HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 PEC Agendas, Memos, Minutes January - March0
•
S
r
AGENDA
'- .
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 14, 1991
12:30 Site Visits
----------------------------------------------------------------- 2 :00 Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
1.✓' Approval of minutes from the December 10,
1990 meeting.
1 2. A request for a front setback variance in
order to construct a two car garage at 1464
Aspen Grove Lane/ Lot 10, Block 2, Lionsridge
Fourth Filing.
Applicant: Carrol Orrison
3 3. A request for an exterior alteration to the
Gasthof Gramshammer Building, in order to
construct commercial ski storage, at 231 East
Gore Creek Drive/ Lot 1, Block 5B, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
2 4. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to allow the expansion of an existing
television station, located on the first
floor of the Sunbird Lodge at 675 Lionshead
Place/ Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Third
Filing.
Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television
Network
TABLED 5. A request for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 22, also known as
the Dauphanais - Moseley SDD, located to the
south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop/
Dauphanais - Moseley Subdivision, Filing One.
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais
A.
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 14, 1991
PRESENT
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
ABSENT
Chuck Crist
STAFF PRESENT
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:00 P.M. by Diana Donovan,
chairperson.
Item #4 was discussed first, in the interest of time.
4. A request for a conditional use permit in order to allow the
Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network
Jill Kammerer explained the request, stating the applicant wanted
to expand an existing television studio located within the Sunbird
Lodge in Lionshead (in the CCII zone district). Television
• stations are an allowable first floor use within this zone
district, provided a conditional use approval has been obtained.
In order to meet the conditional use criteria in CCII, television
stations must have a production room /studio space which is visible
from the street or pedestrian mall, and the television station must
be exclusively "cablecast ", which would require no additional
antennas.
The existing station was approved in July of 1990. An addition to
the approved floor plan would require an amendment to the
conditional use permit. Jill reviewed the consideration of factors
and findings and stated the staff recommended approval of the
conditional use permit subject to the following conditions:
1. The window covering on the window which permits viewing
of the north studio area from the Lionshead pedestrian
Mall will remain open when filming /broadcasting
activities do not require a controlled lighting
situation.
2. The $1,443.90 parking fee shall be paid to the Town of
Vail prior to Town issuance of any building permits.
Bill Perkins, applicant, was present to answer questions. Kathy
wondered why the staff recommended the window covering remain open
when possible, and was told the purpose of requiring viewing of the
0
f ■
production room /studio space was to generate pedestrian
interest /activity at the mall. Diana did not feel that a
television studio was the best use for the space, but felt that
since this use was a temporary one because the building would soon
be redeveloped, she could support it. Bill Perkins replied that
if they could get a good design on the second floor, he would move
there and would only have to obtain a business license.
Kathy moved to approve the request per the staff memo with the two
conditions stated above and made findings A, B, and C.
Kristan wanted to make certain that the TV company did not occupy
the new space until the required parking fee had been paid and a
building permit had been obtained. Bill Perkins stated there was
already equipment stored there and individuals working out of the
space. Bill assured the staff and board nothing would be changed
until the parking fee was paid.
Dalton seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0 in favor.
1. Approval of minutes of December _1.O_ meeting.
Dalton moved and Kathy seconded to approve the minutes. The vote
was 6 -0 in favor.
2. A request for a front yard setback variance to allow a
detached garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lionsridge Filing No. 4,
1464 Aspen Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
Andy Knudtsen explained the request for a 19 foot setback variance.
The setback requirement is 20 feet and the applicant was requesting
a setback of 1 foot. On a site plan, Andy showed where the
detached garage would be constructed and where the driveway would
be. (This was the fourth time the applicant had been before the
PEC.) Changes made to the previous applications included a reduced
depth of fill from 7 feet to 1.5 feet, reduced length of fill from
80 feet to 26 feet, reduced slope of drive from 11% to 7.7 %, and
slope of fill around driveway no longer exceeded 2:1. The changes
had been made possible by shifting the driveway to the north and
tightening the turning radius of each of the two curves of the
driveway.
Andy did caution the applicant that the Town Engineer had expressed
concern that because of the tightness of the curves, the driveway
may not accommodate large vehicles. Andy wanted the applicant to
understand that the driveway may only function for small cars.
Andy reviewed the Criteria and Findings, beginning with the
Consideration of Factors. He stated that the staff recommended
approval of the request noting that findings A, B, and C2 were met.
There were four conditions of approval which must be met before a
.. building permit could be obtained:
• 1. The amount of landscaping must be increased, specifically in
the area between the cul -de -sac and the driveway, with 6 aspen
and 5 junipers.
2. Written approval must be obtained from the homeowner's
association for the use of their right -of -way for the
driveway.
3. Guardrails approved by a registered, professional engineer
must be installed along the driveway.
4. An updated rockfall study for the driveway and garage must be
obtained.
The applicant, Carrol Orrison, said that he felt confident that the
driveway would work.
Dalton had questions about the rockfall study, and Jim about the
acceptance of the conditions. Mike Perkins, architect, stated that
the turning radius could have been improved with the addition of
more asphalt. He felt it was a Catch -22. Mr. Orrison stated he
was not concerned about the turning radius, because he could place
small cars in the garage.
• Connie moved to approve the request per the staff memo with the
four conditions. Ludi seconded the motion and the vote was 6 -0.
3. A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof
Gramshammer Building in order to construct commercial ski
storage and a stairway _at 231 East Gore, Creek Drive, Lot 1
Block 5B Vail Village lst Filin .
Applicant: Pe pi Gramshammer
Andy showed a site plan and explained the staircase on the east
would be the only part of the new construction that would be
visible. This ski storage would be a room at the basement level
below the exterior dining deck, accessed by a new staircase located
at the southeast corner of the building. Andy described the
removal of landscaping and the addition of more landscaping.
Andy reviewed the purpose section of Commercial Core 1, the Urban
Design Considerations for Vail Village, and related goals and
policies of the Vail Village Master Plan. The staff recommendation
was for approval with two conditions:
1. The applicant must pay $7,350 for a parking fee as prescribed
in Section 18.52.160 (B) 7 of the Town Municipal code.
2. The applicant will plant the two planter beds with annuals or
• perennials so that the beds are completely covered between the
• bushes and trees.
Sid Schultz; architect for the project, stated that Pepi would
rather not plant evergreens, but would be willing to put in more
aspen, which would leave more transparency in the winter. He would
also prefer flowers rather than large plants.
Ludi stated that he would just as soon see aspen and leave more
openness next to the building. Dalton wondered if the stairs
should be heated because they would not be in sun. Pepi replied
the stairs would be under a roof and since they are on the east
side, would not receive much snow.
Kathy felt a spruce would be nice to plant, because of the bright
green against the yellow wall. Pepi felt the evergreen trees would
grow up and be too close to the building. He suggested a bush
instead. Kathy replied she would give Pepi the name of a type of
tree that grows quite slowly.
Diana felt something should be planted in the planters so it would
be visible in the winter time above the snow. She also encouraged
Pepi to put everything back in place so that the deck would not
look new. Sid replied that they would probably ball up the
existing landscaping (except the aspens) and put it back in place
when the construction was done. -Diana also suggested continuing
the planter around the corner.
. Dalton moved to approve the request for the exterior alteration per
the staff memo, including the two conditions in the memo, with the
modification that athe spruce be replaced with a very slow growing
coniferous tree. Jim Shearer seconded the motion and the vote was
6 -0 in favor.
5.
LULJ LJCELA 11d11CL_Lt5 11U5e1e emu.
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais,
Shelly asked to table this item to January 28, 1991. Kathy moved
and Jim seconded to table to 1/28. The vote was 6 -0 in favor.
In other business, Jim Shearer had volunteered to be the PEC
representative on the DRB for the months of January, February and
March. f
Kristan stated Larry Eskwith, the Town attorney, had asked to meet
with the DRB at a later date to discuss various issues. She also
added the Town had two books on being a planning commissioner which
the members were encouraged to read. Dalton suggested the Town buy
a copy of each book for the board members.
•
Three members terms were to expire February 1st; Kathy Warren,
Dalton Williams, and Chuck Crist. They were encouraged to reapply.
The meeting adjourned at 2:55 P.M.
11
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 14, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a front yard setback variance to allow a
detached garage on Lot 10, Block 4, Lions Ridge Filing
No. 4/ 1464 Aspen Grove Lane.
Applicant: Carrol P. Orrison
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
With this proposal, the applicant is requesting a 19 foot
variance to the front setback standard in order to construct
a detached garage. The zoning code requires a 20 foot
setback and the applicant will be providing one foot. The
garage that will be built has the same configuration that
has been presented to the PEC at earlier hearings. The
structure will be buried into the hillside with two parking
spaces inside, two spaces on the roof, and a driveway that
circles around the structure to access the lower interior
spaces. This application is different than the previous
requests in that the applicant has moved the garage up next
to the house. (Please see attached site plan.)
The driveway, in conjunction with the garage, has also been
shifted to the north. The edge of asphalt that parallels
the brow of the hill is now eight feet further to the north
(uphill) than the earlier proposals. Other changes to the
driveway from the previous design are shown below:
Previous Current
Design Design
1. Depth of Fill 7.0' 1.5'
2. Length of Fill 80.0' 26.0'
3. Slope of Drive 11.0% 7.70
4. Slope of Fill exceeded
around driveway 2:1 2:1
The changes to the driveway have been made possible by
shifting the garage up next to the house, relocating the
existing staircase, and shifting the driveway to the north.
In addition, the turning radius of the two curves on the
driveway have been tightened. Both curves have a fifteen
foot turning radius. Because the slope of the driveway does
not exceed 80, Town Engineer approval is not needed.
However, the Town Engineer expressed concern that the
driveway will not accommodate large vehicles because of the
•
1
15' turning radius. As long as the applicant understands
. the constraints of the driveway, and because it will
function for small cars, the Town Engineer is not opposed to
it being built.
II. BACKGROUND
This request is the fourth time that the applicant has
brought a proposal to the PEC. At the first presentation of
the request, on November 12, 1990, staff recommended denial,
finding that there were several problems with the design.
The PEC expressed concerns and requested that the applicant
look at alternatives. The primary concern of the Commission
was the visibility of the driveway to the valley below and
the amount of fill necessary to build the driveway. In
addition, staff concerns included the slope of the driveway,
the slope of the fill around the driveway, and the amount of
asphalt proposed. The applicant requested the item be
tabled without PEC discussion on November 26, 1990 and
December 10, 1990.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning:
Single Family Residential
• Lot Area:
17,075.5
sq. ft.
Proposed:
Site Coverage:
Allowed:
3415.1 sq.
ft.
15
Existing
1786.1 sq.
ft.
79
Proposed:
2362.6 sq.
ft.
Height (garage
only):
(south) -
Required:
15
Allowed:
30.0
ft.
79
Proposed:
9.5
ft.
Setbacks (garage only):
* Front
- Required:
20
ft.
Proposed:
1
ft.
Rear -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
79
ft.
Side
(south) -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
79
ft.
Side
(north) -
Required:
15
ft.
Proposed:
19
ft.
*Area of setback variance request.
•
2
(20 percent)
(10.5 percent)
(13.8 percent)
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
• Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail 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 existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
The issue concerning the relationship of the
proposal to the valley below was a key point in
the previous PEC discussions. Staff was concerned
that the cut and fill required to build the
driveway would scar the hillside. The table
showing the changes from the earlier proposals
shows that the depth of fill, length of fill,
slope of driveway, and slope of the fill around
the driveway all have been reduced in their degree
of severity. As a result, the visual impacts from
this proposal on the surrounding uses and
structures have been reduced.
. Staff believes that there are still some negative
aspects to this proposal. There is still a
significant amount of asphalt proposed for the
driveway. Staff believes that less asphalt would
be better. Another concern of the staff involves
the use of the "right -of- way ". The road that
serves the lots in this subdivision has not been
dedicated to the Town. It is controlled and
maintained by the homeowner's association of
Lionsridge Filing No. 4. Because this request
involves using more of the right -of -way than most
driveways normally would, staff recommends that a
condition of approval to this request be that the
homeowner's association approve these drawings. A
third issue is the need for additional landscaping
between the driveway and the right -of -way. Staff
recommends that more landscaping be planted in
this area and has listed this as another condition
of approval. Of the three problems staff has
identified, two can be resolved with the proposed
conditions of approval. Staff believes that the
one remaining (the amount of asphalt) does not
stand out as a major problem, given all the other
issues on this site.
Staff believes the views of this garage from the
0
valley floor will be acceptable. Though the
garage may be visible, (as is the house) it is due
to the high visibility of the lot, not because of
the variance request or the nature of the
construction. The decrease in the amount of fill
from previous proposals is the most significant
improvement. Because there will be very little
fill, the impact of the project to structures in
the vicinity is minimal.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
_specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the ob'ectives
of this title without grant of special privilege
In previous reviews of the garage, staff has
maintained that a request for relief from the
strict interpretation of the code be granted for
the proposal which has the least amount of impact
and smallest need for relief. In this case, staff
can support the request because it has been
redesigned so that the degree of relief is less
than other proposals and because there is no grant
• of special privilege. The location of the
existing house and the steepness of the lot are
two constraints which justify some variance in
order to construct a garage. Regarding the degree
of relief, there is no longer a request for a
variation to the Town's standards for driveway
slope, and there is no longer a request for a
variation from the Design Review Guidelines on
slope of fill. Because the applicant has
mitigated these impacts and brought them up to the
standards of the Town, staff believes the
remaining setback variance is a reasonable
request.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
utilities and public safety.
Regarding the impacts of this request on the
issues listed above, the garage has been moved
outside the utility easement and the applicant has
tried to mitigate the safety of the driveway by
proposing guardrails. The staff continues to be
concerned about the tight curves on this driveway;
however, we believe that the design can
accommodate compact cars and that larger vehicles
can use the roof parking spaces.
4
. Another safety issue is the need for a rockfall
study. Nick Lampiris did a rockfall study dated
September 12, 1989, for the construction of the
new house. The study must be updated to include
this proposal. Prior to the issuance of a
building permit for the garage construction, the
applicant must provide a rockfall study for this
specific proposal.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request, because it meets
the criteria and findings for a variance and because it
• meets all of the Town of Vail's standards and guidelines
except for the front yard setback. Staff believes that the
5
setback variance on this site is reasonable, given the fact
that the site has a steep slope and because the existing
building location limits the number of potential garage
locations. Specifically, Finding A is met with this request
since there will not be a grant of special privilege for
this proposal based on the two hardships listed above.
Finding B is met as this request does not negatively affect
public safety. Finding C2 is met as the site does have
extraordinary circumstances.
The Commission should recall that staff recommendations on
two of the three previous variance requests were for denial.
In those recommendations staff discussed the criteria in
addition to the findings. Staff believes that this request
meets both the findings and the criteria, whereas earlier
requests did not meet the criteria. Specifically, the
second criteria dealing with the degree of relief needed
from the Town regulation was not met. Because the applicant
has made enough improvements from the earlier proposals he
now meets this criteria. Therefore staff recommends
approval of the request with the conditions that, prior to
issuance of a building permit, the applicant:
1. Increase the amount of landscaping on the plan,
specifically in the area between the cul -de -sac and the
driveway, with six aspen and 5 junipers;
. 2. Provide written approval from the homeowner's
association for the use of their "right -of -way" for
this driveway;
3. Install guardrails on the driveway which are approved
by a registered, professional engineer;
4. Provide an updated rockfall study for the driveway and
garage.
c: \mo \orris -4
51
tia..FT"
�QT CO��E�a,C E O-f .SUI LPIH&tSt '9486.5Q.
i 5Tl4 sa,FT.L2'i,A
P-
/
1ry0 `
Q-r uHr.Erz
E IF R eaulK6v f / �.
9wNOP 1h11, �•
Is
�><Sy ?INI� 51NC,� �pr11�Y 1zE`'v5H
HBrL1 ti
5' I / 21•x, / ( `, .
n.�
�(COHG•TOP� �L3
SUP- F.`G6.F4h 6r-T1K�o41F;,r -t'�
P`' • • , tis +ti / / a, j � / / REVrGCiEra. %u:• olsYisa��ry ��, ,
'AIPTSokip Ei =S66g, u�zE
7,E.jtr9ave -FxoF C,AFF.HE
u 4T
a / h , o� vA•TIvA 1N.G?~f�ATtvE �•.
1°�`
„lO><lo T2EATC -17 "TiMA�EP�i PI.F.6CV .. ,
J.
el
•sd•717. '.
/... NOTE. FILL5wC'E AV9A ALONh1
ro :a 1 / :;;;� , / vRLiE w�nEg �4sa,FT.
tts,
' - �KIZThICq 'IOPGGts'APNIG IfiFf71LHATIdH .
. - AND HCU16 I.vGA-TIOH'-rr.K•Et•i Fr C" _
PRPr'AFL SY
1;A[,1.E UhLLEK 5U{ZVEYINC,, Za4•,
s
N - 4 T- 00 r:
d�
ill, 0
I fill .
NON
6' r
}
fAl
Q
a
li
1
ti
oar .9 �► -r �
Q�
S�
a
VON--
Lu
Q ll]
V �
x �
w
i
f
1
lI
E
• n
1
�
N
1
r
r�
r
r
d�
ill, 0
I fill .
NON
6' r
}
fAl
Q
a
li
1
ti
oar .9 �► -r �
Q�
S�
a
r1
U
LJ
5191! —I6�J
CpLo;z o� 'CNoSE l��M�
oil �xiSTII�C�r + -�pl��
5cA
flOOf� COLDS 'T� !''Ift'TGf—i
�1791H� (W'i•ES OPTivµ.a.��
p.m
ILA
0—
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 14, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration to the Gasthof
Gramshammer Building in order to construct commercial
ski storage and a stairway at 231 East Gore Creek
Drive /Lot 1, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing
Applicant: Pepi Gramshammer
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant proposes to construct a room at the basement
level of the Gasthof Gramshammer lodge for commercial ski
storage. This room would be immediately below the exterior
dining deck that is currently located on the south side of
the building. This basement area would be accessed by a new
staircase located at the southeast corner of the building.
The ski storage room would have 23 ski lockers in it and
would be 736 sq. ft. in size. There will not be an
• attendant for the space and there will be no retail sales of
ski accessories.
The existing deck above this space will be temporarily
removed and the new ski storage area will be excavated and
constructed during the summer of 1991. The excavation will
require that the applicant use approximately six feet of
Town right -of -way. The applicant will replace any asphalt
that is removed as part of the construction process after
the project is completed. No signage is being proposed with
this application; however, in the future, the applicant
plans to apply for a three foot square foot wall sign near
the staircase.
There will be a five and one half foot setback from the
south property line to the deck /basement wall. There will
be a .5 foot setback from the eastern property line to the
deck /basement wall. The applicant proposes to reconstruct
the planter that is currently on the corner of Gore Creek
Drive and Bridge Street to screen the new staircase. The
landscaping that will be removed includes two aspens and one
mugho pine. The reconstructed planter and the existing
planter north of the staircase will be replanted with 6
mugho pines, 3 aspens, one 5 -10 foot tall spruce, and 3
cinquefoil bushes. Between these bushes and trees, the
applicant will plant annual or perennial flowers that will
cover all of the rest of the planter areas. The landing at
1
the top of the stairs will be made out of stone pavers. As
the space is 736 sq. ft., the parking requirement is 2.45
spaces based on the personal service requirement of one
space per 300 sq.ft. The parking fee is $7,350.00.
II. COMPLIANCE WITH THE PURPOSE SECTION OF COMMERCIAL CORE I
18.24.010_ Purpose
"The Commercial Core I District is intended to provide
sites and to maintain the unique character of the Vail
Village commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and
commercial establishments in a predominantly pedestrian
environment. The Commercial Core I District is
intended to insure adequate light, air, open space
and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types
of buildings and uses. The district regulations in
accordance with the Vail Village urban design guide
plan and design considerations prescribe site
development standards that are intended to insure the
maintenance and preservation of the tightly clustered
arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrianways
and public green ways, and to insure continuation of
the building scale and architectural qualities that
distinguish the Village.,,
• A detailed analysis of the way the proposal complies with
the architectural standards of Vail Village and purpose
section of the CCI zone district is provided below. The
commercial ski storage use is stipulated as an allowed use,
under Section 18.24.020(B)2, in basement or garden level.
III. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
There are three different documents which all CCI exterior
alterations must be evaluated against. The first is the
Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan, the second is the Vail
Village Design Considerations and the third is the Vail
Village Master Plan.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
There are no specific sub -areas relevant to this proposal.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL
VILLAGE
The following design considerations are a critical element
of the urban design plan. They identify the key physical
•
2
characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to
• assure that new development will be consistent with the
established character. The considerations include the
following:
A. Pedestrianization:
The proposal will not have any negative impact on the
pedestrian nature of Vail Village.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
This type of use should not create a greater demand for
truck access.
C. Streetsca a Framework:
There are two components listed in the design
considerations that work together to establish the
framework for the Village streets. The first is open
space, landscaping, berms, and similar elements. The
second is commercial infill via storefront expansions.
This proposal addresses the first of the two
components. The additional landscaping in the rebuilt
planter as well as the new landscaping in the existing
planter north of the proposed staircase will be a focal
• point along a major pedestrian route. As such, it
fulfills one of the goals of the design considerations.
D. Street Enclosure:
The proposal will not affect the street enclosure in
this area as there is no expansion above grade. The
planter that screens the staircase is too small to
affect a pedestrian's feeling of enclosure at this
location in the Village.
E. Street -Edge:
Again, the relatively small size of this exterior
alteration will not significantly effect the appearance
of the street edge. What little affect it will have
however, is positive. The staircase and planter will
create a jog and add to the visual interest along
Bridge Street. Low planter walls, tree plantings, and
changes in ground surface texture are all called for in
the Design Considerations. This proposal has all three
of these design elements and is therefore in compliance
with the standards.
•
•
LJ
F. Building Height:
Building height will be unaffected.
G. Views and Focal Points:
The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view
corridors.
H. Service and Delivery:
The proposed expansion will not affect the current
service and delivery patterns.
I. Sun /shade:
The proposal will not cast any shadows longer than what
the existing structure does.
J. Architecture./Landscape Considerations:
The Design Considerations call for a mix of deciduous
and evergreen species for year - -round continuity and
interest. The Design Considerations also call for
asphalt or brick for walking surfaces. The staircase
itself will be made out of concrete. However, the
landing at the top of the staircase which interfaces
with Bridge Street will be made out of stone paving.
The planter walls will be constructed out of stones
that will match the existing stonework. Staff believes
that the application complies with the landscape
standards specified in the Design Considerations.
VI. RELATED GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
There are two objectives, 2.4 and 3.1, which relate to the
expansion.
GOAL #2: TO FOSTER A STRONG TOURIST INDUSTRY AND
PROMOTE YEAR - AROUND ECONOMIC HEALTH AND VIABILITY FOR
THE VILLAGE AND FOR THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE.
2.4 OBJECTIVE: Encourage the development of a variety
of new commercial activity where compatible with
existing land uses.
GOAL #3: TO RECOGNIZE AS A TOP PRIORITY THE
ENHANCEMENT OF THE WALKING EXPERIENCE THROUGHOUT THE
VILLAGE.
3.1 OBJECTIVE: Physically improve the existing
pedestrian ways by landscaping and other improvements.
4
Staff believes that this new commercial activity is
compatible with surrounding land uses and adds variety to
this area of the Village. Staff also believes that the
Bridge Street and Gore Creek Drive pedestrian ways will be
enhanced by the additional landscaping.
Two of the five illustrative plans of the Vail Village
Master Plan relate to the project. The Land Use Plan calls
for mixed use, with which this request complies. The
Circulation Plan calls for Bridge Street to be a pedestrian
street. The proposal will support pedestrian activity on
Bridge Street. The Open Space Illustrative Plan and the
Building Height Illustrative Plan are not applicable. There
are no sub -area plans which pertain to this corner in the
Village.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposal because we believe
it meets the policies of the Vail Village Master Plan, the
Vail Village Design Considerations and the Vail Village
Urban Design Guide Plan. There is a small amount of
additional mass and bulk which will be added to the
• building; however, staff believes the improved landscaping
in the planters around the staircase will mitigate the
impact of the staircase itself and will improve the overall
character of Bridge Street. The Town's plans and guidelines
for the Village call for additional landscaping as focal
points for the pedestrian ways through the Village, and
staff believes this fulfills those objectives well.
•
Staff recommends approval with the condition that the
applicant:
1. Pay the $7,350.00 parking fee as prescribed in Section
18.52.160(B)7, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code;
2. Plant the two planter beds with annuals or perennials
so that the beds are completely covered between the
bushes and trees.
5
BRIDGE STREET
1
T
:r .
BRIDGE STREET
DN
9 0 fe
GROUND LEVEL PLAN
1/8'. = 1'- 0°
/ 1
u
.I
• �.. � 1 r V 'Ir -5
.mil•' : f O ,' Y
'1
❑ ❑
a l ='
=�w
o-d.v r• aq^ {�
•,M ' r•1
w
1 E•I:. El
t,
LLJ
L
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 14, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend a conditional use permit to allow
the expansion of an existing "Television Station"
within the Commercial Core II zone district. Project
location: Lot 2, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 3rd Filing,
Sunbird Lodge, 675 Lionshead Place
Applicant: Vail /Beaver Creek Television Network
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant has proposed to expand an existing television
studio located within the Sunbird Lodge in the Commercial
Core II (CCII) zone district. Television stations are an
allowable first floor use within this zone district,
provided conditional use permit approval has been obtained.
Ordinance No. 23, Series of 1990 which was approved by the
Town Council on July 17, 1990, added television stations as
an allowable use on the first floor in the CCII zone
district. Under this ordinance, television stations are
required to have a production room /studio space which is
visible from the street or pedestrian mall, and the
television station must be exclusively "cablecast ", which
would require no additional antennas.
On July 23, 1990 the Planning and Environmental Commission
(PEC) approved a conditional use permit for the Vail /Beaver
Creek Television Network to allow the operation of a
television studio within the Sunbird Lodge. Approval of the
current request would allow the expansion of this existing
facility. The applicant has indicated that the two areas
which necessitated the expansion request are maintenance and
production /editing. At the time the existing conditional
use permit was approved, the applicant had assumed these two
areas would be a part of the initial studio areas. The
applicant has indicated that due to the popularity of the
station, production is double what was originally
anticipated thereby creating a need for additional space.
The maintenance function relates to the repair and upkeep of
airplay decks and television equipment.
The existing television station consists of the following
(see attached floor plan):
A. 221 square feet of outdoor studio area, which is used
only in the summertime. This studio space is located
• immediately north of the TV station's main entry
(Sunbird Lodge property), and fronts onto the Lionshead
• pedestrian mall.
B. 587 square feet of floor area is utilized for the TV
station's north studio, visitor reception area,
production and master control room.
C. 689 square feet of floor area is utilized for the TV
station's south studio, green room (make -up),
conference area and staff offices. This area which is
part of the Sunbird Lodge's old lobby area, is on the
south side of the building, facing the ski slopes.
The expansion proposal consists of the following additional
areas (see attached floor plan):
184 Sq. Ft. of Office Space
295 Sq. Ft. for Production /Editing
243 Sq. Ft. for Maintenance
722 Sq. Ft. Total Expansion
11497 Sq. Ft. of Existing Television Studio
722 Scr. Ft. Area of Expansion Television Studio
2,219 Sq. Ft. Total Area of Proposed Television Studio
The studio area is visible through the large window fronting
onto the Lionshead Mall. The station operates via a
cablecast system and therefore there are no antennas.
when operating at full capacity during the ski season, there
are 18 employees, 3 of which are part time workers.
The purpose of this television station is to inform the Vail
Valley visitor of current weather, events, ski mountain
information, and available activities. One example of the
television station's programming is a show entitled "Good
Morning Vail ". This show is telecast live from 6.30 a.m. to
10:00 a.m., 7 days a week during the ski season and July 4
through Labor Day. The types of information provided during
this show includes weather conditions, ski conditions,
trails groomed overnight, race information, skier warm -up
aerobics, events scheduled for the day /week, guest
interviews-- --from lift lines and mall areas, information on
bus routes, parking, restaurants, real estate, and general
ski information.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
• 2
0
r�
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and im act of the use on development
objectives of the Town.
The Purpose section of the Commercial Core II zone
district, Section 18.26.010 states:
"The Commercial Core II district is intended to
provide sites for a mixture of multiple dwellings,
lodges, and commercial establishments in a
clustered, unified development. Commercial Core
II district in accordance with the Vail Lionshead
Urban Design Guide Plan and Design Considerations
is intended to ensure adequate light, air, open
space and other amenities appropriate to the
permitted types of building and uses and to
maintain the desirable qualities of the district
by establishing appropriate site development
standards."
Due to the July 17, 1990 amendment to the Town's
zoning code, allowing "Television Stations" as a
Conditional Use, it is the planning staff's
opinion that this
the Sunbird Lodge,
purpose section of
district as stated
establishment that
mixture of uses.
proposed television station in
would meet the intent of the
the Commercial Core II zone
above, since it is a commercial
is located in a building with a
2. The effect of the use on light and air,
recreation_ facilities, and other Public facilities
needs.
The expansion of the existing cablecast television
studio in the Sunbird Lodge, will have no
significant effect upon any of the above
considerations.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to
congestion, and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and Parking areas.
Again, the staff can find no significant effect or
impact upon any of the above named considerations.
is 3
This television studio expansion would require an
additional parking fee. Because the Commercial
Core II zone district does not allow for the
parking demand to be met on site, the applicant is
required to pay into the Town's parking fund.
This proposed use has an associated parking fee of
$3,040 per space. The total increase in the
parking fee required as a result of the proposed
expansion is $1,443.90.
4.
surrounding uses.
The proposed use will involve no changes to the
exterior of the existing Sunbird Lodge building,
and it is the staff's opinion that the proposed
use will have no effect upon the character of the
area.
III. FINDINGS
re,
A. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with
the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or
maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development Department staff finds that this
expansion request meets the Conditional Use permit criteria,
as stated above. Staff believes the expansion of the
existing TV studio is consistent with Ordinance #23, Series
of 1990 which sets the parameters for television studios as
conditional uses in the Commercial Core II zone district.
Staff recommends approval of the expansion of the television
studio subject to the following conditions:
is 4
1. The window covering on the window which permits
. viewing of the north studio area from Lionshead Mall
remain open when filming /broadcasting does not require
a controlled lighting situation.
2. The $1,443.90 parking fee shall be paid to the Town of
Vail prior to Town issuance of any building permits.
•
Note: Under the Conditional Use Permit requirements, should
there be any change in the approved floor plan,
programming, or any other conditions of the permit, the
applicant will be required to amend the Conditional Use
Permit.
5
�JJ
J
J
J
L
O
W
2
0
J
SJ
� Q
1
o �
� o
7
'10-
•
o-
n 1Q
fji NPA
o
0
,4
•
• • •
•
lk
• ♦ rt
•
T
A
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION r4
January 28, 19 91
AGENDA
1:30 Site Visits
3:00 Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
1. Approval of minutes of January 14, 1991.
3 2. A request for a major amendment to Special
Development District No. 22, also known as
the Dauphanais - Moseley SDD, located to the
south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge
Loop /Dauphanais - Moseley Subdivision, Filing
One.
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais
1 3. Work Session - A request for setback,
landscape, and site coverage variances and an
exterior alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at
555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1,
Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
2 4. Work Session - Stephen's Park. Review of
proposed Stephen's Park Master Plan. Site is
located on the southeast corner of South
Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
ITEMS TABLED TO FEBRUARY 11, 1991:
5. A request for a major subdivision, to approve
the final plat. Said parcel is commonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximately 40 acre parcel located north
and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange
and east of the Spraddle Creek livery.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
17-j
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
January 28, 1991
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Warren
Dalton Williams
Ludwig Kurz
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
The meeting was called to order at 3:30PM by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes_ from the January 14. 1991 meeting.
Jim Shearer moved and Connie Knight seconded the approval of the
minutes as presented. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, with Chuck
Crist abstaining.
2. A reauest for a ma-ior amendment to Special Development
District No. 22, also known as the Dauphanais- Moseley SDD,
located to the south of the 1600 block of Lionsridge Loop/
Dauphanais- Moseley Subdivision, Filing One.
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais
Shelly Mello explained the request and outlined the points which
staff were recommending and not recommending.
The Applicant and the staff requested several amendments to the
SDD which will bring the SDD into conformance with the Town's new
site coverage and GRFA regulations, and also "fine tune" the
architectural guidelines. These consisted of:
1. Changes to lot sizes,
2. Setbacks - allow the front roof overhangs to encroach
4' into the front setback on Lots 4 -14 and 15 -24. In
turn, the Applicant will increase the rear setback on
Lots 4 -14 by 41. In addition, staff and Applicant
requested a clarification of what type of deck meets
the term "at grade deck."
3. Site coverage - Applicant requests site coverage to
meet the new definition. Site coverage will not exceed
25 percent of the total lot area.
4. Architectural Guidelines
a. Roof - Applicant requests deletion of the
requirement for a clipped gable roof, but retain
8/12 to 12/12 roof pitch.
b.
Secondary fascia and metal railings above the
sq.
first floor - applicant would like to delete the
2.
specific reference to muted red, blue and green,
with
and specify that the railings and secondary fascia
corresponding increase in rear setback on
above the first floor to be a muted color, with
3.
review of such color to be performed by the Design
read
Review Board.
C.
Walls - Applicant requests that vertical wood
feet
siding be allowed in addition to the approved
horizontal wood siding.
d.
Outdoor lighting - Applicant requests direct,
exterior lighting to be physically attached to the
building, and to be reviewed by the Design Review
4.
Board on a lot -to -lot basis.
e.
Garages - applicant requests that the garage on
Lot 24 be allowed to face Moraine Drive.
5. Conditions of Approval
a.
Employee Housing - there are four requested
amendments to the requirements for caretaker
units. These consist of: 1) each would receive
100 sq. ft. of GRFA to compensate for the loss of
credits due to the change to GRFA effective
January 1, 1991, 2) be able to use up to 300 sq.
ft. of GRFA from the primary unit to add a second
bedroom to the caretaker unit, 3) allow caretaker
units to be constructed on all 24 lots, and 4)
increase the allowable GRFA from 500 to 600 sq.
.
ft.
b.
Add Lot 5 to Phase I of the Phasing Plan.
Staff believes that the setback changes on Lots 4 -14 would be
positive with regard to site coverage, as long as the rear
setback on these lots is increased accordingly.
With regard to the caretaker unit enlargement, staff feels that
there would be a negative impact on the overall project if the
units are allowed up to 700 sq. ft. Instead, staff believes that
smaller units on all lots would be a benefit to the Town in their
stated goal of providing more permanently restricted, available
employee housing units.
Staff recommends specifically:
1.
Lot size changes be made, adding 425
sq.
ft.
2.
4' front roof encroachments on Lots 5 -14,
with
corresponding increase in rear setback on
those lots.
3.
Clarify grade on decks and patios to
read
"unenclosed,
unroofed decks or patios within five
feet
of finished
grade may encroach up to 5 feet into
the
rear setback
on Lots 1 -14."
4.
Site coverage be defined as per site
coverage
definition effective January 1, 1991.
5. Changes to Conditions of Approval:
• a. 1) Allow transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA from
primary to secondary unit to provide for
second bedroom.
2) Allow up to 24 caretaker units.
3) Grant 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unit
to compensate for deletion of credit system.
b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of phasing plan.
Staff recommends denial of the following amendment requests:
1. 4 foot roof encroachment on Lots 15 -24
2. Increase allowable square footage of caretaker unit to
600 sq. ft.
Recommendation of denial of these requests is based on items 1, 2
and 6 of the SDD criteria.
The discussion was broken down into separate issues facing the
Commission. The first issue was adding space to the caretaker
unit.
Kathy Langenwalter explained her concern that she believed the
Commission has approved employee housing, not caretaker units.
Applicant agreed that the secondary units are employee housing
units. Discussion then centered on size of the units on the
lots, and concern that the buildings were too large. Staff
clarified that credits were never counted into the GRFA when the
plans were approved previously. Dalton Williams stated that he
believed the PEC and Town Council were not aware that they were
approving GRFA plus credits. The PEC was very concerned that the
GRFA numbers did not also include credits. Commissioners were
concerned about the massive appearance of the existing unit.
Diana Donovan asked for clarification on the employee units of
whether the SDD ordinance called for 500 sq. ft. maximum feet, or
500 feet of GRFA. Her understanding was that it was 500 sq. ft.
Applicant expressed to the Commission that 500 sq. ft. was only a
25'x 20' building, and his request was to add 100 sq. ft. to make
it a more liveable unit, and 100 sq. ft. for mechanical.
Staff then asked the Commission to address the concerns regarding
garage space. Shelly asked whether the space should be included
in GRFA, or if excluded, what maximum should be placed on the
size of the unit. Shelly Mello suggested that a cap be placed on
the garage of 900 sq. feet for 3 spaces. Jim Shearer stated that
he was concerned that a second bedroom on the employee unit would
create problems with parking, including the issue of curbside
parking.
• 3
Diana Donovan clarified the Commission consensus as allowing for
credits on the primary unit of 425 sq. ft., capping the employee
unit at 500 sq. ft., and allowing for 900 sq. ft. (3 spaces) of
garage space if there were a primary and employee unit built on a
lot, or 600 sq. ft. (2 spaces) if one unit is built.
Discussion then shifted to the issue of setbacks. Applicant
explained his position on moving the homes on Lots 4 -14 away from
the ridge and allowing for a 4' roof overhang to encroach into
the front setback. Diana Donovan asked Applicant to clarify that
he would not change the footprint of the building itself to
encroach on the front setback. He indicated that it would be a
roof overhang encroachment only, and would consist of 4' maximum.
Commission consensus was that Lots 1 -14 could have a 4" roof
encroachment into the front encroachment. The rear setback would
then move up 4' to the north on Lots 1 -14. No encroachment would
be allowed on Lots 15 -24.
Commission then turned their attention to the issue of roof type.
It was decided that a "clipped gable, gable or hipped roof are
mandatory, with a 8 -12' to 12 -12' pitch requirement. Dormers are
architectural features, and as such, will be reviewed by the
Design Review Board."
Finally, the discussion regarding the employee housing units was
completed. Consensus of the Commission was that a second bedroom
would be allowed on the employee unit. 200 sq. ft. from the
primary unit may be transferred into the secondary unit, but that
it would not specifically be for the provision of a second
bedroom.
Dalton Williams moved and Chuck Crist seconded the motion that:
1. SDD 22 be allowed 900 sq. ft. of garage space if two units
are built, or 600 sq. ft. of garage space if 1 unit is
built;
2. The employee housing unit be a maximum of 500 sq. ft.,
except that 200 sq. ft. from the primary unit is
transferrable to the secondary unit;
3. The primary unit will receive 425 sq. ft. of GRFA credit;
4. There may be a 4' roof overhang on Lots 1--14 if the rear
setback is increased by 41, and that a deck within 5' of
finished grade will be allowed to encroach 5' into the rear
setback of Lots 1 -14;
5. Direct, outdoor lighting will be subject to DRB review;
6. A clipped gable, gable or hipped roof is mandatory. Other
roof forms for dormers will be subject to Design Review
Board approval;
7. The garage on Lot 24 may face Moraine Drive
8. Lot 5 will be added to Phase 1 of the SDD; and
0 4
9. The requirement on secondary fascia will be changed from
. allowing muted red, blue and green only to muted colors to
be approved by the Design Review Board.
The vote was 6 -1 in favor, with Kathy Langenwalter opposed due to
the size concerns she expressed above.
An additional motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded
by ? ?? that a maximum of 15 employee housing units be allowed in
this SDD. The vote was 5-2, with Chuck Crist and Jim Shearer in
opposition, stating that they believed 24 would be acceptable.
The Commission proceeded into a 5 minute recess, reconvening at
5:45PM.
3. Work Session - A request for setback, landscape, and site
coverage variances and an exterior alteration to the
Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block
1, Vail Lionshead 1st Filing
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
Jill Kammerer explained the staff had the following concerns
regarding the development proposal:
1. The hipped roof at the entry to the Banner Sports
commercial space
2. Landscaping issues
3. Pitch of roof
• 4. Cedar shake roofing material
5. Roof overhang
6. Transparency of facade
7. Setback variance
8. Connection of the addition's roof to the existing
structure.
Staff indicated the Lionshead Design Considerations recommended
against using gable roof forms in Lionshead. The development
proposal calls for a gable roof at the entrance to the Banner
Sports retail space. Staff believes a peaked (shed) roof over
the entrance to Banner Sports would better relate to the
architecture of the existing structure and would be in keeping
with the Lionshead Design Considerations. Staff further
recommended the proposed roof pitch match the roof pitch of
Montauk's restaurant, the proposed roof overhang be a minimum of
311, and the applicant connect the addition to the existing
building at the floor level of the second story balconies. The
applicant indicated all proposed roof overhangs will be 611.
The Commission first discussed setbacks. There was concern on
the part of Kathy Langenwalter, Ludwig Kurz, Diana Donovan and
Connie Knight regarding the 10' encroachment into the required
10' setback. Under the proposal, the addition would encroach
into the setback up to the property line. In particular, Ludwig
0 5
Kurz and Diana Donovan were concerned with the addition
• encroachment at the southwest corner of the site, and the impact
this encroachment would have on views from the mall to the
stage /fountain area. Dalton Williams indicated that he had a
problem with a setback encroachment without the provision of
additional landscaping and, further, that he would like the
addition to maintain a setback from the property line, but was
not sure what that should be. Jim Shearer and Chuck Crist did
not have a problem with the proposed setback encroachment.
