~
o.
~~8565.5~ -S.E CDRNER OF STEPS .4' FROM LOT LWE.
S.E. CORNER DF DECK 3.2' FROM LOT LINE.
x 8564.I IMPROVEMENT LOCATION CERTIFICATE TOPOGRAPHY
PAR7 OF L0T 2
GORE CREEK MEADOWS , FILING N0. I
70WN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY , COLORADO
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 11, 1989
SUBJECT: A request to amend the development plan for the Talon
Townhomes, at 1881 Lionsridge Loap, Lot 1, Block 3,
Lionsridge Third Filing, and Lot 27, Black 2, Lionsridge
Subdivision Third Filing.
Applicant: Parkwoad Realty Company
I. BACKGROUND ON THE TALON PROJECT
The Ta1on, Phase I, II, and TTT, was annexed into the Tawn of Vail
on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 30 af 1979 addresses the
annexation. Medium Density Multi-Family zoning was applied to the
three parcels with conditions outlined in the annexation
agreement. The Talan has a specific review process which was
defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vai1.
The annexation agreement stipulates that the development plan must
be appraved by the Town Council at a worksession. Even though the
project is similar to a Special Development District, the approval
~ process is different in that the Town Council reviews the
development plan at a worksession. Any significant changes to the
development plan must first go to the Planning Commission and then
to the Town Council for final approval. Please see the attached
letter from Jim Rubin dated September 18, 1980.
The Taion is comprised of two parcels for development. Phase I
and II are located on the north side of Lionsridge Loop on Lot 1,
Block 3, Lionsridge Third Filing. Phase TTT is located an Lot 27,
to the south of Lionsridge Loop. Phase I is constructed. This
phase includes twenty dwelling units having a total GRFA of 27,759
square feet. Phase I units do not have final certificate ot
occupancies at this time. pue to the fact that the original
developers abtained a building permit for both Phase I and TI, the
Town of Vail is unable to give finai certificates of occupancy for
the Phase I completed 20 units unless a phasing plan is approved
for the praject. At this time, the Town of Vail views the project
as being one development that is not broken down into phases.
Phase Ii allows for twenty dwelling units having a total GRFA of
28,045 square feet under the approved Talon plans. At thzs time,
the foundations for these units have been constructed.
Phase III is undeveloped. The approved plan allows far fifteen
dwelling units having a total GRFA of 20,195 square feet according
to a PEC memo dated April 11, 1980. MDMF zoning standards apply
. to the property for setbacks, parking, etc. Presently, no
specific development plan for Phase IiI has been approved by the
Town of Vail. In arder to actually construct on Phase TTT, the
~ developer would be required to submit a specific development plan
which would include a site plan, elevations of the units, floor
plans of the units, landscape plan, circulation plan, and parking.
The proposal would then be reviewed by the Planning Commission and
the Town CounciZ for final approvai.
II. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT_PLAN
The project is presently awned by the Federal Savings Loan
InsurancE Corporation (FSLIC). Parkwood Realty has an agreement
with the FSLIC to obtain amendments to the development plan for
the Talon. Parkwood Realty is represented by Mr. Steve Gensler.
The request includes:
A. Amend the develo ment lan to allow for hasin af the
proj_ect. The present project was developed under one
building permit. Given this situation, the Town is unable to
release final certi£icate of occupancies for the existing
total units until the remaining twenty units of Phase II,
(which are partially constructed), are completed. The
develflper is requesting to obtain a final certificate of
occupancy for Phase I with the condition that a letter of
credit to cover the cost for tilling the Phase II foundations
and revegetating be submitted before the final certificate of
~ occupancy is released. Phase II would involve completing the
construction af the twenty units plus the recreatian
amenities package which includes a clubhouse, pool area, and
tot lot. Phase TII cauld be constructed at the same time as
Phase TI or after Phase II is completed.
B. A re uest for an increase in GRFA for Phase II of 750 s uare
feet. An open deck area that is surrounded by walls an three
sides would be canverted to enclosed space ta add an
additianal bedroom to 5 type B units. The developer has
agreed that the 750 square feet would be deducted from the
total GRFA a1lQwed for Phase III on Lot 27. The allowable
GRFA for Phase TII of 20,195 square feet would be decreased
to 19,445 square feet.
C. Amend recreation amenities acka e
The developer is requesting to redesign the recreation
amenities package that was originally approved as a part of
Phase I. The approved development plan called for a small
tot lot, and a recreation building, plus pool. The drawings
on the approved recreation amenities package are very
canceptual. In respect to the tot lot, there is no actual
drawang far the tot lot. Instead, "tot lot" is merely
labeled an the site plan adjacent to the west side of
building #9, Phase I. The original recreation building and
paol area are sited between building #6 and building #4. The
. pool is approximately 24 feet by 15 feet. The recreatian
building was approximately 28 teet by 20 feet. There is also
a small hot tub adjacent to the pool.
~ Under the new plan, the following development would be
proposed for the area between building #6 and building #4:
1. A two story clubhouse having a tatal square foatage of
1,150 square feet. The first floor would include locker
rooms. The second floor would be a community room to be
used by owners of the praject.
2. The swimming pool area is approximately 1,080 square
feet.
3. The tot 1ot area is 600 square feet.
D. Phase III site plan
The developer is nat requesting appraval for development on
Phase III at this time. However, a conceptual site plan has
been submitted to the staff. The developer has requested
that staff and Planning Commission comment on the conceptual
site plan.
ZZI. STAFF RECOMMENDATZON
A. Phasing plan•
~ The staff recommends approval of the phasing plan with the
condition that the applicant provide a letter af credit to
cover the cost for filling in the faundations, adding top
soil, and reseeding the existing foundations for Phase 22.
This ietter of credit must caver 150% of the cost to da this
wark. The letter of credit shall be submitted to the Town of
Vail for approval before final certificate of occupancies
will be released £or Phase I. In the event that the
developer beqins to finish the construction of Phase IT,
portions of the letter of credit could be deducted at the
tima the oertificate of occupancies are released for each
building. The staff shall require that the developer
complete this revegetation of tha foundations by July 1,
1990. If this work is not completed by Ju1y 1, 1990, the
Town would have the right to utilize the letter of credit to
complete the revegetation work.
Tn addition, the staff sha11 require that the recreation
amenities package be built under the first building permit
taken out far Phase II. The staff does not have a problem if
the developer chooses to construct each building in Phase II
under a separate permit, however, the staff shall require
that the recreatinn amenities package be included under the
first permit that is taken out for any building under Phase
I1. The staff does not approve the concept of using a letter
of credit to caver the construction of the recreation
~ amenities package as the Town does not want to be in the
position of constructing such a large facility.
.
B. GRFA rec(uest s
The staff appraves the request to infill the deck areas for
5 una.ts within Phase II for a total increase of GRFA of 750
square feet. Our approval is contingent upon the 750 square
feet being deducted from the total GRFA for Phase IIT. The
staff daes not support, at this time, the increase of GRFA
for Phase III. However, the devel.oper aiways has the
opportunity to come back tQ the Planning Commission and Town
Council t4 request additional GRFA or Phase III.
C. Recreation amenities:
The staff approves of the redesign for the recreata.on
amenities package. As we stated in aur conditian for the
phasing plan, the recreation amenities package shall be
constructed when the first permit is taken out for any of the
buildings in Phase II. Phase TII canstruction may be
initiated once appropriate approvais have been reaeived as
long as the recreatian amenities package located on Phase II
is al.so included in a release of a building permit for Phase
III. The staff strongly encourages the DRB to look cZosely
at the grading and landscaping in the pool and tot lot area.
~ D. Phase xzz
The staff does not support two road cuts for Phase ITT. We
believe one access point is reasonable for the 15 units.
Also, we strangly suggest that the unit that is located belaw
the main lauilding site by Buffehr Creak Road be sited with
the other 14 una.ts. We think it is better site planning to
consolidate the develapment on the upper plateau and ta nat
put one unit on another portian of the site that has steep
sl.opes.
In summary, the staff supports the above amendments to the
development pl.an for Phase I, Phase TI, and Phase TII af the
Talon. In addition, the fallowing conditions shall be met
before a final certificate of occupancy wauld be released for
Phase I:
A. All fire cade and buildinq code requirements must be met
for Phase I.
B. The landscaping for Phase I must be completed per the
pl.an approved on September 18, 1982, by the Design
Review Board. If changes in the landscape plan are
requested, the new landscape plan must be submitted to
the Design Review Baard for approvai,
~ C. The Talon project has "approved mitigation" for
rockfall. Therefore, the parcel has been excluded from
our Tvwn af Vail maps cancerning geol.ogically sensitive
areas. In a letter from Mr. David C. Chamberlain, P.E.,
dated January 7, 1989, he states that periodi.c
inspection should be requirad for this project to ensure
.
that the rockfall prablem does not reoccur. Bnforn any
additional certificate of occupancies are issued for
this project, the Town of Vai1 would require that an
inspection far raakfall be completed and that the
recommendati.ons of this report be complied with.
We are pleased that the Ta1on will be completed and that the
foundations will be either built upon or reclaimed to improve
the appearance of this project for the community.
~
~
• ZONING STATISTICS
Talon Phase I. TT, & III
September 1989
A. Phases T & II
GRFA:
A rdv'ed Plan Amended Plan
A11.owEd 55,804 56,554
Existing 27,759 27,759
Remaining 281045 28,795
UNTTS:
Allowed 40 40
Existing 20 20
Remaining 20 20
B. Phase III*
~ GRFA:
Approved Dev. Amended Dev.
~ Rights ~ Rights
Allowed 20,195 13,445
Units A1lowed 15 15
* This phase is undeveloped. A specific development plan is not
approved at this time.
.
~
~
. i
6ox 100 department of community development
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 476-5613
September 18, 19$0
Ronald A. Todd
Bflx 1753
.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Multi-Family Parcels in ,
LionsRidge Fa.ling No. 3
Dear Ron:
This is to confirm that the Town Council at the.ir woxk session
~ on September 15, 1980 decided that the multi-family parcels
in Lions Ridge Filing No. 3 would not be required to go throuqh
the entire Special Development District procc.ss, but would
have to be prescnted to the Town Cauticil at one of their work
sessions before going to the Design Review Board.
We would like th,e plans a wcek beforr_ they are tn go to the
Town Council, so we can review them.
Sincerely,
~
L AMES A RUBZN
Zoning Administrator
JAR:bpr
~
i.:= ; ~ t-~,~?
~~.e.-:..'1:+ti_..,...,' - '..a' . ~ ~ ~ /,•'4 ~
i : 1 n6 t-- I . U ~(.t°~
d ~ L. ~rtff~ ' -
~ - v ~"~/.F~`'~ ~ •
y~
f } ~ ~ ~1 Y
, •`~afQ ~+'R Ls 0 I A ~ V S U L_ T 1 •1 E IV 7 1 N E C S C[y~
..wc
S4!l L FOL'!iJk710N
ihiG7HEER[NG 46 SOLRTH Zlfhl! ST^nEET • DcNt/ER, COLORADO 50223 • 303/744-7105 Januar,z 7, 1980
Subject. H,~zard IMitiau-
tion, Lions Rid;e,
Va il, Cbiorado
Job t3a. 19,344 -
Nr. C3tdan YLerce
i~i,_-rce and ts:iUcijL,~:s ,
Iy.u. I3ox IiZ3
Va i 1, Cviorad(i
'•Ir. Pierce:
~ Ttiis lutt-er is to co,jfirra our phane conversation of 3anUary 4,
a
: JL'r visit to the Lions RiGtl,° site on liJ, 1979 res~~.ed in
~ thfe2 Princi~>al o!Dservatio:is; (1) '-rl;at the rad:rall ~_er:ti, al to i.~at 1,
rlo;~, 3, Filin7 2or t,ie Lia~~ Fic3ge ~.i;~b;~1V15101I liad reEn s;L:stantially
` r-°ju::ed bs, s: ai i n.~ arid ;.~Ias Linc~ o~x ratians on the aa ~cra~ above ,
~ (2) that one larae ;alack anci soveral smaZler ac3di.tiunal bloG:s ccvsld be
~ re;ibved to furttic-r reduce the coc:rfall r~atetztial, and {3) trolti>>y or
• C'ii!:eI ieStre3lnin~ f7A_t~?.7:5 bJ0:31C3 ~.JrO.~~id~71 ? '
: . ~ y ~ 'lC~~i. be .an, i~r.~r~~ ~.L£ect-Lve at
creatiny lona tens. st-ability ot tize foriration thaii 4rldt w.ill hzive "ren
~ acc.cmiu13shedJby ttie scaliN o:eration.
~ f'1:3ditional kUL-}4 is needeci 3n Lhe sUr.zny oL- 1980 to rec?;;ve tncse
~ additional aloch.s. Tnis work sir.xald be ir,.znij~ial in comi:),arison wiLi: w:ha*
;tas alreudy teetl accmu)iasf;ed. At tJ;at tir;p-, we will be availu...`,'_e to
~ observe that the mnaining bloc},s have 13een reirDvec3 3,«niinizirsg tne
~ rac:r :_t 1 hazard Ear t}ie near fu ture. t3atural dynamic l'oT-ces 1:~ suCti c
~ ;,oYr:tain enviroa::en4 wi71 a`tecL tiie st~iiity of *_.,e ridLle aS Z~;le
~.::s•snv. t~e ~:~.;;~~size a:aain tttat periodic annual insL~ectj.or.s are
• critical so that .if adverse carujitions develop in the fuLure, rc-3!eGiL1
` actiorr can be ta?;en.
C-
-4i: ix? O-F fll'ither .'.SsiStd11cL, plC435F• t`r311.
€ `y ~ ; ; f'! . ,
cr~',••~T~.' ~"~'ViJ
~
. • ' ~
~ i • ~ `
~G~ • ; ~ 5 9 3~ ~le-~l/ - G ~ - ~.Y"'
4~/~• -%~nL
'ir'~~~, Zl,y~- Y. ~
:;~t'~~ Y~~=j±L' ~/i,l:.i5. ~:y ' ~_f.L~'.^. ~~r.~~.~, ~~iJ::..1..~. ~.~.~l. _ r. ~
~ Nicholas Lampiris, Ph.D.
CONSULTING GEQLOGIST
0793 VAI.LEY RQAD
CARBONQALE, COLOAADO 81623 -
(303) 963-3600 (24 FiOURS)
.`:V
c,i._5•~~;.q ~~'~"i^} 'f,7'i t a I .f.i:p•r°.i;.. . . .
f A. i.. f
Eric: 6 5'.~ i''ii.,5 r.1 c1 ~ ["n
.
;-iF: e 17 C~E'":?'=
D -e) ar M.,"' ~
A5 }jC7l.!. I-1r^7we q,_k.= _Ft C:,'•.rr %=lf;?;::1'4''_ ~'1-~..~:1.~. ~::9i'ic ~
~ .
r.:.t,.,,.q ,..r_xc" .~•r~} r~:5~: r.a i ~..i...:~~ f';
~~:at•
t k: ~
ii:l
. . . , . . .
~ aii_ ~ .
, ; ~ t ,.a i r-f t:?r.:a I••r , F•} _ ~.i
;.1
~
..~i r'::f i1 . , , , , , y. a.. . _
; , .
' r.:a' i..~. ! r.. ~c--s w•a
;'1
,.`:T ,
~
.1
~
.
. .
~..v .
, . . . ~y;;..
~ ' ~'~lc-~ ti:' i"': ~ J :•i: ~ ,.Jf'~ .j... _ .E. i.. .i.~ .1..
. ~ a ~
-r~ • ~
~ . . i ~ ) ' . ...s... _ ~...'1 ~:1 r. i ~:1'-.i 'v~ i
. ' ~
. . ; .j
. , ~
. : , i
~ ~ . , !.7 f•). ~••1! 51 'S":'lr:.'.1
v
i~..i) ~'S;., ....~.-:•~5~5~ 'I :.Sr•;,~_ ~ ' , . ~ i..[~ . ~ 5+
. . 1
: . . , . I. i , ~ . . , : if .a ~~f . . a ~ r . ~
. ,
,
t
.
i..., _ , .
. • . ~ - • ~ ~ .
, . ,
. . . - .
i, ~ : : ? ~..i t :~1' . , . . . `"5 . ~ ~'t ~ _ ,:a; .t:: I.., : P ~ . ~ `.'ri""I . .:r?f{1 r
, ..1~..: . , : ~ .
~
' t
i - i-, ' •i., r- - - ~ _
. '
31..1
t
'i i f'
. ~ . . _ . _ ~ . .
.
. . i-
~ ~ <r. ,...r.~,~•~)l..i _ .1 E..~ 'k ~ti~::f:;~.. i.t i. ,3..
. •
i 'i
5.;~ .
. ,r
r,,~.
, . . , , , .
, . :...I . -,~;:.y>~~•
. , . . h ~
: , ~
.
. { .
. .
: . .
.
: . ~ . ~ s
r r . .
~ , : L... , . -1. s ..i ~ 1.. : , v ~.',.1 ::.5 ~ I I ei i .
w:,t- F? :..~`,...,...':S%i '~•.~•o~"J ~.~ei?L..~ '~:.~~;::}:~•.:..3~;.i,:•E^c'~-
~ . ` ,
.i.. ~ t _ _ ' ~ .
. . ~ . ~..5.~{, , i ..~t ~
J.,
t.... ..._s, • . #
~ - • ' - ' fi
. s~- E..i;.... ~_,,,,~x;,. ."}i'{::: . . ~ i~'S..._ .
~ . . . ~ ~ t... ~ ;`5
- J.
- . _f. ,
~ ' IVn ~~,r 1 4
~'1 ~ • _ f'~ •y i:_ ~ ~ i ~ t..: f~. '
. . L . . . ~ . ry:l
.....a:SE..i'...~... ~ . ...:,..~y~.l.i. :..3~~., r
~
• To: Town Council and PZanninq and Environmental Commission
FROM: Cammunity Deveiopment Department
DATE. September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: C1aritication of allowable use for commercial ski storage
1. BACKGROUND AND REQUEST
There are several ski and boat locker rental facilities within the
Commercial Care T Zone District. One facility is located in the
basement of the Golden Peak Hause, one in the basement of the Hill
Building, and one in the basement of the Wal1 Street Building.
These uses have been approved and are allowed as an accessory to a
ski shop and as a personal service business at basement or garden
level.
Last year, in November of 1988, the staff denied an application
for a commercial ski storage operation on street level on Bridge
Street. This decision was appealed to the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental
Commission upheld the staff interpretation that this was not an
~ allowable use an a street level. This year, we have had several
similar requests and feel that it would be appropriate to amend
the Zoning Code to clarify this situation for the benefit of both
the Town of Vai1 staff and for the public.
Commercial ski storage xs oertainly a guest service and a use that
we wish to encourage within the Core areas. At the same time, we
feel it is important to recognize the balance of the horizontai
zoning controls in Vail Village. Office space and persanal
service uses do not provide the dynamic retail store fronts that
we feel is impartant to the character of the Village and Lianshead
area. it has been the staff opinion that the permitted and
conditional uses for first floor or street ievel af the Commercial
Care I do not allow this specific type of use. However, we would
propose ta add "Commercial Ski Starage" in Section 18.24.020 B2.
Adding the specific use of cammercial ski storage to the permitted
uses of basement and garden level in Cammercial Core I and
Commercial Core II clarifies the staff's interpretation that this
a personal service use and is allowed iri basement level and is not
permitted as a first floor or street level use.
i
•
PROPOSED STGN CODE CHANGES 9/1/89
Purpose: The purpose of this proposed sign code change is to
aZlow signs within the Arterial Business District zone district.
The proposal is to include the Arterial Business District (ABD)
within the existing Commercial Core 3 sign code classification.
The current ABD zone da.strict is not included i.n any sign
category.
Proposed chancie: Add Arterial Business District (ABD) to the
following sectians of Chapter 16.22 (Sign Categories far CC3 Zone
District), of the Town of Vail Municipal Code, to achieve the
purpose stated above:
7.6.22 SIGN CATEGORIES FOR CC3 AND ABD ZONE DISTRICTS
16.22.010 Designated
A. This chapter concerns those types of permanent
~ and temporary signs requiring a sign application permit under the
provisions of this title far property within the CC3 and ABD zane
districts.
B. The following is a listing af sign categories
permitted in CC3 and ABD under the provisions of this title:
C. A business or organization within Commercial Care
TII or Arterial Business District is permitted the fall.owing
number of signs provided that the provisions of each category are
met:
16.22.100 Sa.gn Program
1. (1) At the time that any sign on a building
located within Commercial Core III or Arterial Business District
is removed, changed or altered in any way, a sign program for
that particular building must be submitted to design review board
and approved prior to the erectian of any new sign on the
building.
(4) In the case where a building located within
Commercial Core ITI or Arterial Business District has a business
frontage which is not adjacent to the Narth or South Frontac[e
Roads, but has calculable frontage which is lacated along a
pedestri.an way at the end of a building adjacent to the interior
nf Coanmercial Core II2 or Arterial Business District and has
direct access or display area alang that pedestrian way, the
. provisions applicabl.e shall be the same as for a business
fronting on an arcade, subject to the approval of the design
review board.
.
(4,b) ThI5 provision is not applicable to
businesses wi.th frontage adjacent to exterior boundara.es a£
Cammerca.al Core III ar Arterial Business District other than the
North and South Frontage Roads.
16.22.110 Temporary site develapment signs.
A. Purpose, to indicate or identify a development of
real pxoperty under construction in CC3 ar ABD;
16.22.120 Traffic control signs for private praperty.
Traffic control signs for CC3 or ABD shall be regulated
as folI.ows :
16.22.140 Wall signs-Individual business within a multi-
tenant building.
E. Location, para].lel to the exterior wali of the
individuaZ business or organization, adjacent to tha North or
South Frontage Roads, subject to the approval of the design
review board;
(H,3). An individual business wa.th no calculable
frontage along the Narth ar South Frontage Roads or with a
basement or second floor entrance may have one sign with a
maximum area of five square feet in a locatian approved by the
• design review board or designated in a specific sign program for
the building in which the business or organization is Iocated.
16.22.150 Wa11 signs-Joint directory signs for a muZti-
tenant building.
E. Locatian, para11e1 to the exterior wall adjacent
to the North or Sauth Frontaqe Roads, subject to the approval af
the design review board;
•
• T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: A proposal to amend the Town of Vail subdivision regulations
The staff is proposing an amendment to the Town's subdivision
regulations, which if approved, would add a new chapter entitled
"Single Family Subdivisions." The purpose af this proposal is to allow
single family and primary/secondary dwellings to be subdivided into
parcels which are less than the required minimum lot size. However,
the overall qross area of the project must stilI meet the lot size
requirement. This process would be used for properties that are zoned
for more than two units and would allow for separate ownership of the
one or two unit struetures. All develapment standards far the zone
district would still be met.
This proposed subdivision process would allaw projects to be subdivided
without the cuxrent requirement of changing tha zoning an the parcel to
SDD in order to avoid the minimum Iot size requirement. One example of
where this has recently occurred is "The Victorians." In that case,
• the zoning was required to be changed to SDD so that the small lots
could be individually sold even when the prQject's gross area met the
develflpment standard £or minimum lat size. The proposed single family
subdivision process is intended to avoid unnecessary zone changes.
.
• PROPOSED SUBDIVISTON REGULATI4N CHANGES - 9/7J89
Chapter 17.25
SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISTONS
Sections:
17.25.010 single Family Subdivisions - Required appraval
17.25.030 Single Family Subdivisions W Submittal requirements
17.25,050 Single Family Subdivisions - Procedure
17.25.080 Criteria for review
17.25.100 Appeal of zaning administrator's decision
17.25.110 Filing and recarding
17.25.010 Single Family Subdivisions - Required appraval.
A single family resubdivision will require the approval of the zoning
administrator. Na subdivision shall be appraved unless the lats are
improved with at least foundations for units existing at the time of
submittal.
17,25.030 Single Family Subdivisions - Submittal requirements.
A. Two mylar copies of the subdivision plat shall be submitted to the
department of community development. The plat shall inelude a site map
following the requirement of Section 17.22.030. The plat must contain the
. following statement: "For zoning purposes, the lots created by this
subdivision are to be treated as one lot with no more than two dwelling
units allowed on the combined area of the two lots." The statement must
be modified as to the number of units and parcels proposed.
B. A copy of daclarations and or covenants relating to the subdivision
which shall assure the maintenanae of any common areas which may be
created. The covenants shall run with the land and shall be in a form
suitable for recordation with the Eagle Gaunty Clerk and Recorder.
17.25.050 Single Family Subdivisians - Procedure.
The Single Family Subdivision procedure sha11 be as set forth in
17.22.050 of this title with the additional requirement of an improvement
location certificate.
17.25.080 Criteria for review.
The burden af proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the
subdivision complies with the zoning ordinance with respect to building
location and other aspects of the structure and grounds, wzth the original
plans as approved by the design review baard of the tawn and the
accurateness and integrity of the survey data found on the plat.
17.25.100 Appeal of zoning administrator's decision.
The zoning administrator's decision may be appealed to the PEC in
accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 18.66.030 0£ the Vai1
Municipal Cade.
17.25.110 Filing and recording.
• The department of community development wi11 record the plat and any
related covenants with the Eagle County C1erk and Recorder. Fees for
recording shall be paid by the applicant. The community development
department will retain one mylar copy of the plat for their records and
will record the remaining mylar copy.
.
Add the follawing;
17.08.210 Subdivision
F. "Single Family Subdivisian" shall mean any resubdivisian
of an existing 1.ot which contains single-family or primary-
secondary detached dwella.ng una.ts. Each such structure shall be
separated from any other structure by space on all sides. For
zoning purposes, the lots created by this type of subdivisian are
to be treated as one lot.
•
s
~ T0: Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: Bed and Breakfast regulatians
on March 21, 1989, the Town Council sent the proposed Bed and Breakfast
Ordinance (attached) back ta tha PEC. The following represents the
main unresolved issues and the PEC's respdnse to each. The objective
for the joint session is to come to a general concensus on each of
these issues by discussing the agreement or disagreement with the PEC's
responses. The staff would then revise the previous ordinance
raflecting the general consensus and proceed back through the Council
approval pxocess.
1. Shauld there be any regulation at all?
There should be regulatians £or Bed and Breakfast because they are
a commercial (i.e. hoteZ-type) use in a residential area. There
are impacts of the B&B use that should be addressed trom a
regulatory standpoint.
. 2. Why shouid B&B's have any more than regulation than short_term
rentals? ~
B&B's have more impact than short term rentals because individual
accommodation units are rented as opposed to a whole unit to one
party. B&B's are, thus, a more intense use than short term
rentals because af the ramifications on parking requirements, the
shorter length of stay (3-4 days typical), the heavier marketing
effort of a B&B, the "restaurant" type use, and the general
increased intensity of a B&B due to these differences.
3. Condominium associations and nei hbors should not have an
a roval ri hts because the will "hold the a licant hosta e."
PEC feels that neighbars and condominium associations should be
required to approve in writing the Conditional Use Permit
application whan common praperty is involved. The staff feels
that the other ownex on a duplex lot should be required to approve
the use in writing.
4. What is the correct arkin re irement?
PEC feels strongly that one parking space per bedroom plus one, as
originally recommended by them, is the correct amount.
s
~ 5. Bed and Breakfast should be allowed in all Multi-Famiiy zone
districts.
PEC says that Multi-Family zone districts are acceptable as long
as the parking requirements are met. Moreover, the parking
propased to meet the requirement must be reserved and desiqnated
for that condominium only.
Another minor issue involved is the question of proper signage. The
PEC and staff feel comfortable with allawing a residential nameplate
sign as currently allowed in all residential areas "for the sole
purpose of identifying the inhabitant residing therein, the house name,
or identifying the address of the house."
.
i
Planning and Enviranmental Commission
September 26, 1989
~ 5:30 a.m. Site visits
9:15 a.m. Public Hearing
I, A request to amend Special Development District
No. 6(WI) to increase the gross residential
floor area by 6000 square feet.
Applicant: BSC of Colorado, Inc.
3 2. A request for a variance £ram the maximum wall
height in the front setback on Lots 5 and 6,
Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Ron Byrne
4 3. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to aiiow
for a dinner theater at Crossroads, Lot P, Block
5-D, Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
AppliCant: Club Majiks
1 4. A request tor a sxde setback variance for a roof
overhang at the Willows Condominiums, Lot 8,
B1ock 61 Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Willows Condominium Associatian
2 5. A request for a front setback variance and a
~ common area variance for a new entry and elevator
at Riva Ridge South, on Lot 7, Block 6, Vai1
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Riva Ridge South Condominiums
tabled 6. A request for an exterior alteration at the
Slifier Building, 230 Bridge Street.
Applicant: Slifer Designs
7. Vail National Bank T Notification of staff
approval; Minar Amendment ta Special Development
District Na. 23.
8. A requast to amend the Subdivision Regulations to
create a Single Family Subdivzsian process.
Applicant. Town of Vail
9. A request to amend the Sign Code to allow for tha
addition of the Arterial Business District into
the Commercial Care IIT sign category.
Applicant: Town of Vail
10. A request to amend the Zoning Code ta clarify the
use of Commercial Ski Storage in Cammercial Core
2 and Commercial Core IT basement level.
~ Applicant: Town of Vai1
11. Worksession - Propvsed amendments to SDD No. 14;
Doubletree
12. Appointment af one PEC member to the Design
Review Board for 3 months
s +
~ Planning and EnvironmentaZ Commission
September 26, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Jim Viele Peter Patten
Kathy Warren Mike Mollica
Diana Donovan Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Kristan Pritz
Pam Hapkins
Peggy Osterfass
Chuck Cxast
The Planning and Environmental Cammission began at 9:40 a.m.
Jim Viele began the meeting with Ztems No. 4 and 5. He asked for any
public input. There was none.
Craig Snowdon, architect for Item No. 5, Riva Ridge South Condominiums,
discussed the staff recommendation for this item. The staff
xecommended approval of the front setback variance with the condition
that the Riva Ridge South Condominium Associatian agree to not have any
delivery or loading in fromt of the entrance along Willow Creek Circle.
Craig, representing Riva Ridge South, agreed to the staff
~ recommendatian and condition of approval. ~
Item No. 4 A request for a side setback variance far a roof
overhanq at the Willows condominiums, Lot 8,, BlQCk 6!
Vail Villa e First Filin .
A licant: Willows Candominium Association
Item No. 5 A request for a front setback variance and acommon area
variance far a new entry and elevator at Riva Ridqe
South on Lot 7 black 6 Vail Villa e First Filin .
Alicant: Riva Rid a South Condominiums
Chuck motianed to consent a rnve Ztems No. 4 and No. 5. Kath
secanded the motion.
Vote: 6-0-1 Pam abstainin .
Item No. 6 A re uest for an exterior alteration at the Slifer
~ Buildina, 230 Bridge Street.
' A licant: Slifer Desi ns
3tem tabled until October 9 1989.
~
. Ttem No. 1 A re uest to amend S ecial Develo ment District No. 5
WI to increase the ross xesidential floor area b
6000 square feet.
A licant: BSC of CoZorado Inc.
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentatian. He explained that the
applicant was requesting an amendment to Special Development District
No. G in order to allaw the addition of 5,714 square feet of grass
residential floor area. This amendment would a11ow the applicant ta
convert existing commercial space (currently occupied by GOODS) to a
residential unit. Rick reviewed the design criteria and explained that
there wauld be vary little design impact from the conversion. The
staff recommendation was for approval with the following two
canditians:
1. Special Development District No. 6 be amended by adding atota1 of
3,927 square feet to the existing allowance.
2. The unit be use restricted according to Section 17.26.075 of the
Town of Vail Subdivision Regulatians.
Peter Jamar, architect for the pxoject, pointed out that the reason the
owners were making this request was because the existing space was nat
viab1e as a retail space. He added that the reason the applicant
wished to add a full 1,787 square feet to the existing space was ta
allow flexibility for possible future additions. Although the
• applicant could accept the staff's candition of additional square
footage, the applicant did nat agree with the staff's recommendatian
regarding the rental agxeement.
There was a lengthy discussion among the Board and applicant. The
planning members had mixed apinions. The Board, in general, did not
support the amount of additional space requested. Several suggestians
and changes to the proposal were offered by the Board. Jim pointed out
that he did not feel comfortable changing a praposal and then votang an
something different than what was proposed. He felt that the Baard
should rnaintain procedure and vote on the propasal as presented.
Pam motioned for approval of the request to amend SDD Na. 6 as per the
staff inemo with the exceptian that the whale unit nat be restricted,
but that a minimum of 2 bedrooms each beinq at least 300 square feet be
restricted and that the increase af GRFA be 4,827 sauare feet. Also it
would be required that tha area ta the south be preserved as open as it
exists, that the entrance be on the west, and that the existing display
space qo to tha adjacent sho . The motion was based on the assum tp ion
that parkinq spaces for the unit exist. Sid seconded the motion.
Vote: 3-4 defeated.
Peaqv mavad to recommend to the Town Council denial of the request as
presanted due to a loss of commercial s ace in the Coref_and the
replacement of a retail space with condominium space that is not
; . appro riate for short term rental. Kathv seconded the motion.
Vote: 4-3 denial.
.
~ Item Na. 2 A reauest for a variance from the maximum wall haiqht
in the frant setback on Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vai1
Vil1a e First Filin .
A licant: Ron B rne
Mike Mollica gave the staff presentation of this request. He explained
that the applicant was requesting a variance to al.law for the
constructian of boul.der retaining walls along the north property lines
of both the above lots. The wall would have a maximum height af 91-611.
mhe staff recommendation was for approval due to the unique development
considerations that have been created by the topographic conditions af
bath l.ots.
The PEC, staff and applicant discussed the details af the p1.an.
Sid Schultz made a motian for a roval er the staff inemo. Chuck
seconded the motion.
Vote• 5-2
Item No. 3 A request for a Canditional Use Perma.t to allow_for a
dinner theater at Crossroads, Lot P, Block 5-D, TractC,
Vail Villa e First Filin .
Applicant: Cl.ub Maj iks
im Kristan Pritz gave the staff presentation. She explained that the
appl.icant is requesting a Conditional Use Permit to lacate a dinner
theater in the north wing of the east Crossroads Building. Crossroads
is zoned Commercial Service Center. Restaurants are allowed under this
zoning, but the aperation of a theater would require a Conditianal Use
Permit.
Regarding loada.ng and delivery, KriStan explained that the Club would
be using the existing laading zone on the west side of the buildzng.
Kristan explained that Cl.ub Majiks would require 32 parking spaces.
The applicant is px'oposing ta locate 4 additional spaces within the
structure and on the sux'face parking lot to the east of the Club Majiks
' theatar. Three additional spaces would be provided in the parking
structure by restriping spaces into compact car spaces and one
additional space would be gained by removing a staix.
i Kristan gave the staff's opinion on the praposalIs relation to the
~ criteria. The staff felt that the Club Majiks Dinner Theater would
~ provide a new type of evening entertainment for guests as we11 as
loca].s which relates positivel.y to the objecti.ves af the Town.
The staff's biggest concern was abaut the use's effect upon traffic
flow and parking within the Crossroads project. Because guests would
have to dra.ve through the entire parking structure to reach Club
Majiks, there is a potential of creating a great deal of traffic
~ congestion on the surface parking in front of Club Majiks and within
the structure. The staff was also concerned about the passibility of
theater patrons using the stair that connects the surface lot in fxant
of Club Majiks to Village Centex Road as a loading zone for guests.
. This area is particularly dangerous during winter due to the steep
grade and iciness of this poxtion of Village Center Road.
Another concern was the limited parking at Crossroads and the
possibility that the demand for parking during evenings would increase
thus making parking difficult.
The staff believes it is critical that the applicant agree to a parking
management plan which would (1) not allow guest loading or unloading on
Villaga Center Raad, (2) require a Club Majiks' employee to be
stationed at the east entry af the parking structure to direct guests,
and (3) provide discreet directional signs within the parking structure
ta direct guests up to the theater.
The staff did not support the applicant's idea of havzng valet parking
on the surface lot in frant of Club Majiks due to the fact that valet
parking would add to the traffic congestion.
The staff recommendatian for this request was for approval with the
following conditions:
1. No loading and drop-off of guests shatil be allowed nn Village
Center Road. The owner of Club Majiks shall be responsible for
directing guests tn enter the theater by other means.
2. A sign program including discreet directional signs far club
~ Majiks shall be implemented by the owners to direct drivers and
pedestrians up to the main entry of the theater. This sign
program shall be included in the DRB submittal scheduled for
OctobeY 4, 1989.
3. Dwners of C1ub Majiks shall be responsible for providing employees
ta direct vehicles to the proper areas within the parking
structure in order to alleviate traffic congestian.
4. The awning over the stair adjacent to Village Center Road shall
not encroach into the 20 foot setback more than 4feet.
5. The applicant shall be required to return t4 the PEC to review the
effectiveness of the parking management plan no later than the
first PEC meeting in May, 1990. The applicant will be responsible
for providing the PEC with a review of the effectiveness of the
parking management. If the PEC determines that additianal steps
need to be taken to avaid traffic congestian, the applicant will
be required to address the PEC's concerns.
6. As part of the DRB submittal an 4ctaber 4th, the applicant ar
owner of Crossroads shall be required to improve the landscaping
along Village Center Road and South Frontage Road, in front of
Club Majiks.
7. The staff does not support valet parking.
I~ The owner/manager, Mark Schwartz, and architect, Joe Robbins were
' present. Joe said that vaZet parking was a way to manage the parking
. situation. He felt they could deal with the problems and was willing
to came in for the May PEC review to see if the valet parking was
warking. Mark Schwartz introduced himself, stated he was a producex by
profession, and gave some of his credits. He explained that the
proposal would combine gourmet cuisine and what he hoped to be the
finest cabaret club in the country. He felt that there was a void in
the Valley for adult performing entertainment.
Peggy asked how many daytime employees there would be. Mark said
approximately 25 daytime employees. He added that he could ask the
staff to park in the public parking structure. Abaut parking
management, Mark went on to say that the valet service was intended to
alleviate parking problems by providing full time parking management.
He said the Club could actually monitor the number of cars through
reservations.
Peggy suggested that there be additianal light in the stairway.
A discussion continued between the PEC, staff and the applicant
regarding the parking management issue.
Diana was concerned about pedestrians. She felt it was imperative ta
have a new safe entry way ta allow direct pedestrian access to Club
Majiks. The PEC, staff, and applicant discussed options for an entry.
The applicant agreed that they would laok into some possibilities.
. Pam suggested a sidewalk up to South Frontage Raad. Chuck suggested
valet parking on a lower level. Jim felt the proposal was an
excellent, appropriate use.
Peqqy made a motian, seconded by Diana, for approval of the request per
the staff recammendations with the following modifications:
1. As er staff memo
2. As per staff inemo
3. Add ta staff recommendation: Club Majiks will hava an employee in
the Crossroads Booth to direct traffic during arrival pexiods.
6. Add to staff recommendation. The a licant will add landscaping,
as well as im rove. See staff memo .
7. Chan e staff recammendation to: A Iicant will be allowed to
attempt valet parkinq. The valet parking plan shallbe reviewed
per the staff's canditional use review (conditian of appraval #5)•
All complaints reqardinq the valet parking issue shall be directed
to Cammunity Development._
8. Additional recommendation: Liqhting shall be added to propnsed
~ walkway.
. Vote: 7-0
~ Item No. 10 A request to amend the Zoninq Code to clarify the use of
Commercial Ski Stora e in Commercial Coxe T and
Commercial Core II basement level.
A plicant: Town of Vail
Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation. He explained that due ta
requests for commercial ski storage at street level and some confusion
regarding the interpretatzon of the zoning cade, the staff feels it
necessary to add the specific use of commercial ski storage ta the
permitted uses of basement and garden level in Commercial Care I and
Cammercial Core II. Adding this use in Section 18.24.020 B2 wauld
clarify the staff's interpretation that commercial ski storage is a
personal servica use and is allowed in basement level and is not
permitted as a first floor or street level use.
Diana motioned for a roval er the staff memo. The mation was
seconded by Kathy._
Vote: 7-0
Item No. 11 Worksession - Pro osed amendments to SDD Na. 14
Doubletree
Riak Pylman introduced Peter Jamar. Peter discussed concept with staff
and PEC.
•
(Kathy left the meeting at 12:30).
Item No. 7 Vail National Bank - Notification of staff approval;
Minor Amendment to SDD No. 23
Staff Explained approval to PEC. There were na questions.
Item No. 8 A request to amend the Subdivision Requlations to create
a Sin 1e Famil Subdivisian racass.
A licant: Tawn of Vail
Rick Pylman explained the staff's request. There were no questions.
Diana motioned for appraval. Peggy seconded.
Vote: 4-0
Item Na. 9 A re uest to amend the Si n Code to allow for the
addition of the Arterial Business District into the
Cammercial Coxe TTT si n cate or .
Applicant: Town of Vail
~ Rick Pylman gave the staff presentation.
Peqqy motioned for approval, Diana seconded, er the staff memo with
. the addition that identification siqns may not be free standing. _If
fxee standinq sians are approved, they may not be hiqher than 8 feet.
Vote' 5-0
Item No. 12 A ointment of one PEC member ta the Desi n Review Board
for 3 months
The Board appointed Kathy Warren to serve on the Design Review Board
in October, November, and December.
.
.
e •
~ To: PZanning and Environmental Cammies
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: September 26, 1989
SUBJECT; A request to amend Special Deveiapment District No. 6 in
order to amend the tatal gross residential floor area that is
permitted to be constructed within the district.
Applicant: BSC of Vail, Colorado, Incorporated
I. PURPOSE OF THE RE_QUEST
The applicant, BSC of Vail, Colorada, requests an amendment to
Special Development District No. 6 in order to amend the total
gross residential floor area that is permitted to be constructed
in the district. SDD No. 5 currently allows the total GRFA of
120,600 square feet to be constructed within the district, all of
which is either canstructed or proposed to be constructed within
future phases of the development.
The applicant's request in this amendment is to allow an
additional 5,714 square feet of GRFA to be added to SDD Na. 6.
This amendment wouZd a11ow the appiicant to canvert existing
commercxal space, which is primarily second and third floor, to
~ residential use. The applicant's reason for the request is the
questionable viability of second and third floor retail space.
, The subject space referred to zs unit #30 of the Vai1 Village
Plaza Condominiums. Unit #30 is comprised of two units previously
numbered 30 and 32 and now combined into one unit. These units
were previously designated within the condominium declaration as
office or commercial use and the space is currently occupied by
the Goods Retail Clothing Store. The owners of this space have
received the necassary approvals from the other owners within the
building to amend the declaration in order to al1ow the use of the
space for dwelling and lodging purposes.
zf this proposed amendment is approved, the total GRFA permitted
within SDD No. 6 would be 126,314 square feet. This proposal daes
not change the existing requirement that a minimum of 148
accommodation units and 67,367 square feet of GRFA be devoted to
accommodation units in Phase IV and Phase V af SDD No. 6.
The 5,417 square feet that is being requested includes the
existing square footage of condominium unit #30, as well as an
allowance for square faotage that could potentially be added in
the condominium unit #30 space, without changing the exterior of
the building. This space could be added by building lofts and
infilling areas that are apen to atwo story space.
. II. COMPARISON OF THE AMENDMENT TO THE UNDERLYZNG ZONE DZSTRICT
Fox Special Development District No. 6, the Public Accammodation
District is the underlying zone district. Public Accommodation zoning
would allow approximately 120,000 square feet of GRFA on this site.
• TII. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DTSTRICT DESIGN CRTTERIA
It sha11 be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that
submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with
each of the following standards or to demonstrate that ane or more
of them are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent
with the public interest has been achieved.
A. DESTGN COMPATIBILITY AND SENSTTIVZTY TO THE IMMEDIATE
ENVTRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT PROPERTIES RELATIVE TO
ARCHITECTURAL DESTGN, SCALE, BULK, BUILDING HETGHT, BUFFER
Z4NES, TDENTITY, CHARACTER, VISUAL TNTEGRITY AND
ORTENTATZON.
There are very limited design issues related ta this
proposal. By changing the use of the existing Goods retail
store to residential, there is virtually no eliminatian of
first floor retail space. The staircase that accesses this
space does contain a display window. The applicant has
proposed ta maintain this display window and allow it to be
used by the adjacent retail space, now occupied by vail
Village Inn Sparts. Although the entry may be changed as
part of a tuture propasal to remodel the condominium space,
it is assumed that any design issues can be reviewed and
. dealt with by the Design Review Baard regarding changes to
the street 1evel.
If this canversian were to utilize some of the GRFA that is
proposed but unbuilt in SDD No. 6, it is possible that there
would be a minor design impact on those future phases.
Exactly what that impact wauld be and whether it would be
positive or negative is impassible to determine through this
praposal.
B. USES, ACTIVTTY AND DENSITY WHICH PROVTDE A COMPATIBLE,
EFFICIENT AND WORKABLE RELATIONSHTP WITH SURROUNDING USES AND
ACTTVITY,
SDD No. 6 provides a mix af uses which is efficient and
workable with the surrounding area. SDD No. 6 contains
retail stores, restaurants, condominium units, as well as
shart term accommodation units. It is a goal of the
Department of Community Development and is stated in the Land
Use Plan as well as the Vail Village Master Plan, that one
way to strengthen and cflntinue the existing Village Core is
to encourage bath high quality retail and a short term bed
base. While we are samewhat disappointed to see this retail
space eliminated, we understand the difficulties in
supporting second and third floor retail within this part af
the Village. We do feel that the proposed dwelling unit
• should be utilized primarily for tourist-oriented
accommodations and, thus, should be restricted according to
Section 17.26.075 of the Town of Vail Subdivision
Reguiations.