However, Jim would like to see some articulation /undulation along
the west facade. Jim was concerned with the impact the addition
would have on the Peddle Power /Vail ski Tech commercial space.
He was concerned the shop would be "buried." In response to a
question raised by Ludwig, the applicant indicated the area under
the high roof was not usable. This being the case, Ludwig
indicated he thought there was too much roof and if the space was
not being used, the applicant should bring the roof down. Dalton
also expressed a desire to see the roof height come down.
Roof pitch was also discussed. It was expressed that the
building scale needed to come down to a more pedestrian scale.
This could be accomplished in part by modifying the roof pitch to
decrease the height of the roof. Kathy further stated she felt
cedar shingles were totally inappropriate, and that a metal
roofing material should be investigated. Jim Shearer was in
agreement with this.
49 A suggestion was made by Dalton Williams to include display
windows along the west facade of the structure to increase
building transparency and pedestrian level interest. Kathy
supported this suggestion.
General concern by the Commission was expressed regarding the
entries to the Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums and the Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space. Jim, Diana, Kathy, Dalton
and Ludwig felt these entries should be addressed at the same
time the Banner Sports facade is redesigned. It was suggested
alternatives be explored, which may require a site coverage in
addition to setback variances to solve the problem of the Banner
Sports addition obscuring visibility to these other two entrances
and to the stage area. Traffic flow through the area was
addressed by the applicant, with the suggestion that the planter
be moved and the project re- designed to allow for better access,
and additional landscaping overall. The applicant agreed to work
with the Lionshead Merchants Association and Vail Associates to
develop a new landscaping plan. Staff also agreed to look at
landscaping plans which might include Town property. The general
consensus of the Commission was the plan needed more greenery.
Concerns were raised regarding the architecture of the addition.
Kathy Langenwalter did not like the "rustic" architecture of the
plan, and would like to see more contemporary architectural
is 6
treatments. She felt the applicant should explore something
• high, more sculptural at the Banner Sports entrance. Jim agreed
with Kathy's comments regarding the architecture of the entrance.
Diana Donovan also expressed her opinion that the architecture
was not appropriate for the area. She did not feel the
architecture had to be Tyrolean to be warm. Connie Knight
disagreed with Kathy. Connie stated bavarian (rustic)
architecture might be just what Lionshead needed. Jim Shearer
also liked the look of the addition as proposed, but encouraged
the applicant to try to better tie in the addition to the
existing building. Jim felt the existing structure was stark and
would not like to see the addition emulate this starkness. Jim
clarified his statement regarding undulating the facade. He
thought a better word choice might be graduated. In other words,
the western facade should be tapered so that the northwest corner
of the structure encroaches into the plaza area more than the
southwest corner of the structure. Jim felt he may support a
site coverage variance if the Peddle Power and Lifthouse
Condominium entrances were addressed.
Applicant expressed concern over designing around the snow dump
area. Staff indicated the Public Works department had requested
an 18 -wheel truck, which is used for mall snow removal, continue
to be accommodated. Applicant agreed to work around this
provision. In addition, applicant agreed to provide photographs
of the Gondola Plaza area to the Commission for review.
Diane wanted to see increased transparency of the western facade,
the roof pitch match the pitch of Montauk's (unless the architect
did something with the entrance, as Kathy had suggested), the
roof connection point be at the floor level of the second story
deck, and some additional landscaping. She further indicated she
felt the existing planter should not be torn out and that the
setback variance, landscape variance and landscaping were all a
trade off. The variances would not be an issue with her if the
problems inherent with the building were solved.
4. Work Session - Stephens Park. Review of proposed Stephens
Park Master Plan. Site is located on the southeast corner
of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Diana proposed, and the Commission agreed, to review the plan
without a staff presentation.
Connie Knight asked when the project would start, if money had
been allocated, and if the project would take money from the
Village Transportation Center landscaping fund. Todd Oppenheimer
said that construction would start as soon as snow melted, that
the park money had been allocated in the 1990 and 1991 budgets,
and that it was completely separate from the Transportation
Center funds.
Jim Shearer expressed concern over Frontage Road traffic and
parking. Todd indicated that there would be no parking along the
Frontage Road, and that "No Parking" signs would be set up and
enforced. As parking was a general area of concern for the
Commission, staff said they would look into additional parking
possibilities. Staff said that it may be possible to add a few
spaces to the lot, but that the landscaping around the lots,
especially in front of the restrooms, should not be removed.
Dalton Williams expressed a desire to loop the western path as
close to the Kinnickinick bridge as possible. The commission
discussed the pros and cons and recommended that the path split
one fork to the bridge and the other to the intersection.
Applicant indicated that the bike path would be eventually
extended through the park. Commission asked that Todd draw a
line representing the most likely route for this path on the
plan. Staff thought it would be a better idea to describe the
options with text on the side of the plan. Chuck Crist asked
that the paths be measured for those people wanting to know the
exact distance around the loop. Connie Knight indicated she
would like to see a station, par exercise course to be laid out
within the park. Todd said he would examine the costs associated
with that possibility.
Staff detailed the plans for ornamentation in the park. Wooden
sculptural animals will be placed in the park, to be built in-
house by Town carpenters. The Commission expressed concern over
the safety of the larger animals, and Applicant agreed to ensure
that these animals would be safe to climb on.
Andy Knudtsen presented the site specific hazard report which had
been done on the property. The park site is in avalanche, debris
flow, rock fall and flood plain hazard areas, but the hazard
report found the danger to be acceptable for this use. There
would be a possibility of a moderate debris flow reaching the
childrens' play area, but not an extreme danger. The site
specific hazard map is a modification to the Town hazard maps due
to the fact that it is a more detailed study. The Commission
expressed concern over the avalanche danger, which Applicant
indicated would be mitigated by posting signs in the area. The
Commission concluded its discussion by requesting that all
information on hazards be provided in the packet when the project
comes back to the PEC for final approval.
Kristan Pritz requested the Commission return their attention to
item 2, the Dauphanais- Mosely SDD, in order to further clarify a
point which had not been specifically addressed in the previous
• 8
discussion. She explained that staff's recommendation also
. included changing the ordinance from requiring a rock base
underneath the deck overhangs to allowing that surface to be
stucco, with landscaping and berm required. The consensus of the
Commission was that the above provision was acceptable and the
ordinance would be changed.
Kathy Langenwalter moved and Jim Shearer seconded a motion to
table item 5, commonly known as Spraddle Creek, until February
11, 1991. The vote was 7 -0 in favor of the motion.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM.
•
0 9
Bost Office BoX12 1
waif,, Cofomd 81658
(303) 476 -0500
Feburary 6, 1991
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission,
75 South Fontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Diana, Cathy, Connie, Jim, Chuck, and Ludi,
I enjoyed working with each of you on the Vail Planning & Environmental Commission this past year. It
was a good year and thanks to each of you I learned a lot about the planning processes and our community.
While I am disappointed that I will not be working with you in the future, I know the amount of time and
effor each of you puts fourth in working for our community. I just wish everyone knew the amount of
concern and care you have for Vail.
Keep up the good work!
sk Best Wishes,
vom el� ze) � �
Dalton Williams
•
TO: Planning and Environmental. Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: ar ,�{iWl�G�i1
SUBJECT: A request for a major amendment to Special Development
District No. 22, Dauphanais - Mosely Subdivision, Filing
No. 1, located to the south of the 1600 block of
Lionsridge Loop.
Applicant: Pat Dauphanais and Dauphanais Mosely
Construction
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting to amend Special Development
District No. 22. It was initially approved by the Planning
and Environmental Commission in August of 1988 and was
adopted by Ordinance No. 23 Series of 1988 by the Vail Town
Council. In April of 1990, Special Development District No.
22 was amended further to include a maximum of 15 caretaker
units with a maximum GRFA of 500 sq. ft. each, an open space
tract, setbacks ranging from 1 foot to 175 feet, limited
curb cuts on Lionsridge Loop, and a new public road, Moraine
Drive. Total size of the existing Special Development
District is 10.69 acres.
The original zoning allowed 19 primary /secondary lots for a
total of 38 dwelling units, with a total allowed GRFA of
84,905 square feet. The approved SDD reduced the number of
dwelling units to 24 and decreased the GRFA by 9,203 square
feet. The total approved GRFA is now 75,702 square feet,
including caretaker units.
Both the major subdivision and the final plat have received
approval from the PEC. After working with the approved
plan, the applicant is requesting to amend the plan in order
to "fine tune" the document. The request includes changes
which address the GRFA and site coverage ordinances
effective January 1, 1991 and changes to the architectural
guidelines of the project. Below are the requested changes
to the SDD per the applicant and staff. The staff requested
amendments are proposed in order to make the SDD compatible
with recent code changes.
1
The existing SDD details the general design of the
project. The applicant's and staff's requested
amendments will "fine tune" the architectural
guidelines and bring the project into conformance
with the recently approved GRFA and Site Coverage
regulations.
The request to increase the rear setback for Lots
4 -13 will decrease the visual impact along the
south ridge of the property because the
development will be pulled back an additional four
feet. Moraine Drive will be impacted by allowing
the roof eaves to encroach 4 feet into the 10 foot
front setback however, the positive impacts of
pulling the building off the ridge outweigh the
additional impacts on Moraine Drive. The staff
finds that the request to allow four foot roof
encroachments without adjusting the rear setback
on Lots 15 -19 will have negative impacts on both
Lionsridge Loop and the open space to the south.
Currently all site development, except the allowed
side setback encroachments, must be within the
setbacks. By allowing the roof encroachments
without the setback adjustments, the houses will
be allowed to increase in size because the roof
overhangs will no longer be within the setbacks,
and the building will therefore be allowed to
0 expand up to the setback.
The adjustments to the architectural guidelines
will allow more flexibility in terms of detail
elements. The guidelines will still encourage
consistent roof material, roof forms and
substantial landscaping which will all benefit
both this project and adjacent property owners.
The applicant also requests to amend the maximum
GRFA for the caretaker unit from 500 sq. ft. to
600 sq. ft. and increase the allowable caretaker
units from 15 to 24. The net allowable GRFA of
the caretaker units with this proposal, including
the staff recommendations to add 100 sq. ft. to
compensate for the loss of the credit system,
would be 700 sq. ft. We support the request to
increase the number of allowable caretakers
because it will increase the number of units of
dispersed caretaker units available to the
community. The staff recognizes that even by
increasing both the number of units and the GRFA
for the caretaker units to a total available of
700 sq. ft., the project would still be under the
allowable GRFA of the underlying zoning. However,
we feel that both an increase in density and an
• 7
more restrictive. The staff would like
wording on decks be consistent with the
on decks within 5 feet of grade rather
"at grade deck encroachments."
3. SITE COVERAGE
to have the SDD
code's wording
than referencing
The applicant wishes to use the new site coverage
definition. Site coverage shall not exceed 25 percent
of the total site area. "Site coverage" shall mean the
ratio of the total building area on a site to the total
area of a site, expressed as a percentage. For the
purpose of calculating site coverage, "building area"
shall mean the total horizontal area of any building as
measured from the exterior face of perimeter building
walls or supporting columns above grade or at ground
level, whichever is the greater area. Building area
shall include all buildings, carports, Porte cocheres,
arcades, and covered or roofed walkways. In addition
to the above, building area shall also include any
portion of roof overhang, eave, or covered stair,
covered deck, covered porch, covered terrace or covered
patio that extends more than four feet from the
exterior face of perimeter building walls or supporting
columns. This is in accordance with the recently
approved definition of site coverage.
0 4. ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES
a. ROOF
The applicant would like to delete the requirement for
a clipped or gable roof, but leave the requirement for
a minimum 8/10 and a maximum 12/12 roof pitch in place.
b. SECONDARY FASCIA AND METAL RAILINGS ABOVE THE FIRST
FLOOR
The applicant would like to delete the specific
reference to muted red, blue and green and leave in
place that the secondary fascia and metal railings
above the first floor be of a muted color. The review
of the specific colors would be the responsibility of
the Design Review Board.
C. WALLS
The applicant would request that vertical wood siding
be allowed in addition to the approved horizontal wood
siding.
• 4
*Roof encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet
into side setbacks.
** Applicant request that a roof encroachment of 4 feet be
allowed for Lots 4 -13 and 15 -19, and the rear setback
for Lots 4 - -13 be increased by 4 feet.
Decks
The staff and the applicant are requesting the
following clarification on what type of deck meets the
term "at grade deck." We would like to define "grade"
as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed decks and
patios at grade may encroach up to five feet into the
rear setback for Lots 1 -14." The requirement would be
revised to read "unenclosed unroofed decks or patios
within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to
five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14. This
description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Town's
zoning code which allows decks within five feet of
grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the required
setback whichever is more restrictive and Section
18.58.060 which allows decks more than five feet above
0 3
grade to encroach five or 1/2 the setback whichever is
2. SETBACKS
.
Roof Overhangs
Roof overhangs are
allowed to
encroach two feet into
the side setbacks
under the existing approval. In
addition, the applicant
requests
that roof overhangs be
allowed to encroach
four feet
into the front setback
for Lots 4--13 and
15 -19. The
applicant in turn is
willing to further
increase the
rear setback for Lots
4--13 by four feet
(see chart).
Approved
Side
Rear Proposed
Lot Front Setback Setback*
Setback Rear
1 20
10
97 -
2,3 10
10 varies
from -
35 - 175
4 -13 10 **
10 varies
from
35 - 175 39 -179
14 10
10
45 -
15 14 **
10
1 -
16 14 **
10
1 -
17 15 **
10
5 -
18 15 **
10
10 -
19 15 **
10
10 -
20 -23 35
10
10
adjacent to
.
Lionsridge
Lane
24 15
10
10
*Roof encroachments are currently allowed to encroach 2 feet
into side setbacks.
** Applicant request that a roof encroachment of 4 feet be
allowed for Lots 4 -13 and 15 -19, and the rear setback
for Lots 4 - -13 be increased by 4 feet.
Decks
The staff and the applicant are requesting the
following clarification on what type of deck meets the
term "at grade deck." We would like to define "grade"
as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed decks and
patios at grade may encroach up to five feet into the
rear setback for Lots 1 -14." The requirement would be
revised to read "unenclosed unroofed decks or patios
within five feet of finished grade may encroach up to
five feet into the rear setback for Lots 1 -14. This
description is based on Section 18.58.050 of the Town's
zoning code which allows decks within five feet of
grade to encroach 7.5 feet or one half the required
setback whichever is more restrictive and Section
18.58.060 which allows decks more than five feet above
0 3
grade to encroach five or 1/2 the setback whichever is
d. OUTDOOR LIGHTING
Currently, exterior lighting is allowed at the entry of
each unit. The applicant would like to add additional
exterior lighting that would be physically attached to
the building. Specific lighting fixtures would be
reviewed by the Design Review Board on a lot by lot
basis.
e. GARAGES
The SDD does not allow any garage doors to face
directly onto any street. Due to the configuration of
Lot 24, which has roadway on three sides, the ability
to orient the garage so that it would not face a street
would create a number of site planning problems. The
applicant would request that the garage on Lot 24 be
allowed to face Moraine Dr. (See attached site plan.)
5. Conditions of Approval
a. Employee Housing
There are four requested amendments to the requirements
for the caretaker units. Changes are necessary to the
total available GRFA of the Caretakers Units as a
result of the new regulations. It is requested by the
. staff and the applicant that each caretaker unit
receive 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to compensate for the loss
of credits.
For example:
Lot 24
As of Jan 1, 1
Proposed Total
able GRFA as
Jan 1, 1991
Approved
GRFA Caretaker
2,293 500
991 + 425 +100
Avail-- 2,718 600
of
Second, the applicant would like to be able to use up
to 300 sq. ft. of the primary units allowed GRFA in
order to add a second bedroom in the caretaker unit.
For example:
Allowed Caretaker Total GRFA Allowed
GRFA GRFA with Caretaker
Lot 1 21718 up to 500 sq. ft. = 3,218
Proposal 2,418 up to 800 sq. ft. = 3,218
if 2 bedrooms are
provided
5
1. AMENDMENT TO LOT SIZES AND CORRESPONDING GRFA PER LOT:
Slight changes occurred to some lot sizes between the
approval of the SDD and the recording of Final Plat.
These changes did not affect the allowable GRFA. The
allowable site coverage will be affected because it is
a percentage of the lot area. In addition, the chart
below indicates the changes to the available GRFA due
to the Town's new regulations for GRFA, which adds 425
sq. ft. to each allowable unit to compensate for the
deletion of the credit system.
Total Available
The changes to the lot sizes will not have any impact
on the overall site planning of the property. The
changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of
property lines were necessary for easement dedication.
0 2
Approved
Approved
GRFA as of
Lot
Lot Size
Proposed
GRFA
Jan 1, 1991
1
11,805
-
2,293
2,718
2
16,248
-
3,171
3,596
3
11,500
--
3,171
3,596
4
111805
11,761
2,293
21,718
5
12,197
-
2,293
2,718
6
111500
--
3,171
3,596
7
11,543
-
3,171
3,596
8
11,021
-
3,171
3,596
9
11,456
-
3,171
3,596
10
11,979
-
3,171
3,596
11
10,803
-
3,171
3,596
12
12,981
-
3,171
3,596
13
15,159
3,171
3,596
14
11,151
_
3,171
3,596
15
8,494
8,538
2,293
2,718
16
8,494
-
2,293
2,718
17
8,494
-
2,293
2,718
18
101062
-
31F171
31596
19
9,148
-
2,293
2,718
20
9,801
-
3,171
3,596
21
10,237
-
3,171
3,596
22
9,409
-
2,293
2,718
23
10,324
9,148
3,171
3,596
24
9,496
10,629
2,293
2,718
681202
78,402
Total
approved caretaker
unit
GRFA for 15 units
7,500
75,702
The changes to the lot sizes will not have any impact
on the overall site planning of the property. The
changes are necessary because the reconfiguration of
property lines were necessary for easement dedication.
0 2
•
Under this scenario, 1 additional parking space would
be required. This need can be provided for under the
current unit plans. The total GRFA on the lot will
remain the same.
The third request is to allow caretaker units to be
constructed on any lot. Currently, a minimum of six
and a maximum of 15 caretaker units may be provided.
This results in a total of 24 caretaker units.
The final request deals with increasing the allowable
GRFA for each unit from 500 to 600 square feet of GRFA.
The following details the changes to the overall GRFA
under each scenario. 100 sq. ft. would be added to the
requested 600 sq. ft. to compensate for the credits.
This results in a total caretaker GRFA of 700 sq. ft.*
* GRFA indicated does not include the additional 425 sq. ft.
for the primary unit or 100 sq. ft. for the caretaker unit,
which is being proposed to compensate for the deletion of
the credit system.
Original GRFA allowed by zoning:
84,905 sq. ft.
Existing SDD = 24 primary units
+ 15 caretaker units
(at 500 sq. ft.):
75,702
Proposed SDD = 24 primary units
+ 24 caretaker units
(at 500 sq. ft.)
80,202
Applicants request: 24 primary
units + 24 caretakers units
(at 600 sq. ft.)
82,602
b. The applicant requests that Lot 5 be considered as part
of Phase I. Currently the development of Lots 1, 2, 3,
4 and 24 are part of Phase 1.
II. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
1. Desian compatibility and sensitivity to the
immediate environment, neighborhood and adjacent
properties relative to architectural design
scale bulk building-height, buffer zones
identity, character, visual integrity and
orientation.
C
increase of overall GRFA (beyond the 100 sq. ft.
• compensation for the credits) are not acceptable
because of the subsequent increases in mass and
bulk. We find that the increase in the number of
units will have a greater benefit to the
community.
r-]
2. Uses, activity and density which provide a
compatible, efficient and workable relationship
with surrounding uses and activity.
With the request to increase the number of
allowable caretaker's from 15 to 24 units,
assuming the developer builds all of the caretaker
units, the overall allowable density of the
project will increase from 39 to 48 units, and the
project will then be 10 units over the originally
allowed 38 unit amount. Employee units are
proposed to be located over the garages in all
units. The developer is providing dispersed,
permanently restricted employee housing units
which have been deemed by the Town's Affordable
Housing Study as very attractive. The staff
believes that even with the increased density, the
project will still be a very compatible, efficient
and workable project in relationship to the
surrounding uses in the area.
3. Compliance with parking and loading requirements
as outlined in Chapter 18.52.
All parking requirements will meet the Town of
Vail standards outlined in Section 18.52 of the
Town of Vail zoning code. Each employee dwelling
unit will be required to have one enclosed parking
space. In the case where 300 sq. ft. of GRFA is
transferred from the primary unit to the caretaker
for the provision of a second bedroom, one
enclosed and one unenclosed parking space will be
provided.
4. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, Town policies and Urban Design
Plans.
The proposal is in compliance with the "Affordable
Housing Study."
8
5. Identification and mitigation of natural and /or
geologic hazards that affect the property on which
the special development district is 'Proposed.
The site is not located within any geologic hazard
area.
6. Site plan, buildincf-desictn and location and o en
space provisions designed to produce a functional
development responsive and sensitive to natural_
features, vegetation and overall aesthetic quality
of the community.
The increase in the rear setback on Lots 4 -13 will
further mitigate the impact of development along
the ridge line by moving the houses back. The
request to allow the roof encroachments on
Lionsridge Loop will have a negative impact on the
overall aesthetic quality of the community.
7. A circulation system designed for both vehicles
and pedestrians addressing on and off -site traffic
circulation.
No changes have been proposed to Moraine Drive
which will be a public road.
0 8. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open
space in order to optimize and preserve natural
features, recreation, views and functions._
•
No changes have been proposed to the landscape
plan.
9. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will
maintain a workable, functional and efficient
relationship throughout the development of the
special development district.
The staff has no problem with adding Lot 5 to
Phase I of the project. The developer has
completed all of the site improvements associated
with Phase I, except the entry landscaping, which
will be completed this summer.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends the following amendments for approval,
as the request complies with the Special Development
District Criteria:
1. Lot Sizes: Changes to lot sizes;
9
2. Setbacks: Allow a 4 foot roof overhang encroachment
into the front setback of Lots 4 -13, provided that the
rear setback is increased by 4 feet;
Clarify "grade" as referred to in "unenclosed, unroofed
and patios at grade" to read "unenclosed, unroofed
decks or patios within five feet of finished grade may
encroach up to 5 feet into the rear setback on Lots 1-
14.11;
3. Site Coverage: Site coverage shall be defined as per
the recent definition effective January 1, 1991.
4. Architectural Guidelines:
a. Delete requirement for clipped or gabled roof;
b. Delete reference to red, blue or green accent
colors for secondary fascia and metal railings;
Muted colors will be required;
C. Add vertical siding to the allowed wall material;
d. Allow exterior lighting in addition to the entry
lighting;
e. Allow the garage on Lot 24 to face Moraine Dr.
5. Changes to Conditions of Approval:
a. 1)
Allow the transfer of 300 sq. ft. of GRFA
•
from primary unit to caretaker in order to
provide a second bedroom;
2)
Allow up to 24 caretaker units;
3)
Grant 100 sq. ft. of GRFA to caretaker unit
to compensate for the deletion of the credit
system. Primary units will receive 425 sq.
ft. Square footage will be transferable.
However, the caretaker will not be allowed to
exceed 600 sq. ft. unless a second bedroom is
provided. If a second bedroom is added, the
caretaker unit shall not exceed 800 sq. ft.
U
b. Add Lot 5 to Phase I of the phasing plan.
The staff feels that the requests recommended for approval
will have positive impacts on the project or its surrounding
area. The recommended amendments will bring the project
into conformance with the January 1, 1991 GRFA and site
coverage amendments, which we feel is very positive.
The staff recommends denial of the following amendment
requests:
1. Setbacks: Allow roof overhang for Lots 15 -19 to
encroach up to 4 feet into the front setback;
10
n
LJ
U
2. Conditions of Approval: To allow
the caretaker unit to increase to
would not include the 100 sq. ft.
to compensate for the deletion of
maximum GRFA of 700 sq. ft. would
approval of this request.
the maximum GRFA for
600 sq. ft. This
of GRFA being granted
the credit system. A
result from the
The staff recommends denial of the request because we find
the they do not comply with the following SDD criteria:
1. Design compatibility and sensitivity to the immediate
environment, neighborhood and adjacent properties
relative 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 workable relationship with surrounding
uses and activity; and
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
community.
11
•
M.
�o
6
v 1� qi4
Wm
O
ro
�y
Z
C,
r
ti
&k-1
-- - -Gn_! �' f
ti
- 1
'b
•V
O c�
C
V'
a
O
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 28, 1991
RE: A request for a worksession for site coverage, and
setback variances and an exterior alteration in
Commercial Core 11 (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge,
located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described
as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First
Filing
Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier
I. Description of Re uest
The applicant proposes to construct a 1,192 sq. ft., one -
story addition to the Lifthouse Lodge. The addition will
extend 3' -9" to 23' -611 out from the existing facade. This
one -story addition wraps around the north and west facades
of the Banner Sports commercial space. The Banner Sports
entrance has been relocated to the very northwest corner of
the building under a gabled roof. No expansion is proposed
in front of the Peddle Power /Vail Ski Tech and the entrance
to the Lifthouse Condominiums. The structure currently
. encroaches 1' -6" into the required
11--3" into the required setback on
variances are required in order to
encroach 10' into the required 10'
facade resulting in a zero setback
facade, the expansion encroaches 9
foot setback, which results in a o!
setback on the south and
the west. Setback
allow the addition to
setback on the west
situation. On the south
feet into the required 10
ne foot setback.
No landscaping will be removed under this proposal and no
landscaping is proposed to be installed. Approximately
1,192 sq. ft. of hardscape (pavers) will be removed under
this proposal. None the less the site landscaping will
exceed the required landscaping. Landscaping standards
require a certain percentage of hardscape to softscape
landscaping on a site. The site does not meet planted
landscape requirements. Through the removal of hardscape in
conjunction with the redevelopment, the project will come
closer to conforming to landscape standards.
0 1
Under the existing proposal, a site coverage variance is not
. required. However, because of the impact the redevelopment
will have on the Peddle Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space
and on the Lifthouse Condominiums entrance, staff has
encouraged the applicant to address these areas in
conjunction with the Banner Sports redevelopment proposal.
In order to carry out this request, it is likely a site
coverage variance will be required.
II. Zoning Considerations
The following summaries the relationship of the
redevelopment proposal to CCII zone district development
standards:
1. Zone District: Commercial Core II
2. Lot Area: 20,330 sq. ft./ .4668 acres
3. Site Coverage: Allowed 14,231 sq. ft.
(.70 of site area) Existing 13,000 sq. ft.
Proposed 14,192 sq. ft.
Remaining 39 sq. ft.
4. Setbacks:
East and North setbacks will remain unchanged
under this proposal.
South: Required
10
feet
Proposed
1
foot*
West: Required
10
feet
Proposed
0
feet*
* Variance required
5. Parking - The provision of additional spaces is
required. The applicant cannot provide these
spaces on- -site and therefore must pay into the
Lionshead Parking Fund.
6. Height - The one -story addition to the south and
west facades will not impact the maximum height of
the existing structure.
7. Landscaping (.20 of site area)
Required: 4,066 sq. ft.
Existing: 6,560 Gross
460 Softscape (Planting)
6,100 Hardscape (Paving /Decks)
0 2
0 III. Cam liance with the Urban Design Guide Plan for Lionshead
There are no sub --area concepts which directly relate to this
proposal.
IV. Compliance with the Urban Design Considerations for
Lionshead
A. Height„
and Massing:
..._. ,.......__•_
The proposal calls fo
addition to the south
Condominium Building,
commercial space. The
encourage the creation
pedestrian emphasis ar
expansions.
r construction of a one -story
and west facades of the Lifthouse
adjacent to the Banner Sports
Lionshead Design considerations
of well- defined ground floor
eas, one -story and building
B. Roofs:
Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. The
submitted development proposal calls for construction
of a gable roof over the Banner Sports commercial space
entrance. The balance of the roof is a shed roof. The
Design Considerations expressly recommend against using
. gable roof forms in Lionshead because gable roofs are a
more traditional roof form and are out of context in
Lionshead. Staff has recommended the applicant
consider a peaked roof over the commercial space
entrance.
Cedar shakes are not a recommended roofing material in
Lionshead. However, the roof of the Montauk Restaurant
east of and immediately adjacent to the Banner Sports
is cedar shakes. Staff believes the use of cedar
shakes on the proposed addition is appropriate and will
act as a unifying design element.
Staff recommends the roof pitch on the addition match
the Montauk Restaurant roof pitch.
Under the Lionshead Design Considerations, roof
overhangs are limited to three inches to 36 inches.
There are instances where the proposed roof overhang is
less than 3 inches. Staff recommends the roof overhang
be increased to at least 3 inches at these locations.
The connection of roofs to existing buildings is an
important design element. Respecting strong
architectural lines is critical to successfully
integrating an addition with an existing structure.
0 3
Staff has concerns regarding the proposed addition
roof /existing building connection points and has
requested the applicant connect the addition to the
existing building at the floor level of the second
story decks. In addition to making this connection at
a more visually pleasing point, this connection point
will eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these
decks.
C. Facades - _Walls /Structures:
The materials to be used in construction (wood, glass
and stucco) are encouraged under the Lionshead Design
Considerations. The stucco texture and color will
match the stucco on the existing structure and the
window and door trim color will match the color of the
window trim on the existing structure. Unpainted wood
surfaces will be stained to match the color of the wood
pillars on the interior of the Banner Sports commercial
space. This color is quite light. The Design
Considerations recommend wood be stained to a medium
range or to match the main building.
D. Facades - Transparency:
Ground floor display window sills are located 18 inches
above the walk level in keeping with the L. H. Design
. Considerations.
The transparency of the windows on the northern facade
and of those windows adjacent to the commercial space
entrance is in keeping with the L.H. Design
Considerations. However, the transparency of the west
facade does not meet facade transparency guidelines.
This situation creates an uninteresting and uninviting
experience for the pedestrian thereby falling short of
one of the major goals of the Urban Design plan for
Lionshead - to "develop vitality, visual interest and
pedestrian scale ".
Staff has requested the applicant remove the stucco
panels along this facade and replace them with windows
of the same size as the northern facade display
windows.
Window groupings and window pane sizes are in
conformance with the L. H. Guidelines.
Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of
the existing windows.
0 4
The commercial space entrance way is recessed 4 foot
. and is highly transparent in keeping with the L. H.
Guidelines.
E. Decks and Patios:
No decks and patios are proposed.
F. Accent Elements:
All accents will match existing building accents.
G. Landscaping:
No new landscaping is proposed. Staff has requested
the applicant construct 4 to 5 foot wide rock faced
planters on town owned land adjacent to the proposed
addition. These planters would match planters located
adjacent to Montauk's Restaurant and in the Gondola
Plaza.
The Fire and Public Works Departments have expressed
concern regarding the ability of snow removal and fire
equipment to access the Gondola Plaza. These
departments believe the space between the western
facade of the new addition and the existing planter
west of the addition may be inadequate to accommodate
their equipment. Monday morning, January 28, prior to
the PEC meeting, members of the Fire, Public Works and
Community Development departments will be meeting on
the site with a pumper truck in hopes of resolving site
access issues prior to the PEC meeting. At the time of
the writing of this memo, the Fire and Public Works
Departments believe the construction of the addition as
proposed may require the removal of a portion of the
existing planter. The Community Development staff's
suggestion that a planter be constructed in this area
may further constrict site access.
However, there is a possibility that through the
relocation of a light fixture located on the west side
of the existing plaza /flag planter, Fire and Public
Work Department vehicles may be able to access the
northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the far side of
the planter. This would allow the construction of the
proposed addition and additional planters to occur.
H. Service and Delivery:
This addition will not have any impact on existing
loading and delivery service.
0 5
V. Items for Discussion:
. - Roof: Gabled versus peaked
Pitch
overhang
Connection of roof to existing building
-- Facade: Transparency of western facade
Landscaping: Construction of additional rock faced
planters on ToV land
Moving existing western planter to the
east so that it would be immediately
adjacent to western facade of addition;
Removal of existing light fixture to allow
for emergency access;
-- Setback: 10 and 5 foot encroachments into the required
10 foot setback;
Site Coverage: As it relates to the submitted proposal;
Site Coverage: Expansion of proposal as it relates to
the entrance to Lifthouse Condominiums
and the Pedal Power / Vail Ski Tech
commercial spaces;
0 - Architectural Details: Stone veneer on entire base of
addition
• 6
!•l� ;�!
��� \!•�).
| �
. �
|
\�
|
&
2
!(
§
2�\ §s
&�b
§ #§
� |!
|�|
| ■�
! ||
\�
a|
|�
Al
_ ! \�
� i�ƒ
� § �
I I
■�
Qa =.�
» a
q ■�
§
!•l� ;�!
��� \!•�).
| �
. �
|
\�
|
&
2
!(
§
2�\ §s
&�b
§ #§
� |!
|�|
| ■�
! ||
\�
a|
|�
Al
_ ! \�
� i�ƒ
� § �
I I
r
3a� zs < !�� ,'� ��d�"r {,��F.�� +•RSA+'$' : .
a fi; � � lama -J.�` �''�, uof . yr Rr fs�•xti�•Y{� 6 ., a. . Nil.
a ,.t
...,... , f' +^c
!�. R- Gf ...�' !ti'•�i f f � -r -f� -�j, •y��+E•'�cq��1��}r.�
- �; C �•C7 s � t.. �r t;4.`a ^4aK }ire' -i
i 4pc�t _ Ft: � �. i,�, } 1r �` ��4r F� le � . fft •`
--
r
lea,
V4
U r -C4 "15'K /r W ^.a ' i
aw
hy, 11 Y�,�. /�_�.� �''pp''��4j'rv�.(�� • �. 4f.2�lAti4SA1�'8*l�:
3 H �- � 3 Tr � y► � � � 4 Y A
tlµ Pl�x f } R
c "4�R.� .�Yt'Ky _ rs••/ �kY4 -- f � Y.
'�2r� ''j��� �:. -SS'' - b. -•te,�r � � �Y! � ,. ♦
y jjjjt`!i� yy gvEi((jEa!
y- :aft+5'"�h` it ;'sue. "b�•e} �.. -..-
f!Y F M : � �Z �i ��.. Hf`S -� x :SAS �� `•,.{Z
� * 7
a
;AW
t0t.
M tn.. --
V!A.
Ap
�FE Ill W.
n-A
Q�
kN .
All 1,
1,j 1::
Nan ZYF
I N IL MAWA
it
, Y.
likll
, 14.
" 2
AKA
' Nv
t �e
X16 �Ij
,x
. . . . . . . . . .
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: January 28, 1991
SUBJECT: Work Session for Stephens Park to review proposed park
Master Plan. Site is located on the southeast corner
of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinnick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail hired EDAW of Fort Collins to design a master
plan for Stephens Park. On January 9, 1991, Town staff and the
consultant met with neighborhood residents to find out what they
wanted to be included in the park design. After the design was
drawn up, the staff and the consultant took it back to the
neighborhood and presented it to them. Though the second meeting
had a smaller attendance, those present said they liked the
IDdesign.
On January 16, Town staff took the plan to the Design Review
Board, which had two concerns:
1. That more trails be added to the plan to create a looped
system, and
2. That all lighting be shielded, so that light sources would
not be visible from the interstate.
PEC REVIEW
The purpose of this work session is to familiarize the PEC with
the plan and understand any concerns the Commission may have.
Staff will bring it back to PEC on February 11, 1991 for a formal
recommendation to Town Council for their adoption of the master
plan.
J
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
. February 11, 1991 k,)!C,ii:`
AGENDA
1:00 Site Visits
2:00 Public Hearing
SITE VISITS
1. ,/' Approval of minutes of January 28, 1991.
1 2. A request for a height variance to allow the
installation of a Satellite Dish on the-.roof
of the Vail Village Inn Plaza. Located at
100 Vail Road /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village
1st Filing.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
do
is
3. A request for a review and recommendation to
Town Council regarding adoption of the
Stephens Park Master Plan; site located at
the southeast corner of South Frontage Road
West and Kinnickinick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A request to amend the Town of Vail's
Avalanche,,Rockfall and Debris Flow Hazard
Maps in the general vicinity of Stephens
Park, located at the southeast corner of
South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick
Road, pursuant to Section 18.69 of the Town
of Vail Zoning Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
5. A request for a major subdivision, to approve
the final plat. Said parcel is commonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximately 40 acre parcel located north
and east of the Main Vail /T -70 interchange
and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
2 6. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to
establish an additional View Corridor and to
clarify wording in the ordinance. The view
to be protected extends to the east down
Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front
of Frivolous Sals.
Applicant: Town of Vail
•
•
ITEMS TABLED TO FEBRUARY 25, 1991:
- 8. A request for setback and site coverage
variances and an exterior alteration to the
Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead
Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead 1st
Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
9. A request for a front setback variance, 5188
Gore Circle /Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th
Filing.
Applicant: Nowell May
ITEMS OFF THE AGENDA:
10. A request for a density variance in order to
construct additions to the Christiania Lodge,
356 Hansen Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail
Village 1st Filing.
Applicant: Paul R. Johnston
Application imcomplete. Therefore,
development proposal must be readvertised and
scheduled for a later date.
* ** There will be a joint Town Council /PEC work session on
February 12, 1991, at 1:OOPM, in the Council Chambers,
regarding the Fireplace Amendment for Existing Wood Burning
Devices
•
•
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 11, 1991
Present
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Kathy Langenwalter
Ludwig Kurz
Absent
Chuck Crist
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order at 2:10PM by Diana Donovan,
Chairperson.
1. Approval of minutes from the January 28,_ 1991 meeting.
Approval was moved to the bottom of the agenda.
2. A reauest for a height variance to allow for the
installation of a Satellite Dish on the roof of the Vail
Village Inn Plaza. Located at 100 Vail Road /Lot 0, Block
5D, Vail Village 1st _Filing.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
Shelly Mello presented the request. The applicant was asking to
place one satellite dish between the two south facing dormers of
the Vail Village Inn Plaza Building. The top of the dish would
exceed the ridge line of the dormers. The amount that the dish
would exceed the ridge line would vary, depending upon the
changing angle of the dish. If placed between the two dormers,
the dish would be visible from Meadow Drive, but not from the
Frontage Road. There were other location possibilities,
including a ground level placement. The variance being requested
was from Section 18.58.320 (D,3), which states:
The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish antenna,
when measured from the top of the satellite dish antenna
down to existing or finished grade, whichever is more
restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen feet.
Staff recommended denial of the request, based on the following
reasons:
1. The impacts on the surrounding area are not minimized by the
proposed location. other possibilities exist for the
location of the dish, including locations at both grade and
above grade, which would be less visible than the submitted
application.
1
It
2. A relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the
regulation would be a grant of special privilege. Although
other variances from this regulation have been granted,
including the Marriott's roof - mounted satellite dish
request, in those cases, a roof mount substantially
minimized the impact to the surrounding area. In this case,
the impacts of a roof placement on surrounding properties
would not be substantially minimized. Staff believes that
the proposed location is not the best location, and
recommends further investigation of a ground placement.
Jim Hariot of Satellite Receiving Systems elaborated on why they
were requesting this variance. He stated that when they
investigated the various options for placement of the dish, it
was felt that the roof placement would have less visual impact
than a ground location. Mr. Hariot believed that if the dish
were placed on the roof, it would be a case of "out of sight, out
of mind."
The applicant explained that the owner is also the owner of the
Philadelphia Flyers, and he also wished to be able to view Jewish
church services on Saturday, since there were very limited
facilities in the Valley.
Diana Donovan indicated that she thought the roof placement was
definitely noticeable. Kathy Langenwalter asked about the rooms
which faced that direction, and stated that she believed they
. would be directly impacted by the roof mount.
Connie Knight asked exactly how much of a variance was being
requested, and Shelly said that the ordinance allows for a
maximum height of 15 feet above grade, and the height of the
proposed dish location would be approximately 64 feet, resulting
in a 49 foot height variance request.
Jim Shearer requested clarification of what the process would be
if the applicant were to place the satellite dish at the plaza
level; whether DRB approval would be necessary. Jim also asked
if the dish was made of a black mesh material. Shelly Mello
responded that it would be necessary to obtain DRB approval. She
also indicated that a ground placement would require screening.
Applicant indicated that the dish is made of a gray, perforated
steel which was a preferable material for reception, but also
equally transparent as a mesh.
At this point, Irene Westby of the Talisman Condo Association was
recognized. She stated that the Association was very concerned
about the roof dormer placement for the dish. The Talisman
Condos have both north and south facing units, and the owners on
the north side, especially those on the top floor, would be
directly impacted by a roof installation.
0 2
Connie Knight asked Irene what impact, if ahy, there would be if
18 the dish were placed on the ground. Irene responded that if the
dish were enclosed, it would be acceptable. She stated in
conclusion that the Talisman Condo Association found the roof
proposal unsatisfactory.
Diana Donovan asked the applicant if, since the general consensus
of the Commission seemed opposed to a roof placement, he would
like to withdraw his proposal, or table it for further research.
Kristan Pritz clarified that the Commission could ask that the
proposal be withdrawn, table it, or take a vote on it as it
stood. Applicant asked what would be the procedure for approval
if the application were tabled. Shelly Mello informed him that
if no variances were being requested, DRB approval would be all
he would need for a ground placement. If the DRB denied his
request, he could bring the application back to the Commission
for further review. Jim Hariot then formally requested that his
application be tabled for further review of alternative
placements for the dish.
Jim Shearer moved that the proposal be tabled, and Connie Knight
seconded the motion. The vote was 5 -0 in favor of tabling the
application.
3. A re guest to approve the final-plat for a major subdivision
on a parcel commonly referred to as Spraddle_.Creek, an
approximate 40 acre parcel located north and east_ of the
• Main Vail/1-70 interchange and east of the S raddle Creek
Livery.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
The Commission took this request out of order from the formal
agenda in order to accommodate the individuals wishing to speak
on this proposal. Kristan Pritz explained the application as
follows:
1. The conditions given in the previous approval by staff, PBC
and Town Council were reviewed. There were variances given
for road grades and retaining wall height. Along with this,
there were 24 conditions of approval for the final plat
approval. The Planning Commission also requested at
preliminary plat approval that the applicant work on
reducing the road grade and refining the architectural
guidelines. Below are the comments associated with each
condition of approval.
Regarding the reduction of proposed road grades and
retaining wall height, the original conditions for final
approval requested that the applicant further reduce the
road grades and retaining wall height. Applicant has
changed the design of the retaining walls to a "keystone"
wall, similar to those used in Potato Patch. The color of
these walls will be tan, which has been conceptually agreed
0 3
to by the DRB. To reduce the amount of fill required and
wall height, the fill walls will be reduced from 10 feet of
planting area to 6 feet. The retaining walls will not
exceed the 8' -8" originally approved, and there will be no
more than three terraces of these walls. There would still
be sufficient planting area to accommodate landscaping
requirements.
The rationale behind the changes was explained by stating
that there have been alterations to the road design at the
livery road switchback. Some other walls have been
lengthened, resulting in some change from two tiers to one.
The Town Engineer reviewed the "keystone" wall proposal and
had several comments. The first was that although the
analysis of soil nailing and tie rod system was not
complete, the use of a "keystone" wall is appropriate in
this case. A tie rod system would create more wall area,
where the "keystone" wall is more flexible and can be
adjusted more easily to circumstances. Furthermore, the
terracing is more appropriate than single, tall walls.
Staff requested that applicant break up the longest walls,
those of more than 400 l.f., with planting notches, as well
as attempt to remove some of the walls by performing
extensive grading on the land behind the wall. There would
be more initial disturbance, but would result in long term
. benefits.
Staff believes that some of the walls may be reduced. There
was a net increase in wail length of 1,138 l.f. from
preliminary plan approval. Staff wanted to see the
following walls reduced or eliminated: some of the K and I
walls, C1 and C2 at the existing livery site, the O wall
below Lots 15 and 10, M1 and M2, and Y1 and Z1 could be
removed for better access to driveways for Lots 1 and 2. In
addition, the wall around the gatehouse may be able to be
reduced.
Kathy Langenwalter asked what would be the maximum grading
for the slopes, and Kristan responded by saying that it
could be a maximum of 2:1 or 1.5:1 if vegetation and
topography impacts could be minimized by using 1.5:1 slopes
around the walls.
2. Applicant will submit construction guidelines. Staff is
looking for direction from the Commission on whether the
members would like to see those plans one more time, or
would a final DRB approval be sufficient?
3. The grading easement requested for future extension of the
North Frontage Road has been provided.
0 4
4. The agreement for moving the livery from its present
. location has been completed. The applicant will relocate
the livery to Forest Service Land and revegetate the
existing site.
5. Conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be applied
to this subdivision. Applicant has agreed to this and will
indicate the stipulation on the final plat and in the
covenants.
6. Limitation of site coverage has been agreed to by applicant
and staff. There was concern that the zoning for Hillside
Residential would allow for too much site coverage. The
Hillside Residential zoning would have allowed for the
entire GRFA to be on one floor, including, perhaps, a 3 or 4
car garage. There is a need for flexibility because of
sensitive lots, and this has been taken into consideration
when determining the site coverage for each lot. The
builders have approved the use of building envelopes. In
addition, the new site coverage ordinance has become more
restrictive since the preliminary approval was given. Staff
and applicant have agreed to limit site coverage to GRFA
minus 850 sq. ft., except for Lots 8, 10, and 15 which will
use site coverage per the Hillside Residential zone
district. Lot 14 will be limited to 10,000 sq. ft.
7. Since the preliminary approval, the fireplace ordinance has
changed. There appears to be one complete DRB application
submitted, so one house will be receiving a wood burning
fireplace. The caretaker unit for this lot, Lot 14, will be
restricted to a gas appliance. With the exception of Lot
14, the subdivision will be required to comply with the
revised ordinance 42, indicating that there will only be gas
logs or gas appliances.
8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the subdivision
entry will be replaced with a wooden fence and landscaping.
Staff believes this is an acceptable solution.
9. The six large spruce trees at the subdivision entry will be
moved and maintained for at least 2 years. If, for any
reason, any of these trees dies, applicant agrees to replace
them with similar type and sized trees.
10. The Fire Department standards and concerns have been
addressed by the applicant to the Town's satisfaction.
11. Applicant has agreed to the provision of recording the
appropriate easements per Forest Service requirements.
0 5
12. A six foot paved shoulder on either side of the Frontage
• Road to be used as a public bike path shall be provided by
the developer. The exact length of the path will be
determined by the plan approved by the Colorado Division of
Highways.
is
13. The construction for each lot will occur within the platted
building envelopes. The staff has recommended some cut
backs in these envelopes, and the applicant made the
requested changes to the boundaries of the envelopes. Lot
14's building envelope is site specific to the house design.
The Lot 14 envelope was also adjusted to ensure that the
house did not move down the hillside. Driveways, sidewalks,
garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K &L, retaining
walls, surface parking and grading may be outside the
building envelopes, as long as DRB approval is received and
impacts on topography and vegetation are minimal.
Connie Knight questioned if, because garages could be built
outside the envelopes, that would also mean that caretaker
units constructed above garages would also be able to be
outside the envelope. Caretaker units would not be allowed
to be built on top of garages outside of the envelope.
Caretaker units may be built above garages within the
envelope. Connie further inquired if the Design Review
Board had examined the plans for Lot 14. Kristan Pritz
indicated that they had conceptually reviewed that plan at
this time.
14. Applicant agrees that all construction will comply with the
Environmental Impact Report requirements.
15. The least polluting sanding material will be used to sand
the private road. The Town Environmental Health Department
will determine the definition of "least polluting sanding
material." The applicant agrees to this condition.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision will be rezoned
to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space after the final plat is
approved. The final plat will include the exact legal
description of each of the three tracts. After recording
the final plat, applicant will present the plat to the
Commission for rezoning. There will be no building permits
issued until the rezoning is accomplished.
17. The road through the subdivision from the entry gate to the
top of the subdivision will be maintained by the owner. Two
years after the landscaping is established, the maintenance
of the landscaping along the public road from the Frontage
Road to the gate will be turned over to the Town for
maintenance. The two year provision was a request by the
Town Council. The applicant requests that this be changed
2
to 1 to 1 1/2 years aftar the landscaping is estahlished.
is Staff supports the Council recommendation.
18. Pedestrian and public access easements will be dedicated
along Spraddle Creek and along road from North Frontage Road
up Gillett Road to the entry gate. Preliminary plat
indicated that the easement along the creek would be 20 ft.
Staff requests that this be increased to 60 ft.
19. There will be three caretaker units having a minimum square
footage of 700 sq. ft. and a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft.
provided in the subdivision. The three caretaker units are
to be provided within the first seven lots developed, and
will be permanently restricted to employee housing units.
Staff feels that the timing of the building of these three
units is critical, and should be provided during the
development of the first seven lots. Applicant requests the
flexibility to simply require that there be three units out
of the 14 developed.
20. There were amendments requested to the architectural
guidelines. These were as follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as extremely
steep slopes.
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of the
residences, but large lawn areas are not encouraged.
.
C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless
approved by the Town Engineer.
d. Irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision shall
be prohibited.
e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the
subdivision, even for dog runs. Dog runs should have
another type of open fencing.
Staff and applicant request that these guidelines be amended
to reflect PEC and DRB recommendations. These amendments
include the stipulation that slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on
individual lots. In addition, applicant requests that drip
irrigation be allowed by the retaining walls. Staff finds
these alterations acceptable.
21. All construction within the subdivision will comply with
Town of Vail hazard ordinances. Applicant has indicated on
the plat the hazard areas within the subdivision. The
hazard areas on specific lots have been subtracted from GRFA
calculations. Ed Church, a hazard consultant, has concluded
that individual lot hazard studies will not be necessary due
to the implementation of building envelopes. Staff supports
this finding.
0 7
22. No on -site livery will be allowed within the subdivision.
. Applicant agrees with this provision.
23. Aspens, vines and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls. Applicant agrees to meet this condition.
24. All hazard areas will be excluded from contributing to site
area on Lots 4, 5 and 14 for GRFA or site coverage. The
applicant has met this condition.
III. Elements of the project which are not addressed in the
Council /PEC conditions of approval:
A. All lots meet minimum lot size requirements.
B. The GRFA for each lot (excluding Lot 14) has been
determined by using standard Hillside Residential
Zoning, excluding those areas designated as hazard and
floodplain areas. Lot 14's GRFA is the same as agreed
to at preliminary plan, 14,330 sq. ft.
A request by staff is that Lot 1 not receive additional
GRFA with the change of location of the subdivision
road. The staff's intent is to ensure that additional
GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1 now that the road
extends onto Forest Service land. The applicant has
complied with this condition.
. C. Road grades have not changed substantially from
preliminary plan. The approved maximum was 8.89 %, and
no portion of the road exceeds this grade. The overall
average grade is 7.8 %. The livery road grade has been
reduced from 16.9% to 15.4% at its steepest point. The
staff will agree to this grade as long as Forest
Service approval is obtained, but requests that, if
possible, the grade be reduced further.
The livery road turnaround has been relocated to the
area in front of the subdivision gate. Staff believes
this is a significant improvement over the previous
location. The relocation does result in an additional
two retaining walls.
D. Landscape and irrigation. Applicant has incorporated
the Commission's recommendation of planting in "grove -
type" arrangements around the disturbed areas and open
space tracts. There will be significant planting in
front of the fill walls to offset visual impacts.
Since preliminary plan, applicant has provided an
acceptable plan for drip irrigation along the retaining
walls. Applicant has submitted a landscaping plan
which will require changes before Council review.
• 8
These changes are using a minimum size of 211 caliper
aspen, indicating the existing and proposed tree line
on the landscape plan, install a water tap instead of
hydrant, and the plan needs to be revised to show the
driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8. The Town
Vail landscape architect may require additional
planting in this area as well. Grading and landscape
plans for K, I, C1, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are also
necessary.
E. Frontage Road design is acceptable at this time, with
the retaining walls along the road removed. However,
additional grading may be necessary on the Forest
Service land.
a
of
F. Drainage. The sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been
removed.
G. Livery Design and Trail Access. There are 17 proposed
parking spaces, 12 of which are dedicated for users of
the livery, and 5 which will be available to hikers.
H. Construction Phasing. Applicant would like to submit
this at a later date to the Community Development and
Public Works departments for approval. Applicant is
trying to move the livery to the new location by
Memorial Day, necessitating a change in their phasing
plan. At this time, staging areas are proposed to be
located at the old livery site and in the two cut de
sacs of the proposed subdivision.
Z. Forest Service Considerations. At this point,
applicant has not received final approval to locate the
east switchback on Forest Service property from the
Forest Service. This approval will be required before
final plat.
J. Driveway locations for individual lots have been
generally indicated on a plan submitted by applicant.
Applicant wishes to allow the architects to design the
specific locations within the general parameters
indicated. The Town Engineer has reviewed these
general locations, and believes they can provide safe
access to the sites. He did comment, however, that
perhaps Lots 2 and 3 need to have their access revised.
IV. Conclusion
Staff recommends approval of the Spraddle Creek major
subdivision final plat, though there are reservations
regarding two provisions. The first provision where staff
and applicant disagree concerns the timing of the
construction of the caretaker units. The second area of
• 9
•
•
•
disagreement concerns the length of time maintenance will be
provided on landscaped areas and retaining walls to be
turned over to the Town.
At this juncture, applicant presented their concerns and issues.
Kent Rose, the engineer of this project, indicated that he did
not realize until just before the meeting that the retaining
walls had increased by 1,138 l.f. He explained that the
increases were due to more protection of Spraddle Creek, the
realignment of the Forest Service switchback, the turnaround
alteration, and other plan refinements. Mr. Rose postulated that
45 l.f. (2 wall) of the retaining wall along Rose Lane may be
eliminated by additional grading.
Mr. Rose also commented on the planting notches, especially along
the K wall. He explained that if there were no grading
alterations above these planting notches, the actual height of
the wall behind the notches would be approximately ten feet,
rather than 8' -811. The reason for this increase is that if they
pushed back four feet for the notch, the wall would be increased
as a function of that notch.
Kent expressed concern regarding the requirement for grading and
landscaping. He would prefer wording of "do whatever possible to
reduce height and length of walls," but further indicated that
this was a minor difference. Mr. Rose requested that the
developers be given leeway to alter the grading and walls based
upon what conditions were actually found on site.
The applicant related that they were working with the
requirements placed by staff concerning breaking up the walls,
but could not, at this time, give categorical approval to all the
conditions. Again, he reiterated that they would like
flexibility for site determinations.
Applicant is working with the 2:1 slope requirements, but said
that there are two areas which exceed that slope at this time.
However, they will make every effort to reduce the walls through
grading.
There was a discussion concerning the length of the bike path
which applicant would be required to construct. The original 525
feet is no longer applicable with the new length of the road.
Mr. Rose believed that 350 feet is more accurate. Kristan Pritz
expressed her agreement that as long as the path was constructed
as per the plan for the Frontage Road, it would be acceptable.
Kent further explained that applicant is in the process of
examining a change of lot line between Lots 2 and 3 for improved
access. Kathy Langenwalter queried if this change would be
needed since there was no longer designated specific access for
each lot. Jay Peterson stated that the specific access
10
designation was eliminated to allow for more flexibility, but
• that every lot does have an area for access. Kent stated that
there had been changes in the access on several lots. Lot 12's
access area had been moved, Lot 9 was changed to better
accommodate the building envelope, Lot 8 may be moved to
eliminate a hole in the retaining wall, and there has been a
change in the lot line on Lot 3. Kathy asked if Greg Hall, Town
Engineer, had approved the new plans. Greg related that the only
issue remaining in his mind was Lots 2 and 3.
Kent illustrated further the reduction in retaining walls which
had occurred due to some replanning. The gatehouse will be
situated in a cut area, but no retaining walls were expected to
be needed in this location. Instead, the foundation of the
gatehouse would be extended down to grade.
Jay Peterson indicated that he was concerned with the staff
request of a 60' easement along the creek. He believed that the
original easement of 20' would be more than adequate for access.
He expressed reluctance to increase that easement to 60' due to
the way it would look to a purchaser on the plans, and because he
felt that there would be full access without a 60' easement.
Jay further stated that there was no argument on the part of the
applicant regarding the requirement of 3 caretaker units in the
subdivision. They would be designating lots for these units, but
would like the Commission to allow flexibility to change the
40 designation if a purchaser did not want that unit on his
property. He explained that, while they may designate three lots
out of the first seven sold be caretaker lots, there was no
control over when construction on those lots might take place.
If there were a restriction placed on the development of the
subdivision that the three units must be built as a part of the
first seven lots developed, it could potentially mean that they
would have to tell every purchaser that they may be required to
build a caretaker unit, based on their development timing. Jay
said they could not guarantee when the three units would be
built, simply that they would be before completion of the
subdivision.
Kathy Langenwalter asked Mr. Peterson if they were presently
designating Lots 2, 4 and 6. Jay said yes, but they would like
the flexibility to move those designations to better suit the
purchasers. However, the first lot being built upon, George
Gillett's, is also going to have a caretaker unit on it. Jay
clarified that the Dauphanais development was different from
Spraddle Creek in the fact that Mr. Dauphanais was actually
building the units. Spraddle Creek was not set up to be handled
in that manner.
Kristan Pritz voiced her concern that if there were no firm
designation when the caretaker units must be built, they would
11
most likely be on the last lots developed. Jay answered that
they would actively market these caretaker units as a positive
amenity, and he believed that most of the purchasers would
probably want them. However, he did not want to be in the
position to mandate which owners would be required to construct a
caretaker unit.
Mr. Peterson also requested clarification of what the minimum
size of the caretaker units would be. He wanted a minimum of 500
sq. ft. instead of 700, as he felt a 700 sq. ft. minimum might
discourage additional units. Kristan indicated that either
requirement was acceptable, but there needed to be a
determination from the Commission what they wanted as a minimum.
Connie Knight questioned Mr. Peterson if these would be like
Beaver Creek. Jay responded that the units could be built up to
a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft., but that a 500 sq. ft. unit was
easily placed above a garage. He further clarified that these
units will not be "just a bedroom with a hot plate," but a
liveable unit.
Jay Peterson then proceeded to request that a 1 1/2 year
landscaping and retaining wall maintenance period be established,
rather than the 2 year requirement placed by the Town Council.
Joe Macy indicated a preference of the standard landscaping
establishment period of one year. He explained that a standard
contract with a landscaping contractor includes a one year
establishment period. If there were losses during that first
year, the contractor would be required to replace the plants and
give an additional year warranty on the plants being replaced.
Joe expressed his belief that the Town of Vail landscaping
contracts include the one year warranty period, and he requested
the same conditions for the spraddle Creek development. Kristan
Pritz asked if the Town of Vail landscape architect would approve
of the one year requirement. Todd Oppenheimer affirmed that the
one year warranty is standard, but the Town could extend that
period with contractors in special circumstances. Kristan
requested the Commission decide what standard they would like to
see.
Kathy Langenwalter queried Todd if the plants proposed to be
placed would be likely to die within the one year period if they
were not going to establish. Todd indicated that most plants
actually die in the transportation process, i.e., the root ball
of a tree could become cracked. Sometimes it does take more than
a year for a tree to become established, or die, and they are
more susceptible to disease in that period, but most plants die
within a year of transplant. Todd also stated that the worst
planting time in Vail is August. Even if there were an 18 month
warranty, it would be February when it expired and there was no
way to determine if the plants had survived the winter.
Alternatively, you could tell in April, May or June if the plant
had survived and was thriving.
12
Kathy Langenwalter proposed a requirement of 2 growing seasons
for the warranty period. Richard Matthews stipulated that he had
. never seen more than a one year guarantee. Even if the planting
were done in August, you would be able to tell the next August if
the plants had been established. Kathy was concerned that this
was a different situation than most, with the retaining walls
being a reflective surface. Joe Macy stated that with the drip
irrigation system, the plants would be automatically watered
every day and thus the effect of the retaining walls would be
negated. Kathy asked if this system was going to be pulled out
when the area was turned over to the Town. Joe answered that it
would be, unless the Town wanted it to remain. Jay Peterson
interjected that the planting materials being used were chosen so
no irrigation would be needed after the original establishment
period. Joe Macy stated that the Hillside area was good for
growing without water. The quality of the landscaping would be
carefully supervised.
Diana Donovan asked what happens when the irrigation system was
turned off. Richard Matthews answered that the Town could hook
up to the tubing if it desired. He also stated that he felt
comfortable with planting any time except December through April.
Jim Shearer suggested that a year plus whatever number of months
necessary to bring the inspection to August might be appropriate.
Jay Peterson stated that he believed you would be able to
. determine if the tree had been established by the following
spring. Todd Oppenheimer indicated that the warranty could be
written that the plant be not only alive at the end of the
warranty period, but that it must meet the same specifications as
when it was planted. This would require that the entire plant be
thriving, not just one branch with leaves on it. If it would not
have met the specifications at planting, then it would be
determined to be unacceptable at the conclusion of the warranty
period. Todd further stated that with the irrigation system and
inspections at the time of planting, a one year warranty period
should be adequate.
Diana Donovan asked Todd if a plant was replaced, was a new
warranty issued for that plant? Todd answered that yes, the
warranty is one year from planting. Diana requested that
language be placed in the contract and Kristan said it would.
Joe Macy indicated that the specific language would be worked on.
Kristan asked the Commission what standard they wanted. Diana
Donovan indicated she would defer to Todd's opinion, but that she
had concerns the plant material would die without irrigation.
Jay Peterson related that the developers were also concerned
about the appearance of the drive. This is the road coming into
the subdivision, and if the plants die, they want it replaced,
too, in order to protect the image they want to project. Kristan
0 13
again asked for specific direction from the Commission. Jim
. Shearer requested clarification from Todd if he wanted one year
plus an additional summer. Todd believed he would be able to
evaluate the landscaping without a second summer. Applicant
stated they wanted the industry standard of one year to be the
warranty period.
Todd clarified that the date of planting is not when a specific
plant goes into the ground, but the date of final acceptance of
the entire project by the Town. In practice, there are
additional months on the warranty because the planting takes
place over a period of time. Usually the trees are planted
first, then shrubs and vines. He was comfortable with one year,
but requested that the irrigation be maintained for a period of
three years. Diana Donovan asked if the Commission could
stipulate a one year warranty on the plant materials, but have
the developers maintain the irrigation for three years. Jay
Peterson said that they would find a two year irrigation period
satisfactory, and then the Town could take over the system if it
desired. The developers would ensure that there was a simple
method of turning over just that portion of the irrigation to the
Town, perhaps by the use of two valves. Diana stated she felt
comfortable with a one year guarantee on the plant materials, a
two year watering period by Vail Associates, with the water for
just the lower portion turned over to the Town at that point.
This appeared to be the consensus of the Commission.
. Joe Macy then turned the Commission's attention to the question
of architectural guidelines. He stated he did not feel they
would need to come back to the Commission an additional time for
approval. Instead, applicant would work with staff on any
changes. If there developed a conflict, then the issue could be
presented to the Commission for their review. Kristan Pritz
relayed that if the Commission felt comfortable with that
requirement, it would be acceptable. However, she did want
Commission comments on this issue to ensure that there were no
discrepancies in opinion. DRB approval would also still be
needed on any changes.
Joe Macy stated that they would re -write the architectural
guidelines to conform with the staff recommendations. Connie
Knight expressed concern that the landscape plan was simply a
list of building materials, and not a true plan. Joe explained
that a complete landscape plan had been submitted and approved.
Kristan indicated that this was correct and she felt comfortable
with no further Commission review if they found the landscape
conditions acceptable as outlined in the staff memo, pages 15 and
16. However, if further review was requested, there would be no
need to go through the public notice process as the changes were
very minor.
0 14
Connie Knight stated that she wanted to see the architectural
. guidelines again, with a more specific landscape plan. Jim
Shearer said he was comfortable with them not coming back again.
Kathy Langenwalter mentioned that she had some comments, but was
okay with no further review by the Commission.
0
•
At this point, Ludwig Kurz indicated he had to disqualify himself
from the discussion of Spraddle Creek. When this process began,
he was independently employed, but now works solely with Vail
Associates.
Diana Donovan felt that no further review of the landscape and
architectural guidelines would be necessary. Joe Macy stated
that most of the guidelines were for the buyers of the lots, and
that DRB approval would still be necessary before construction.
Since the consensus of the Commission was to proceed with
approval today, Kathy Langenwalter related her questions and
comments regarding the project. Her first comment was that there
needed to be more specific delineation between review by the
Spraddle Creek Design Review Board and Town of Vail Design Review
Board, and when each board would need to be consulted during
construction. She also wanted the definition of building
envelope expanded upon, especially what could not go outside that
envelope. There was a prior written approval by Design Review
Board clause in the envelope language, but it was not clear which
DRB would apply. Joe Macy clarified that it was the Town of Vail
DRB which would need to give approval.
Kathy also questioned who would check the drainage requirements
on the property. Joe indicated that language would be made
clearer to reflect that the lot owner will have to meet the
drainage requirements. Kristan expanded on the fact that there
would be two levels of review, first by the Spraddle Creek DRB,
and then by the Town of Vail DRB. Joe stipulated that buildings
would be designed to meet both requirements.
Kathy mentioned that she would like to see the grading and slopes
change to a maximum of 2:1 grading within the building envelope
and outside improvements. Joe Macy indicated that there would
have to be grading for the sidewalks, which could be outside the
envelope. Kathy suggested that perhaps the language be changed
to "other allowed improvements" rather than outside the building
envelope.
Kathy requested that there be changes in wording from "should" to
shall, and illustrated that point on page 4. Another change in
wording was in the retaining wall materials verbiage, where she
would request a change from stone to stone -faced concrete and add
boulder retaining walls. She also requested a clarification on
what exactly fencing for privacy walls means. Jay Peterson said
he would change that wording to fencing or privacy walls.
15
Kathy expressed her concern that, on page 5, the language reflect
the Town of Vail sign ordinance on the structures. Kristan Pritz
clarified that residential nameplates are allowed.
On the issue of landscape lighting, Kathy asked that the language
stating that extensive landscape lighting was strongly
discouraged be changed to prohibited. In the alternative, she
requested that the sentence be stricken. Further on the topic of
landscaping, Kathy asked that the swimming pools be submitted to
Town of Vail DRB approval. She also wanted clarification of the
provision of pre - application conference with the Spraddle Creek
Design Review Board and the lot owner.
An addition Kathy suggested was a change on page 2 from plaster
or stucco to read "or other synthetic stucco." Another issue she
wanted clarified was the fact that "window casings shall be wood,
but clad is acceptable." She felt this statement was
contradictory. Regarding flashings, she would like an addition
to the current language reflecting they must be copper or painted
to "match adjacent materials."
Kathy asked for a definition of what individual lot or site walls
are. Joe Macy said they were, for example, gardens or walkways
outside the envelope. When Kathy requested further
clarification, Kristan Pritz stated that retaining walls could be
outside the envelope, but they were discouraged in order to
minimize site disturbance.
Kathy wanted to know why, in the landscape plan, only blue spruce
were specified. Joe Macy replied that there was no reason,
except other trees, such as pinon, do not grow well. However,
lodgepole and fir would also be acceptable. Kathy expressed her
opinion that she would like to see variety in the subdivision.
Diana Donovan turned the topic of conversation to the easements
along the creek. A compromise of 40' was suggested by Kathy.
Joe Macy responded by stating he felt that even 20' was
ridiculous to begin with, due to the fact that no one really
walks up there.
Connie Knight expressed her opinion that 20' would be acceptable,
as long as there were no barricades preventing pedestrian access
beyond the 20' easement.
Diana asked why staff was requesting a 60' easement. Kristan
Pritz said that due to the terrain, sometimes a pedestrian would
need to go around fallen logs or other obstructions. Staff was
only requesting this change, it was not a major requirement. Joe
Macy stated that 20' works, and that there would be no policing
of the easement.
• 16
Kristan queried if a 30' compromise would be acceptable. Joe
related that from a marketing standpoint, 20' was optimum.
Diana stated she didn't feel it made much of a difference, but
asked if the area would be marked. Jay Peterson responded that
there would be no barricade to mark the easement. Dannie
Corcoran made the point that for the most part, 20' is adequate.
In the areas where it was not, a pedestrian would have to either
walk in the river or through the subdivision anyway. At this
point, the Commission indicated that a 20' easement would be
adequate.
Diana Donovan requested information on how the retaining walls
fit into the landscaping guarantee. Kristan Pritz stated they
were on the same agreement as the landscaping plantings. Joe
Macy explained that they would be turned over to the Town for
maintenance one year after acceptance. Town Engineer Greg Hall
accepted this provision.
Kathy Langenwalter directed a question to Kent Rose regarding how
drainage paths would be revegetated and how disturbed they would
be. Kristan Pritz indicated that the landscaping map showed what
effect there would be. Kathy clarified that she wanted to ensure
that the "scars" would be the same color as the surrounding area.
Todd Oppenheimer stated this would be a difficult project, due to
the terrain of the subdivision. Joe Macy granted that it would
be possible to re -plant the sagebrush to the disturbed areas, but
that he was not sure how well it would work. Todd Oppenheimer
asked if the applicant was considering using a seed mix or
container sagebrush to revegetate. Joe responded that, at this
point, seed mix was the alternative being explored. Connie
Knight asked how long it would take for the seed mix to grow.
Todd answered that it could take up to three years, at which
point Connie expressed her opinion that the area should be re-
vegetated. Kathy agreed, but also stipulated that she did not
want to see "stripes." Diana requested that the applicant give a
better guarantee on the sagebrush than one year, and that they
would keep trying until "they get it right." She felt this would
help minimize citizen concern over the project.
Staff explained that research indicated the Town of Aspen had put
a mixture of the dead sage they had removed and a seed mix back
over a construction site to better conceal the area while the
seed mix was growing. Diana asked if applicant would find
acceptable an agreement that if the sagebrush was not re-
established in a period of three years, another alternative would
be explored and implemented at that time. Joe Macy said that
would be fine. Todd Oppenheimer added that he felt the dead
sagebrush and seed mix approach was worth a try.
• 17
Diana stated that the Commission consensus was that a mixture of
. dead sage and seed mix would be attempted on the disturbed areas
for a period of two to three years (depending on the plant
material), then the Town landscape architect would re- examine the
success and alternative options. in addition, Diana asked if
trees would be placed in the cut. Joe stated that there could be
no trees on the utility easement, but they would scallop the tree
line.
Turning the attention of the Commission
discussion, Diana polled the members on
adequate minimum size for the caretaker
Kathy and Diana each indicated that 500
minimum, with Diana clarifying the rang,
ft., and that this space would come out
to another topic for
what they felt was an
units. Connie, Jim,
sq. ft. should be the
B would be 500 -1,200 sq.
of the GRFA for the lot.
Diana Donovan then asked applicant if there were any question
that the Forest Service would approve the plan on their land.
Joe Macy stated that the environmental impact and a finding of no
significant impact had been submitted. The district office is
discussing the issue presently, then it will go to the regional
office in Denver for final approval. The Forest Service had not
indicated any problems to date. However, if a problem surfaces,
the entire plan is dependant upon Forest Service approval of the
changes.
Kathy Langenwalter and Connie Knight both requested to see the
construction guidelines. Joe Macy said there was no secret of
what these were, as they were a part of the bid document. As
such, he agreed to provide them.
Kathy further pondered if perhaps reducing height and length of
the walls was not the answer if reducing the impacts on the site
is a desired result. Kent Rose clarified that the construction
specifications will minimize height and length when possible.
There will be a project manager and survey crew on site during
the construction to ensure that this occurs. Kristan added that
the staff would have a site design team, consisting of Greg Hall,
Todd Oppenheimer and herself, to review the progress to check
that this was, indeed, happening. Kathy reiterated that she just
wanted to make sure it was all being taken care of. Joe Macy
elaborated that since the retaining walls are very expensive,
they would be happy to eliminate them where ever possible. They
want to eliminate every wall they can.
Kathy Langenwalter then turned her attention to the planting
pockets, wondering how much actual planting area there would be,
and if it were actually significant. Kent stated there would be
approximately 5 feet of plantable area per pocket. Joe Macy
continued that this amount was significant, especially when the
trees grow above the wall. Kathy then queried applicants about
what impact snow and snow removal would have on these pockets.
40 is
Kent stated that these pockets were somewhat protected by the
• curbing along the road.
Kristan Pritz reminded applicants that they needed to make sure
they did not go above the 81- 8" maximum height for the walls in
the area of the planting pockets. She elaborated that she wanted
to clarify the variance previously given so there would not be
problems later during construction. Jay indicated that they may
attempt to place the pockets in areas where they could grade back
above the pocket to minimize the wall.
Jim Shearer asked applicants if, in the keystone wall, it would
be possible to place these pockets every 400 feet. Joe stated
that it would be at least every 400 ft. Kristan indicated that,
from a distance, the effect of these pockets would be greater
than while driving along the road itself. In addition, the 400
feet was merely a guideline for contractors when bidding on the
construction. Jim requested clarification of whether this 400
foot minimum is to be applied to the entire wall length or
consecutive linear feet. Kristan answered that it would apply to
walls that exceed 400 feet. She further explained that the
clearer the expectations of everyone at the outset, the better.
Then, if there were turnover in any aspect of the development,
there would be no confusion as to what was agreed upon.
Jim questioned the importance of a small planting notch in a
large wall, and also stated his agreement with Kathy over her
. concern of the impact of the snowplows. Joe Macy said that there
will be vines to disguise the walls. Jim asked about the effect
of straightening some of the roads, and if that was increasing
the amount of walls, as compared to the previous undulation.
Kent answered that the roads now move better with the contours of
the site, and that the effect on the length of walls was
negligible.
Jim requested clarification on each lot's GRFA, and whether the
figure presented would be increased by 850 sq. ft. to compensate
for the loss of the credit system, and also if the garage space
needed to be added to the GRFA figure. This was confirmed by
staff per the specifics in the memo. Garages are not in the GRFA
numbers.
Connie Knight asked if applicant had brought a sample of the
keystone wall to view. The Commission examined it and Connie
asked if the color could be changed. Joe Macy affirmed that the
color could be changed. Connie stated that she felt planting
notches are a positive addition to the plan.
Regarding the stipulation that Spraddle Creek use the "least
polluting sand" for winter sanding, Connie asked if that could be
more specific. Joe Macy stated that he wanted to research that
issue further, with Jay Peterson indicating that he wanted
• 19
flexibility for new technology in the future. Connie asked if an
appropriate standard would be whatever the Town and Highway
Department agreed upon? It was determined that applicant would
be given flexibility through the "least polluting" language.
Connie also asked about the sufficiency of the livery parking
provisions, and whether 5 parking spaces would be enough for
hikers. Kristan said she believed it would be sufficient, as
there was other parking available to hikers above the subdivision
in a flat area on USFS land.
In reviewing the slope requirements, Connie questioned if there
were enough controls to ensure adequate protection. Kent Rose
explained that applicants wanted to see what conditions they
found in the field, and act accordingly within the guidelines
provided.
Connie also questioned how large the garages could be. Kristan
explained that there would be a maximum of 1,200 sq. ft. for a
garage if 4 spaces were provided, unless the owner used GRFA for
garage space.
A question was then asked by Diana Donovan of when George Gillett
would be building his home, and how that time table related to
the construction of the roads. Joe Macy stated that a phasing
plan will be submitted. The roads, walls and deep utilities will
be started in April. By August or September, an owner could
. begin foundation work. The second spring, the asphalting of the
roads and shallow utilities will be completed.
Diana questioned if anyone would be able to move in before the
landscaping was completed. Kristan answered that the plat would
be recorded with the subdivision improvements indicated. There
would then be a bond issued to ensure the completion of the
improvements. At that point, the developers would be free to
sell lots and the Town could issue building permits. For a
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy to be issued, the water, sewer
and electricity would have to be completed. When Diana further
questioned what guarantee the Town had that the landscaping and
other improvements would be completed, Kristan replied that the
completion bond was the guarantee, with the Town retaining 10%
until all was completed and accepted. Joe Macy further
elaborated that the conditions of the performance bond would
apply to all portions of the development. Jay Peterson indicated
that if the plan was not completed on time, the Town would be
able to draw on the completion bond. Connie raised the question
of who determines the dollar amount of that completion bond. Jay
answered that it is determined by the applicant, but reviewed by
the Town for accuracy.
•
20
Once again, the issue of GRFA and square footage was raised, and
Diana Donovan wanted further clarification that the GRFA includes
• the 850 sq. ft. allowance. Jay pledged that the GRFA for each
lot would be placed on the plat and yes, the GRFA numbers
included the 850 sq. ft.
•
Discussion then moved to concerns over the greenbelts provided.
Diana asked for a clarification of Tract A, B and C and it was
provided by Kristan Pritz. After the clarification, Diana
expressed concern about the visual impact of this subdivision
from the bottom of the International ski run, and not just from
within the subdivision.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the gatehouse would be a caretaker
unit. The answer from Jay was that there would be no utilities
into the unit, and it was not visualized that the gatehouse would
become living accommodations due to the impacts.
With the discussion moving once again to employee housing, Diana
requested definite confirmation that Mr. Gillett is building a
caretaker unit with his home. Joe Macy replied that he was.
Diana postulated that she could not see how the Town could
require when or on what lots the caretaker units would be built,
due to practical and legal difficulties. It would be impractical
to have the requirement at the time the building permit is
issued, which would be the only way to control when the units
would be built. Joe reiterated that applicants did not want plat
restrictions regarding the caretakers. Connie issued her opinion
that she didn't believe it would be good for the developers to
keep shifting the units from lot to lot. Jay interjected that if
restrictions were placed, that in marketing, the developers would
have to indicate that any buyer might be required to build a
caretaker unit. Kristan stated that the issue of timing was one
of concern to the Town Council, and asked if applicant could pin
down two lots in addition to Mr. Gillett's which they would put
the caretaker condition upon. Jay again stated that he wanted
flexibility. The developers would select three lots for
caretaker units, but did not want to have to go through another
major subdivision revision in order to change those lots around.
He also asked if there were another mechanism, rather than using
a major subdivision review, whereby the designation could be
changed by the PEC. After much discussion, no conclusion was
reached. Diana attempted to summarize the Commission's feelings
by stating that the requirement that 3 of the lots, when
developed, have caretaker units, but with no stipulation as to
the timing. She did state, however, that the Town Council may
not approve the final plat without some type of timing agreement.
At this point, the specific conditions of approval were reviewed
in order to formulate a proper motion for the Commission. The
resulting conditions were: (Please note changes from PEC are in
bold type).
21
A. Before the Project is Reviewed by the Town Council for
• Dedication, the Following Must Occur:
1. The architectural, construction, landscape guidelines
in the covenants shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and Staff before the final plat is allowed to
proceed to Council. Further PEC approval shall no
longer be required for the documents listed above. The
covenants will be submitted to staff before Town
Council review. A color board shall also be submitted
with the final architectural guidelines.
2. The following changes shall be made by the applicant to
the landscape plan as a condition of final plat
approval before the project is reviewed by the Town
Council:
* 2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum
size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen
* The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan
* The irrigation point of connection shall be
changed to a water tap instead of the fire
hydrant connection.
* The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail landscape
architect.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show
the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot
8. Additional planting may be required by
the Town of Vail landscape architect in this
area.
* The Al wall shall be indicated on the
landscape plan.
(The Fourth and Fifth conditions moved to
section E, during construction numbers two
and three).
3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the
wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30%
slope, building envelopes and certificates.
4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development and Public Works
departments for final approval before the project
proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation
during construction shall be addressed in the
phasing plan.
5. The conditions for
shall be indicated
section of the code
0 22
lots having slopes over 30%
on the subdivision plat. This
is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, K and
L. This wording shall also be included in the
covenants for the subdivision.
6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be
added to the plat, and also incorporated in the
subdivision covenants.
7. The owner of the subdivision, or homeowners,
association, shall maintain the road through the
subdivision from the entry gate up to the top of
the subdivision. This maintenance also includes
all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping.
The owner, or homeowners, association, also agrees
to be responsible for establishing the landscaping
along the public road extending from the North
Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry gate for
one year, from the date of Town of Vail landscape
and wall acceptance. Once the landscaping is
accepted and one year from the date of acceptance
by the Town of Vail has transpired, the Town will
take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping maintenance. Any plant
material not meeting the original planting
specifications at the end of the one year warranty
period shall be replaced by the owner or
homeowners, association. Replacement plants shall
be covered by an additional one year warranty.
The owner or homeowners' association will continue
to water the landscaping for an additional year
after expiration of the original one year
warranty. The drip irrigation will be zoned to
separate public and private use and will remain in
place and be turned over to the Town of Vail at
the completion of the watering provision.
B. Owner agrees to re -plant using a mixture of the
removed sagebrush and seed mix for a period of 2
growing seasons per Colorado state university
recommendations on all cuts for utilities. If
this attempt is not successful in revegetating
impacted areas of sage, owner will investigate and
instigate other methods of revegetation to the
Town of Vail landscape architects requirements
after the second growing season. Cuts must be
revegetated in such a manner that no noticeable
scar exists.
9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz,
dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved.
0 23
10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31,
. 1991, the following issues in the memo dated
February 11, 1991 from Greg Hall shall be met or
resolved.
11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final
street construction plans, construction
specifications and final drainage report.
12. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants
the condition that no on -site livery shall be
allowed within the subdivision
13. Applicant agrees to construct six foot paved
shoulders on either side of the Frontage Road
according to the plan submitted and approved by
the Colorado Division of Highways for a public
bike path.
14. Three caretaker units, each having a maximum
square footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum
square footage of 500 sq. ft., shall be provided
within the subdivision. The units will be
permanently restricted per section 18.13.080 (10)
(A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning Code. The
applicant shall agree that three lots will be
designated in the covenants or plat on which
caretaker units will be built. if lots other than
those lots originally designated provide caretaker
units, the covenant restriction will be lifted.
Developer may change designated lots as long as
there are three lots designated at all times.
Further Town of Vail review of the designations
will not be required if caretaker requirement is
moved to another lot.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
16. on any walls that are greater than 400 feet in
length, planting notches shall be required unless
it is determined that it is impossible to locate
the notches in a sensitive manner in the walls.
Staff and applicant will determine a number of
notches to be built prior to Town Council review.
During construction, notches may be increased,
changed or removed with the approval of the Town
of Vail design team, consisting of the Town
Engineer, Landscape Artist and Community
Development Director.
• 24
n
LJ
B. During Town Council Review, the Following Must occur!
1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this
time.
C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded the Followin
Conditions Shall Be Met:
1. The applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department for approval the final
agreement relocating the existing livery to the
Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision. This agreement shall also include
revegetation of the existing livery site.
2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate
easements allowing for public access shall be
recorded per the Forest Service requirements.
Forest Service approval for the switchback on
their property to the east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision shall also be received before final
plat recording.
3. The subdivision improvement agreement and
covenants shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and approved before the
final plat is recorded.