• C. COMPLTANCE WTTH PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED
TN SECTZON 18.52.
Parking and loading standards for residential use are
significantly lower than for a retail store of this size.
Parking for this retail space has been accommadated within
the parking requirements for SDD No.6 and the staff sees no
problem with the parking and loading requirements with the
respect to this application.
D. CONFORMITY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAZL COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN, TOWN POLICTES AND URBAN DESIGN PLANS.
The foilowing sections of the Town of Vai1 Land IIse P1an
relate to this proposal:
Commercial
3.1 The hoteZ bed base should be preserved and used mare
efficiently.
Villaqe Core/Lionshead
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable sa
~ long as the existing character af each area is preserved
through implementation of the Urban Design Guide Plan
and the Vail Village Master Plan.
E. IDENTZFICATION AND MITIGATION OF NATURAL AND/OR GEOLOGIC
HAZARDS THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE SPECZAL
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT IS PROPOSED.
No hazards are present or effect this property.
F. SITE PLAN, BUILDING DESTGN AND LOCATTON, AND OPEN SPACE
PROVISIONS DESIGNED TO PRODUCE A FUNCTIONAL DEVELOPMENT
RESPONSIVE AND SENSITIVE TO NATURAL FEATURES, VEGETATIDN AND
OVERALL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF THE C4MMUNITY.
The staff's opinion is that there is very little impact upon
this proposal. There is very little physical change that
would occur in a conversion of this space from retail to
residential.
G. A CZRCULATION SYSTEM DESIGNED FOR BOTH VEHICLES AND
PEpESTRIAN5 ADDRESSTNG ON AND OFF SITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION.
The existing circulation system which aecesses this
particular condominium unit will remain essentially the same,
aZthough it is possible that a remodel may Qccur and will
. give this area a more residential feel. We believe any
issues that may be raised by this future remodel may be
addressed by the Design Review Board.
• H. FUNCTIONAL AND AESTHETIC LANDSCAPZNG AND OPEN SPAGE IN ORDER
TO OPTTMTZE AND IMPROVE NATURAL FEATURES, RECREATION, VIEWS
AND FUNCTIONS.
There is no landscaping or open space proposed for this
davelopment, nor does the staff feel that is appropriate to
request any.
I. PHASING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN THAT WZLL MAiNTAIN A
WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL AND EFFICTENT RELATIONSHIP THROUGHOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
We do nat feel that this criteria is applicable to this
application.
TV. ENVTRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The staff has waived the requirement for an environmental impact
report on this proposal.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for tY115 request is far approval with the
following twa conditions:
~ 1. That Special Development District No, 6 be amended by adding
a total of 3,927 square feet to the existing allawance of
120,600 square feet. The 3,927 square foot fa.gure is the
existing square footage of condominium unit #30. The staff
feels that the existing square footage is sufficient for a
successful conversion fram retail to residential and that the
reqxest for an additional 1,787 square feet which may be
added to unit #30 in the tuture, is extraneous and above and
beyand what is required for this conversion.
2. That this unit be use restricted, according to Sectian
17.26.075 af the Town of Vail Subdivision ReguZations.
.
• T0: PZanning and Enviranmantal CQmmissian
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 26, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the maximum walti height in the
front setback on Lots 5 and 6, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing.
AppliCant: Ron Byrne
I. bESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
The applicant is the awner of the above named lots, which are
Iocated at 126 and 146 Forest Road. The applicant is requesting a
variance to a11ow for the construction of boulder retaining walls
along the narth property lines of both lots (adjacent ta Forast
Road) which would be constructed ta a maximum height of 91-611.
The proposed rataining walls would be located within the front
setback area.
The Town of Vazl zoning cade allows for a maximum height of three
feet far all fences, hedges, walls, and Iandscaping screens which
are locatad within any required front setback area (Town of Vail
~ Municipal Code, Section 18.58.020 (C)).
Development on both Iots (5 and 6), as well as access into the
sites, zs extremely difficult due ta existing topographic
constraints. The average slope on Lot 5 is 44%, and the average
slope on Lot 6 exceeds 57%. zn addition, Lot 6 has a large,
exposed rock outcrop immediately adjacent to Forest Road.
With the exception of this variance request, all other development
standards will be met.
TT. CRZTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review af Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.064 ot the
municipal code, the Department of Cammunity Deve3opment recommends
approval of the requested variance based upon the follawing
factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existin or atential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
The requested variance, if approved, would have no
. adverse affect upon the use of adjacent properties and
would not block or impede views from any surrounding
properties.
~ Tn order ta seften the large expanse of retainage along
Farest Road, the applicant has proposed
extensive landscaping throughout this area. The boulder
retaining walls would include a planted area of up to 8
feet in width between walls and the landscape design in
these areas calls for some fairly goad sized plant
material (i.e. 8-12' Colorado spruce, 2-4" ealiper
aspens, and heavy shrub planting).
2. The deqree ta which relief fram the strict and literal
inter retation and enforcement of a s ecified re ulation
is necessary ta achieve campatibility anduniformity_of
treatment amon sxtes in the vicinit or to attain the
ob'ectives of this title without rant of s ecial
privileqe.
The staff believes that approval of this variance
request would not be a grant of special privilege. Many
other property owners along Farest and Beaver Dam Road
have had to construct large retaining wa11s adjacent to
their front property lines to allow for aCCe55 onto
their sites. Development and access onto Lots 5 and &
may very well be the most difficult of a11 the lots in
tha immediate area.
• 3. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and_air,
distribution of o ulation trans ortation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities, a_npublic
safety.
The staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any af the above
considerations,
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proposed variance.
IV. FINDZNGS
The Plannina and Environmental Commissian shall make_the following
findin 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 detrimentai 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 dif£iculty or
unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable ta the same site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recammendation is for approval af the proposed 61-6"
exceedence in wall height. The topographic conditions of both
lots hava created unique development cansiderations and staff
believes that a hardship would be impased upon the applicant if
the strict interpretation af the zoning code were to be enforced.
. The Design Review Soard has reviewed this request, at their August
2, 1989 meeting, and by a vote of 4-0-1 has approved the design of
the proposal conditional upon Planning and Environmental
Commission approval of this variance.
.
• T0: Planning and Enviranmentai Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 26, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a canditional use permit to allow tor a dinner
theater at Crossroads, Lot P, B1ock 5-D, Tract C, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Club Majiks/JRC Partners Limited
1. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
General description af the use:
Club Majiks is proposing to locate a dinner theater in the north
wing of the east Crossroads Building. The Crossraads project is
in the Cammercial Service Center zone district. Under this
zoning, a restaurant is an allowable use and a theater is a
conditianal use. Due to the fact that the request combines both
restaurant and theater uses, the staff determined that a
Conditional Use review would be necessary for the business. Club
Majiks has provided the following description of their operation:
• 8:00 a.m. - 6:00 p.m.
Employees only use the theater. Theater rehearsals, kitchen prep
and deliveries, and cleaning occurs during this time period.
6:00 p.m. - 7:00 p.m.
The public arrives at the facility. The Club Majiks staff helps
to coordinate parking by having an attendant at the parking boath
at the east entry of Crossraads. Tn addition, valet parking
service is proposed. Guests would drive their cars up to the open
parking area to the east of the main Club Majiks entrance. Guests
would drop their cars off with Club Majiks employees who would
then park the cars in the Crossroads parking structure.
7;00 p.m. - 9:00 p.m.
Guests are served dinner and entertainment is provided.
9:00 p,m, ~ 11t00 p.m.
The theater performance occurs.
11:00 p.m. - 12:00 a.m.
~ The public exits the theater and parking areas.
Loading and delivery:
Tn respect to loading and delivery, the applicant praposes to use
• the existing laading zone on the west side of the building_
Delivery trucks would park in the laading zone. The driver would
contact staff at Club Majiks who would drive a"golFcourse
maintenanae-type" cart down to the truck. The driver wnuld laad
the cart and it would be driven back up to the kitchen and
unloaded at their delivery lift. Trash would be handled in a
similar manner. Parking space for the cart, separate from the
required off-street parking far the dinner theater use, has been
included in the praposal. The cart would be paxked on the
Crossroads property adjacent to Club Majiks. The applicant
proposes this solution as large trucks are nat able ta drive ,
through the parking structure due to the clearance limit. Smaller
delivery vehicles will actually be able to drive through the
parking structure and unload their goods at Club Majiks delivery
lift.
Parking:
Twenty-nine spaces are required for the predominantly business
affice and banking existing uses. Club Majiks wi11 require 32
parking spaces. The applicant is proposing to locate 4 additional
spaces within the structure and on the surface parking lot to the
east of the Club Majiks theater. Three additional spaces are
provided within the parking structure by restriping spaces into
compact car spaces. An additional space is also gained by
• removing a stair which encroaches inta a potential parking space
in the surface parking ta the east of the Club Majiks theater.
Please see the attached analysis for a summary of the parking
situation.
II. CRITERIA AND FXNDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Develapment Department
recommends appraval of the conditional use permit based upan the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors.
1. Relationship and impact of the use on_development
objectives of the Town.
The staff believes that the Club Majiks dinner theater
is a guest oriented business which will have positive
impacts on the development objectives o£ the Town. The
dinner theater will provide a new type of evening
entertainment activity for guests as we11 as lacals
which is important to Vail's success as a resort
community.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
popuiation, asportation facilities,_utilities,
a schools, parksand recreation £acilities,. and other
public faciiities_needs.
There are na significant impacts on these factors. Some
of Club Majiks' patrons will probably park in the
~ Vi11age Parking Structure. However, this impact on
Village parking should not be major. The staff supports
the solution for loading and delivery.
3. The effect upon traffic with particularreference to
congestion, automotive andpedestrian safety_ and
convenience traffic flow and control access
maneuverabilit and removal of snaw from the street and
arkin areas.
The staff's biggest concern with the request is the
use's effect upon traftic flow within the Crossraads
project. The dinner theater is located in an area of
the Crossroads Mall that is difficult to reach in that
vehicles must drive thraugh the entire parking structure
in order ta reach the front of Club Majiks. This type
of traffic flow has the potential to create a great deal
of traffic congestion on the surface parking in front of
Club Majiks and within the structure.
The staff is also concerned that theater patrans may use
the stair cannecting fram the surface lat in frant of
Club Majiks down to Village Center Road as a loading
zone for guasts. This area is particularly dangerous
• during the winter time due to the steep grade and
iciness of this portion af Village Center Road. In
addition, the many vehicles that are trying to access
the Crossroads parking area at the Crossroads main east
entry and the Village structure line up along Village
Center Road.
Parking can also be very limited at Crossroads at
certain times af the day as well as evenings. The
emplayees of the theater should not create any traffic
or parking problems during the day. However, during
evenings when some of the shaps are still open and the
shows at Crossraads movie theater are beginning, parking
could be very tight.
Even though the project meets the cade parking
requirement, staff believes that it is very critical
that the applicant agree to a parking management plan to
ensure that traffic congestion and parking problems are
minimized as much as possible. We believe that it zs
critical that no loading or drop off of guests is
allowed an Village Center Road. We support the idea of
having a Club Majiks staff person at the east entry to
the parking structure to direct guests into the
structure and up to the theater. We alsa beXive it is
necessary to provide same discreet directional signs
~ within the parking structure to direct theater goers up
to C1.ub Maj iks .
• At this tim2, the staff does not support the eoncapt nf
trying to do valet parking on the surface lot in Front
of Club Majzks. The Crassroads parking structure is
already somewhat difficult to maneuver in and out of.
The valet parking plan, as proposed, would require that
guests drive up to the surface parking lat and then give
there car to a staff parsan to park. This will
necessitate that cars wind up through the parking
structure and then wind back down to their parking
spaces. This system will not only add unnecessary
traffic cangestian, but will also make it difficuit for
pedestrians who have parked their cars in the structure
to access upper ramps to Club Majiks.
There is no doubt that the Club Majiks use would be
better located in a more easiZy accessible location for
pedestrians and vehicles. However, the staff believes
that the traffic issues can be addressed as long as the
applicant complies with the staff recammandations at the
end of the memo.
4. EfEect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use isTto be located includinq the.scale and
bulk of the proposed use in relation to surrounding
uses.
~ The use will have a positive effect on the Crossroads
Commercial Center in that it wi11 provide another guest-
oriented entertainment. Club Majiks is removed from the
condominium portion of Crossroads so impacts on the
residential area should be insignificant.
The scale and bulk of the building is not affected by
this proposal. The applicant does plan to add awnings
and to redesign the east facade. Hawever, no major
changes are proposed for the exteriar of the building.
III. Such ather factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
ta the proposed use.
Related policies in the Comprehensive Plan:
The Vail Land Use Plan has the following goal statements which
relate to this proposal.
2.4 The community should approve summer recreatianal and cultural
opportunities to encourage summar tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non-skier recreational options
to imprave year-round tourism.
. 3.5 Entertainment-oriented business and culturaZ activitzes
should be encouraged in the Core areas to create diversity.
While night time businesses, ongoing events and sanctioned
"street happenings" shauld be encouraged.
~ This proposal eZearZy supports these goal statements in the Land
Use Plan.
IV. FINDINGS
Tha Community Development Department recommends that the
conditional use permit be appraved based on tha following
findings:
That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the
purposes of this ardinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
under whiah it would be operated ar maintained would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicxnity.
That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this ordinance.
TV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
~ The staff recommends appraval of the Conditional Use Permit for
the Club Majiks dinner theater with the following conditions:
l. No loading and drop-off of quests shall be allowed on Meadow
Road. The owner of Club Majiks shall be responsible for
directing guests to enter the theater by other means as
opposed to dropping off theater goers at the Village Center
Road stairs.
2. A sign program including discreet directional signs for Club
Majiks sha1l be implemented by the owners of Club Majiks to
direct drivers and pedestrians up to the main entry of the
theater. This sign program shall be included in the Design
Review Board submittal for Club Majiks scheduled for October
4, 1989.
3. Owners of Club Majiks shall be responsible for providing
staff people to direct vehicles to the propar areas within
the parking structure in order to alleviate traffic
congestion problems far the Crossroads project.
4. The awning over the stair adjacent to Village Center Road
shall not encraach into the 20 foot setback more than 4
feet.
5. The applicant shall be required to return to the Planning and
~ Environmental Commission to review the effectiveness of the
parking management for Club Majiks no later than the first
Planning and Environmental Commission in May, 1990. The
applicant wi11 be respansible for providing the Planning and
Environmental Commissian with a review of the effectiveness
• of tha parking management. If the Planning and Environmental
Commission determines that additional steps need to be taken
to avoid traffic congestion, the applicant will be required
to address the PEC's parking and traffic concerns,
6. As part of the DRB's submittal for Club Majiks on October
4th, the appiicant or the owner of Crossroads shall be
required to improve the landscaping along Meadow Road in
front of Club Majiks.
7. The staff does not support va1et parkinq for Club Majiks.
Although we believe valet parking is a positive service ta
have for theater goers, we believe that tha present
circulation plan would only be negatively impacted by the
valet proposal. We believe that there is not enough room to
a11ow for turn around on the surface parking area, traffic
flowing both directians xn the access ways within the parkzng
structure, as well as theater goers trying to reach Club
Majiks. For these reasons, we do not support the valet
parking.
Given these conditions, the staff believes that Club Majiks meets the
findzngs far approval of a Canditional Use Permit.
•
.
i
PARKxNG ANALYSIS
EXrSTING PARKING REQIIIRED
Vail Home Rentals 2,595 1/250 sq.ft. 10.4
Property Renta2 & Management Co. 449 1/250 sq,ft. 1.8
Alpine Savings 1,087 1/200 sq.tt. 5.4
Lord Vail 370 1/300 sq.ft. 1.2
Boyle Engineering 372 1/250 sq.ft. 1.5
Property Rental 895 1/250 sq.ft. 3.6
Briner/Scott 11217 1/250 sq.ft. 4.9
28.8 or 29
CLUB MAJIK RE UIRED PARKING
3,755 32
~ or
200 peaple per show 25
.
• To: PZanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 25, 1989
SUBJECT: A request fox a side setback variance in order ta remodel an
existing stair and to add a canapy raof over the stair for
the Willow Condominiums located on Lat 8, Block 6, Vai1
Village First Filing.
Applicant: The Willaws Condaminium Association
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Willows Condominium Association is propasing to remadel an
existing entry stair on the west side of the building. The new
entry stair is located in the same proximity as the existing
stair. The new stair will also have a roof. A variance is
necessary for the roof canopy which extends into the side setback
9 feet 6 inches. The Zoning Cnde allows a covered stair ta
encroach into the setback 4 feet per Section 18.58.040. The
variance is for the additianal encroachment of 5 feet 6 inches.
The Willows Building is located in the High Density Mu1tiWFamily
• zone district.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upan review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 af the
municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval of the requested variance based upon the fallowing
factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship oP the requested variance ta other
existin or otential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
The variance should have very little impact on adjacent
properties. The building already encroaches 3 feet into
the 20 faat side setback. The existing uncovered stair
extends an additional six feet. The encroachment is
almost exactly the same as the existing stair except
that the new stair will have a roof canopy.
2. The de ree ta which relief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified requlation
is necessar to achieve com atibilit and uniformit af
. treatment amonq sites in the vicinity or to attain the
ob'ectives of this title without grant of special
rivile e. -
The staff believes that it is reasonable to allow relief
~ from the strict requirement of a 4 foot setback for a
covered stair due to the location of the existing
building and stair.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air_,
distribution of populatian, transpartation_and traffic
facilities ublic facilities and utilities and ublic
safet~
There are no significant effects upon the above
factors.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a plicable
to the ro osed variance.
The Community Action Plan, Gaal #2 states under "Community
Design":
"Upgrading and remadeiing of structures and site impravements
should be encnuraged."
V. FINDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the falIowing
findinas before qranting a variance:
~ That the granting of the variance wil.l not consta.tute a grant of
special privil.ege inconsistent with the limitations an other
properties ciassified in the same district.
That the gxanting oF the variance will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or xmprovements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for one oar more of the following
reasans:
The stri.ct or literal interpretation or enfarcement 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 ar
conditions applicable ta the same site of the variance that
do not apply generally ta other properties in the sazne zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulatian woul.d deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
~ by the owners of other properties in the same district.
I
~ ~
~ VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The Community Development Department staff recammends approval of
the requested variance. The requested setback variance is nat a
grant of special privilege as other properties in the area have
received setback variances, including the Willows for a previous
front setback variance for a new entry. There are no significant
nagative impacts from the addition. The variance is warranted as
there is a hardship due to the existing 1ocatian af the building
which makes it necessary to allow for a variance to construct the
new entry. For these reasons, the staff recommends approval of
the variance.
i
~
•
~
t-
~
e
4+ ,
.
~
~ i 1-- ~ ~r~ ~ ~ ti. ' . ~ 1
~
wat' C` \
~p
w
II?~ I \ I~ ~ ~ 3 luI~~ • '!:1 ~o~p t
~ i
~~4 -r
4-
? ~ J
1.a s ~ ~ • ~~3 l~
Ns {n~S~T~. • ' 4~~~
,
~ . . _ . ~ ~
~
FXP-
R~ ~ ~L-~ J+~~~ ~~~r
u
~ T0: PZanning and Environmental Commission
FRDM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 26, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a frant setback variance for a new entry
and elevator at Riva Ridge South on Lot 7, Block 6, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Riva Ridge South Condominiums
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The Riva Ridge South Condominiums is proposing to rebuild an
existing entry stair on the north of the building.
Presently, the existing covered stairway encroaches up to the
property line and extends 6 feet on to Town of Vai1 public
right-o€-way. The proposed entry stair would be located
completeiy on Riva Ridge South property. The association
also proposes to construct an elevatar on a portian of the
existing entry deck. The proposed elevator is located within
the existing garage foundatian and would not extend beyand
the existing foundation. 56 square feet of common area is
~ added to the existing Common area af 1,755 square feet which
is within the allowable of 1,839 square feet. The elevator
is 45 feet high and is under the height limit of 48 feet.
The property is located in the Hiqh Density Multi-Family zone
district which requires 20 foot setbacks on all sides ?f the
property. The elevator encroaches 12 feet into the 20 foot
setback which requires an 8 foot variance. The new entry way
encroaches approximately 19 feet inta the front setback. The
covered entry way may encroach no more than 4 feet into the
required setback. The variance for the stairway is for a 15
faot encroachment.
IT. CRTTERTA AND FTNDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval af the requested varzance based upon the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationshi of the re ested variance to other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
. There are no negative impacts due to this variance
request on these criteria.
2. The_deqree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enfarcement of a T
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and_uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the obiectives
• The applicant deserves relief from tho striet
setback requirements due to the location of the
existing building which encraaches 15 feet (more or
less) into the 20 foot front setback. zn addition,
the applicant is actually decreasing the
encroachment for the entry stair as the existing
stairway encroaches on to Town of Vail right-of-
way. In order to do any type of remodel in this
area, the applicant would require setback
variances.
3. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and
air, dist_r_ibution of population, transportation and
traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
There are no significant impacts on these factors.
It is positive that the existing stairway is
removed from the public right-of-way.
III. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the proposed variance.
IV. RELATED POLZCZES IN VAIL'S COMM[JNITY ACTION PLAN
~ V. FTNDTNGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commissian sha11 make the
followinq findinqs before qrantinq a variance: That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant
of special privilege incdnsistent 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 weifare, or materially injurious
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted far ane or more af the
following reasons:
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 this title.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site ot the variance
that do not apply generally to ather 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.
~ VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff recommends approval of the front setback variance.
The request will not be a grant of special privilege and will
have nQ negative impacts on the public welfare. The variance
is warranted as the strict interpretation of the setback
requirements would result in a practical difficulty for the
applicant. There are extraordinary circumstances on this
site due to the location of the existing building and entry
stair. We recommended approval af the variance with the
condition that the Riva Ridge South Condominium Association
agree to not have any drop-off or loadzng in front o£ the
entrance along Willow Creek Circle.
•
•
, . , . . . . I . . -
f. . ' .
• , . . .
4
s i .
_ M`` . r
. . 1 I}
- t
j
. _ - - - -------c_~
( i1` S ;`;~~n ~ 4 7 I • y~~~
. r: ~ ~ r ~ Cp
~ i . I . ~ ~uc
,1 ~4 ~I ~ s i ~ ~ ~ . i .
~ ~ + ~~C2.i=-
• t ~ ` ~ , ; ~ ~ ,
`
- ~ -
.
.
~
w~I--
1}
,
r ~ . . - } ~ 4^ b .
~
. ~ ~ ~f..~_ -.'y~ .wGI'~:w'~ i 1
~ i ` ` 7 f /t• " 1 -1
~i• ' . ~ ~ ~ ~j.
~ ~•T~ . ti ~ ~
jj<<~• t~ f 'r 1:
C x
~
. • ^ c
. ~ 1' ` - { _ _ _ • ~ ~
I
• TO: Planning and Enviranmental Cammissian
FROM. Community Development Department
DATE: September 26, 1989
SUBJECT: Staff approval of a minor amendment to the Special
Development District for the Vail Natianal Bank Building No.
23, at 108 South Frontage Road West.
AppliCant: Vail National Sank Building Corporation
The purpose of this memo is to inform the Planning and Environmental
Commission of the minor amendment approval which is required by the
special Development District Ordinance. The Vail National Bank
Building Corporation, has raquested to add 218 square feet of office
space to the existing Vail National Bank Building. This space is
located on the third floor on the southwest corner of the building.
The building addition is entirely within the interior of the building.
Basically, a corridor is being converted to office space.
The new office space generates a parking raquirement of .872 spaces or
one new space. In the Planning and Environmental Commissian memo
concerning the Vail National Bank Building, date April 24, 1989, the
Vail National Bank Building has the following parking requirements:
• Parkinq required for existing building 87 spaces
Parking required for proposed expansion 8 spaces
Total spaces required 95 spaces
Total spaces proposed 95 spaces
The applicant proposes to lacate a new space in the location af an
existing condensing unit on the southeast corner of the site. The
parking space will be established prior to constructian of the office
space.
The existing office building has a tatal square footage of 19,976
square feet. The new expansian under canstruction called far an
additional 1,740 square feet. A minar amendment may allow for an
increase of up to 5% of the tatal square faotage of the building. 50
ot 21,716 square feet is 1,085.08 square feet. The addition falls
within the alZowable amaunt for a minor amendment.
The staff considers this request to be a minor amendment, as it daes
not change the basic intent and character of the appraved Special
Development District. Tn addition, the Snaii expansion has no impact
on the exterior appearance of the building. The minor amendment is
considered to be a change to gross floor area of not more than 50. For
these reasons, staff has recommended approval of the minor amendment.
.
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE. September 26, 1989
SUBJECT: A request far an amendment to the Cammercial Core I zone
district to include commercial ski storage as a permitted
use under Saction 18.24.020 B-2.
1. THE REQUEST
There are several ski and boot locker rental facilities within
the Commercial Core I Zone District. One facility is located in
the basement of the Golden Peak House, one in the basement of
the Hi11 Building, and ane in the basement of the Wall Street
Building. These uses have been approved and are allowed as an
accessory to a ski shop and as a personal service business at
basement or garden level.
Last year, in November of 1988, the staff denied an application
for a commercial ski storage operation on street level on Bridge
Street. This decision was appealed to the Planning and
~ Envxranmental Commission. The Planning and Environmental
Commission upheld tha staff interpretatxon that this was not an
allawable use on a street level. This year, we have had several
similar requests and feel that it would be appropriate to amend
the Zoning Cada ta clarify thxs situation for the benefit of
both the Town of Vail staff and for the public.
Commercial ski storage is certainly a guest service and a use
that we wish to encourage wzthin the Core areas. At the sams
time, we feel it is important ta recognize the balance of the
horizontal zaning controls in Vail Village. Office space and
personal service uses do not provide the dynamic retail store
fronts that we feel is important to the character of the Villaga
and Lionshead area. It has been the staff opinion that the
permitted and conditional uses for first flaor or street level
of the Commercial Core I do not allaw this specific type of use.
However, we would propose to add "Commercial Ski Storage" in
Section 18.24.020 B2.
Adding the specific use of commercial ski storage ta the
permitted uses of basement and garden level in Commercial Core I
and Commercial Core Iz clarifies the staff's xnterpretation that
this a personal service use and is allowed in basement level and
is nat permitted as a first floor or street 1eve1 use.
.
~ II. EVALUATION OF THIS REQUEST
A. Suitability of Existinq Zoninq
The staft teels that the existing zoning for Commercial
Core I and CommerCial Core zI is suitable, appropriate, and
is functioning very we11 as it currently exists. We view
this changa as a minor clarificatian to this zone district.
We feel that by clearly stating that commercial ski storage
is a personal service use, and an allowable use in Section
18.24.020 B-2 Basement Level, we will eliminate some of the
questions that have occured regarding commercial ski
storage. Wa feel this clarificatian maintains the intent
and balance of the horizontal zoning that is in place in
Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II.
B. Is the amendment proposal presentinq a convenzent, warkable
relationshxp among land uses consistent_with_municipal
objectives?
The statf's opinion is that this amendment is a
clarification of an issue regarding the Commercial Core I
and Commercial Core II zone districts and is in harmony
with the general intent of the Commercial Core I zone
• district as welI as the objectives of the Tawn of Vail.
C. Applicable Policies from Vail's Comprehensiva Plan
There are none.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for this request is for approval.
We fee1 that this use fits in with the personal service uses
and while commercial ski storage is a necessary, important use
in the Vail Villaqe and in Lionshead area, we feel it is
impartant to clarify that it should be permitted an basement or
second floor levels only. Commercial ski storage as a street
level use does not present the dynamic retail store fronts that
our horizontal zoning strives to accomplish.
.
• T0: Town Cauncil and Planning and Environmental Gammission
FROM: Community Devalopment Department
DATE: September 12, 1989
SUBJECT: A proposal ta amend the Town of Vail subdivisian regulations
The staff is proposing an amendment to the Town's subdivision
regulations, which if approved, would add a new chapter entitled
"Single Family Subdivisians." The purpose af this praposal is to alInw
single family and primary/secondary dwellings to be subdivided into
parcels which are less than the required minimum lot size. However,
the overall gross area of the project must 5t111 meet the lot size
requirement. This process would be used for properties that are zoned
for more than two units and would allow for separate ownership of the
ane or two unit structures. All development standards for the zane
district would sti11 ba met.
This proposed subdivision process would allow projects to be subdivided
withaut the current requirement af changing the zoning on the parcel to
SDD in order to avoid the minimum lot size requirement. one example of
where this has recently occurred is "The Victorians." zn that case,
the zoning was required to be changed to SDD sa that the small lots
~ could be individually sold even when the project's gross area met the
development standard for minimum 1ot size. The praposed single family
subdivision process is intended to avoid unnecessary zone changes.
.
Planning and Environmental Commission
~ October 9, 1989
2:15 Site visits
3:00 public Hearing
~ 1. A request far a height variance in the Commercial
Service Center zone district in order to add a
dormer to the Crossroads Building, Parcel B,
Portion of Lot P, Block 5-D and Tract C, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: JRC Partners, Ltd.
Tabled ta 2. A request for an amendment to the Doubletree
October 23 Special Development District #14, Lot 2, Block 1,
Vail Lionshead Second Filing, in order ta allow
amendments in density and common area
allocations.
Applicant: Vail Holdings
2 3. S1iEer Building - Worksessio_n_only:
Exterior alteration and site coverage variance,
Lot B, Block 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs
4. A discussion df ingress/egress and a joint access
~ propasal, Vai1 ProEessional Bua.lding and Cascade
Crossing, 1031 South,Frontage Road West.
5. Vail Village Inn amendment to SDD/BSC Inc.:
review oE previous PtC recommendation on Sept. 25
5. Worksession on amendments to SDD #14, Doubletrec
Hotel.
~
4
• Planning and Environmental Commissian
October 9, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Jim Vie1e Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Mike Mollica
Peggy Osterfoss
Kathy Warren
Chuck Crist
Item Na. 1 Approval of June 12, 1989 and July 24, 1989 minutes.
Diana mota.oned for approval of the June 12, 1989 and July 24, 1989
minutes as corrected. Peggy seconded the motion.
Vote : 6--0
Item No. 2 A re uest for a hei ht varianCe in the Commercial
Service Center zone district in order to add a dormer ta
the Crossraads Buildin parcel B Portion af Lot P
Block 5-D and Tract C Vai1 Villa e First Filin .
• Applicant: JRC Partners, Ltd.
Rick Pylman made the staff presentation. He explained that the
app].icant, JRC Partners, Ltd., was requesting a height variance in
order to add a dormex to improve an existing office space. The
proposed dormer-window system would increase the lighting in the
office. The staff felt that the praposal placed no negative impacts on
any of the applicable criteria and recommended approval of the request.
Iiathy was comfortable with the height variance. However, she da.d
comment that she thought a"gable" dormer woul.d be more apprapriate far
the bui.lding than the type of dormer praposed. The representative for
the applicant stated that the type of dormer proposed would allow for
minimal impact.
Peggy asked if the proposed dormer would have any impact on sun and
shade on the stairway or the south facade of the building. The
appl.icant stated that there would be no additional shadow on the area
Peggy had descrabed. Because the request was far a height that would
be less than the existing ridge la.ne of the building, Peggy felt the
request was apprapriate and consistent with other decisions the Board
has made.
Diana supported the request but suggested that DRB look cl.osely at the
request.
• Chuck said that he would general.ly support the request but asked if it
was possible to require same additional flower boxes. It was asked if
the Community Development staff would pass on to the Design Review
~
~
. Board the recommendation that flower baxes be added ta the railing on
the retail side of the building.
Ja.m agreed w'ith the staff on the request. Peggy moved for approval of
the ro-quest as presented in the staff memo with recommendatiQns to the
Design Review Soard to (1) consider the design with regard to
campatiba.lity to the bui].ding, and (2) cansider the addita.on of flower
boxes on the balcony. Chuck seconded the motion.
Vote: 6--0
Item Na. 3 A request for an amendment to the Daubletree Specia7.
Develo ment District #14 Lat 2~Block 1 Vail Lionshead
Second Filin in arder to allow amendments in densit
and common area allocatians.
A licant: Vai1 Holdin s
Table ta october 23, 1989.
The meeting adjourned after warksessions and discussion per the
October 9, 1989 Planning and Environmental Commission agenda.
i
•
D~-
. Planning and Enviranmental Commission
October 9, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Jim Viele Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Rick Pylman
Sid Schultz Mike Mallica
Peggy Osterfoss
Kathy Warren
Chuck Crist
Item No. 1 Approval of June 12, 1985 and July 24, 1989 minutes.
Diana motioned for approval of the June 12, 1989 and July 24, 1989
minutes as carrected. Peggy seconded the motion.
Vote: G-0
Item Na. 2 A request for a height variance in the Commercial
Service Center zone district in ordar ta add a dormer to
the Crossroads Building, Parcel B, Portion af Lot_.P1
Block 5-D and Tract C, Vai1 Village First Filing.
• A licant. JRC Partners Ltd.
Rick Pylman made the staff presentation. He explained that the
applicant, JRC Partners, Ltd., was requesting a height variance in
order ta add a dormer ta improve an existing office space. The
proposed darmer-window system would increase the lighting in the
office. The staff felt that the proposal placed no negative impacts on
any of the applicable criteria and recammended approval of the request.
Kathy was com£ortable with the height variance. However, she did
comment that she thaught a"gable" dormer would be mare appropriate for
the building than the type of dormer proposed. The representative for
the applicant stated that the type of dormer proposed would allaw for
minimal impact.
Peggy asked if the proposed dormer would have any impact on sun and
shade on the stairway or the south facade of the building. The
applicant stated that there would be na additional shadow on the area
Peggy had described. Because the request was for a height that would
be less than the existing ridge line of the building, Peggy felt the
request was appropriate and consistent with other decisions the Board
has made.
Diana suppoxted the request but suggested that DRB look closely at the
request.
• Chuck said that he would generally suppart the request but asked if it
was possible to requzre some additianal flower boxes. It was asked if
the Community Develnpment staff wauld pass on to the pesign Review
~ Baard the recommendatian that flawer boxes be added to the railing an
the retail szde of the building.
Jim agreed with the staff on the request. Peggy moved for approval af
the request as presented in the staff inemo with recommendations to the
Design Review Board to (1) consider the design with regard to
compatibility to the building, and (2) consider the addition of flower
boxes on the baticony. Chuck seconded the motion.
Vate: 6-0
Item No. 3 A re uest for an amendment to the Doubletree S ecial
Development District #14, Lot 2, Block l, Vail Linnshead
Second Filina, in nrder to allow amendments in.density
and common area allacations.
Applicant: Vail Hold_inqs
Table to Octaber 23, 1989.
The meeting adjourned after worksessions and di5cussion per the
Octobex 9, 1989 planning and Environmental Commission agenda.
.
•
i
Planning and Environmental Cammission
October 23, 1989
.
12:15 Site visits
1.00 Vaii Village Master Plan public meeting
3;00 Public Hearing
Tabled to 1. A request for a site coverage variance at the Slifer
Nov. 13 Building, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B, Block 5, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Desiqns
Tabled to 2. A request for an exterior alteration at the Slifer
Nov. 13 Building, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B, Biack 5, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs
3. A request for a setback variance for a new stairway at
Crossroads, Lot P, Block 5-D, Tract C, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Club Majiks/JRC Partners, Limited.
4. A request for a rear setback variance in order to
• construct a window well caver and a roof extension,
Lot 2, Gore Creek Meadows First Filing.
Applicant: Roger and Jeanne Tilkmeier
5. A variance request for a third satellite dish antenna
at Vail Run Resort, 1000 Lionsridge Loop.
Applicant: Joyce Communications Inc., dba K-LTTE
Tabled to 6. A request to establish the Bed and Breakfast Use as a
Nov. 13 Conditional Use within the Town of Vail.
Applicant: Town of Vail
7. A request to amend a condition of approval for a
variance for the Cascade Crossing Building, 1031 South
Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vaii Cammercial Partnership
8. A request to continue the Red Lion Restaurant exterior
alteration application indefinitely.
Applicant: T.E.A., Inc./Red Lion Inn
9. Worksession on Air Quality issues
•
rc
.
. Planning and Environmental Commission
October 23, 1989
Minutes
Present Staff Present
Diana Donovan Peter Patten
Sid Schultz Kxistan Pritz
Peggy Osterfoss Mike Mallica
Kathy Warren
Absent
Jim Viele
Chuck Crist
The Plannirig and Env'ironmental Cammission meeting began at
approxi.mately 3:00 p.m. following a public meeting on the Vail Village
Master Plan that was held from I:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.rn.
Item No. 1. A_ _request_ far a site coverage ,crarianee at the Slifer
Building, 230 Bra.dqe Street, Lot B, B1oGk 5, Vai1
Villaqe First Filinq. ~
Applicant: Slifer Desa.qns
This item was tabled to November 13, 1989. Sid Schultz made the
. motion. Kathy Warren seconded. (Peggy Osterfoss left the Chambers
momentarily).
Vote: 3-0
Item No. 2. A request for an extera.or alteratian at the Slifer
Buildinq, 230 Bridqe Street, Lot B, Block 5, Vail
_
VillageFirst Filing.
Appl.icant: Slifer Desiqns
This item was tabl.ed to November 13, 1989. Sid Schultz made the
mation. Kathy Warren seconded.
Vote: 3--0 Item No. 4 A request for a rear setback variance in order ta
constxuct a windaw well cover and,a,roof.,,extension, Lot
2, _gore_Creek Meadows First Filing,
Applicant: Roger and Jeanne Tiikmeier
This item was consented to per the staff inema. The motion was made by
Sid Schultz. Diana Donov'an seconded. (Peggy Osterfoss had returned).
Vote: 4-0
.
~ Item No. 5 A variance request for a third satellite_dish antenna at
Vail Run Resort Z000 Lionsrid e Loo
Applicant: Joyce Cammunications Inc., dba K-LTTE
This item was consented to per the staff inemo. The matian was made by
Sid Schultz. Diana Donovan seconded. ~
Vote: 3--0--1, Kathy Warxen abstained t w
Item No. 3 A reauest for a satback variance for a new stairway at
Crossroads, Lot P, Block 5-D, Tract C, Vail Villaqe
First Filin .
Applicants Cltxb MalikslJRC Partners, Limited.
Kristan Pritz explained the background for this setback variance
request. She reviewed the approval given for a conditional use permit
on September 26, 1989 by the P1.anning and Environmantal Commission. At
that meeting, the PEC recommended to the applicant that they study the
possibility of locating a stazrway for entrance to Club Majiks keeping
the main concerns af safety and easy access in mind. Two other
concerns were architectural compatibility and not i.mpacting the va.ew of
the east disp3.ay window of Columbine Creations.
Referring to a site plan, Kristan painted out a proposed stairway that
had been cor?ceptual.l.y approved by the Design Revi.ew Board an Octaber
18, 1989. She explained that because the stairway would extend up ta
. the prQperty line, a vara.ance is needed for the design af the stairway.
Regarding criteria and findings for this request, Kri.stan stated that
the new stairway would re7.ate positively to the existing Crassroads
building and retail uses and was designed to minim.zze any a.xnpacts on
the retail space at Crossroads. She conceded that the proposed
stairway would block a portion of the Columbine Creatians' display
windaw, but informed the board that the applicant had worked together
with the owner of Columbine Creations to reach a solution that was
acceptable to the retail space owner.
Kristan stated that the staff felt it reasonable ta allow same
flexibil.ity from the strict requirement of the zoning code section that
applies to this request. She said that the appl.icant cauld probably
design a stairway that would conform with the zoning requirernents, but
that such a stairway would completely block the display window fior
Cal.umbine Cxeations and would aZso have negative impacts on the
pedestri.an access to the retail spaces on the east side af the
Crossroads Buil.ding. She summed up by saying that relief from the
setback raquirement is warranted due to the e:xisting building location
and design canstraints which Iimit the possibilities for other staixway
locations.
Kristan stated that one of the main reasons the staff is supporting
this request is for pedestrian safety. The staPf feels that the
stairway should have a positive a.mpact on vehicle and pedestrian
• traffic in and out of Grossroads. By removing the existing stair on
Village Center Raad adjacent to the Crossraads parking entry, the staff
. hopes that the drapping af£ of passengers in this area will be
dissuaded. Also, the staff feels that the proposed stairway will
provide a direct and safe access to Club Majiks and wi11 eliminate the
need for pedestrian crossing at the ingress/egress lanes into the
parking structure.
Finally, the staff recommended approval of this request with the
condition that the owners submit a revocable right-of-way agxeement to
the Town of Vail before a building permit is releasad for the stairway.
Peggy Osterfoss spoke from the audience as owner of Columbine
Creations. She felt that the proposal was an acceptable compramise to
resolve safety concerns while still considering the importance of the
impact on the display window. Concerning pedestrian safety, she
suggested that Club Majiks post employees in the area of the existing
stairway to prevent pedestrian and autamobile traffic in that area.
Peggy alsQ suggested that the Planning and Environmental Commission
underscore tkae variance request as an oppartunity to create "Plaza
Greenspace" as per the Vail Village Master Plan, for example, by adding
a light ax bench, and landscaping.
Kathy Warren was comfortable with the request as proposed. Sid Schultz
agreed and felt the stair was praposed far the most lagical site.
Peggy Osterfoss abstained due to a conflict of interest in that she is
the owner of Columbine Creations.
. Sid Schultz motioned to approve the request per the staff inema
including the recammended statf condition af approval. The motion was
secanded by Kathy Warren. The AEC also asked the staff to'pass an to
DRB the recammendation that a bench and apprapriate landscaping be
included with the design of the stairway.
Vote: 3-0-1, Peggy abstazning.
Item No. 6 A request to establish the Bed and Breakfast Use as a
Conditional Use within the Town of Vail.
Applicant: Town of Vail
This item was tabled ta November 13, 1989. The motion was made by
Kathy Warren and secanded by Peggy Osterfoss.
Vote: 4-0
Item No. 7 A request to amend a condition of approval for a
variance for the Cascade Crossin buildin 1031 south
Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vail Cammercial Partnership
Thzs item was tabled to November 131 1989, as suggested by the
Coznmunity Development staff. The motion was made by Kathy Warren and
seconded by Peggy Osterfoss.
• Vote: 4-0
,
. rtem No. 8 A rec[uest to contintte the Red Lion Restaurant exterior
alteration a plication indefinitely.
Applicant: T.E.A., Inc./Red Lion Inn
Iiristan Pritz explained that she had handled the exterior alteration
proposal for the Red Lion Inn requested in June, 1989. She stated that
in general, the staff daes not support tab].ing an item indefinitely and
woul.d rather an applicant work wa.thin given time frames. However, if
the PEC felt that an extension af the request was rirarranted, she said
the staff would have no major argument due to the special circumstances
of new ow'nership and the potential ta arrive at a better design
salution than originally proposed.
Kathy Warren repxesented the applicant. She explained that a portion
of the Red Lian Tnn Buzlding had recently changed ownership and since
the new owners were i.nterested in remodeling, the president af T.E.A.,
Inc., owners of the Red Lion znn, wished to take the opportuna.ty to
wark with the new owners to create an overall plan to enhance the
restaurant area. By tabling the submittal, Kathy explained, the owners
wouid have time to assess their needs and devise plans during the
winter. This would enable the owners to obtain approvals by the end af
the ski season and proceed with constructian through the off-season.
After discussion between Kathy, the staff and the board, Peggy
Osterfass suggested that the item be tabled to the first P1.anning and
Environmental Comma.ssion meeting in February, 1990. Sid Schultz agreed
~ with the suggestian. Peggy further stated that she was in support of
the request as it would give the awners a chance to wark out an
"overall solution" which is what the board would hope for.
Peggy Osterfoss made the mota.on to table the exterior alteration
request to the first PEC meetir?g in February, 1990. The rnotion was
seconded by Sid Schultz.
Vote: 3-0-1, Kathy Warren abstaining.
The meeting adjourned fo3.lowing a worksession on air quality.
.
• To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Peter Patten
DATE: October 23, 1989
SUBJECT: Vail Village Master Plan
Attached please find for your review revised pages 25 - 37 of the Vail
village Master Plan. On September 20th, we discussed Building Height
and will start there on Monday the 23rd at 1:00 p.m. The remaining
pages contain revisions as proposed by the Peggy, Diana, and Peter
"Advance Review Committee."
Please be prepared Manday to give your comments on these proposed
revisions.
Thanks!
~
•
•
Bui.lding Height Plan
C;en.ex•all.v spaaking, a.t is the gaa1 of this Plan to maintain
the c:oncent.ratian of low scale buildings in the core area
while positioning 1arger buildings along the n.orthern
perip.hery (along the Frontage hnad as depi.ated in the
Building Height Profile Pla.n. This pat-tern has already been
established and in some cases these larger st:ruc:ture alang
the Fran-Lage Paad sexve to frame view5 aver Vail Village from
I-70 ~,~nd the Frontage Road to Vai1 Mountain. The building
hei.ght p].an st.ra.ves to preserve major views fram public rig(ht
af ways.