D. After Final Plat Recording and Before any Building
Permits are Released for Site Improvements or
Individual Residences, the Following Conditions Must be
Met:
1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the
subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town
Council. The requested zone designations shall be
greenbelt open space. This condition shall also
be listed in the subdivision agreement before the
final plat is recorded.
2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met
by the applicant.
E. During Construction of the Project, the Following
Conditions Will be Met:
1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer
and Town landscape architect shall periodically do
on -site inspections of the construction.
• 25
2. A letter from RBD Engineers describing how grading
and landscaping will occur if walls I, K, C1, C2,
01, M1, Y1 are removed, and when wall Z1 is
removed.
3. Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by
the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1 and N-
1. This issue shall be resolved after an on site
inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape
architect. Up to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs may be
required by the landscape architect.
4. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing
grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate
grading for portions of the I walls, K walls, C
walls, 01, M1, Y1, Rose Lane, and walls below the
gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape
architect, and Community Development Director.
These walls shall also be listed on the final
street construction plans as having potential for
removal.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the above requirements be accepted
by the Commission. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote
was 4 -0 in favor of the motion. A review of the requirements
will take place at the next Commission meeting.
• The meeting was recessed at 7:05, and reconvened by Diana
Donovan, chairperson, at 7:12PM.
It was noted by Diana Donovan that Ludwig Kurz had left the
meeting for a personal emergency.
4. A request for a review and recommendation to Town Council
regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master Plan: site is
located at the southeast corner of South Frontage Road West
and Kinnickinick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen gave the staff presentation. He opened by
addressing what the Commission had asked staff to review at the
previous work session.
The first area of concern was the issue of parking spaces. By
widening the access road to the park, parking has been increased
to 18 spaces. Other options were examined, including frontage
road parking, but widening the driveway appeared to make more
sense.
Diana asked about Vail Recreation Department scheduling of
practices and games. Todd Oppenheimer replied that at this time,
Stephens Park was not included in the agreement between the VRD
• 26
and Stephens Park. If and when an agreement is made, only
• practices would be allowed. A practice would only constitute
approximately 15 people, as opposed to twice that for a game.
Diana indicated she did not believe the parking would be adequate
for practices.
Andy continued his presentation by reviewing staff's examination
of the hazards. Art Mears' recommendation of 3' berm height to
completely remove any danger in the play area was a good
solution.
Diana asked if all the concerns of the Commission had been met.
Andy responded that the fork in the path had been added, and the
workout course had been examined, but found to be too expensive
relative to other park facilities requested by the neighborhood.
Staff felt that the requests by park neighbors should have a
higher priority. With regard to mitigation of the avalanche
danger, Art Mears had stated that signage would bring the hazard
to an "acceptable level of risk." Kristan further explained that
no matter what was done to mitigate, someone could always sue.
Town of Vail had to exercise due diligence in the mitigation of
any danger.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if rock fall danger should be added to
the avalanche signage. Andy indicated that it would be no
problem to do so. Todd felt that the avalanche danger was more
compelling, but he would check with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney,
. to more clearly define wording for the signs. Kathy accepted
this conclusion.
Kathy Langenwalter moved approval of Stephens Park Master Plan
with the condition that Larry Eskwith review signage wording for
appropriate mitigation of risk, whether it met the hazard code,
and whether to include rock fall notation. In addition, the
approval of this Master Plan is contingent upon the approval of
the Hazard Map. Connie Knight seconded the motion. The vote was
4 -0 in favor.
5. A reauest to amend the Town of Vail's Avalanche. Rockfall
and Debris Flow Hazard Maps in the general vicinity of
Stephens Park, located at the southeast corner of South
Frontage _Road West and_Kinnickinick Road, pursuant to
Section 189.69 of the town of Vail Zoning, Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
The Commission waived a staff presentation of this item as they
had heard discussion of this issue during the park master plan
discussion. Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Hazard Map be
amended per Art Mears' letters of January, 1991 and February 8,
1991. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The motion carried with
a 4 -0 vote.
0 27
&. A reauest to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish an
additional view corridor and to clarify wording in the
.
ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous
Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore
Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen presented the amendment request. The purpose of
this request was to add a view corridor number 4, as explained
below. In addition, staff requested clarification of the view
corridor ordinance language.
The proposed view corridor number 4 will read as follows:
"View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is 8' -2"
east of the southern side of the door frame of Frivolous
Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view was established
by setting a camera five feet one inch above this point,
using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill Building and the Plaza
Lodge buildings flank the corridor on either side. It then
extends above the Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania
roof over Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range.
The proposed refinements to the language of the view corridor
ordinance read as follows:
1. "Any modifications to the roof or structures which are
proposed to be located, or are currently located above
the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by
the PEC."
2. "If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
3. "Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing
structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower
or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed."
4. "Some view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment.
For example, decks which extend out into a corridor
will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded.
Applications requesting changes to buildings adjacent
0 28
to view corridors should be aware that any existing
encroachments will be encouraged to be removed from the
view corridor as part of any major building
modification."
Staff recommended the Commission favorably refer these amendments
to Town Council for adoption. In addition, staff believed that
the creation of view corridor Number 4 will be an important
addition as it will preserve the beautiful view of the Gore Range
from a pedestrian area of the Village.
Diana Donovan opened the discussion by asking what effect these
amendments would have on structures which are intentional focal
points, such as the Clock Tower. Kristan Pritz indicated that
there are structures set out within the parameters of a specific
view corridor which are intended to remain a part of that view.
The Clock Tower is an example of one such focal point. These
amendments are not meant to eliminate those points intended to be
preserved in an individual view corridor.
Jim shearer queried staff as to the possibilities of having a
survey performed to define view corridor Number 4. Kristan
related that it would be possible, and that the survey would
clearly define the corridor using whatever points were finally
adopted.
Paul Johnston was recognized and stated his definite objections
to the addition of view corridor Number 4. He pointed out to the
Commission that, when view corridors were first established, this
particular view was determined to be insignificant. Mr. Johnston
stated that this is a 30 foot wide view which diminishes with
every step you take into the corridor to the east. In addition,
50% of the year, foliage from the trees blocks most of the view,
in Mr. Johnston's opinion. Paul asked staff and the Commission
why the line did not go around the Red Lion view.
Jay Peterson was also recognized for discussion on this
amendment, and stated he agreed with Mr. Johnston that the view
should go around the Red Lion, and believed that when the Town
Council reviewed the Red Lion expansion, that was a specific item
of discussion. Kristan Pritz responded that she would examine
that point and will act accordingly. Jay expressed his opinion
that it would be unfair to adopt a view corridor with the Red
Lion chimney identified as an encroachment encouraged to be
removed, when that encroachment had already been approved by the
Town Council. He did not feel that the Red Lion should be
subject to extra restrictions should they decide to remodel
again, or if they had to rebuild for any reason. Kristan
reiterated that she would look into the Council discussions on
this issue. In addition, she explained that the ordinance
revision would only encourage the elimination of the encroachment
during a remodel, not mandate it.
29
Jay Peterson further expressed his displeasure over the proposed
view corridor by stating that when the other view corridors were
established, the impacts on the property owners were taken into
consideration. He illustrated this by the example of the top of
Pepi Gramshammer's roof.
Diana responded to Jay's comments by indicating her belief that,
although this was a view for only a short distance, the view to
the mountains must be preserved. Jay said he was only asking for
a minor consideration - that the Commission be fair to property
owners.
Jay also expressed his displeasure at the method the view
corridor was established. He brought to the Commission's
attention an alternative photograph where the balcony was not an
encroachment. He stated that it was only an encroachment by
using the staff's view, and perhaps another view point should be
established.
Mike Mollica illustrated the importance of this particular view
corridor by relating that when staff had gone to photograph the
proposal, they constantly observed pedestrians walking down Wall
Street, which is an area where the Gore Range is in full view.
Andy elaborated that since it is a very short view, it is all the
more important to preserve.
Jay told the Commission that he was only asking for minor changes
in the view corridor. These changes would include establishing
the corridor so that the Red Lion's addition would be acceptable.
He just wanted the same consideration other property owners got
in the establishment of previous view corridors.
At this point, a free form discussion took place between the
Commission members, Jay Peterson and Paul Johnston regarding
potential views and lines to establish the view corridor.
When the meeting was called back into formal session, Diana
Donovan asked Mr. Peterson why the view corridor should be moved.
He answered that in the areas below the tree line, the view would
be obstructed by foliage in the summer, and when the majority of
the people pass in the winter, it is already dark and the view
obstructed in that manner.
Kathy asked staff why this issue was being raised at this time.
Mike Mollica responded that the issue of this view had been
raised during the Red Lion construction.
Jay requested that he be given a copy of the photograph so he
could draw alternative corridor lines and present it to the
Commission.
. 30
Diana expressed her opinion that it
view - perhaps a compromise would be
with a straight line connecting the
was critical to maintain the
to identify the corridor
two balconies.
Kathy Langenwalter raised the issue of development rights. She
asked Paul Johnston of the Christiania what was the maximum
height of his building. Mr. Johnston indicated it could be 7
feet higher than its present height. Kathy further asked how
this proposal would impact his development rights. Jim Shearer
presented his opinion that there could be a problem with the
parking area across from the Christiania, if it were ever to be
developed.
Connie Knight stated that she preferred a straight line approach
for defining the corridor. She suggested drawing a line from the
top of Christy's balcony of the Plaza Building.
Mike asked the Commission to define the view they wanted to
preserve. Connie stated she preferred the photograph taken in
1983 during the original discussion of this issue to the more
recent photograph. Kathy Langenwalter stated she would like to
see the eventual elimination of the balcony from the view. Diana
Donovan said she thought the corridor needed to be simple and as
close to the original as possible. In addition,•the potential
impacts to the Christiania need to be considered.
At this point, Connie Knight moved to amend Ordinance 13, 1983 to
. establish a view corridor. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building toward the
Gore Range, extending from the north point of the 1983 photograph
straight across to the top of the balcony on the second floor of
the Hill Building. She further moved that the ordinance be
revised as recommended by staff. There was no second to this
motion. The motion died.
More discussion ensued regarding what would be the optimum lines
for the establishment of the corridor. Kristan Pritz suggested
tabling the motion until the February 25 meeting to allow the
Commissioners to again visit the site.
Paul Johnston suggested moving the view point up to the Hill
Building, since that was where the pedestrians predominantly
viewed the mountains.
Diana Donovan stated that a new picture should be taken without
the clouds, that the Commission should see the corridor staked
with a tape between the balconies in the picture. Kristan agreed
to do this before the next meeting. She also indicated that
staff would research the Council minutes about the Red Lion
chimney if where they had intended it to be included in the view
corridor.
0 31
Jim Shearer moved to table this issue to the February 25, 1991
meeting. Connie Knight seconded. The vote was 4 -0 in favor of
the motion.
Jim also moved to table items 8 and 9 of the agenda, regarding
the request for setback and site coverage variances for the
Lifthouse Lodge and the request for a front setback variance by
Nowell May. Kathy Langenwalter seconded. The motion passed with
a 4 -0 vote.
Commission unanimously voted to table approval of the minutes
from January 28, 1991 until the February 25, 1991 meeting.
Kristan Pritz announced that Kathy Langenwalter and Chuck Crist
had been reappointed to serve on the Commission for another two
years.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:50PM.
•
0 32
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
. FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request for a height variance to allow for the
installation of one satellite dish antenna on the roof
of the Vail Village Inn Plaza, located at 100 Vail
Road/ Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting to place one satellite dish
between the two south facing dormers of the Vail Village Inn
Plaza. The dish measures 7.6 feet in diameter and with
supporting structure, will be 8 feet above the roof eave of
the dormer. The purpose of this satellite dish is to
provide an alternate cable service to the Vail Village Inn
Plaza.
The dish would be suspended on a structural beam spanning
between the 2 dormers. The top of the dish exceeds the
ridge line of the dormer by several inches, depending on the
angle of the dish. The height of the dish will vary due to
the changing angles of the dish. The base of the unit is
approximately 55 feet above the plaza at the dish location,
with the top of the dish having a height of approximately 64
feet above the plaza. The top of the dish will be
approximately 8 feet below the main ridge line. The dish
proposed is gray, but can be painted to match the color of
the building. A mesh dish is proposed.
The requested variance is from Section 18.58.320 (D,3) which
states:
"The maximum height allowed for any satellite dish
antenna, when measured from the top of the satellite
dish antenna down to existing or finished grade,
whichever is more restrictive, shall not exceed fifteen
feet."
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal code, the Department of Community
Development recommends denial of the requested variances
based upon the following factors:
0 1
A. Consideration of Facters:
• 1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or Rotential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
The dish exceeds the top of the dormers, due to
the changing angles of the unit. The dish will be
screened from view on the north by the ridge line
of the building. it will not be visible from the
Frontage Road. It will not be visible from the
pedestrian plaza, but will be seen from Meadow
Drive immediately below the dish.
If this dish were ground mounted, it would meet
the Town's criteria for satellite dish height.
The staff looked at placing the dish at ground
level. it was felt that there are other possible
locations at both grade and above grade which
would be less visible.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement__ of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without-grant of special privilege.
The proposed dish would be placed approximately
34 -36 feet back from the front of the dormers.
Rooftop installations are not always desirable for
satellite dishes, however occasionally this
approach provides the optimum method for screening
of the dish. This option has been approved in the
past if impacts on adjacent properties are
decreased. The staff finds that in this
particular application, the proposed dish would
not be substantially screened, and therefore would
have unacceptable visual impacts on surrounding
properties. In this location, the design would be
visible from other properties. Impact would not
be limited to the Vail Village Inn. Relief from
the height requirements is not warranted because
the visual impacts on adjacent properties has not
been substantially minimized.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safetv.
There is no impact on this criteria.
2
III. FINDINGS
. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance.
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends denial of the request. Staff has
examined the property and feels that this is not the best
location for the satellite dish, and that the visual impacts
would not be substantially minimized by placing the dish in
the proposed location.
We feel that the granting of the variance will constitute a
grant of special privilege. The Planning and Environmental
Commission has granted height variances for satellite dishes
in the past, including the Lodge at Vail, the Sonnenalp,
Marriott's Mark Resort, and the Gasthof Gramshammer when
impacts on adjacent properties are minimal or non- existent.
However, staff feels that the impacts on adjacent properties
have not been minimized, and therefore we do not support the
request.
0 c: \pec \memos \satelite.211
3
Ell
AM
11 YT f�f
Jn'
•
•
��
k
Ro
1 If} I1i
ii t
I�
v
3` f
3
t I i
' r i � I.I�►�JI �, � 1 %I III �( {I j `''Ni�l,[,'1
5i1� I
�
i
7 ;i ,, lot
i�l I �! }
I ii I
I �441II � {{jj� IElf�l�
I i
-
} 4444 FF`��
I 1 A {
-
.
tEr!'lt'rii5�� i�!I� II I''�Il ?'-rte
}•� ! .� � fl I ! 1 +�` I�1:1[II(,Sif� , 11x1 I �� r!I.
f'rilj�
.{ ! tiltj r -Yf •�I 41r}I I I y �t�l r1i�
71 -
�.
-
I
-
I ,+7
r I
II rl
All
t
I
I � �
I
�I lill'I '
�F
CC
20
127. _C.e
a'h'r G, °��
lk
UGH
ca ctso'? i
:ryi�ilaw. +�
o11TTel'-._
UNIT
ID
sae : ✓w Iro. 748, rt' uu5 or _
tq
y ! lii
lLrT /EWC Y� �tiL Jn{ .FA OG'�
! jecor OVER
-
t
t r
IT
llE .IA - ,t, a .d •� t
u.
ti r+rvN. OI �^ ^U 7 cum. �I`,� S,jj I nlsC eC
- s F sam
0-f7. /
d-PI
7o...jn
tu
cl
.mot - io_d 7 I F -- ..,,,, _
I I nxt �tY elf- f
.
`,� ' wce+e eroF m;
'R'K j ' � j GT.f �`.PO4 � I -' i _ �l+ATGM�•.
._. — � •tare �7
z
1 05
Ila
See
u1 2 I "C
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
iFROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request to approve the final plat for a major
subdivision on a parcel commonly referred to as
Spraddle Creek, an approximate 40 acre parcel located
north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and
east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Applicant: George Gillett, Jr.
I. PROJECT SUMMARY
A. Preliminary Plan Approval Summary
Spraddle Creek is a forty acre parcel located northeast
of the Main Vail interchange. Mr. George Gillett, Jr.
is the owner of the property. The property is
surrounded by White River National Forest land on the
north, east, west and south. I -70 right -of --way is
located adjacent to Spraddle Creek's southwestern
boundary. The applicant is requesting final approval
for a major subdivision plat. The property was annexed
into the Town of Vail in January of 1985 and Hillside
Residential Zoning was applied in November of 1987 by
Ordinance No. 38, Series of 1987.
On September 24, 1990, the Planning and Environmental
Commission {PEC} unanimously approved the subdivision
preliminary plan, retaining wall height variance, and
road grade variance by a vote of 5 -0. The preliminary
plan was approved with twenty -four conditions.
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended
that the applicant work on reducing the road grade to
the new livery site and also refine the architectural
guidelines. The PEC also recommended that the
applicant be responsible for maintenance of the
landscaping along the public road for a two to three
year period after the landscaping has been established,
rather than two to three years after planting.
On October 2, 1990, the Town Council reviewed the
project. A vote was taken and the motion to approve
passed unanimously.
0 1
•
•
II. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FROM PRELIMINARY PLAN
Below is a summary of the final conditions of approval for
the project. The original conditions are highlighted in
bold print.
A. The proposed road grades and retaining wall heights are
maximums for the subdivision. If it is determined by
staff through the final plat review and /or building
permit, or construction phase that road grades and
retaining wall heights may be further reduced, the
applicant will agree to do so. The final plat
submittal will provide a thorough analysis of the soil
nailing and tie rod system for cut walls in order to
minimize site disturbance.
Staff Summary: Since preliminary plan approval, there
have been several changes to the retaining wall design.
At this time, a "keystone" wall is proposed, and this
wall has been reviewed conceptually by the Design
Review Board. The color of the walls will be tan,
unless otherwise agreed to by the Design Review Board.
Cut walls will continue to have a ten foot planting
terrace between each retaining wall. Fill wall
planting terraces have been reduced to six feet between
each retaining wall. This creates a four foot
reduction from the planting terrace for fill walls from
preliminary plan approval. The reason for this
reduction is to further minimize disturbance of the
site. The same quantity of plant materials will still
be able to be located within the six foot terrace of
the fill walls.
The height of retaining walls does not exceed the eight
feet eight inches approved at preliminary plan. The
maximum number of wall terraces proposed is three.
These three terraced wall areas have a maximum combined
height of 32 feet. (3 x 8' -8" + 2 x 3' [for planting
terrace].) This height results in the height of the
tiered wall being two feet higher than what was
approved at preliminary plan. Below is a comparison of
walls between preliminary plan and final plat.
Preliminary Plan
0--6 ft.
6 -8 ft.
8 1111-8 1 8 11
Total
Length
3,225 l.f.
2,663 l.f.
291 1.f.
6,179 l.f.
Final Plat Difference
2,978 l.f.
2,085 l.f.
2,254 1.f.
7,317 l.f.
0 2
(247 l.f.)
+ 578 l.f.
±1,963 l.f.
1,138 1.f.
The applicant has provided additional information on
the rationale for using the "keystone" wall system.
Soil nailing or a tie rod system is not proposed. The
Town Engineer has reviewed the studies submitted by
Retention Engineering consultants and agrees that the
"keystone" wall is appropriate given the soils. Below
is the Town Engineer's analysis of the appropriateness
of the keystone wall.
Town Engineer's Comments:
Although a thorough analysis of soil nailing and a tie
rod system was not completed, it appears that the wall
system is adequate for the site. Tie rod systems are
only appropriate once wall heights exceed 10 feet in
height. The use of terraces to mitigate the impact of
the walls makes the tie rod system less effective in
reducing disturbed areas above the top wall. The
amount of disturbance was reduced with use of a 1.5:1
slope above the wall. The "keystone" wall system also
has great flexibility in reducing the amount of wall
used based on varying site conditions in the field.
Blocks come in square foot pieces and can be removed to
accommodate minor changes in site topography. Tie rod
systems are normally available in 81x 8' panels and are
more rigid in dealing with varying site conditions.
All triple cut walls, except M walls, could be reduced
by more extensive grading. If this occurs, a tie rod
is not appropriate. A tie rod system would only be
appropriate for the M wall. The use of a tie rod
system on the double tiered M wall does not seem
appropriate because of the amount of disturbance taking
place on Lot 14 and the possible disturbance resulting
from the elimination of a portion of the lower M wall
the O wall located to the east of this area.
The applicant has also agreed to provide planting
notches in walls that are greater than 400 feet in
length. The concept is that in areas where the length
of the wall is extreme, planting notches would be built
into the walls to break up the linear appearance of the
wall.
It is staff's opinion that the applicant has met the
first condition of approval concerning road grades and
retaining wall heights. The grades and retaining wall
heights (8' -811) do not exceed those approved by the PEC
at the Preliminary Plan review. There is a net
increase in wall length of 1,138 l.f. Some of this
increase is because of concerns for creek protection
and the walls that provide for the livery stable
• 3
•
roadway. Staff is concerned about this increase in
wall length. The staff has identified to the applicant
walls that may be removed with additional grading and
landscaping. These walls include portions of the I
walls and K walls, and C1, C2, 01, M1, Yl, Z1, and
walls below the gatehouse. The applicant does not want
to remove these walls from the plans as unforeseen site
specific conditions may make it necessary to keep the
walls. The staff felt this was an acceptable approach
to avoid another review by the PEC and DRB during
construction. This approach allows the PEC to review
the worst case scenario. Before final review by
Council, worksheets showing grading and proposed
landscaping to mitigate grading shall be submitted to
the Town engineer, landscape architect and Community
Development Director for review and approval.
2. Construction guidelines will be used during the actual
building phase for the wall and road improvements. See
Section on EIR Wall Analysis of this memo.
Staff Summary: The applicant will submit construction
guidelines, along with landscape, architectural and
irrigation guidelines for DRB and PEC approval if the
PEC desires to review the documents.
3. A grading easement on the southwest corner of the
property will allow the Town of Vail the right to grade
onto this portion of the property if and when the North
Frontage Road is extended to the east below the
subdivision to create a new underpass connecting to
Vail Valley Drive /Blue Cow Chute.
Staff Summary: The applicant has provided an adequate
grading easement for the Town of Vail. The easement is
indicated on the final plat.
4. An agreement finalizing the livery stable relocation
and reclamation of the existing livery site will be
submitted with the final plat information.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to relocate
the livery to Forest Service land to the east of the
Spraddle Creek site and also to revegetate the existing
livery site.
is 4
0
•
•
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30% will be
applied to the subdivision. This section of the code
is 18.69.050 A -D, F -I, R and L.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to this
condition, and will indicate this stipulation on the
final plat and covenants.
6. site coverage shall be limited to 80 to 100% of the
allowable GRFA for each lot. This condition will be
finalized at final plat.
Staff Summary: The staff and applicant have agreed to
limit site coverage to 100% of the allowable GRFA minus
850 sq. ft. for each lot, excluding Lot 14. The site
coverage for Lot 14 shall be 10,000 sq. ft. Lot 8, Lot
10 and Lot 15 shall be limited per the standard
Hillside Residential zoning which is applicable on
smaller lots.* Please see the chart comparing the
proposed site coverage, to site coverage allowed under
the standard Hillside Residential zoning.
5
Proposed Site
HR Site
Lot
Coverage
Coverage (.15)_
1
6,483
13,125
2
5,674
7,222
3
7,698
13,293
4
6,166
8,698
5
5,977
8,130
6
7,370
12,308
7
5,459
6,575
8*
4,781
4,781
9
6,419
9,457
10*
4,844
4,844
11
6,838
10,713
12
8,078
14,432
13
N/A
N/A
14
10,000
32,329
15*
3,839
3,839
Staff tried to achieve a balance among
the following
factors
when determining an appropriate
site coverage
percentage:
*
The need for flexibility in site planning
because
of the sensitivity of the lots.
*
The fact that the existing Hillside
Residential
zoning would provide no control on
site coverage,
because of the large lot size. Essentially,
all
square footage (GRFA + Garage 1200
sq. ft.) could
be built on one level.
5
* The probability that most lot owners will want to
construct 3 or 4 car garages which are not
incorporated into GRFA.
* The applicant's willingness to provide building
envelopes and architectural guidelines.
* The fact that the new site coverage ordinance has
become more restrictive.
* In Primary /Secondary zoning, site coverage does
not exceed GRFA until lots exceed 30,000 sq. ft.
it appears that with large lots, the site coverage
would exceed GRFA.
Using PrimaryfSecondary_Zonina Standards
(With New GRFA Definition)
Lot Size GRFA* Site Coverage
(.20 of total site)
15,000 4,600 sq. ft. 3,000 sq. ft.
20,000 5,100 sq. ft. 4,000 sq. ft.
30,000 6,100 Sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
40,000 6,600 sq. ft. 8,000 sq. ft.
* Figure does not include 1,200 sq. ft. for a garage
When this condition of approval was originally
discussed at preliminary plan, the GRFA and site
coverage ordinances had not been amended. The new GRFA
ordinance takes into account all GRFA, excluding
garages, which are equivalent to a maximum of 1,200 sq.
ft. By allowing for 100% of the allowable GRFA minus
850 sq. ft. for site coverage, we believe that good
site planning will result. The limit on site coverage,
in combination with the building envelopes and
architectural guidelines, should insure that houses are
sited in a reasonable manner on the sensitive sites,
while still allowing flexibility for individual site
planning.
7. If a fireplace is desired by the owner for the
caretaker unit, gas appliances or gas logs shall be
used in all caretaker units. Only one wood burning
fireplace will be allowed in the main unit.
Staff Summary: The Town Council recently adopted
Ordinance No. 42 of 1990 which restricts all new
construction to gas logs and gas appliances. This
subdivision will be governed by this ordinance. The
only lot that will potentially be able to have one wood
burning unit is Lot 14. At this time, the owner of the
entire Spraddle Creek site may submit design plans for
one Hillside Residential development. If the final
9 6
submittal occurs before February 15, 1991, this
development will be allowed to have one wood burning
is fireplace for the main unit. The caretaker unit for
Lot 14 shall be required to meet Ordinance No. 42, as
at preliminary plan approval, the caretaker was already
restricted to gas. This solution is acceptable to
staff.
8. The chain link fence around the culvert at the
subdivision entry will be removed and a more aesthetic
barrier provided with appropriate landscaping if
allowed by the Colorado Division of Highways.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to remove the
chain link fence and replace it with a wooden fence and
landscaping. This meets the staff concern.
9. The six spruce trees by the subdivision entrance on the
south side of Gillett Road shall be relocated and must
survive for two years after they have been relocated.
If they die within the two year period, the trees will
be replaced by similar type and sized trees, at the
owners expense.
Staff Summary: The condition is met.
10. All Fire Department standards and requirements per the
letter from Mike McGee dated August 2, 1990 shall be
complied with by the owner or as otherwise modified.
Staff Summary: All fire department concerns have been
addressed by the applicant, to the Town's satisfaction.
11. Before any building permits are released for the
subdivision and once the subdivision receives final
plat approval, the appropriate easements allowing for
public access shall be recorded per the Forest Service
requirements.
Staff Summa: The applicant agrees to this condition.
12. six foot paved shoulders on either side of the Frontage
Road for a distance of approximately 520 feet (from the
Spraddle Creek intersection west) for a public bike
path shall be provided by the developer.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to construct
the 6 ft. bike lanes.
13. All construction on each lot shall occur within the
platted building envelopes. The building envelopes
. shall be adjusted per the revised staff plan dated
September 7, 1990 before final plat. Staff and the
applicant will determine what improvements, if any,
will be allowed outside the envelope at final plat.
Staff Summary: The applicant has revised the building
envelopes per planning staff recommendations drawn on
the September 7, 1990 preliminary plan. The staff also
reviewed the building envelopes on site. The final
plat reflects the recommendations made at preliminary
plan and the site specific analysis. All improvements
shall occur within building envelopes except driveways,
sidewalks, retaining walls, grading, surface parking,
and garages that meet Section 18.69.050 A -D, F -J, K & L
of the Town of Vail zoning code. These site
improvements, may be proposed outside of the building
envelopes as long as Design Review Board approval is
received and any impacts on topography and vegetation
are minimal and the end result is a building that is
well integrated into the site. Retaining walls are
discouraged, but if necessary, shall be integrated into
the site as much as possible. Garages will be allowed
to be located out of the building envelope if they meet
the slope standards for lots that have the main
building and garage in areas of the site that exceed
30o slope.
In respect to Lot 14, the building envelope shall be
tied to the site plan dated October 4, 1990, with
signatures dated February 7, 1991, prepared by Pierce,
Segerburg, Spaeh Architects. The envelope is tied to a
specific site plan because of the size of the house,
the staff's concern that all major improvements be
located within the building envelope, and that the
house not move closer to the south if the envelope is
expanded to include two south facing patios. Because
the preliminary design for Lot 14 is completed, staff
had the opportunity to analyze this particular envelope
in relation to the proposed residence.
Overall, the building envelopes have been located in a
manner that is sensitive to areas of slope over 40% and
existing tree lines. Staff has also tried to consider
building envelope configurations that allow for a
reasonable area to locate a house within. We believe
the applicant has responded to our concerns and we
support the building envelopes as proposed on the final
plat.
•
8
14. All construction for the subdivision shall comply with
the requirements found within the Environmental Impact
Report for the project.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees with this
condition.
15. The owner shall use the least polluting sanding
material for sanding the private road within the
subdivision per the approval of the Town of Vail
Environmental Health Department.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees with this
condition.
16. The open space tracts within the subdivision shall be
rezoned to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space at the same
time the final plat is reviewed. Additional greenbelt,
open space areas will be added adjacent to the Forest
Service switchback, the Lot 5/6 switchback, and the
secondary road per the staff amendments to the
September 7, 1990 preliminary plan.
Staff Summary: The applicant has submitted an
application to rezone the open space tracts within the
subdivision to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space zoning.
Once the plat is recorded, the staff will schedule the
rezoning application for the three greenbelt and
natural open space tracts. No building permits for
site work or individual residences will be released
until the rezoning has been approved. This
understanding will also be in the subdivision
improvement agreement. The reason for approaching the
rezoning in this manner is to insure that the legal
descriptions absolutely match the tract legal
descriptions on the final plat. Below is a summary of
the square footage allocated to each of the greenbelt
open space tracts.
Tract A - 337,222 sq. ft.
Tract B - 5,151 sq. ft.
Tract C - 47,279 sq. ft.
This solution is acceptable to staff.
17. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the road
through the subdivision from the entry gate up to the
top of the subdivision. This maintenance also includes
all tract areas, retaining walls, and landscaping. The
owner also agrees to be responsible for establishing
the landscaping along the public road extending from
the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision entry
gate for a period of two years once the landscape
materials have been established. Once the landscaping
is established and two years has transpired, and the
Town of Vail Landscape Architect has approved the
landscaping, the Town will take over the responsibility
of the retaining walls and landscaping maintenance.
Staff Summary: The applicant does not agree with this
condition relating to landscaping, and would propose to
transfer maintenance responsibilities to the Town 1 to
1 1/2 years after the landscaping is planted. Council
asked that instead of 112 to 3" years after landscaping
is established, a specific time period should be
referenced in the condition. Staff used 2 years.
Staff supports the original Council condition.
18. Pedestrian and public access shall be allowed on the
lower portion of Gillett Road extending from the
Frontage Road up to the subdivision gate.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to this
condition of approval and will dedicate an easement
along Spraddle Creek for public access as well as a
public access easement from the North Frontage Road up
Gillett Road to the Spraddle Creek entry gate. Staff
would ask that the public access easement along the
creek be expanded from 20 feet to 60 feet.
19. Three caretaker units each having a maximum square
footage of 1200 sq. ft. and a minimum square footage of
700 sq. ft. shall be provided within the subdivision.
The three caretaker units must be provided within three
of the first seven lots that are developed. The units
will be permanently restricted per section 18.13.080
(10) (A -D) of the Town of Vail Zoning code. At this
time, the gatehouse caretaker unit is not approved.
Staff Summary: The applicant agrees to provide the
three caretaker units however, they would prefer to not
have to guarantee that the three caretaker units will
be provided within three of the first seven lots that
are developed. Staff believes that it is important
that the three units occur within three of the first
seven lots that are developed and would make this part
of the condition of approval. A minimum square footage
of 700 sq. ft. is acceptable for the caretaker unit.
20. The architectural guidelines shall be amended as
follows:
a. Retaining walls shall be minimized as well as
extremely steep slopes.
10
0
•
b. Sod shall be allowed around the perimeter of
residences but large lawn areas are not
encouraged.
C. Driveways shall have a maximum grade of 8% unless
approved by the Town of Vail Engineer.
d. irrigation by retaining walls for the subdivision
shall be prohibited.
e. No chain link fencing is allowed within the
subdivision, even for dog runs. if dog runs are
proposed, another type of open fencing should be
used.
Staff Response: The applicant intends to amend the
architectural guidelines to reflect staff, PEC, and DRB
recommendations. Slopes shall not exceed 2:1 on
individual lots. In respect to D, the applicant has
submitted information allowing irrigation by the
retaining walls. The recommendations found in the
condition of approval have been included in the
architectural guidelines. Staff will require that the
guidelines be reviewed one more time by the DRB and PEC
before final Council approval. The guidelines must be
given final approval by the PEC before the final plat
is allowed to proceed to Council.
21. All construction within the subdivision shall comply
with the Town of Vail hazard ordinances found in
Section 18.69.
Staff summary: The applicant has indicated on the plat
the hazard areas within the subdivision. These hazard
areas have not contributed to any site area for the
purposes of calculating GRFA or site coverage. In
addition, a letter dated January 18, 1991 has been
submitted by Ed Church, hazard consultant, which states
that site specific hazard studies for individual lots
will not be necessary because of the building envelope
requirements for each lot. This solution is acceptable
to staff.
22. No on -site livery shall be allowed within the
subdivision.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to not allow
any on site liveries within the Spraddle Creek
subdivision.
0 11
23. Aspens, vines, and large shrubs shall be used on all
retaining walls.
Staff Summary: The applicant has agreed to meet this
condition.
24. All hazard areas shall be excluded from contributing
site area to Lots 14, 5, and 4 for GRFA or site
coverage.
Staff Summary: The applicant has met this condition of
approval. Please see the discussion on GRFA in the
following section of the memo.
III. ELEMENTS OF THE PROJECT THAT ARE NOT ADDRESSED IN THE
COUNCIL /PEC CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
A. Lot size:
All lots meet the buildable area requirements per the
Hillside Residential Zone District. The buildable
areas have been certified by Mr. Dan Corcoran of Eagle
Valley Engineering and Surveying in his letter dated
February 6, 1991.
B. GRFA:
Attached to the memo is a chart comparing lot size,
building area, GRFA, and site coverage. The GRFA for
each lot (except Lot 14) has been determined by using
the standard Hillside Residential Zoning. All hazard
areas and floodplain areas have been excluded from site
area which is used to calculate GRFA and site coverage.
The GRFA numbers on the chart are arrived at by using
the following formula:
18.09.080 Density Control
"Not more than a total of two dwelling units shall be
permitted on each site. Not more than twenty square
feet of gross residential floor area (GRFA) shall be
permitted for each one hundred square feet for the
first twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780)
square feet of site area, plus not more than five
square feet of gross residential floor area shall be
permitted for each one hundred square feet of site area
over twenty -one thousand seven hundred eighty (21,780)
square feet. On any site containing two dwelling
units, one of the units shall not exceed twelve hundred
(1,200) square feet of gross residential floor area
(GRFA). This unit shall not be subdivided or sold
9 12
separately from the main dwelling. This unit may be
integrated into the main dwelling or may be integrated
within a garage structure serving the main unit, but
shall not be a separate freestanding structure."
Please note that the new GRFA definition and method of
calculating GRFA found in Ordinance No. 37, Series of 1990
will be used for this subdivision. Per this new definition,
the following areas shall be excluded from calculation as
GRFA:
1. "Garage spaces of up to three hundred (300) square
feet per garage space not exceeding a maximum of
two spaces for each allowable dwelling unit
permitted by the zoning code.
2. Attic space with a ceiling height of five feet or
less, as measured from the top side of the
structural members of the floor to the underside
of the structural members of the roof directly
above. Attic area created by construction of a
roof with truss -type members will be excluded from
calculation as GRFA provided the trusses are
spaced no greater than thirty inches apart.
3. Crawl spaces accessible through an opening not
greater than twelve square feet in area, with five
feet or less of ceiling height, as measured from
the surface of the earth to the underside of
structural floor members of the floor /ceiling
assembly above.
4. Roofed or covered decks, porches, terraces, patios
or similar feature /space with no more than three
exterior walls and a minimum opening of not less
than 25% of the lineal perimeter of the area of
said deck, porch, terrace, patio, or similar
feature /space provided the opening is contiguous
and fully open from floor to ceiling, with an
allowance for a railing of up to three feet in
height."
GRFA shall be calculated by measuring the total square
footage of a building as set forth in Section 18.04.130
above. Excluded areas as set forth in paragraph A shall
then be deducted from total square footage.
As an example, Lot 1 has a GRFA listed of 7,333 sq. ft.
Assuming that the owner of Lot 1 builds the primary unit
plus the caretaker unit, the owner has the option of
13
building up to 1,200 sq. ft. of additional space for a four
car garage. The garage space is not included in the total
GRFA figure.
The only lot that is not allocated GRFA based on the
Hillside Residential Zone District is Lot 14. Because of
the large size of this lot, staff believes that a reduction
in the allowable GRFA per Hillside Residential Zoning was
appropriate. Under standard Hillside Residential Zoning,
the lot would be allowed to have 14,843 sq. ft. of GRFA.
(Please remember a 1,200 sq. ft., four -car garage could be
added if two units are built on the site.) At preliminary
plan, the applicant agreed to a GRFA restriction of 14,330
sq. ft. This GRFA amount was based on the old formula for
calculating GRFA. In addition to the 14,330 sq. ft., the
owner would have been allowed to have 550 sq. ft. of credits
excluding any type of garage credit. This would result in a
total floor area of 14,880 sq. ft.
Under the new ordinance, if the total lot size (286,022 sq.
ft.), is reduced by 70,496 sq. ft. for hazard areas on the
lot, the GRFA that is allowed is equivalent to 14, 843 sq.
ft. per Hillside Residential Zoning. In order to balance
the concerns of the staff about the size of the development
on this lot, we have arrived at an agreed upon GRFA of
14,330 sq. ft.
Lots 4 and 5 use total site area minus hazard areas to
arrive at their GRFA figure. Lot 1 GRFA does not exceed the
GRFA originally allowed when the project incorporated the
entire subdivision road on private land. The staff's intent
is to ensure that additional GRFA was not allowed for Lot 1
now that the road extends onto Forest Service land. The
total lot areas and GRFAs for the entire resubdivision are
actually below those figures proposed when the road was
entirely on Gillett property as indicated below. These
restrictions on GRFA is acceptable to the applicant and to
the staff. Please see Dannie Corcoran's letter dated
February 6, 1991 for GRFA statistics.
C. Road Grades
The road grades have not changed substantially since
preliminary plan. The road grade does not exceed 8.89%
as approved. The average road grade is 7.8 %. At
preliminary plan both the Council and Planning and
Environmental Commission mentioned their concern about
the grade of the gravel livery road to the east of the
subdivision. At this time, the grade for the road is
15.4% at its steepest point.
0 14
The turnaround has also been relocated to a location
directly in front of the subdivision gate. It is no
longer approximately 180 lineal feet east of the gate.
Staff believes this is an improvement over the previous
location. It does result in two additional retaining
walls below the turnaround area. The height of these
walls ranges from 1 to 8' -811. The length is 135 1.f.
for the upper wall and 66 l.f. for the lower wall. No
caretaker unit is proposed. A gatehouse will be
constructed at the entry.
Staff is still comfortable with the road grades. It is
unfortunate that the road grade for the livery cannot
be reduced substantially. Staff would recommend that
grading be completed to reduce road grade to the best
extent possible without significant disturbance to the
surrounding vegetation. It would appear that livery
operators would widen the road to their operation, so
the overall road grade may be able to be improved
slightly. Forest Service road grades have different
standards from Town roads and assuming the Forest
Service approves the road, staff can support the 15.4%
grade.
D. Landscape and Irrigation
At preliminary plan, it was felt that it would be a
problem to provide irrigation above the retaining walls
along the road. The applicant has submitted a letter
from Retention Engineers, John Tryba, dated January 30,
1991, stating that it is acceptable to allow irrigation
above the walls.
Specific plans for the subdivision entry by the gate
and entrance by the North Frontage Road have been
submitted. These plans will be reviewed by the Design
Review Board and, at this time, have the general
approval of the Town of Vail landscape architect.
The applicant has submitted a project landscape plan
which has incorporated the Planning Commission's
suggestion of providing "grove- type" planting
arrangements around the disturbed areas and open space
tracts. The following changes shall be made to the
landscape plan as a condition of final plat approval
before Council review:
* 211 caliper aspen shall be the minimum size allowed
instead of 1 1/2" caliper.
* The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan.
9 15
* The irrigation point of connection shall be
changed to a water tap instead of the fire hydrant
connection.
* A letter from RBD engineers describing how grading
and landscaping will occur if walls K, I, Cl, C2,
01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed after a site
inspection is made by the owners' consultant team,
Town engineer, landscape architect, and community
development director.
* Additional aspens and shrubs may be required by
the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1 and N-
1. This issue shall be resolved after an on -site
inspection is made by the Town of Vail landscape
architect. Additional landscaping may include up
to 30 aspens and 20 shrubs.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show the
driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot 8.
Additional planting may be required by the Town of
Vail landscape architect in this area.
E. Frontage Road Design
The applicant has received Colorado Department of
Highways' approval for the frontage road lane design.
All retaining walls have been removed along the North
Frontage Road and entry into the subdivision. Forest
Service approval will be necessary, as grading may
occur on their property at the frontage road entrance.
F. Drainage
A large sedimentation basin on Lot 4 has been removed
from the proposal. This is acceptable to the Town of
Vail Engineer. Numerous erosion control methods will
be utilized during the construction period for the
subdivision. An erosion control plan has been
submitted and conceptually approved by the Town of Vail
landscape architect and engineer.
G. Livery Design and Trail Access
Adjacent to the relocated livery, the applicant
proposes to provide 17 parking spaces. Twelve spaces
will be provided for users of the livery. Five spaces
will be available to hikers.
H. construction Phasing
The applicant would like to submit a construction
phasing plan at a later date to the Community
Development and Public Works departments for approval.
The applicant is attempting to relocate the livery to
1* 16
the new east livery site on Forest Service property
before Memorial Day. In order to accomplish this,
their phasing plan is being revised. Construction
staging areas at this time are proposed to be located
at the old livery site and at the top of the
subdivision at the two cul de sacs. Possible spring
debris flow mitigation on the lower portion of Gillett
Road shall be addressed in the phasing plan.
I. Forest Service Considerations
The applicant will be required to receive approval from
the United States Forest Service to locate the east
switchback on Forest Service property. This will be a
condition of final plat approval. The plat will not be
recorded until final approval is received from the
Forest Service for the switchback. The applicant will
also be required to dedicate and realign easements per
the Forest Service requirements for their approval.
J. Driveway Locations for Individual Lots
The applicant has submitted a plan showing the general
location for access to each of the lots. Each owner
will be required to submit a design for a house that
minimizes retaining walls and disturbance to the site.
It was felt that it was appropriate to indicate the
general location for access, but that specific driveway
cuts and grades would not be defined at final plat.
The Town Engineer has reviewed the general driveway
locations, and believes that they can provide safe
access to the sites. One comment is that the portion
of Lot 3 that extends in front of Lot 2 on the plat may
need to be revised in order to provide better access to
Lot 2.
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends approval of the major subdivision final
plat for Spraddle Creek Subdivision. All of the conditions
of approval which were stipulated in the preliminary plan
approval have been agreed to by the applicant, except for
the condition relating to the timing of the provision for
the 3 caretaker units and maintenance condition. Staff
approval is contingent upon these two conditions being met
per our recommendations. It is felt that the project meets
the review criteria for a major subdivision which is listed
below in Section 17.16.110 of the Town of Vail Subdivision
Regulations:
17
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to
. show that the application is in compliance with the
intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning
ordinance, and other pertinent regulations that the PEC
deems applicable. Due consideration shall be given to
the recommendations made by public agencies, utility
companies, and other agencies consulted under Section
17.16.090. The PEC shall review the application and
consider its appropriateness in regard to town policies
relating to subdivision control, densities proposed,
regulations, ordinances and resolutions and other
applicable documents, environmental integrity, and
compatibility with the surrounding land uses and other
applicable documents, effects on the aesthetics of the
town, environmental integrity, and compatibility with
the surrounding land uses.$'
•
Staff believes that the applicant has made a very strong
effort to address all of the public boards' concerns as well
as staff concerns. The result is a project which meets the
above criteria, and will result in a new subdivision for the
Town of Vail that is sensitive to the community's goals for
development, aesthetics, natural environment, and
surrounding land uses, given the steep topography of the
site. We recommend final approval of the plat with the
following conditions. Staff has listed the points, during
the review process, at which conditions must be finalized.
A. Before the Pro'ect is Reviewed by the Town Council for
Dedication
1. The architectural, construction and landscape
guidelines shall be reviewed by the Design Review
Board and finalized by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. The guidelines must be
given final approval by the Planning and
Environmental Commission before the final plat is
allowed to proceed to Council. A color board
shall also be submitted with the final
architectural guidelines
2. The following changes shall be made by the
applicant to the landscape plan as a condition of
final plat approval before the project is reviewed
by the Town Council:
2 inch caliper aspen shall be the minimum
size allowed instead of 1 1/2 inch aspen
* The existing and proposed tree line shall be
indicated on the landscape plan
• is
* The irrigation point of connection shall be
. changed to a water tap instead of the fire
hydrant connection.
* A letter from RBD Engineers describing how
grading and landscaping will occur if walls
I, K, Cl, C2, 01, M1, Y1 and Z1 are removed.
* Additional aspens and shrubs may be required
by the landscape architect for walls E -1, G -1
and N -1. This issue shall be resolved after
an on site inspection is made by the Town of
Vail landscape architect. Up to 30 aspens
and 20 shrubs may be required by the
landscape architect.
* The irrigation guidelines shall be reviewed
and approved by the Town of Vail landscape
architect.
* The landscape plan shall be revised to show
the driveway and wall break adjacent to Lot
S. Additional planting may be required by
the Town of Vail landscape architect in this
area.
* The Al wall shall be indicated on the
landscape plan.
3. The Town Attorney shall review and approve the
wording on the subdivision plat concerning 30%
slope, building envelopes and certificates.
• 4. A construction phasing plan shall be submitted to
the Community Development and Public Works
departments for final approval before the project
proceeds to Council. The debris flow mitigation
during construction shall be addressed in the
phasing plan.
5. The conditions for lots having slopes over 30%
shall be indicated on the subdivision plat. This
section of the code is 18.69.050 A -D, F--I, K and
L. This wording shall also be included in the
covenants for the subdivision.
6. The conditions of the building envelope shall be
added to the plat, and also incorporated in the
subdivision covenants.
7. The owner of the subdivision shall maintain the
road through the subdivision from the entry gate
up to the top of the subdivision. This
maintenance also includes all tract areas,
retaining walls, and landscaping. The owner also
agrees to be responsible for establishing the
landscaping along the public road extending from
1 19
the North Frontage Road up to the subdivision
• entry gate for two years once the landscape
materials have been established. once the
landscaping is established and two years has
transpired, and the Town of Vail Landscape
Architect has approved the landscaping, the Town
will take over the responsibility of the retaining
walls and landscaping maintenance.
8. The applicant shall submit worksheets showing
grading and proposed landscaping to mitigate
grading for portions of the Y walls, K walls, C
walls, 01, M1, Y1, Z1, and walls below the
gatehouse to the Town engineer, landscape
architect, and Community Development Director.
These walls shall also be listed on the final
street construction plans as having potential for
removal.
9. The Town engineer's comments to Kristan Pritz,
dated January 24, 1991, shall be met or resolved.
10. Based on the second set of plans dated January 31,
1991, the following issues in the memo dated
February 11, 1991 shall be met or resolved.
11. Town engineer's approval is required for the final
• street construction plans, construction
specifications and final Drainage Report.
B. Council Review
1. Easements will be dedicated to the Town at this
time.
C. Before the Final Plat is Recorded the Following
Conditions Shall Be Met
1. The applicant shall submit to the Community
Development Department for approval the final
agreement relocating the existing livery to the
Forest Service land east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision. This agreement shall also include
revegetation of the existing livery site.
2. Before the final plat is recorded, the appropriate
easements allowing for public access shall be
recorded per the Forest Service requirements.
Forest Service approval for the switchback on
their property to the east of Spraddle Creek
Subdivision shall also be received before final
plat recording.
i20
3. The subdivision improvement agreement and
covenants shall be submitted to the Community
Development Department and approved before the
final plat is recorded.
4. The applicant shall agree to provide the three
caretaker units within three of the first seven
lots that are developed within the subdivision.
This agreement shall be incorporated into the
covenants and /or subdivision improvement
agreement.
5. The applicant shall incorporate into the covenants
the condition that no on --site livery shall be
allowed within the subdivision
D. After final plat recording and before any building
permits are released for site improvements or
individual residences:
1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the
subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town
Council. The requested zone designations shall be
greenbelt open space. This condition shall also
be listed in the subdivision agreement before the
final plat is recorded.
2. All final plat conditions of approval shall be met
by the applicant.
E. During construction of the project:
1. The Community Development Director, Town Engineer
and Town landscape architect shall periodically do
on -site inspections of the construction. On any
walls that are greater than 400 feet in length,
planting notches shall be required unless it is
determined that it is impossible to locate the
notches in a sensitive manner in the walls.
C: \pec \spraddle \final.211
0 21
r
909
• February 6, 1991
Mr. Joe Macy
Vail Associates, Inc.
Bo>z 7
Vail., CO 81658
Re: Spraddle Creek Subdivision lot areas and GRFA
Dear Joe,
Per your request I have prepared the following two tables for the
above project. Table #1 is a summary of the square footages in lot
areas, hazard areas, GRFA, site coverage, building envelope areas
and contiguous buildable square footage for the lot configuration
shown on the final plat.
TABLE #1
Site
Building
Contiguous
Lot
Area
Hazard
GRFA
Coverage
Envelope
Buildable
1
87499
7333
6483
15295
24848
2
48146
6524
5674
12509
39600
. 3
88619
8548
7698
14824
63648
4
85250
27264
7016
6166
15202
45184
5
61082
6880
6827
5977
18178
29760
6
82050
8220
7370
22398
26480
7
43833
6309
5459
12935
29552
8
31873
5711
4861
12570
25776
9
63044
7269
6419
12137
39216
1.0
32296
5732
4882
12263
32080
11
71419
7688
6838
11247
34880
12
96213
8928
8078
13150
48448
14
286022
70496
14330
10000
22948
47920
15
25596
5397
4547
7279
23120
A 337222
B 5151
C 47279
D 152918
E 6231.
F 68762
G 2394
x+1199 Highway 6 & 24, Eagle -Vail
Post Office Box 1230
Edwards, CO 81632
303 - 949 -1406
r
. February 6, 1991
Spraddle Creek
Page 2
Table #2 is a comparison of the residential lot areas and GRFA
square footages for the Spraddle Creek Subdivision without the
roadway extended to the east onto Forest Property and with the
roadway extended onto Forest Service property. I have used the
following assumptions in this comparison.
1) Lot areas of last configuration of plat without roadway extended
TABLE #2
to the east on Forest Service property. (May 25, 1990)
2)
Lot areas per final plat with roadway extended to the east on
6, 1991
Forest Service property. (February 6, 1991)
3)
I have calculated the GRFA square footages for both lists using
Road on
the current Town of Vail GRFA calculations for the Hillside
Lot
Residential zone district. (Including the 425 square foot credit
GRFA
for each of the allowable units on each lot - 850 square feet
GRFA
total)
4)
The portions of Lots 4,5, and 14 designated as hazard areas have
87499
been subtracted from the total lot area prior to the GRFA
2
calculations.
5)
The GRFA shown for Lot 14 in both lists is the 14330 square feet
.
agreed to per preliminary plat submittal. (Calculations per
85038
current regulations would allow an additional 563 square feet)
6)
The GRFA shown for Lot 1 in both Lists is the 7333 square feet
4
calculated per the lot size prior to the revision to the
7494
roadway. (Calculations per current lot size and regulations
7016
would allow an additional 1159 square feet)
TABLE #2
Mav 25,
1990
February
6, 1991
Road not
on USFS
Road on
USFS
Lot
Lot Area
GRFA
Lot Area
GRFA
1
64310
7333
87499
'7333
2
59610
7098
48146
6524
3
85038
8369
88619
8548
4
94804
7494
85250
7016
5
66082
7077
61082
6827
6
51019
6668
82050
8220
7
48961
6565
43833
6309
8
58141
7024
31873
5711
9
75170
7876
63044
7269
10
29150
5575
32296
5732
11
71402
7687
71419
7688
12
9621.3
8928
96213
8928
14
285337
14330
286022
34330
. 15
24510
5343
25596
5397
1109747
107367
1102942
105832
Y
• February 6, 1991
Spraddle creek
Page 3
From the numbers in Table #2 above you can see there was not any
increase in the total lot area or GRFA with the road shifted east
onto Forest Service property. The total lot area was reduced 6806
square feet and the GRFA was reduced by 1535 square feet. The
purpose of shifting the road to the east was to improve overall
road grades and actually results in higher overall construction
costs for the project without any monetary gain from additional
density or developable GRFA.
Please call if you have questions on any of the figures.
Sincerely,
co
Eagle'i�7j.Qy �,eving, Tnc.
.
c 2=
z
• r •`
Dan-? �d�Nran �.�o�
Pre
s' t.sv Q
°4 ' of col- ��P`���
"111, {LiGllll }t`
•
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request for a review and recommendation to Town
Council regarding adoption of the Stephens Park Master
Plan; site is located at the southeast corner of South
Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick Road.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Stephens Park is made up of three distinct parts. One is on
the north side of Gore Creek, the second is on the south
side of the creek closer to the Intermountain neighborhood,
and the third is on the west side of Kinnickinick Road. The
Town plans to develop Stephens Park in two phases.
Generally, the north side of the park will be done in Phase
I and the south side will be done in Phase II. Items that
will be built in Phase I include the multi - purpose field
(including the irrigation and the grass), the parking lot,
all of the grading in the park, the pedestrian bridge, the
. paved walkway around the parking lot and picnic shelter, and
all the underground utilities to serve the restrooms and
irrigation systems. Phase II will include all of the
plantings in the park, the gravel trails and the play
structure. The area of the park west of Kinnickinick Road
is not planned to be developed at this time. This area may
be used for a future fire station. The budget of the park
is approximately $300,000, half of which will be spent in
Phase I, and the other half in Phase II. A copy of the plan
is attached to this memo. The parts of the design that are
hand drawn represent the items that have been suggested at
DRB, PEC and Town Council work sessions.
II. BACKGROUND
The Town of Vail has hired EDAW of Ft. Collins to design the
Master Plan and produce construction documents. On January
9, 1991 Town staff and the consultant met with neighborhood
residents to find out what they wanted to have included in
the park design. After the plan was drawn up, the staff and
the consultant took it back to the neighborhood and
presented it to them. Though the second meeting had a
smaller attendance, those present said they liked the
design.
10 1
The Design Review Board (DRB) approved the Master Plan on
. January 30, 1991. The two conditions of approval the DRB
put on the project include: that more trails be added to the
plan to create a looped system and that all lighting be
shielded so that the light sources will not be visible from
the interstate or adjacent residences. These conditions
have been included in the plan at this time.
III. PEC CONCERNS
A. During the work session on this item on January 28,
1991, the PEC requested that staff look into several
issues. The first area of concern dealt with the trail
system. Since the work session, Town staff has added a
fork in the trail near the Kinnickinick Road /Frontage
Road intersection. This will enable pedestrians to
either walk directly to the intersection or walk on a
path in the park for as long as possible until they
reach the automobile bridge over Gore Creek. The
length of the looped trail around the multi- purpose
field has been established at .20 of a mile. The
suggestion for a par course, with stations along the
trail for various exercises, was considered by staff
but is not included in the plan. Staff believes that
the cost of this system would be better spent on other
park facilities which the neighborhood specifically
requested during the first meeting. Staff believes
that the neighborhood would rather see volleyball
courts, a basketball court or a horseshoe pit included
in the budget before money is allocated for a par
course.
B. Another concern dealt with the bike path. During the
discussion with PEC, staff and the commission agreed
that the constraints outside of the park regarding the
construction of a bike path from Donovan Park through
Dowd Junction should determine the alignment through
the park. Once problems associated with properties on
either side of Stephen's Park are resolved, the bike
path can be taken through the park along any of three
different alignments. For example, if the Town can
work with Streamside and other individual property
owners and build a path along the creek, the path can
then be continued through Stephens Park along the
creek. However, if negotiations with those parties are
not successful, the Town may build the path along the
Frontage Road. In that case, the path would continue
along the Frontage Road by Stephen's Park. A third
option would be to bench the path into the hillside
along the Frontage Road. This path would be detached
from the road itself but would not meander through the
park. Notes have been added to the Master Plan
outlining these three options so that in the future,
any of them can be used.
C. At this time staff is continuing to work with Holy
Cross Electric regarding undergrounding the existing
overhead electric utility lines. If Holy Cross is
willing to do the undergrounding, the staff will need
to go back to Town Council for an additional fifteen
thousand dollars ($15,000.00) for the budget.
Undergrounding will require a specialized transformer
to take electricity from the underground lines and for
the restroom and lighting system in the park.
D. The last issue the PEC discussed involved parking. The
plan which the PEC has already seen showed a parking
lot of 15 spaces. Since the work session, staff has
looked into several options to provide more spaces.
The one area which works the best, costs the least, and
impacts the park design the least is to expand the
width of the driveway from the Frontage Road to the
parking lot and provide three parallel spaces. By
adding three more spaces, the total comes to 18.
other areas staff looked into were east of the lot,
west of Kinnickinick, and on the Frontage Road.
Expanding the lot to the east would have reduced the
size of the multi- purpose field and eliminated an
existing 14' spruce from a focal planting area.
Without this tree, the visual focus for people arriving
at the park would be the restrooms. The alternative of
expanding the shoulder on the Frontage Road for
parallel parking there was not acceptable to the
Highway Department. A third area where parking could
be provided is the unused area west of Kinnickinick.
However, because this area may be used for other
purposes in the future, installing a lot only to have
it removed later is not a good use of the park budget.
Staff has discussed the parking issue with a
representative from the Vail Recreation District (VRD)
and has an understanding that the field, if included in
the contract between the Town and the VRD, would only
be used for practice. This means that at most there
would be fifteen to twenty players at a time
practicing. Large parking demands occur when there are
two teams with twice that number of players. By
controlling the scheduling of the field staff believes
the parking demands can be kept low.
Staff researched parking requirements for neighborhood
parks and found that national standards recommend
providing 5 spaces for the first two acres and 1
0 3
additional space for each additional acre. As the park
40 standards, just under 13 acres, the demand, based on these
standards, would be 16 spaces. This standard assumes
13 acres of useable park area. As some of Stephens
Park is very steep and not useable, a 16 car lot would
exceed the typical demand. Staff believes that
expanding the lot to 18 spaces will meet the demand
most of the time.
Staff acknowledges that there may be a need for more
than eighteen spaces at certain times; however, the
need for parking and the provision of park area must be
balanced, and staff believes that it is generally
better to provide more park space instead of more
parking.
IV. NATURAL HAZARDS
The most important concern to the Planning and Environmental
Commission was the potential impact of hazards on the park.
In a site specific hazard study by Arthur Mears, revised
hazard areas show that the play structure is planned to be
built in an area that has been designated as moderate debris
flow. No other improved part of the park is located in a
hazard area.
. Staff talked to Art Mears since the PEC work session to
understand the characteristics of moderate debris flow
hazard better. This area will be impacted by debris flow
only when the high hazard corridor is full. Most of the
time the debris will travel down the high hazard corridor
into Gore Creek. In the event that overflows will come into
the moderate area, it will be made up of small rocks and
water. Mears described this substance as "soupy," with
relatively fine elements. At worst case, it may get as deep
as one foot. The debris flow will travel at approximately
walking speed. Mears' letter of February 8, 1991 states the
debris flow hazard will be eliminated from the playground
area by building a three foot high berm around it. This
mitigation shall be incorporated into the park design.
Regarding the other hazards on the site (rock fall, sever
debris flow, and avalanche), Mears' report states that
because there are no park facilities which concentrate human
activity in the high hazard debris flow, mitigation is not
recommended (see Section 3.1). The report continues to say
that the proposed park facilities do not justify structural
rock fall mitigation to protect facilities or activities
located beyond the revised rock fall hazard boundary. There
are no facilities within the rock fall hazard (see Section
2.6). Concerning avalanche, Mears states that warning
0 4
•
signs, posted on either end of the snow slide area, will be
sufficient mitigation measures (see letter dated February 8,
1991) .
V. COORDINATION WITH OTHER TOWN OF VAIL MASTER PLANS
This area is designated for park use in the Land Use Plan.
The Recreation Trails Master Plan shows an on- street bicycle
trail by Stephens Park. The Stephens Park Master Plan, as
mentioned earlier, can accommodate any of three different
alignments. The on- street alignment, which is recommended
by the Trails Master Plan, is one of these. Staff believes
that the proposed master plan is in conformance with the
Land Use Plan as well as the Recreation Trails Plan.
VI. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend approval of the Stephens Park Master
Plan to Town Council. Staff believes that the design meets
the neighborhood's expectations and that the design has
taken into account a wide range of needs including the VRD.
The project is also compatible with Town master plans,
specifically the Recreation Trails Master Plan and Land Use
Plan.
C: \pec \tov \stephens.211
0 5
4 l
Itil
Illy �.
•r
P
uk;Yy� �I�tiS� °M1f
all
}�F •�^;.oa p ^and• � ^n
P
n�
RUJ rk �4Q- N
�Npp �p'.eiq� Ss �s�w3i, y�.�
�`f0 SO a
S �
roe
111` , � � � • -
•��\ ti�� \` 4-- '��111 15 Y. ^`� \ S'� / � I A �. �fi �ilt \\ \\�� �
�;� � \ti`s \ \;�\\ • \\� g �� \ �, :"�... �\
co
v�v
A
I
R �
x
� nl•
O
� A
O
co
v�v
A
I
J
La •h 44 &t' L
Nil 114 Or 51CIJO7 14
L I Vi
x
io/
ol
I. A LJQ) 2 4
IDAL
0
Ila
XX
,d N 5C
106" HAZARb
orr'641S FL40
vp
v
moo It PiT jf,�
ouslivs
77
L
SEC. & COPYING SERVICE TEL No.303 -641 -2853 Feb. 8,91 15:27 P.01
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hanish Comulmro
222; PmCoiVeAve.
G=dsm, C31om& 81230
$05 -641-3236
February 8, 1991
Mr. Andrew Knudtsen
Town planner
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Read
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Debris -flow and snow- avalanche hazard, Stevents park.
Dear Mr. Knudtsen:
In response to our conversation yesterday, T offer the following
comments about the above - referenced hazards:
Debris -.. w -- As you and Todd Oppenheimer specified in our
meeting, hazard must be completely eliminated at the proposed play <
area. Elimination of the hazard can be accomplished by building a
berm 3 feet high around the eastern and southern boundaries of the
play area. The centerline of the berm is shown on the attached map
by a dashed lino. A walk can be located on tap of the berm, if
desired. This would divert the fluid -like, muddy flow (expected
only once per century, approximately) , around the play area into
adjacent "natural" and "turf" areas.
.now avalanche -- The snow- avalanche area, identified and discussed
in my January, 1991 report, cannot be classified as a "Red" or
"Blue" hazard because such classifications have meaning only when
applied to buildings or ether fixed facilities that concentrate
winter use. The avalanche slops in question is a "backcount.ry"
avalanche slope which will be uncontrolled by ski- pat.ral personnel.
Avalanche frequency will increase as a result of persons climbing
or skiing Canto the steep face and triggering an avalanche which
aotild easily bury a person on the path at the base of the slope.
Such activities will probably increase as a result of park
development because the slope will be mare easily accessed after
the bridge is built and a trail will be located below it. I
recommend placing avalanche warning signs at the base of the slope
on bath east and west sides. 'these signs should identify the slope
as being avalanche - prone, indicate that it is not stabilized by
ski --area personnel, and advise persons to stay off the slope. I
believe warning signs will be sufficient mitigation measures.
Please contact me if you have additional. questions.
al"Cizrry'L,�, XAWow.-E.
Mass Waiting • Audlaaches a Asa4mrhtCan[rofF.ggL�tertrtg
•
�J
ROCKFALL, DEBRIS FLOW, AND SNOW AVALANCHE HAZARD ANALYSIS
STEVEN'S PARR, VAIL, COLORADO
Prepared For
xr. Todd Oppenheimer, Town of Vail
Prepared By
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
January, 1991
f
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Haw& Comultants
222 Fak Gothic Ave.
Gmdxm, Colorado 81230
303 - 641.3236
January 18, 1991
Mr. Todd Oppenheimer
Park Superintendent
Town of Vail
Vail, CO 81657
RE: Hazard analysis, Steven's Park
Dear Todd:
The enclosed site - specific analysis of rockfall, debris -flow, and
snow avalanche at the proposed Steven's Park has been completed as
we discussed earlier this month. As a result of this revised,
site -- specific analysis, hazard boundaries have been revised and
Jrockfall severity has been quantified through application of
current methods, and potential snow avalanche hazard has been
discussed.
The enclosed report consists of two parts:
a. Text, discussion, methodology, and recommendations;
and
b. The rockfall, debris - flow, and snow - avalanche map.
Please contact me if you have any questions or desire additional
consultation.
S �.aeam
�
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
Encl.
Maas Wasting • Aw4mchn • Avalanche ContmlEnenteft
•
Ll
I OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
This analysis of rockfall, debris -flow, and snow - avalanche hazard
at the proposed Steven's Park in west Vail was requested by Mr.
Todd Oppenheimer, Vail Park Superintendent. Specifically, the
( report objectives are:
! a. Quantitative analysis of rockfall velocities, bounce
heights, travel distances, and hazard potential;
u
b. Mapping and description of debris -f low hazard areas;
C. Mapping and description of snow - avalanche hazard
areas; and
d. Discussion and recommendation of mitigation
procedures, if necessary.
The analysis presented in this report is based on reasonably
foreseeable natural conditions expected to occur at return periods
of 50 -to -100 years (1 -to -2 percent annual probabilities) . Even
larger (and less probable) rockfalls, debris flows, or snow
avalanches are possible, however, because they are very rare they
are not usually considered;/\ land -- planning applications. These
extremely rare events, however, may affect areas beyond those shown
on Map 1.
2 ROCRFALL
2.1 ROCKFALL SOURCE AREAS
The rockfall source areas are located on a steep, west - facing slope
extending approximately 250 feet vertically above Gore Creek (Map
1) . The slope consists of unconsolidated soil, occasional boulders
and small bedrock outcroppings and will serve as an area of
rockfall initiation and acceleration during unstable slope
conditions. The slope was subdivided into several cells as shown
in Figure 1, a profile of the rockfall slope. Each cell on the
slope was chosen to represent zones of similar inclination,
hardness, and roughness. Detailed field measurements of cell
parameters were not obtained during the site inspection of January
7 and 81 1991 because of the continuous snowcover on the site,
however the vegetation cover was observed, and the parameter values
used in analysis are similar to those found to be appropriate at
other Vail sites of similar elevation and exposure. Slopes were
both measured in the field and computed from Map 1.
2.2 ROCKFALL QUANTIFICATION CRSP APPLICATIO
Rockfall behavior was quantified by application of the Colorado
Rockfall Simulation Program (CRSP), a stochastic computer model
that outputs a range of velocities, bounce heights, and stopping
positions by randomly adjusting slope roughness at each impact
point on the rockfall path, similar to conditions which would occur
in a real rockfall event. A typical model output for 10 rockfall
events is shown in Figure 2, however 100 rockfalls of both 3 -foot
and 4 -foot rocks were used in analysis. Stopping positions for 100
simulated 3 -foot diameter rocks are shown in Figure 1; 4 -foot
diameter rocks are also shown for comparison. A 3 -foot diameter
rock, however, is considered to be the design case, based on rocks
found in the area during the field inspection. The complete
analysis of 3 -foot diameter, spherical rocks is given in Figures 3
through 6.
2.3 CONCLUSIONS ABOUT ROUFALL HAZARD
The probable distances of rockfall "runout" is best described in
;terms of "exceedance probability." The analysis indicates that
only 10% of the design 3 -foot rockfall events are expected to pass
the analysis point, which is located on the west bank of Gore Creek
at X =380 feet. This means there exists a 10% chance that the
design rockfall event (a 3 -foot rock) will roll past the_ analysis
point. However, if a 4 -foot diameter rock is used in analysis,
there exists a 39% chance that rocks will pass the analysis point
(X =380 feet), and there exists a 10% chance the 4 -foot rock will
roll past 420 feet.
Field experience and observations in this area suggest that the a-
foot rock should be considered to be the design case and the 10$
exceedance probability (located at X = 384 feet) is a reasonable
boundary for the rockfall hazard line. This rockfall boundary is. R.
shown on Map 1. Most of the 3 -foot rocks will stop in Gore Creek
and even the extreme rockfall events will stop in what is proposed
to be a "Natural Area" on the Vail Master Plan for the park. V
The rockfall hazard boundaries can easily be adjusted through
application of the data derived in this study. For example, the
E accepted exceedance probability could be made more conservative
(say 5% or even 1$) for 3 -foot rocks, or a 4 -foot rock could be
used for the design size. These adjustments could be made by the
Town of Vail, if an even greater level of protection than that
recommended in this study is desired.
Mitigation for a 3 -foot diameter rock can be designed based on the
analysis point data contained in Figure 4, if an exceedance
probability of 10% is thought to present too great a hazard or if
the area immediately west of the analysis point (rockfall hazard
boundary) will be used for activities that concentrate human
activity. According to Figure 4, a maximum bounce height of 2 feet
is expected at the analysis point, therefore 3 -foot rocks can be
completely stopped by building a berm, or gabion -wall barrier 3.5-
feet high (bounce height + rock radius) at the analysis point.
U
2.6 RECOMMENDATIONS _ABOUT ROCKFALL —HAZAU
The activities planned in the proposed park facilities do not
justify structural rockfall mitigation to protect facilities or
activities located beyond the rockfall hazard boundary shown on Map
1. Therefore, the 3 -foot diameter rock and the 10% exceedance
probability should constitute the design case, as previously
discussed. However, development Sast of the rockfall hazard line
should be avoided unless structural mitigation is used to reduce
rockfall hazard. Such mitigation can be designed in accordance
with future discussions with Town of Vail officials about land -use
practices and ri Aerance in the park facility. As discussed
above, a more onserva approach is possible and can be applied
if desired by Town of Vail officials.
3 DEBRIS FLOW HAZARD
"High" and "Moderate" debris -flow boundaries are also shown on Map
1. These boundaries are somewhat different than those shown on ;.;rr
debris -flow maps prepared for the Town of Vail in 1984. The
differences result from analysis of the detailed topography (as.
shown on Map 1) which was unavailable at the time of the 1984'00,v,';
study.
3.1 HIGH HAZARD DEBRIS -FLOW AREA
The "high hazard" debris -flow area will be concentrated within and
immediately below the 10 -foot deep channel that enters the
. southeast corner of the property (Map 1) . This channel will
concentrate the high - energy and coarse - grained component of the
debris flow. In general, areas exposed to high - hazard debris flow
can experience severe structural damage and possible loss of life
through impact and deposition of mud, rock, and debris. Although
such high - energy events are rare, having never occurred here since
Vail was founded in 1962 and probably not during this century,,
buildings and valuable fixed facilities should be avoided in this,
area. Present Vail plans include only an 8 -foot gravel path and ane
"informal picnic area" in the high - hazard area. Because these are`
not activities that concentrate human activity, mitigation is not'a
recommended.
2.2 MODERATE HAZARD DEBRIS-FLOW AREA
` The "moderate- hazard" debris -flow area extends laterally beyond the
high- hazard limits and will spread over much of the alluvial fan.
The areas mapped as moderate- hazard debris flow on Map 1 may be
reached when the main debris -flow channel discussed above is
blocked and water, mud and fine - grained material is spilled
laterally onto the fan surface. Moderate - hazard debris -flow areas
can experience property damage through flooding, erosion and impact
of muddy water, soil, rock, and debris. These relatively low -
energy events will not be life- threatening, therefore, buildings
and other fixed facilities can be located within moderate - hazard
debris flow areas. Structural mitigation or site - specific design
is required by the Town of Vail if debris impact can cause
expensive damage or endanger persons. Present Vail plans call for
a "Play Area" within the moderate - hazard debris -flow area. Such
areas are subject to intermittent, rather than continuous use (such
as a building), therefore the probability of a flow reaching a
person is very small.
3.3 ,GORE CREBK FLOODING DUE TO pEBgIS.FLOWS
Debris flows can cause blocking of Gore Creek and overland sheet
flooding on the flat floodplain area located on the north side of
Gore Creek. Details of water flooding and related damage caused by
such blockage are beyond the scope of this study but should be
considered in hydraulic flood plain calculations and flood plain
boundary delineations.
3.4 DEBRIS -FLOW MITIGATION,
Mitigation is required if the very small probability that a flow
with a return period of about 100 years will reach a person who may
be in the area is unacceptable to the Town of Vail. Debris flows
cannot be prevented or stopped in the channel, therefore two forms
of mitigation are possible:
a. Avoidance of the area for planned activities such as
play areas, paths, picnic areas, or other facilities; or
9) Construction of a 3 -foot high berm or structural wall
around the play area (open on downhill side).
In general, parks and recreational activities are appropriate land
uses for f loodplain, debris flows and other similar hazard area
because they do not concentrate activity similar to residential or
commercial use. A final decision about whether mitigation
alternative "a" or "b" is used depends on the level of risk
accepted by the Town of Vail.
4 SNOW AVALANCHES
4 SCRIPTI ES
is
Small snow avalanches can release from the sparsely - vegetated
rockfall slope discussed in Section 2 (Figure 1; Map 1). However,
snow avalanches will be small and will not attain high velocities
or large mass. The largest avalanches can release as dry or wet
slabs from approximately 200 feet vertically above Gore Creek.
Part of the avalanche mass will stop on the proposed gravel path
above Gore Creek, and the remainder will stop in Gore Creek, (Maps
1). Avalanches will not extend across Gore Creek, even during ;.
design - avalanche conditions.:';-
Although avalanches will be small, they may present a hazard to
persons using this area for recreational purposes. Avalanches
could trap, bury, or kill persons who happen to be on the path as
snow and debris quickly accumulate to a depth of several feet at
this location. Furthermore, avalanches could push a person into
r Gore Creek. The probability of a person being on the bench just
when an avalanche releases is small, however a skier - triggered
avalanche on the slope presents a greater level of potential
hazard. Many slopes, such as the steep slope southeast of Gore
Creek are tempting recreational sites, especially for telemark
skiers who wish to test their skills on an uncontrolled slope
beyond the ski -area boundary. This temptation may be especially
great immediately after a fresh, deep snow fall, the precise time
when snowpack instability is greatest and skier - triggered or
natural (spontaneous) avalanches are most likely.
The hazard from snow avalanches will increase if this area is
developed and maintained by the Town of Vail during the avalanche
season, a period which may extend from November into May during
some years. This conclusion is simply based on the fact that an
increased number of persons will be drawn into the area as a result
of the park development.
.2 SNOW-AVALAXCHE MITIGATION
Potential avalanche hazard can be reducea if the Town of Vail
places avalanche- warning signs on the bench below the slope.
Warning signs should be informative, describing that the slope is
steep enough for avalanche activity, given proper snowpack
conditions and that slides are often triggered by the victims.
Activities on and below the slope must be avoided during avalanche:
warnings and advisories.'
Report submitted by,
CA'Q�" . V'I'I e0,0
Arthur 1. ears, P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
a�
U
D
N
r-i
cd
U
D
H
'd
(D
d
4-i
0
m
�
rd
ai
U
H
,� Ln
p
tad
tad
$4
N .Q
C
U
U
m
4ulod STSXTVUV `�
h
cr
p.,
U
N N
ca
x _
o
o
�I}
N Lo
r.
0
rd
N
5
t!/
v
Ri
0
�4
D
4m4
O
to
N
4-1
O
cr%
C-1
xx
�
H N
o
W
U
1
k
0
^ •
- -
0
A
N/
v1 Ea
O O
N
r{
+
0
N (a
-H
W A
p
�a
n
ri
U
O
0
r-i
4.1
4a
0
0
0
0
0
c
01%
N
FILE NAME= \rockeite \vailrock,i
. MAXIMUM AVERAGE
CELL # VELOCITY VELOCITY
-� (FT/SEW (FT/GEC)
1 . 73 46
2 63 38
3 84 53
4 77 41
_ 5 SB 27
6 62 31
7 51 16
§ 22 10
9 NO ROCKS PASSED POINT
X INTERVAL ROCKS STOPPED
0 TO 10 FEET 2
310 TO 320 FEET !
330 TO 340 FEET B
340 TO 350 FEET 25
. 350 TO 360 FEET 24
360 TO 370 FEET 21
370 TO 380 FEET 9
3BO TO 290 FEET 7
390 TO 400 FEET 2
400 TO 410 FEET 1
� 0
I I
0
STANDARD
DEVIATION
VELOCITY
10.58
11.6
14.22
13.06
11
10.54
12.37
6.07
AVERAGE
BOUNCE
HEIGHT (FT)
6
B
1
4
0
1
MAXIMUM
DOUNCE
HEIGHT (FT)
!9
!0
25
!4
7
15
4
FIGURE 6. Velocity and bounce-height statistics for a 3-ft diameter roe
rolled 100 times from the top of the s ope. The stopping-position statistic
are also shown for a 3-ft diameter roe . The stopping-position Statistics
r a 4-ft diameter rock are also shown on Figure 1.
COLORADO ROCi.FALL SIMULATION PROGRAM
{ �FILE NAME
ROC[::' STATISTICS
23'7"? LB SPHERICAL ROCK 1...5.E FT RADIUS
NUMBER OF CELLS 9
NUMBER OF ROCf: -'S 100
t ANALYS,].S POSITION .:eo
k INITIAL Y ZONE 305 TO 315
INITIAL X VELOCI"T"Y 1 FT /SEC
INITIAL Y VELOCITY -1 FT /SEC
TANGENTIAL.
SURFACE COEFFICIENT
CELL # ROUGHNESS
1 1.5
C 1.5
_ 1.5
4 j1.5
1
5
6 1.5
7 (GORE CK.) 1.5
6 1.5
9 1
.8
.B
. 8
. C3
.9
.B
.5
.8
.9
NORMAL
COEFFICIENT
RESTITUTION
n L
.3
BEGINNING
X,Y
0 , 300
I B s y 150
200 4 140
272 70
304 S4
321 52
333 ' 44
360 44
:?71 . 46
ENDING
X.Y
180 15C-)
mac_ 0 q 140
X72 , /t )
:304 , 54
321 5^
ry
-; -; 44
360 44
371 46
479 50
FIGURE Input data used in defining slope inclination, roughness, and
hardness. Tangential and normal coefficients are reduced to account for
damping effect of water in Gore Creek.
a
co CC) C
CYIIW
L -'
qw
---I
i
•
f
FILE NAME
BOUNCE
HEIGHT
28 -
-26
4
0
is
16
14
^ 1
G
6
4
iz
BOUNCE HEIGHT GRAPH
x
VELOCITY 9' 85
79
73
—67
61
H 55
�+ 4 9
v
4:*
:7.7
7.1
0
79 159 11 *17 :319
HORIZONTAL.. DISTANCE (FT)
VELOCITY GRAPH
79 159 259 319
HORIZONTAL. DISTANCE (FT)
7.;99
M
EjggE J. Design (3--ft diameter) rock bounce heights and velocities
along the slope profile.
1 y+
01
~
FILE NAME:
\rochsite\va11rock.1
ANALYSIS
POINT
X= 380 Y= 46
MAXIMUM
VELOCITY
23 FT/SEC
AVERAGE
VELOCITY
11 FT/SEC
MINIMUM
VELOCITY
2 FT/SEC
STANDARD DEVIATION (VELOCITY)
6.83
AVERAGE
BOUNCE HEIGHT
1 FEET
MAXIMUM
BOUNCE HEIGHT
2 FEET
MAXIMUM
KINETIC ENERGY
19279 FT LB
BOUNCE
ANALYSIS POINT BOUNCE HEIGHT DISTRIBUTION
HEIGHT
2
1
�NN�
�
10 20
30 40 50
FREQUENCY
FREQUENCY
ANALYSIS
POINT VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION
2
2
12
23
VELOCITY
a
60
FIGURE 4. Bockfall velocity and bounce-height statistics at the analysis
point (see figure 2). The analysis point is located at x = 380 ft: only
lC% of rocks were able to zwamb this Iuoutlon° Dawlgo rook size has diameter
equal to 3.0 ft.
0
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request to amend the Town of Vail's Avalanche,
Rockfall and Debris Flow Hazard Maps in the general
vicinity of Stephens Park, located at the southeast
corner of South Frontage Road West and Kinnickinick
Road, pursuant to Section 189.69 of the Town of Vail
Zoning Code.
Applicant: Town of Vail
•
I. BACKGROUND
For the preparation of the Stephen's Park Master Plan, Town
staff hired Art Mears to thoroughly analyze the hazards on
the site. The boundaries, as Mears states in his report,
"are somewhat different than those shown on the debris flow
maps prepared for the Town of Vail in 1984. The differences
result from analysis of a detailed topography which was
unavailable at the time of the 1984 study." Not only has
detailed topography been established to determine the exact
location of the hazards, but more sophisticated computer
models and simulations have been developed since 1984 that
provide more accurate information to map hazards. The
changes from the existing Town maps are shown on the
attached maps and as described as follows:
Rockfall: The area has been changed from south of the
interstate and north of Gore Creek to the south side of Gore
Creek, parallel to the southeastern boundary of the park.
Debris Flow: This hazard has not changed significantly, but
has been identified more specifically. It is in the same
general area as the 1984 study.
Snow Avalanche: Avalanche mapping for the Town of Vail has
not been done west of the Vail Village area, as the
avalanche potential decreases as the valley opens to the
west. In the detailed hazard analysis of the property,
however, Mears did find an avalanche hazard and has mapped
it. This is in the same general vicinity of the rockfall
area.