Build.ing heights greatly influence the character af the built
envir.onment in the Vi11age. Thzs is partiaezl.ar:ly true in the
Village Core where tYpical lauilding heights of twa to #'pux
stories estaUlish a pleasing human scale,
'i'he building heights stated an this plan map are i.ntended ta
provide genera:L gua.delines. Additionai study should be made
c:iura.ng sPecifi.c project review relatyve ta a building' s
height impact an the streetscape and relatinnship to
~ surraunda.n.g structures, including view impact. SPeazfic
design consideratinns an building heights are found in the
Sub-Area seatian af this Plan and in ti-ie Vail Va.Zlage CJrban
Design Guide Pian, Variety in raof heights, which stap down
from the maximuni tn the street frontage are essential tn
suceessful design throughout the area of the Master Y].an.
Additions to .Btiiildzng Height Plan Map:
1. Numbers on map indicate rnaximum number of building
storie5.
one story gener~llY equals 9 feet.
:3. Areas an map showing more than a one story ran.ge r~fleat
exa.sting or approved btxildings which are noncontorming writh
this conceptual height p].an.. The low end of the range
indicates desired building heights, whil.e the ha.gh erid
xeflects existing or approved candla.tians.
~
.
.
r•ii_`,`.::i. i::)i i f.~ ~::1C'i
O, cti, c:, n i'°' r~i a i~~ c:l c~ a:~ r•w} c:~ i°3 t i a r:# F_~. r::~ :L ~r f:~ ~rr k::~ r~ i:, xx s i c:l
f-)C]d=ilr~r~
C:} f') ..1 eCt i r..'t nCI pi::J l :i. #::1 °t' thi_' V C'.l i .I. ;ll i. I I P11 E.' Y` F, I a 1 3 n T h C,
i-) .t_ .
_ .I. C31.1 17" 1. r_al~ . I. `:i t.] EY1 ~ ..J ;l. r ~ •I- ~ c.tl' .1 F. ~ ~ ..1 I:7 t~? fl i_ 's1:) <i i_ E;
t +.....3 i'iM ir. . _ ~
~
r- F:: :i n r.3 ~::i rZ c# f.:; :i. r- C L.c ;..a t-i ta n, r.:t B s..t i. .1 cl a. r t c~ l...I a I :i, I:. s> d
.
. , ~ . ~ .
F:., I I..I. ' l t~.{l a~l:~i , i£k`,~3 fl!.a E:~I-7 7. c3{: L:E. '::.:i. C31i:l~l
.
C it..l~-; . 3 ~
f_ L•~c°'+!i:a f:) #'ili'_! Fl" fJi"i t'1 C: r:IC::'~:' :i. Cif7 .°r.y , r.i". E"?'d:€ -y I" f:~G:C:..7. 1, G:t .t:14~111
p }7i`"S'.:I v si:k.1.S:r CJI". 1 .1a v~::~F•:'F:'I°t I".E:'i=i:1C~l'7i:.".E•}C~ c~lz'a 1~i 11i4»E~t'~:C:~l'i~aY.f~~:!°t'~ bd 'A 'i=l'1
• . . . ~'i .
f'~~:' i:i 3'-' 1, LlSi3 i::?!. i-? 4~C' 1"l l. "i> CI~:~'iC? P`~l E:l~.t? Y" 1 <_t(I
~~C: 'L". (D ['1
1=' J. <a r.) 3':=r r[ t=r t s. n4= p- r7 u k:_5 (_l t b o c:? i t;. Pi c.~r 4ir-s :::i 1. :L :i. rz c: :L t_; :-s :i ,r 0- 1:i LC) f
:i 17.1 4::;•v h-•,rrl F:? r.i.L:~:.ri Gv1...1 i cwl°i rr3y r.lc.:c_ur.. ci ir- ziri i ri r_1:i c::,A t :i. c:,rr c::~f T.;:at.,an
. . ~ . . . .
:;l 1:?C] h.(;J c~. 4:31`" arljr 5;lt''' V el1.:} pS'1'l S:,' 1'1 t pI,. C:i pi:j!-5 cllt_i . ~h(e] Y" a V'
C:]'i: r41'l')f f•V:L 11 ~:li•"' br.:ci_,ieCk
v,{ .fAh cil ll. o 'F t hi V a:I. I tv :I. 1 .1, ceL C:j F::S ri izl =.at t'•~•~ f'" f`' I a i'l e
_ .
. . ~ : L.:~i" .
~.1..11:4.i:::c::.t. _
-~'i::)i..i3it". S:S l.1 . ~~~fii? i~'l i:: .L Y ~"'J.rr ~`~l a:1~:J E::' 4.
'::'F' t C1
1_3`r._~'t;.a1li:e'd lia i:]i" }:7f'°i:7~~CSS3f•'~{'i :I.~TI~::tl`.[::i'V'k::tif11;?I'l~:.i:sa l(]t:.:c'3tF.?d
1..I .1 , . i:a " .
. .I fT,..i I.A i:# t;:} ' :.:1.
c' '
. H'~.~.
1"1 . ; i"1 L' Ci i:" i::~ Siii i~: Y J. F:i t::'F
j:i I'- (:1%J a. d F'x.' :a4 d i-::? t is1 J. I. t:? d a C: i=1 it I'l 't: (.'i- t': h G'r7 il C:} c'i4 1, f:.i , t:l ~::1 j C... i.r:: t 3. r".i i:~ I"i d
t~:' t'".iF:?V'f::.~. i':.3~J
~ CJ f: ' e:l : i_ ti C:1 f1'i~?I"1'C.
I i c i:;? f Z 3. . t:~'"i_ t::. s 1..- ?.i 3 . 'i : J.
"1 .:~.s 1, i:d V l~.:
i:..;J 1
~-i <i:1f1C.~
. # - ~ ! .~i.:...1...~,. , of :f. f . - _ ' .a,. c~ ' •i'fipY"(:]'ve-mf::?~
I1 L.
t'::l i'1 '4'.: hii'1 i i{::: C: l t:'J 3"i I'' 1 i::14._E c:t I`" i•_.} C'1 Ci'C'. 1. nteni::I ed t: t:.3 F't Y' C:~ 4"' 1 i::l e,?
. , . . . .
s::. . C~ . _ .
4.. 1:'.".:i.I. ~.]1~1 .asJ ~ I.IL J.IJP~I ~s .~J(•:. _s! ~1 .:.~-{I.3._•.„SI~-c~a~~ iw~~xr~ii.:i:~~t~ ~ ttpp.t. x c a L.~1. ez
. . _ . .
:
C:~ ic k i:. h'1 :i. ?ii: 1'°' ,I u:l I"1 M. C»f ("3 :l 1' I C:
'.:'s i: :°a I°i di:i i"" d::i i:h.,ia {-i gi'1 i:J l_i'f: 7. i"1 et:j 7. i"3 'Lha Va:L l
:i. :I. .i. t.Jr.• t:, <_rri I:i~.,;:~ a. c;;l r..~ i::~ i..~ :i. c! eµ I:::• 7. ~:t r-~ 4~ r.~~r P~~~ t~.~ c r- i. •1:~. E, i°- ia rc) s°• Lh ~a
Zariy c::li3vc_1:i. i::s~~_,rrzt::nt prupc3~.,a1 e 4pr-a vAl:e~
i::. {;:?'J e::r f'l c:l l l:'=i 3 f'i rtl <<l f'1 y ci I'" E.' is of W.-i 1l Vk.~. ,I. i::i{::{ C•? c:i!'1 u r:i hC:) t_t lt::) I_3 fi' r"it
~::i.:)i'"~t:i.1.t::l~:i>i•_~;'~„:f.t:?I"1 caddI'..C.•t5":~et=l bf.-~'LLikeC^?1'1 a i:.~l"1d C]t.i'lk?{•-
r.:l :I. pY" :i. dJ i:~t'~: Fc# pI'.. C.7 pE:w• 'Ly
C? 1+1! I"s P- .'i n
.
~
. • ~L.:c - /~.f.rrL
~
~~.t c':SqF-.° LI»y.....(",41 - !'.1I_-i?:7
A .Z. 1' I :1. 4T t l'::l wl LI 1'.. E" s s t ti i-n V 1I I i:3 i:j
SrJ i ~..t - I` sa c~f'i 1li" ~i:: :i. iTl i~e! C3 1:? t;. ,a f ..1 ~ ~ . :L ~s i=a - { ~ 1 ~ 3 I:] t:l " Y- l,.
~"l C] .L r.: .>3~. ~ 7. ~ . I"1 i._ tf i~. 7*
_ - . ` . , .w s e:l, ~ '.I.s:.ii' (:.)rt ~..=i . .~ite ~ . ~~~€:_~E:::i•s.lc_.1.. C: •
. _l l id 1ilc~i
w t:zl"iq p.I. a#°ti'i.l. l"1g l..ii'11 i:(uf-". tf:i C~ciCh ah"G'@43 (=7i' tne
~ . a:t . _ ~ , c:i
. , . Y.. C:. r.3 .°a . f" E' E.: .I, . - t ,
~,l r.~.5 i.'~ 1.1 C_ :i. Y' l er:. I' I"i ' • 1_9 r.:t f~ F.' r.:[ t f~ C~ f"I 't'3 .3. i[ u
.
. ~
i:lWu?i`'E_'-:' t:. tT.? ffi7. i'1 {-~i:. ? c::l{ai:»rC f~.j€~ c:3 I'1Ltfl'1LwG?I" Cl'~` ' i ~Tr: a r.._
. . ~'t:J`..4~iKIC:1!i:c:i(+.:31"it:.i ~^i~}E'C':
C (::l f i _i J. I,_ I:;) {"1 > A
DF.ls:I f:jfl -m'1d ('..c.~{::i'"7.:-it 7.
t::l r..::ki-iac 1.iv •.:~:i.c:A. :t L0 zt rl da r...irrys
I._,:irid >:_int:i i:zwr'ter•-=s! i:t p
Ci'i• .i:I..it;-, sl_Ii;:iJ°ii:t've i:!r:c?fZ E:?Vc'tL€.,liA~.'d i.E?.~:rlt 2\%'(:i? 't t7 1';tFe:-r
^
CJ I'a I I . . .
i,'f ':i ~ i:3~:3.I c:'5...~::1 `I C' r:i y i_i!'1 f=(:J3) . 7, t: ].:~?i"s LL' .1 1 i1G~C i' i_3t., V:L .
; . i., . ~ :I'f1l"i!`"C:i4f:!,filE'f'!~~_ - . _ : . ~ .i~)
~~:i. J. .~,~:t {::~f:. 1 ~.iY'i'.J„j4._~ t::r~ 'r"'i~:~.~~~,i•~•.F:,t::~ i'.. cl':~:i
::-LI~J-..;:11`'(~.'i~~ (::1;:11.1C::k?I::i'~~{~iy Vd1"lIC':.~1 ~"dW#~:'i? fYif:•'.~''"1~EC.~ +r's7i11 Lfl:i.;_i i::'V;l.~.'~:.7.(~i°i ieii"'f?
g I- ct p 1'l :L 1 ';J I` ~ i:'r? p Y G? cs e l°l "t'. C'._~ i:1 i_? f'1 'f': i'iA. c t t::l l"S F, I r..:-t ('i . .1.. 1 F? »s
C_i:;flf=:ir_}1::)'~:i:i c7ic.? 'LI"ic?
v:S. .
~ . , . ,
.,t ' r ~.]I'1'•+~~t~~i..l ~ l.i.~ try. i~ l It3:'~'i C~ ~ ~"~~€.il..ai~..~ i . I c:i(:~ e ci!::i C!!.4 ':l:~i'l'r~i:_ ~ I Ii. 'I
T1 i t:. I. c :i { ti-a h:i. c-: i -i pi: ovi dc-i',
tS..IFi?
u~_,ec:i fi c:: =;ub~-~-arp,~.,t {:.I°le
~.avc-~t~°<:t.! a J°j p :I. ry. ca i:a1. r= q u~.aI a; tA riCJ c.j L.iiz, c::I: .i. v e::~ :a r .e c_•:t t_e c1
~:r i~ . } ,_a r7 c:: c~~~ ~ •t~. :t r~ ci a ~ : ~.a c::5 I-i ~~a c::, ppor i_i i-r it-kJ f'"c;, f-. pa•.. .i. 'f te
;and i.~i•.M~~ t7o•l:•. a<_ssUr...f`.-sd c~'f' Pir•0j&c_t l:~y the
i o4Jl'1„ I:\/a1"'3 P:?ty Uf :l.sScil.,te::a ffiLls_'st bL.' i.-1dclresr:5.~d 1:iy 1:3-i- -?7'
'jC::c
j] I'. t::i pi::] I 1 c'.. f'1tG:i C.C k_lY" 3. I.1 g the I.L..f::.~ V 1 Fy W (::3'{" e:'t prCS posc't I. .111 fi1 r:1i"1 y 1= tal seta q
:i.c_ic=ntafi.ud -3r,r- acfc.iitiona1 d2vs_~1cJPrrt<_Jn't: pi.:,tc:::ntaa1
1:) t .t f's E:_.' d c) n 3. 11 g cl I I C:3 W rl I"1(= e S<;1 I"1 d cl F3 ~:'t Y- C}'v c':1 I s f5's Ll t b E
f:ib'f.:i:l:l.f'1ed I.f'1 C31r'Ciel- '{='L] cY":'_"c:itE3 dFSVC?lopi13F?I'lt: i'"1ght'sbz,'fC1{`"C.~ a
Pr"O.iE.M.t. Can Iri ~:~ds9itic.~m, ownership I::~atte•.,.~rnEi;,
i.: U V!;'? I"1 e'i I'1 t t" o== 'L r. icta. ans, i_i tili•tyseru i ce c:r r- s.s nder-1 y i vig zon i ng
mi,:iy pr-esent canaidorab:l. c.-~ {.hal Ieros;fr-,!E,~ art the
~:at~.}~~i:•}.E.IJ~_}f13C'I...i r'3f thca ,c:s prcwpns4a1 vai th:i. rti the Masster F;:I. arr area.
3A:'. iS i Rr pt:)r-tE0ri t 'I:. ca nOt r. t hat thc~ o4f: prr_i , j ec~._
apj::,rovaE wi.:! 1. I-_~)e gr._eatc~st for t.hcaiio Pr-r_.~pn1-;,1 S L1>,j,1= ~;=L~I
s_.c,rn~3J. y wa 1"7 tl'l r2 cr i t E:rr..:i a Fa>i,tk) 3 i<._;h c=ci i. ri t.t--, w,.~ 4'c-:i:i. :G Vi 1 J.
~
~
~
' 'f~ I f V
1
•
f+:'d L) iii£a' 71..ib..,.'t3{' t'r?i=S
..,I L• 1`':I. e: i_ - 4. - a:A S' _r.t 5 7. c:t . . . c:i i l.:. c:l . . ..i__:L'~':1 . _~.i'
! I ia f.'r.5 r.w l_[ ~'l t" €.7 i ~ 1 ~ ~ C_~:i''~Y.. •C'C:Ii'-.
. . . . . .
ii1:L . 3. . ~ 'a q F:.'? o :i. i 'l e-, 'r 1. c:l f:J t? t':.: i:J i'- e i:J y
. . . . .
4~.~~Ii~' .I. r.~ E•. E':::~ r... ~a 1::: w:c F:? f7 7. i:1:i. rr c;~ =.~s c:~ ~1 {,:I ~7 's~ .~.J.i711 t. c-d a1..t t o
l. i:3 s"tI:_:a s k. ~~1;•_~_~(:ii~w I]r- i v E-2 . C t_arV3ID~~.:i. -s e tJ v•f •f :i uc? iii L,..)cai- d s_v r 1 o~:~srti:~ei ~l=
.
,l'.: # r•~:: t1~:7 1s f::Y'? a."t
i'il:i.S;1:l..lY.t.} o4.
. . ?:f0
~1t'C.l~F'r':C:.'l:.friig i :l
i: I eri ta. t,:~ 3. J. c: , c:l g a n g ~,Iri c;l c(a rn i t1er.C: ia!. ~-L-i•r i t;„
. .
t:~ :i, ta C:!'#' i::J bfJ' i
. .
) l.l ~~7 i[:: eil'l C~ 1::1 I" 7. ct'~: C? .:I' e_a im 11. t 3. (,_"s .l I'"i a I'" e~, a (Ti C3 C s i:..
] L t1 e s C:5
E
I_i r= vE:+ 3. cs rs gal_ emi.t y ci--~nt:. rs. es~I:~. ~the 'J i J. :t :.~c} e {::t 1:.
<:tcap arrd <.at l:.he i. nterserta orr 1.)f V:.~i. 1 13azid {:ar-%d
it :is tix:l.s::>o lc:ang -I,:~..'rrn yc:~:.~:l. tca stro-rigt:heri the
i':C71'11"1(•_7C.:'1':l.i~#fl ~_Yi::?.P.(•J¢:~r_:'~.1 .~.:I.IY~~s r_~Y'L<:1 al"1Cj thC3 V7.llai:IG? cot"'e, c3f"E'?~:':! 3::1'J
~ ^ _ ~ . , , i . . • . y 5 ' r. _ ' ' ' . i G'
7. ~ i t t::; r._ i ri c;:i l°. h i~~_ c•~. :a l. ~:i ~a :t a. I~~;. c I ~i Y~.. i.. r=.. a~t r~ 1 a. r-~ I:: ~ c~ f~~ .a ~
y. r-i j_ i-i is r• r~ pi<_ty bca i7 Ery -f it fr°om the
d V'iJ1:~] 1-3'It i:,) 1. 1 . F? t:. Gi:I. . l. x . J. 1 .3_. •l.: I°1 a:t „ C C ..:y c:; G~ t:c t. i:_ i. ...y . a:. y c.l . r~. s cr t-•
- -,1 ~"1 7: :t ' 1il{i
J. r:r~::;r-•i:7vc•~-~n~~.r, ;:t.l carr(:a FE.:_ti:t I"li-.aadavj Dr~- i ve F:anc::l -~.:he ci(,.,?vQ I c:}pnirimt c--) F
• _.J'~~ .
'L,.. l. ~:7L..
CY ~..ri...i~.=, 'h:.
c} „
C:3 V t:? t'" I l 3 C.~ i"1 'L f_i ei:1 L3r_~ :_iL-'r~
. .
. . . .
~ i. "1'c~.
€_L I . :L i i ~ "I :I. > _ ..i :::11"i.c
i . . . . .
r._ c:. ~:.k .l ~::t t~i r::i t, . E:;. ~ i::, s ~ ~:i. ~:1 J. ~,I. c.; ~:I c~~ r~ 1.:~ s.i c~ ~u~ J. i:s r~~ ~+r~~ ~l°. u t:. r~~ ~I_ :i ~:E .E
.
, . . I f:~ ! , _ .
. t':;~ r:?E 1 T.: :I. J. I'l :i i..l =J ~ 9^,~;. ~ l" '1 l': • Z t~~.S t.~
rr~F:, ~:~~4_~.c:a~'~
L { ..~c~ i . i:•? :='t L:' C.1 1'"~ t~ C_ ':l't'. .:i ~ i77 a:t
!.'i _ 4. . • . . r:i. - ::4~.~ . . ~ .
'C;i it.,:'~.. fi. 4'J:1. t..t .'i"f'l:. :i, c :i; ' l_S:S. .'L
' l:7 1'
n Y .
l.l 4..
~
~ ~
• '
~ . a. ~v? Ga i a C~_" 111 r?
f:)•F Vai1 vi.:I.J.~:Ly~~::~ :i:~~~l"r rar•c:a.:iect ~c.:ca C::C}iilf-ij.e'I:'.(:''i:i a?..
L :alD 3.,is hc1 #_;y clt.svez? 3.o p rric;rr-ft p j.a r-, f r:,r ::iJ:7D -W:t:si) mrsier- c-, i sal
c:levc.:a7. : w -
.t'~'. f:~{'..f:~i.Af.iC:I ~~i,..~::ine~~ ~.riteric.fr
' f . _5 Y • C i:» I ' 11
C'}L.tl.i.(~3.f'iC:1'':3 C~ 3F1r:0.1 l_lp" fl'"S:IiTl
~~.C~~~l'~L~i:'tf:3€~iN d~t'...:I.\1E:5 L~......" t'») 7'.-'.~
.:a'~:'.:I. r'1t;:l
i:~k .
'
.1 t, _ _1 I ..1 t_~ . ~ 1 n ~i . 5 - ~ n rn t.t ::>'L k. l `a r ..1 . . ti ~ E.:a
~~I t; l.p : u~ t:1 . r.] c::.a :i. i~ a :s t 1-3
S.
V:L f•? W i' h'" oETi l.~J c"•t i:i top tC:7 V<;it il ilCl L.l ITi tu:i if'i a
.
Si:i F?(:: J. I .(iIp I..~ 3. t=s (:.Yfl . . c~ y 2.. 4)
::;c:,rrei(.-._,+rja 7. p a ut:~3 ri -1:
C;i:iiil{::1 i..~l :1. fl~f'. i. .1. .1. i'jiz.,v F,~ 1. i7I](Yli=yl"it w 3.t il s f:}(_C"tr1C1 f I t::3C-) P"
1 ,
r tii:7 Li:L t C_ a i"1 ' . C:~ ~'J 1I'l{:a '~:.f:! t:~ .~{::i ~rE:.'
{:•»i"1 I~'~{''c:l C;i t~4'd L,'I`" :f. VE°? ci'tflt:~ fYl 1~3 C:: '~I C::! i.:t1F':)
4.. L 1~~:.` l:F i: ..y .k,; r,.
.
~L.ltil 1_l~-~t:. i_.., p~r~ t~~r;~i_an .Uc:_~:;i y~°7:~~t ~_s17 ~•~;_~~.L i~::carE}~<.:y
. .
~~rrc:l . . . ~ .
.c r~ e:.~ r- Y'~:1 t.~ ~•a :i. f I~..~ ~.t:.iz,:i'st_' r .F:? c , _31
' 1 i.:? 1~'
'w' J. :l. 1 a ri f:~i I_~ ~.I ~i~ i~- r. r~ ~~.~:_Y J. h~: ~,v;:~ ~,f ! pt:~ ssi t; ky ar° cs::ide'is3.-x ca s.4 J. c:1
1:3 hysi ca J. 1 y
. . .
S' i'" (:3 f!] •:l tia'~'. .l.J h-' 1 4` C-? . I' ~ wl ~:ir ~:.i ('.J'~' ~»l :L cl:L rig shtiJ l.( ld I-1 {Jt
t:::r;:-~t:t~t:.s:•r sIr~L:tc::iut.,a ~a;~tk.•l~~~::~c".~.~ c~si..i IyIr3a c:ir.rw D r ive„ Dt:;av(::) F) rn c-int. w:i11
ri:? i;p..l :I. I" ci::l C31". Cj 3 I...i <:i'C:. .E. i_l I'l .L I"1 V i3 l'a' emi {:a I"} t trd :L tl"1 adjaC ei st.
,
~ , ° L.. . t.l i::i (l 1 n.,.'
.
, ~ . Y ~..1 ~1 l'''. ~"i y . 2 2.4.,
. ~ u .
g y . . ; .
,7C:fl`lf'lf::~lf'la:t.. k':t c:t P.citl.dSia l (:J .
. ~G..'~C- i`..e
C::c)iilrl;(:.~r c:.:t :L ri•E J. 3. J. rJ:E (:)r-,c_; .is~;t
I'~lr::<~rls~i,4 ~ii~° ~•c;~ ~t~e) I:i r- i:s~~:i r_Ir= ~5.t~,_i~rir~~,~,..
E:' t::) L':l F::? 'L. (:f `:::'3,: I, C.:''~'.: f i t'::l C:; Ca f's't fFi C:? t 1 i:. I i's~ i»: t 7. 4' :1, t y g E•? I.1 k.'31'" i:tt t'.:} I.. F~.; t L-3
i 1-1 c; r° r: r._~t i:. I~y r•c 1" a~:.i# <.:x ~Z' . r- ~.11°i 1 c~c~f:~ I~; i-- L<I. i r_l ~.ii. t. E-i x ~~J r. ;t. :t c,~ ~ w F~ c.~ (..i
~t-.c_= , .
. . . . . .
c: r3 ,r a. . ~:r. i:> i~. ~a i~.. z:j va. c1 c::> a rn 1..r r- c:) v c.! rri a r1l: s t c.~ p c.~ d c:~~, s:, .l.: r_. :i. a ri
c:_:i. Fs-:Li:I. ~at i. (:j ri w i t 1°i ;a A r°r:z-I•-- End ~Aacx:L Y, J. i_id 1. 1"ig i.t1-1df:>c;.ipc.:
e-? r- 7a:t ursr.:i Ileai:jC.iw L)i..i ve.
sig c:js E--z=dt:.e g:?ar-#c.i rig ai7ct sirai a Ft-r:ia. rii. ~~g thr•;~ bf_i s route
. . . . . .
~1.~. l':71"F f:~{ "~Lryi~ Cj 1~ ln! P.. 1~'f:: = 1 f'1 J. r.lcu:3f'i t fw C13 is'~ t"' c':1'1 ]'i Sa t~l ~::1'{.: 1'111.i
I~ L~~ <_t s:i rJ r- c~ ss~.~ c~ a i~:li-I s•::~ ~:3 (::i .i. t, a. ~r ri,::~ 1. 4], c3n r cs f r° p si d e E~i t aa ,l /.l u c:i c7 j. i'i q
~ . . . .x . . _ .
1YIi~Sy' ::iC:) ~::1Nry 413°i '~I"E7. wi :a7.'~'_4.:.. {:.'i~2f~C1ct~. t.'~ll~:]~li~ ts 3. ~ i:~I"1
_ . ~ ~ ~ q . 1
ca r i ri e s i a :t Fi t-J 1s s Ch,~.-k a:•:? t ::C r-i + iI 1
C C3 rttiiri *._,i•..(:' cA J. 1 k"I+ .l 1 j. t=i'tt' i'li:?[`"t I'1 ''-Li 7. ['1q «1 c_t_) va_7A U-f e,: is t 11.1 c7
sti,.. R..tc turc~ tca pc- c:a v :i. cE <--l € i d pocJ c~ 2;tr. :i ac°i ;:a c: ti v i ty , A
i-1.I.•_~'~.:<'~Lli::li`-C?r:ai~Eli~::i~~c::c? <.:st~i<'c~:11 I.~c~_~ cjk~v~~a:Lc:~~_r~c~ i.r7 c_i~r'i_~~_~r~ir_•~l•.i.c~~~ ~;F~.~LI~~ the
' . ,
. . ~ _ . . - -
~.%cil.L. :L 1~'tt:~ic~ f'i f"1 . ~ :1. f`" c':.' c:.~l C» ~ u:l(l• C'Y f"3
c3h°e t[:} bt:.~ adCaY'e»•5;»aed 3.f1 the Cit:ra<:yig!'i 'ci!'3LI
c:, f l. t'i is pE~ ca 1ec-l.. ( ;:a peca a:L Esir pha~ sa. s '''.4, 1)
~
~
f
•
1 10 St. t.t cJ ::f y 3 J: n ter~~ o
Tl se;, '4----W'-ty ;::;tc,t::r a. ri-t:r:)t"r:r>e(.'i=i ci:••i i::i l:•.~~r~::a r~ir:~i cl e-rt"ri:•.r-•y
f.... • . _ .
l:F°a•f-;C . vu1uU_y .it..
~-~E. ~ -.sE~I1:1 i~c~s. c~ r~r •i~= ~ i_~, r_. :i c~ r~~ -~or
• . . . . . : . .r .
~::1 1 .I. {::1 L4 . r..~ F-! tia'l. ~ I t:l 1 L» i i} f,:) C7 V E? S31 C:? E'} !;:i w:> 1'1 CJ L.l.~CI a.'Ir.,:,!Uc:i E,
1<::knd:r:s r.: sr:r i nra (~?ri s_~ 1 l. -a. c_ t i•° r~ t G~- t~ r~ i:1 1: I~ i:=
. _ _ ~ ' • . ,
i?'F
,
.I. ~ ; i 'l'~ L.l Cl ~j i.,.3 r... 4».' :::t ~ t~a i::t " NJ;:I `Y wa :l. F:.,
J. -i tI"1 3S S:i. 'E'. F:? E.i 1'1 C3l.t IA b(? f»itt,.l d1 f°:.*d t1:1
. . . .
. .:.i c . a .:1 ..i~:i.
~ v'. E:~iiJ i~~.-.ii'C' or +rnrrr
s t ' ['fl :l. 4"1 i•... G. ...i Lr. V '1» :I. C7 (l #::i i' ~ .
l~ I... e- 4.... v1 ay:-> l.: c.y ia t_ ca Vr:z :i f.,l ta ur; t~1 in, ( rr? J. ai_ :i k_ •r. •1-. h7 V43 I~f i citie ;l
~-1 I°I wii saJ ) q J. es r,:i e Cl 't J. c.l I y cl S c:t
f:]I.1 .1..hr' i»(:li'"I'1c-.'~Y".
~
•
.
.
r
I. ° r.:~ C_. f•.. r:7 s :-1- i_; <':;i C:i s> I f
•f~ :I. 1 c;v~:~~~~. 3. r.:;~l~. j. ri
ir~
<.::i.:ii'I.;i!_ll'iC_'~"..:. (J i.l :;..,l.it.I-i _a l.~_ .t i.. ~ ~c:_"
~•rst:.
E~~.~ 1::1.[. ~ .
. .
~::1. I.~ C~ C:~ f~ Ri <i:i f'1. t~ C:} L.7 t:? pri::'s'V :i dF-:,fJ i_il°1 ~:i]. tt' 1.
4~JI~~i:~. 7. c:-y ~~:,:~ri f= i. i.~~...t~-'~zt_ i i~~~'~ s:r~~ i. i. :I. ~ irs::~y 1.-ae•;r c:iur'~i? :i. E1 6~ r1t.Vr1l:.16~{". 0_A,
~ . . _ . ; ~
~.f~.i3'"'k1f'i#I
.
is! 3. ~ ',"_f C:~ cia <:x I'" c.i i' i C: i.7 i.. l"' 7. ijC:7 5: .I.:i°4'_.i:J ci i'iSfi3[_. . . L_. .t! _,I''"i::l •<.._S. r_~ P"' .:kri 'rU#}.?.~. ' . i.~ ~i
1 i~? cY p t:
C:. {:7 I"1 C{ t:i l.l "J. da ng iWk dqe (»31"1 11f:?::;Y i::1o6•i ~.i!'. :1. (:•:F i::'tl s d
. ,
fI} :1I,.C' :if.•ySY~I:_I~S'4- :'i • .
~ . L?'1" 1:,7. i:?El'i':e~E
Rc: ae:3 :i. t::) r.)
C.:1'i' .i. 3 a i:t .l f"l g a:k!rl d t»i L:' I a. I,",,~' f"3 C.- t.. 1 o n t'"a !"I l:1 i'I t 3'- y 'C,: ri j::? ai" 1<: I. !'l g
. k_ . L:a:~ , I.
.w .
c:, r.. , F,.~ .l. . r ~i. { ~ r'c:; . i r s i a , ~ E.'t - 11... r i
I:•. i..{ c: i..~ r. , r r..,, ri c::3 : _ 1 ~ { _c: t{.,~ ~ i_f ~ _I u e
~ ; . }A~ m
1 ,::t #_i _:1 LM .!:I. 1.` F.~' u t..! e 1'~: :1 l::l .1 i ~ ~ i'.. f:7 V f'•:. -i' 1 l'.. . ;_a i:._: C_ ri
J.fl P.i}?i:li;`i•:;iI 1::1E.:liilf:~lt't'.: C:IYr:i?iilc.;'r,~ pfri?C;:I. "t. sil p
. . ~ I. S.
'il:::{':iA?a:
i:3C:Ic::r I iC7r:lC:# L'a.:.c.I. I::~^l:Yy
V E. Ir. ~ - t_ ,N ~t.f I; vilc~ ` ~ _ ._r:_ti~} ciY.. r.~.": i='~' S' I'. i3fr'i t. I 3 Ec~
. r~7 ~cll.} y
~...I , ..:.1 . J. ~ (ii. t.:. r.A
by :,::1 i::? 1"i f:1 i:~t i'i !:;i 5i: t.:: ~:I [•i:t C i c: i'.. E' c.~ j°. o
.,r
.
~ rJ ti i_::L :1.;.~ r.'t'l- I7
{"I [:J [-1 f_7vV 1 iF4:i' ~~:J~xi3" '~ixl'.. I's
, I. i. : I'l ~ ~ ~
, .
~ . . . . n -
;rd.l..l..i. ir~'r:)e:~rC ...1:.i Y..kt? l•..k"] 4::1G:i_tI::L?t:. (:5l.~ r.:i'1'::E~„ 1:~1. _ill(::Y,.l:E. .
i.. . ~ i ~ . .
i. l»4 i..l 1•' i`.. t.~., r.1 ; .L 1.~ ti. C? C: ~~::t fil rN r•1 j. F::
L. ~ C:
(..~~J ii,.: i^l iv rt.~.1 ; };.f f:73'I a, . ~r i:r !-i '7E:i3'..C:..C''4=;i., b: , w s
r-r ~ 7 f::..
: . . _
.{:7'•f t:: i#... C a.. I.I. i_~ s:'.~ i?. fl (_i ~'•1 i': :L i'~: i 7 c:~ C~ .s 4_ t:l ~...411 l=.} ~I.. I~~I . l.J f;i1'r~ J. :a _:L i 7gi
:
.
7' I..I i' 1". i'.1 i W, t•i~'~ i~ ~"I ::it ~'1 :I. i"1 l.: :'1 ~::i ~.t 1:. F~_ 1 c:E Cl Cl L'~. Ld i:,i i.- :
l.l CJ C.4 'l:'. i=' v J. 1 .1. <:'t f-f C.s ct I'l ':J p {'.7v :I. d 3. 1"1(:1 p k_[ b .L 7. C. <71 C: c. 2 t {:3 t Z'i F~.'
c:r-k ~ r:r;:? c, i. + i. ~Js~~~:::s:~::.}€..i C:I 1 u,_A t:i c;ri o f vi,:t:l i<:w,~xy w7rrr-t 1 be
:EI?rS::s.i L' t Cl cld i?i'lt. LIs C':.,s:lflt::I tIle c-f`..E::?C?G^•: el'1`?:il'"CSI"1fltE='I-1t.
. . . 1. . . . . . .
a. ~~Y7:i<:~ s ~ ,i. :..t
~-~~Fr-j~~-s nr.t l: .ica~-i f:a rE ~a c:_a ~~<< 7. c~: cn ~r F•i w~ c c.. N A .~:.a
, ~ ~ ~
~ : x- -
Oci p a r-- k:5 p r- csviclE--, p t_L L;l.irW
i=1 CC_f:l Si5 f:i L 0 'L". f'1 i.-' C=1' 'e(•i.~' kK P)i.OIS':=i Y. 4` C':? (:3 pp{:.? P.. tl.l I"1 :f. t]. Fi» f»i g »i rI d
1Oc::-' r. , I'. C ::.r • ~ y ~
l:. ca r ~ i f C.1 F-~ LI f.l .I. . ~~€7 r:a I~i .:x c~
. _
: . ~ ~ <.._i . , (3 s .
_ v.4 . t.c C i ~l
1" c~ s i-.:> ;i. b c_, r e._}:_~ ~i c:l ri n s;::, ri t c:? s~ i. rs -t.: r.: r r:1-.: a ra r i i n c:: c) n _j L.tr~l CA.: i ]-I VJ :i t h
ti I CJ - ~t "4. , ' 1 I 'I i_) bo t.C7
f:.
. . ~ . _
~:a ci tta' I"1 d
t.[,7F_F Vi7.1age and
i-o j.-,,:..tav:i.4ie: ~n vi~:~taM"3-lt:?{'" to d iscc}urage
. i:i ar t.r <:tt f i c J: r..c;nn , si rs(:.I C;OU t 11 F-Hi Vzt i. FcF:j-F, i'"{ift'1 't t14....
c_+i_ i. C fJ c: :T, a. g s'7 (:)-F S a. Ma.O:3 t-:a t.t rfl S i. t e l- c:, i_) c-;~ i. ri i_ 1 i_tiJ ec]
I E .A. A;. 4.-fE~','.~`3G. 1 S_{ ] 7 t~ L
. rt ~.}V'~ t~~~ .k.
J. r) . .»Y i. mp~ ~ ~~-c,4~_~rri(:~E~t: 7f:..,..~e(_:~:.. I I it.}
~at:_+c:is!<_s~l:.t•°:i.r~r-r ~_nrFrza;ar~:icat-r bt:)th r~c:~r-•l:l~~i c:14"id :5cl..ltI'1 a1ung Vaa.l h;ca~.~d
.,i .
~ . . : .dll~l • ci . _ , tE
t1E:! l!'"Cl~iEi(::k« ~::lE?1 f.~~i, p t'ir.:IGi 7. ~iR r ....~„•r x~,„~~~ ..i. ,k
1
~z~ ~3
~
4
•
. J
C3iii{:~
~'':ti:'l~Gr'1~"~]. 1:;{!"! i-1"i' ~'i'~'.:'r.?1" ?~:i£•:~1::;'~'.: : f:71"I <::t:"a t 7i:7L`J€1 L7i'i '1',:i 1't,.r Vi:[:i. L V :l. 1
~ 1 a tr•
(..i i d ii:a1 t.} i:.~ 1"1 J. :i p I'" C) .7 C:: ::t J. s 't C's i~. f" C'? ii'[.: t:a
:i
C:] <::1 i' ~ t'" 7. y:.r r. .i. C:3 I..7 i`. ti~ L:' f..~ .I. I._I ,y , r y - •
~ . i 1 i°l 't:~ i_ :_:~:iii =i tr.t 4' ( 1 7. f:: l..E c:i
. . . . .
a
V f? I"' y o ~i ~t„~,~ ...s. ~.i~.s c..ii-i..:f.<~t -f'i !11 [ _(.st a ~ t„) ,i:.
<:it I'1 r.i ~
.
~.~t l.. 1... 1.~101IF~II..1(..~ -t c:i :1 t 1 -7 j. s d c» Sa i r1
. . . . . . . .
l.'! ..i 7. di;:? Pi c.~ n d ~::•t i--k i.
• : R. . • _ ~ . ~ , _ • , . ;
~..1?-i L' (::l tI"1 ~
C- i.°? fi ..j { A ]~i .L t:i11 !r~ 7. ~ ~ i J' 1 :E. i:::
~''~,:'s•,E>'I'_Lil~.. PT<=iYl
.
•
~
~
Willaw G':ircl~ Sub-area
Although iinme;diatelY adjacent to the znixed use davelapnients
found in the Commercial Core and Mixed Use sub-areas, the
Willaw Circle sub-area has retained a.n exclusively
residential character. Cdndominium developments have
occurred an a3.1 but one of the sub-area" s parcels and inany of
these prapertiss are activelg "shnrt,-terrned" to avernight
guests. .In znast cases, Paxkizag has been pr_ovided in
uxiderground structu.res. This design fPature, ccaup:l.ed with
th.e Town owned open space (Wil1oYa Circle rark), cantributes
'to the pleasing appeax•ance o# this area.
In 3noat cases, the levels nf cisvelopineait ttaroughout this sub-
area great:l.y exceed what is allowed undear exista.ng zaning
(High Densit;.Y Mu1ti-Family zone). Gross residential floor
area .ra-tios (GkFAR) i-ange trom .6 to 1. :3, with ax1 average af
1.01. With -ttie exceptian ot on,e paxcel, aZl Propeacties
wa.t1iin tha.s su.b-area ara developed at, ar ovor, their
pexanitted levels of development. As such, there is 3.itt1e
~ dave:Lopment potential left in tha..s sub-area.
Residential uses daminate this sub-area and are prapased ta
conti.nue with t13e excepta.on of ane patential commercial space~
at -the east end of t;he sub-area tac:ing Willow Bridge Raad.
This concept is discussed further under auYa-Are€a 2.2.
2-3 Willow Circle Infill..--no changes, see Master Pl.an text
2-2 Summers Lodge
This proPerty has recently been redeveloped a.n.tU a snaall
n.umber of condomir,.iums. Graund floor commeraial expansion
with all services and deliveries franting toward the viiiage
wil.l serve to reinfarce the pedestrian czarculatzon throughout
the Village core. West side of property shall maintain
residential c;haracter, cansistent with the sub--area. A].l
coinmercial activity, ineluding deZiv'ery functions inust or3.ent
tnward Wi11aw Bridge Roae1. Cavenant restrictions presentiy
restra.ct aoi7amercial activity, amendments wauld be required.
Special Emphasis: 3.3
1.9 Stud.v Area: Vi11age Streaniwalk
RePeat worda.ng as in preva.ous sub-area
1.12 Village Pocket Parks
kepeat wording as in previotxs sub-area
.
~J~
~
Commerc.i.al Core I Sub-area
`l'he pedestrianized area af the Village represents the
traditional image of Vai.1. A mixture of residential and
rommercial uses, lizna.ted vehzcular access, and in.ter-
aonnected peciestx•iari raays ara som€, of the aktaracteri.stics
that di.stinguish this area from athex portians of thq
Vi1.lage. With the exception of embelli.sh:i.ng pedestza.an
walkwaYs, developing plaza/greenspaces, and adding a number
of infi.ll devel.opznents, it is a goal of the camaiiunit,y to
presFrve -the character of the Village core as it is today.
'I'he cor.•e area, with it's prsdom:inately Tyrolian arcixitacture,
is the site of the eaxliest deveInpmen.t in Vazl. Uver time,
d rleed to upgrade and imprave i.rafrastructure such as laada.ng
and de7,ivery facilities, draixzage, pavcd surfaces and other
l.andscape featux•es has beeame appax•ent. Many of these
improvemerits t,o public spaces w:i.ll be addressed as part ot an
averall streetscape impravement project. There is also the
potential to initi.ate a numUer of tiiese imp.rovPinent~ in
~ con,7unction with private sectox develaprnent pra,jects.
A:1thoizgh it is a gaal to maintain desa.gn continuity in the
Village core, there wi:tl be change i.n the coYe area's bua.1t
enva.xanment. `I'his is mostly dus to a number Qf praPer'ties
tlYat have nat exercised their full develapment rights. Most,
riotable among these pr.apei-ties are tkze Red Lion Bu3.lding, the
Cyranos Building, the lndgP at Vail, and the Cavered Bridge
Buil.ding. If these and other p.rnper-ties develop tn their
full 1?ateiitial., there wi11 undoubtedly be a si.gnificant
z.ncrease in t17e level of develaAment in th.e Vzllage core.
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide plan has been the primary
tool in guiding private development proPasals in the ccsre
azea since 1980. The Guide plan will eo~-tinue tn be used in
can3unction with the Vail Village Master Plan, Infill and
redeve.lopmerat propasals sha1l bp reviewed for campla.ance with
the design criteria, ~~als, abjectives and pola.cz.es
estab].ished in these respective plans.
i
• To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 23, 1989]
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance in arder to construct a
stairway for Club Majiks at Crossroads east buzlding,
Lot P, Block 5-D, Tract C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Club Majiks/JRC Partners, Ltd.
I. DESCRIPTION 4F VARIANCE RE UESTED
On September 26, 1989, the Pianning and Enviranmental
Commission approved C1ub Majiks request for a conditional use
permit to a11ow for a dinner theater at Crossroads. The
Planning and Environmental Cammission recammended to the
applicant that they study the possiblity of locating a
stairway far easy access and pedestrian safety to Club Majiks
in the area of Columbine Creations. Since the PEC appraval,
the applicant has met with the Design Review Board three
times to try and design a staiarway that would allaw for safe
and better access to Club Majiks. The design also had to be
architecturally compatible with the existing Crossroads
. Building. A major concern was that the new stairway not
block the window for Columbine Creations or any of the other
retail shops on the east side of the Crossroads Building,
On Octnber 18, 1989, the Design Review Board conceptually
approved a stairway adjacent to Columbine Creations. The
main portion of the remodel has been approved by DRB.
However, the design af the stairway requires a setback
variance. In Sectian 18.58.060 of the Tawn of Vail zoning
code, it states:
"Balconies, decks, terraces, and other similar
unroofed features projectxng from a structure
at a height of more than five feet above
graund leve1 may project not more than five
feet nor more than one half the minimum
required dimension into a required setback
area, ar may project not more than five feet
nor more than one fourth the minimum required
dimension into a required distance betwean
buildings."
The proposed stair would encroach all the way up to the
property 1ine. It also extends approximately one toot on to
Town of Vail public right-ot-way. Due to the Pact that the
~ stairway extends up to the property line, a variance is
required.
• 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 variance based upon the
followirig factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the r_e__quested variance to other
existinq or potential uses and structures in the
vicinit .
The new stairway will relate positively ta the
existing building and retail uses at Crassroads.
The stairway has been designed ta minimize any
impacts on the retail space at Crassroads. It is
true that a portion of the Columbine Creations
display wi.ndaw will be blocked by the stairway.
However, the applicant and owner of Columbine
Creations have raorked together to arrive at a
soiution for a stairway that is acceptable for the
owner of Columba.ne Creations.
. 2. The de ree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and_enforcement of a
specified requlation is necessary to achieve
com atibilit and uniformit of treatment amon
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title withaut grant_ of speCial _priv_il.ege.