Art Mears' report is provided
the Stephens Park memo. That
analysis of the hazards.
0 1
in the PEC packet attached to
report provides a detailed
• II. PROCESS
Sections 18.69.030, 18.69.031 and 18.69.052(H)3 of the Town
of Vail Zoning Code set up a procedure which allows
modifications to the master hazard plans for the Town.
These modifications must be made by Town Council with a
recommendation from the Planning and Environmental
Commission. The sections of the code are listed below:
Section 18.69.091:
"The master hazard plans shall not be considered to be
official hazard master plans of the town until and unless
the Town Council adopts the same, by motion. No substantial
modification of the master hazard plan shall be made unless
it is first approved by the Town Council in a similar
manner."
Section 18.69.030:
"The master hazard plans may be altered from time to time to
conform with new information or existing conditions."
Section 18.69.052(H)3:
"If the applicant establishes at the hearing by clear
. convincing evidence that the information contained in the
site - specific geologic investigation is reliable, the town
council shall direct the community development department to
keep a copy of said site - specific investigation on file in
the community development department and available to the
general public and shall further direct the community
development department to notate the appropriate official
map adopted by this ordinance so that it indicates that said
site - specific investigation is on file with the community
development department."
III. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the PEC recommend that the Town
Council approve the proposed modifications to the rockfall,
debris flow and avalanche hazard maps. The hazard study
done to identify the hazards is based on more thorough
information than the previous studies, as well as more
sophisticated hazard simulation tools. Because of these
factors, staff believes that the proposed hazard areas are
more accurate than the existing maps show.
0 2
TO! Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish
an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this request is to add another view
corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town
Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5
and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put
together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many
view corridors as possible. The view that is under
consideration with this proposal is number four from that
list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed
ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current
view corridor ordinance.
II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR
The proposed view corridor will read as follows:
"View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is
8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of
Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view
was established by setting a camera five feet one inch
above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill
Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the
corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red
Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen
Ranch Road, to the Gore Range."
III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE
The current ordinance is attached to this memo for
reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed
are marked with an asterisk in the margin.
A. The first change is to delete the following sentence:
"Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a
new flue) located above the line may be permitted if
appropriate approvals from the Community Development
Department are obtained."
.
Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with:
"any modifications to the roofs or structures which are
• proposed to be located, or are currently located above
the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by
the PEC."
B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph:
"As circumstances affecting views chan4
rezonings, variances and height or new
view corridors will be reviewed and if
revised. If a conflict exists between
height allowed and the view corridors,
restrictive regulation will apply."
je, such as
buildings, the
necessary
the maximum
the more
Instead of the above, staff proposes the following
language be added:
"If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the
ordinance reads as follows:
"Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing
structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower
or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed."
The reason staff would like to add this to the
ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that
the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively
determined by existing buildings. In some cases,
buildings frame the corridor. In other cases, portions
of building encroach into the corridor. Staff
acknowledges that encroachments exist; however, staff
believes that the Town should not allow any new
encroachments, even if they would be located "behind"
an existing encroachment. As existing buildings are
renovated, staff sees the potential to open up the view
corridors.
D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to
the ordinance is that:
"Some view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment.
For example, decks which extend out into a corridor
[-I
is
will not be allowed to be
cants requesting changes
corridors should be aware
ments will be encouraged
corridor as part of any
IV. CONCLUSION
enclosed or expanded. Appli-
to buildings adjacent to view
that any existing encroach -
to be removed from the view
major building modification."
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions
to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the
clarifications will make the development review process
simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future.
Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to
those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as
it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use
pedestrian area of the village.
(U�ll(ii{,P�fi�Ct ►� i3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN -- DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
VIEW SECTION _1 ZD VT1,7W f'ORRTI)0TZ MAD TO RFT)CCE
THE NU %11131.R GF :1.1JOIt VIF.iY CoRittUORS AND TU
ELIMINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION :.IN=TO.
WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design
Guide Plan - Design Considerations and the View Corridor Map has been
under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town
Council for a considerable time.period; and
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that preservation
of certain existing view corridors is essential to the character of
Vail as a mountain resort; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will protect the
municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore,
enhance and protect its economic vitality.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most
important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom-
mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and
amendments to the language in the view section to the Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY-THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL:
Section 1
Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is
hereby amended to read as follows:
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail!s mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its
identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features,
etc. are constant reminders of the mountain environment and, by
repeated visibility, orientation reference points. Certain building
features are also important character features, orientation refer-
ences and visual focal points.
The most significant and obvious view corridors have been designated
on the View Corridor Map (an element of the Vail Village Urban Design
Framework Plan) and photographically documented (.photos on file in
the Community Development Department). However, the view corridors.
depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered
�____ M, ---- --- ,.i,r,;n,iaiv manv other important views too
-2-
The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors
and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment
will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the
photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field
surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of
Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants
in determining the specific dimensional restrictions produced by
.the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures
(i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro
priate approvals from the Community Development Department are
obtained:
To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should
2 include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the
form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch --ups,
models, or other simulation - techniques. A means of demonstrating
in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required
by the zoning administrator.
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances
in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and,
3 if necessary, revised. If-a conflict exists between the maximum
height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation
The following is a listing and verbal description of the adopted will
view corridors and focal point: apply
NO. DESCRIPTION
1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic
point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The
*4 view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the
Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of
the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center.
2 This is a significant view because.it allows one to see the ski
slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the
ticket and lift facilities in the Village.
5 This is a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson, Ranch Road just
east of the bill Creek.Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1
6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in
the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from
Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and
the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal
point in this view.
0
--3-
Section 2
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause phmDo
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be ia of this
shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,•sentence, clause
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid.
Section 3
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that
this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and
welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall-not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reeacted. orhany
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND,ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this day of 1983• A public hearing
shall be held hereon on the TL/.at day of
1983, at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of.th Town of Vail, Colorado, in
The Municipal Building of the Town.
Rodney E. lif r, M or
ATTEST:
Q A Lk
Pamela A. Brandmeye Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED _
this day of
1983.
•
•
TO: Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 1991
RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish
an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this request is to add another view
corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town
Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5
and 5. These numbers are based on a large list that was put
together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many
view corridors as possible. The view that is under
consideration with this proposal is number four from that
list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed
ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current
view corridor ordinance.
II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR
The proposed view corridor will read as follows:
"View No. 4 The point of origin for this view is
8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of
Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view
was established by setting a camera five feet one inch
above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens. The Hill
Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank the
corridor on either side. It then extends above the Red
Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over Hansen
Ranch Road, to the Gore Range."
III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE
The current ordinance is attached to this memo for
reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed
are marked with an asterisk in the margin.
A. The first change is to delete the following sentence:
"Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a
new flue) located above the line may be permitted if
appropriate approvals from the Community Development
Department are obtained."
f I
Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with:
"any modifications to the roofs or structures which are
proposed to be located, or are currently located above
the line (in the view corridor) shall be reviewed by
the PEC."
B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph:
"As circumstances affecting views chant
rezonings, variances and height or new
view corridors will be reviewed and if
revised. If a conflict exists between
height allowed and the view corridors,
restrictive regulation will apply."
je, such as
buildings, the
necessary
the maximum
the more
Instead of the above, staff proposes the following
language be added:
"If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the
ordinance reads as follows:
INAny expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built behind an existing
structure that is in a view corridor (the Clock Tower
or a chimney for example) shall not be allowed."
The reason staff would like to add this to the
ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that
the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively
determined by existing buildings. In some cases,
buildings frame the corridor. In other cases, portions
of building encroach into the corridor. Staff
acknowledges that encroachments exist; however, staff
believes that the Town should not allow any new
encroachments, even if they would be located "behind"
an existing encroachment. As existing buildings are
renovated, staff sees the potential to open up the view
corridors.
0 D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to
the ordinance is that:
elsome view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli-
cants requesting changes to buildings adjacent to view
corridors should be aware that any existing encroach-
ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view
corridor as part of any major building modification.@'
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions
to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the
clarifications will make the development review process
simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future.
Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to
those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as
it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use
pedestrian area of the village.
i
S�
� i.. `+_ 4e
t� � �
x
� { ;
g
. ^�'.
�
� -
�
,,
..
D ..
q
.k �. °34 i.(g
"� g Y
�1
�-
&��� �
b- ¢
��.
�� �� � ON����� k�',�
-
5
a Y
..
1:'
�'
its
� zj
¢ q
L 4-4
*�
to
WAY5�
TT
k
k P
!
4 3
h 4
x
St
pi
3
<
E
x
St
3
<
a
VAN
TO
P-M
Vol
111T. A
JO,
Jul P
JIM
VAT M.
W,
Tit
r
as
In" -N,
VAN
TO
111T. A
VAT M.
W,
Tit
r
as
In" -N,
KA!
40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 25, 1991
AGENDA
1:30 Site Visits
3:00 Public Hearing
Site Visits
1 1. A request for a rear setback variance at
Cascade Crossing at 1031 South Frontage Road
on a parcel of land located in the northwest
1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of the
6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado
Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership
3 2. A request for a front setback variance, 5188
Gore Circle/ Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th
Filing.
Applicant: Nowell May
2 3. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to
establish an additional View Corridor and to
clarify wording in the ordinance. The view
to be protected extends to the east down
Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front
of Frivolous Sals.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. ✓ Approval of minutes from January 28, 1991
meeting.
5.v" Review of draft Spraddle Creek minutes from
February 11, 1991 meeting.
6--" Select date for PEC workshop (re: Board
organization, the planning process, public
participation, legal advice, etc.)
7. ✓ Recommendations for potential PEC candidates.
8. Updates on: Zoning Code Task Force, Master
Transportation Plan, Air Quality.
ITEMS TABLED TO MARCH 11, 1991:
1. Lifthouse Lodge variances and exterior
alteration requests.
2. Affordable Housing Zoning Code Amendments
0
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
February 25, 1991
Present
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Ludwig Kurz
Absent
Diana Donovan
Chuck Crist
Connie Knight
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Amber Blecker
The meeting was informally called to order at 3 :15PM by Kathy
Langenwalter. In the absence of a quorum, the Commission
reviewed items not requiring a vote.
1. Review of draft Spraddle Creek minutes from the February 11,
1991 meetin .
This item was taken out of order. The Commission members
present, Kristan Pritz and Jay Peterson gave their corrections of
the minutes to the Secretary to be input into the final minutes.
40 2. A request for a rear setback variance at Cascade Crossing at
1031 South Frontage Road on a parcel of land located in the
northwest 1/4 of Section 12 Township 5S R81W of the 6th
PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado
Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership
Mike Mollica briefly presented the request. The background
information on the project was explained. Cascade Crossing
originally received approval for a rear setback variance of 5
feet on January 26, 1987. A front setback variance for parking
was also approved at that time. The project was issued a
building permit on December 1, 1989 based on the original plans
submitted, which relied on previous surveys performed on the
site. The original property survey, performed by InterMountain
Engineering, indicated that the project was within stated bounds.
Subsequently, after the building permit and Certificate of
Occupancy were issued, Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc. was hired to
prepare an ALTA survey for the site. According to that survey,
the northerly property line of the Cascade Crossing parcel was
reconfigured, based on the original property deeds to the I -70
right- -of --way. Because of the new property line location, the
existing building now slightly encroaches into the rear
(northerly) setback.
is 1
At the time the project was built, all construction was in
. accordance with the approved drawings. However, since the
correct property line had been identified, the building was now
out of compliance with the previously approved variance.
Staff recommended approval of the rear setback variance, citing
Section IV, subsections A, B, and C (1 -3) of the staff memo as
being appropriate to this application. More specifically, the
granting of the variance would not constitute a grant of special
privilege, the variance would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, and that the variance is warranted for
the following three reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical.
difficulty;
2. 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; and
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant of
privileges enjoyed by owners of other properties in the
same district.
In addition, the applicant agreed to permanently disconnect the
exterior lighting on the north side of the building as a
condition of approval of this variance, as well as plant
. additional evergreens (consisting of 3 ponderosa pines) along the
north wall to minimize the visual effects from I -70.
Jim Shearer opened the discussion by stating that he was in favor
of granting the variance. He also indicated he liked the fact
that the north lights would be turned off, but that he would like
to see even more plantings along the northern wall.
Ludwig Kurz agreed with Jim's comments, and said they reflected
his thinking. However, Mr. Kurz felt that more landscaping,
specifically along the west side of the north wall would be
beneficial.
Kathy Langenwalter commented she felt strongly that the site
would benefit from more evergreens, perhaps a total of 8 trees,
consisting of a mix of pine and spruce and, for better visual
variety, the trees should be between 7 -11 feet in height. When
she asked the applicant if that would be acceptable, the
applicant agreed.
At this point, since no quorum was present, discussion ceased on
this request until a quorum could be obtained.
0 2
3. A request for a front setback variance, 5188 Circle/
Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing.
.Applicant: Nowell May
Jill Kammerer summarized the staff position on the variance
request for an entryway and bay window. She explained that the
entry encroachment would be an approximate 6' -9" encroachment
into the front setback. The bay window would have an
encroachment of approximately 1' -311 into the front setback.
Jill explained the allowances for bay windows. She stated that a
bay window may project not more than 3 feet into a required
setback, provided that the surface area of the projection does
not exceed 10% of the surface area of the wall surface from which
it projects. However, the proposed window's surface area equates
to 49% of the surface area of the wall from which it projects.
This exceeds the allowable projection by 39 %.
There would be no impacts on other existing or potential uses or
structures in the vicinity. However, staff believes that
approval of the variance would constitute a grant of special
privilege. There would be no effect on light and air,
distribution of population, transportation and traffic
facilities, public facilities and utilities or public safety.
In order for the Commission to grant the variance, there should
be a finding of:
• 1. No grant of special privilege;
2. No detriment to the public health, safety or welfare,
or materially injurious to properties or improvements
in the vicinity;
3. That the variance is warranted because:
a. The denial would result in physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of the title.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this site which do not
apply generally.
C. The strict enforcement of the regulation would
deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
others in the same district.
Staff recommended denial of the variance due to the fact that it
was a part of a major remodel of the house, and it was believed
that other alternatives could be found which would not require a
variance. Staff also stated that the project did not meet any of
the criteria for a variance.
The architect for applicant, Pam Hopkins, addressed the
Commission with the rationale behind the requested variances.
She explained that the original structure was built in 1977,
before that section was incorporated into the Town. At that
0 3
time, the setback requirements were either non - existent, or
• consisted of 10 feet.
Pam stated that the remodel project was not one intended to
impact the entry area of the house. The applicant wanted the
addition of an airlock in the entry in order to provide the
family with a place to store their coats. In addition, the bay
window was requested to provide architectural balance through the
use of two dormers. The bay window, in her opinion, would be a
visual "reason" for the second dormer.
Applicant Noel May stated that his instructions to Pam had been
to save as many trees as possible, and the result had been that
the window and entry moved out, rather than back. In addition,
there was a problem with drainage in the current configuration,
with the result being dangerous ice at his entryway. He
expressed his desire to have the architectural balance through
the use of the dormer and bay window.
Kathy Langenwalter asked Pam Hopkins to explain the reason a
variance was being proposed. Pam answered by explaining that
they had been unable to find another, more practical, location
for the entry. The request for the bay window was simply for a
window seat and to give purpose for the second roof dormer, and
provide a unifying architectural theme.
Kathy responded that she could not find a reason for granting the
• variance for the bay window, and that she believed the same
effect could be achieved through another method whereby the
entire area of the bay window would be reduced by 2 feet.
Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy and further explained that he could
see no reason for the window to encroach further into the setback
when there were other areas available. He did indicate that he
liked the idea of an architectural tie -in, but felt it could be
achieved without the use of the bay window.
Mr. Kurz stated that he felt that the entry encroachment was
acceptable, since it did present a hardship to the applicant if
the variance was not granted.
Jim Shearer asked Ms. Hopkins if it would be possible to cut the
bay window down. Pam thought it might be possible. In response,
Jim stated that he could see no reason to repeat the dormer at
the expense of a variance. He did express his support of a
variance for the entryway, with the provision of an airlock, as
it posed a hardship for safety to the applicant.
Connie Knight joined the meeting at 3:40 p.m. She asked staff
for a clarification of the current policy on airlocks. Kristan
Pritz explained that there was no longer a specific provision on
the size of an airlock and that it was now considered a part of
0 4
C7
LJ
the GRFA. Connie asked applicant when they were planning on
building the entry and bay window. Noel May answered that it was
planned at the same time the rest of the remodel was completed.
Connie expressed her feeling that a variance was not warranted
for the entry, as she did not feel there was a hardship
presented. She indicated she believed the entry could be moved
back an additional 2 feet to eliminate the necessity of a
variance.
Kathy Langenwalter discussed her opinions on the request. She
supported the entry variance on the basis of hardship, since the
present location was in better proximity to the garage and
driveway, and to move the location would be detrimental.
However, she could find no hardship to justify the bay window.
Jim Shearer moved that the entrance variance be accepted with the
provision of an airlock. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion.
Pam Hopkins said the applicant would accept that motion, as there
was no provision for a window in the building permit. If they
could re- design the bay window, they would come back to the
Commission if required.
Kristan Pritz asked for a clarification of the motion to add the
reasons the Commission was approving the variance for the entry.
She requested that staff memo, section 5, subsections A, S, and
C1 be used as the justification for the variance. Jim Shearer
agreed to that amendment to his motion, with Ludwig Kurz further
accepting the amendment to his second. Jim Shearer proposed a
further amendment to his motion that the issue of the bay window
be tabled to a future meeting. Ludwig Kurz amended his second to
include that provision. A further amendment by Jim Shearer, and
seconded by Ludwig Kurz, was to add the provision that an airlock
be provided in the entryway. The vote in favor of the motion was
a unanimous 4 -0.
Since a quorum was now present, the Commission returned to item
2, the request for a rear setback variance for Cascade Crossing.
Kristan briefly reiterated the reason for the variance request to
Connie Knight, with the additional provisions the applicant had
agreed to as a condition of approval.
Ludwig Kurz moved that the application
variance at the Cascade Crossing Retail
South Frontage Road on a parcel of land
1/4 of Section 12, Township 5S, R81W of
Eagle County, Colorado be approved per
the additional provisions that 8 spruce
11 feet in height, be placed along the
0 5
for a rear setback
Center, located at 1031
located in the Northwest
the 5th PM, Town of Vail,
staff recommendation, with
or pine trees, between 7-
north wall, and that the
owner permanently disconnect the outdoor lighting along the north
wall. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 4 -0 in
favor of the motion.
Since it appeared that a quorum may not be able to be maintained
through discussions of the remaining agenda items, the Commission
discussed alternatives available to them. The eventual consensus
was that the Commission felt it was important for the full
Commission to review the view corridor ordinance, and have the
full weight of the Commission behind any recommendation to
Council. Ludwig Kurz moved to table the discussion of the view
corridor amendment until the March 11 meeting. Connie Knight
seconded the motion. The affirmative vote was 4 -0.
Kristan Pritz asked the Commission for approval of the January
28, 1991 minutes before the quorum was lost. Connie Knight moved
to approve the minutes as written. Jim Shearer seconded. The
vote was 4 -0 in favor of the motion.
At
this point, Kristan Pritz reviewed the action taken by the
Commission during the meeting. She summarized:
1.
Cascade Crossing variance was approved with the above -- stated
conditions.
2.
The front setback variance request for Noel May was approved
with regard to the entry, with conditions, and the bay
window variance request was tabled.
3.
The view corridor ordinance amendment was tabled until the
.
March 11, 19,91 meeting.
4.
The minutes from the January 28, 1991 meeting were approved
as written.
5.
The draft minutes for Spraddle Creek from the February 11,
1991 meeting were reviewed. staff will contact Diana
Donovan to discern any comments she has. The revised
minutes of the entire February 11, 1991 meeting will be
presented to the Commission for approval at the March 11,
1991 meeting.
The date for the Planning and Environmental Commission's workshop
was discussed. It was concluded that the staff would contact the
absent Commission members and propose Thursday, March 28 at
5:30PM for the workshop. The alternate dates would be April 1 or
April 4.
Kristan Pritz stated there would be a joint work session of the
Commission with the Council on March 5 to discuss the Master
Transportation Plan. Staff will call the Commissioners with
confirmation of this date and time.
Kristan also presented the actions of the Zoning Code Task Force
to the Commission, stating that the 250 ordinance was most likely
going to be eliminated. On Thursday, February 28, the Task Force
is 6
would meet on the issue of Multi - Family districts and possibly
the parking pay -in --lieu ordinance.
• The final discussion centered around staff's direction with
regard to the woodburning fireplace ordinance. Kristan presented
a summary of the current actions and course for future review.
Since a quorum was not available for further action, the meeting
was adjourned at 4:50 P.M.
•
0 7
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 25, 1991
RE: A request for a rear setback variance at Cascade
Crossing at 1031 South Frontage Road on a parcel of
land located in the Northwest 1/4 of Section 12,
Township 5S, R81W of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle
County, Colorado
Applicant: Vail Enterprises Partnership
T. BACKGROUND
• On January 26, 1987 the Cascade Crossing retail center
received approval for a rear setback variance of 5
feet. Also approved at that meeting was a front
setback variance, to locate a portion of the parking
area within 10 feet of the front property line, and a
variance from the landscaping standards for parking
areas with over 30 spaces, requiring that 10 percent of
the lot be dedicated to interior parking lot
landscaping.
. On June 21, 1989, the Cascade Crossing retail center
received final DRB approval for the project. Said
approval was conditional upon four items, which have
subsequently been addressed.
• On July 11, 1989, the Town Council upheld the DRB
decision granting final design approval to the Cascade
Crossing project.
• on November 13, 1989, a demolition permit was issued by
the Town for the demolition of the existing residential
structure on the site.
• On December 1, 1989, a building permit was issued for
the construction of the new commercial building at the
Cascade Crossing site.
• On May 5, 1990, the Town of Vail Planning Department
approved the improvement survey, which allowed the
Building Department to complete its framing inspection
of the Cascade Crossing project.
Throughout the above stated planning, and building permit
processes, the Town of Vail and the applicant relied upon
survey information provided by Inter- Mountain Engineering of
0 1
Avon, Colorado. The topographic and site survey submitted
by Inter - Mountain Engineering was completed on January 27,
1989, and is Project Number 890145. The improvement
location certificate submitted by Inter - Mountain Engineering
was completed on April 27, 1990, and is Project Number
893705. These surveys indicate that the easterly 296.62
feet of the northerly property line, which is common with
Interstate 70, is a curved line, concave to the southeast
with a 2,715 foot radius. The Cascade Crossing project was
designed, submitted, and variances and building permit
granted, based upon this curved property line.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Upon completion of the Cascade Crossing retail center, Eagle
Valley Surveying, Inc., was hired by Vail Enterprises
Partnership to prepare an ALTA survey for the site. The
ALTA survey was a requirement for permanent financing for
the project. According to documentation submitted by Eagle
Valley Surveying, their research of the property deeds for
the I -70 right -of -way and the Cascade Crossing site
indicates that the northerly property line of the Cascade
Crossing parcel is described as three tangent sections,
without any curved sections. As a result of this "new
information ", and reconfiguration of the northerly property
line for the project site, the Cascade Crossing building now
. encroaches into the required setback along the northerly
property line. (Please see attached letter from Dan
Corcoran.)
As a result of the above information, the applicant is
requesting a setback variance to allow for a building
encroachment of 6-- inches, along the northeast section of the
existing structure, into the 5 -foot rear setback.
Additionally, the roof overhang of the building encroaches a
maximum of 1.8 feet into the same setback area.
III.CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends approval of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
0 2
0
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed
setback variance, if approved, would have no
significant impact upon other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The rear setback encroachment occurs at a point on
the property where the vertical elevation of the
site is lower than that of the adjacent Interstate
highway to the north. Because this encroachment
is at the area where the building elevation drops
to the lowest point on the site, staff believes
that the proposed encroachment would have a
negligible impact upon adjacent land uses.
Upon review of the final DRB approved landscape
plan for the retail center, and after further site
analysis by the staff, we have determined that the
northeast corner of the building should be further
screened with additional evergreen plant material.
The applicant has agreed to provide some
additional, evergreens in this area (a site plan
will be provided at the PEC hearing).
To further reduce any potential impacts of this
structure with regard to its close proximity to I--
70 and properties to the north, the applicant has
agreed to permanently turn off all building
lighting along the north side of the structure.
2. The dearee to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
Upon examination of the new survey submitted by
Eagle Valley Surveying, Inc., it becomes apparent
that the applicant could have shifted the building
slightly south to avoid any encroachment into the
rear setback, had they been aware of the correct
location of the property line. The staff does not
believe that approval of this variance would be a
grant of special privilege, given the unique
circumstances resulting in this variance request.
Relief from the strict interpretation of the
setback regulation is warranted.
3. The effect of the re guested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public
utilities and--public safety.
• 3
The staff is of the opinion that the applicant's
variance request would have no significant impact
upon any of the above criteria. The Colorado
Department of Highways was notified of the
variance request and has had no response to date.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting _a variance:
A. 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.
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for this variance request is for
approval. We believe that the applicant acted in good faith
during the planning process, as well as during the building
permit and construction processes. The applicant and the
Town relied upon a licensed land surveyor within the State
of Colorado, for all survey information. All previous
survey work submitted and approved by the Town indicated
that the Cascade Crossing retail center was in compliance
0 4
with all of the Town zoning requirements. It was only after
further review by a second land surveyor, that the setback
encroachment was identified. Given these circumstances, the
staff believes that approval of the variance request should
be granted.
Staff believes that Findings IV - A, B, C -1, C -2, and C -3
are all relevant to this request.
•
0 5
UZ(Ivie /.L Va:zz "t)U4 040 vOU4, 1. Y .7UKYr IMx LEIUV4
-. '- T-i► -•of
:. _... _]eptieat [sf Community ,Dc�velopmeat._
'Frontage ' Road- West.•:.'
'CO -8jO57
- - r ascad' ' Cross!n1X:.
.Per converCt tf&fd- thi:sZ'let�er':TS MY"iu.Ad rsta�di'ng -of! :-
..that ..haue - ca =.Qd__the- northeasterly .cornea . cif.. mac ,.str-uctur-P—�� --
: bone :r ar .to,:. a aach- intcy - the apprr�v d•_.setback varaan :e
The..•prp submittal dxid subsequent" variances granted f --tb±s
based'.upon a..surv'vv y In tee -- 15"ourtta z; rigiaee7C3 3g.I� t1..
_ d�tec .2I 7I 2• iii rechegked .and. readit'ifie -d 1270Z/86- -
ind� cawed. t iL-. -- easterly. 296w -62 feet of the •northerly_praperty
Intetate H�.gh�ra:_v' NO.-.70 'a.s a "curved
e= s�iutheast with ,a" 2 a_t30 foot radio - ,Tt --T) was dsaigne .Y . _ -
_ . -._s bm tte33, mid var an es 'granted based upaic% �hls ' ved .pro rtv_'7
1 Imo: -The- pro ject::. as. then. _staked and: constructed. with U:e
. - -- :as,s'umPrtion .of a .�.srvad - protierty-Iine.
Whexi the gxa ec�t;.;was ple-ted pure were hired' by Vail R.tlq. M: set__
sFbhiV: -' to prepare , art ALr T,L -- ,-;=ev for'-the. _ prope7rtg..=
- researched .tie -:p op :rtv desc ptian for , thzs pat es for : 'pragr. . .
--
.6wife�r'.'Vi:obtain.ed from .the Sigiigav D 'epartmdnt, copies' of tji6'di�-� _ for-, Parcel 3 of tits "Departmian� : of_ $� gh�ays r -state _af
183. -Th- s is-the parcel: -,obt ed•
tha - rte state -j ghwav No. 70• right_ of -siav that is th -
th�:"-�ortherlg =1nef the _.Cascade Grossing
In Lcati�z-F _ -tjie a' therly Line • of. -t6E ':' Cascade - -Gr sling :'pargq:,:.as
Chcee
- d ei t is rtt —Section , ? tlioat- q , '-Based .or _this.. v �r
-description• -the .,northeasterly portion:o Vie Cascade Grokajmg,
_
bii�_1d g. enc dachas:- =into - req�i ed_- setback .... Zohg . the -no -t7x §1* __.
41199 Hig*sy 6 & 24:,�g1 V f -- -- _ _.., ' _• - - -- :......
_'Edward§. 0 81 532
=30�- 949 -1�6.: ... _ . .., .. _ —_ .. _ •--•• _. _ -•- -- �.
UCi1N /ul UU;ZU} '"Jua 545 UUU4 L'' V buxyl�XIAi L91UUa
February cascade Crossing
Page 2
If the.-owner had been aware of this property Line being straighi ' '
instead of, curved' the project could have bees built Without any
c
lncroachzents • into the approved setbacks without any chauge* to. the
building. _Please call me if I can w a —any additional .
information for iron on this project. -
Sincerely,
Eagle. galley Surveying r Inc,
Dc-m Corcoran, P.-L.S. _
President ..
TO! Planning and Environmental Commission
isFROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 25, 1991
RE: A request for a front setback variance in order to
allow construction of a bay window and an enclosed
front entry way. Project location: 5188 Gore Circle/
Lot 7, Block 3, Bighorn 5th Filing.
Applicant: Nowell May
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is proposing 83 sq. ft. in expansions to an
existing single family residence. In order to construct the
bay window and covered entrance way called for under the
expansion proposal, the applicant must obtain approval of a
front setback variance.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The northeast corner of the existing residence encroaches
1' -0" into the required 20' front setback. Because the
residence sits at an angle to the property line, as one
moves from the northeast corner of the residence west 13' -0"
along the north facade, this encroachment tapers to 0. The
proposed entryway would encroach approximately 6' -9" into
the required setback. A variance is necessary for the 61--9"
encroachment into the setback. The resulting setback would
be 131-311.
The proposed bay window would encroach approximately 1' -3"
into the front setback. Under the code, bay windows may
project not more than 3' into a required setback provided
the surface area of the projection does not exceed 10% of
the surface area of the wall surface from which it projects.
In this instance, the total wall surface from which the bay
window projects is 262 sq. ft. The surface area of the
window is 129 sq. ft. Therefore, the surface area of the
projection is 49% of the surface area of the wall surface
from which it projects, which exceeds the allowable by 39 %.
A variance is necessary to allow the wall surface to
encroach an additional 39 %.
On September 18, 1990 the Design Review Board approved those
portions of the expansion proposal which did not encroach
into the front setback.
• 1
0
•
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this
variance request:
1. Zone District: Single Family
2. Lot Area: .5283 acres/ 23,012.7 sq. ft.
3. Site Coverage:
Required (20 %): 4,603 sq. ft.
Proposed: 3,463 sq. ft.
Remaining: 1,140 sq. ft.
4. GRFA:
Allowed: 4,976
sq. ft.
Approved: 3,989
sq. ft.
Proposed: 4,072
sq. ft.
Remaining: 904
sq. ft.
5. Setbacks:
Required
Proposed
front (north)
20'
13' --3"
rear (south)
15'
51' -6" (no
change)
east side
15'
45.0' (no
change)
west side
15'
18' -6" (no
change)
6. Parking Requirement: 2.5 spaces (no
change)
Parking Provided: 2 covered spaces
and 2 surface
spaces
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Department of Community
Development recommends denial of the requested variance
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
Across the street to the north is a single family
home and a vacant lot. The proposed entryway and
bay window will not impact these properties.
Likewise, properties to the east, west and south
will not be impacted. No trees or shrubs will
need to be removed in order to allow the entryway
40 2
and bay window to be constructed. The entryway
expansion will require the removal of 65 sq. ft.
of lawn area. No landscape variance would be
required.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity or to attain the objectives
of this title without grant of special pri.vil_e_ge.
On September 18, 1990, the DRB approved an
expansion plan for the May residence which did not
require any setback variances. Since no
construction has occurred on this proposal to
date, staff believes alternative design solutions
may be explored which would not require any
setback variances. Perhaps the entry way /mud room
could be internalized and the facade from which
the bay window will project could be shifted to
the south so that the bay window would not project
into the setback. (See attached site plan).
Staff does not believe this front setback request
warrants relief from the strict and literal
interpretation of the code and that the approval
of the requested variance would be a grant of
special privilege.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
The proposal will not impact the above referenced
issues.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission_ shall make the
following findings before granting _ -a variance:
A. 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.
0 3
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would deprive the applicant
of privileges enjoyed by the owners of other
properties in the same district.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of the front setback variance
request. Specifically, staff believes under a major
remodeling project such as the one proposed, the applicant
could construct the desired improvements without encroaching
into the front setback. Staff does not believe the
requested variance meets any of the Variance Findings
criteria.
0 4
i,
QI44
s
3
•
•
•
i
� 4
a
fl
0
t
•
•
0
}
JL
nx g s
�.... A
..d
oc
I IT
r Of o
MN
s
sl.Idi �� i
i�
^,r ,
°n �+ N
o�
70v—
,G1 —G1
•
•
0
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: February 25, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish
an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has
rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor
more clearly. Attached to this memo are two alternative ways to
set the boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommen-
dation, which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing
Red Lion and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's
discussion during the work session, which runs the boundary
directly between two balcony railings on either side of the
corridor. The vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of
the corridor are the same on both alternatives since there was
general agreement on that issue. The attached photographs were
taken using a 3' -10" high tripod. After reviewing them, however,
staff decided the corridor should be based on the "eye level" of
the average pedestrian in the Village. Additional photographs
taken from a height of 5' -2" will be provided at the hearing.
Staff has modified the text of the proposed ordinance regarding
existing encroachments, so that it is clear that some
encroachments (like the clock tower) which are focal points, are
intended to remain.
During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson
that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red
Lion, had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the
Red Lion chimney. Staff has included it as part of view corridor
number 4. Staff could find no Town Council minutes that
discussed the issue of whether the Red Lion chimney should be
excluded from the view corridor. Because the Council discussion
focused on roof ridges and did not mention the chimney, staff
believes that it is consistent to include it in this view
corridor. The significance of this issue is that the chimney
will become an encroachment. In the future, staff will encourage
the Red Lion to remove it if and when the Red Lion comes back for
another remodel.
•
The staff memo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is
attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect the
concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the
chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like
the Clock Tower.
•
•
r�
L_J
•
•
TO: Planning and Environment Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: February 11, 1991 (Revised February 25, 1991)
RE: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish
an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this request is to add another view
corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town
Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5
and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put
together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many
view corridors as possible. The view that is under
consideration with this proposal is number four from that
list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed
ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current
view corridor ordinance.
II. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR
The proposed view corridor will read as follows:
"View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is
8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of
Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view
was established by setting a camera three feet ten
inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens.
The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank
the corridor on either side. It then extends above the
Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over
Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range."
III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE
The current ordinance is attached to this memo for
reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed
are marked with an asterisk in the margin.
A. The first change is to delete the following sentence:
"Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a
new flue) located above the line may be permitted if
appropriate approvals from the Community Development
Department are obtained."
Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with:
"any modifications to the roofs or structures which are
proposed to be located, or are currently located above
the line (in the view corridor) may be permitted if
approved by the PEC and Town Council."
B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph:
"As circumstances affecting views chan4
rezonings, variances and height or new
view corridors will be reviewed and if
revised. If a conflict exists between
height allowed and the view corridors,
restrictive regulation will apply."
je, such as
buildings, the
necessary
the maximum
the more
Instead of the above, staff proposes the following
language be added:
"If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
• exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the
ordinance reads as follows:
$ +Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in
front of an existing structure that is in a view
corridor (a chimney or other architectural feature for
example) shall not be allowed."
The reason staff would like to add this to the
ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that
the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively
determined by existing buildings. This clarification
is needed to make the point that no new construction
above the view corridor line is allowed. Hypothetic-
ally, new construction could impact existing view
corridors in the following ways:
U
0
•
View 1: Potential applicants may
additions above the view
not exceed the height of
However, this should not
would compete with the p:
Clock Tower.
want to construct
corridor line, but
the Gold Peak House.
be allowed as it
rominence of the
View 6: Additions to buildings could be done in such
a way that the mountain views are preserved.
However, staff believes the prominence of the
Clock Tower should not be reduced with any
other construction that would exceed the
height defined by the view corridor.
View 4: Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek
Court Building could be located behind the
Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed
as the existing chimney blocks part of the
Gore Range from view and, ideally, should be
removed.
Staff believes the existing
functions this way already.
ambiguous in the present or,
keep the areas around focal
D. Lastly, a fourth point that
the ordinance is that:
ordinance actually
However, the wording is
finance. This approach will
points more open.
staff would like to add to
I'Some view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment.
For example, decks which extend out into a corridor
will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli-
cants requesting changes to buildings within view
corridors should be aware that any existing encroach-
ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view
corridor as part of any major building modification.
Encroachments like the clock tower and bell tower,
which are focal points, are excluded from this policy.11
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions
to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the
clarifications will make the development review process
simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future.
Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to
those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as
it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use
pedestrian area of the village.
1 � i
k ls.�•o. r
AN
k
5�
1� t�
i
q
ice,, r s"•�_sP -. 'iii '� l -'�s�.ei .. �r .• f T4'* �..rY �r 4 j� ' a,:,- ' ' { MW
;�, -3 �•._ � 'fit ;^^5+�..► _ �.' #!tt>''' y'� _ ;�., � ".4'� s.,
4
lit
Ma
PRO it i►`1� $a y,' llejr,:
41. `x�..�
r _.
{ F
I
� ,�, �'� •3 �c � ��'R � �• �• ° fir+ °STS a
H y�,
5i4���
5'2" height
�..a�.Nc 4's+.+'N hi4"I�/�y'x•+..:. 11111 lens
...�+11M�"" w .r�1 3 ,� AA.. A ,T. ';G` "y.. •4".'!.'�,�T� � ����^r. fi. �� "7^ w. a,..
RE. 1L56 :a �'_ - 'Sf "'Yfl' �y�y. >�+.i K .� .q�JN 3•r -� - �.
• .. jf �i� allb
-
f
S-i( iii Qx''ai�
i
.3
3..
7
4 it,
dw
h
ys'".9►r 3 1 .,r4 ,'' - e aafi ,r a 4 "�`
_r s. -' 'Yx ,- v'^ +rr F 12 q'jjj><�rt - -y �' &
- -A .,rs
das t E
1
!w .- ',7llk h �' _ �'[ •.eMY �7�1 '-�+� -4Y F'e ��. 3 � � ;�/
`� 1 Vy �, e ; � k r ii°.�.'���i r'�''�y�",t ' �k �'- ra'�="�' iq,• ^'r. �' I�YIYr" � �. }',� -'_ ~ �e #1
'!'� �.. . �CC .T •.4 _:'`5'�S .maid- - `�-,��yry..++tq�. �.a.■r.�`v'
41,
-;s - - :� _ n 4� S•.i i"k:a �-�.y *i't- �,y�'*'ac"7L"1:F F�. i.s
t�Y.tai -L•+' 's ; • .$d� ,tr j'..y�ws +r.F tc
-'9'^r
r i T.
Ak
sion of PEC discussion
Conclu
on 2-11-91
rksession
from wo
-
"* �a tip -.+-n '�'��'" r� 1 �k�q ��.�GG�� �.` i1.-e�2 � � �i,*v,- g -
4.
ti ■.:p'"j
' .' _.a7 r -�,'_T 5 Y�'+ f� Sl'4 .. �, f� <.,•�y -'� .'?S�y..,.'ii�y. -. - -M "t- " -Z..
;w. W.7
(. yy
}
wi
y
Jr
lip
Ak
3•
i %r c•� � r a' dl -' 'sic ��2�` • � a%_
r
4 s 1 sl r Sao-
i
k � a
t �
.u,+ � F' dr� ��� � .3 ''1 � �„ cam: � � R A.�� �wll � � f � a � s,�: ♦414s� -.
p i�M �.� o !!!► •9 a ,�1��>
U fyki Y'�s` 5 v'^' �� '7.r a! s '4 v 'Y : _ �� _ � ��' �•,�� � �r _.' .J .�'y ,W!.. -",.
� Jy.
ta,y
," _' z -•PAZ
It♦ - -1 l r ..gyp, ��ww
:i qh�;�`
r
4`
.ii
t .I'' [i
Vii;,' ' �, >rr r�3 f 3r r r +, � �` ?t� ,r �y P w �`( `_' �� {5 G n ;. ' : � w" ' • �r {'
4 "� _, _ sy t� , ,�7� r 3. {M .l k� �S•�' ,ra =7' ;� a'� y�`t•�`F� �.� h J
tr�
x '•' l y r�p Y ; 'LY ii�� Iti#`� rk� -, t . ysi ; J F eta �•,
"
4 4 F \i1 .
t ?
x M� ds •iL r kj" `,.
le
�r� Y 5a K a > €. fg� • ti i �.'^ C +^oM' at f . -,- � 'r + .� r !y �x°� t �� (�
i
,F
i!l Fl a4 �'a 1 ,rb r' ii r f,� 4 y5 M � �, ' •Yr -Y�
{. - ,�.•� Rj�:L� � �,� � s�� �siY r��� rt,� i.� �5 �ii,k� L 1 -..�� '� i
a e{a� }tit ls� }S£ < pf fi�Y4ruza Fr�4t
-�{
lop
k! M
d r.
1
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 11, 1991 vol _f
AGENDA
1:00 Site Visits
2:00 Public Hearing
Site Visits
'I&-
1.}IM Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding
practices in the Town of Vail.
Susan Scanlan /Pete Burnett
3 2. Notification of PEC of staff approval of
Minor Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Village Inn
to allow for the installation of a satellite
dish in a setback.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
3. A request to amend ordinance No. 13, 1983 to
establish an additional View Corridor and to
clarify wording in the ordinance. The view
to be protected extends to the east down
Hansen Ranch Road over the Red Lion in front
of Frivolous Sal's.