The staff feels that it is very reasonable to allow
some flexibility from the strict requirement that
the stair not encroach beyond five feet into the
setback. In order to address the safety concerns,
the Planning Commission, Design Review Board, and
staff had abaut pedestrian access to Club Majiks,
this location was chosen. Technically, it is
probably true that the applicant couid design a
stairway that would not encroach into the setback
area. However, this type of stair would completel.y
block the visibility of Columbine Creations east
display window and also have negative impacts on
pedestrian access to the retail spaces on the east
side of the Crossraads Building. Relief fram the
strict setback requirement is warranted due to the
existing location of the building and design
constraints which limit the possibiities for
locating a stairway in this area.
•
~ 3. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and
air, distribution of population_,__transportation and
traffic facilities ubZic facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The stairway should have a positive impact on
vehicle and pedestrian traffic in and out of
Crassroads. By removing the stair that exists an
Village Center Road adjacent to the Crossroads
parking entry, perhaps there will be less of a
tendency to drop persons off in this area. In
addition, the new stairway will provide a safe and
direct accass up to Club Majiks so that pedestrians
will no longer need to cross the twa ingress/egress
lanes into the parking structure.
III. Such other €actors and criteria as the commission deems
a plicable to the proposed variance.
IV. RELATED POLTCIES TN VAIL'S COMMUNITY ACTION PLAN
V. FTNDTNGS
The Planninq and Environmentai Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:_
That the granting of the variance wiii 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 wiii not be datrimental ta
the public health, safety or welfare, or materia3.ly injuriaus
to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
That the variance i.s warranted for one or more af the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretation or enforcement of
the specified regulation would result in practical
dxfficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent
with the objectives of this titie.
There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicab].e to the same site of the variance
that do not apply general.l.y to other properties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation wauld deprive the applicant af
privileges enjoyed by the owners of other properties in
• the same di.strict.
• VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the requested variance. A
condition of the staff's recommendation for appraval is that
the owners submit a revocable rightrof-way agreement to the
Town of Vail before a building permit is released for the
stairway.It is not a grant of special privelege and will not
be detrimental to the public health. The variance is
warranted in that there are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances which apply to this site which do not generally
apply ta all other praperties in the same zone district.
The staff wauld like to commend the representatives of Club
Majiks for working with the various town baards and staff as
we11 as retail tenants within Crassroads to find a solution
for access that is sate and also well designed.
.
~
4 '
i, i
: W~ i ~ T r,•ii~ ~
r - - h,---
+~_m asv o
Y
' Ktl_ W ~1Fyi~(i 3 f
. W ,
41'•
I . ~ • '
~
z~ ~'t~ ~ r3~W~ .
. . ~ v ~ 4-
I ~2
70
p I
z ~ ' ~ o~c ~ ~r~ oa z ' 41,i~~~y~~ ~ z
-
-1 ~ ~ , C'~ q0.i~..'ft3rA Q Z C~f
~ M
I
d~r~~~ ` ~~+Y1r i '~af~
d „0,61 uk~c
~
4 x,f~~Y
~ ; ~ t t U'({ ( x~
~ ~ A ia l ii;t~,~~~°'d3;~~.-l;f~"~
i , ~ Qw ~ i~ ~;t~•~ ~ ~i-;;~~~5 444
( ~ .H
o'_ dI d, ~t`33 ~t~ x f
: ~ • ~ ~ Z~ 30' `~t~tt~t(~#~~ ~t ~ . . ii ~~i~,~~ y.
;
ro't :
1.~ ay1 Qd Y X+` ti ; a~a~t~'.~ t{,rr , al}-y
h Y
~ ~ ? ' a ~ r r.~- - z ~ ~ ~
~ ~Wx LjCT w
N
W ~
tp ~
~ 3 u
~ tu .r s ~
~
~ ~ ~ ~ 3T,
~
a,'~ ~
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 23, 1989
SUBJ: A request for a rear setback variance in order to
construct a window we11 cover and to extend aroof over
a rear entry and stairway, Lot 2, Gore Careek Meadows #1.
Appli.cants: Roger and Jeanne Tilkemeier
I. DESCRIPTT4N OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
This property is zoned Residential Cluster. No variances are
necessary for GRFA or site coverage. The rear and side
setback requirement is 15 feet. Presently, the existing
structure ancroaches into the rear setback from 5 to 7 feet,
making this project legal nonconforming with respect to
setbacks.
The applicants wish to move a window well cover eight feet to
~ the north an the same side of the building to resolve a
drainage problem created by the sloping glass roof above the
window we11. The outside edge of the window well wi11 be
approximately 4 feet from the rear lot line at the north end
and about 6 feet from the sauth end. The windaw wel1 wi1.l be
designed as a greenhouse approxa.mately 8 feet long by 3 feet
wide by 5 feet high. An egress window wi11 be included in the
design.
Another part of the request involv'es extending araof
approximately one half foat. The result would be a raof which
extends to the rear setback varying from 6 to 15 feet. Roofs
may extend into the rear setback not more than 4 feet. The
roof would cover the top ianding and stairs af the rear entry
and would alleviate ice build-up on the stairs resulting from
drainage from the sloping roof.
II. CRTTERIA AND FINDINGS
Upan review of Criteria and Findings, Sectian 18.62.060
of the municipal code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested vaxiance
based upon the follawing factars:
A. Consideration of Factors:
. 1. The relationship of the_reauested
variance to other existin or
potential uses and structures in the
• vicinity.
The other side of this duplex received side and
rear setback variances in 1988 to build an addition
to the house and another rear setback variance of
ii feet in 1989 ta build a deck and stairway. The
pxoposed encroachment would not impact the adjacent
property any further than the existing
encroachment.
2. The dearee to which relief fram the_strict_ and
literal inter retation and enforcement of a
specified reaulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformitv of tr.eatment _among
sites in the vicinity or to attaintheobLCtives
of this title without rant of s ecial rivile e.
Staff believes this property should be treated in
the sama way as the neighboring property. Some
relief from the strict 15-foat rear setback is
certainly warranted, given the fact that the
existing structure already encroaches 5 to 7 feet
into the rear setback.
• 3. The effect of the re uested variance on li ht and
air, distribution of population, transportation.and
traffic facilities ublic facilities and utilities
and public safety.
No impact.
IYI. Such factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the proioosed variance.
ZV. FINDINGS
The Piannin and Environmental Commission shall make the
followin findin s before rantin a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant af 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 publ.ic health, safety or weifare, or materially
injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity.
. That the variance is warranted for one nr more of the
following reasans:
The strict ar literal interpretation or enforcement
• of the specified reguiation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
There are exceptions or extraardinary circumstances or
conditians applicable to the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other praperties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretatzon or enforcement of the specified
regulation wauld deprive the applicant of privileges
enjoyed by the owners of other properties in the same
district.
VY. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval o£ these variances to encroach
into the rear setback area. It is f elt that the variance
appravals are not a grant of special privilage, as twa similar
varianCes were approved for the adjacent praperty. There are
no detrimental impacts to adjacent properties. Due to the
unusual locatian.of the existing residence, there are special
~ ci.xcumstances that create a physical hardship which warrants
approval of this vari.ance.
i
V
~T
L ~
z Q ci z w ui
'co (n ~ d VYLLJ
WI) ang ~oa NT V) O~o
n--~ ,f ~
il ~
~
a d'~~~ 0 o°c
w U..
UD ~ O~S~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U} t+1
tn
Q' Y Y
N0/ I W0 ~ a
00 0 CL
U. Q tJ U
n 06
~
~ w ui
_ . _ cr W U. GJ
0 1 ~ I o 4
41
s~
c.7 3 ti ' A
4 r~ u. a 3 7-
~n
w U- 7. F4 ~ S cP U' Z
a x 3 aj~! c- "s~• " I-- ly, ~
o 4 Q~ ~ t7
p ? ` ~ 4 Z d tj ~ (D w
pp ~
cn
's. w
Q
J e~
~IQ
C,J ~ .._1
S y cr ya ~ o~ d w
cr-
v W U. L) Q
~ V~i.1 ~~f f Z > 0
w
a- Q 0 ~
ro 4-- a,
4J ~f 041
0 ~ I-- 4", 1 e~ci D`~ (,7
LL)
~iLj'J~ Z 2
W ~
t17
W
~
J [1. W
tsJ \ ~Oj
~
~
7 ~
• ~r
-----I-------
. . -
.
.r.
-
O I ~ ' O
~ ,
ui W
ui
F-
CN
I. ~ 1 Z ~ ~ ~ •r
? ~ ~
.~...~.,.~.~.....-~r,., ~.._._A4,..~-.k.r.
.
.
' 1.
~
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 23, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a variance to allow far the installation
of a third satellite dish at the Vail Run Building.
Applicant: Joyce Cammunications, Inc. (dba K-LITE)
1. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
Joyce Communications is the company which operates the K-LYTE
radio station out of the vail Run Building. K-LTTE currently
uses a 13 foot receiving antenna for its CBS network
affiliation, Emargency Actian Notification System and music
programming network. K-LITE, in an attempt to expand their
broadcast services and specialized programming, is requesting
a second satellite dish antenna with a 10 foot diameter.
Due to the difference in the locations af the fixed-orbit
satellites (139 degree and 74 degree), it is not possible to
receive both signals with the existing 13 foot antenna.
. The proposed 10 foot diameter dish would be located
immediately adjacent to the existing K-LITE 13 foot dish.
The Vail Run Building currently has two satellite dishes on
their site; the K-LTTE 13 foot dish described above and a 7
foot dish owned by Ciscorp, another commercial tenant in the
Vail Run Building which operates an information systems
company.
The requested variance is from Section 18.58.320 (D,1) of the
Town of Vail zoning code which states:
"No more than one satellite dish antenna shall be
allowed on any lot as delineated on the official Town of
Vail zoning map."
II. CRITERTA AND FINDZNGS
Upan review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.460 of
the municipal code, the Department of Community Development
recommends approval of the requested variance based upon the
following factars:
A. Consideration of Factors:
~ 1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existinq or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
Limitations on the permitted number of satellite
dishes per lot or property were established because
~ of the patential aesthetic impact of several dishes
located on one property. In evaluating the
potential impacts of this request, consideratian of
the proposed location is an important factor.
Located within the interior of the Vail Run
project, the dish wi11 be installed adjacent ta the
existing 13 foot dish between the tennis bubble and
the concrete retaining wall. As a result, it is
felt that granting this variance will result in na
negative impacts to existing or potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
2. The de ree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement af a
specitied regulation is necessary to achieve
com atibilit and uniforinit of treatment amon
sites in the vicinity or ta attainthe objectives
of this title without qrant of special privilege.
The applicant has demonstrated that in order to
effectively operate their business, two satallite
dishes are necessary. Due to the Iocation of the
fixed-orbit satellites, it is not possible for K-
LITE ta utilize anly one satellite dish. The staff
fee1s that granting approval of this variance would
~ nat be a grant of special privilege.
3. The effect af the re uested variance an li ht and
air, distribution ot population, transportation and
traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilitzes, and public safety"
The staff can find no significant effect on any of
the abave considerations.
IIT. Such other factors and criteria as the commissian deems
a licable to the ra osed variance.
rV. FINDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall make the
followinq findings before granti~a variance;
That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a grant
of special priviZege 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 materzally injurious
to properties or impravements in the vicinity.
•
• That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasans:
The strict or Iiteral interpretation or 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 ta the same site of the variance
that do not apply generally to other praperties in the
same zone.
The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjayed by the owners of other properties in
the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the variance as requested.
The parameters established by the Satellite Dish Ordinance
were intended to provide a general limitation in the size,
number, location and screening of dishes proposed. It is
apparent that certain types of businesses have unique needs
~ in regards ta their transmission facilities. The applicant
has satisfactorily shown that the use of only one satellite
dish for their particular business would constitute a
hardship.
The staff would recommend the following condition of
approval:
1. That if the tennis bubble is ever removed, the satellite
dish be resubmitted to the Design Review Board for
screening review.
~
i
~ david M. peel 25$8 arosa dr.
i ~ kathy warren P.O. box 3374
vail, co. 81658
~ arChitectS 303•476•4506
October 19, 1989
Ms. Kristan Pritz
Senior Planner
Tawn of Vai1
75 Sauth Frontage Road
i Vai1, Calorado $1657
Regarding: Red Lion Inn Application far Exterior Alterata.ons or Madifications
in Commercial Core I, Vail Village
Dear Kristan;
I
As president of T.E.A., Tnc., the owners of the Red Lion Tnn, Terry Ray has
• asked me to request that their exterior aJ.teration apglication be tabled by
the Planna.ng and Environmental Commissa.on until February 1990.
This request is being made because a portion of the Red Lion Building has
recently changed ownership. Since the new owners are in#:erested in remodeling,
Mr. Ray fee1s that the Red Lion Inn has an apportunity to work with these
owners as we1] as Mr. Brown to enhance the restaurant area.
By tabling the current submxttal, the various parties wi1l have time to assess
their needs and devise plans during the wi,nter. The Red Lion Znn could then
obtain the necessary approvals by the end of the ski season and commence con-
struction at that ta.me. We feel fi.hat this time frame (being able to construct
during the aff-season) woul.d minimize pubJ.ic disturbance and be desirable to
the Town.
Than4c you for your consideratzan in th3.s matter.
Yours truly,
Kathy a en, AIA
cc Mr. Terry L. Ray, president T.E.A., Inc.
~
~ T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Peter Patten
DATE: October 31, 1989
SUBJECT: Vail Village Master Plan meeting
There will be a Vail Village Master Plan meeting an Monday, lNovember-6,
1989 at 4:00 p.m. Pizza will be served as a bribe to obtain more Commissioners at the meeting.
•
~
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Peter Patten
DATE: Novembar 3, 1989
SUBJECT: Vail Village Master Plan Review/Approval Process
Please review the enclosed suggested revisions ta the Vail Village
Master Plan far pages 26 through 47 before our meeting on Monday,
November 6th at 4:00 p.m. The meeting will be in the small confarence
raom adjacent to Ron and Larry's office. We are scheduling a 3- 4
hour meeting since we had to cancel Iast Monday's meeting due to the
attendance of only three members.
It is my strong desire to try for PEC approval of the Plan on November
27th. To accomplish this, we need to get through all of the enclosed
material Monday and then have a last meeting to finish our review
befora November 15th. On November 16th, I'm planning to have our
lovely, sweet secretary begin making all of the revisions to the text.
T will be in Boulder at that time having Winstan Associates begin all
of the graphic revisions.
I would hope we can make "final draft" copies of the Plan available to
. the PEC and the public on Navember 22nd and have the PEC recommend plan
approval ta the Council at your November 27th meeting.
Thanks for your efforts on the plan and for achieving this tirfte line.
•
•
Wil.law Ca.rcl.e Sub-area
a.lthaugh a.mmediatP1y ad jacent tn the mixed use developnients
found in the Commercial Core and Mi.xed Use sub-areas, the
Willora Cir41e sub--az•ea has retained an exclusa.vely
residential character. Candaminium dewrelopments lzave
occurred on a1.l but anc of the sub-area' s parcels and xnanY of
these pxaPerties are actively "short-termed" ta avernight
guests. In 3nost cases, Parkin.g has been pravided in
uxzdergroun.d stxuctuzes. This design feature, caup:l.ed with
the Town ownect open space (Wi].low Circle Park), cantra.butes
to the pleasin.g appeardnce of this area.
In most cases, the 1eve].s of develop[nent throughout this sub-
area great].y exceed what is allowed iinder exi5ting zoning
(I3a.gh Density Mu.lti-Family zone). Gross residential f3.oor
area ratios (GFtFAR) xange from .6 to 1. 3, writh an average of
1.01. With the excegtion of one parcel, al1 properties
within this sub-area are devsloped at, or ovez, their
permitted levels of developmant. As such, there is little
. development potential left in this sub-area.
Reszdenta.al u5es dnminate this sub-area and are proposed ta
continue with the exaeption of anc potential cammercial spaoe
at the east end of the sub-area facing 4Vi11.ow Bridge Road.
This cancept is discussed further unde.r Sub-Ared 2.2.
2-3 Willow Circ1e Infill--no change,s, see Master Plan text
2-2 aummers Lodge
This property has recentZy been redeve].aPed into a sn7all
number of condominiums. Graund floor commeraial expansion
with all services and delivera.es fronti.ng taward the Vi.llage
will serve to reinforce the pedestrian cireulation throughout
the Vil.lage core. West side of pxoperty shall maintain
residentia1 c:haracter, cansz.5tent with the sub-area. A1l
cammeraial activity, ineluding delivery funeta.pns inust orient
toward Wi11ow Bridge Road. Covenant restrietions presently
restxiat cotnrnercial activity, amendments wauld be required.
apecial Emphasis: 3.3
1.9 Studv Area: Village Streaniwalk
Repeat worciing as in preva.ous sub-area
1.12 Pa.1.1.age Pocket Parks
kepeat warding as in previous sub-axea
.
~J~
•
Gammerci.al Gore I Sub-area
The pedestri.anized area of the Vzllage represents the
traditional image of Vail. A mixture afi residential and
aommereial uses, la.mi..ted vehiaular access, and inter-
GAl'li1eCtGd pedestrian ways are same af the eharacteristies
that distinguish this area from bther portions of tho
Village. With the exceptiori of embellishing peciestx•ian
walkways, develaping plaza/greenspaces, and adda.ng a number
of infill deve3.opments, ,it is agoaZ of the camixtiunity ta
preserve the chaxacter of the Villags core as it is taday.
The core axea, with zt's predoma.n.ately '1'yxo.La.an architacture,
is the site of the earliest development in Vail. Gver time,
a need ta upgrade and a.niprove infrastructure such as loading
and deliv'ery faci.litie5, drainage, paved surfaces and other
landsaape features has become apparent. Maiiy of these
9.mpxovements to public spaces wi1,1 be addressed as part ot an
ov'erall stxeetscape irnprovemen.t project. 2'here is a1so the
patential to initiate a number of these improvernents in,
conjunata.on with private sectQr deve,lopment pro,jects.
A1thotigh it is agoal to maa.ntain desz.gn continuzty in the ~
V.i3.lage core, there wi1l be change in the core area's Uuil.t
environment. 'Shi.s is mostly due to a number ot praperties
tklat have not exercised their full develnpment riglits. Mowt
natable arnang tlzese pxnpsrties are tlxe ked Lion Building, the
CYranos building, the lndge at Vai1, and the Covered Bx•idge
Building. If these and other properties develop to thc.ir
fu11 pateiitYal, there wiil undoubtedly be a significant
i.ncrease in the level of development in the Vz11age core.
The Vmil Village Urban Design Guide glan has been the primary
tool in gua.cling private develapment proposals in the cors
arsa since 1980. The Guide p],an wi11 conta.nue ta be use~,~ in
oon,7unction with the Vaa.l Vi1.lage Mastex Flan, Znfi11 ana
redevelopmen.t prapasal.s shall be reviswed for camplianee with
the design ariteria, goa1s, objsctives and polioiss
establislxed in these respective plans.
.
3~
i
,.y.... i. I.iutlgr; A Aa.i Trxtex-nationa). Wirie:
infiA.I. {wit,h grouzld _tlaax• c:omttiex°cia1.)
cjvr;r i;he :Tr,.terna-t,ic.~ztal W.xng wa.t:h rnax.i_Tnum of 3 s1-,ories.
iriipac.t.s car.r views to the mountai_n frozn. ~~~i-lcan Pal.a~a shcyuJ.cl be
ltl.lt].7.3111.z,ed aixd pla~~a gre:e.~nspace ar_~ea a.nu.l.uded. C:ommex•cia1
deve:l{3pment on gratznd level to rea.nfoxce pedestriar3 activity
and provide a sense of pxaelc.~su.re for Eat..on Y.l~za, Addi.tional
d<,vel.opment Qn this si.te ttiav require significant upgradirig to
fire f:l.ow capabi1i.-L-ies. S.peca.al .Emphasis--1.2.,2.3, 3.4,2:4.
J--i Goiden Yeak House
Uur; to thi:~ buiZding',s grass i:nconsa,sl:encY with the Urban
Desi.gn (xuide £'laii and n.eighborin€;' buildings, it, is icientifi.ed
a:; a Arilriar_•Y reraova.t.ion site. Relatiorisrlip to greens,paae ora
outh, Seibe:r.t t;a.r~.~:l.e an nbxth, as wel.l as to mc?untain
ertt' r.vw~_iv, a.rca i_intac>rt,ant con5.i_dex°ata.c>ns. Lc~adi.ng and de1iver_Y
ErLust, be addrr:ssed. Special Linplzasis--1. 2, 2. 1, 2. 3, 2.4, 2. 5,
2.6, 3.2, 5.1., I5.2, 6.1, 6.2.
:j-4 M3.i.I. f,r.eek
'Tlle rlevel.c,pment of conmeraidl frc.~ntage a_1ang the west sic1e of
. [1il1 Greek to ericc7urage .pedestr:iati t.raffic in this area.
PPdest.x•ian improvemen.i::s iricludirlg the bridge over Mi.11 l:reek
and a mi_d-b1.ock co.r7nerti.on i:,o Bra.dge Street are also clesa.red.
(See (JrIa~~i Des.a.gn Gu:~~~e Plasi) . Iinprc7vetnent~ to Mill Creek
(].andscaping, utili.ties and s-txeam bank stabiliza•t;i.on), as
we1l as loadirig and deliverv, tr3ust be addressed.
S~F>cia]. Emphasi.s----2.4, 2. 5, 3.4, 4, 1, 6.1.
:3--5 M:i.l 1 C;x•eek Cc}ux t
'L`ext sanie
:-~p er,.i.al Emphasis-._2.4T 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.1
3...6 Gastof Uramsharrimer
Commc:.t•cia1 exYansian as identified in tiie fJrban Design Guide
f'lari. 11esign to :imp.rave en.closure prdpartians of the
ChildrLn' s Fouzitain area an.d enhance ~-:xi.sting
p:l.a~,.a/gxeensPace. SPec::i_aI Emphasis-2. 2, 2.:3, 2. 5, 2. 6, 3.1.
3.:3, 4.1
:3-3 Se3.Uert Circle StEId.V Area
atudy area pzcapcased to estab:lish a niarP inviting puk~lic
p1aza/g.reerzspace wit.h goad sun exposure an.d tc.-s create a foca1
po:ixit at thP top of Bx•idge S-treet. Design an.d extpnt o#' riew
Pa.ala to be sensitive to fire arscess and cix°culata.an.
consi.cteraticans. apeua.aJ. Emphasis---3. 1, 3. 3, 4 . 1, 4.2
~ 3--7--Repeat worci:in.g in 1-9--- Stuc'1'Y' Area: Vi1la.ge S#:.xeatntaalk
3-8 w-°uQx?eat wordirig iri 1-12--Village Packe-t Yaxks
.
Creek atx•eazrlwalk
f1 walking on.]_.v Path alorig Mi11 c.reek 1~etween F'ira-Le Ship Park
and Gor.e Creek, fLzzther compl~tixa.g the pecles-txian zaetsaork arid
p.roviciing publ..ic access to the cr_•eek. Specific: design and
laaation shal.l be sensitirre to adjacent uses and the ci-eek
environme:nt. Spec:i.a:l F.mphasis--_i. 4, 4.2
The [Jrtian Design Guide plan i.ncludes aciditional desig'r~ ~etail
tl-iat is to l~e used in ean.7unctiora with the Vail Vi11age
Maste,r.- P;Lazi skib-ax•ea cwvncepts.
i
•
•
E4fst Meadaw Drive w}ub-.Area
1'wo of -t;tie tl-iree propext,zes within the East Meadar,v 17ra.ve sub-
ar.c:a are deve:LopPCi substantiaily over the derxsiti~s permittecl
under existing zoning. In the most extre3rae case, the
Mountai.n Haus is cteve:Lat?ed 1',a over 150 u.nif:s per acsx-e w'a.th a
F1.oox° A.rea Ratio of 3.9. (C)-ther sub-areas xn the V'i11age
avei-age . 7b Given existing ievels o:f develapztaera.t and the
si.te c}iaracteristics of eauh nf thetie parce1s, there is very
li.~ttlp potenta.a:L foa^ additianal clevelopme.nt rema.ina.ng with
Lhis stkb-area. Additianal pedestra.an imIaroveanents shauld be
pu.rsued a:Lang Last Meadow Drive and Vail Valley Drive.
Tkie Vi.l.1age ti,tx•eamwalk caas corastx•uc:teel through this sub-area
in 1988. This additian to the pedestrian network 'has
pravid.ed access to Uore Greek ds weil as 1.inked this sub--area
tc) o-ther village suU-areas ta the east ancl the west.
5-1. Vil:l.age St,.reamwalk (Gomplete)
T7evelopment af a portian af the Villag~ St.reautwa7.k along Gor~
Creek between Bridge Street ara.d Ford Fark. ~eati.ng areas
arsdjor a sma11. packet Park ad,jacent to the cx•eek have k.7een
develapecl in cof1junci:ion taith tha.s waJ.kwa,y.
~
~
•
1'r.ansportation Center
The anly existing facaiit;.v within th:is sub-area a.s thFM Va:i.l.
ViJ.7.age '1'razisPartation Genter {ThC TYie TRC serves as i:,ka.a
transpo:c•tatian hub of the Village aiid the entire communit,v.
`.Chere zs potential for tuturc expansioxi of the par:k.irig
strtac:ture eastwarcl a1ong wi-th o-L-her ancillar,y deve:topmPtlt
potPiYtial. Foremost among these is cievelopment ovex- the
expansi.can of tfie pax•king structure.
'The pxi.tRary Purpose of this sub•-area is -to pravide parking
for -I;krtE entixe Vil3.age axea. `1'he priori.tv of any exparision
to tlt:is facility shc;u:Ld be to maxiniize the atnaunt af
adciitiaiia_l pixblic paxkizig ava„ilable at this si.te. An
imF?artaiit coz}.sidexai.ion in future expansion o:(' Ghe TRC .i.s the
view eorridors as depieteci in the Building Heaght Profi1e
P1ari. (see page j
4--1 'I'.RG Expansian
'I'lzis si.te has 1.ong been corisidered the lcsgical locatian far
tutiz.re expansions ta the Vail 'l'ran.spartati.on atructure. Any
exp~=~nsinn sh~.~i.i1.cI maxima.ze the number af additional pub1ic-
~ parking spaces. A one to two stary structure could Ue
developed over this expansion to arcotnmodate same -type of
PuY~lia ptirposQ facility. Spec~al. Eniphasis-__5, l, 5.3
.
! ~
~
Eas-t Vzllage Sub-Axea
`I'he Ea;;t Vil1.age Srlb-Area .is compr.ised almobt exclus,ivelv af
aresider.itia1./lodging and condorrEinium developrrient. The sub°_
area separates tiie com3riercial activit.v c~~ the Vil1age Core on
the west with -tlze Golden peak Sk.i.. Base/Recreation area on the
eZ- st . Whi.le ttiere i:~ vehicular traffic thrcaugh the sub-
area, Hanson Ranch Raaci, Gare Ga^eek Drive, and Vail Valley
Driv-e also acconiinodate a grea-t deal of pec.~estrian and bicycle
trafti.c. The tno3t important publa.c impravements a.n this sub-
az•ea relate ta pedestrian axid ba.cyc1e sai`ety.
There are locations throughaut the sub-area that have the
patentia.t to accozrimadate 51na11 residen.tia1/lodging infill
develaPment. A number of the parcels ic3.entified for infill
deve.lopmerxt are now used for siArface parking. A key
aiD,jective for anY iz-tfi1.1 develaPmen-t is ta replace existing
surface parking with buildings and landsaape/site
inlproveEr?er7t s. The parking }.os-t bY thP develapment of the
5it,e, as, wei..-i. as tk1p new Paxking requirecl :tar the addita.anal
deve_l.optnent must be accommadated an site.
• Wi.th ttie exception of one parcel, there are na sa.gnificant
development rights remaining in this sub--area. Existing
develapinent levels ran.ge frotri 22 to 80 units per acre with an
aver.age P'loar Area katio of .92. TYie likelihoad of ara infiIl
cievelop3yient proposal being apprnved rai.ll be baser_i an the
pzo.ject' s a1Di:LitY to satz.sfY the goa1s, objectives and
pal.zcies of the P1ari and otlier zanirig and clevelopinPnt
standards.
7-1 C;hri.stiana/VA atudY Area
£aresent:1.Y aoned for 1odging, this parcel utarrently provides
parking for.- the Christiania L,adge ax3.d Vail Associates.
Issues ta be addressed a.n the development af this prcaperty
i.nc].ude covenants restricti.ng the use b~ this proper-ty to
paz•ki.ng-, accomtn.odation af existirig I?arking as we11 as dettiand
created by new c~~evelopznent ancl a foranally adopted view
cc.~rridor, looking toward the Gnre liange. Ptablic puxpose uses
that may be appxopr:i.ate for t}iis site include park/opezz spaae
and/or a central loaaing and ci.elivery facility- fpx the
Vil.lage c«.re.
7--2 7'i.voli Lad~e Infi1J. ( Coan]?lete )
Ch.ange "r.esidential" to "1adging" in first sentence.
1A.1l xest xecnaans same1
7-4 Parking Lot Infil1
Firs-t sentence changed tn--"PresentlY u-tili2ed a,s parkarig for
~ adjacent properties. "(A11 rest rem.ains same)
7-5 A1]. Seasons
Residential iiiiill over c;.xisting 5urtace parki.ng a.rea.
Addii;.ional develcspment; should maintain setbacks and
-44 j 4 41 e~
/
~
landscaping nn east ancl south property line. Massing of new
developmerit ,should "step clown" fxcsxn the e.xist,a.ng
condoEna.niums. CorLstxairi-k,s -L-o this developinent irzc.l.ude
c;avenan.'t x~~ strietions limitirig use of proPertY to Parking anc1.
pr_•oviding on-site paxking tor the existing and riew
deve1.apment demdnd. Spec ia 1 Enlphas i s-. 1 . , 2. 3 , 2.6
7--3 Vai1. Va1.1.eY Drive Sidet,ralk
I,eave text same. Ad.d apecial Empha5is: 3.1, 3.4, 3.5
The Urban Design Guide Flan incl.udes additiunal desigti detail
that is to 'be used in ean,junction with the Vail Vi1:Lage
Ma5ter P].an sub-area cancePts.
~
i
~
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
November 13, 1989
No Site Visits
Worksession:
1:30 A. Revisions to Vail Brewery/Glen Lyon Office Building
Special Development District IV.
Applicant: Vail Ventures, Ltd., Glen Lyon Office
Building, A Colarado Partnership.
2.00 B. Discussion of Commercial Core II, Lionshead Parking
Applzcant: Town of Vail
2:30 C. Prap4sal fvr traffic control for Hansen Ranch
Road/Vail Valley Drive intersectzon: Diana Donovan
3:00 Public Hearing
l. Approval of June 26, 1989 minutes.
2. A request for an exterior alteration at the Slifer
Building, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B, Block 5, Vail
~ Village First Filing.
Applicant: 51ifer Designs
3. A request for a site coverage variance at the Slifer
Building, 230 Bridge Street, Lot B, Black 5, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs
4. A request to establish the Bed and Breakfast Use. as a
Conditional Use within the Tawn of Vail.
Applicant: Town of Vail
5. PEC Chair signature on Vail National Bank Plat
~
.
~
~
~ PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSTDN
November 13, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck Crist Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Peggy Osterfoss Mike Mallica
Jim Va.e].e Betsy Rosolack
ABSENT
Kathy Warren
Sid Schultz
Work sessions on the Vail Brewery and parking concerns for CCII
preceeded the meeting. The meeting was called ta order at 3:30 by
the chairman, Jim Viele.
1. A roval of the minutes of 6 26 89.
Diana Donovan moved and Peggy Osterfoss seconded to apprave the
minutes as presented. The vote was 4-0 in favor.
2. A request far an exterior alteration at the Slifer_Buildinci,
230 Brid e Street Lot B Block 5 Vail Villa e Fix'st Filin .
Applicant: S1.ifer_Designs
M 3. A re uest far a site cavera e variance at the Slifer Buildin
230 Brid e Street Lot B Block 5 Vail Villa e First Filin .
A licant: Slifer 1]esi ns
These two applications were considered concurrently with twa final
votes. Chuck Crist removed himself from the table and from the
discussion, due to a conflict of interest.
Mike Mollica presented the proposals. In discussa.ng the request
far an exterior alteration, he showed site plans and reviewed
considerations of site coverage and of parking. He also discussed
the sections of the memo concerning compliance with purpose of the
CCZ 2one district, the Urban Design Guide Plan, and the Design
Considerations. The staff recommendation was far approval af the
exteriar alteration with the condition that the site coverage
variance request al.so be approved.
Mike then explained the request for the site coverage variance and
reviewed the Criteria and Findings. The staff recommendation for
the site coverage variance was for approval.
Diana Donovan was concerned about the maple tree. She felt that
if it were pruned past a certain point, the tree would die. She
suggested two canditions, one was to xeplace the tree with ane of
. si.milar size if the txee died wi.thin two years, and the ather
conditian was that the pavers extend from the old Clock Tower deck
.
tapering to tha corner of thn addition. Mikn explained that hA had
discussed the configuration o£ the pavers with Je££ Winston and
Jeff said that at the present time, there was no paver plan for
this area. Mike added that the pavers are praposed to go to the
property line. Diana felt the pavers should go further so that
asphalt was not used to fill in the extra space.
Ned Gwathmey, architect on'the project, said that at the present
time, the crack went willy-nilly, and he felt there shauld be a
logical line to help avoid having people trip. He added that they
were trying to place the pavers flush with the black top. Sid felt
that if the pavers were to be extended, they should ga in front of
the real estate off.ice and i.n front of the old Ore House buildang.
Diana disagreed and said that she could draw a line that would
extend £ram the Clock Tawer deck and end at the g].ass wa1.1.
Peggy felt Diana's comment on the health of the tree was
reasonab].e, and spoke favarabl.y of the praposal.
Peter Patten poa.nted out that this approval would be valid fax a
period af three years from this date (this is true for all exterior
al.tex'ata.ons i.n CCI and CCII) . He suggestad one conditian of
approval was that the applicants agree not to remonstrate against
a special improvement district if one is formed for the Village,
and participate in a district if and when one is formed.
~ Mike suggested that tha cancern that the tree not be prunad above
a certain point be passed anto the DRB. Diana felt this was nat
a DRB issue.
Regarding the exteriox altaration request, Peggy movad and Diana
seconded ta approve the request per the staff inemo with the
conditions:
1. The applicant will agree to not remonstrate against a special
improvement district, but wi1l participate in ane i£ and when
an improvement district is formed far Vail Village.
2. This approval is good for three years from this date.
3. If the maple tree dies within two years, it will be replaced
with a camparable tree.
The vote was 3 in favor with Chuck abstaining.
Regarding the site coverage request, Peggy moved and Diana seconded
to approve the request per the staff inemo with the findings that
it camplied with the Urban Design Guide P].an and with the Vai1
Village Master Plan and that it would not be a grant of special
privilege.
One condition was that the pavers reach from the Clock Tower deck
~ ta tha coxner of the new addition. The vote was 3 in favor with
Chuck abstaining.
~
4. A request to establish the Bed and Breakfast, useas a
conda.tianal use wa.than the Town af Vaa.1..
A licant: Town of Vail
Peter Patten explained changes regarding parking, adding multi-
family zone districts, and signs. He added that B&B's would
require a conditional tise permit and that the new ordinance would
also require the written approval of other property owners when a
B&B propases tha use of property ar facilities owned in coiamon or
jointly with ather property owners.
The board and members of the audience recommended same minor
changes. Diana moved to recommend approval ta the Tawn Council
with the changes and Peggy secanded the motion. The vote was 4-0
in favor.
•
~
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: November 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Worksession on Commercial Core I and II parking
I. THE ISSUE
Under Commercial Care T and IZ zaning, applicants who are adding
additional square footage are required to pay into the Town of
Vail parking fund. If owners ot property within Commercial Core I
and Commercial Core IT receive a parking variance, they are also
required ta pay into the parking fund. The staff is proposing the
following changes to Commerczal Core I and Commercial Core Ir
requirements for parking:
1. Any existing off-street parking lacated in Commercial Core I
and Commercial Core IT which is proposed to be removed would
be reviewed by the Planning Commission as a Conditional Use.
The recent Enzian Lodge remodel indicated that there is a
prablem when certain properties wish to remove af£-street
parking if they are lacated a great distance from the parking
• structure. When the Enzian Lodge was being reviewed, Council
asked staff to develop a process which wauld allow the
Planning Commission and/or Cauncil to review future requests
invalving the removal of parking. The criteria for a
conditional use provide a reasonable means to determine if
the removal of on site parking is justified. The criteria
are:
18.60.060 Criteria-Findings.
A. Before acting on a conditional use permit
applicatian, the planning commission
shall consider the following factors with
respect to the praposed use:
1. Relationship and impact of the usa
on development ob7ectives of the
tawn;
2. Effect of the use on light and air,
distribution of population,
transportation facilitaes,
utilities, schools, parks and
recreation facilities, and ather
public facilities and public
facilities needs;
3. Effact upon traffic, with particular
reference ta congestion, automotive
. and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability,
and removal of snow from the streets
and parking areas;
• 4. Effect upon the character of the
area in which the proposed use is ta
be located, including the scale and
bulk of the proposed use in relation
to surrounding uses;
5. Such other factors and criteria as
the commission deems applicable to
the proposed use;
Also, CGI has additianal criteria listed below for
conditional uses:
Section 18.24.070 Conditional Uses-Factors
applicable.
A. Effects of vehicular traffic on
Commercial Core T district;
B. Reductian of vehicular traffic in
Commercial Core I district;
C. Reduction af nonessential off-street
parking;
D. Contral of delivery, pickup, and service
vehicles;
E. Development of public spaces for use by
pedestrians;
F. Continuance of the various commercial,
• residential, and existing character of
the area;
G. Control quality of constructian „
architectural design, and landscape
design in Cammercial Core Z district so
as to maintain the existing character of
the area;
H. Effects of noise, odar, dust, smoke, and
other factors on the environment af
Commercial Core I district.
2. Amend the Commercial Core II zone distrxct section which
relates to parking. This section of the code reads
18.26.150 Parking and loading;
Off-street parking and loading shall be
pravided in accordance with Chapter 18.52. At
least one half the required parking shall be
located within the main building or buildings.
Na parking or loading area shall be lacated in
any required front setback.
This section is in direct conflict with the aff-street
parking sectian of the code for CCI and CCII which states
18.52.160 B:
. In Commercial Care I and Commercial Core II,
property owners nr applicants shall be
required to contribute to the Town parking
fund, hereby established, for the purpose of
meeting the demand and requirements for
vehicle parking...
• The staff would prapose that the same wording that is located
in Cammercial Care I far parking and loading be added to
Commercial Core TT. The CCI parking section states:
Section 18.24.180 Parking and Loading.
Off-street parking and loading shall be
provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52;
provided, that no parking shall be pravided
on-site. All parking requirements shall be
met in accordance with the provisians of
Section 18.52.160(2). Loading requirements
shall Gontinue ta be applicable to properties
within Commercial Core 2; provided, that na
loading areas shall be located in any required
frant setback area.
The existing statement on parking would be removed far
Commercial Core ZI.
3. The zoning code presently states in Section 18.52.180 Parking
Variances that:
Any parking variance which is granted by
Chaptex 18.62 of the Vail Municipal Cade shall
be required to contribute into the Town's
. parking fund, as set forth in Section
18.52.150 Exemptians.
The staff would like to amend this section of the code so
that if a parking variance is granted, the property owner
would not be required to contribute into the Town parkzng
fund. Normally, the staff does not like ta adjust the zoning
code in a piecemeal fashion. Hawever, the staff was directed
by Council to came up with process ta review xequests similar
to the Enzian Lodge which allowed a property owner to remove
on-site parking.
~
• T0: PZanning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Bed and Breakfast Regulations
I. BACKGROUND
On September 12, 1989, the Town Council and Planning Commission
held a joint worksession with the planning staff to come to a
consensus on the final direction of Bed and Breakfast regulations.
A number of issues that had previously troubled the Tawn Council
were resolved at this meeting. There was a consensus that thera
should be regulations regarding Bed and Breakfasts, that a Bed and
Breakfast use has characteristics differentiating it from short
term rentals, and that neighbors and candominium assaciations
shauld be required to approve in writing a Conditional Use Permit
application for a Bed and Breakfast when camman property is
involved.
7t was also agreed at the September meeting that a parking
requirement of 1 space for the first bedroom, plus one-half space
• for each additional bedroom, plus ane space for the Bed and
Breakfast proprietor was appropriate. Furthermore, there was
general agreement that Multi-tamily zone districts were acceptable
locatians for Bed and Breakfasts as lnng as the parking
requirements are met. Zt was emphasized that the parking propnsed
to meet the requirement must be reserved and designated for that
condominium or townhouse only. Finally, the PEC and Town Council
agreed that signage would be restricted to ona residential name
plate sign as currently allawed in all residential areas. This
type of sign cannot contain any advertising and is restricted ta
one-half square foat per Sing1e Family or Duplex structure ar one-
half square foot for each Multi-family unit.
II. THE PROPOSAL
Attached, please find a copy of formerly proposed Ordinance No. 2
of 1989 dealing with the regulation of Bed and Breakfasts. This
is the ordinance that the Council rejected on second reading on
March 21, 1989 to re-discuss the issue with the Planning
Cammzssion. I have made revisions to this ardinance as per the
agreements reached at the September 12th joint worksession. As
now proposed, the ordinance:
o allows B&B's to be located in zone districts allowing muZti-
family dwellzng units (Sections 4- 15).
• o continues ta require B&B~s to receive a Conditianal Use
Permit.
. o amends parking requirements as stated above (Sectians
17(s)1) .
a allows for a residential name plate sign only (Section
17(B)4).
o requi.res the written approval of ather property owners when a
B&B praposes the use of property or facilities owned in
common or jointly with other property owners (Section
17(B)5).
0 provides a procedure for violations and Canditianal Use
Permit revocation (Sectinn 17 (C)).
II3. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
While the staff continues to disagree that Bed and Breakfasts are
appropriate in Multi-family zone districts, we feel it is
imperative for the Town to adopt legis].atian allawing Bed and
Breakfasts to 1.egally operate in Vail. The staff is strongly a.n
favor of Bed and Breakfasts as an effa.cient use of residential
units in a resart community. Bed and Breakfasts often provide a
ha.gh quality and low cost accommadati.on alternative in resort
areas and we feel they can be a very positive addition to Vail's
1odg.ing community.
• Howevsr, we cannat endorse locating Bed and Breakfasts in higher
dansity housing developments due ta the patential negative impacts
to surrounding owners as well as the general lack o£ ambiance
these Bed and Breakfasts would tend to pravide. Nevertheless, we
recommend that the Planning and Environmental Commission
recommend apprdval to the Council of the revisions to Ordinance
No.2 Series o£ 1989, in an effart to adopt responsible regulations
supporting Bed and Breakfasts in Vail.
•
• T0: Planning and Environmental Commisison
FROM: Cammunity Development Department
DATE: November 13, 1989
SUBJECT: Amendments to Special Development District for Area D, G1en
Lyon Office property
I. The Request
The owners of Area D are requesting the following changes to the
approved develapment plan:
A. Approval of revised building plans far Phase I. The revised
micro-brewery/office building includes:
- office increased by 2,200 square feet to 4,200 square
feet over approved plan
- beer hall increase of up to 271 square feet
- brew pub decreased by 908 square feet
• - retail increased by 554 square feet
- reception/museum increased by 185 square feet
- brew house decreased by 5,650 square feet or 5,080
square feet
B. Approval of revised parking plan which provides 74 on-site
parking spaces. All improvements for the Frontage Road would
be completed when Phase I is constructed. Parking structure
would not be completed until the brewery is expanded to allow
for more restaurant space or the east building is
constructed.
C. The brewery, beer hall, brew pub, retail, and museum would be
closed during normal weekday business hours of 8:00 a.m. to
4:30 p.m: This aiioWS far shared parking betwEen the office
uses and the brewery and restaurant opErations.
D. Phase zz which involves the east building wauld have either
3,325 square feet of GRFA or 2,400 square feet of commercial
office space. This proposal is basically the same as
ariginally proposed except that there would be a net dearease
of office of 3,325 square feet.
• E. A1l canditions of approval associated with the existing
develapment plan shall be included in the revised plan.
• TT. ISSUES
A. The TDA report ca11s for 81 parkang spaces for Phase S-Plan A
or 102 parking spaces far Phase 2-Plan B. (P1an A calls for
more office space. Plan B has a greater amount of
restaurant space associated with the micro-brewery). 74
surface parking spaces wil1 be provided. This results in a
deficit of 7 to 28 parking spaces. The report recommends
either valet parking or off-site parking to meet the deficit.
Phase T-Plan B with the expanded restaurant use for the
brewery requires 102 spaces. The staff believes that the
structure will need to be constructed at this time as appased
to Phase TT.
Basically, the staff's primary concern is that tha project
have adequate parking for all phasas. At this time, it
appears that thare is a deficit of 7 to 28 spaces. The
developer wi11 need to present a specific plan as to how this
deficit will be handled or eliminated.
B. The staff would like to understand haw the developer praposes
to build the project without impaCting existing parking which
is needed for the Glen Lyon office Building.
. C. The amount of square faotage for the employee dwelling unit
should be determined.
D. There may be other design issues associated with the revised
proposal. At this time, the staff is still warking with the
awner to review the specifics on the design of the projeet.
.
• T0: The Planninq and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: November 13, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for an exteriox alteration at 230 Bridge Street
(Slifer Building), Lot B, Block 5, Vail Villaga First
Filing, in order ta construct a 93 square foat addition.
Applicant: Rad and Beth S1ifer
I. THE PROPOSAL
The applicant is requestzng an exterior alteratzon and additinn
at the Slifer Building an Bridge Straet, which if approved would
include a shop front revision and an addition of 93 square feet
of floor area. This shop was previously leased by "C1ub Vail",
essentially a tee-shirt shop. However, with the campletion af
this exterior alteration, an interiar design retail store,
similar to "The Finishing Touch" will be operated out af the
space.
This axteriar alteration calls for the follawing site
modi£ications:
~ - The additian of brick pavers immediately in front of the
shop; this would replace the existing concrete surface.
- The addition of two planter boxes and a bench; ta be
located in the small courtyard adjacent to the store
entry.
- The existing maple tree wi11 remain in its current
location. However, the applicant is praposing ta prune the
tree to aiiow for greater storefront visibility.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior
alteration request:
1. Zane District: Commercial Core 1
2. Lot Area: 3,210 sq. ft.
3. Site Coverage*:
Allowable = 2,568 sq. ft. = 800
Existing = 2,860 sq. ft. = 890
Current Propasal - 93 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 2,953 sq. ft. = 920
~
* See attached staff inemorandum far the requested site coverage
variance.
~ 4. Parking:
The proposed 93 square feet of additianal floor area will
require 0.31 parking spaces. The applicant has agreed ta
contribute to the Town parking fund to meet this
requirement.
ZZI. COMPLXANCE WTTH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I
18.24.010 Purpose:
The Commercial Core I district is zntended 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 T District is
intended ta ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and ather amenities appropriate to the
permittad types of buildings and uses. The
district regulations in accordance with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and Design
Cansiderations prescribe site deveIopment
standards that are intendad to ensure the
maintanance 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.
It is the staff's opinian that this proposal is in confnrmance
with the intent of the purpose section of the Cammercial Care I
zone district as stated above.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
There are na sub-area concepts which relate directly to this
area of the Village.
V. COMPLTANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CQNSTDERATTONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
A. Pedestrianization:
This exterior alteration will have no impact upon
pedestxian circulation within the Vail Village area.
B. Vehicular Panetration:
This addition will have no impact upon vehicular
. penetration within the Vail Village area as Bridge Street
is generally classified as a pedestrian-only street.
. C. Steetscape Framework:
The Design Considerations strive ta improve the quality of
the walking/pedestrian environment by promoting the use of
landscaping along pedestrian routes and the creation af
plazas and park green spaces as open nades and focal points
along those rautes. The Design Consideratians also suggest
the infill of comrnercial starefronts at key locations along
pedestrian routes to add street life and visual interest to
the Village.
The staff feels that this praposal will contrabute
positively to the overall pedestrian experiance. The
proposed planter boxes, bench and paver design, along with
the preservation of the existing mapla tree, will create a
small plaza area which we believe wiii enhance the lawer
Bridge Street area.
D. Street Enclosure:
The guidelines emphasize that building facade heights
should not be unifarm from building to building and that
they shauld provida a cQmfortable enclosure far the street.
This proposed expansion will provide the recommended
stapped-back appaarance to the west elevation of the Slifer
Building and staff believes the Slifer Building will be in
. canformance with this design criteria.
E. Street Ed e•
This criteria encourae~}buildings in the Village Core to
fQxm a strong but irre~ular edge ta the street.
The proposed addition will meet this criteria with its
glass-walled facade and irregular building line. The sma11
plaza area and extensive window transparency will also add
to the visual interest af the pedestrian environment.
F. Building Height:
The proposed addition wiii have a maximum hezght of 10 feet
and will have na impact on overall building height.
G. Views and Focal Points:
This proposal will have no impact on views.
H. Service and Deliver ;
No impact. The existing service/delivery alley on the east
side of the buiiding will not be affected.
~ Y. Sun Shade
This proposal will not substantially increase the spring or
fall shadaw patterns on adjacent properties or on Bridge
Street.
• VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval af this request for an exterior
alteration. We feel that the praposal complies with all of the
applicable Design Considerations of the Vail Village Urban
Design plan.
The staff recommendation for approval includes the condition
that the companion appliaation for a site coverage variance be
apprQVed.
.
.
i
~ 1 .
~ . ~
.
- - --r
~ I
E ~ -
.
~
• ~ ' _ . . _ _f ~ :n4.r=~~~~M - .~.t
' ~ ~1+ L ' - -•A~
TL2 t6
~-C-r~-;-~--! ~
.
~
T4 Tow4l '
~NI
UL- ;A NT,
~-i. ~,~,~,-.~'~H ~-~FI.~~N~ •
WALL
5
! I
~
' . . 'ritYlr
I A
' ~ ~ ~`~~~r ~~i;'.~ i'iii~ { t~~.~.,~ij
~
~ i~~~ l~? • 1 ~ . j ~ ~ I ~ I ~ ~ ~ • i ~ ~ , ~ j `~l~f'?~'7? ~ Ir
WH,.,
~ ~ s• ' ' t, ~ 4 , ~j ;a
~ , • , ~ ~ , ,
~ 1 F.}~ I f j . 1 . f R' ell l d#~
x. rt? f ~ ~
: ~ r } ~ ~ r y,r r . s. ~~yri 't u. ~ ~ ~ • t' i ! ~ E" . ~ ~ :
~ ! g. .z `l a . ~,x ~X ' .~3~,~{-~~ F[ x ~ ~ ~ ~
. , i .y,.~~ ..;-t~r,~s. 'r,.w.-.~ i . G 3e~.:. y„~ ~ . sE•4~ . f- ; q ,'`s
~ _ . , . ~ . aG~ s~` ; t. F I r.. ~ ~~~~a. 'j
rt'
,y~
w 1: • ~
~`s• ~ r a ~ ''''~'M~ r Y, ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~ ? ~ . '
g'~ f F ' u~ ,3 ~ i~ 4 r k~y.qL -e }~rce t I a i F ~
, • ' , ' . ~ • " ?
I t ~1 ~ ~ G.G.c.i ~ • . . ' - ' " . ~ N
. . .
. , , , .
. . ~ 1a~2~•8`1 ~ ~ti~
. .
~ , - Arno;d
uff . , ~
' , ~ . , " _ . - _ ~ . . t
. y.
. . ~ . ' , ' ~
s _ . . sAi
' ' • 4.. . . ~ . , r . . . - ~ ' ~ r ' - ti ~bt~
~'''r~~
• ' ' 'T- ~4 ~ra ,'~r; ~
, ` o N`~~
-'-,.c • , - . ~ ~ fa ~i.x. ry:
L+~4 ' ~ ~ ~ - . ~ ' . . ~ .V Y N'..~ h t s,~~l. t'~ ~ ~ ,
i ~ . . . 3 L
I'
~
, 3 i ' . ' . . . ' c. .
. . . v . ; ' ~ ~ . . ' '
,
. , T .
, # . ~ S.~ r!! ~ .yf ~ ~i~~ 3t - i " ~ ~ ' •
~4
. ~ . . ' _ ' •
r-~;h+r~,,
' . ' • '~'I ~~Y~i .a ~
~ ' ,~~a ~ y.R~ ~~ta I r ' ' • ' „ <r
Zt,` q 3~ ~kkh"li'~,?.~+' ~ i ` . ' . ~ , ~ • ~ t
~~~ir`~ , eti • - ` O S . ' , f ~ ~ . ' Y~ ,'C
_ , _ ~ . di ` • 1 • , ~ - . . f~
• : • r _ . ~ 3~'; ,
Y4,
~ _ .;a . f ~.t~O~D ~ : ~i~~, ~?~C'a ~ , .
5• 6~;~ x~,•.`,~#~1~~ ` : , ~
. ~ , , . , 5- jy,•. v }~t t st 5~ } ~ i F ~
. ' , ' . . . :~a 4y.Fi -~V'y ,f',.;-a ~a xc~1 bf '•a
, - • r . J' ~ f
- ~ • , . r.' i ~~'i. iYa t r p r 5` ;r a
• 6 f ~ 'S T ' S ~ ' . ~
: . + r ~ ~ 4'W i~,""~ a'~i~f7~ s'~~ ~"y~s.~#t ~ ,~'epr~t~E ~a~s~ w
,{'r4+~1
~N ;6
r
_ ' ' ~ v. , ~ ~ ~ r f* a!_rH~+P ~id~ :y~ ~~A'ks~l y •~~ky4 ~~,,,~~':~~}d~W_ t~ '~~p ~i'1 ~ i:`.
N~ ~ r
s;; 5w--~1~ti
T617.~'w= ' ~ iy'~ ~~S
~d"+~
~ m f ~~fi-
~i'f.x__i:~~raL~i:s~~1.A!eiSf:.,i~,i.RA+m~~~-r*~L''.7e9~.'~~..^..~:['~ir..,.?~,
. w
Vail Srewery Company
5outh Frontage lioad, West
1000
~iv;KD
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 476•0838
MEM4RANDUM
T'O: Kristan Pritz
FROM: Andrevv D. No
SUBJECT: Amendment to Area D(Glen Lyon Commercial Site), SDD4
DATE: October 16, 1989
~ l3ACKGROUND
In 7anuary, 1989, the Town approved a major an3encment to SDD4. Pertaining to
Area D of SDD 4, the ordinance included permissian to develop 11,793 square feet of
"commercial area", (as defineci) on Parcel A of Lot 54, Glen Lyon Subdivision. The
Qrdinance included permission to develop a"microbrevvery" (as defined) as a Conditional
Use. The Deveiapment Plan approved for Area D also incinded a two level parking
structure, a development on Parcel D(East Building) and an adciition to the existing Gien
Lyon Office BUilding of 2,400 square feet. The Ordinance further contained conditions
pertaining to deceleration lanes, relocated bicycle path, wndergxounding electrical, and
location of a Town bus facility on the site.
The building praposed for Parcel A(the Vail Brewery) totallecl 18,800 square feet
which included 6,600 square feet for brewery nperations and was a three floor structure.
T}ie brewery's capacity was approved for 7,500 barrels per year and included a full bottling
aperation. Loading and storage areas were sized for the requirements of bottle packaging.
The comtnirinent of a large area to an "industrial" use; i.e., bottling, etc., severely
limited tne project's financability. In addition, the requirement to construct a parking
structure to support an innovarive project without an aperaring history became an
unsolvable financial obligarion. As a result, the building on Parcel A has been redesigr?ed
as a smaller, less specialized project.
The new design is a two story building with a sma11 sub-basement which totals
16,0IX0 gross square feet. It is designed to permit the Vail Brewery to expand, if
. appropriate, into the secand floar. Initially all of the Vait Brewery's facilities, with the
exception of its entry/reception and loading areas, are on the lower floor.
. . ,
Kristan Pritz - TOV
October 16, 1989
Page 2
nFQvEsT
The developer (Glen Lyon Office Building, a Colorado partnership), is requesting
an amendment to Area D of SDD 4 to facilitate the revised Development Plan. Speci~'ic
provisions include the following:
18.46.103 F. DEVELOPMENT FOR AREA D.
USE P"~ ,I, CSF PARKING
1. Existing Office wx°4~L 10,150 40.6
2. Addition I Es r3:=J 2,800 J5D 11.2
Subtotat 12,950 52.8
3. Microbrewery
Phase I:
Office 4.200 ; L~f7 16.8
Subtotai 17,150 69.6
BeerHali 1,560 16.*
~ Bxew Pub 950 S.
Retail 175 s~ ~ 1.
Brewhouse 950 Q
Office 170 .7 E
R6ception/Museum fiOQ ~ Q
Subtatal 4,335 25.7
Grand Total I 95.3
Phase 11
Office 2,200 9.
Subtotal _15,150 ~ 61.8
Beer Hall 2,045 • 20. S*
Brew Pub 950 S.
Retail 1,000 3.3
Brewhouse 1,520 ~ Q
Office 170 .7
Receptian/Museum 600 0
Subtotal 6,215 32.5
Grand Tota1 II 94.3
*The developer is praposing that the seating capacity be calculated
• on a basis of 10 sf/per seat rather than 15 sflper seat.
The East Building development program remains unchanged.
~
~ Kristan Pritz - TOV
October 16, 1989
Page 3
18.46.180 PARKING AND LOADING
1. The surface parking lot which presently contains 54 spaces shall be
expanded to 74 spaces. The developer shall re-located the access point to the
parking lat and construct the deceleration lanes in accordance with the approved
CDQH plan.
2. The restaurants located an Parcel A shall not be open to the public for
business during normal business hours. Such hours are generally weekdays
(Monday through Friday) between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m..
Weekends (Saturday and Sunday) and national holidays sha11 be excluded. OC"'T f-NA
At such time that weekday operations are requested and/or development of ,
Parcel D is undertaken, a plan far constructing structured parking will be
submitted for approvat.
3. The Parking Management provisions included in the TDA Parldng Report
and referenced in 18.46.180, paragraph 3, shall be amended to reflect the revised
parking program.
.
0
E. Developnent Controls
Area Units GRFA
Acres 15 DU/Acre .35
Origi.nal Parcel 15.68 252.00 256,437
Robbins Parcel 1,23 19.68 18,752
Cosgriff Parcel 1.045 16.72 I5,932
17.955 288.4 291,121
c~157 ! /U~~ /}pP~~~)U~-1r
F. DEVEL PMENT ~'OR ARE'I-~ D, GLEN LYON COMMERCxAL SITE
U5E GRFA COMM. S. FT. PARKING 1. EXTSTTNG OFFICE 10,150 40.6
2. Glen Lyon O£fice Ad . 2,400 9.6
3. MICRO-BREWERY*
OFFICE 700 2.8
BEER HALL 1,774 14.7
Brew Pub 1,858 15.5
Retail 446 1.5
Brew House 6,600 0
Museum 41.5 D
~ 4. EAST SUILDZNG
e
e
a'
~ scenario 1
~
~
f 2 Empl.oyee
Dwellings 1595 i 4
1 Dwelling 1630 2
OFFICE 2,400 9•5
~ oR or
Scenario 2
OFFZCE 5,725 22.9
TOTALS
1125 Of_fice 14 . 950
. c
MID
~
D. Area D, Glen Lyon Commercial Site
l. The developer shall agree to construct a hus shelter
per Town of Vaa.l standards adjacent to Development
Area D. The specific lacation for the bus shelter
shall be mutually agreed to by the Area D owner and/ar
deve3oper, Colorado Division of Highways, and Town of
Vai1. The bus she].ter shall be canstructed subsequent
to the 9.ssuance of a building permit and pxa.or to the
issuance of a temporary certa.ficate of occupancy for
either the brewery additian, office expansion, east
office buildi.ng, or parking structure.
2. The developer shall relocate the existing bike path on
~ Axea D and prava.de a new bike path easement across the
Glen Lyon praperty and CDOH property pex the
development plan for Area D. The bike path sha7.1 be
constructed per Town af Vail standards. The bike path
shall be constructed subsequent ta the issuance of a
building permit and prior to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for either the
brewery addition, office expansion, east office
bui].ding, or parking structure. Such temporary
certificate of occupancies shall be conditional upon
constructian of the bike path provided for herea.n.
3. The deve3oper shall underqraund the electrical
util.ities along the narth side of the Glen Lyon
~ property from the northwest corner af the property to
the northeast cnrner of the property. This util9.ty
work sha11 be constructed subsequent to tha issuance
of a building permit and priar to the issuance of a
temporary certificate of occupancy for the brewery
addition, office expansion, east office building, or
4. The developer shall be responsible for relocating the
20 faot utility easement on the we5tern portion af
Develapment Area D as well as obtaining approvaZ from
the Tawn of Vail for the relocated utility easement
-before a building permit i5 xeleased for the micro-
brewery addition.
5. The developer of the Glen Lyon Office property shall
not file any remonstrance or protest against the
formation of alocal improvement district or othex
financing mechanism approved by the Vail Town Council
which may be established for the purpose o£ buxlding
road impravements for the South Frontage Road.
6. The developex shall provide a fire hydrant per Town af
~ Vail Fira Department requirements on the northwest
portion of the property. The specifzc locatian for
the fire hydrant shall be approved by the Vai1 Fire
Department. The fire hydrant sha11 be provided
subsequent to the issuance of a building permit and
prior to the issuance of a temparaxy certificate of
occugancy for the brewery addition, office expansian,
east office building, or parking structure.
7. The conditions for Area D in Sectzons 18.46.184 D,
18.46.200 C, F, G, H, I, J, 18.46.210 D, 1-6, and
18,46,220 shall be set forth in restrictive covenants
subject to the approval of the Town Attorney and once
so appraved shall bE recorded on the land records of
~ Eagle County. The developer sha11 be responsible for
submitting the written conditions to the Town Attorney
within 30 days after the Town Council's final approval -
af the SDD ordinance.
18.46.220 Em loVee Hausinq
-----n .,P cnA
r.ri 1 1 ha~~a i mnar_t~ nn av~ i~ ahl P Pmnl nvPa
Areas A and D shall provide employee housing on site. The
developer(s) of Areas A and D shall build a minimum of 10
employee dwelling units within either Area A westhaven
Candominium building or Area A Westhaven Condominium Building
and Area D East building. Each employee dwelling unit shall
have a minirnum square footage of 648 square feet. The GRFA and
number of emPloYee units sha11 not be counted toward allowable
density or GRFA far SD4. The GRFA and number of employee
dwelling units shall be restxicted as employee dwelling units
for 20 years plus the life of Tiffany Christine Lowenthal fzom
the date of final certifzcate of occupancy £or said units. The
emplayee dwelling unit shall not be leased or rented for any
period of less than 30 consecutive days, and that if rented, it
~ shall be rented anly to tenants who are full time employees in
the Upper Eagle Va1ley. The Upper Eagle Va11ey shall be deemed
to include the Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Giiman, Eagle-
Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas. A fu11 time
employee is a person who works an average of 30 hours per weak.
If a unit is sold, it shall be sold only ta afuii time emplayee
in the Upper Eagle Va11ey. The owner shall occupy the unit or
lease/rent as per the requirements in thzs section. The
employee dwelling unit shalI nat be divided into any form of
timeshares, interval ownership, or fractional fee ownership. A
declaration of covenants and restrictions shall be filed on
record in the office of the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder in a
farm approved by the Town Attoxney for the benefit of the Town
to ensure that the restrictions herein sha11 run with the land
befnre a building permit is re3eased for the construction of the
employee units. . '
18.46,230 Time Requirements ,
SD4 shall be governed by the procedures outlined in Section ~
i
~
TD~ Novombor 6, 1989
caLoRADo
NVMM INC.
Mr. Andy Norris
Vail Brewery Company
1000 S. Frontage Road W.
Transportatkon SLilte 200
Consultants VG-~. il, CO 81657
RE: Vail Brewery, Parking Analysis
Dear Andy,
As requested, we have reviewed the parking implications on your
proposed package of revisions ta thc Vai1 Brewery development
program. Similar to our approach used in the analysis presented
in our August 10, 1988 report, we have synthesized a case for
parking demand by assessing the number of brewery employees and
patrons who wauld present at peak accumulation, and, the
anticipated mode of travel of these parsons. This analytic
approach is described in detail and presented graphically in our
August repoxt.
. We have used your memorandum of 10/16/89 to Kristan Pritz far
comparing the proposed amended develapment plan to the currently
approved plan. In both cases the design conditi.axA w,iii be a l-Liyii
summer day. This represents a time of year when Vail Valley
vi.sitation is high and patrnns will be much mare inclined to have
and use automobiles than woul.d winter patrnns.
Our understanding of the proposed amendment, as it effects persons
present at the Brewery during peak accumuZation (7:00 pm) is:
1. The Beer Ha11 initiall.y wi11 now have 150 seats and may
be expanded to 200 seats. The approved p1.an cal.led for
180 seats.
2. The Bxew Pub seating (bar and table) wi1l be so seats.
The approved plan shows 120 seats.
3. The Brewery related retail space was going to be 400
square feet in the approved plan. Under the amended plan
xt will initially be 175 square feet, passa.bly growing
to 1,000 feet with restaurant expansian.
Table 1 shows total persons present at peak accumulation for the
Brewery. Initially there would be 233 persans. This is 35 fewer
than the approved plan. With expansion of the restaurant area we
~omer s. antiCipate more persons would be present, 296 varsus 268 in the
Denver,C080202 approved plan.
(303) 625 7107
d' vi 00 N r-1 c'f o0 GOI Q
` ~ N N ry N~ N ~ N N
H
. ~
~ Q
0 ~
~
.1-3
N ~ O lp 0 O i0 lfl O fl
I l d' •r-I
~
~4 V4
a
~
m a a o o ~
Q1 I tV I CO CO I t4 Q)
N
~
O
~4
41
Pf(i 4 ~ O
>v tn LC) 0 Lo m 0 cn r- ol r- 'o 'q r-I i-1 r-I O e~ r-f 00 r3 {V M ~
r4 H U} N N s--I r-I {V N (1)
ro O ~ 0
a ~
N •rl f~ 'Z~
0 CG .P
H rd o 0 0 ~
. ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~~V'
~W UU1 ~f
U
H~cd x 'o
~~.,a~ m ~ .
a ~
144.~ 0 ~4 O N IIN N IIN N I~N 0
O ~ 0
~4-)
U
~
"d ~ •r~i
~ ~ ~~j O
(D N ~
4J ~ a ~ H ~I Ln ~ ~ ,~l N M ~l ~ ~ ~
a
w ~ ~
o ~ ~
~ ~ ~ o m
~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ o
~ ~4
•i C3) r-i tn ~-l co (n ~4 0 Tn (D
r-i ~n w m (1) r-~ n) w ro cu a~ 3
~ vUl w aC) (nw +J (D U) w
+J rO >1 r~ >11 r~ u, >,r, A ~4
z~ ~ maor-q ro oaF--l w oor-, Hpq
a~ ~~p fd (1) r-i ~4 (d ar-i ~4 (a
>1 9 o u 4-) ~O Pi aP 04+~ 4-)
rc$ a~ ~0 M o 9 0 bo 4 F~ 0 a
N O 04 WWH a1W04 E-i 4-J WP4 H ~
~ > >
p °a
z Q ~ ni M z°n
~
Mr, Andy Norris
. November 6, 1989
Page 3
Table 2 depicts the number of parked vehicles at peak person
accumulation utilizing the anticipated travel modes referenced in
our August report. Initial demand would be 77 spaces, fiv'e fewer
than the approved p1an. After restaurant expansion the peak demand
would be for 97 vehic].es, nine more than the approved plan.
Tab1e 2
Estimated Number of Persons and Vehicles on Sita
@ Peak Accumulation (7:0(3 PM}
Brewery_
Devalo ment Scenario Persons 1 # Parked vehicles
l. Approved Plan (1/89) (2)
Employees 24 12
Patrpns 244 76
~ Tata3. 268 88
2. Amended Plan, initially
Employees 22 11
Patrons 211 66
Tota1 233 77
3. With Restaurant expan.
Employees Zg 14
Patrons 258 83
Total 296 97
Source: TDA based on estimated hourly accumulatian of brewery
visitors and employees, by travel znode.
1. See Table 1
2. See TDA report dated August 10, 1988, Table 2.
~
4
~
Mr. Andy Narris
November 6, 19$9
. Page 4
Applying a 95% utilization factor, the 77 space demand for the
praposed amended plan would suggest a supply of 81 spaces. The
proposed amendment shows 74 parking spaces available on-site. This
short-fall could be made up by arranging for OVeY'fZOW parking
across Sauth Frontage Road at the Cascade Crossxaads property.
Unl.ess regulated otherwise this will likely occur de facto because
of the shorter walking distances involved. Overflow conditions
would ].a.kel.y onl.y occux at ti.mes of high visitation over the summar
months.
Restaurant expansion within the Breraery would suggest a 102-space
parking supply. The on-site short-fal.l would increase t0 28
spaces. At this 1.eve1 of deficiency we would suggest formalizing
an arrangement to 1) have valets tandem park vehicles on site, or
2} park employee and overflow guest vehicles acrass the road, or
3) a combination af tha above that satisfies the 28-space need.
~ Please call me if you have any questions.
SincPrely,
TDA COLORADO INC.
~
~
David D. Leahy, P.E.
Principal
~
~ • ~<~U1 ~2c~
Proposed 1 U' P 0
~ .
VAII. HREWERY/GLEN J.YON OFFIGE
Parking nemand AuaIysis aad
~ Pargiag Management Plen
Intraduction
~ Thts report describes an analysis of expected parking need for the proposed Vail Brewery.
The brevsrery is proposed as a remodeiing/ redevelopment of #he e.~isting Glen Lyon afflee
~ building in Cascade ViUage along South Fmntage Road. This project is described as
"Development Area D" in the Cascade Village Development Plan. The 3-story 13,500
square foot gross floor area offlce buffdirg is sited in the westez-n hai#' af the 1.75 acre
~ parcel. A linear, single bay, head-in, parkfng iot extends from the east end of the building
320 feet to the east end of the parcel. The 54-space surface parking area is seavect b3r a
~ single two-way access drive from the I-70 frontage raad. Entry ta the off:fce building is at
the west end of the lot and along the north face of the building, connected by aramp
walkway to the parking area. Tne north entrance is about eight feef below the frontage
~ road eievation as the builclin.g steps down the slope leading to Gore Creek.
~ Our parking demand anaxysis of thfs unique Iand use takes into account expected fravei
~ and firip rnaking characteristics of Vail Valley visitors and residents.
~ Prapased Praject
The proposed redevcloprnent consists of three parts;
1) A new 11 eb~;A96ovv square faot guest-oriented microbrewery S0Od ~~jka-~e ~0~F ~
~ s otn a~~ rej es the e~~ oC ffice (sa~~
2) ~pan ~ of P
3) Additfon of a• ~;~-square foot offlce b~zilding and r2,.98ff square foot
residence~ at~h~~ew
east end of the parcel.
~ The micrabrewery wlll feature "European Alpfne" dining served banquet style in the
evening. The dinner will include live entertainment. SpeciIlc uses and attractions wffl bee
o y~2-06,390-sq.ft. brewhause, around the clock ge~a#ing hours 10
~ Q 15v~-~eat beer ha1i, 6:00 PM to midnight ~.1~~
. ..90&-sq.ft.)
o Zirnited menu brew pub with ~-Pble seats (includes seasomd
JAM -P_ 4-1
~ outdoor deck area) and ar seats,
' to mic3night
~ o sq.ft. of retafi space (brewery reiated merchandise)
o606M sq.ft. museum and reception area
~ o J60 A-.299 sq.ft. administrativc offices
o .
~ o .lz6M-sq.ft. storage, loading dock and circulation
~ 60a
~
1 TDA
~
fie
~ Elements of the operations and sta#'fing plan that effect garking dernand include:
1. The beer ha1T w111 operate on a banquet format with advance reserved seating
or it can be reserved for a group gatherin,g (receptions, award banquets, etc<).
~ 2. Typicaity one dinner show nightly in the beer hall. A secand dinner show
starting at 8:00 PM may be added during peak winter periads and summer
~ holiday times.
3. Typically, twa brewery employees on each af three shifts.
4. Fifteen to ssxteen food and beverage employees in the beer hall and six fn
~ the brew pula thraugh the evening hours.
5. Administrative staff of five to si7c persons, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PM typical work
c~
day(o-~ 4r ce. d o ~ c c~ v~
~
~ parking Dexaaad Pararneters
Qn-site parking demand will fluctuate by time of year. For design purposes, we have
developed typical "high day" scenarios, i.e. a conditian that can be anticipated to
~ accommadate parking needs at all but a few days of the year. From prior experience fri
Vail and other Calorado dest.ination resort communities, vve havc developed a range of
~ traveI hehavior indtces that reflect typical modes of travel and vehicle occupancy rates by
~ trip rnakcr (employee, resident, day and destination visitars). Table I depicts the travel
parameters we ut.ilized for summer and winter visitors to #he Vall Srewery.
~ For parking demand analysis we are interested in the number of vehicles expected cluring
~ "peak accumulatian," i.e. that time of day when the combfnation of employees and visitors
on site will be highest.
~ Of principal interest is the partion of vlsitors and employees who wlll arrive as either a
driver or passenger of a parked vehicle. Employees wili heavlly rely on pnvate autos
~ followed by public transit as their preferred arrival mode. Summer visitors typical3y ezWbit
a much nigher use of private autos than da wtnter visftors. Summer visitors often wM
take day trips to and from dfstant locatians. Fewer winter visitors will use a priva~~ or
~ ren#al car as a way of reaching Vail than in the surnmer. Even thase winter destinatioxi
visitors who arrivad via auto wilI often leave their car parked for in-town tnps preferririg to
~ use the transit systein ar walk instead.
~
~
~
~
2 TDA
~
~
Table 1
Assumed TraveI Parameters
~ Proposed Vafl Microbrewcry
Vail, Coloradn
, % By, Mnje:
~ Auto Driver/ Drop Public Courtesy
Mocie o_f_Arrlval Passen er Off Transit Van Other Total
a. Employees
~ - Winter 55 10 30 fl 5 lOd
- Summer 55 10 25 0 10 100
b. Vfsitors
~ - Winter 47 0 25 20 8 100
- 5urnimer 68 a 12 5 15 100
~ # Persons/
Auta OccupancX Farked Car
a. Employees
~ - Wi.rzter 1.3
- Summer 1.1
b. Visifors
- Winter 3.0
- Stxmmer 2.2
Source: TDA based on the follawing references:
1. The Colorado Skier. ,1,977-78 Season, University of Coiorado, 1978.
' 2. As en Pitkiri County. 'n-ansft TSM Alternatives Stud . 5eptember,
1978.
~ S. Idaho Ski Studv, University of Idaho, 1978.
4. Vehicle occupancy counts in Park City, Winter Park and Keystone.
~ The Vail Free Shuttie public transit system provides year round servtce for residents and
visitors. The microhrewery site is seived by the West Vafl South route which travels along
~ South Frontage R+oad connectirig Cascade Viilage, Lionshead Vfflage and the Vail
Transportation Center in Vafl Vfllage. Site redevelopment will fncozporate a bus pull-in for
an eastbaund bus stop. This wEll augment the existing westbound stap across the road at
~ the Vail Professional Suiiding. The current bus schedule provides hourly service during
summer morning and afternoon peak penods. Throughout winter, the service increases to
~ every 45 minutes from 7:00 AM to midnight. A number of lodgings in Vail provide
courtesy vans for trazxsporting their guests to and frozn local attractions. We anticipate
ainnost half, 45%, of winter visitors will use elther public transit or courtesy vans to visit
~ the microbrewery. Summer vfsftor use af these modes wi1l be considerably less, 17%, due
to reduced transit serviee and greater availabi]ity azid reliance on private autos during the
~ summer.
~
3 TDA
~
• The site is served by twa bikeways--a bike lane alargside eastbound Frontage Road and
~
bikepath along the south side of Gare Creek. An es#imated 15% of surnmer visitors wfll
~ use the bikeways to either walk or bike to the mfcrpbrewery. In winter an estimated 8% of
the visitors wiU be "other" as pedestrian or ski-in/ski-out replaces bicycle as the non-
vehicular mode of arrival at the microbrewery.
~ Peak Parking Demand
~ By plotting the expected nurnber of visftnrs and employees that couid be at the brewery on
a typical busy winter or summer day and then applying the appropriate "parked cas" factor
for each category, we arzive at the hourly parked vehicle distributian shown in Figure 1.
~ As shown, peak accumulatian occurs between 7:00 PM and 8:00 PM. At this tfine in the
evening, aIl facilities would be open and operating and the number of food and beverage
~ empioyees present would be at the highest level af the day. Not present during peak
accumulation would be administrative staff of the brewery aperation and tenants and
visitors to the relocated office building. Parktng demand for the afflce builcling will
~ typically be at a maximum in earty afternoons, graflually dirnirYishing to just a few spaces
by 6:00 PM. Offlce parkfng need is equivalent to 55 spaces for the proposed use per the
town's zoning regulations. We would expect that a block of 50 to 60 spaces will be posted
~ for "tenaxit and visitor use only" for the combined office space. ThLs restric#ion would be in
effect from 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM on weekc3ays.
~ Maxlmum brewerY ParkLng ~ demand would oc ur on a busY summer daY with an estimated
~ demand for 88 parkLng spaces. Seven -sfx af fihese spaces would be generated by visitor
demand and an estimated 12_ spaces used by employees. To afford sozne level of
assurance of finding available spaces without extensfve searching, we suggest vfsitor
~ parking suppiy should be slightly more than visitor parking dernand. Using a parking
utihiy factor of 950/o would yieid a suggested visitar pazking supply of 80 spaces. Adding
~ 12 spaces for employee use at this t.ime of day suggests a total brevvery supply of 82
spaces. Parkfng utilization by time of year is s»mmarized in Table 2.
44 ce., rJC> 5:.r32~S
~ct.ti Lu.,, Y-e dx-~ L.,~ ~ 3 l~ 4"~ 1 za
)v V) 0 C'e.4e ( q D (-P -3, a)
st d c~~~11/- V, 2I fl•vsGLZ,, p.vv, tlrS r~8r Ccw)
,
d
~ f ~ S S S f~LL G'l t^P G~ GC c ~~i3v! l u A'l'Li~ / 09 ~p ~
r ~ 1 ~
~~-K 12 ya-w ~ ~ s~~.~ ~ ~t s ~ ~ ~ ,•~~~~Q/~ TDA
~t-f,' 1 7 s pax&-~ 4'~, 4tw
~ o
~
~
~ •
.
:
.
!~RE'rfERY PARKING ~
11 U .,c; ~"~M A •
~s_' " ° •
NOON
~=i sn•.t~~: :
,;~,~.s~~'~•'"~ DFFICE PARKING SUPPLY
~ ~e:: w«.c" = 55 SPACES
_
~ 'x M1 ~'d'i?•.~
'4:§~~~•j .
3
4 ~ . ~
• ~
o~+ ~ a
•
~ rn
> x
`
. ~
W ~
a
8 Y
~
Q
d
~ 9 ~i
'~O ~ H]GH SiJM~tER DAY
~ 11 , .
PM
~ o io 20 30 40 50 so 70 so go
P A R K I N G S P A C E 5
~
Figure I
~ ESTIMlaTED PARKING DEMAND/SUPPLY $Y TIME 0F DAY
Proposed Vail Brewery
~
TQ.4
~ .
~ 7'able 2
~
Estimated 11Tumber of Persons and Yehicles Prescat
at Peek Acceunulation (7:00 P30
~ Brewerv
Persons Vehicles
~ Sumrner
Employee 24 12
Visftor 244 76
TotSl 268 88E" {98o)2}
~ Win er
EmpIoyee 24 10
Visftar 304 49
~ Total 824 59(1) (64%) "2'
5ource: TDA based on estimatefl hourly accumulatian of brewery visftors and
~ eznployees.
1. See Figure Z.
2. Utitization, based on 92 space available parking supply.
With more winter rrfsitors arriving via public transit and courtesy vans than sumrner
visitors, total winter demand would be less--59 spaces. Applying the same utdity factor to
~ tlae 49 visftor spaces in the total would suggest a typical winter day necd of 62 spaces.
~ fience, some e.xcess on-site parldng capacfty woulfl be ava9lable, even after compensating
~ gcar loss due to snow starage, during wliifer months.
ftrking Needs
~ The 92-space parking supply discussed above could satisfy anticipated on-sfte (brewery and
office building) needs for most typical sftuations, if the parking is pooled far joint
~ office/brewery use. Fifty-five of #he spaces would be earmarked for daytime offlce use
while the rernaixiing 37 spaces would be fuU time breweiy spaces. During evenings and on
weekends, visitor parking should extend into the vacated affice parkirg area. Suggestions
for managing the prapased parking supply are discussed in the subseqUent section.
,j
~ ftrking Managcmcnt
The provision of 92 parking spaces to joinfily serve the praposed microbrewery and
remodelled Glen Lyon affice space should be sufficient for all but a few situatfans. To a ~ large extent, these situatfans can be axzticipatec3 because of advance booking requfrements.
Furthermare, parking Iayout and operation can greatly faciiitate desired use of the pool of
on-sfte parking spaces.
G~
&Lk= Layouj--In all likelihood, a twa-level sixigle bay parkfng deck wfU be needed to
~ replace the extsting 54-space surface lat. A portion of this deck can be cordoned aff to
serve the dayti'me needs of the office space. Thfrty to forty of #he 55 spaces needed for
~ offlce use could be accessed through a gate controlled lower ievel of the structure. The
6 TDA
~
~ •
• rernainfn office space cauld be signed far "tenants of G1en "
~ g Lyon only. During evening
hours when these spaces are expected to be needed for microbrewery guests, the gate
would be ]ift.ed for visitor self parking and the signed areas could be used by car haps as
~ valet spaces. Except for spaces marked as "2-hour visitar spaces." all other parkirig stalls
~oWd Ue unsigmed eaGCept far a blanket restrictian agatnst day-skier ar other unautharized
I]av-Skfer/Commercial Use- As shown in Figure 1, daytitne use o#' the parking structure
~ - _
: should resulti in a surplus of 10 to 15 spaces during a_ typical_day_in the__high winter
season.~During other winter perlods this surplus shauld be higher--perhaps 20 to 25
~ spaces as noontime brewery use is somewhat less. These anticipated surpIus spaces could
be sectioned off azxd sold to day-skfers between the haurs of 8:00 to 10:00 AM or untfI
~ Uhey are fuil, whichever comes flrst. Parking would be prepaid and be good until 5:00 PM.
This provision could hel,p dLstribute day-skiers to the new Cascade Lif't and help aIleviate
congestion at the Lfonshead Base.
~ Comparl.son with Town Zaning Requircments
~ As apoint of reference, we have summed up the individual componen#s of proposed
m,icrobrewery flaor space per Tawn of Vail Zoning Requiarernents, for comparison with our
syrathesized approach to supply estixnation. As shown in Table 3, the sum of the
~ indivfdual parts would specify 201 parking spaces. This compares to #he 94 spaces per
our axialysis (92 spaces far office and brewery plus two residential spaces). The distizxction
~ betvveen the two lles in our premtse that spaces used by daytrme office workers will be
used by brewery visftors during the peak evening hours. In essexice, we believe the nature
of this attraction and its locatron with easy access to I-70 will generatc higher vfsitor
~ parking demand than the Town's respective standard pravides. Conversely, the
compatibility of office and xnicrobrewery uses affords an opportunity to maxiage the
~ pmpased stn.zctured parking supply effectively for each use.
~
~
~
~
' TDA
i Table s
~ Parking Requirements Per Town Standards
Squarc # of Parking
t eo Foo e 5eats Reaulrement'~'
Office
~ BECr Hall ~ ~ ~ T1~~2~~aT~?~ .~J:V ~ ~ : G
BI-ew Pu1J
~ Retail AW-t 7~r 1~ f y
_ .
Residential
TOTAL
1. Consists of ,.8:95tr sq.ft. of eldsting remodeled space, 2r,400 sq.ft. gained in
~ the extensfon of the exEsting 3rd level, and _3,06C sq.ft. of new canstructian
at the east end of the property.
2. Per Town of Vai1 Zaning Regulations.
~ Summary
Our ana3ysis of the proposed Vail Brewery and remodeled Glen Lyon offlce space cancludes
that a 92-parking space supply wlll be sufficient for typical peak parkfng needs. As there
~ are no parking standards for a guest-ariented micrabrewery, aur atialysis considered
anticipated employment, visitar capacity and the seasonal variation in visitatian and travel
~ by auto fn this destination resort coxnrnunity. Design conditians wllt Iikely be gaverned by
summer holiday periods when employment and visitation could be at capacity and 68
~ percent of the visitors are estixnated to arrive via a parkeci car. Public transit, courtssy
vans and walk/bike would accaunt for #he remaining visitar mades of arrival. Peak
~ xnicrabrewery parking demand w1ll occur,between 7:00 and 8:00 PM. Daytime office use
peaks at about 2:00 PM and by 6:00 PM vfrtually all offlce spaces w!ll be vacant. A
parkirrg management plan for the required structured parking shauld be adopted to help
~ exasure adequate parking supply is available to daytime and evening employees and visi.tors
to t1ae Vail Brewery/Glen Lyon Offlce development in Cascade Village. With one access
clrive, parking management of the proposed twa-level stzucture should be virtually self
~ monitored usfng canventionai gate controls, coded cards and signing.
~
~
~
8 TDA
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: Navember 13, 1989
SUBJ: A request for a site caveraga variance at the Slifer
Building (230 Bri.dge Street), Lot B, B1ock 5, Vail
Vi].lage First Filing.
Applicant: Slifer Designs--Rod and Beth Slifer
1. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE RE UESTED
Slifer Designs is preparing to open an interior design
retail store out of the space previously occupied by "C1.ub
Vai1." on Bridge Street. The applicants are requesting ta
expand the faotprint and modify the west facacle of the
S1ifer Buildi.ng to accommodate this new business (see
attached statt memorandum for the exterior alteration
request). In order to expand the building footprint of the
Slifer Building a site coverage variance is required.
• The site coveraae numbers are as fol.lows:
Allowable: 2568 sq ft or 80% of the site
Existing: 2850 sq ft or 89%
*Proposed: 2953 sq ft or 92%
* The proposal is for an additional 93 square feet of site
coverage.
The requested variance is from Section 18.24.150 of the Tawn
of Vail Municipal Cade which states:
"Not more than 800 of the total site area shall be
covered by buildings...."
IT. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upan review of the Cra.'teria and Findings, Section
18.62.060 of the municipal code, the Department of
Community Development recommends appxoval of the
requasted variance based upon the following factars:
A. Consideration of Factors:
• l. The relata.onshi of the re uested
variance to ather existing ar
potential uses and structures in
the va.ca.nitv.
.
Tt is the staff's opinion that the requested
variance, in conjunction with the proposed site
improvements related to the exterior alteration,
would have no adverse effect upon the use of any
adjacent praperties. In fact, we feel that the
variance, if approved, would create a more
enjoyable pedestrian enviranment which would add
to the visual interest of lower Bridge Street.
Also, this requested variance would not block or
impede views fram any surrounding properties.
2. The de ree to which relief fram the strict and
literal interpretatian and enforcement of a
s ecified re ulation is necessar to achieve
campatibilitv and uniformitv of tr_eatment_among
sites in the vici.nit or to attain the ob'ectives
of this title withaut grant of special pari.vi.leae._
The staff believes that apprnval of this request
waul.d nat be a grant of special privileqe. We
feel that the variance is appropriate because the
proposed addition will enable the Sl..ifer Building
to be more in compl.iance with the Urban Design
Guide Plan than the existing structure currently
. is. Cornpliance with the Guide Plan is the most
a.mportant aspect for development in the Village,
and it is for that very reason that we feel a
departure from the generaz zoning standards a.s
warranted in this situation.
3. The effect af the rectuested variance on lic[ht_and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities ublic facilities and
utilities, ancl pub].ic safety_._
The staff finds that the requested variance will
have no significant effect upon any Qf the abave
consideratians.
III. Such factors and criteria as the commission deems a licabie
to the proposed variance.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commissxon_shall make the
fo1.l.awina findinas befare grantinq_ a v_ar_iance:
That the granting of the variance will nat constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
• limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
• That the granting af the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, ar
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted £or one ar more of the
following reasons:
The strict or literal interpretatian or
enforcement of the specified regulation wauld
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 same site of the variance
that do nat apply generally to other properties in the
same zane.
The strict interpretation ar enforcement of ths
specified regulatian 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 the variance as requested.
We feel that the Vail Village area has unique development
considerations and that approval of this variance wauld
a11ow the Slifer Building to be brought into more
confarmance with the Urban Design Guide Plan.
.
•
Plannang and EnvironmentaZ Commission
November 27, 1989
Site Va.sits:
1:00 - 2:45 pm Spraddle Creek
2:45 3:00 pm Gasthof Gramshammer
Public Hearing:
3:00 pm
l. Approval nf minutes of 10/23/89, 9/17/89 and 8/14/89
2. A request for a height variance to place a satellite
dish on the rQOf af the Gasthaf Grammshammer at 231
East Gore Creek Drive.
Appla.cant: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer
i
•
• MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Enviranmental Cammission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: Novamber 27, 1989
SUBJECT: Vail Village Master Plan Adoption
Attached please find the revised addition of the Vail Village Mastar
plan far your adoption on Monday Navember 27th. The plan contains all
of the revi.sions suggested by the Planning and Environmental Commission
from our review process which began in May, 1989. We fee1 strongly
that the intansive and thorough review the plan has received from the
P.E.C. has clarified, strengthened and enhancecl the p1an. The P.E.C.
has hold approximately 13 to 14 public work sessions an the plan in the
last 6 months and the small review subcommittee consisting of two
Planning Commissioners and staff have held an additional 15 meetings.
We are proud and excited to recommend aformal adoption of the Vail
VilZage Master Plan at this time. We feel that the plan is a cxeative,
useful policy guidelina to assist us in guiding decision making for
. both public and private seator improvement projects for the next 10 to
15 years in the Village area. The staff would like to extand a hearty
thank you to the P1.anning Commission for all your t3me and effart an
the Vail Village Master Plan. We especially, deeply appraciate the
time that Diana Donovan and Peggy Osterfoss have generously donated to
the plan. As the staff, we look forward ta the utilization of the plan
in future decision making, in implementing the publ.ic improvements and
in implementing the action steps.