Applicant: Town of Vail
4. A request for a conditional use permit to
expand the Vail Mountain School, located at
3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail
Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
1 5. A request for a worksession on setback and
site coverage variances and an exterior
alteration to the Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East
Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
2 6. A request for a front setback variance for
the Perot residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam
Road/ Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Ross Perot
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the
Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new
definition for affordable housing unit.
Applicant: Town of Vail
•
•
•
8. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single -
Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family
Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/
Secondary Residential District to allow
affordable housing units as a Conditional
Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
9. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 -
Residential Cluster District, 18.16 - Low
Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 -
Medium Density Multiple Family District,
18.22 - Public Accommodation District,
18.24 - Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 -
Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 -
Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 -
Arteriai Business District and 18.36 - Public
Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation
District; to allow affordable housing units
as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the
Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to
provide specific development /zoning standards
for affordable housing units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
11. ✓Approval of minutes from February 11, 1991
meeting.
12.,v/ Approval of minutes from February 25, 1991
meeting.
13. /bate for PEC workshop /dinner. Tentatively
scheduled for April 1, 1991 at 5:30 p.m. at
the Golfcourse Clubhouse.
14. ✓Upcoming joint meetings with Town Council:
a. March 12, 1991 - Master Transportation
Plan.
b. March 191 1991 - Streetscape Plan.
•
U
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 11, 1991
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
Absent
Connie Knight
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order at 2:30PM by Diana Donovan. The
Commission welcomed Gena Whitten as the new member of the
commission.
1. Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding practices in the
Town of Vail.
This item was postponed, due to Pete Burnett being called in for
jury duty.
2. Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor Amendment to
SDD 06 - Vail Village Inn, to allow for the installation of
a satellite dish in a setback.
Applicant: Satellite Receiving Systems
Shelly Mello briefly explained the process of a minor amendment
to a SDD. The approval was per the previous PEC meeting, where
the Commissioners expressed their desire that the dish be placed
at ground level. Shelly elaborated that there would be a brown,
wood fence to match the building trim and 3 spruce trees placed
to screen the dish. Additionally, shrubs will be placed on the
south of the dish. Shelly concluded her presentation by stating
that the Design Review Board has not yet reviewed or approved
this placement, and their approval would be necessary before the
dish could be installed. She then called for comment by the
Commissioners.
Chuck Crist began by asking if the adjacent condominium owners
had been notified. Shelly verified that all adjacent property
owners which would be impacted had been notified of this project
over a week before.
1
Procedurally, Diana Donovan requested clarification from staff of
whether the Commission could discuss this without formally
• calling it up. Shelly indicated that if the Commission
informally agreed with the staff's approval, no action would be
necessary. If, on the other hand, it was apparent that the PEC
was in disagreement, the issue should be discussed by the PEC.
When the public was asked for comment, Irene Westby, manager of
the Talisman Condominiums, asked for clarification of the
location of the dish. Shelly Mello indicated the location on a
site plan and explained the request. Ms. Westby indicated she
had no problem with the landscaping, and she didn't believe the
owners would have any difficulty with the entire placement.
Since there was no further public comment, Diana Donovan opened
Commission comment by stating she had no concerns over the
location, but she did not like the idea of moving the trees in
order to install a fence for screening. Further, Diana commented
that the efforts to screen structures often result in making them
more obvious. She suggested that the fencing be integrated with
the existing landscaping.
Jim Shearer stated that he liked the plan.
Ludwig Kurz stipulated that he had the same comments as Diana,
and that he would like to see the trees remain where they were,
as it would be healthier for the trees.
. In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan stated that the
Commission was in favor of upholding the staff approval, with a
strong recommendation to DRB regarding the integration of the
existing landscaping and the proposed fence.
3. A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish an
additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in the
ordinance. The view to be protected extends from Frivolous
Sal's_tothe east over the Red Lion Building toward the Gore
Ra cr _
Applicant: Town of Vail
Andy Knudtsen summarized the changes which had been made since
the previous submission of this item to the Commission. He
indicated that staff had rephotographed the proposed view
corridor without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, per the PEC's
request, and at a height of 5' -2" to better reflect the angle at
which an average person would be looking at the view. Staff
further taped the photo at both the staff's recommendation for
the boundaries of the corridor and the PEC's request for the
boundaries to better illustrate the specific lines. In addition,
on one of the photographs, the proposed post- Christiania
expansion had been taped as a reference point for discussion.
0 2
Staff's recommendation included the provision that the Red Lion's
chimney be included in the view corridor so that, if at some
future date, the Red Lion proposed a remodel, the chimney could
be removed. Staff believed that building walls provided better
boundaries of a view corridor than architectural projections such
as chimneys or balconies, and the staff recommended photographs
reflected this philosophy.
Andy also explained that staff believed a grace period provision
for this ordinance, similar to the one used for the fireplace
ordinance amendment, was appropriate. Under that grace period,
an owner would have six weeks from the second reading and
adoption of the ordinance by the Town Council to submit a
complete DRB application without being affected by the new view
corridor limitations.
Regarding the proposed text changes, staff's goals were
enumerated as being to clarify the entire view corridor
ordinance, prevent any building above the line of the view
corridor, and prevent the cluttering of view areas with new
development. As an example, Andy cited View #6, which included
the Clock Tower. If a developer were to build above the view
corridor line, that construction would compete with the
prominence of the Clock Tower. The same philosophy applied to
View #1. Even if the addition could not be seen from the point
the corridor was based on as a result of being "behind" the Clock
Tower, it would still compete with the prominence of the Tower in
general views of the Village. Andy also elaborated on the fact
that, when a view corridor is created, these are focal points
which are intended to remain and are set forth in the description
of the corridor.
As the discussion opened up for public comment, Jay Peterson
started the discussion by mentioning that the Christiania project
already had DRB approval.
Paul Johnston of the Christiania remarked to the Commission that
when he had attempted to re- photograph the corridor himself
without clouds surrounding the Gore Range, he was thwarted
because there were clouds over at least part of the Range between
3- 4:OOPM on 14 consecutive days. In addition, he commented that
he had found staff's observation that people were stopping to
look at the Range to be valid, but clarified that it was more due
to curiosity at what was being photographed.
Jay elaborated that the additional photographs were being
submitted to illustrate what happens to the view corridor during
differing conditions. In the summer, Jay hypothesized that trees
block most of the corridor, while in winter, the clouds were
blocking the Range itself. Paul stated that, through his
observations, more people stopped to look at the tree stump in a
window than at the Gore Range. Jay Peterson continued with his
0
comments, stating that the past view corridors were created with
sensitivity to what an owner could do with a building in the
future. He reflected that the Town Council had amended some of
the original PEC recommendations to allow more flexibility for
development.
Mr. Peterson recommended that the Commission look at the original
39 view corridor photographs to determine if this particular
corridor was any more significant than the others. He asked that
the Commission be sensitive to the owners affected by this
ordinance, but reiterated that the Christiania had received DRB
approval for their project. To conclude his statements, he
submitted additional photographs to the Commission for their
scrutiny.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Christiania, if built as
approved, would encroach into the view corridor, and would then
be encouraged to be removed at a future redevelopment. Kristan
Pritz responded by indicating that when staff formulated the view
corridor proposal, they were trying to define the best possible
view, without looking at the Christiania project specifically.
Kathy Langenwalter indicated that she understood the reason why
staff recommended the corridor follow the roof lines, and
believed that the Christiania's proposed roof line should
determine the view line when built. Kristan expressed her
concern that, if the Christiania redevelopment were used as the
boundary of the corridor, the result could be that the corridor
ordinance approval would be unnecessarily delayed.
Jay Peterson said he thought it could be included now, but Kathy
Langenwalter replied she believed staff would want an exact
survey. Kathy continued by saying she was comfortable with the
staff's recommendation, with the provision that the corridor be
rephotographed after the Christiania expansion was completed, so
as not to precipitate problems in the future.
Kristan Pritz suggested that the Commission approve the corridor
with the provision that staff would amend it after the
construction of any building or addition, submitted to the DRB
during the grace period, was completed. This would allow for the
establishment of the view corridor without delay.
Kathy Langenwalter indicated she felt this would be appropriate,
as the staff's recommendation conformed best to the previously -
defined view corridors. Jim Shearer agreed with Kathy, but
expressed his opinion that straight lines were easier to deal
with, but that conforming to the roof line allows for a greater
area of corridor. He supported the proposal that the corridor
would be amended once all approved projects were completed.
0 4
Discussion ensued among the Commission members, staff and
concerned public about the specific points of the corridor.. At
the conclusion, Chuck Crist indicated he supported Kathy
Langenwalter's opinion regarding the proposed view corridor.
Ludwig Kurz and Gena Whitten were also in agreement that this was
a reasonable solution.
Diana Donovan requested direction from the staff as to how the
motion could be written. Kristan replied that, once Town Council
had proceeded through second reading of the ordinance, applicants
would have 6 weeks from that time to submit complete DRB
applications. If an application is approved, and construction is
started before approval lapses, staff would revise the view
corridor line, basing the boundary of the Corridor on the
completed construction.
Diana stated that, with this provision, she believed the
ordinance could be voted on today, but clarified to Jay Peterson
and Paul Johnston that the DRB approval could not lapse. If it
did, the current Christiania proposal would not be able to be
approved at a later date. Jay responded that he felt comfortable
with that provision, but asked that the Commission look at
additional pictures to gain a better understanding of view
corridors as a whole, and this particular view corridor in
specific. He asked that the Commission be sure that this was a
"significant" corridor, with more impact than those which had
been rejected in the past.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend approval of the request to Amend Ordinance
No. 13, 1983, to establish an additional view corridor, and to
clarify wording in the ordinance. The view to be protected
extends from Frivolous Sal's to the east over the Red Lion
Building toward the Gore Range per the staff memorandum and the
staff recommended photograph taken at a height of 51--2" on
February 25, 1991 with a 50mm lens; and further, that after the
6 -week grace period from the adoption of the ordinance by the
Vail Town Council, any project submitted during the grace period,
receiving DRB approval, and such approval being valid until
completion, will be allowed to be built, with the boundaries of
the corridor being defined after the construction is completed.
The motion was seconded by Jim Shearer. Chuck Crist clarified
that the grace period would be in the final ordinance. Jay
Peterson asked that a few more pictures be considered by the
Commission. The vote was taken, with a unanimous 6 -0 approval of
the motion.
After the vote, Chuck Crist expanded upon his opinion regarding
view corridors, stating that this was an important, environmental
issue. He stated that these view corridors add critical visual
interest to the Town, and that he felt the PEC should try to
maintain that interest. Diana Donovan continued that she would
like to adopt more of these view corridors, and asked that staff
. bring more to the PEC, perhaps in 6 weeks or 2 months. Kristan
Pritz stated that staff was intending to do a view analysis, but
had not anticipated bringing more to the Commission that quickly.
However, staff would investigate returning some of the views
previously discussed to the Commission for their review, if
possible, given their responsibilities to other projects.
4. A request for a conditional--use-permit to expand the Vail
Mountain School, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Roads Lot 12,
Block 2, Vail Village 12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
The short overview by Andy Knudtsen of the application began with
reference to the site plan. Andy indicated the location of the
Phase II expansion, and stated that the application would not
result in an increase in height. He reiterated that this was
somewhat of a housekeeping issue, since a conditional use permit
had been granted in 1989, but had lapsed. The application would
only apply to the Phase II expansion, and not Phase III.
The issues Andy discussed were the effect of the request on the
character of the neighborhood. Staff review indicated the need
for a landscaping buffer between the school and the adjacent
residential properties. Staff requests that the permit be
conditional upon landscaping between the school and adjacent
housing being installed or funds for landscaping escrowed before
a building permit is released for future construction. The same
condition would apply to the landscaping between the school and
North Frontage Road.
Public Works had raised an issue of a drainage problem on the
site. This problem appears to have been created during
construction, and should be corrected before completing the work
of Phase II.
Staff findings recommend approval of the conditional use permit
with the conditions listed in their memorandum.
Pam Hopkins, representing Vail Mountain School, stated that the
school was troubled by the condition that a building permit for
Phase II would be contingent upon landscaping being installed.
Ms. Hopkins reviewed the difficulties the school had in
maintaining the landscaping which had been installed, and
declared that the school had hired a landscape maintenance firm.
She indicated that the school wanted to do the landscaping, and
do it right, but that the timing of the conditions would create
difficulties. She also indicated that since the school is a non-
profit organization, a letter of credit would be costly. Kristan
Pritz clarified that if the landscaping was not planted, the
school could provide a financial guarantee to cover the costs.
Kristan explained further that many developers escrow a portion
of their building loan to ensure the landscaping would be
performed. This method would not cost the school additional
points or interest. Pam indicated this would be acceptable.
A neighbor of the school, Joe Tonahill, indicated that he did not
have concerns with any obstruction of views by the Phase II
expansion. Pam stated that since Joe had taken it upon himself
to plant screening evergreens, the school definitely wanted to
work with him to devise a satisfactory solution. Joe said he
would like to see trees of a higher quality than aspens, or
something which would accomplish the screening more
satisfactorily, placed by summer, not fall. Joe also indicated
he was representing another owner who had concerns with the
fencing near a berm on the northeast corner of the school. That
owner, Robert Lawrence, believed that the fence was an eyesore,
and it touched his lot. It was discussed that this fencing was
required by code, but that at some future date, it might be
removed.
Diana Donovan declared that it appeared the school was trying to
be a good neighbor, and she did not have any problem with the
request. Joe Tonahill reiterated that he would like to see the
planting in the summer, but otherwise he felt the plan was good.
Ludwig Kurz moved to approve the request for a conditional use
permit in order to expand the existing Vail Mountain School
facility, located at 3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2,
Vail Village 12th Filing per the staff recommendation. Jim
Shearer seconded the motion. It was further moved by Ludwig that
staff and applicant would work out a satisfactory financial
guarantee for the landscaping work. Jim accepted that motion
with his second. The motion passed with a unanimous 6 -0.
After a brief recess, the Commission reconvened at 3:40.
5. A reauest for a worksession on setback and site coveraae
variances and an exterior alteration to the Lift_h_o_u_se Lodge
at 555 East Lionshead Circle/ Lot 3, Block 1 Vail Lionshead
1st Filing.
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
Jill Kammerer briefly reviewed the outstanding issues from the
February 11, 1991 PEC discussion of this item. At that time, the
planning staff and PEC's main concerns were the roof connection,
landscaping, whether the roof would be sloped or flat, the
tyrolean flavor of the architecture, transparency of the facade,
and the impact of the addition on the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech
commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance.
0 7
With regard to the landscaping, staff will continue to work
toward resolving the proposed landscaping to the satisfaction of
the Public Works, Fire and Community Development Departments, the
Town landscape architect, the project architect and the Lionshead
merchants. In addressing the landscaping, the staff's goal is to
accomplish more plaza shading to soften the starkness of the
plaza area and to create a sense of enclosure for the northern
plaza area.
Regarding the connection of the addition's roof to the existing
structure, staff felt the connection point was an important
design element, and that a connection point at the floor level of
the second story balcony would better respect the strong
architectural line of the existing building and eliminate the
cantilevered appearance of these decks.
Regarding the visibility of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech, area,
staff felt the changes made by the applicant increased the
visibility and were more acceptable. However, these changes
would result in a need for a site coverage variance to allow the
approximately 850 sq. feet of additional site coverage to be
constructed. Jill Kammerer explained the allowable site coverage
is 70% and the additional 850 sq. ft. would increase the coverage
to 74 %, resulting in the need for a site coverage variance for
the 4% of site coverage over the allowable.
Galen Aasland, project architect, made the presentation for the
• applicant, explaining the changes made in the design since the
February 11th presentation. At the conclusion of his
presentation, the Commission began discussing the project design.
Gena Whitten began by stating she was concerned with the exposure
of the northwest corner commercial space and that felt the color
of the roof should better relate to the color of the existing
structure. Galen responded that they had examined using a washed
white or grey stone color. In response to Chuck Crist
questioning whether the roof was going to be gravel, Kathy
Langenwalter told the applicant if the roof was to be a flat,
gravel roof, it should be capable of supporting ballast.
Further discussing the roof, Kathy stated she felt that whether
the roof is flat or pitched, it was important that it go above
the line of the bottom of the balcony. She further indicated as
long as there were no roof penetrations (such as vents), she
would not mind a flat roof, but preferred a slight pitch with a
metal roof so that debris would not collect from the wind.
Kathy then examined the projection of the commercial space south
of the Pedal Power space. She thought the projection made the
pedestrian area too tight. She would also like to see the roof
line change, perhaps with a jog in.
9 8
In Kathy's opinion, the Banner Sports area was much better, but
next time she would like to see proposed planters staked.
In examining the Lifthouse Condominium entrance, Kathy said she
believed the entrance was too narrow. Gena Whitten echoed this
opinion, stating that the entrance needed to be better
identified.
Kathy summarized her statements by clarifying she was concerned
with both the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance and the
visibility of the Pedal Power commercial space, the point where
the roof interfaced with the existing building. She elaborated
by saying she would like to see a 2 -12 pitched roof, and the line
moved back so the entire pedestrian area would be more open. If
a flat roof was being proposed to control drainage, she
recommended the installation of a concealed gutter to enhance
drainage control.
Jim Shearer commented that he would definitely like to see a
sloped roof for the project. Galen asked for clarification on
whether the Commission would like to see the slope continuing
beyond the point where the roof intersected with the floor level
of the second floor balcony. Kathy answered she would like to
see the slope continue up until it intersected with the facade of
the existing structure, and the applicant should not worry about
the relationship of the roof slope above the condominium entrance
to the west facade roof slope.
Ludwig Kurz concurred with Kathy that he would like to see the
roof be a pitched metal roof. He also agreed that the building
projection near the Pedal Power space should be eliminated.
However, he was not as concerned with the plaza area. Ludwig
thought there would be enough space for pedestrians. He
expressed a desire to see the staff work with Public Works to
ensure snow dump and fire access issues didn't dictate the design
of the building.
Jim Shearer examined the project, elaborating on his comments in
favor of a sloped roof. He felt a flat, graveled roof was tacky.
He agreed with Kathy and would also like to see something
happening on the roof line near the condominium entrance He
further agreed with Kathy that the planters on the west facade
may create an obstruction because they project out so far from
the building. He expressed concern as well that trash would
collect in the corner, which he would not want to see happen.
Jim felt that the Lodge entrance was not identified well enough.
Galen Aasland suggested that the roof line near the condominium
entrance come across straight, then be hipped at the end. Kathy
Langenwalter recommended instead a small dormer be added at the
plane of the door. Jim Shearer commented he liked Kathy's
suggestion that the door be enunciated in this manner.
When Galen indicated the facia would go straight across and then
step back 2 feet, Jill Kammerer asked if, beyond the plane of the
facade of the balcony, whether or not the roof would continue to
be sloped or whether it would flatten out until it intersected
with the facade of the existing structure on top. Kathy
indicated a strong preference to have the roof continue to slope
at the same pitch until its intersection with the existing
structure.
Attention turned to the issue of the wood pillars in front. Jim
asked if they were rough, and Galen answered that they would be
smoothed out. Jim was concerned with the compatibility of the
style with the existing structure. If the pillar detail were
continued along the entire facade, Jim felt it would be too much.
Jim did not like the way the pillars married themselves to the
existing building. Kathy elaborated the pillars were a detail
specific to Banner Sports, and should remain as such. Jim and
Kathy both thought the pillars should be simply a Banner Sports
entry detail.
Chuck Crist and Diana Donovan were opposed to a flat roof for the
project. Chuck thought perhaps a light gray roof color would be
more appropriate. Kathy disagreed, stating she liked the darker
roof color, because there was so much reflection in the area now.
Both Chuck and Diana were concerned with the possibility trash
would collect on top of the roof and then be visible to people
accessing the plaza from the stairway.
40 Diana thought the point where the roof of the addition connected
to the Lifthouse was critical. She thought the current design
buried visibility of the Pedal Power space, and that the
projection should be eliminated. Regarding the wood pillars, she
believed that fewer were better. She was also concerned with the
types of trees to be installed in the grates in the plaza.
Because of the extreme summer and winter temperatures, she
suggested.tall, hardy trees be installed. She preferred to see a
sloped roof and the installation of the maximum of landscaping
possible. Regarding the impact snow dump concerns and fire
department vehicular access concerns had on the landscaping,
Kathy suggested staff work with the Fire Department and Public
Works to devise a compromise design. Kathy would like to see the
exterior of the entire Lifthouse Lodge renovated in conjunction
with this proposal. Jay Peterson responded he would talk with
Packy to see what the Lodge's time table was for making
improvements to the exterior.
• 10
6. A re uest for a front setback variance for the Perot
residence, located at 64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31—Block 7,
. Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Ross Perot
Staff presentation was given by Mike Mollica. The request was to
encroach a maximum of 6 feet into the front setback of the lot in
order to expand a ground level entrance. Mike indicated that the
existing three -car garage under construction in the front setback
was acceptable since the lot slope average was over 30 %.
After giving a brief history of the lot's development, Mike
elaborated on the analysis of the zoning. He stated that the
site coverage and GRFA was at the maximum allowed for the site.
Regarding the Consideration of Factors, Mike conveyed that the
staff had a difficult time with this request. Although there
would be a negligible impact on the surrounding neighborhood,
staff could not determine what site hardship existed to warrant
the granting of a variance. Staff believed that since the house
had gone through extensive plan review and design, the entrance
could have been designed without the need for a variance. As an
example, the entry could have been designed in conjunction with
the garage.
Mike reminded the Commission that in order to grant the variance,
they must find the granting of the variance would not be a grant
• of special privilege, that the granting would not be detrimental
to the general public, that the strict or literal interpretation
of the regulation would result in practical difficulty or
physical hardship, that there were exceptions or extraordinary
circumstances applicable to this site which were not generally
found in the same area, or that the strict interpretation of the
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
others in the same zone district. Staff believed that the
current variance application did not meet any of these criteria.
In conclusion, staff recommended denial of the variance request,
as there was no finding of hardship or unique circumstances.
Jim Morter, architect for the applicant was queried by Diana
Donovan of what would be accomplished with the addition of an
open gate to the entry vestibule. Mr. Morter responded that the
gate was open air with a wrought iron door, but not openable for
security reasons. When Kathy Langenwalter asked why the entrance
was being moved, Mr. Morter reviewed the changes on the site
plan, and said that there were special circumstances surrounding
Mr. Perot with life and death consequences. "The security
concerns had arisen from a change in world events subsequent to
the design of the house." This expanded entry was a change
requested by Mr. Perot's security team, and was believed to be a
problem in the sight area surrounding the entrance.
0 11
Kathy Langenwalter quizzed the staff about whether a variance
would be necessary if the walkway were designed with decorative
. metal, but no roof. Mike clarified that there would need.to be a
wall or fence height variance under that circumstance. Mr.
Morter elaborated that walls without a roof would not solve the
security concerns.
Chuck Crist requested information on what material would be used
on the outside wall. Jim Morter said it would be stone.
Jim Shearer asked if the walkway walls could be sloped or lowered
to be more architecturally pleasing. Jim Morter thought that
perhaps the grades next to them might be able to be raised.
Turning the Commission's attention to the requirements necessary
for granting a variance, Diana Donovan stated she believed that
there was a unique hardship to the owner. She supported the
request. However, she felt that if ownership of the house
changed, that the addition should be removed. Gena Whitten said
she did not believe there were enough impacts to warrant a
condition of later removal. Diana believed that to not require
the later removal would be setting a precedent.
Kathy Langenwalter reiterated that the owner could not create the
hardship. Jim Shearer elaborated that he felt granting this
variance might be a grant of special privilege. Chuck Crist
explained his opinion that if the ownership changed, there would
no longer be a hardship, and that the entry walk should be
removed. Gena thought that the removal should be at Mr. Perot's
expense.
Diana asked the Commission how they would like a condition of
approval phrased. Mike Mollica requested clarification that the
Commission was looking for language that would require the
addition to be removed if Mr. Perot sold the property. Diana
answered affirmatively, that the expansion should be removed upon
a change of title. Jim Morter requested that the provision be
expanded to state that removal of the entry would be required if
the ownership of the property left the family. Mr. Perot might
want to visit his children if they were the subsequent owners.
The same security concerns would exist as long as the ownership
remained in the Perot family.
Kristan Pritz offered guidance to the Commission that if they
wanted to approve the variance, it would be difficult to require
an approved structure to be removed, but that if the Commission
felt the variance was for safety concerns, it would be
appropriate to approve the request, and there were unusual
circumstances on the site, such as the topography and the
location of the garage already encroaching into the setback.
0 12
Jim Shearer confided his hesitance to set precedent to base a
variance on security concerns, as there could be many in the Town
. who believed they had similar concerns. Kathy Langenwalter
expressed her belief that this particular variance was based on
extraordinary circumstances. She wanted to be sensitive to the
owner as well as to the site, and compared the request to one for
an owner with a particular disability. She believed the variance
was for a unique combination of site constraints and owner
hardship, and that if the ownership of the property changed, the
addition should be removed.
Gena Whitten said she did not think that a removal condition
would be necessary. Ludwig Kurz agreed with that opinion.
Neither Chuck Crist or Jim Shearer had an opinion on the
condition.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the Commission approve the request
for a front setback variance for the Perot residence, located at
64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing,
as submitted, and with the finding that extraordinary circum-
stances are applicable to this site which does not apply
generally to the other sites in the zone district, in that the
garage was located in the front setback of the property due to
the overall slope of the lot exceeding 30 %. Additionally, an
expanded entry /security gate was necessary for this owner. Chuck
Crist seconded the motion. Kristan Fritz indicated this would
not be counted as GRFA for the house.
• The vote was a unanimous 6 -0.
Subsequent to the voting, Diana Donovan indicated she appreciated
the staff's assistance in formulating the wording for the
variance, even though they had originally recommended denial.
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code -
Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable housing
unit.
Applicant: Town of Vail
8. A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single - Family District_,
18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and 18.13 - Primary/
Secondary Residential District to allow affordable housing
units as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
9. A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster
rl; o*l ir+- 10 1r, - T.nG7 ncr,eeit-v miiii-inip Family ni -.trint.
Y i!�ii�iR�Y�7Tiii1•YT3 aL-ii �t�C1�Y���YlY7��: Y�YIIYI�YV�YIf��f�r t�i��ti��.Li�
Public Accommodation District, 18.24 - Commercial Core 1
District, 18.26 - Commercial Core 2 District, 18_.27 -
Commercial Core 3 District 18.28 - Commercial_ Service
Center District, 18.29 - Arterial Business District, 18.36 -
13
Public Use District and 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation
District; to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional
Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
10. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal Code -
Supplemental Regulations to provide specific development
zoning standards for affordable housing units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
These four items were presented together by Mike Mollica. He
described the changes requested, namely explaining that the
changes were recommended from the Town of Vail Affordable Housing
Study as Phase I changes. He summarized these as being proposed
as conditional uses for differing zoning districts, as well as
defining Affordable Housing Unit (AFU).
The staff recommendation was that all suggested changes be
approved. Type I units would be allowed as a conditional use in
SF, 2 -F, and P/S zone districts. Types II and III would be a
conditional use for Residential Cluster, Low Density Multi -
Family, Medium Density Multiple Family, Public Accommodation,
Commercial Core I, Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III,
Commercial Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use
and Ski Base /Recreation zone Districts. Staff also recommended
adoption of the definition of Affordable Housing Unit as being "a
dwelling unit, with a restricted floor area, that shall be used
for long -term rentals, or ownership, by local employees in the
Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman,
Eagle -Vail, and Avon and their surrounding areas) for the
specific purpose of housing."
Staff also encouraged the adoption of the development standards
for AFUs, Types I, II and III. These development standards would
be in the zoning Code under Section 18.58.330 and cross -
referenced.
Chuck Crist asked for clarification on the parking requirements,
specifically if an AFU were placed on a P/S lot, would the
enclosed parking be 5 spaces? Kristan responded that yes, there
could be up to 5 spaces, but one enclosed space would be required
to be on the lot. She also clarified that there would be no GRFA
credit for the garage. Mike Mollica further explained that the
AFU would have to come from existing or available GRFA, but that
the 11250 Ordinance," after possible revision and reenactment for
this specific purpose, could be used for a portion of the GRFA.
Jim Shearer requested information on what specifically would be
included in a full kitchen. Mike stated that it would include a
refrigerator, sink, range and /or microwave. Mike continued his
explanation of the three types of AFUs. Type I would consist of
300 -700 sq. ft., including a bath and full kitchen. Type II is
14
larger, ranging from 450 -900 sq. ft, and would also include a
bath and full kitchen. Two people per bedroom would be allowed,
and the unit must be on a bus line or a private shuttle would be
required. Further, both Type I and Type II units would be
permanently deed restricted. Type III units would consist of
200 -300 sq. ft., and would have a bath and kitchenette consisting
of a small refrigerator, sink and microwave oven. A central
kitchen and lounge area would be required for every 5 Type III
AFUs in each building. Storage lockers and laundry facilities
would also be required. Jim requested that the language "in each
building" be added to the storage lockers and laundry facilities
sentence of the description.
Ludwig Kurz asked for a definition of what "accessible" to the
Town of Vail bus line would mean. Mike replied that it should be
more clearly defined. Kristan Pritz suggested using the term
"walking distance." Mike recommended perhaps using "reasonable
walking distance." Jim reiterated his desire to see a clear
definition. Diana Donovan thought that a "reasonable" walking
distance would be appropriate, as the Commission could review
each request as it came up through the Conditional Use permit
process. She also believed that the precluding of the use of
cars should be stated as the objective for this requirement.
Mike Mollica turned the attention of the Commission to the issue
of density. He stated that Type III units would equal 0.333
dwelling units, or three units would equal 1 dwelling unit for
the purposes of density. He further explained that these units
• would not be allowed to exceed the allowable GRFA for the
district. Chuck Crist asked if the density could be exceeded.
Mike indicated that it could not. Kathy Langenwalter asserted
that the proposed density language was not clearly stated. Mike
agreed to change the density language to delete the "if the 0.333
density standard is utilized" to clarify the section.
Mike asked the Commission for their opinions regarding the Type
III units, and questioned whether these units were necessary, as
they seemed to receive a cool reception during the previous
public hearing process. The Commission stated very clearly that
they believed this type of housing was necessary for seasonal
workers.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if a Type I unit would be allowed in a
garage if the garage was placed in the front setback of a
property. Kristan explained that there was already language in
the code regarding this, but she would make the changes in the
definition of Type I AFU to read "if a garage is located in the
front setback of a property, a Type I AFU shall not be allowed."
Kathy also inquired how the 250 Ordinance would be used. She did
not like the use of the 250 in a P/S district by both owners to
provide 500 square feet. She believed that 250 square feet per
lot should be the maximum allowable. She felt that if two 250s
0 15
were used, the buildings would be too large. Jim Shearer
asserted that verbiage was needed so that the property owners
could decide between them who would use the 250. Kathy expanded
on to say that there would only be 1 AFU allowed per lot, and
both owners would have to agree on it.
Diana Donovan asked if this had been a big discussion item during
the Zoning Code Task Force meetings. Kristan explained that the
existing 250 Ordinance was proposed to be eliminated, and then
perhaps it could be re- established specifically for the AFUs.
She agreed to the change in language that there would be 250 per
lot, rather than per dwelling unit. She suggested that the 250
language be taken out of the current definition, but with a
footnote as to intention to reinstate, once the current 250
Ordinance is repealed.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Housing Authority would set the
rental rates for the units. Kristan replied that they probably
would. Diana stated she believed it was part of their job.
Kristan said that Ji11:Kammerer would investigate that with the
Authority. Jill explained that the Authority was still trying to
decide how, or if, to set the rates. Diana asked that guidelines
be established, to which Ludwig Kurz suggested the rates be set
on local wages. Jim Shearer declared he believed a range was
necessary, and that the Housing Authority should be the ones to
set it. Diana agreed with setting guidelines, not specific
rents.
is Diana Donovan reiterated her opinion that Type III units were
necessary for seasonal employees. Jim thought that commercial
buildings could provide these units on the top floor. Kathy
believed SDDs would also be a good source to provide the units.
Diana viewed a definite need for these units, and expressed her
opinion that the workers who would occupy Type IIIs would not
necessarily be the ones to turn out to public hearings.
Mike Mollica asked Kathy what she would like to see for parking.
Kathy replied that she did not believe 1 parking space was
adequate, but was not sure requiring more would be practical.
Kathy asked staff to add wording that all required parking be
built as a part of the conditional use. Diana also wanted to
explore Aspen's plan that a second car would have to be parked at
a location other than the AFU. She also stated that if parking
became a problem, the cars could always be ticketed and towed.
Mike Mollica agreed to amend the parking changes in the AFU
language.
Diana explained to those members of the Commission who were not
on the Affordable Housing Task Force that the rationale behind
the density requirements was to protect the neighborhood. Chuck
0 16
wondered if these units would ever be built. Diana answered that
she thought many second home owners would be happy to have a
. caretaker unit to watch their house.
The Commission's attention turned to rental rates. Jill Kammerer
expressed that it would be difficult to set specific rates, as
construction costs would have to be taken into consideration.
Diana Donovan objected to that logic, and suggested that long-
term rates be set as a range. Jim Shearer asked that a cap be
placed on the range, so that the units would be rentable, and not
just used as guest rooms. Jill suggested that Valley -wide costs
per square foot could be monitored to determine acceptable costs.
Ludwig indicated that these rates were readily available, and
postulated that a responsible developer and builder could build a
unit for approximately $50 per square foot. He suggested the
rental rates not be tied to construction costs, but serve as
guidelines to income and rental level. Kathy Langenwalter stated
that there could be higher - income employee units, but Jim Shearer
rebutted by saying that the units should be reasonably rentable.
Kristan said that a tie -in to median income levels is common
among housing projects. Jim Shearer agreed, saying that it would
force employers to pay a reasonable wage. He did, however, still
want a maximum rental cap on the units. Kristan said that the
levels could be re- examined each year, and that since
construction costs were often tied to the economy, a balance
should be reachable.
In concluding the discussion, Diana Donovan asked that the GRFA
• language be re- worded. Staff agreed.
11. A royal of minutes fromfebruary 11 1991 meeting.
Jim Shearer moved the minutes from the February 11, 1991 meeting
be approved as written. Diana Donovan seconded the motion. The
motion passed, 4 -0 -1, with Chuck Crist abstaining.
12. Approval of minutes from Februar 25 1991 meetin
Jim Shearer moved the February 25, 1991 minutes be accepted as
written. Kathy Langenwalter seconded. The vote was 3 -0 -1 in
favor, with Diana Donovan abstaining.
A date for the PEC workshop /dinner was established as April 1,
1991 at 5:30PM, to take place at the Vail Golf Course clubhouse.
Upcoming joint meetings between the PEC and Town Council were
discussed. Specifically, the March 12 Master Transportation Plan
and March 19, 1991 Streetscape Plan were discussed.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:05PM by Diana Donovan.
17
•
•
M$MORP 1�T UM_
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department Staff
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Notification of PEC of staff approval of Minor
Amendment to SDD #6 - Vail Village Inn to allow for the
installation of a satellite dish in a setback.
The staff recently approved a request for a minor amendment to
the Vail Village, Inn Special Development District #6, to allow
i
for the installation of a satellite dish n a side setback on the
east end of the property. The setbacks in Vail Village Inn are
actually the existing building footprints. Any structure that is
not within the building footprint is considered an encroachment
into the setback. For this reason, a minor amendment to the SDD
for the encroachment into the setback on the east side of the
Vail Village Inn development is necessary.
The top of the dish will be 8 feet above grade and 7 1/2 feet in
diameter. The dish will be brown, perforated metal. A wood
screen fence painted brown to match the building trim will be
installed, additional evergreens will also be placed adjacent to
the fence. Please see site plan.
Under Section 18.40.020(B) of the Town's Municipal Code, the
staff may approve minor amendments to Special Development
Districts. A minor amendment is defined as the following:
"Minor amendment (Staff review)" shall mean modifications to
building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter
the basic intent and character of the approved special
development district, and are consistent with the design
criteria of this chapter. Minor amendments may include, but
not be limited to, variations of not more than five feet to
approved setbacks and /or building footprints; changes to
that do not adversely impact
landscape or site plans
pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the special
development district; or changes to gross floor area
(excluding residential uses), of not more than five percent
of the approved square footage of retail, office, common
areas and other nonresidential floor area."
The staff finds that with the proposed landscaping and screening,
the proposed satellite dish will not alter the basic intent and
character of the approved Special Development District, and is
consistent with the design criteria of this chapter.
c :\pec \memos \satelite.311
�> \� /%� � � � � /�
. I rl- -F!': 1: .
4������ �\
( \���:f:�\ � »� \�
\ y < ƒ/ , \ %��� ' <
VA
L;
_ _ ,�� ■ l .. ���� 'TM`s �F� .x .
IX
i�
vow
1
Fo' � � �
\\
,
`^
__--_
__�--_'--_--.
\\
� \/
J
��
C
•
•
MEMORANDUM
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983, to establish
an additional view corridor, and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Since the PEC work session on February 11, 1991, staff has
rephotographed the Gore Range and identified the view corridor
more clearly. Attached to this memo are two photographs taken
from a 5' -2" height that show alternative ways to set the
boundary of the corridor. The first is staff's recommendation,
which runs the boundary along the roofs of the existing Red Lion
and Christiania buildings. The second reflects PEC's discussion
during the work session, which runs the boundary directly between
two balcony railings on either side of the corridor. The
vertical boundaries which frame the two sides of the corridor are
the same on both alternatives since there was general agreement
on that issue. The 5' -2" height is consistent with the height
staff used to photograph other view corridors in the past. Staff
believes this is a typical eye level height for pedestrians.
Two other photographs are attached to this memo which were used
at the work session, which were taken from a 3' -10" height. A
potential Christiania expansion has been identified on one of the
photographs by Paul Johnston's architect.
Regarding the text of the proposed ordinance, staff has changed
it so that it is clearly understood that existing encroachments
which are focal points (like the Clock Tower) are intended to
remain.
During the PEC work session, it was mentioned by Jay Peterson
that the Council, when discussing the proposed changes to the Red
Lion, had said that view corridor number one was to exclude the
Red Lion chimney. Staff has included the chimney as part of view
corridor number 4. Staff could find no portion of Town Council
minutes stating that the Red Lion chimney should be excluded from
the view corridor. Staff understands from individuals involved
with the original definition of this view corridor that the
boundary was placed around the chimney, excluding it. Staff
would like to enable pedestrians to see as much of the Gore Range
• as possible, and as a result, staff recommends including it
within the boundary. By including it, staff would encourage the
Red Lion to remove a portion of the chimney if and when the Red
Lion applies for a major remodel. Even though the original
discussions may have excluded it, staff believes that corridors
in general should be defined with building roofs and walls, not
architectural projections like chimneys.
Before this view corridor is established, it must be considered
by Town Council twice and adopted as an ordinance. Staff
believes that this addition to the code should be treated
similarly to other code changes. There should be some kind of
"grace period" for developers to pull building permits for
projects designed under the current regulations. Staff proposes
to use the same process that was used for the recent code change
limiting the number of woodburning fireplaces. Once adopted by
the Town Council, staff proposes that there be a six week period
for individuals to submit a complete DRB application for projects
that would otherwise encroach into View Corridor #4. Approval of
the project by DRB, or any other board, is not needed. A
complete application submittal is all that would be necessary.
The staff memo from the February 11, 1991 PEC work session is
attached to this cover memo. It has been modified to reflect the
concerns the PEC expressed, including the discussion of the
chimney and clarifying the language regarding focal points like
the Clock Tower.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Department of Community Development
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Ordinance No. 13, 1983 to establish
an additional view corridor and to clarify wording in
the ordinance. The view to be protected extends from
Frivolous Sals to the east over the Red Lion Building
toward the Gore Range.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. BACKGROUND
The primary purpose of this request is to add another view
corridor to the four existing view corridors the Town
Council has adopted. These four views are numbered 1, 2, 5
and 6. These numbers are based on a large list that was put
together in an effort to comprehensively identify as many
view corridors as possible. The view that is under
consideration with this proposal is number four from that
is list. In addition to adding a view corridor, the proposed
ordinance would clarify some of the language in the current
view corridor ordinance.
Il. PROPOSED VIEW CORRIDOR
The proposed view corridor will read as follows:
"View No. 4 - The point of origin for this view is
8' -2" east of the southern side of the door frame of
Frivolous Sals, located at 244 Wall Street. The view
was established by setting a camera five feet two
inches above this point, using a 50 millimeter lens.
The Hill Building and the Plaza Lodge buildings flank
the corridor on either side. It then extends above the
Red Lion roof, then above the Christiania roof over
Hansen Ranch Road, to the Gore Range."
III. PROPOSED LANGUAGE
The current ordinance is attached to this memo for
reference. The portions which are proposed to be changed
are marked with an asterisk in the margin.
•
A. The first change is to delete the following sentence:
. "Minor modifications to the roofs or structures (i.e. a
new flue) located above the line may be permitted if
appropriate approvals from the Community Development
Department are obtained."
Staff proposes that this sentence be replaced with:
"any modifications to the roofs or structures which are
proposed to be located above the line of the view
corridor may be permitted if approved by the PEC and
Town Council."