The P.E.C. should be proud of the plan - it's your work!
•
- i~
~ Planning and Environmental Commission
November 27, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck Crist Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Larry Eskwith
Peggy Osterfoss Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz
Jim Viele
The rneeting was called to order at 3:40 pm by the chairman, Jim
VieZe. Preceding the meeting were site visits and work sessions.
1. Approval of minutes of 8/I4, 9/11 and 10/23. Carrectians were
made and Diana moved to approve the minutes with the
corrections and Chuck seconded the motion. The vote was 5-0.
2. A request for a height variance to pZace a satell.ite dish on
the roof of the Gasthof Gramshammer at 231 East Goxe Cxeek
Drive.
A 1 icant: Pe i and Sheika GramshamTner
This item was approved by consent agenda, with a motion by Diana
and seconded by Peggy. The vote was 5-0 in favor.
. 3. Work Session on the Vail Vill,age Master Plan
Peter led this session, and minutes were not taken, but it is on
tape.
This was Peggy's last meeti.ng, as she is a new Cauncil member.
Peter thanked her for her contributions to the Baard. Also, Sid
tendered his resignation due January ].st.
~
• T4: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: November 27, 1989
SUBJECT: A requast for a height variance for a satellite dish at 231
East Gore Creek Drive (Gasthof Gramshammer).
Applicant: Pepi and Sheika Gramshammer
I. DESCRYPTTON OF VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a height variance to locate a 29 inch
diameter satellite dish antenna on the roof of the Gasthaf
Gramshammer. The purpose of this satellite dish is to receive a
commercial music signal which will be piped into the comman areas
of the hotel/restaurant.
The total height of the satellite dish would be approximately 4
1/2 feet. The roof ot the Gasthof Gramshammer, where the dish is
proposed to be located, is appraximately 33 feet above grade, so
the top of the dish will be apprnximately 37 1/2 feet above grade.
It is proposed that the dish be attached to an existing upper
floor wa11 0f tha building (see attached photos). The dish is
~ praposed to be painted the same calor as the building.
The requested variance is fram Section 18.58.320 (D,3) af the Vail
Municipal Code, which states:
"The maximum height allawed for any satellite dish
antenna, when measured from the top of the
satellite dish antenna dawn to existing ar finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive, shall nat
exceed fifteen feet."
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 0f the
municipal code, the Department of Community Develapmant recommends
approval of the requested variance based upon the fallowing
factors:
Considexation of Factors:
l. The relationshi of the re uested variance to other existin
or otential uses and structures an the vicinit .
The small size af this proposed satellite dish lends itself
to arooftop installation. Because the dish is only 4 1/2
feet above the roof, and because the dish will be attached to
~ an existing wall, the staff believes that the dish wi1l blend
in very wall with some of the existing architectural and
mechanical features that currently exist on the rooF. The
staff feels that due to the calar, size and proposed location
of the satellite dish, that it wi11 not draw undue attention
to itself, nor wzll it create any negative impacts to
existing or potential uses or structures in the vicinity.
• 2. The deqree to which reLief from the strict and literal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulation
is necessary to achieve compatibility and unifarmity_o£
treatmentamonq sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title withaut grant of special
privileqe.
As this dish wi1l onZy have atotal height of 4 1/2
feet, it could easily be ground-mounted and therefore
meet the Town's criteria for satellite dzsh height.
Hawever, the size and proposed locatian of this dish
lends itself well to a rooftop installation. Though
rooftop installations are not always desirable for
satellite dishes, occasionally that is the optimum
mathod for screening of the dish. In this particular
request, staff believes that a rooftop location would be
the best option for the Gasthof Gramshammer proparty.
We therefore fee1 that this variance would not be a
grant af special privilege.
3. The effect af the re uested variance on li ht and air,
distribution of papulation, transportation and traffic
faciZities, public facilities and utilities, and public
safej~y.
. There is no impact on this criteria.
III. Such othex factors and criteria as the commission deems applicable
to the ra osed variance.
IV. FZNDINGS
The Planninq and Environmental Commission shall maka the following
findinqs before qranting a variance:
That the granting af the variance will not constitute a grant af
special privilege inconsistent with tha lamitations 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, ar material1y injurious ta
properties or impravements in the vicinity.
That the variance is warranted for nne or more of the fallowing
reasons:
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 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 interpretatian or enforcement oE the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the Qwners of other properties in the same district.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recammendation for this variance request is for
approval. The height requirements were written into the Satellite
Dish Ordinance specifically to discaurage rooftop applications.
However, it was alsa recognized by the staff at that time, that
there may be accasions where a rooftop installatian would be more
desirable than a graund-mounted location. We realized that this
would require an applicant to go through the variance procedure,
but still felt that this wauld be the best way to handle the
issue.
The staff has examined the Gasthof Gramshammer property and feels
that a rooftop lacation would, aesthetically, be the best locatian
for this satellite dish. Therefore, the staff recommendatian is
for approval af this height variance.
.
•
:~:i',. ~ . ~,.~.:s,-;• ,
P
; s
{ ~ < _ ' . J M ~ F Lu
l~'--
i : • .
x
,t 4 Y Lo
5 . ~s 3~"~~} S
~e . , ' O . t i ~ if t •
-Yi~~x. y.'~ A.{l,,.q,`~r .,~~••y:~~ ss~~~43s~~`'r~':i~Y;~~~i~t"..~N~~~~i'~3?~."`a~,{.s.X^i1rV•:`.,a s,~,~~
i tT
, fy~ x
• ~ " . . . -
W i'~, •
}l ~
E t..
s - MQ:
X
'T.ti
,
~ R j ~ }hu] ~
tf}~
1 ~
~ VW i
l
s
. p ,
~ ~ . ' } yK ~ ~
f 3 ~y{:- rf ~
PLANNTNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
~ DECEMBER 11, 1989
1:00 P.M. Site Visits
2:00 p.m. Work Session on the Doubletree.
3:00 p.m. Public Hearing
1. Approval of minutes of 11/27
2. A request to amend a conditional use permit, a
parking variance, and a variance to the requirement
TABLED to pave a temporary parking lot at Sun Vail
to Condominiums for the Vail Valley Medical Center on
December 18, 1989 Lots E and F, Vail Village 2nd Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
3. A work sessian to consider a request for a zone
change from Residential Cluster to High Density
Multiple Family with a Special Development Distxict
for Parcel D, Stevens Subdivision.
Applicant: Faessler Realty
4. A work session on the McClintock property located
in West Vail at the intersectian of I-70 and the
~ West Vai1 exit an the South Frontage Raad.
5. Preliminaxy review session for proposed axterior
alterations in Commercial Core I and Commercial
Core II.
a. Lift House Lndge - Entry
b. Lift House Ladge - Mall
c. American Angler
d. Red Lion Inn and Condominiums
, e. Village Center Building
f. Bell Tower Bualding
g. Gore Creek Plaza Building
h. Landmark Building - Betz Remodel
i. Gyrano's
6. Cemetery Cammittee: Assign a Representative.
7. Cascade Village Tabled to January 8th, 1990.
Glen Lyon Brewery Area D, Special Dev. District.
~
• PLANNING ANn ENVIRONMENTAL COMMTSSTON
becember 11, 1989
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Chuck Crist Peter Patten
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Connie Knight Mike Mollica
Jim Shearer Betsy Rosolack
Sid Schultz
Kathy Warren
ABSENT
Jim VieZe
The meeting was called to order by the viCe chairpers4n, Diana
Donavan. Connie Knight and Jim Shearer were sworn in as new
mernbers by Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk.
1. Approval of minutes of 11/13/89.
Chuck moved and Diana secanded to approve the minutes. The vote
was 2 in favor with 4 abstentions because Kathy and Sid were absent
from the last meeting, Jim Viele was absent from this maeting, and
Connie and Jim S. had not attended the last meeting, because they
. were new.
2. A reauest to amend a Conditianal use permit, a parkina
vaxiance, and a variance to the reauirement to pave a
temporar_y parking lot at Sun Vail Condominiums for the Vail
Valley Medical Center on Lots E and F, Vail Villaae 2nd
Filina.
The applicant asked to table this item until December 18th. Chuck
moved and Jim seconded to table. The vote was 6-0.
Peter also asked to table the Vail Village Master Plan until
December 18. Sid moved and Chuck seconded to table it to DeGember
18. Vote was 6-0.
3. A work session to consider a raquest far a zone ahanae fram
Residential Cluster to Hzgh Density Multiple Family with a
Special Development District for Parcel D, Stevens
Subdivision.
Applicant: Faessler Realty
Sid Schultz, architect for the proposal, removed himself from the
board table. Mike Mollica presented the propasal and expZained
that the board had visited the site before the meeting. He added
that two steps were involved, one to change the zoning to High
Density Multiple Density and one step to add an overlay of Special
~ Development District. Mike gave an overview of the propasal and
then reviewed zvning considerations to be considered for the
~ proposal. Kathy asked if an EIR had boon submittnd, and Mik2
replied that only a part of an EIR applied to this prapasal, that
of traffic/transportation and flood plain. The
traffic/transportation analysis had not yet been submitted.
Peter Patten read several goals from the Land Use Plan.
Goal 5.3
Affordable employee hausing should be made through private efforts,
assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail, with
appropriate restrictions.
Goal 5.4
Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands
for afull range of housing types.
Goal 5.5.
The existing employee housing base should be preserved and
upgraded. Additional employee housing needs should be accommadated
at varied sites thraughout the community.
Sid Schultz explained that the applicant was proposing to build 43
one-bedroom units and 7 two-bedroom units. He added that zf the
proposal was not approved, his client was prepared to build 8 units
in 3 0r 4 buildings with 6 or 7 bedranms in each. He felt that
with the original prapasal, there cauld be a good mix of tenants,
. more so than if there were only 8 units. He added that the Land
Use Plan recommended a higher density in the area. The applicant
tried to maximize the landscaping to buffer Meadow Creek
condominiums to the south.
Greg Stutz, an attarney representing Meadow Creek condominium
owners, admitted that it was not fair to say that they did not want
employee housing, but they were concerned about the density and
traffic. Connie Knight asked Sid abaut the allawable number of
units on the parcel presently. Sid replied that the size of the
lat permitted 8.9 units which Sid interpreted to be 9 units. He
said if they build 8 units, each could be 2000 square feet with 7
bedrooms in each.
Kathy felt uncomfortable with the location of the atructures with
respect ta Gore Creek. Sid replied that in Phase I, there is same
encroachment, about 8 feet, into the 50 foot stream setback. Chuck
was concerned abaut this also, and asked to see the 100 year fload
plain on the site pZan.
Jim asked whether or nat Johannes Faessler owned the building, or
just had it under contract, and Sid replied that it was under
contract. Diana stated that she would like ta see exactly what is
being planned on the site at the entrance and what the day care
numbers woul.d ba, the number of empZoyees living at Valli Hi and
the number of cars Va11i Hi generated.
• Jerome Volk, a member af the audience, asked why a day care was
• being planned if 43 of the units would be one-bedraom. Sid statpd
that the day care center would be open to the public if there were
openings after the Sannenalp emplayees were sexved.
piana felt that if the traffic study was not available by Decamber .
18th, it should not be on the Decenber 18th agenda. Mike Phillips,
a member of the audience, asked why the complete EIR was nat
required, and Peter replied that the project was in a category
which dad not require a complete EIR. He explained that the staff
determined what was applicable in this case, and narrawed the scope
ta traffic and visual analysis fram adjoining property. Peter
added that a platted subdivision including this property went
thraugh the process af appraval about 3 or 4 years ago, therefore
the staff was familiar with the land and could narrow the scope fax
the EIR.
Diana requested some study be done with respect to the creek, as
well, zrwin Bachrach, a member of tha audience, stated that this
property was surrounded by residential zoning, and felt that High
Density Multiple Family zoning for this land would be spat zoning.
Greg Stutz asked why the application was befoxe the PEC if the
proper ownership was not on the application. He alsn stated that
he had checked with the title company, and only a 25 foat easement
axisted where 40 feet was necessary. He was also concerned about
the fact that anly one access point was planned and wandared how
~ the Fire Department felt about that. Stutz pointed aut another
concern, that of uncovered parking. He stated that if the traffic
study was not available until the 18th, there would be no time far
the public to study it. He asked why a day care was planned if
most of the units would be single-bedraom units. He was concerned
about how close the building would be to the creek as well as haw
high the buildings would be. He felt that Meadow Creek condominium
residents wanted employee units, but also wanted the integrity of
the present zoning maintained.
George Feinman, a nearby resident, asked how many people would be
allowed tn live zn the apartments if the project was changed to 8
units of 6 to 7 bedrooms. peter replied that there cauld be 2 per
bedroom plus 2 more in each unit. George then stated that a large
deer herd watered in this area each morning. Jo Brown, another
resident, pointed out traffic dangers. She also felt that the
statement that 8 large units wauld be built if the project was not
approved served as a threat. She asked how many parking spaces
wauld be provided for S units, and Sid repl.a.ed that 20 spaces wauld
be required, but mare than 20 would be praposed.
One member of the audience was cancerned about the increase in
sewage and Sid replied that he had shown the praposal to Upper
Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation, and that they had had no problem
with the proposal. Jim Andersan, an Intermountain resident,
pointed out that if a day care facility were al.lawed i.t would
~ constitute a business in a residential neighborhood. Andersan
added that emp3.oyse housing would soon be avai3.abl.e down valley and
that he felt that dawn valley was whera employee housing belanged.
• Patty Franke presented a petition which she said contained 125
signatures af persons against the proposal because of the inarease
in traffic, increase in transients, increase in noise, uncovered
parking, day Care facilities, height of the buildings, narrow road,
etc.
Bill Steward, another resident, stated that he owned a unit
directly across the creek from the proposed Construction. He felt
that zoning laws had been created to protect people "like me." He
painted aut that his view was toward the creek, because his view
in the other directian would be the Interstate. The uncovered
parking concerned him and he fe1t that the PEC should not waive the
requirement for covered parking. Jim Andersan asked how the
proposal would affect Stevens Park. Kristan Pritz told the
audience that Stevens Park was to be discussed the folIowing
Thursday evening at a public meeting at the Higgens' home at 7:00
p.m. and invited interested persons to attend. She stressed that
the propasal before the PEC would not be discussed at the Stevens
Park meeting. Tam Higgens felt that wath na sidewalks in
Tntermountain, the proposal would have an effect upon Stevens Park
with regaxd ta traffic.
Carl Dietz, developer af Meadow Creek, stated that he had
negatiated the access easement from Mr. Stevens ta protect Meadow
• Creek, and that it was 40 feet wide. He said that Mr. Stavens had
originaZly proposed 3 duplexes. He wondered how the PEC and staff
would have respanded to the praposal for 50 units if they had been
proposed by him (Carl Dietz). Carl also pointed out that this
housing was far one employer only, which "makes it a different kind
of employee hausing."
Lynn Fritzlen said that it seemed to her that West Vail and this
project in particular, had not received the same amount of
attentaon paid to ather parts of Vail. Peter Franke pointed out
that the access into Intermountain required a left hand turn that
was already on a busy intersection, and that the increase in
traffic waul.d make a bad situation worse. Mike Chapman, a
resident, asked how one would know that the day care would stay a
day care and was to1d it would be a cdnditional use, therefore if
the use changed, the owners of the new use would have to obtain a
canditional use permit. Mike then mentioned that he did nat see
how anyone coul.d la.ve in 400 square feet long term and wondered
what would prevent the Sannenalp from using 3 month leases.
An unnamed r.nember of the audience added that Sid Schul.tz al.so
served on the PEG, the board that was to consider the proposal.
He felt that both the staff and Schultz were hurrying to get the
proposal passed.
Diana I7onovan made it clear that tha paople on the PEC make the
~ decisions, not the staff. She added that they would probably not
make a decision on December 18th.
~ Peter Patten also responded by saying that he resented the
implication that the staff was railroading the proposal. He added
that the staff takea a very unbiasad look at all proposals and
would Zook at all elements of this proposai before making a
decision. Peggy Osterfoss, former member of the PEC, stated that
there was na need to feel the PEC would not be objective, that they
made a tremendous effort to be unbiased. Peggy felt the need for
an intelligent, informed observation which would be less emotional
(than displayed at the meeting).
t]ave Reichart explained that he had tried to purchase this property
ta build 12 units, but then it was down-zoned. He felt that it was
unfair to change the zoning just because there was an employee
housing crunch. Charles Bernhardt, owner of Stevens Parcel C,
stated that he had not received notice of the proposal.
Kathy Warren, member of the PEC, wanted more infnrmation an the day
care facility, on the traffic study, flood plain and informatian
from the Fire Department. Mike Mollica replied that the Fire
Department had exama.ned the proposal, and did not have any majar
concerns about it.
Da.ana wanted ta know exactly what variances would be required if
the property were RC. She was concerned about the number of units
proposed, the snow removal and the use in the neighborhood. Jo
. Brown painted out that usually day care facilities included
kindergarten children which would include schnol buses. Sarah
Newsam added that the school bus stap was at a dangerous corn,er.
She stated that when coming out af this project, there was a blind
corner.
Someone asked Mr. Faessler if the purchase of the property depended
upon the proposal of 50 units being appraved, and Johannes Faessler
replied that it did not, that he would purchase the land anyway.
Diana mentioned that the property owner's signature was needed an
the application.
Jim Sheaxax, a member of the PEC, stated that he did not think
anyone was going to rush to make a decision on the proposal, and
pointed aut that any decision would be a prececlent that would have
ta be followed. Faessler stated that he had not intended tn
"start a war" between managers and residents af Vail. He felt that
the statement that managers would not be happy 1.iving in 400 square
feet was an error, and said that he had some emplayee housing in
East Vail which he felt was too small. He stated that he would
build high quality housing and added that he employed 150 peaple
year-round. He felt that he would not create the probl.em that the
audience seemed cancerned about. He felt it would be a shame if
everyone who lived in Vail took the attitude that a1l peopl.e who
are employees are second class citizens.
~ Diana suggested interviewing people wha live in the Bighorn
apartments to get their point of view. Someone in the audience
~ asked Johannes to table his proposal and to meet with the residents
of the area, and he replied that he felt the PEC meeting was the
corract forum for such a meeting.
Someone in the audiance stated that she Iived 2 doors away from the
Bighorn apartments and that tha residents had changed 3 times in
one year. Johannes replied that the Bighorn apartments were too
small and that was why it was important to have one-bedrnom
apartments.
Peggy 4sterfoss, a member of Tawn CounciL, stated that there was
no question but that the Town Cauncil would be very interested in
tha cancerns of the neighborhood as we11 as the Planning
Commissian. She agreed that there was a need to work nut details
here. She said that if there was inadequate information for next
week's PEC meeting, the PEC would not make a decision.
Jim Shearer asked Johannes how crucial the day care center was to
the proposal, and Johannes replied that if it became a stumbling
block, he could take it out, but thought that people would see the
need for the day care center. Jo Brown told of early days in
Tntermountain, when she saw peaple come in, build, sell and move
away. She said this was changing and the residents were trying to
make the neighborhood one af long term residents. Jo pointed out
that if the zoning is changed for this proposal, the residents of
Tntermountain will have ta live with the increased density forever.
• Lynn Fritzlen felt that private develapers needed directian from
the Town government so that there would not be aonfrQntation with
proposals, i.e. Pitkin Creek Townhomes in East Vail. Diana replied
that the way things worked now, the government needed to wait far
proposals since all the Valley is zoned.
4. A work session on the McCiintock ro ert lncated in West Vail
at the intersection of I-70 and the West Vazl exit an the
South Frantaae Road.
Peter Patten explained that this property had anca been annexed ta
Vail, but was now back in the County. He added that the owner had
been meeting with the staff concerning development of the property
dating back to 1980. The proposal was for a total of 4 detached
townhomes, including the existing residence. 3t was zoned RSM in
Eagle County, and the owner wanted to know how the Tawn would feel
about the proposal before they asked to be annexed again. Peter
stated that the density would not change from that allowed by the
County.
Mike Mollica reviewed the zoning analysis, compliance with the Land
Use Plan, zone change criterza, and other issues cancerning the
proposal. He stated that the staff was concerned about existing
trees, maybe having P/S zoning, perhaps including employee housing,
• having a xeasonable slope to the driveway, and the undergrounding
of the utilities. He wanted to see the proposal staked.
, . . .
• Peter explained that the reason thi.s property was designated to be
zoned Low Density Multiple Family in the Land Use Plan was because
adjoining property was 1ow density. However, now the immediate
property to the west was building a bed and breakfast structure
with 10 bedrooms. Kristan added that Creekside had 12 units.
Craa.g Paul, representing the applicant, stated that they wanted a
firm reading on what could be done with the property, and that they
were ready to petitinn to annex subject to a posi.ti.ve reading from
the PEC on the proposal.. Chuck questioned why they wanted ta get
back inta the Town. Paul mentioned owning other property in tha
Town. Peter asked if tha exista.ng house had a basement apartment,
and Mary McClintock replied that it did, but that they would take
out the kztchen. Peter asked what if the Town let them keep the
unit as employee housing, and Mary replied that then they would
probabZy agree to this.
Jim asked if the land would be candoma.na.umized, and was told it
would be deeded as townhomes. Mike asked if Prirnary/Secondary
zoning had been considered, and was told it had not been, and that
they were disinclined to consider Primary/Secandary zoning, as it
would make the units less desirable to future buyers. Chuck asked
if the existing uni.t would be remodeled and was told it would be.
Ken Taniguchi, project architect, showed a site plan and described
undergrounding the uti.lities fram the property 1ine. Diana asked
• if they had considered asking Creekside to underground the
utilities in frant of their property, and Mary replied that she
hadn't ].ooked at the possible cost to include the area in front of
Creekside.
Connie asked what the distance would be betwean homes, and was told
it would be abaut 10 feet. Peter stated that new easements would
have ta be drawn for undergrounding the utilities. Kristan felt
the access driveway seemed tight. Chuck asked if the Fire
Department needed to check the proposal and whether or nnt two
exits would be needed. Staff responded that the Fire Department
would check the submittal.
Connie felt the proposal sounded good; Diana wanted to see the
laxgest number of trees possible saved. She wished that there was
some way they could have 1 employee unit with the Residentaal
Cluster. Sid asked if the praperty aauld be divided sa that the
existing hamc was on land zoned Primary/Secondary, and the rest af
the property be zoned Residential Cluster.
Craig asked that the zane question be resolved so that they could
get the annexation scheduled. Peter repla.ed that this could not
be done at a work session, and that the PEC could not pass
resolutions. He stated that they could summarize the minutes and
as a staff could give Craig a summary of what was said here. Craig
said he did not want to request an annexation before the Tawn
~ Council and then come back to PEC and be "zeroed on the current
praposal." He asked for a].etter summarizing the views so that he
Y . could go to Larry Eskwith to formali2a the request for annexatian.
Jim asked that once the annexation was completed, if they would be
willing to have the property zoned Primary/Secondary.
Diana stated that it looked as though RC or lawer density would be
acceptable ta the board.
5. Preliminary review session for proposed exterior alteratxons
in Commercial Cores T and TT.
a. Lifthouse Lodae - entrv
b. Lifthouse Lodqe - Mall
c. American Anqler ~ Wall Street Buildinq
d. Red Lion Tnn and Condominiums
e. Village Center Buildina
f. Bell Tower Buildin
a. Gore Creek Plaza_Buildina
h. Landmark~Building - Betz remodel
i. Cvrano's
Kristan explained this process to the new members of the board and
recammended a 90-day review period far all proposals.
Kathy moved and Chuck seconded to use a 90-day review period for
all proposals. The vata was 6-0 in favor.
~ 6. Cemeter Committee: Assi n a re rasentative.
Connie Knight offered to serve on this committee.
7. Cascade Villa e re uest ta table to Januar 8th.
Ghuck moved and Kathy seconded to table the item to January 8.
•
. T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: Decembex 11, 1989
SUBJ: A WORK SESSION to consider possible annexation and zoning on
the "McClintock property". The praperty is located on the
South Frontage Road, immediately west af the I-70, West Vail
interchange and north of Gare Cxeek.
Applicant: Melanie McClintack
1. Description of the Proposal
The applicant has scheduled this work session with the Planning
and Environmental Commission to initiate discussions regarding the
future annexation, af a 1.06 acre parcel of land, into the Town af
Vail. The proparty is currently under the jurisdiction of Eagle
County, and is zoned Residential Suburban Medium (RSM), which
allnws for four dwelling units on the site.
Surrounding land uses of this site include a 10-bedroom bed and
brBakfast (currently under canstruction) an the Elliott Ranch
property to the southwest; the Streamside project to the east
(short-texm rentals); and the South Frontage RQad and 1-70 ta tha
. north.
Upon annexation, the applicant would propase to zone the property
Residential Cluster (RC). The prapased devalopment plan calls far
atotal of faur single family homes on the property.
II, Zonin Ana1 sis
A. LQt Area
Gross area: 46,287 square feet
Area in flood plain: 14,048 square feet
Net buildable area: 32,239 square feet
B. Propased Zoning
~ Residentzal Cluster - this zone district allows for a tatal
density not to exceed six dwelling units per acre of "net
buildable area". Four dwelling units would be allowed on
this site if it were ta be zoned RC.
C. Development Standards
The applicant is praposing ta meet the RC zone district
standards £or setbacks, building height, GRFA, site coverage,
landscaping and parking. No variance requests are praposed
at this time.
D. Geoloqic Hazards
. Accarding to the Tawn's geologzc hazard maps, this parcel is
not within the boundaries af any geologic hazard area, with
the exceptipn of the flood hazard zane (i.e. 100-year
floodplain). However, no development is proposed within this
flood hazard zone.
~iII. Compliance with the Townlg Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan has identified this praperty as suitable far
"Low Density Rasidential" use. This category includes single-
family detached homes and two-family dwelling units. Accarding to
the Land Use Plan, "the density af development within this
category would typically not excead three structures per buildable
acre."
IV. Zone Change Criteria
The fnllowing criteria would be utilized for a proposed zone
district amendment:
1. suitability of existing zoning.
2. Ts the amendment presenting a convenient, warkable
relationship within land uses cansistent with Municipal
objectives.
3. Does the rezoning prnvide far the growth of an orderly,
viable community.
V. Issues
-May want to consider primary/secandary zona district, which would
still a11.ow 4 units - only 2 structures - less impact on site.
--Preserve existing 1.arge trees.
-Employee housing - may be appropriate to consider.
. --Safe, reasanable slape on access drive down into prnject.
-Open space - stake site to determa.ne more specific locations af
structures
-Undergrounding of utilities
~
Sal/VOH aQ1SJ7~abd:3 rR4er ~~j . ,
. ?
R
• D ~
~ Z ~Y'
au} .
a • , ~ ! ~ t
h • ` .k,~+ .l, .v a '
~ IL a Yz ~ . ~ i.~ or .
J ~ I ~ ~
. ~~e ~ ~ ~ S .t: _ ~•y~H ~
13
7 S 6 ~ t , ' ~J~ • ~ '.`~5 % s
- a y , / ~ F~r • ~ •s
_ y •v r.
. ~ ~
, ' • ` T , ~
q ~5
~L /`'~j , ~ , f r• ~
Nt
~ K
r -
~ • ~ ' ~ i AI•pa `y . ~~.b'~ W o A
• M ~ ~ \ 1`! "~".r:. . . , y~'
~ v
Y • ~ H0
' s :d ~ ° q n e
~ ~ ~ sr
q : ~ •r ~E~ :i \
a 11 ~ ~..I1ilf l ~ i~ ~•o ~ \
Z e ~ ~ L~ • Y ~~7 g
. 1s ~rfii{i
' . . . R-- 7 i
F~ a 8 ~
U a _ s
F' ~ ~4 ii~i5; ~ Y A}\ ~ Si o
• ~ i r Z ~ ~ W
~ • ~
•
, JI
? ~ 1
r I
~
~ , Z
5
~u , ~ ~J f' ~ r J • , ~
. ~ ~ r~ ~ I ~ ~ • ~ . , J
a f W
• ~ . f .
. I . z .
J ' r \ .
~
mJ
>
• i~.) +~K €1 °
cl ~
W
.s
~
a
~
. { f , J
a F'
z
r 4 IJ ~ . • ` ,
• r
. ~...r ~ . W •
y ~ ~ r QI
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . .J ~y
~
. yOV
' ,
, TO: Plannang and Environmental Cammission
FROM: Community Developmant Dapartment
• DATE: December 11, 1989
SUBJ: A WORK SESSION to discuss a request to rezone Parcel D of the
Steven's Subdivision, from Residential Cluster to Speczal
Development District, with an underlying High Density
Multiple Family zone district.
Applicant: Faessler Realty
1. Description of the Request
This rezoning request has been proposed zn order to allow for the
development of a 50 unit multi-family/employee housing project.
Also proposed is a 3,000 square foot day care center.
The 1.99 acre parcel is located immediately north of buildings A,
B, C and D, of the Meadaw Creek Condaminiums, and just south of
Gore Creek. Access to the paxcel is proposed via an existing 40'
access easement, connecting the southeast corner of the property
with Kznnickinnick Road, (between buildings C and D of the Meadow
Creek Condominiums).
Phase Y of the project calls for the construction of the eastern
building, which would include 25 oneWbedroom units, four two-
bedxoom units, and the day care center. Phase TT would include 18
oneWbedroom units and three two-bedraom units, located in the
western building.
• The one-bedroom units axe propased to be appraximately 400 sguare
feet in size and the two-bedroom units are proposed to range in
size from 660-800 square feet. Tenant storage facilities are
proposed at the graund floor level, adjacent to the covered
parking, and some additional storage is proposed on the second and
third flaors. Laundry facilities are proposed in the basement of
each building.
Section 18.40.010 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code describes the
purpase of Special Develapment Districts, and reads as follaws:
"The purpose of the special development district is to
encourage flexibility and creatxvity in the devalopment of
land in order to promote its mast appropriate use; to improve
the design character and quality of new development within
the town; ta facilitate the adequate and economical pravision
of streets and utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic
features of open space areas; and ta further the overall
goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development
district, in conjunction with a property's underlying zone
district, shall establish the requirements far guiding
development and uses of praperty included in the special
development district."
i
. The Town Code also states that any uses permitted in the Spacaal
Development District shall be limited ta those permitted,
conditional and accessory uses in the property's underlying zone
district.
In order to meet these requirements of tha Special Devalopment
District chapter, the applicant has applied to rezone this
property from Residential Cluster to High Density Multiple Family,
and has simultaneously applied for a Special Development District
overlay. This memorandum will address bath the rezoning to High
Density Multiple Family as well as the Special nevelopment
District application.
I~. Zoning Analysis
A sumrnary of the proposed develapment is as fallows:
A. Lot Area
Total: 86,580 square feat
Floodplain: 18,828 square feet
40% Slope: 2,716 square feet
Net: 65,036 squara feet
B. Floor Area
Residential, Phase I: 12,937 square feet
~ Day Care Center, Phase T: 3,482 square feet
Residential, Phase IT: 9,363 square feet
Total: 25,382 square feet
C. Buildin Hei hts
Phase I- maximum ridge height: 45'
Phase II - maximum ridge height: 37'
D. Site Coveraqe
14,412 square feet or 16.6 %
E. Parkinq
21 Covered 5paces or 27%
58 Surface Spaces or 73% (includes 36 compact car spaces)
79 Tatal Spacea
F. Adjacent Land Uses
North: Gore Creek and RC zoned property north of the
Creek.
west: Unplatted parcel, zoned RC and currently vacant.
South/East: Meadow Creek Gondominiums, Building A-E,
zoned RC.
~
~ III. Zoning Comparisons
RC HDMF SDD - PROPOSED
1. PERMZTTED USES -Single-family -Same as RC -Multiple-family
residential zane with the residential
dwellings. addition of -bay Care Center
-Twa-family lodges.
residential
dwellings.
-Multiple-family
residential dwellings.
(no rnoxe than 4 units/bldg.)
2. SETBACKS Front: 20' Front: 20' Frant: 20'
Sides: 15' Sides: 20' Sides: 15'
Rear: 15' Rear: 20' Rear: 15"
3. HEIGHT Flat Roof: 30' F1at Roof: 45' Flat Roof: N/A
Slaping Roof: 33' Sloping Roof: 481 Sloping Roaf: 45'
4. DENSTTY Allowable Allowable Proposed
D.U.'s. 8.9 D.U.'s: 37.3 D.U.'s: 50
, GRFA: 16,259 sf GRFA: 39,022 sf GRFA: 22,300 sf
5. SITE COVERAGE 25% = 21,645 sf 55% = 47,619 sf 16.6% = 14,412 sf
6. LANDSCAPING 600 = 51,948 sf 30% = 25,974 sf 55% = 47,619 sf
7. PARKING -1 Space/D.U. -75o shall be -27% covered.
shall be covered. covered. -46% compact car
-25a campact car -25% compact car spaces.
spaces, spaces.
IV. Griteria To Be Used in Evaluating This Proposal
There are twa sets af criteria that must be used when evaluating
this proposal. The first set of criterza to be utilized will be
the three criteria involved in the evaluation of a request for a
zane change. The second set af criteria to be used will be the
nine development standards set forth in the Special Development
District chapter of the Zoning Cade. The criteria are as follows:
0
A. Zane Chan e Criteria:
~ 1. Suitability of existing zoning.
2. Is the amendment presenting d CQnVenlBrit, workabie
relationship within land uses consistent with Municipal
objectives.
3. Does the rezoning provide for the grawth of an orderly,
viable cammunity.
B. Desi n Standards in Evaluatin S ecial Develo ment District
Proposals•
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacant properties
relativa to architectural design, scale, bulk, building
height, buffer zones, identity, character, visual
integrity and orientation.
2. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible,
efficient and warkable relationship with surrounding
uses and activity.
3. Complianca with parking and loading requirements as
outlined in Chapter 18.52.
4. Confarmity with applicable elements of the Vail
Camprehensave Plan, tawn policies and urban design
plans.
5. Identification and mitigatinn of natural and/ar geologic
ha2ards that affect the property an which the special
develapment district is praposed.
~ 6. Site plan, building design and location and open space
provisions designed to produce a functional development
responsive and sensitive to natural features, vegetation
and overall aesthetic quality of the cammunity.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and
pedestrians addressing on and off-site traffic
circulatian.
8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open spaca in
order to optimize and preserva natural features,
recreation, views and function.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a
workable, functional and efficient relationship
throughout the development of the special development
district.
C. Land Use Plan•
The Land Use Plan snouia be utilized as a guideline in any
request for a zane change. This property has been identified
in the Land Use Plan as suitable for "Medium Density
Residential" use. This category includes housing which would
typically be designed as attached units with common walls.
Densities in this categary would range fxom 3 to 14 dwelling
units per buildable acre.
i
V. Staff Comments
• The staff has nat yet formalized a final position an this request,
however we have attached a 1etter written to the applicant which
lists additianal informatian necessary to review the request as
well as issues regarding this project (letter to Sidney Schultz
dated December 51r 1989). The staff inemorandum for the December
18, 1989 Planning and Environmental Commissian hearing will
include an analysis of the above named criteria.
~
~
• ~ • ~ ~ . ~ ' • jl
~ ~ , fJ U 1
1 4
p
q~ .
~ , ~ ~T Q da
i ~ " 4~ <~l • °
~
ri
!1 ~.1
~ ~ ~ ~ f~ , •M' 'tt~ .
Q
a
~ '
y I M
1 4 v ~ _ 14
oa ~
< +
~r ` ` ` r. ~'1 r ~ ~
~ •,N:.
~ . ~ • ~ ~ ~ . ~
\ ~ ~ • . 'a ~ O
~ • . . ' • ~J` m .o +A , . ~ • •d
~•~1 . , ~ ; Q a, , „ ~
ti -y , ~ r ' , • U
a.r~
'~\n ~ T . O ~ . 'V
• ~ r-~ ° o \ ~ ~
\ ' ' ~ , . .
~ Y o~ 11b11, ~ w\ ` .
~ p ` • • ~ , ' .
,4 ~ ~ ~ ' . ' ' ,
IS\
~ . . . ~~4
LAA
~ r.;~ ` 1 4 ! •
~ ~ ` ~ ~ , .
. 1 CL
•
~ b R~ ~yXa fx ~ ~ ~ 4•
y ; { ' . i
~ tai. °x~ -
L s y ' - i'~ {
. y y .
. t'~~ ;4~F ~ } yl~ . ,
r ~
~
4~1 tQW~
75 south irontage road office of community development
vatl, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479-2139
December 5, 1989
Mr. Sidney Schultz
141 East Meadow Drive
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Faessler Realty Apartments & Day Care
Dear Sid,
The planning staff has revi.ewed the above named proposal and has
. identified a number af issues and/or application deficiencies
which I have listed be].ow. Due to the tiqht ta.me schedule yaux'
client is on, and in arder to avoid tabling of your application,
pl.ease respond to these comments by 10:00 a.m., December 11,
1989.
As you are aware, a warksessian has been scheduled before the PEC
on December 11, 1989, and a public hearing has been scheduled,
also before the PEC, on December 18, 1989. The issues are as follows:
1} A zoning analysis is required for this pxoposa3.. Such
analysis should i.nc].ude proposed GRFA, sita coverage figures,
landscaping percentage, number of parking spaces pxoposed,
building heights, etc. Piease .incl.ude a breakdawn for the day
care facility.
2) Density - The staff has determined that the current density
allowed under the RC zoning would be 8 units (buildable area).
3} Staff has agreed to waive the Environmental zmpact Report
requirement for this pro}ect, howevcr, we would again request
that atranspartation/traffic analysis be submitted, (per Section
18.56.020(N) of the Tawn zoning code).
. 4) Yau have requested a reduction in the required numbex of
parking spaces. In order for the staff ta determine a positinn
w • .
~ reZative to your request, we ask that you be more specific as to
the exact number of spaces yau would like to see removed, the
location of said parking spaces, and the proposed landscaping you
include as mitigation for the deletion of such spaces.
5) Employee housing restriction - The staff is uncomfortable
with the proposed 12 year restriction. To assure cansistency
with previous Town approvals, the staff wauld propose that the
project be restricted, as emplayee houszng, for the life of
Taffany Lowenthal plus a period of 20 years.
6) Building Heights - Please provide all propased ridge lines,
and associated elevations, on the project site plan. Because
building height is measured from existing or proposed grade,
whichever is more restrictive, it would be preferable if you
cauld show the existing topography baneath the ridge lines.
A comparison with the existing units at Meadow Creek wauld
be helpful in analyzing the impact af the project on the
immediate neighborhood. A written and graphic comparison should
be submitted for review.
7} Project phasing - Please provida a timetable for the proposed
phasing p1an.
8} Access - The Fire Department has a cancern regarding the one
access into the project. Have alternate access paints been
. looked inta? Please address Article 10, Sectian 207, regarding
Fire Department access.
9} Fire hydrant locations need to be shown on the site plan.
10) Please provide details on your proposed method af
xunoff/pollution cantrol for all the parking areas.
11) Snow storage areas need to be shown an the landscape plan.
Will you be able to accommadate snaw starage exclusively on the
praject site?
12) The actual property awners (Aiien and Marion Stephens) must
submit a letter acknawledging and authorizing Mr. Faessler to
pxoceed through the planning pracess.
13) Day Care Center - Please provide more detailed information
regarding the Gept2x'S use. Specifically, will the center be
restricted to use by an-site residents only, all Sonnenalp
employees, or will it be open to the general public? WiII the
tot lot be fenced?
The staff feels that the drop-off/pick-up area in front of
the day care center may not be sized adequately. Yt appears that
' only two vehicles can park there without causing stacking or
double parking.
~ 14) It does not appear that only one trash facility will be
adequate to handle the trash needs af a project thas size.
~ 15) A drai.nage easement will need to be abtained a].ong the east
property line in order to accommadate a defi.ned drainage channal
flowing from tha south. A drai.nage ditch and/or pipe will be
xequired.
16) The proposed access, from Kinnickinnick Road, will need to be
widened to a minimum pavad wi.dth of 241, with 2' shoul.ders an
each side. This access shauld prava.de for praper drainage and
snow starage, and these items should be reflected Qn the site
pZan.
z wiii be cal.ling you today with these comments. If you
should have any questians on the above, please feel free ta
contact me at 479-2138.
SincereZy,
/VL,-A ~ m t
Mike Mo1la.ca,
Planner TT
xc: Peter Patten
~
~
To: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM! Cammunity Develapment Department
. DATE: December 111 1989
SUBJ: Air Quality Plan
1. BACKGROUND
At the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting on October
23, 1989 I presented the research material I had gathered as per
your requests. At that time T had written to the Air Pollution
Control Division (see letter dated 10/11) for additional
information as it specifically relates to our current status with
PM 10 and was awaiting a response. T received a response (see
letter dated 10/27) from the Air Pollution Control Division in
ear1y Navember.
I also had a telephone conversation with Steve Arnold shartly
after aur meeting on October 23rd Goncerning the topic of any
extenuating circumstances which might be dacumented to explain PM-
10 exceedances. T was speaking specifically to circumstances
which are bEyond tha cantrol of the Town of Vai1 such as the
highway construction which occurred this summer and the dust
problem it created. Mr. Arna1d related that if exceedances did
occur and we had dacumented circumstances to explain the situation
~ it would be considered in the overall evaluation of the picture.
II. CURRENT STTUATION
As expressed in the letter from the APCD, the emissions inventory
which was conducted by Air Sciences is generally the type of
document which is used to davelop further control measures. The
letter I had written was designed to question the passibility of
having the State Health Dapartment participation in a program for
chemical mass balancing analysis nf our PM-10 filters. As
indicated in the ietter fram Mr. Arnold, the State is currently
working with Graup I PM-10 areas ta da chemical mass balancing.
Since Vail is a Graup IT area, if chamical mass balancing is ta be
conducted it will have to be at the Town of Vail's expense. This
will involve the purchasing of an additional air sampler to run
the TeflQn filters.
IIT. FURTHER ACTION
At this point I would like you to consider several different
courses of action based Qn the information contained in our
emissions znventory and in the attached letters.
~
(A) Pursue the chemical mass balancing approach to further
quantify the specific percentage contributions of each component
of our overall picture. This would involve the Town purchasing an
additional air sampler, filters and paying for the analysis of
• those filters.
(B) Work with the results contained in the inventory and develop
control measures (realistiC) based on those results. This cauld
invalve:
(1) Revision of our current fireplace ordinance to fuxther
restrict the znstallation of fireplaces.
(a) This cauld possibly involve limiting to 1 the number
of woodburning devices.
(b) Specifically state that no allawance shall be made
to permit the construction of a woodburning firebox fox
the installation of gas logs.
(2) Development of a controlled burning program similar ta
those in Denvex.
(3) Development of afee structure/rebate program to
encourage individuals to switch from wood to gas.
These are some suggestions for direction from this point. I would like
to came to PEC on December 18th to discuss these topics and any goals
you would like to see accomplished as they relate to the averall air
quality picture. Please be prepared to address these questions/issues
at that time sa we can take the necessary steps to devise a plan to
contxol our overall air quality.
•
~
i
4mil
1ow75 south frontage road ottiae of community deneiopment
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479-2138
(303) 479-2139
October 11, 1989
Air Pollutian Control Division
Colorado Department of Health
4210 East 1.lth Avenue
Denver, Colarado 80220
Dear Sheila,
Just a quick note to accompany the enclosad PM 10 data. You
will nate there is data from two sites; Safeway and 846 Forest
. Road. The Safeway location apparently did nat meet EPA siting
criteria and as a result the manitors were re],ocated in December
of 1987.
At this point Y am trying to eval.uate our data to determine our
current status wi.th regard to the PM 10 standaxds. We are
currently working with our local Planning and Enviranmental Commission to develop control measures ta insure that we are not
violating the standards. In order to determine the necessary
control measures we must first evaluate the extent of our
, prablem. We recently had an emission a.nventory completed which
I am a1s4 enclosing for your information.
i realize you are busy and T would appreciate any input you can
give me on this and also on chemical mass balancing. Hapefully
we can get together to discuss this befare too 1ong, but any
input you can give me at this point would be greatly
appreciated. Thanks for your time and I loak farward to hearing
from you soan.
Sincerel
u an Scanlan
~ Environmental Health Officer
STATE OF COLORADO
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF FiEAI.TH
4210 East 11th Avenue
Denver, Colorado 80220 • o,
Phone (303) 320-8333
Ray Romer
October 27i 1989 Governar
Thomas M, Vernon, M.U.
Executive Director
Susarl Scanian
Qffice of Community Development
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Coloeado 81657
Dear Susan,
Sheila Burns and I have conferred on the materials you
forwarded and Vail's efforts to link PM10 levels to sources.
Chemical mass balance (CMB) modeling is one method to
attxibute particuiatc levels to sources. A CMS project must be
planned well i.n advance because two types o£ samples are needed
for each sampling day, one on a quartz fi.lter and one on a tefion
filter. Samples from the highest pollution periods undergo
sophistiicated chemical analyses. If needed, area specific source
~ samples may also need to be taken and analyzed. The Division is
currently pursuing CMB modeiing at some of the Grqup I PM10 areas
o£ the state.
Vail has relatively low PM10 levels and has been designated a
Group II PM10 area. For Group II areas, an emissa.on inventvey is
usually acceptable t4 attribute PM10 to sources. Vail's current
i.nventory is typical of what is expected in mountain communities
and should be adequate for decision making purposes.
It is good to see the pxogress Vail is making in source
evaluation. Please keep us posted on activities stemminq from
your current informatzon.
Sincerely,
k`'-
8teve Arnald
Progzam Manager
Technica]. Services
Air Poliutian Control Division
SA/sS/sac
cc: Hob Graves
Sheila Burns
~ TSP WP 6.Ig
1322n/p-28/10-27-89
I
ORDTNANCE 24
~ Series of 19$3
• AN ORDINANCE REP£ALING AND REEPdACTING CHAPTER 28
flF THE VAIL MUNICTPAL CODE RELATING TO SOLTD FUEL
BURNING DEVICES; PROVIpTNG CERTAIN DEFINITIOfJS;
REGULATING THE NUMBER AND CONSTRUCTION OF SOLTD
F'UEL BURNERS; REQUIRING HEAT EFFICIENT IJNITS;
PROHIBITING COAL USAGE.
WHEREAS, the 5etting of the Town of Uai1 in a valley between two
mountains restricts air movement through the val1ey;
WHEREAS; the movement of air through the Gore Va11ey is further
restricted in cold times of the year;
WHERERS, the polTutants in the air caused by solid fuel burning devices
have become increasingiy worse;
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the pallutian caused by solid
fuel burning devices is exacerbated by the altitude, topography, c]imate
~ and meteorology of the Town of Uail; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that these sources of air pollution may
be minimized by presently-existing, practical and economical technologies.
NOW, THEREFOR£, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWIV COUNCTL OF THE T04JN 4F VAIE.,
COLORADO, THAl':
Section 1. The Vail Municipai Code is amencied by the addition of a new Chapter
8.28 "Air Pollution Control" which reads as follows:
8.28.010 purpose and Applicability
These regulations are enacted for the purpose af promoting
the health, safety, and general welfare of the resident5
and visitors in the 7own of Vail. These regUlat-ions are
intended to achieve the following more speczfic purposes:
(1) To protect the air quality in the Town af Vail;
~ (2) To reverse the trend towards increased air degradatian
in the Town of Vai1;
(3) Ta provide heat sources that are efficient and have a
reduced po7luting effect;
4
-2-
~ 8.28.020 Definitions ~
(1) 5o1id Fuel Burner: A fixed apparatus that burns fuei to
provide heat, including, but not limited to, a tnasonry fireplace,
prefabricated zero clearance firep1ace, freestanding fireplace,
Frankl9n Stove, or air tight stove.
(2) pregon Method 7: 5hall mean tests promuigated by the State
of Oregon aepartment of Environmental Quality in effect on the
date of certification as provided herein.
(3) Refuse: Means ail so1id wastes, garbage and rubbish, whether
' combustible or noncombustib1e, including rubble.
(4) Clean So7id Fue] Burning Device: Any solid fuel burning device
having particu7ate emissions af less than 0.33x10-6 gm/jouie of
useful heat autput, averaged over at 1east six tests, or no more
than 0,65x70-6 gm/jou1e of usefu1 heat output for any single test. ~
(5) Any word, term ar phrase not hereto defined or specified shall
be defined in accardance with Title 18 "Zoning" of the Vail
Municipdl Code or Title 8"Health and Safety of the Vail
Municipal Code.
Seciton 8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning_Devices
It sha71 be unlawful for any persan ta construct, insta1l, maintain or operate
- any solid fuel burning device within the Town of Vai7 in a manner not in compliance
with this section.
(A) Na building permit shall be issued for or including the installation
af any solid fuel burning device(s) or component(s) thereof unless
the number of such devlce or devices in each structure is Tess than
ar equal to the fo1Towzng:
(1) Each dwelling unit may have one solid fuel burning device per is
dweiling unit. Reference {C} for exceptions.
(2) A hotel, matel, inn ar lodge may have one solid fue1 burning
device per iobby. 5olid fue1 burning devices in individual
r
-3-
~
~ (B) Gas Fi repl aces : The res tri cti ons of thi s Chapter shal l not
apply to a fireplace fueled by natural gas, propane, ar any
simiiar liquid fuel sa long as said fireplace is designed and
constructed so that said firepiace cannot be used or modified
to burn solzd fuels. Gas fireplaces shall be permitted in any
unit.
(C) Additional Solid Fuel Burning qevices: Each dwelling unit may
have two sfllid fuel burning devices in the following types af
cdmhinations: one fireplace and one cZean woodburning stove
or two clean woodburning StOV£5.
i. No building permit shall be issued for installatian of any
c]ean burning salid fuel burning device in any bui3ding of
~ the Town af Vail unless the Vai1 £nvironmental Health Officer
has first certified in writing that the device has particulatc
emissions iess than or equal to those specified above. The
Enviranmental Heaith Officer will so certify any devicc found
to have the required emissions pravided tests on that brand or
class of device are conducted by an approved independent testing
using the "Oregan Method 7" and operating procedures as determined
by the Oregan Department of Environmental Quaiity or an equivilant
procedure, as determ-ined by the Environmental Health Officer. Tests
must be conducted as alow-medium or lower burn rate, as defined
by Oregon Method 7". On or before June 1 or each year, the
Environmental Nealth Officer wi11 publish a list af devices known
to be certified, which list shall be availabie far inspection at
~ the Community Development Officer.
2. A11 solid fuel burning devices shall be canstructed, installed,
maintained and operated in such a manner that their operation will
result in an increase in heating energy, i.e, that the heat supplied
ii_' I '.~I I L_ iL__. 1L_1. 1....6 .~L.-......h -.4...
,
-4-
r_
~
8.28.040 Caal Usa e Prohibited
The burning of coai is hereby prohibited within the T'own of Vail.
8.28.050 Refuse Burning Prohibited
The burning of refuse in any solid fuel burning device is hereby prohibited
within the Town of Vail.
Section 2. If any part, sectian, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held ta be invalid, such decisions shall not affect
the vailidity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council
hereby declares tt would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section,
subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that
any one ar more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases
be declared invalid. ~
Section 3. The Town CouncTl hereby finds, determines and declares that this
ordinance is necessary and proper for the hea3th, safety and welfare of the
Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
1NTRODUCED, REAp fiND pAS5ED ON FIRS7 READIIVG THIS J'-ZfZ -day of +
1983, and a pubi ic hearirig shal l be held an this ordinarice on the6
flf 1983, at 7:30 p.m. in the CounC7i CE,
Vail 1unicipal Building, Vaii, Colorado.
,
Order,ed publ75hed ir full tnis day of
_
1
- - -
f~!ayar
ATTEST:
PameTa A, 6randmeyer
7own Clerk
~ ~ • ` •
t ' .
~ ORDINANCE N0. 28
Series of 1987
RN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 8,28 AIR
POL.LUTiON CONTROL OF 7HE Ml7NICIPAL CODE OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL PROVIQING FOR THE INSTALLATiON OF SOLID FUEL ,
BURNERS WITH CERTAIN SPECIFI£D C(7NTROLS IN CERFAIN
TYPES OF BCfILDINGS IN 5PECIFiC ZOiVE DISTRICTS WITHIN
THE TOwN OF VAIL, AND ADDING A SEC7IOfV SF7TING FORThI
PENALTIES FOR A UIQLATION OF THE ORDINANCE.
WHEREAS, technoiogy has been deve1aped to allaw certain types of gas burning
fireplace iogs to be utilized in soiid fueT burning devices; and
WHEREAS, the Tawn Counczl believes that the public health, safety and welfare
wi71 best be served by amending this Ghapter to allow this new technoiogy to be
utilized 3n certain kinds of buildings and certain zoning designations within the
Town of Uaii; and
# WHEREAS, the Tawn Council wishes to ensure that shouTd such devices be
instailed, they not be utilized for the burning of soiid fuels.
HQW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the Town Council of the Tawn of Vail,
CoTorada, that:
1. Section 8.28.030 So7id Fuel Burning Devices af the Municipa7 Code of the
Tawn of Vail paragraph B. is hereby repealed and reenacted with amendments to read
as follows:
8.28.030 Solid Fuel Burning Devices
B. Gas Fireplaces
7he restrictions of this Chapter shall not apply ta a fTreplace
fueled by natural gas, so iang as said firep7ace is rlesigned and constructed so
that said fireplace cannot be used or modifieci to burn solid fuels.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, solid fuel burning devices may be installed in
~ properties classified under the Town af Vail Building Codes as R-1 and which are
also accamrnoc#ation units pursuant to the definition of such contained in the Zoning
Code, may install equipment, flues, fireboxes and ather features in accordance with
the appiicable listings of U.L., A.G.A. or other recognized testing organizations
. . . ` ~
• • ' ~ ~ ~ ,
7own of Vail Environmental Ffealth Officer. Zhe awner at any praperty containing ~
sucn equipment shall pay to the Town of Vail the amount of thirty dol7ars ($30) per
year on the first day of the year following the year in which said equipment was
installed far each such solid fuel burning device, and the first day of each year
thereafter during the t-ime said equipment remains instalTed. The owner of any such
device shall a17ow the Town of Vai7 Health Inspector access into the area where
such device is located for the purposes of doing such an inspection. Such
equipment shali have fixed a means to prohibit access ta the tirebox by casual
means and unauthorized persons. There shall be a sign on the fireplace reading:
"Caution - Gas Fireplace On1y". Access ta the firebox shall be far maintenance and
repair, testing or inspection only. The device utilized to prohibit access shall
6e permanently c7osed by means of tamper resistant screws or other suitable means.
2. Chapter 8.28.030 Air Pollution Control of the Mun3cipal Cade of the 7own
of Vail is hereby amended by the addition of Section 8.28.060 Penalties to read as ~
follows.
8.28.060 Penalties
It is uniawful for any person to violate any provision of this Chapter or
to fail to campiy with any of the requirements of this Chapter. Rny person
perfarming any act prohibited or deciared to be unlawful by this Chapter or fai7ing
to perform an act required 6y or otherwise made mandatory by this Chapter shall be
puroished by a fine of not more than four hundred ninety-nine dollars ($499). Any
such person shall 6e gui1ty of a separate offense far each and every day during any
portion of which a vialation of any provision of this Chapter is committed,
continued, ar permitted by such person and shall be pun7shed according]y. In
addition to penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted
to exist in vio7ation af any provision of this Chapter shall be deemed a pub]ic
nuisance, and may be by this Town similarly abated as such, and each day that such ~
condition continues shall be regarded as a new and separate offense.
3. In order to enab1e development projects within the Tawn to instail
technolagically superiar gas iogs this current building season, the Town Council
' , . .
. • , ~ .
~
s
~ declares it would have passed this Ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,
sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any ane ar more
parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid.
5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and cleclarES that this
Ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Tnwn of
Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
b. The repea7 or the repeal and reenactment of any provisian of the Vail
Municipal Code as provided in this Ordinance shall not affect any right which has
accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that accurred prior to the effective date
hereof, any prosecution cammenced, nor any other action ar proceedings as commenced
under or by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed and reenacted. The repeal
of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously
repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
! IlVTRODUCED, READ AND APAROVEa AS AN EMERGENCY ORDINANCE this 28th day of -
July , 1987, in the Councii Chambers of the Vail Munzcipal Building,
Vail, Co7orado.
Ordered published in full this Zgth day of JulY ,1987•
iCent R. Rose, Nfayor Pro Tem
a
ATTEST:
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Cleric
~
~
~ Planning and Environmental Cammission
Decembar 18, 1989
3:00 p.m.
Site Visits
1:45
1. Appraval of minutes of ineetings af 6/26, 7/10, 7/24, 10/9 and
12/11, 1989.
1 2. A request to amend a conditional use permit, a parking
variance, and a variance to the requirement to pave a
temporary parking lot at Sun Vail condominiums for the Vai1
Valley Medical Center of Lots E and R, vail Village 2nd
Filing.
Applicant: Vai1 Valley Medical Cente~
It
3. Cansideration of adoptian of the Vail Village Master Pl.an.
Applicant: Town of Vail
2 4. A WORK SESSION on a request for a conditional use permit in
~ order to construct an addition to the Vai1 Vi].lage Parking
Structure located on Block 5D, Vai1 Village 1st Filing.
AppZicant: Town of Vail
~
~
Planning and Environmental Commission
Decembex 18, 1989
Minutes
PRESENT STAFF PRESENT
Jim Viele Peter Patten
Chuck Christ Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Betsy Rosolack
Jim Shearer Anne Jansen
Sid Schultz
Kathy Warren
ABSENT
Cannie Knight
The meeting was called to order by Jim Viele, the chairperson.
1. A roval of minutes of 6 26 7107 24 10 9 and I2 I1, 1989.
Chuck Crist moved and Jim Shearer seconded to approve the minutes.
The vate was 6- 0 in favor.
• 2. A re uest ta amend a conditianal use ermit a arkin variance
and a variance to the re uirement to ave a tem orar arkin lot
at Sun Vail condominiums for the Vail Va11e Medical Center of Lots
E and R Vail Villa e 2nd Filin .
A licant: Vail Valle Medical Center
Kxistan Pritz reviewed the proposal regarding a parking variance and
explained that it would be atemporary one from August Zst through
November 15, 1990. Then she reviewed the proposal far the variance ta
the requirement to pave the parking lot. Kristan then reviewed the
summary of parking provisions for the Vazl Valley Medical Center as
follows:
a. The Winter proposal
b. The propasal for April 35 - August l, 1990
c. The proposal for August 1- November 15, 1990
Kristan then reviewed the criteria of findings. The staff
recommendation is for approval. They support tha variances far the
reasons stated in the memo. Kristan then reviewed the proposal far the
Conditional Use Permit. Jay Peterson, representing the applicant,
explained that it was difficult ta put the whole package together
because they had ta cansult with the Doubletrae, the Vail National
Bank, and the VVMC. Thay also had to relocate utilities which were all
~ completed now. Jay felt that the solution was a practical ane. He
explained that the WMC is requesting to receive a temparary
.
,
~ certificate of accupancy by August 1, 1990 for the third floor.
~ However, tha parking structuxe would not be completed unti1
approximately November 15, 1990. Jay stated that he could tell the
staff by September whether or not the parking structure would be
completed by November 1st. Jay also added something new; he said that
there wauld be two ha1f levels that would be constructed below the
structure which was nat a part of the original plan. It would not be
used tor additianal parking but for other private hospital uses.
When the hospital expands again, they will finish this section which
will allaw for 70 additional spaces.
Jay had a problem with condition J4 insuring that the parking lat
would be cleaned up and revegetated. The candition included that the
hospital would be responsible for implementang some type of poiiutzon
contral system after using the gravel lot. He felt that there is no
pollution cantrol possible. He said that in constructing the parking
lot, they taok alot of "junk" from the site and cleaned it up and there
was na vegetation. They have now put down gravel which was mud before,
and he did not feel the need to comply with conditian #4.
The Planning Commission then spoke and Chuck asked if the Medical
Center would be paying for the usage af the Lianshead parking
structure. He was told they wauld not be paying. Kristan said that the
Medical Center was telling us this because it was part of the parking
requirement. She explained that in order to get a TCO, they must
pravide parking on the site and they were being up front and explaining
~ how they would handle it.
Diana asked how long the hospital could operate without a TCO. Jay
answered that the Town could yank the TCO and not a1low the hospital to
use the facility until the parking structure was dane. Legally, he
said, that could be done, however, practicaZly speaking, it pxobably
would not. He said at the time of TCO in August the staff wauld know
if the structure wauld be completed in November.
Diana then asked if it was fazr to say that if they hadn't started
construction on the parkzng structure, they should not receive their
TCO.
Jay felt that this was afair condition.
Jay added that Kristan was asking for plans for the parking structure
by February lst which would hurry the project alang a little.
Jim Viele asked if a shuttle system would be used and whether or not it
wauld be the Town of Vail buses. Jay claimed that 90% of the employees
would use the Medical Center shuttle. Jim Vzele agreed with Jay
regarding taking up the gravel surface. He thought pexhaps it might be
better to leave it that way.
Kristan felt that if they would seed the disturbed areas perhaps they
could leave the gravel. Jay pointed aut that there would be no
sprinkling systern there and the seeded area may not live.
. Peter Patten said if they allowed the use, they would not like the eye
sore to continue. The area shauld be revegetated and that the
~ • contractor should not walk away and leave a"mud hole".
Jay felt that this was not fair. He said that the lot was in paor
conditipn to begin with. Tha hospital would be going thraugh expense
to make a bad situation batter.
Kristan said that the staff was simply talking about revegetating and
mulching. Jay responded by saying that this would not be a problem.
Diana moved to approve the temporary parkinq variance per_the staff
memo with the findinqs concerninq strict and Literal interpretatifln.
She added anothex condition that a TCO could only be issued if the
parkinq structure was under construction and the other conditions had
been met. Kathy Warren seconded the motion.
The staff recommends that the requested variances be appraved with the
fallowing conditions:
1. The Town of Vail reserves the right to review the employee
shuttle system and off-site lease parking program. If we
determine that the program is not working pxoperly, the staff
reserves the right to brzng the issue back to the Plannang
and Environmental Commission for review.
2. The off-site parking plan is only approved from the date of
possible approval of this raquest to the end of the ski
. season in 1990.
3. The WMC shall not encourage employee parking in the
Lianshead parking stxucture during the winter 5ki seasan or
provide Lionshead parking passes to employeas during the
wintex season.
4. The VVMC shall be responsible for insuring that the Sun Vail
parking lot is cleaned up and revegetated no later than
July 1, 1990. Yf the gravel is palluted, the WMC shall
remove it from the site.
5. NQ final certificate of occupancy shall be released for the
VVMC 1989 Expansian until the parking structure and a11 other
requixed improvements (Frontage Rd., landscaping etc.) are
completed.
6. The VVMC must have Conditianal Use approval.
The staff requires that:
1. The hospital shall agree to submit parking structure
building pexmit plans to the Community Development Department
no later than February 14, 1990. The purpose of this
requirement is to ensure that adequate time will be allowed
to review buildzng permit drawings in order to release a
.
s ~ permit by Apri2 15, 1990.
2. If due to some unforeseen reasan, the structure is not going
to be ready far use by November 15, 1990, the hospital shall have
an obligation to inform the Community Development Department of
the situatian by September 1, 1990. The hospital shall also be
required to submit a request for any necessary approvals due to
the problem with the parking structure by September 1, 1990.
Vote: 6 W 0 in favor.
Diana Danovan moved to a rove the variance to the xe uirement ta ava
the temporaryparkinq 1ot and suggested that conditian#4 be changed to
require seedinq and mulchinq of disturbed areas if the Tawn determines
that there is no ollutian in the ravel. Chuck Christ seconded the
motion.
Vote: G- 0 in favar.
Concerninq the Canditianal Use permit: Diana Donovan recommended to
approve the CU ermit per the staff inemo to allow flexibility in the
timin of the constructian af the arkin structure. Kath Warren
seconded the motion.
Vate: G - 0 in favor.
.
PETER PATTEN ANNOUNCED HIS RESIGNATTON FROM THE TOWN OF VAIL AS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DZRECTOR AS OF JANUARY 26TH. HE WILL BE MOVING
TO PORTLAND OREGON AND HE EXPRESSED HIS GRATTTUDE WORKING WITH THE
PLANNING COMMTSSION. PETER ALSO WELCOMED ANNE JANSEN THE NEW
ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY TO THE Cp DEPARTMENT. IN RESPONSE JIM VIELE
WISHED PETER WELL AND THAT HE HAD DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB DURING HIS TIME
WITH THE TOWN.
3. Consideration of adoption of the Vai1 Village Master Plan.
Appla.cant: Town of Vail Y
Peter Patten explained that the purpose of the Vaii Village Master
Plan was to adopt a guide for decision making. He felt that all the
propased changes suggestecl by the PEC and the TQwn Cauncil had been
incorporated with just a few "typos" to clean up. Peter said that the
staff felt very strongZy in that the Master Plan would help ta make a
good guide for the village for years to come.
Larry Eskwith was present at this part of the meeting and explained to
the PEC that with the changes, he felt more comfartabl.e with the Master
Plan the way it was.
•
;
. Minor changes were discussed and Peter noted the changes that would be
made befora the plan was recammended to the Town Cauncil.
At that point Diana Donovan moved to approve the Master Plan and send
it to Town Council for their a roval. Jim Shearer seconded the
mation.
VOTE: 6- 0 in favor.
4. No comments for the Work Session ortion of the meetin .
~
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: December 18, 1989
SUBJECT: A request ta amend a conditional use permit for the Vail
Valley Medical Center. Lots E and F, Vail Village
Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center
I. pESCRTPTION OF PROPOSED U5E
In March of 1989, the Vail Valley MedicaZ Center (WMC)
received final approval for a Conditional Use request. This
approval allowed the Medical Center to complete the secand
floor on the north side of the west wing. The proposal alsa
called for a full third floor an top of the existing west
wing. The total square footage was approximately 31,209
square feret. A 2 1/2 level parking structure was alsa
appraved. The structure is lacated at the northeast carner
of the property and provides for 177 vehicles. The hospital
was required make significant improvernents along the South
Frontage Road. The parking structure would be accessed
~ directly off af the South Frontage Road.
When the project was originally approved, it was intended
that the parking structuxe and expansion be available for use
at the same time. The VVMC would like to amend their
appraval to a11aw them to utilize the new space before the
parking structure is ready for use. The WMC is requesting
to receive a temporary certificate af occupancy by August 1,
1990 for the new third floor. The parking structure would
not be ready until approximately November 15, 1990.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community DeveZopment Department
recommends apprQVal of the conditional use permit.based upan the
foZZawing factar:
A. Consideration of Factors.
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development
obZectivesaf the Tawn._ ~
ClEarly, the development objectives of the Town are
to ensure that requi.red parking is provided on szta
when an owner wishes to expand a building.
However, in this particular case, the hospital is
~ not requesting to waive the responsibility to
provide on-site parking. Instead, the hospital is
~ asking +-ha+- +-hey be given a 3 1/2 month extension
to aZZow for the completion of the parking
structure. Due to the very camplicated approval
pracess and coordination among property owners
requzred to complete the parking structure, staff
believes that the hospital's request to allow for
an additional 3 1/2 months construction time for
the parking structure is compatible with the
develapment objectives of the town as a
functional parking plan has been praposed to
accommadate the required parking generated by the
expansion. (Please see variance memo)
2. The effect of the use on light and air,
distribution of population,,, transportation
facilities~ utilities, schools, parks and
recreation facilities, and other public facilities
needs.
The hospital is requesting to utilize the Lionshead
Parking structure f4r employee parking.
t Approximately 180 spaces will be used by WMC
employaes during the Summer of 1994. The public
Works department has reviewad the request to
utilize the 180 spaces and believes that there is
enough excess capacity during the summer months to
. handle this demand. A1so, the 1986 approval for
the hospital allowed VVMC employees to park at the
Lianshead Parking structure. Publxc Warks has not
noticed any major problems due to this parking
arrangement. Staff believes that it is xeasonable
to aiiow the WMC to utiZize the Lionshead Parking
structure as there have not been any serzaus
parking probZems over the last three summers.
In addition, visitor and patient parking demand as
calculated by the approved required parking formula
will be maintaaned on site at all times until the
structure is available for use in November of
1990.
3. The effect upan traffic with particular reference
• „
to conqestion, automotive and pedestrlan safetY and
convenience traffic flow and control access
maneuvexability, and removal of snow fram the
street and parking areas. ~
It is staff's opinion that to require the hospital
to begin construction during the winter will most
likely create severe prablems far traffic floW and
aCCG55 to adjacent sites. Some o£ the impacts af a
winter construction start are that 34 on site
~ parking spaces would be lost adjacent to the
Doctor's offices and the Sports Medicine Center.
. Construction staginq is propased ta be located on
the south-east corner of the Doubletree property
adjacent to the Frantage Raad. This location fox
major construction equipment would remove
approximately 40 spaces for the Doubletree Hotel
during peak season demand as well as create an
unsightly area adjacent to the main entry to the
hotel. The ingress and egress from Vail National
Bank wouZd also be disrupted due to the number af
construction vehicles.
This portion of the Frontage Road is already a
congested area. Tt is our opinian that no matter
when the parking structure is constructed there
will definitely be impacts on traffic flow £or
surrounding praperties and the Frontage road.
However, we believe that these impacts are bettex
handled during the summer months as oppased ta
winter time when the traffic seems to be more
cangested and the roads are particularly hazardous
~due ta ice and snow. In addition, zt zs planned
that by this summer, the post affice will be
relacated. This factor should also make it easiex
to allow for better traffic flow and access without
the high numbexs of people who come to the post
~ affice.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use is ta be located including the scale
and bulk of the propased use in relation to
surrounding_uses.
To start constructian af the structure during the
ski season will create serious negative impacts on
the appearance of the area. The construction
vehicles and equipment necessary to start work on
the parking structure wi11 all be located on the
sauth-east corner of the Doubletree Hote1. It is
the staff's understanding that the Daubletree Hotei
wauld also prefer that construction begin early
this sprzng in order to avoid the visual impact as
we11 as noise during the peak season.
III. Such ather factors and criteria as the commission deems
applicable to the praposed use.
.
. ~V. F2ND~NGS
The Community Development Department recammends that the
conditional usa permit be approved based on the following
findings:
That the proposed location af the use is in accord with
the purposes of this ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
That the proposed location af the use and the canditions
under which it would be operated ar maintained would not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, ar welfare
or materially injurious to praperties ar improvements in
the vicinity.
That the proposed use would Comply with each af the
applicable provisions of this ordinance.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Y
Staff recommends approval of the amendment to the Canditidnal
Use permit. It is certainly true that the Town of Vail could
deczde that it is better to not allow the hospital to open
tha now wing until the parking structure is completed.
~ Staff's opinion is that this approach is unreasonable due to
the many steps the haspital has taken to ensure that the
parking structure is built in a timely mannex. in addition,
a functional parking proposal has been submitted ta address
the requixed parking. The amendment request basically allows
for a 3 1/2 month time extension to allaw the hospital to
complete the parking structure.
In respect to the criterza for a conditional use request,
the request meets a11 the findings listed above as did the
original proposal approved in 1989. The main issue is the
request to allow for some flexibility in the timing for the
completion of the project. Staff's opinian is that the 3
1/2 month time extension will not dramatically alter the
original reasons for approving the praject in 1989. At this
time, staff also believes that to require the hospital to
begin construction this winter will have more negative
impacts than those associated with a spring start far the
structure. Far these reasons, staff recommends approval of
the amendment to the Conditzonal Use Permit.
~
, • ,s
To: Planning and Enviranmental Gommission
~ FROM: Cammunity Development Department
DATE: December 18, 1989
SUBJECT: A request for a parking variance at the Vail Valley Medical
Center and a variance to the requirement to pave a temporary
parking lot at Sun Vail candamina.ums for the Vail Valley
Medical Center off-site lease parking program. Lots E and F,
Vai1 Va.l.lage Second Filing.
Applicant: Vail Valley Medical. Center
1. DESCRIPTZON OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
Tn 2986, the Vaa.l Valley Medical Center (VVMC) received an
approval for the expansion of the haspital. A condztion of the
approval was that in the future if the hospital expands, all the
required parking must be provi.ded on site. In March of 1989, the
hospital recea.ved an approval for construction of 31,209 square
feet of space for patient care as well as an on-site parking
structure. ThE parking structure is propased to be located on the
north-east corner of the property. Zt will provide for 177
vehicl.es with access directly off of the South Frontage raad. Al1
required parking was to be pravided an site.
~ A. PARKING VARYANCE:
The VVMC is requesting to receive a temparary Certificate of
occupancy for the new t7.aar under construction by August 1, 1990.
They are asking that the temporary certzficate of occupancy be
xeleased even though the proposed parking structure will not be
campleted in August. The parking structure is praposed to be
open by No,crember 15, 1990. There will be a time period from
August 1, 1990 to November 15, 1990 when all required parking wi11
not be provided on site. A parking variance far 164 spaces is
necessary for the time period from Augttst 1, 1990 to Navember 15,
1990.
B. PARKING LOT DESIGN VARIANCE:
In additian, the WMC is proposing to expand their off-site lease
parking pragram during the 1989--90 ski season. Under the previous
VVMC expansian approved in 1986, the hospital was allawed to lease
some of their required parking (30 spaces) from Manor Vail. They
are now requesting to increase off-site parking ta 90 spaces. 60
spaces would be leased from Manor Vail. 30 spaces would be
located on property directly to the west af Sun Vail cnndominiums,
which is awned by Bab Lazier.
Y l
In order ta construct the temporary parking lot at Sun Vai1, a
~ variance ai.s n,eeded to the develQpment standards for the parking
lat which requires paving and landscaping. The hospital a.s
requesting ta waive the requirements for paving and landscaping of
the temporary lot. Some type of po7.].ution cantral would be
required for the parking lot. The specific sections of the zoning
cade that relate to this variance are in sectian 18.52.080 0f the
Town of Vail Zoning code:
SURFACING - All parking areas shall be paved and
provided with adequate drainage
facilities.
LANDSCAPING - Not less than ten percent of the interior
surface area of unenclosed ofE-street parking areas
containing fifteen or more parking spaCes shall be
devoted to landscaping. In addition, landscaped borders
not less than ten feet in depth shall be provided at aIl
edges of parking 1.ots contai.ning more than fifteen
parking spaces. Landscapad borders not less than
fifteen feet in depth shall be provided at all edges of
parking lots containing more than thirty parking spaces.
A landscaped berm, wall or fence nat less than faur feet
in height of the same architectural style as the
building may be substituted for the landscaped border.
subject to design review approval.
SUMMARY OF PARKING PROVISIONS FOR WMC
The following describes how the WMC proposes to address requa.red
parking from December 1989 up to the completion of the parking
structure by November 15, 1990.
A. WINTER PROPOSAL: (Ti.me frame: December 1989 to April
15th, 1990 or the close of Vail Mountain)
This parking p].an relies on leasing off-site parking at Manor
Vail (60 spaces) and Sun Vaii (30 spaces). Al1 parking
required for patients is still provided on site. No paxkz.ng
is proposed in the Lionshead parking structure. 203 parking
spaces are required gi.ven the existing uses at the Vail
Valley Medical Center. The new third floar under
construction will not be open for use during this time frama.
The WMC is providing 152 spaces on site, including 56 valet
spaces. 90 spaces are leased at off site lots (PZease see
attached approvals from Sun Vail and Manor Vail).
Required Parking: 203 spaces
~
t ~
Proposed Parking:
~ 152 On site (includes valet parking for 56 cars)
60 Manor Vail Leased spaces.
30 Sun Vail Leased spaces.
242 Total spaces provided on-site and at off-site lease
areas.
The hospital has arranged for shuttle service ta and from the
leased lots. Employees returning to the Manor Vail lat wi1l
use the in town shuttle bus.
DEPARTURE ARRIVE WMC
MANOR VAIL 5.10 6:20
6:30 6:40
6:50 7:00
SUN VATL 7:20 7:30
7:35 7:45
7:50 8:Q0
DEPARTURE ARRIVE
SUN VAIL
~ VAIL VALLEY 4:05 4:15
MEDICAL CENTER 4:35 4:45
5:05 5:15
5:35 5:45
6:05 6:25
6:35 5:45
7:05 7:15
B. APRIL 15, to AUGUST 1, 1990: During this time period, all
employees will park at the Lionshead parking structure. 131
spaces wi11 be used by Vail Valley Medical Centsr employees
in the Lionshead parking structure. Aii required parking for
patients will be provided on-site. The fallowing is an
analysis of the parking:
Required Parking : 243 spaces
Proposed Paxking:
114 spaces on-site
131 Lionshead Parking structure
245 Total Spaces
* 152 spaces could be pravided an-site if valet parking
~ is used.
i
C. AUGUST 1, 1990 to NOVEMSER 15, 1990! On August 1,
~ assuming all building code and zoning issues are addressed, a
temporary certificate of occupancy would be requested for the
third floor construction. The parking structure wauld not be
ready for use until November 15, 1990. Hospital employees
would still be required ta park at the Lionshead parking
structure (180 spaces). Required parking for patients would
be pravidad on site.
Required Parking:
203 Original Farking Required
75 1989-90 Expansion Required Parking
278 Total Required Parking for Building
Praposed Parking:
180 spaces Lianshead Parking structure for employees
114 spaces on-site
294 spaces total.
ZII. CRITERTA AND FINDINGS
~ Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
municipal code, the Department of Community Development recommends
approval af the requested variances based upan the following
factars:
Cansideratian of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other
existinq or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
A. PARKING VARIANCE:
There are no major negative impacts on existing or
potential uses or structures in the vicinity due to the
proposed parking variance. If fact, the negative
impacts would probably be increased if the hospital were
to begin construction of the parking structure at this
time. Potential negative impacts would include the
disruption af the Frontage road traffic and available
parking for the Doubletree Hotel during the peak ski
season. zt is unreasonable and unnecessary to start
winter excavation For the structure at this time. Staff
feels that the preaent proposal minimizes the impacts on
surrounding propertzes as much as possible.
~
, .
B. PARKING LOT DESZGN VARTANGE!
~ There should be no major negative impacts on adjacent
uses and structures in the vicinity due to the parking
lot. The Sun Vail Condominium Association and Bab
Lazier (property owner) have apprQVed the prQposal. The
lot is located to the west of Sun Vail Condominiums and
should not impact views or create major traffic
problams. WMC employees will use the same ingress and
egress that exists at Sun Vail. The VVMC has agreed to
pravide a11 snow remaval for the temporary lat. It is
also understood between Sun Vail and VVMC that employees
will only be allowed to use parking in the tempnrary
lot.
The Town of Vail owns the land to the west of the
temporary lot (Sandstone Park). The parked cars will
have aminimal visual impact an the park and surrounding
properties as the cars are partially screened by a bexm
from the Frontage Raad.
2. The deqree to which relief fram the strict and litexal
interpretation and enforcement of a specified regulatian
is necessar to achieve com atibilit and uniformit of
treatment among sites in the vicinity or to attain the
objectives of this title without grant af special
~ privileqe.
A. PARKING VARIANCE:
Staff's opinion is that some relief from the strict
interpretation of the zonzng code is necessary given the
unusual circumstances related to this project. These
circumstances include:
a. The construction schedule for this pro7ect was very
strict. The hospital has progressed in gond faith to
complete the utility work necessary before construction
could begin on the parking structure. The hospital has
relocated tha watar main, telephone duct system and gas
main. They are in the process of relocating the
electrical lines. A majarxty of the utilities have been
moved so that construction may praceed rap3dly on the
parking structure this spring.
b. This project required coordination among many
groups such as the Daubletree Hotel, Vail National Bank,
Colorado Divisian af Highways, PEG, DRB, Town Council,
and utility companies. The degree nf coordinatian
required has made it difficult to proceed at a fast
pace.
•
' t
c. The Colorado Division of Highways has given their
. approval for the construction of the road system and
ingress/egrass off the Frontage road. This approval
also required a great deal af time and effort to obtain.
The only reason the hospital would seek this approval is
to praceed with the parking structure in the spring.
Given these circumstances, staff believes that it is
very clear that the hospital is intending ta construct
the parking structure. We believe that the WMC has
taken the neaessary steps to ensure that the
constructian af the parking structure goes smoothly this
spring. The WMC should receive some relief from the
strict requirement that all parking be provided on site
before a temporary certificate af occupancy would be
released for the hospital.
B. PARKING LOT DESZGN VARIANCE:
Staff feels that it is not necessary to require the hospital
ta pave and landscape the parking lat that will be used for
anly five months. As long as some type of pollution control
system is implemented and the site is cleaned up and
xevegetated in the spring of 1990, staff beliaves some
flexibility from the design standards intended for a
permanent parking lot are reasonable.
• 3. The effect of the requested variance on liqht and air,
distribution of population, transpartation and traffic
facil.ities, public facilities and util.ita.es, and public
safety._
A. PARKING VARIANGE:
Publ.ic Warks has reviewed the request ta use a maximum of 180
parking spaces in the Lionshead structure for hospital
emplayees from August l, 1990 to November 15, 1990. Public
Works feels comfortable with thi.s solution. Their opinion is
that the parka.ng structure can handle the additianal demand
of 180 spaces. (Please see the attached 1988/1989 Town of
Vail parking survsy summary informatzon wh3ch indicates a
surplus of parking spaces is available even at peak use
times), staff also agrees that there are enough spaces
available in the structure to aiiQw for the 180 employees.
In addition, WMC employees have used the Lionshead parking
structure ov'er the past three summers and there has not been
a problem.
Approximately 40 parking spaces at the Doubletree would be
lost if the hospital started construction this winter. This
Zoss in parking is an unnecessary impact on the Doubletree.
.
B. PARKING LOT DESTGN VARIANCE!
~ Additional traffic will be generated in this area when
employees arrive and depart from the lot. With proper
traffic signage and the use of the shuttle vans, staff does
not anticipate major traffic prablems due to the Sun Vai1
temporary 1ot.
IV. Such other factors and criteria as the commission deems a licable
to the propased variance.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findinqs before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance wi11 not canstitute a grant af
special privilege inconsistent with the limitatians 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 ane or mare of the following
reasons:
. The strict or literal interpretation or enforCement af the
specified ragulatian would result in practical difficulty ar
unneCessary physical hardship inconsistent with the
objectives of this title.
There are exceptians or extraordinary czrcumstances or
conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that
do not apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
The strict interpretatian or enfarcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed
by the owners of other properties in the same district.
VT. STAFF RECOMMENDATTON
The staff would have liked to have seen the construction completed
for the new third flaor and parking structure at tha same time.
We would have also liked to have reviewed this request earlier in
the year. However, we acknowledge the numerous technical
difficulties and high degree af coordination that was required tn
construct this projact. The two variances are not a grant of
special privilege as the hospital fu11y intends to complete the
parking structure within 3 1/2 manths after the new wing is
apened. They are agreeing to abide by the zoning requirements.
However, they are asking far some flexibility (3 1/2 months) in
40 the timing of the construction. The requests are also nat
detrimental to the general public ar harmful to public safety or
, 'praperty in that mare disruptian to adjacent properties will oacur
~ if canstruction begins during the winter. The Doubletree, Vail
National Bank and Frontage Road traffic would be severely impacted
by the canstruction.
Staff supports the variances in that we believe that the strict
interpretation of the zoning code would be an unnecessary physical
hardship. We believe that the hospXtal has taken the steps
necessary ta accQmpl.ish the construction of the parking structux-e.
Every effort has been made to proceed with the project due to the
fact that utility work has been compl.eted, pernissian from the
Coloxada Divi.sion of Ha.ghways obtained and the coordination af all
the adjacent property owners has been completed. It would be an
unnecessary physical hardship to requi.re that the hospital.laegin
excavation of the site during the winter far the parking
structure or to withhol.d the temporary certificate of occupancy
when a reasonable and functional parking proposal can be
implemented durzng the 3 1/2 month time period for the variance.
We bel.ieve that the community benefits of opening the new third
floor with a temporary variance outweighs the a].ternative of
keeping the new facility closed until the structure is built.
We also support the variance to the design standards for the
temporary parking lot at Sun Vail. As long as pollution control
is provided, it is fe1.t that requira.ng th wNiC to pave and
landscape a parking lot that will be used for five months is
• unreasonable. A similar request was alsa approved for the Town of
vail parking lot at Ford Park in order to allow the Town of Vai1
to avoid paving the lot .if the Aquatic Center is approved. Staff
considers the Sun Vail lot to be a similar request in that there
is no intent to avozd meeting the parking requirement. Instead,
the Sun Vail lat is propased to a1l.eviate a temporary parking need
due to the ta.ming of construction.
Staff recommends that the requested variances be approved with the
fol.lawing canditions:
1. The Town of Vail reserves the right to review the
employee shuttle system and nff-site lease parking program.
If we determine that the program is nat working properly, the
staff reserves the right to bring the issue back to the
Pl.annang and Environmental Commissinn fnr review.
2. The off-site parking plan is only approved from the date
of possible approval of this request to the end of the ski
season in 1990.
3. The WMC shall not encourage employee parki.ng a.n the
Lianshead parking structuxe during the winter ski season or
provide Lionshead parking passes to employees during the
wintex season.
•
4. The VVMC shall he responsiblo far insuring that thn 5un
~ Vail parking lot is cleaned up and revegetated no lator than
July 1, 1990. The hospital snaii also be respQnsible far
implementing some type of pollution control system while
using the gravel lot. The system shall be approved by the
Community Development Department.
5. No final certificate of occupancy shall be released for
the WMC 1989 Expansion until the parking structure and all
other required improvements (Frontage Rd., landscaping eta.)
are complated.
The staff requests that :
1. The hospital sha11 agree to submft parking structure
building permit plans to the Community Development Department
no later than February 14, 1990. The purpose Qf this
requirement is to ensure that adequate time will be allawed
to review building permit drawings in order to release a
permit by April 15, 1990.
2. If due to some unforeseen reason, the structure is nnt
going to be ready for use by November 15, 1990, the hospital
shall have an obligation to inform the Cammunity Development
Department of the situation by September 1, 1990. The
hospital shall also be required to submit a request far any
~ necessary approvals due to the problem with the parking
structure by September 1, 1990.
~
' ~ i•
~'S
~
~ U ~
VaIi VQfIey 181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
- Vail, Calarado 81657
~ medical center (303) 476-2451
3 November 1989
Kristan Pritz
Town ofi Va i 1
Carrrmuni ty Development .
75 Sauth Frontage Road .
Vail, Colorado 81657 Dear Kristan:
When the hospital agreed to construct a parking structure at the east s7de of
the present facility, we stressed that the eompTexity of the undertaking would
probably preclude its being completed simu]taneously with the third-f7oor
addition. Among the disparate partie$ with whom agreements had ta be
concluded before canstruction could commence were tne Colorado Department ofHighways, the DoubTetree Hotel, Vai1 National Bank, 17pper Eagle Va11ey Water
Distr3ct, Public Service Company, No1y Cross Eiectric Association and U.S.
West-Communications.
~ We do not beTieve that it wouid be prudent to begin the parking structure this
year. Doing so would remove another 34 hospital parking spaces from service
this ski season, not to mention the 40. spaces in the Doubletree's 1ot that
wvuld be lost to construction staging.
Although construction af the parking structure itself wiTT not actuaTly start
urrtil 15 April 1990, a substantial amount of uti7ity relocatian Ts being
accomp1ished this year. To date, reloeat-ion of the water main, telephane duct
system and gas main has been compieted. Relocatton of four electric
primaries, twa buiiding services and various electric distribution apparatus
is underway, and shouTd be complete sometime this month.
Whi1e the hospital expansion will be ready for occupancy on 1 August I990, the
parking structure wi11 nat be available for use until 15 November 1990. We
believe a T.C.O. shauld be issued to allow beneficial occupancy of the
hospitaT addition by Z August 1990, because parking requirNments to support
the new spac2 for three and one-haif months can be met using existing
resources, witnaut need for the paricing structtare. A11 hospital emplayees
wilT park at the Lionshead Parking Structure next summer, untii 15 Novembej^
1990. Thus, only patients and visitors need ta be parked on-site.
To ascertain current demand far patient and visitor parking during the summer
season, we conaucted two surveys, ane on 7hursday, 12 October and the second
on Friday, 13 Qctober. Between 7AM and 5PM, we simp]y counted all vehicles
parked on-site by patients and visitors, once every hour. The survey resuits ,
are attached.
~
Ray McMahan
. Administrator
KRISTAN PRITZ
TOWN QF VAIL
3 NOVEMBER 1989
Page 2
~ .
On the two days surveyed, peak demand occurred on 13 October, between 1PM and
2PM. During that period, 79 vehic]es driven by patients or visitors were
parked at the hospital. Our agreed-upon farmula has previously shown that an
additional 26 spaces will be'needed to meet non-staff parEcing demand generated
hy the space currently under constructian. (See, fqr example, my letter of 11
September 1989. ) Thus, total present and future demand -For non-staff parking
indicates a requirement for 105 on-site parking sPaces between 1 August and 15
EVavember 1990. We wi11 have a total of 114 space5 avaiiabie, or 9 more than
required during the anticipated peak period.
We believe these facts demonstrate that it is eminently reasonable for the
Tawn to grant us a parking variance so that we can occupy our new hospitai
space nQxt August, while the parking structure is being completed.
S' erel
/ ag~
Dan Proj DFibh
,
~ cc: Jay Peterson
Ray McMahan
~
.
VAiL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
PARKING SURVEY
. THURSDAY, QCT08ER 12, 1989
Time - Vehicles Parked Total
East Parking Lot Roctors & Ambulance WestParking Lot
7:00am 8 ' 5 9 22
8:00am 15 1 14 36
9:00am 22 8 , 24 54
10:00arR- 20 9 25 34
11:00am 24 9 31 64
I2:00noon 23 7 28 5$
1:0Opm 20 9 24 53
2:00pm 22 7 30 59
3:00pm 21 8 33 62
4:00pm 20 9 36 65
• 5:0Qpm 16 7 31 54
FRIDAY, OC70BER 13, 1989
TYme VehicTes Parked Total
East Parkin Lot Dactors & Ambulance West Parkin Lot
7:00am 6 3 10 _ 19
8:OOam g 4 9 22
9:00am 10 6 20 36
10:00am 22 g 31 62
11:00am 23 g 30 62
ZZ:QOnoan 22 8 36 66
I:OOpm 24 9 46 79
2:00pm 24 9 40 73 .
. 3:00pm 21 9 30 60
4:00pm 18 8 25 51
5:00pm 12 7 . 16 35
, ' •
181 West Meadow Drive, Suite 100
~ 49'W4 vail vailey
Vail, Colorada 81657
, medical cenfier (303) 476-2451
T0: ALL EMPLOYEES
FROM: RICH MEYER - VUMC parking/Grounds Supervisor
_
pATE: QECEMBER 14, 1989
SUBJECT: PARKING
PLEASE! Do not use VUNlC or Manor Vail parking 7ots un7ess you are workfng at
the time.
MANOR VAIL LQDGE - Most employees are required ta park at Manor Vail. (See
list of exceptions).
GATES: When parking at Manor Vail please look for the "VUMC Lot Fu11"
sign at the first automatic gate. If the sign is posted go to the second
automatic gate. (Z block furthPr arod also on your left).
SHUTTLES: Times for the shuttle servicP from Manor Vail to the hospital
are listed below. The shuttles leave from the Manor Vai7 frpnt desk area
{look far Manor Vaii emblem on side of van}. If the Manor llail van is full,
Took far a brawn 1978 5uburban as Yt is our back-up snuttie,
~ Leaves Manor Vail Arrives at Hospital
6:10 a.m. 6:20 a.m.
6:30 a.m. 6:40 a.m.
6.50 a.m. 7:00 a.m.
After 7:00 a.m. you must use the city busing system (buses run every 10-15
minutes) which staps at Gold Peak, direct]y across the street from Manor Vail.
All returns to Manor Vaii must also use the city busing system which runs
until midnight.
HOSPITAL PARKING -
OFFSiTE E}(CEPTIONS: 8elow is an updated iist of thase allowed to park
an-site. You must see attendants at booth 3n West Lot upon arrivai as we
will probably require you be va]et parked). PTease do not park in the Ea5t
Lot or along i:he ambuTance wa1T. (We need these spots f,or patients, skier
t-ransport, and ambi personne .
1, Doctors
2. VoTunteers (Auxillary)
3, Short term - One hour or less. Should you exceed one hour your
immediate sUpervisor will be contacted.
4. Early Arrivais - Those needing to arrive before 6:20 a.m.
5. Nignt Shift - 7hose arriving at the hospitai after 2:30 p.rrt. or
ieaving the hospital after 9:00 p.m.
6. Ca11ed-In - Emergencies oniy.
~ 7. Unable to waik well. (Requires doctor's note).
8. Car Poolers {3 or more employees in vehic]es) - Car pooling from
offsite lots in unacceptabie.
9. On-Site permit cards - Must display on dash.
Ray McMahan
Administrator
VALET PARKING: All special requests must be pasted (taped) in writing
and easi y visi e nn the dash. Examples.
1. Do not lvck vehic7e.
2. flo not use emergency brake.
Do nat leave valuables in yoyr V2h'iC72 as we are not respansible for last
items. Please let the valet parking attendants know 7f you will be in the
vaTet section later than 4:30 a,m. as we need it clear for snow removal by
then.
CITY LOT: CAUTI4N - The sma1T parking area at the S.W. corner of the
hospita signage indicates parking hy speciai permit on1y) is not for our
generai use and you may be ticketed or tawed. (3 posted Doctor's spots onTy),
PARKING RIfLES: Beginning December 16, parking ruies wi11 be strictly
enfarced week-ends too). Comp7iance wiTl save yflu the time spent driving
back to Manor Vail after we turn you away from the haspital.
Your cooperatian is needea and great7y appreciated.
i
~
: •
Sun Vaa.7. Condominium Association
605 N. Frontacre Rd.
Vail, CO 81557
(3C13) 476-0305
December S, 1989
, Re: Parking at Sun Vai1.
To: Vail Valley Medical Center
and the Town of Vail
The semi annual m2eting of the homeovaner was P.ecem}aer 2. 1989.
The homeawners aareed ta allaw the haspital parking at the far
west end of the prejeCt as long as it dnesn't etfect their normal
parking, liability ox snow removal costs. We have tal.ked with
Rich Meyer of the Medical Center and he has agreed to a1l of the
above.
WQ wish the Hospa.tal ottr best and our happy to be ab].e tn he1p.
Sincerely,
~
Kit Wa.lliams
Secretar_y
Sun Vail Condoma.iixu:m Association
;
; .
Mti
~
PAFtKING LEUWE AGRErJMNT
b , 1989 ,
THIS AGRE LMENT ia~ da?t~ad ~le~ of ~ 9 - V
p gIa 1 Val~.~ ~C`entar
atween Va~.l Ci~.niC, InC, d/ Y
ttnd bMedtcAl Center") , 181 West Maaedow I}riwe, Vail, Ca1.orac:in 81637 8?nd
Robez't Y.,ELz1Br, ("Laxiex'") ? -----i Vail, CCS3.ox'adOa
irt conaideratlan of tha muCUal covenants and promiseo ;
containad in this Agraement, the parties aqrea: '
1. Lazler owna and har#by lenses to the NiodiGal Ganter
a qravel parkir,g lot sdjacent ta a~nd west of the curx'*nt Sun Vail
candominium parking ir? Vail, colorado for the excluaf.ve purpnso of
parking the vehi.clea of Medioa1 Center employees. T~zier sha11
prepax`e tho lat 3ay claaring exiati:Yg olasitructiatts an3 provi.ding a
gravel baao suitabXe Eor parklrig vehiaZes on the 1ot 1n tha wi.ntQr+
The lot shall be raady for parking ve23iCles nn lator than Mcanday,
Navamber 20, 1989.
2. Term. The term of this Agreenient is tha 1985-90 sKi
~ ~eason et Vnil, comm8nr.ing Navember 20, 7989 and anding upon the
1aat date of the nftioially annaunced ski m4ag4ti in Vai.l, but no
later thar, April 30, 1989.
3. Envm~,~. Medic~xl Cer~ter sh~t~.1. pay Y..Ar.~er
rental patymants of $240.00 par spaoe for the term of tha Agreament.
Ona e?paca shall be equal to an 181 x101 area wi.tli a2D' minimum
aCCeF.3f3 lane tn tha spaces. Tho total number of spawes provided or
avni3able on the lot shalY not exased 34. The Madic.al Genter sha1l
bG raaponecible for apacei 1eyout and delineatirsn aricT sha1l b,--
reariansibla for the proper marki.nq and gignage of tha sgacea. The
part3.es sht?11 detex-mine the numbar of spz+cras can the lr,t and the
tot&1 reitt due 1tio later than Monday, Novemhar 20, 1989. The
resulting ront shall ba pdid aec foilowa: Y5, 0C~0 ia pa1 axb? e 1apcsn
exeaution of this Agreenent, representing akn drtticip2~tbd tndnimux
of at 1eaot 30 spapes ta be prcavided. Any balance for additianal
apacas, or ad~uatmant for fewer spaces, shn1l be p&id on or before
Navember 20, 1009.
4. KaiLif,ananc„_e_. Medical Center sha11 k:e rasponsi.bl,e Por
snow removal, general mttintennnce and regulation of the use of tha
parking lot during tha term of this Agreement. The aoC ahall be
subject to ordinztry wear mnd tear ta its surface due to parkSng and
~
~ ..r -
: .
' 1 1 . r'F 2 $ 9 l 5 : 7 1 S 3~03 32 4' P t:, ri ;
~
vehica.,e movemsnt. Madical GQnter Bhh7.1 xeturn tha lot to Lzszier
at the pQnoluaion of the term af thig AgrAAmon1: •
VArL CLINIC, INC. d/b/n
yAIL VATA'Y MEDTCAL CENTER R4B R" UPL?
:
~ t/~•~'° -
Hdrald W. Ka nca
Preacident, BoArd of directQre
~
~
~
t ~ti m b
a
rm-
Q ~ a; u -mi n
T. 5 S. R. 81 W. S E SHEET 5
M H LINE
T.53. R,BQW,
c O y ro / /
W U D ~ ~
-n r-
C w A C7 ~ ~ N
C?i n _ W D 'I 9 r -
G]
~ n rn
~ r r
~ m ->1
~
-t /
T O W ~ N
n ~ W \ p w
m ~ J ni
9 m ~ W f
J e O -
m W
D O _ _ _ A N
- J W
OU) m m D
Uo Z o~ r ~ o
,..v1 pC W
p 6V3w`^' ~ ~ N ~ -
O A
~^}j ~ y
V
W ~ m ~z rm ~ W ~ N
~ m ~ W n S N O ZtD N - ~
~ l^ O N
VJ
~
P ~ O n N
O
- ~ m
C
o rn
c
cn p~ Z~ Wo
. A ~ ^ 2
~ p oA o~
XO
0
a
C O
ti ' f+' • 1 f~' N S I ~ X I
m va ~ ~ ~ U
o m
~ D D
m ~ 6 n
4
:2:
~ -
~ A C =
~i d
t
~fj) r ~ Z
0
N D ~ Z n
~(n n (n m <
m
~ w C ~n fTi
tn D ~ _ ~ ro D ~
~
A~ CL z
1
-4 O
, z z
w i~ / N D
a
. , i~- - O
AkXf0kVAJL
~ 595 EasrVaiCVaITQ~Drive-- Vai[, Co(orado S1657 (30)) 476-565I Fax (303) 476-4982-
DECEMBER 1, 1989
MR. RICH MEYER
VATL V,ALLEY MEDICAL CENTER
VAIL, ^OLvP.ADd
DEAR RICH:
THIS LETTER, WIL.L CONFIRM THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN MANOR VAIL
L4DGE AND THE VAIL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER TO LEASE 60 PARKING
SPACES AT MANOR VAIL FOR THE 1989-1990 WINTER SEAS4N.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR SENDING THE CHECK SO PROMPTLY.
~ SINCERELY, "
MAN4R VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASS4CIATION
~
J4KAGING RUSH, CHA
AGENT
.
Ak90PVA1L
i~ 595 Fast'UaiCVa[re~Drive-= Vail, CoCorado 81657 (303) 476~5651 Fax (30)) 476-4982
DECEMBER 14, 1989
MS. KRISTEN PRITZ
THE TOW1V OF VAIL
PLANNTNG DEFARTMENT
75 S. FRONTAGE RO.AD, WEST
VP.IL, CO 81657
RE: LEASED pARKING TO VP,IL VALLEY MEDICAL CENTF.R
DEAR KRISTEN:
THE REASON 1VIANOR VAIL CAN LEASE 30 ADDIT'IONAL 1'ARKING SPACES TO THE VAIL VALLEY
MEDICAL CENTER THIS WINTER IS TWOFOLD:
~ THE INCREASED EFF'ICIENCY OF THE GROUND TRANSPORATION BE'TWEEN VAIL AND
DENVER .ALLOWS OUR GUESTS TO USE THIS 'IRANSPORTAT'ION RATHER THAN
RENTING A CAR WHICH WOULU JUST REMAiN IN THE PARKING LOT FOR THE
DURATION OF THEIR STAY.
THE DECREASE IN THE NUMBER OF RENTAL UNITS WE HAVE AVAILABLE HERE AT
MANOR VAiL GIVES US MORE AVAILABLE PARKING.
PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME DIRECTLY SH4ULD YOU HAVE ADDITiONAL QUESTIONS.
SiNCERELY,
MANOR VAIL CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION
O RUH, CHA
AGING G AGENT
~
,
~ ~ , • "
. 1 .
'
~
~ s~ ~.~dt~ ~RV'Q--`~~ ~4~iC+~'"i1.'~0 ~ • ' -
~
` 7clc.~• 7~(~2(, y '
11p z• i 1 15 , 1986
. ~
~
Mx, Peter Patten
Planning Department •
Town of Vail
, 75 South Frontage Road West '
. Vail, CnZorado 81657
~
Ke: Review of Manor Vail: ,
Leased Parking Spaces •
~
Dear Peter : . .
The folIowing is a study on the amount af available parking "
; spaces at the Manor Vail Lodge this past winter. I hope this wilI.' provide sufficient information for you to approve Mannr Vail's re-
, quest to lease parking spaces for the winter szasoii of 1986/87.
Date Spaccs Availaul:e % af dccupancy
~ Feb. 2 ZZG 69%
Feb. 9 112 73%
Feb. 16 76 100%
' Feb. 23 103 80%
Mar. 2 94 96% -
Mar. 9 . 76 100%
Mar. 16 81 . 100%
. . Mar. 23 84 • 86$
` Mar. 30 72 • 98% .
E: .
It shou2o also be noted that in addition to providing free
parking for Manor Vail's quest5, owners and employees; this count
also included the 30 spaces leased to Vai1 ASSOC1'it,eS this past • .
winter and spaces to Col. Hugh Nevins' instructars. ' Based on these.figures, Manor Vail respectful.7.y requests to -
. y . -~.,r..,~ •
'~.lease 30 spaces to Vai,l Associates and 30 spaces to the Vai1. Valle
Medical Center for the 1986/87 w.i.nter season.
Sincerely, , . . .
,F~ ~t , • ~ V~`~~ ~g ~ n~
"MANOR VAIL 'CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION ' • • ' 'i. :;~.,,~~,,~i"
. ~ \
' b +0
f'1 T ~(y v 7~ ~y}`l~
~J jy~
M1 . , ~r u57y, 1, ~r~7li
vYi'~ F M ging Agent
. . . . . , ' , ~~r ;~„i•~
9s
f y, ` } . . ' ' . . ..+r~ 1 . Y , ~ ' i1. f r o- •
-/1 4 ~:S' + . ~ 5 , ,r !i.j • y- „ F T.> ,,r'1;l. -3Y4.R{, ~'k!,.A vI.•.~4r ~~ilry~ J . '.~a'~'_i S.ar..S.{ n,r' , .a,' , . , a , .
, 8_7~'A`., i,rr. . , , . a.. . . .
~
~
b
tl Q ~
m m m
~ o
w u3
e~ 1 M aao v
m ~ •e 'r
^ y ~ v
O Q
m ~ M M
~
na
o b N
~ M
O ~ d
M
p d
d ~ Q
~ N
o ~
~y M
O
~ tl
O Q ~ M S~a
m
~ 1 ^
b Q
G y N
^ w ev
w a ~ ~
n ~ a N o 0o Q Cl
Q
M ~ N N ~ m ~1 ~G ~O C d G
i0 C m m ~
~ G p ^
d
# OC
P O~ o~~ W tl ~lf pm C'~ ~ O C~ ~ w l~~] ~ V~l ~
b W N M N IXi b N ~ 06 lO Q
V r IA ~ fG ~ i~
1"'1
4 O
q ~ tl M ^ V
~ 1-r 6 fv M
Q ~ aO 1!1 O~`f tl l+ O rv ~p y b ~ p ~ M Ci ~ Iti tV Q ~V tl M
C] W~ EO N.+ ~ b i} ~O t~ t G V 9 i r~ Y~'f l9 N Od t~ ~ ~ T
rN fri i+ IIf t~'1 t~~ v m ~o m aa eo
4 ~ ~ o
T 9; ti
T Y a N f'~ ~ (q
C o
al st O: OI ~
N O ~ [V .-V~ a6 6s u1 M ~ W M aD Cn v Q m Fl fC .v
6~ N O V~ Cl b b i~ v] ~ ~f o F~ ~~!5 n'f OO
v M f^S N tfl c'v M? u'! ~o iD Va td t+ f- O! Ol ~ s»
M rn
~
q m ~o S~1 tr
~ Y oQ M N
ai
s+r a ~ /
m vn,~ w rn r ee ~n w.v e.l e~ o o~ ~n ~e w' m
e ~'a w~ e~ m eo ~n F ry °o e b N ao m w~
Q lO V~ ~f l0 4Y b Vi t- 4!1 b Uf !n
tl O] O " `
~ V M
O
O p
N ~
fh ~
M
b 1Q
4 ~y
Q
G
u ~ n
o m
W N ~
~ tl
G ~
O tiwa~j
~ q v
Y q, ~
d b ~
00
tll1 O N m
Il~ U3 t- ~O O df ~Kf tl N
T T N N\~~ N N M N M M~ V Ll~] b~~ ry ~ N N\~~ M N N N M M M W t~0
~
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
~ FROM: Community Develapment Department
DATE: 1]ecember 18, 1989
SUBJ: Work Session on the Village Parking Structure
We would like to address the parking structure through a final work
session format at the December 18 PEC meeting. Much has occurred an
the projeGt since the joint work session with the DRB on November 8. A
variety of issues have been dealt with in the past five weeks by the
Town Council, Staff and projeCt architect. Since the project scnpe and
other issues have been determined, we can now conduct a final review
of the PEC's Cancerns and proceed to an approval on January 8, 1990.
I. BRIEF PROJECT DESCRZPTION:
The proposed Village Parka.ng structure addition and remadel project
includes the fo1l.owing:
- Additian of 420 parking spaces
- Doubling the bus parking and loading capacity of the upper
deck.
- Repair of existing structural problems.
- 1000 square foot visitors center.
~ - 5000 square foat (approximately) unfina.shed space for
passible use of Colorado Ski Museum.
- Completely revised circulatian patterns.
- Road improvements including right and left turn lanes and 6
foot wide bike lanes.
- Site improvements including the following:
a. NeG,r side walks on north, sauth and west sides.
b. Additional public restroom nn west end.
c. Three new ar impraved stairways with landing plazas
on the south side.
d. Three new sma11 "pocket plazas" fox- public seating
and passibly public art.
e. Increased landscaping including evergreens,
deciduous trees and ornamental shrubs.
f. Brick paver cross walks on East Meadow Drive and
Vail Va11.ey Drive.
g. Zmproved pedestrian w'alkways connecting to Golden
Peak (undesagned).
h. New entry design
~
~
II. PEC ISSUES RATSED AT JOINT WORK SESSION:
~ The following are areas that were identified by PEC members as concerns
or areas for revisions. Under "response" we have included the current
status vf those areas or issues.
1. Main Stairway/Plaza from Slifer square to level four.
PEC Comments: Needs redesign to include more curves and
free farms as well as small plazas aff of landings;
level three to include significant landscaping contained
in removable planters or alternatives;
Response: All of these suggestions have been
incorporated into the plan.
2. Level four transit deck.
PEC Comments: Maximize capacity for buses and vans.
Response: This has been included in the plan.
3. Southeast - Gold Peak portal.
PEC Comment: Make stairway more free form; orient lower
stair more toward west to facilitate pedestrian cxossway
on East Meadow Drive; increase public "waiting area"
~ Response: With the exceptian of reorientatian ta the
west of the lower stairway, these suggastions have been
incorporated into the plan; there are building code
issues regarding the stairway, but an alternative
solution will be presented an Monday.
4. Southwest stair.
PEC Comment: Make more free form and arient more to
intersection of East Meadow Drive and Vzllage Center
Road. Include crosswalk across intersection.
Response: With the exception of the crosswalk these
suggestions have been included in the plan.
5. Southeast corner landscaping and retaining walls.
PEC Comment: Consider tearing retaining walls or
boulder retaining walls; include landscaping up high on
the berm.
~ Response: The landscaping has been proposed; we are
unsure on the retaining wall revision.
~
r 6. North elevation east of new entry.
• PEC Comment: Additional berming in this area.
Response: Berming is not included but additional
landscaping up high to the wall has been.
7. New side walk an east side to Frontage road and Fard Park.
PEC Comments: Include this in the plan.
Response: This is propased on the south side of vail
Valley drive.
8. Landscape median along Frontage Road.
PEC Comments: Try to include this in the project.
Response: The budget has nQt allowed this to be
included.
9. Public art in the project.
PEC Comments: Involve the AIPP in proposing public art
elements for the project.
. Response: AIPP will due this in January.
lo. Upper plaza - landscaping.
PEC Camments: Include substantial greenery thraugh
removable planters or some other alternative.
Response: This has been included and wi11 be reviewed
at the December 18th meeting.
11. Slifex Square planter west side.
PEC Comments: Camplete removal without replacement is
unacceptable; work toward a new planter design to
accommodate necessary bus withs as well as enclasure to
Slifer Square.
Response: To date, the design of this planter has not
been included in the plan.
.
r '
. At the meeting on December 18th, we will raview the progxess on these
issues with a presentation and wark session with the staff and
axchitect.
cc: Ron Phillips
stan Berryman
Greg Hall
Mike Rose
Michael Barber Architects
•
~
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community DeveZopment Department
, DATE: December 18, 1989
SUBJ: Final suggested revisions to the Vail Village Master Plan
Larry Eskwith and r have re-worked the purpose and amendment sections
as well as revised one paragraph of the sub-area concept explanation
(p.27). Also included for your review and approval are revisions to
the plan made by the PEC at the Navember 27 work session.
The staff feels these revisions clarify and strengthen the plan's
intended purpose. Today we have the opportunity ta culminate 4 years
of work developing the Vail Village Master Plan. The PEC has dane an
extraardinary jab in their extensive review of the plan and has
developed a significant "ownership" tQward its formulation, adaption
and implementation.
As a staff, we're confident that this plan will guide the future growth
of the Village in an intelligent, high-quality and sensitive manner. ,
The staff is proud to recommend adoption of the Vail Village Master
Plan as an element of the Vail Camprehensive Plan.
s
•
TT. HTSTORY OF VATL VTLLAGE:
As the physical development of the original Village began to
~ take pzace in the early 1960's, so too did zts unique character.
The free farm layout of the streets and the human scale
expressed by many of its earliest buildings began to establish a
pleasant pedestrian environment. As the town grew the
development of numerous outdoor dining decks and publiC plazas
served to strengthen this pedestrian experience. More than
anything eZse it was the emphasis on the pedestrian that
contributed the unique character and charm of Vail Villaga.
The early planning and development of the Village was in large
part created by the original developers of Vail Mountain.
Following the incorporation of the Town of Vail in 1966, a
zoning ordinanCe was enacted in 1971 and a general design plan
was later adopted to guide future grawth and development in the
Village and some of its surrounding area. In the middle ta late
1970's Vail began ta experience intense pressures from growth
and development. Driven by increasing land casts and the
growing popularity of Vai1, new developments in the core area
were being prapased to maximize square footage. Because of the
pressures of rapid develapment, less attention was paid to how
prajects related to the street, the pedestrian, surrounding
buildings and public spaces.
In response to this trend, the Vail Village Urban Design Guide
Plan was adapted in 1980 after a short development maratorium.
The Guide Plan became the official tool for projects within the
• core area of the Village and the adjacent area ta the northeast.
It gave specific attention to building and streetscape
development in arder to rezn£orce and improve the pedestrian's
walking experience. These regulatory toals established the
framework within which tha Vail Viliage core has developed
through the latest growth period.
While the Urban Design Guide P1an has been very successful, it
has concentrated on design issues primarily within the core area
of the Village. Few steps have been taken towards the
comprehensive planning of ather urban functions and especially
to relate the Village core ta the surrounding areas. At the
same time, however, significant redevelapment praposals continue
to be made indicating a high ievei of on-gaing interest in
development throughout the Village. These proposals have
typically requested increases beyond the allowable densities
permitted under existing zaning regulations. In the past,
without a long range plan for the Village, the review of these
proposals has generaZZy been reactive, responding to each on a
case by case, isolated and sometimes inconsistent basis.
With this lack of consistency in the review process, there has
been a growing concern that change in the Village and its
peripheral area were not being coordinated, and could gradually
lase the character and functiQn that are important to Vail's
.
4
MASTER PLAN CMANGES
&pose af the Plan
lqw
This plan is based on the premise that the Village can bE planned and designed
as a whole. It is intended to guide the Tawn in deveioping land use laws and
palicies coordinating development by the public and private sectars in Vail
Village. It is intended to result in ordinances and policies which will preserve
and improve the unified and attractive appearance of Vail Uillage. This p1an
emphasizes the critical need to balance and caordinate parking and transportation
systems with future improvements ta Vail Mountain which increase the "in and out of
Valley" lift capacity. Most importantly, this Master Plan shall serve as a guide to
the Tawn in analyzing future proposals for development in Vail Village and in
legislating effective ordinances to deal with such development. Furthermore, the
Master Plan provides valuable information for a e\wide variety of peaple and
interests. For the citizens and guests af Vail, the Master Plan provides a clearly
stated set of goals and objectives outlining how the village will grow in the
future.
The Vail Village Master Plan is intended to be consistent with the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan and, along with the Guide Plan, it underscores the
impartance of the relationship between the built environment and public spaces. It
is an underlying goa1 of this plan to result in legis1ation and pnlicies which
ensure that the public spaces and pedestrian areas of Vail are nat just the remnants
of private development, but rather dominant features in the experience of the
Viilage.
The Vail Village Master Plan has been adopted as an element of the Town of
is 1's comprehensive plan. 7ogether with the Urban Design Guide Plan and other
applicable elements of the comprehensive plan, it is intended to provide the taals
necessary for guiding the future growth and development of Vail Village.
8
----------------------T__------_-W_-----------------_------------_--___-------------
•
5.3.1 PoZicy:
The Vail Transportation Center shall be the primary
pick up and drap off point for public transit and
. private shuttle vans and taxis.
5.4 Objective•
Zmprove the streetscape of circulation corridors throughaut
the Village.
5.4.1 Policy:
The Town shall work with the Colarado Division of
Highways toward the implementation af a landscaped
bouZevard and parkway alang the South Frontage Road.
5 . 4 . 2 Polic
Meda.ans and right-of-ways shall be landscaped.
Action Steps•
1. Construct vehicular circulation and signage
improvements designed ta reduee unnecessary
traffic into the Village Core.
2, Continue to monitor traffic flaw through the 4-
way stop area and study alternatives available to
increase efficiency of this intersection and meet
future traffic demands.
. 3. Cnntinue to study the feasibil.ity of a"people
mover" or other public transportation alterna-
tives to A U G M E N T O R rep lace t he exis ta.ng s hu t t le
system.
4. Eval.uate Village parking policies (bath parking
requirements and properties elz.gible for paying
into the parking fund) fnliowing the completion
of the Town's Parking and TransportationStudy.
5. Study the feasibility of an underground
(recreation fields would remain) parking
structure in Ford Park.
1s
~
VI. ILLUSTRATTVE PLANS
The 7llustrative Plans provide an overview af the long range
. goals and objectives for future development of tho ViZlagp.
Each plan depicts a key element that cantributes to the
character and funcTion of Vail Village. These elements include
land use, open space, circul.ation and building heights.
Togethar these plans reflect the Master P1an's goals, objectives
and policy statements. They pravide the criteria for evaluating
development proposals and planning far future public
improvements.
A summary plan, referred ta as the Actian P1an, is a composite
of the identified changes and improvements from each of the
component plans. The Action Plan graphically summarizes
propased public and private seetor changes for Vail Village.
•
•
20
OPEN SFACE PLAN
Four diffarent c].assifications of open space are indicated on the
4pen Space Plan. The types of open space vary from greenbelt natural
• open space to the more urbanized open space created by the Village's
numexous publ.ic plazas. While the role of each farm of open space
varies, they all contribute to the recreational, aesthetic, and
enviranmental features of the Village. Far the purposes af this
plan, open space is defined as the conditions at the existing natural
grade of the I.and. The following further dePines each of these fnur
types of open space:
Greenbelt Natural Open Space: Greenbelt Natural Open Space is
designed to protect environmental].y sensit.ive areas from the
development of structures and to preserve apen space in its
natural state. Areas designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space
are dominated on the south by undeveloped partions of Vail
Mountain adjacent TO the village. Stream tracts in the Village
are also designated as Greenbelt Natural Open Space.
Development in these areas is limited to recreation related
arnenities such as ski base facilities, pedestrian walkways,
bikeways, and passive recreation areas.
Parks: Parks occur on publzcly owned or leased land and are
developed to varying degrees.
a. F'ord Park is a major park facility located at the easterly
edge Qf the Village. It provides recreational activity for
the entire cammunity with a variety of developed
~ improvements, incl.uding structures, and less developed
opene areas.
b. Active Recreatinn areas such as tennis caurts and tot lots
provi.de opportunita.es for specific recreational activity on
sites with develaped improvements.
c. A number of pocket parks are either existing or planned
throughaut Vaa.l Village. Pocket parks provide valuable
open space for both active and passive recreation as wel.l
as contrast from the built environment.
Planted Buffers: Planted buffers provide visual relief from
roadways and surface parking areas and establish entry ways into
the Village. Buffers indicated on this Plan are important
landscape features and should generally be preserved.
Plazas with Greenspace: Plazas with Greenspace are "urban open
space." They contribute significantly to the streetscape fabric
of the Village. Farmed in large part by the buildings and
spaces around them, plazas with greenspace provide relief fram
the built environment, a piace for people to gather or relax,
areas for special entertainment or other activita.es as we1.l as
possible Zocation for landscaping, water features, benches and
public art.
~
23
PARKING AND CTRCULATZON PLAN
The Parking and Circulation Pl.an recagnizes the established pattern
~ of parking and ci.raul.ation throughout Vail Village. The parking and
circulation system is an important element in maintaining the
pedestrianized character of the Vi3.lage. This is accomplished by
limiting v'ehicular access at strategic poa.nts, while allowing for
necessary operations such as bus service, loading/delivery and
emergency vehicle access.
The Town's bus system is crucial to cantrol7.zng and limiting
vehiculax access to Vail Village. The bus system greatly reduces the
reliance on private autamobiles, resulting in a reduction of
vehicular traffic in the Vi1lage's pedestrianized areas.
Aesthatic, as well as functionaZ, consxderations are important to the
Village's circulation system. A long standing goal for the Village
has been to imprave the pedestrian expexience throu.gh the develapment
ot a cont.inuous network of paths and walkways. As a result, the
irregular street pattern in the Village has been enhanced with
numex'ous pedestrian connections linking "plazas with greenspace" and
other forms af open space. Located in and along this network are
most of the Village's retail and entertainment activities. Wha.le the
maj ority of the circulation system wa.thin the Village a.s in place, a
number of major improvements are proposed to reinforce and increase
exa.sting pedestrian cannections, facilitate access to public land
along stream tracts, and further reduce vehicular activity in the
core axea.
.
~
24
ACTION PLAN
The Action P].an indicates potential development and improvement
~ projects that would be consistent with the goals, objectives and
policies of the Vail Village Master P].an. The Action Plan is a
camposite of the Land Use, Open Space, Parking and Circulatian and
Building Height elements.
Areas identified as having patential for additional development on
the Plan have previously received Town approval.s or have been
recognized as being consistent with the variaus elements of the
Master Plan. However, the Action Plan is not a.ntsnded to be an all-
inclusive list af improvements which may occur or an a.ndicatian of
Town approval for any specific develOPMENT proposals. The review af
any development praposal will be based ttpon compliance with all
relative elements of the Village Master P1an.
Numexical references taund an the Action Plan map refer ta more
detailed descriptians o£ proposed improvements, located in the Sub-
Axea section of this Plan. These descriptions pravide a detailed
account of the goals, objectives, and design considerations re].ata.ve
to each of the devel.opment and improvement projects. Graphic
representation of improvemant projects on the Action Plan are not
intended to provide design solutians. Design sub-area concepts,
applicable goals, objectives, and policies of tha.s PZan, zanang
standards and design cnnsiderations outlined in the Vail Village
Urban Design Guida Plan are the criteria for the evaluation of any
development proposal. Furthermore, private covenants exist in many
areas of Vail Village and should be a consideration addressed between
. a develaper and other appl.icabl.e private property owners.
•
26
VII. VAYL VTLLAGE SUB-AREAS
A major goal of this Plan is to address the Village as a whole
~ and at the same time be sensitive to the opportunities and
constraints that may exist on a site specific basis. To
facilitate long range planning unique to each area of the
Village, ten different sub-areas are delineated in this Plan.
Sub-areas were determined based on a number of different
considerations. Foremost among these were:
* design and site characteristics
~ geographic or physical boundaries
* land uses and ownership patterns
Each of the ten sub-areas have been evaluated relative to the
ovexalZ goals, objectives, and policies autlined for Vail
Village. The potential improvement projects, reEerred to as
sub-area concepts, which have emerged from this evaluation are
graphically represented on the Action Plan. These sub-area
concepts are physical improvements intended to reintorce the
desired physical farm of the Village as outlined in the various
elements of the Master Plan.
The 10 sub-areas, (which follaw), provide detailed descriptions
of each sub-area cancept and express the relationship between
the specific sub-area concepts and the overall Plan. The
appliCable goals and objectives are cited for each of the sub-
~ area concepts at the end of each description under "speciaZ
emphasis."
The sub--area concepts descri.bed in this Sectian are meant to
serve as advisory guidelines for future Iand use decisions by
the Planning and Environmental. Commiss3on and the Town Council.
Compliance with the sub--area concepts does nat assure
development approval by the Town.
It is important to note that the 1.ikelihood of project approval
will be greatest for those proposals that can fully comply with
the Vai1. Village Master Plan. The Urban Design Guide Plan
includes additional design detail that is to be used i.n
conjunction with the Vail Village Master Plan sub-area concepts.
27
.
• 41-3 Sonnenalp (Bavaria Haus)
Infill
Commercial infill development with
second floor residential/ladging
to enclose Meadow Drive and
improve the quality of the pedes-
trian experience. Designated
walkways and piazas with
greenspace should interface with
those of the Vai1. Vi1.1.age Tnn. A
pedestrian walkway (possibly
arcade) should be provided to
encourage pedestrian czrculation
physically removed from west
Meadow Drive. Mass of building
should not create a shadow pattern
on Meadaw Drive. Deve].opment will
require caordination and/or
i.nvalvement with adjacent property
owners. Existing and new parking
deztiand to be provided on site.
Special emphasis an 1.2, 1.3, 2.3,
2.4, 2.6, 3.1, 3.4, 4.2, 5.1, 6.1.
•
#1-4 Sonnenalp East Infill - SWTSS
CHALET
Commercial infill of north facing
alcave of existing structure to
provide shops and pedestrian
activi.ty. A plaza with greenspace
sha7.1 be developed in conjunction
with the adjacent plaza at the
Vail Village Inn. Fire access and
on-site parking are two issues ta
be addressed in the design and
development of this project.
Special emphasis on 2.4, 2.5, 2.6,
3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 6.2.
•
30
EAST VILLAGE SUB-AREA (#7)
The East Village sub-area is comprised almost exclusively of
• residential/lodging and condominium development. The sub-area
separates tha commercial activity of the Village Core on the west
with the Golden Peak Ski Base/Recreation area on the east. While
there is vehicular traffic through the sub-area, Hanson Ranch Road,
Gore Creek Drive, and Vail Valley Drive also accommodate a great deal
of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The most important public
improvements in this sub-area relate to pedestrian and bicycle
safety. The public right-of-way shauld be maintained and expanded
for public use whenever passible.
There are 1ocations thraughaut the sub-area that have the potentzal
to accommodate smali residentiai/lodging infill development. A
number of the parcels identified for infill development are now used
far surface parking. A key abjective far any infill development is
to replace existing surface parking with buildings and landscape/site
improvements. The parking lost by the development of the site, as
well as the new parking required far the additianal development must
be accommodated on site.
With the exception of ane parcel, there are no significant
development rights remaining in this sub-area. Existing development
1evels xange from 22 to 80 units per acre with an average GRFAR of
.92. The likelihood of an infill develapment proposal being approved
will be based on the praject's ability to satisfy the goals,
objectives and policies of this Plan and other zQning and development
standaxds.
• DEVELQPMENT QR REDEVELOPMENT OF THYS SUB AREA WILL ATTRACT ADDZTIONAL
TRAFFIC AND POPULATION INTO THIS AREA AND MAY HAVE SYGNIFICANT
IMPACTS UPON PORTIONS OF SUB AREAS 6 AND 10.
.
47
.
#7-5 All Seasons
Residential infill aver existing
surface parking area. Additional
deveZopment should maintain
setbacks and landscaping on east
and south property line. Massing
of new development shocild "step
down" from the existing
condominiums. Constraints ta this
development include covenant
restrictians limiting use of
property to parking and providing
an-site parking for the exa.sting
demand and new development.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.1, 2•3,
2,6, 3.1.
•
#7--6 Ramshorn Ladge (Camplete)
One story residential addition to
existing structure. Sidewalk as
found in Sub-Area 7-3 shall be
part af improvements.
NOTE: The Urban Desi.gn Guide Plan include addita.anal design
detail that is to be USED in conjunction with the Vail
Village Master Plan sub-area concepts.
.
50
GOLDEN PEAK SKI BASE SUB-AREA (#10)
The Golden Peak SKT BASE Sub-Area has traditionally served as a
~ recreational activity center throughout the year. The Golden Peak
Ski Base Facility provides one of faur access portals to Vail
Mauntain during the winter months, and accommvdates a number of the
Town's recreation programs during the summer. In 1983, Vail
Associates received approval for the redevelopment of this facility
and in 1988, completed the Childxen's Ski Center. The further
redevelopment of this area will serve to reinfiorce its role as a
major ski base and recreational activity center for the entire
community. DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THYS SUB AREA WILL
ATTRACT AflDZTZONAL TRAFFIC AND POPULATION INTO THIS AREA AND MAY HAVE
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS UPON PORTIONS OF SUB AREAS 6 AND 7.
~
•
51
•
#10-1 GQlden Peak SKI BASE
Redevelopment af the Golden Peak
base facility shall be low
profile, (2-3 stories), to
minimize impacts on views to Vail
Mountain. Tennis courts impacted
by the redeve].apment sha11 be
relocated in the area (or in Ford
Park). Commercial activity at
this site should be limited to
"iski base/recreational" uses.
Additional parking far any
facilities ta be pravided on site.
Existing covenant restrictions
EXIST IN THIS SUB AREA AND WOULD
NEED TO BE ADbRE55ED TO ALLOW FOR
DEVELOPMENT. Pedestrian
improvaments, such as sidewalks,
aare important to connect this sub-
area to Fard Park and the soccer
fie1d. Special emphasis an 1.2,
2.1, 2.31 2.6, 3.4, 4.1, 5.1, 5.4,
~ 6.1.
.
52
MILL CREEK SUB-AREA
Existing development within the Mi11 Creek subWarea consists entirely
• of single famiZy and duplex residential dwellings. Located between
the Village core and the Golden Peak base area, this sub-area affords
excellent accessibility throughout the Village. THIS PLAN DOES NOT
SUGGEST ANY CHANGES FOR THIS SUB-AREA.
~
•
53
EAST GORE CREEK SUB AREA (#6)
A number of the earliest projects developed in Vail are located in
~ the East Gore Creek sub-area. Development in this area is
exclusively multi-family condominium projects with a very limited
amount of support commercial. Surface parking is found at each site,
which creates a very dominant visual impression of the sub-araa.
while the level of development in East Gore Creek is generally
greater than that allowed under existing zoning, this area has the
potential to absorb density without compromising the character of the
Village. This development could be accommadated by partial infills
of existing parking areas balanced by greenspace additions or through
increasing the height nf existing buildings (generally one stary aver
existing heights). In order to maintain the architectural continuity
of projects, additional density should be considered anly in
conjunction with the comprehensive redevelopment of projects.
Clearly, one of the main objectives ta consider in the redevelopment
of any property should be to improve existing parking facilities.
This includes satisfying parking deniands for existing and additional
development, as well as design considerations relative to
radevelapment proposals. The oppartunity to introduce below grade
structured parking will greatly improve pedestrianization and
landscape features in this area. This should be considered a goal af
any redevelopment proposal in this sub-area. DEVELOPMENT OR
REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS SUB AREA WILL ATTRACT ADDITIONAL TRAFFZC AND
POPULATION INTO THIS AREA AND MAY HAVE SIGNIFTCANT TMPACTS UFON
PORTIONS OF SUB AREAS 7 AND 10.
•
•
54
~#6-1 Residential Tnfil1
Additional floor or residential
develnpment over what is existing.
Additional density ta be
considered only in conjunctian
with a comprehensive redevelopment
of each project. A key factor an
the redevelopment of these
properties will be to relocate
required parking in underground
structures. Thzs wi11 allow for
increased landscaping and overall
improvements to pedestrian ways in
this area. In all cases, the
mature pines alang Gore Creek
shall be maintained. Stream
impact must be cansidered.
Special emphasis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.5,
3.1, 5.1, 5.2.
#6-2 Manor Vail
~ Possible residential infill on
portions of existing surface
parking area and additional floor
to the twa northern mast buildings
adjacant to Gore Creek. znfill
project must include addition of
greenspace adjacent to East Mill
Creek and other adjoining
PEDESTRIAN areas. Height of
structure shall be limited to
prevent impacts on view to the
Gore Range from Village core and
Vail Valley Drive. Present and
future parking demand to be met on
site. Traffic considerations must
be addressed. Special emphasis on
1.2, 2.3, 2.6, 3.1, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1.
~
55
•
#9-1 Parkinq Lot Infill
Residential infillaver existing
surface parking. Height of
Iaualding to be limited so as to
not impede vieYa corridors from the
Frantage Road (and Interstate 70)
to the Vi].lage and Vail Mountain.
Mass af buildings to step back
from the Frontage Road to prevent
sun/shade impacts on the road.
Satisfyi.ng parking demand on site
will necessitate structured
parking. Substantial landscape
buffer shall be provided between
any new develapment and the
Frantage Raad WTTHOUT JEOPARDIZING
FUTURE FRONTAGE ROAD ZMPROVEMENTS.
Spacial empahsis on 1.2, 2.3, 2.6,
3.1, 3.4, 5.4, 6.1.
~
#9--2 Village Streamwalk (Complete)
Walkway along Gore Creek
(including a smalZ pocket park),
which cannects the Covered Bridge
to Fard Park was completed in
1988. Special emphasis on 3.4,
4.2.
~
57
FORD PARK
Ford Park plays the role of tha major MUNICIPAL recreational amenity
~ for the Vail Village area. With the completion of MILLIONS OF dollarg
worth of improvements to the lower bench of Ford Park in RECENT YEARS,
the park contains a wide variety of both active and passive
recreational opportunities. Beginning in 1990, Ford Park will serve as
the major tennis center for Vail. The park has also served in racent
yaars to accommodate overflow skier and Zocal parking needs.
With the Vail Mountain Master Plan indicating most major mountain
expansion to be located on the eastern side of Vail Mountain, it is
anly natural that Ford Park be studied as a site for additional skier
related parking. This has been indicated on the Parking and
Czrculation Plan as we11 as Action Step #5 under Goal #5. A major
improvement in the access to Ford Park was completed in 1988 - the
Village Streamwalk from the Covered Bridge to the park. Additional
pedestrian impravements are called far along the Frontage Road and Vail
Valley Drive. (See Parking and Circulation Plan). The Fard Park
Master Plan (an element of the Vail Comprehensive Plan) includes the
possibility of an aquatic center located on the upper bench of the
park as well as additional tennis court facilities.
~
~
~
57-1
.
Redraf t of Pa es 58 59 60 starti n uvith :
1lIII. Implementation and Amendment
A. Implementation
The Village Master Pian, ance adopted, will become a part of the Vail
comprehensive plan which in its entirety will serve to guide growth within the Town
of Vail far the next fifteen years. The Vail Village Master Plan is not intended to
be regulatory in nature, but is intended to pravide a general framswork to guide
decision making. 5pecific implementatian measures should be undertaken to assure
that the intent of the plan is carried forward throughout the life af the plan.
Such measures shnuld inciude changes ta nrdinances and regulations ar policie5
adopted by the Town. These measures should also include developing a system by
whieh the plan may be continuously monitored and periodical1y amended. This is
impartant because the planning process is one of cantinuous evolution with data,
pufolic opinion, and market farces changing over time. The following are some more
specific ways that the Village Master Plan might be implemented.
1) The creation of an overlay zone district for the area cavered by the
Master Plan.
2} The adoption of an impact fee system ta provide for improvements in
the Town's service infrastruc'ture to accommodate additional develapment in the area
cavered by the Vi1lage Master Pian.
3) The initiation and completion of the Vail Village Streetscape
! Improvement Plan.
4) The inclusion of public improvement projects discussed and autlined in
• the plan in the capita1 improvement program of the Town of Vail, and a real estate
transfer tax improvement program of the Tawn of Vail.
B. Plan Review
Nat less than every three years or as deemed necessary, the Community
Deveiopment Department of the Town of Vail should undertake a review af the plan.
Any changes recommended by the staff review will be submittec[ to the Planning and
Environmental Cammission of the 7nwn. If the plan is not updated or reviewed within
the timeframe suggested in this paragraph, it shall in no way affect the validity of
the plan.
58
•
~
~
~ C. Adoption Extension and Amendment
In accardance with 5ection 2.24.060 of the Municipal Cnde of the Tawn of
Vail, this plan shall be adopted by the Planning and Environmental Commission of the
Town of Wail and approved by the Town Cauncil. The Planning and Environmenta1
Commis5ion may adopt extensions, additions, or amendments to the pian for approval
by the Town Council. Before the adoption of the pian, or any such amendment,
extension, or addition, the Planning Commission shall hold at least one pubiic
hearing thereon, notice of the time and place of which shall be given by one
pub1ication in a newspaper of geneyal circuiation in the Town of Vail no later than
seven days prior to the datP set for the public hearing. The adoption of the plans
hall be by motion of the P1anning and Environmental Commission racammending approval
af the plan by the Tawn Council.
Approval of the plan or any amendment, extension, or adoptian thereto shall
be by a resolution of the Town Council at a regular or specia1 public meeting.
59
•
~