B. The second change is to modify the following paragraph:
"As circumstances affecting views chan4
rezonings, variances and height or new
view corridors will be reviewed and if
revised. If a conflict exists between
height allowed and the view corridors,
restrictive regulation will apply."
je, such as
buildings, the
necessary
the maximum
the more
Instead of the above, staff proposes the following
language be added:
"If the maximum height allowed by the zoning code
exceeds the resulting height as defined by the view
corridor, the more restrictive height as defined by the
view corridor shall apply."
C. A third issue which staff would like to add to the
ordinance reads as follows:
$'Any expansion proposed above the view corridor line,
even if it is proposed to be built below, behind or in
front of an existing structure that is in a view
corridor (a chimney.or other architectural feature for
example) shall not be allowed.,,
There are three reasons why staff would like to add
this section. First, it clarifies the existing wording
of the ordinance which is presently interpreted in this
manner. Secondly, it will prevent new buildings from
competing with existing focal points like the Clock
Tower. Third, it will help keep corridors open so
that, eventually, when existing encroachments are
removed, corridors will be completely clear.
Hypothetically, new construction could impact existing
view corridors in the following ways:
View 1: (From the parking structure looking out to
the ski mountain.)
•
Potential applicants may want to construct
additions above the view corridor line, which
would not exceed the height of the Gold Peak
0 House. This is the situation that occurred
with the Red Lion. A thorough review of the
encroachment shall be required, which staff
believes is appropriate.
View 6: (From Gore Creek Drive looking east over
Gorsuch to the Gore Range.)
Additions to buildings could be done in such
a way that the mountain views are preserved.
However, staff believes the prominence of the
Clock Tower should not be reduced with any
other construction that would exceed the
height defined by the view corridor.
View 4: (Proposed new view from Frivolous Sals
looking east to the Gore Range.)
Expansions to the Red Lion or Mill Creek
Court Building could be located behind the
Red Lion chimney. This should not be allowed
as the existing chimney blocks part of the
Gore Range from view which, ideally, should
be removed.
The reason staff would like to add this to the
ordinance is to clearly communicate to developers that
the view corridor boundaries are not exclusively
determined by existing buildings but instead are
determined by the view corridor line. This
clarification is needed to make the point that no new
construction above the view corridor line is allowed.
D. Lastly, a fourth point that staff would like to add to
the ordinance is that:
"Some view corridors include portions of existing
structures that currently encroach into the corridor.
Pre - existing encroachments in view corridors shall not
be expanded or enlarged to create further encroachment.
For example, decks which extend out into a corridor
will not be allowed to be enclosed or expanded. Appli-
cants requesting changes to buildings within view
corridors should be aware that any existing encroach-
ments will be encouraged to be removed from the view
corridor as part of any major building modification.
Encroachments like the Clock Tower and Bell Tower,
which are focal points identified in the View corridors
described in the View Ordinance, are excluded from this
policy."
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff recommends that the Planning and Environmental
Commission recommend that Town Council adopt these revisions
to the view corridor ordinance. Staff believes that the
clarifications will make the development review process
simpler for both applicants and the Town in the future.
Staff believes that adding view corridor number four, to
those already adopted by the Town Council, is important as
it is a beautiful view of the Gore Range from a high use
pedestrian area of Vail Village.
•
•
h
t;
1
•.I �? / P' AYR �,
S i �
1
�, .
• i:` .. - - _- — doe. -,.
d
�a �m
r (e
II
IL
,x 1: _ ,.g ���'. r' � Jam^ >< ..,�5:•- -• �xr � _ ; ,
'7f
52" height
ear
; Ilill lens
.. +r .. F yr. ,ry 'M•f _. -. �' rP-
7. t,
Nor
f.
I., AM Ad
JN
k
-10
. . . . . . . . . . .
Conclusion • PEC discussio
n
2!- 91
4r- from • worksession •
5'2" height
50 mm lens
x
�i
• 1 .w -'. ww rrvt�
fir
. ,
r,:
33
+Y
Christi
,v
{gl e
w w
rf �
Y ,
JJJJ
■ �� y`mot K" � !f ^�
j J1 e
n
Fey.
3
of t 3
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN
DESIGN GUIDE PLAN - DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
VIEW SECTION AND VIEW CORRIDOR MAP TO RETA CE
THE N L: IBE R G1~' :1AJ 011 V I ..W Coral [ UORS AND TO
ELIMINATE MINOR VIEW CORRIDORS; AND SETTING
FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
if
WHEREAS, the revision to the view section of the Urban Design
Guide Plan - Design Considerations and the View Corridor Map has been
under study by staff, Planning and Environmental Commission and Town
Council for a considerable time.peri,od; and
i WHEREAS, it is the opinion of the Town Council that'preservation
of certain existing view corridors is essential to.the character of
Vail as a mountain resort; and
WHEREAS, the preservation of such views will.protect the
municipalities attraction to tourists and visitors and, therefore,
enhance and protect its economic vitality.
WHEREAS, it is the opinion of Council that the several most
important view corridors be entirely preserved as they exist; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission has recom-
mended adoption of the nine view corridors, one focal point and
amendments to the language in the view section to the Council,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY,THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL: A
Section 1
Section G. Views of the Vail Village Design Considerations is
hereby amended to read as follows:
G. VIEWS AND FOCAL POINTS
Vail's mountain /valley setting is a fundamental part of its
'.,_- identity. Views of the mountains, ski slopes, geologic features,
,:• etc. are constan�tremod�ationhreferencenpointsonmCertain�building
"_...;,.repeated visibility,
eatures are also important character features, orientation refer -
�: ences and visual focal points.
;..:'
rs
t� The most significant obvious wod
CVailhVillagenUrbangDesign
on the View
Corridor Map C an element of the
Framework Plan) and photographically documented (.photos on file in
,:. However, the view corridors.
�. ;•;..the Community Development Department
,Y.".
{ .•,����: depicted on the maps and in the photographs should not be considered
• --- -��_.� ms,o, -ter obviously many-other important views too_
rs �_�
-2-
. The official photographs and field surveys of the view corridors
and focal point contain the area to be protected. No encroachment
will be allowed above the top of the black and white line on the
photographs or in the protected area as depicted by the field <'
surveys. The field surveys are on file with the Department of;
Conununity Development and will be used to aid staff and applicants ;j ". 1':
in determining the specific dimensional restrictions produced by
the view corridors. Minor modifications to the roofs or structures•
(i.e. a new flue) located above the line may be permitted if appro-
priate approvals from the Community Development Department are ''Y:i;:' '
obtained.
i To demonstrate the impact on other views, all submittals should
include a visual impact analysis. This analysis could be in the*;.'.
form of sketches, photographic overlays, photographic touch -ups,
models, or other simulation.techniques. A means of demonstrating i
in the field (on site) the impact on views will also be required
by the zoning administrator.
As circumstances affecting views change, such as rezonings, variances
in height or new buildings, the view corridors will be reviewed and,
if necessary', revised. If a conflict exists between the maximum
height allowed and the view corridors, the more restrictive regulation
The following is a listing and verbal description of the adopted will
view corridors and focal point: apply
. NO. DESCRIPTION
1 This view occurs from two flights of steps above the photographic
point on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center. The
view is significant in that it contains the Clock Tower and the
Rucksack Tower as focal points, but also is one's first view of
the ski slopes as one comes out of the Transportation Center.
L�
2 This is a significant view because,it allows one to see the ski
slopes from upper Bridge Street as well as directing one to the
ticket and lift facilities in the Village.
5 This i-s a view of the Gore Range'from Hanson-Ranch Road just
east of the Mill Creek Bridge and west of the Mill Creek Court B1
6 This is probably the best known and most spectacular view in
the Village area. It is looking east to the Gore Range from
Gore Creek Drive between The Lodge at Vail retail shops and
the Gore Creek Plaza Building. The Clock Tower is a focal
point in this view.
. Section 2
• '
U
_3_
If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase
of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision
shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this
ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed
this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection,onentence, clause '.3-
or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any or
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared
invalid. �
i Section 3 {' '
The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that
this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and ,
welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof.
Section 4
The repeal or the repeal and reenactment of any provision of
the Vail Municipal Code as provided in this ordinance shall not
affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation
that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution
commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or
by virtue of the provision repealed or repealed or reenacted. The
repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated
herein.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this cr� _ day of , 1983. A public hearing
shall be held hereon on the o? /.a. day of
1983 at the
regular meeting of the Town Council of..th ,Town of Vail, Colorado, in
The Municipal Building of the Town.
Rodney E. lif r, M or
ATTEST:. ,
62 Lk
Pamela A Erandmeye Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
this OLI-a/ day of 1983.
(/� r
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for a conditional use permit in order to expand
the existing Vail Mountain School facility, located at
3160 Katsos Ranch Road/ Lot 12, Block 2, Vail Village
12th Filing.
Applicant: Vail Mountain School
I. DESCRIPTION OF 1989 APPROVAL
On February 8, 1989, the Planning and Environmental
Commission (PEC) approved a three phase expansion program
for the Vail Mountain School. Phase I (10,318 sq. ft.) has
been completed, which included the gymnasium, locker rooms
and a stage. The Town issued the building permit for this
construction on May 25, 1989. Phases II and III are
unbuilt, but were approved under the February 8, 1989
approval. Phase II is the 3240 square foot addition of a
third floor within the primary building to create classroom
• space. Phase III will include a lobby, restrooms,
kitchenette and a gym office. These rooms will be built
south of the existing gymnasium under the existing covered
entry.
II. DESCRIPTION OF CURRENT REQUEST
At this time, the applicant has applied for a conditional
use to re-activate only the approval for Phase II. The
reason the applicant needs to return to the PEC for a new
conditional use approval for Phase II is because the 1989
conditional use approval has lapsed. The zoning code
language in Section 18.60.080 states that:
"The zoning administrator shall issue a conditional use
permit when action of the Planning Commission becomes
final, subject to such conditions as may be prescribed
by the Commission. The permit shall lapse if
construction is not commenced within one year of the
date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion,
or if the use for which the permit is granted is not
commenced within one year."
• 1
If the PEC approves this request, the applicant will have
one year to pull a building permit for this construction.
. The applicant must return later to the PEC for reapproval of
Phase III. Conditional use approval for that phase has
already lapsed, and this request does not include that
phase.
The reason the applicant has not requested Phase III
approval is because the specific plan for the proposed rooms
has not been designed. At this time, it is not clear if
another site coverage variance is needed. The applicant
will wait until funds for Phase III are available, do the
design work, and then apply for a site coverage variance (if
needed) at that time.
II. BACKGROUND OF THE VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL
The Vail Mountain School received approval to construct a
new school in Booth Creek in 1978. The applicant requested
a conditional use approval for a private school of
approximately 9,000 square feet for a maximum of 100
students. Conditions of approval were as follows:
1. The maximum floor area for the Vail Mountain School
building is not to exceed 10,000 square feet.
2. The Vail Mountain School is to be used only by the Vail
• Mountain School for school functions.
3. Additional parking shall be provided by the Vail
Mountain School if the proposed parking is found by the
Planning and Environmental Commission to be inadequate.
4. The location of the school building and its activities
are restricted to the area designated on the plans
approved by the Planning and Environmental Commission
at the October 24, 1978 meeting, which are on file in
the Community Development Department. A deed
restriction from Vail Associates will limit the amount
of land to be used by the school on this designated
area. The balance of the seven acre parcel is to be
restricted as green belt.
5. The cabin currently on the property is to be preserved
and restored either in its existing location or in
another location restricted to the eastern part of the
site as shown, as shown on the submitted plans.
In November, 1979, the Vail Mountain School received
expansion approval to construct a lunch room, indoor
recreational area, and a dark room. Conditional use
approval was given in October, 1981 to remove the
• 2
restriction limiting the number of students at Vail Mountain
. School. In August, 1983, the school received conditional
use approval to accommodate a sodded soccer field.
In 1984, the school received approval to add approximately
3,096 square feet. The proposal provided space for a print
room, computer room, language lab, two classrooms, one
meeting room, and one kindergarten room. A parking /hard
space /play area of approximately 4,000 square feet was
located on the existing parking area. During this
conditional use review, a rock fall barrier was also
proposed on the north hillside above the school. At this
time, the Vail Mountain School has a total gross square
footage of 18,571 square feet.
On January 25, 1988, a work session was held on the Vail
Mountain School to discuss the gymnasium and classroom
expansion as well as the vacation of the deed restriction.
The Planning and Environmental Commission determined that it
would be appropriate for the deed restriction to be voided.
Representatives from the Vail Mountain School, Marsha Sage,
President of the Board of Directors and Mr. Peter Abuissi,
Headmaster, indicated that there would not be a major
increase in development after this expansion. Since that
PEC meeting, the deed restriction has been voided.
On February 8, 1989, the Planning and Environmental
Commission approved a three phase expansion approval
described in the first section of this memo. The first
phase of that has been constructed, which had 10,318 square
feet. After the 3,240 square foot expansion of Phase II is
built, the total floor area of the school will be 32,129
square feet.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development
objectives of the Town.
The development objectives of the Town listed in
the purpose section of the Open Space and
Agricultural District section of the zoning code
state that "parks, schools, and certain types of
private recreation facilities and institutions ...
are suitable uses in the agriculture and open
0 3
space district, provided that the sites of these
uses remain predominantly open." Staff believes
. that the site is predominantly open, and that the
use complies with the purpose of the Section as
stated above. The school currently covers 7.930
of the 6.122 acre site. Though this may appear to
the PEC as a very small amount of site coverage,
the code limitation for this zone district is only
5 %. The additional 2.93% of site coverage was
approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission on February 13, 1989 in a site coverage
variance. Staff continues to believe, however,
that a site that is 92.07% open meets the intent
of the purpose section. Construction of Phase II
will not increase the site coverage.
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.
Since the expansion is not intended to increase
the number of students, the current level of
impact will not change.
. 3. Effect upon.
congestion,
convenience
maneuverabi
street and
traffic with particular reference to
automotive and pedestrian safety and
traffic flow and control access
Lity, and removal of snow from the
narking areas.
The applicant does not propose to change the
parking layout or the access plan. There are
currently 84 parking spaces on the site. The
parking lot is accessed from Katsos Ranch Road,
with a one -way traffic flow, exiting onto Booth
Fall Road. There is no direct access onto the
Frontage Road. This is the design which staff and
PEC reviewed and supported in 1989 when the
applicant was requesting the three phase expansion
to the school.
If the applicant were to propose expansions other
than those listed in the 1989 proposal, staff
believes it would be necessary to reevaluate the
parking demand and possibly require additional
spaces. However, because the existing design and
parking supply were determined to be appropriate
for the construction outlined in the 1989 review,
0 4
and because this request does not involve any
floor area that was not described in that request,
• staff believes that the comprehensive site design
does not need to be changed. As it has turned out
in the past year since the parking lot has been
constructed, the 84 spaces are more than enough
for the demands of the school.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use is to be located including the scale
and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The new windows and dormers proposed for the third
floor classroom expansion will actually help break
up the mass of the existing building on the north
and south elevations. As a result, the building
will appear less bulky.
As part of the earlier approval, the applicant
intended to landscape the area north of the school
to create a buffer between this use and the
residential neighborhood north of the site. As
this has not been done yet, staff is recommending
that the applicant plant a buffer in this area
prior to the issuance of building permits for this
• construction as a condition of approval. Because
the landscaping requirements are part of the Phase
I approval, staff will not issue a final
Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the
construction until the planting is installed.
However, even though the Town has this condition
on the final C.O., staff believes it is more
appropriate for the applicant to complete this
landscaping before starting Phase II or at
minimum, to provide a letter of credit for these
improvements before any additional building
permits are issued.
Landscaping shown on the original approval south
of the site was designed to screen the parking lot
from the Frontage Road. This was particularly
important to the Town, since part of the parking
lot encroaches into the 20 foot front yard
setback. A variance was approved for the parking
in this location with the understanding that the
applicant would screen it with landscaping. The
applicant has planted about half of the 30 trees
shown on the plans, but several have died because
the irrigation system failed. Once the irrigation
system is fixed, the applicant will replace the
ID 5
•
dead trees and plant the rest of the trees called
for on the original landscape plan. Completing
the.landscaping in this area should be another
condition of approval for this request.
Public works staff has identified a drainage
problem, created when the parking lot was
expanded, which should also be corrected at this
time.
IV. Such Other Factors and Criteria as the Commission Deems
Applicable to the Proposed Use.
Attached to this memo is a letter from the Town to the Booth
Creek neighborhood regarding the rock fall mitigation ditch.
The concept of this mitigation is one that provides the best
protection to the school as it not only protects the
buildings, but also the play fields. As the letter
indicates, the Town has written commitment from the
contractor to rebuild the berm in accordance with the
engineering compaction specifications. The Town hopes to
have the berm rebuilt during the summer of 1991.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting_a conditional .use __.'Permit:
A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with
the purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the
conditions under which it would be operated or
maintained would not be detrimental to the public
health, safety, or welfare or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
Consideration of Factors
Staff believes that the current request meets Findings A, B,
and C as it is in accordance with the purposes of this zone
0 6
0
district, it will be operated in a way which is not
detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, and that
the request is in general compliance with the zoning code.
Staff believes that the proposal is along the lines of what
has previously been approved, does not increase the impacts
of the school use at this site, and will be architecturally
beneficial to the existing building. As stated in the 1989
memo, however, Town staff does believe that with the
construction of Phases I, II and III as outlined in the
first section of this memo, the Vail Mountain School will
have reached the development potential of this site. Staff
would recommend that any further requests to expand the
school be looked at very closely in order to maintain the
intent of the agricultural open space zone district.
The Community Development Department recommends approval of
this request with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance for building permits for this project, the
applicant shall:
A. Submit revised drawings for review and approval by the
DRB that show what landscaping will be planted north of
the school to buffer the project from the residential
neighborhood, and what landscaping will be planted
south of the parking lot to screen the parking from the
Frontage Road. Prior to the issuance of a building
permit, this landscaping shall be installed, or a
letter of credit for 100% of the cost for the
landscaping shall be provided to the Town. Applicant
shall secure CDOH approval for any improvements in the
right -of -way, if necessary.
B. Submit for the review and approval of the Town Engineer
a design which will solve the existing drainage
problem. This work shall be completed prior to
issuance of a TCO for the third floor classrooms.
• 7
•
February 14, 1991
To All Property Owners in the Booth Falls
Local Group and District
Dear Property Owner:
I am writing to update you on the status of the Booth Falls Rockfall
Mitigation Berm. As you are presently aware, the berm which was
constructed in the summer and fail of 1989 did not meet the compaction
specifications of the engineer who designed t e tructure. Although
the engineer has certified to us in writing the berm is safe and
is effective in stopping rocks at the present time, the engineer's
concern is that because the compaction specifications have not been
met there is a possibility that the berm will slowly sluff and
thereafter lose its ability to work effectively to stop falling rocks.
The Town of Vail has been sued by the contractor who built the berm
for funds which we have refused to pay because of what we consider to
be a substantial default in the contractor's performance. The Town
has counterclaimed against the contractor and the legal action is
ongoing.
The Town now has a written commitment from the contractor to rebuild
the berm in accordance with the compaction specifications of the
engineer beginning as soon as possible at the beginning of the 1991
building season. The Town is hopeful that the berm can be rebuilt in
the fashion required by the engineer prior to the 1991/1992 ski
season.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please don't
hesitate to give me a call.
Very truly yours,
Larry . Eskwith
Town Attorney
LAE /jc
xc: Town Council
Rondall V. Phillips
n �
�Z
r
r
I
n
S
r
r
r
bezaumu« s10+ VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL Snowdon and HopMn64Achl%ch
CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11
1 VAIL, COLORADO
•
•
•
ri
WINNER
bezaumu« s10+ VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL Snowdon and HopMn64Achl%ch
CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11
1 VAIL, COLORADO
•
•
•
0
m
m
C
a
1p
z
m
m
C
. z
1
NUmn.: 9101 VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL &mwdon and Ho*- S•ArcMlecb
2126/91' CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE II
VAIL, COLORADO
�J
•
•
a
a
r
m
r
�m
C
a
0
"z
a
�Nu.tw 8191 VAIL MOUNTAIN SCHOOL ^�°^'^° m'"ch' '°
CAMPUS CENTER EXPANSION PHASE 11` � ,
VAIL, COLORADO
I-
�J
•
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for site coverage, and
setback variances and an exterior alteration in
Commercial Core II (CCII) for the Lifthouse Lodge,
located at 555 East Lionshead Circle, legally described
as a portion of Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First
Filing
Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier
I. BACKGROUND
The
PEC reviewed this item at a worksession on January 28,
1991. At that time, the following staff concerns were
discussed:
1.
The hipped roof at the entry to the Banner Sports
2.
commercial space.
Landscaping issues.
3.
Pitch of the roof.
4.
Connection of the addition's roof to the existing
structure.
5.
Roofing material (cedar shakes were proposed).
6.
Roof overhang.
7.
Transparency of the facade.
8.
Setback variance to address the Peddle Power /Vail Ski
Tech commercial space and the Lifthouse Condominium
entrance.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
As a result of this discussion, the applicant has submitted
revised architectural plans, copies of which are attached.
The revised plans have moved away from the previously
proposed "tyrolean" flavor of architecture and a more
contemporary architectural approach is proposed. Staff
believes the architecture as proposed better relates the
addition to the existing structure.
The applicant proposes to construct a one -story addition to
the Lifthouse Lodge. The addition will extend out from the
existing facade. This one -story addition wraps around the
40 1
north and west facades of the Banner Sports and Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces, and the entrance to
the Lifthouse Condominiums. The Banner Sports entrance has
been relocated to the very northwest corner of the building.
The structure currently encroaches 1' -6" into the required
setback on the south and 1' -3" into the required setback on
the west. Setback variances are required in order to allow
the addition to encroach 10' into the required 10' setback
on the west which results in a zero setback situation. On
the south, the expansion encroaches 9 feet into the required
10 foot setback, which results in a one foot setback.
Because of the impact the previously- proposed redevelopment
would have on the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial
space, and on the Lifthouse Condominiums entrance, the
Commission and the staff encouraged the applicant to address
these areas in conjunction with the Banner Sports
redevelopment proposal; the understanding being a site
coverage variance would likely be required.
Under this revised proposal, the applicant has addressed the
design of the commercial space and condo entrance, a site
coverage variance will be required.
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
The following sub -area concepts relate to the proposed
do redevelopment see attached map for reference number
location:
GONDOLA PLAZA
25. Commercial expansion (1 story) to emphasize pedestrian
scale and attractive facades for improved commercial
use, aided by fountain as pedestrian draw. At north
end, commercial expansion (1 -2 stories) to create a
third activity edge to plaza, with opportunities for
2nd level sun -- pocket dining terraces.
This urban design consideration recommends the
Lifthouse Condominium Building be expanded in the same
areas proposed to be expanded under this redevelopment
proposal. In fact the Guide Plan recommends the Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech facade encroach even further to the
west onto Town of Vail owned land.
22. Existing mature vegetation preserved for green, color,
and scale. Supplement with portable summer -time
planters for additional color and more intimate scale
for plaza.
is 2
21. Tall sculpture feature at highest - visibility point as
viewed from either end of the mail.
•
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
LIONSHEAD
A. Height and Massing:
The proposal calls for construction of a one -story
addition to the south and west facades of the Lifthouse
Condominium Building, adjacent to the Banner Sports,
Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces and the
Lifthouse Condominium entrance. The Lionshead Design
considerations encourage the creation of well- defined
ground floor pedestrian emphasis areas, and one -story
building expansions.
B.
Roof s:
Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. The
previously submitted development proposal called for
construction of a gable roof over the Banner Sports
commercial space entrance. The balance of the addition
roof was proposed to be a shed roof. The Design
Considerations expressly recommend against using gable
roof forms in Lionshead because gable roofs are a more
. traditional roof form and are out of context in
Lionshead. Under the current proposal, the applicant
proposes a peaked roof over the commercial space and
condominium entrances. The balance of the roof will
slope back to a point where it intersects with the
floor level of the existing second story decks. In
those areas where the vertical plane of the facade
extends back further than the vertical plane of the
deck, the roof will slope back to a point where it
would intersect with the front face of the vertical
plane of the deck (if one existed), it then becomes a
flat roof and continues back to the point where it
intersects with the facade of the building. From the
mall level the entire roof will appear to be sloping.
The initial proposal called for the use of cedar shakes
on the roof of the addition. The revised proposal
calls for a metal roof.
The applicant investigated matching the roof pitch on
the addition to the Montauk Restaurant roof pitch.
Because of the differences in the amount these facades
project into the mall, the applicant concluded that
matching the two roof pitches does not work.
0 3
Under the Lionshead Design Considerations, roof
overhangs are limited to 3 inches to 36 inches. The
• proposed roof overhang ranges from 6 inches to 7 1/2
feet.
The connection of the addition's roof to the existing
building is an important design element. Respecting
strong architectural lines is critical to successfully
integrating an addition with an existing structure.
Staff's concerns regarding the proposed addition
roof /existing building connection points have been
addressed under this revised proposal. The applicant
proposes to connect the addition to the existing
building at the floor level of the second story decks.
In addition to making this connection at a more
visually pleasing point, this connection point will
eliminate the cantilevered appearance of these decks.
C. Facades - Walls /Structures:
The materials to be used in construction have remained
unchanged. These materials (wood, glass and stucco)
are encouraged under the Lionshead Design
Considerations. The stucco texture and color will
match the stucco on the existing structure and the
window and door trim color will match the color of the
• window trim on the existing structure. Unpainted wood
surfaces will be stained to match the color of the wood
pillars on the interior of the Banner Sports commercial
space. This color is quite light. The Design
Considerations recommend wood be stained to a medium
range or to match the main building. The stucco color
on the main building is light. The applicant proposes
to use smooth log pillars to mark the commercial space
entrances.
In response to concerns raised at the January 28th work
session regarding the impact of the addition on the
Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and on the
Lifthouse Condominium entrance, the applicant has
brought the facade of both of these spaces out to the
property line.
Under this development scheme the applicant proposes to
face the entire base of both the west and south facades
(not just a portion as under the initial proposal) with
stone to match the stone which faces planters in the
area.
0 4
D. Facades - Transparency:
Ground floor display window sills are located 18 inches
above the walk level in keeping with the L. H. Design
Considerations.
The transparency of the windows on the northern facade
and of those windows adjacent to the commercial space
entrance is in keeping with the L.H. Design
Considerations. Under the current proposal, the
applicant has removed some of the stucco panels along
this western facade and replaced them with windows of
the same size as the northern facade display windows.
The transparency of the west facade will now meet the
recommended 1170% of the surface area of the ground
floor" facade transparency guidelines. This situation
creates an interesting and inviting experience for the
pedestrian thereby meeting one of the major goals of
the Urban Design plan for Lionshead - to "develop
vitality, visual interest and pedestrian scale ".
There are a number of transom type windows proposed
over entrance ways. The window pane sizes vary from
one transom to another. Staff has recommended the
applicant modify these transom window pane sizes so
that they are a unified size.
• Staff questions whether the addition as proposed will
increase visibility to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech
commercial space.
Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of
the existing windows.
The commercial space entrance way is recessed 4 feet
and is highly transparent in keeping with the L. H.
Guidelines.
E. Decks and Patios:
No decks and patios are proposed.
F. Accent Elements:
All accents will match existing building accents.
G. Landscaping:
Under the initial development proposal no new
landscaping was proposed.
0 5
To date, the architect, town landscape architect and
members of the Public Works, Community Development and
. Fire Department staffs, as well as members of the
Lionshead Merchants Association, have met on several
occasions to develop a landscaping plan for the plaza
area west of the Lifthouse Lodge which will accommodate
everyone's desires. No consensus on the landscaping
issue has been developed.
The Fire and Public Works Departments have expressed
concern regarding the ability of snow removal and fire
equipment to access the Gondola Plaza. These
departments believe the space between the western
facade of the new addition and the existing planter
west of the addition may be inadequate to accommodate
their equipment. On two occasions members of the Fire,
Public Works and Community Development departments and
the project architect have met on the site with a
pumper truck in hopes of resolving site access issues
prior to this PEC meeting.
The applicant proposes to construct 4 to 5 foot wide
rock faced planters along the west facade of the
addition on town owned land. These planters would
match planters located adjacent to Montauk's Restaurant
and in the Gondola Plaza. Another planter is proposed
to be installed adjacent to the entrance to the
Lifthouse Condominiums. The construction of a planter
along the western facade may further constrict site
access to the northern end of the Gondola Plaza area
west of the building.
Through the relocation of a light fixture located on
the west side of the existing plaza /flag planter, Fire
and Public Work Department vehicles can access the
northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the far side of
the planter. However, accessing the northern plaza
area at this location will require the Public Works
Department park and operate their snow removal
equipment at the bottom of the stairway leading out of
the plaza and up to the parking lot located north of
the Landmark Condominium Building. This
machinery /pedestrian conflict area is of concern to the
Public Works Department. They are concerned with the
safety of those individual who access the Gondola Plaza
from the stairway.
The goals of the various landscaping proposals debated
include:
Creating a sense of enclosure for the northern
plaza area.
0 6
- Creating shade for the northern plaza area. The
Lionshead merchants have indicated that this area
• of the plaza is without shade in the summer months
and consequently is quite inhospitable.
Softening the starkness of the plaza area through
the strategic placement of additional plant
material or a water feature.
The elements of the various landscaping proposals
debated include:
The installation of 3 to 4 shade trees in grated
adjacent to an the western facade of the Lifthouse
Condominium Building.
The installation of a water feature or a very
large evergreen (the Lionshead Christmas tree) in
the center of the circular patterned paving area
located southwest of the Lifthouse.
- The removal of the existing planter located west
of the Lifthouse and the construction of new
planters to the west of the Lifthouse and to the
east of the bottom of the stairs to enclose the
northern plaza area. These planters would be
capable of accommodating shade trees.
• H. Service and Delivery:
This addition will not have any impact on existing
loading and delivery service.
V. Items for Discussion:
On the whole staff is supportive of the proposal as
presented. The applicant has made many substantial
modifications to the initial proposal in response to
staff and the board member's comments. Issues which
still warrant discussion are:
-- Setback: 10 and 9 foot encroachments into the required
10 foot setback;
Facade and Site Coverage: Addition as it relates to the
visibility of the entrances to Lifthouse Condominiums
and the Pedal Power / Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces;
Landscaping
0 7
•
10
4
8
i
I�
EeQ
a�
i`US
• �tt
7
��aT
fit
tI
2
all r
fill;
.2
4
8
i
I�
EeQ
a�
i`US
• �tt
7
��aT
•
•
C
fl
M
4\5X
di
ii
K
1 0
!7 7
LODGE
mists
Jill
N
0
Iii
N.
WE5T-WIND
IiRl!
AT VAIL
K
1 0
!7 7
LODGE
mists
Jill
N
0
Iii
raD-2S—v l YUE 12: �26 Ack--s I cxt-scl
•
•
Limvo�ro tome
8y's�wl
!Ntoml
(4 40� � L.
P. 0
i:b(.bqAop
lr*ole -
1 ►,
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a front
residence, located at
7, Vail Village First
Applicant: Ross Pero
Department
setback variance for the Perot
64 Beaver Dam Road/ Lot 31, Block
Filing.
t
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is proposing a front setback variance in order
to expand a ground level entry, into the residence which is
presently under construction. The variance request, if
approved, would allow for the entry to encroach a maximum of
6 feet into the required 20' front setback area.
The expanded entry vestibule, as proposed, would be located
west of the current garage. The proposed entry vestibule
would be located approximately 6 feet back from the north
face of the garage as it parallels Beaver Dam Road. It
should be noted that the existing 3 -car garage is permitted
to be located in the front setback area, as the average
grade on the site exceeds the required minimum of 30 %, which
allows garages to be constructed in the front setback.
Architecturally, the design of this new, expanded entry
vestibule would match the structure presently under
construction. The entry vestibule would be enclosed on all
sides. However, the applicant is proposing an open, iron
gate as the front door. Because the front of the entry
vestibule would be "open," this proposed vestibule does not
constitute site coverage, nor does it count as Gross
Residential Floor Area (GRFA). It should be noted for the
record that the Perot residence was given final DRB approval
and was issued a building permit in August of 1990, which
was prior to the amendment to the Town of Vail zoning
regulations, which modified the definitions of site coverage
and GRFA. The Perot residence will be reviewed under the
"old" regulations until a TCO is issued on the structure.
•
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
•April 23 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 6 -0, denied the
applicant's appeal of a decision of the zoning
administrator, regarding the definition of "site coverage."
May 14. 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously
approved a site coverage variance request for this site.
The request was for 21% site coverage, which the staff
supported. However, this was modified during the PEC
hearing and the PEC subsequently approved a 22.1% site
coverage variance. The request was for an addition to the
existing structure, which included an attached 3 -car garage.
The PEC found that the existing structure and the steep
slopes on the lot created a physical hardship.
May 16,1990 - The Design Review Board, by a vote of 4 -0 -1,
granted final design approval for the Perot residence, and
also approved a request for an additional 250 sq. ft. of
GRFA. The request was approved with conditions.
July 23 1990 - The PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously
approved the applicant's request for a site coverage
variance. This variance request included the demolition of
the existing single family home and called for the
construction of a new single family home, with an attached
3 -car garage on the site. The applicant's request was for
. 20% site coverage, (the zoning code allowed a maximum site
coverage of 15 %).
August 15, 1990 - The Design Review Board, by a vote of 4 -0,
unanimously approved the applicant's request to .demolish the
existing single family residence and to construct a new
residence with an attached 3 -car garage on the site. The
applicant's request included the use of the 250 ordinance.
August 16, 1990 - The Town of Vail Community Development
Department issued a building permit to allow for the
construction of a new single family residence on the lot.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Total site area - 15,682 sq. ft.
Allowable site coverage - 2,352 sq. ft., or 15%
Existing site coverage - 1,154 sq. ft., or 70
Proposed site coverage - 3,159 sq. ft., or 20%
Allowable GRFA -
3,818
sq.
ft.
Additional re uest -
250
s .
ft.
Total allowable GRFA -
4,068
sq.
ft.
Constructed GRFA -
4,068
sq.
ft.
•
IV. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS
• A. Relationship to existing and potential uses and
structures in the vicinity.
The staff's opinion is that the proposed front setback
variance request, if approved, would have no
significant impact upon other existing or potential
uses and structures in the vicinity. No existing or
proposed landscaping would need to be modified in order
to allow for the expanded entry vestibule to be
constructed as proposed in the front setback.
B. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the ob'ectives of this title.
In order to ensure uniformity of treatment of sites in
the general vicinity, it is the staff opinion that the
setback variance request should not be approved. We
believe that the applicant has taken full advantage of
the development standards for this site, such as GRFA
and site coverage, as well as the allowance for the
garage to be placed in the front setback area. We are
unable to identify any special circumstances or unique
situations which exist solely on this property, and
which would allow us to support the applicant's request
for the front setback variance.
The staff is of the opinion that approval of this
requested variance would be a grant of special
privilege, and we believe that the setback variance
request does not warrant relief from the strict and
literal interpretation of the zoning code.
C. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities utilities
schools, parks and recreation facilities. and other
public facilities
The staff finds that the requested variance will have
no significant negative effect upon any of the above
considerations.
V. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
A. 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
is district.
B. 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.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
. The staff recommendation on the applicant's request for a
front setback variance is for a denial. Staff has been
unable to identify a physical hardship, and we are of the
opinion that there are no unique or unusual circumstances
that exist on this lot that are not found on other lots in
the general vicinity and within the P/S zone district.
The staff also believes that, given the extent of this
demolition /rebuild construction project, the applicant could
have designed this entry vestibule without requesting a
front setback variance. We believe that access from the
garage into the main residence could have been designed in a
manner that would have allowed an entry vestibule to be
constructed without the need for a setback variance.
The staff does not find that the requested variance meets
any of the findings as listed in Section IV of this
memorandum.
•
u
GW i1-
•, r f
5l��
y
Is i
•x k: f "l
M
SAY
t fw k .s
� a ��s Hey f i /• �.a
Y '
�f
f +
ul
r
5l��
y
Is i
•x k: f "l
M
SAY
t fw k .s
� a ��s Hey f i /• �.a
Y '
L Ofl
Existing gate /will location ---
ti
Setback line
Proposed location
I
IT
PROPOSED SECURITY GATE REVISION
ti
additional 56-25 sq. ft.
ii
•
n
F
c•1 I � + 7_ C _ CL
I
-I- if: : i Ult
bA
�h 4 •5 u� � U
4
IS
1 I
L41 of
ulfv
jL
•, _I , _ I
n
11
o , JJJ _ - i i- �►� -�Ir�-
Dow
W
I I }
It
QL
•
_...
y1 21 r
ra 4 1 \
-
.
y
i' i p
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
• FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 11, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal
Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for
affordable housing unit; and
A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family
District, 18.12 - Two -- Family Residential District and
18.13 - Primary /Secondary Residential zone district to
allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use;
and
A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster
District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District,
18.18 - Medium Density Multiple Family District,
18.22 - Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -
Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 - Commercial Core 2
District, 18.27 - Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 - Arterial
Business District, 18.36 - Public Use District, and
18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation District to allow
affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and
. A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal
Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific
development /zoning standards for affordable housing
units.
Applicant: of Vail :...:....::: ...........................:..: ::::::::....:,.::.... ...........................::.:
T. Background and History
Beginning in January of 1990, the Town of Vail, assisted by
the consulting firm of Rosall, Remmen, Cares (RRC), began
the task of developing an affordable housing study for the
Town. A goal of the study was to provide a series of
policies and recommendations addressing the community's need
for expanding the supply of affordable housing for local
residents, both year -round and seasonal. The Town Council
immediately appointed a Housing Task Force, which included
representation from the Council, the PEC and community
members at large. Following many months of study, work
sessions and public hearings with the Council and the PEC,
the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was unanimously
approved (by a vote of 6 -0) by the Town Council on November
20, 1990.
0 1
TT. Descri tion of the Re gists
• Following completion and adoption of the Affordable Housing
Study, the planning staff is now proposing to implement the
Phase I recommendations as outlined in the housing study.
The Phase I recommendations consist of the following:
A. Provision for one deed - restricted, affordable housing
unit in the Single Family Residential, Two - Family
Residential, and Primary /secondary Residential zone
districts. The purpose of this amendment is to allow
for the addition of one deed - restricted, affordable
housing unit per Single Family, Duplex, or
Primary /Secondary lot in the low density neighborhoods
of the Town, while continuing to maintain the existing
character of the low density residential areas. The
affordable housing unit would be listed as a
Conditional Use in each of the above named zone
districts.
B. The provision for deed - restricted affordable housing
units to be located in the Residential Cluster, Low
Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple
Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I,
Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial
Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use
. District and Ski Base /Recreation zone districts. As
similarly stated in paragraph A above, the purpose of
this amendment is to allow for the addition of a deed- -
restricted, affordable housing unit in the above -named
zone districts, while continuing to maintain the
character of each specific zone district. The
affordable housing unit would be listed as a
Conditional Use in each of the zone districts.
C. The creation of a new definition, of "affordable
housing unite. The specific purpose of this amendment
is to encourage the provision of affordable housing
units in a manner which would be cost effective, and at
the same time provide a quality living environment for
its occupants, in a manner that is sensitive to the
neighborhood's scale, density and overall design.
Affordable Housing Units will be classified into three
categories; Type I, Type II, and Type III, as more
specifically defined below. It should be clearly
pointed out that with the creation of an "affordable
housing unit ", all other development /zoning standards
within each specific zone district will be required to
be met.
do 2
• III. Staff Recommendation
0
in order to implement the Phase I recommendations of the
Housing Study, as outlined in Section II of this memorandum,
the staff is proposing the following zoning code amendments:
A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family
Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary
Residential District shall be amended to allow one
Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use.
The specific language shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as further
provided by Section 18.58.330."
B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density
Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family,
18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I,
18.26 Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III,
18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial
Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/
Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for
Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a
Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as
follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as further
provided by Section 18.58.330 ".
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as further
provided by Section 18.58.330 ".
C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be
amended to include a new definition as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable
Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a
restricted floor area, that shall be used for
long -term rentals, or ownership, by local
employees in the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley,
Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, and Avon
and their surrounding areas) for the specific
purpose of housing.
0 3
D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the
Supplemental Regulations of the Town of Vail Zoning
• Code, to provide the specific development /zoning
standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II
and III. The specific language shall be as follows:
1) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) -� Type I
The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq.
ft. to 700 sq. ft., and shall include a bath.
Full kitchen facilities shall be required. The
maximum occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not
exceed 2 persons.
The unit shall be located within or attached to
the existing unit or units, according to Section
18.54.050,(11)(1,2) of the Town of Vail zoning
code. When an existing detached garage is located
on the property, the Type I AFU may be
incorporated into the garage, so long as all the
existing, enclosed parking remains.
The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary
use of the property as a single family,
primary /secondary or duplex residence.
. - The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as
a long term rental to local residents, according
to Section 18.13.080(B) of the Town of Vail zoning
code.
One additional paved parking space is required per
unit, and the addition of enclosed parking is
strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be
screened by a combination of landscaping and
berming. If the property is undeveloped, or if
the existing structure is proposed to be
demolished and replaced, one enclosed parking
space shall be required for the Type I AFU.
The architectural design, materials and colors of
the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with
the existing structures on the site. Vehicular
and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not
adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of
adjacent uses or structures.
All development /zoning standards, listed in each
specific zone distract, shall be met and, in
addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the
site has the ability to double its capacity for
0 4
handling trash and storage. All trash facilities
shall be enclosed.
- The Type I AFU shall be calculated as 0.5 dwelling
units for density purposes. Any project proposing
Type I AFUs will not be allowed to exceed the
maximum allowable GRFA for the zone district if
the 0.5 density standard is used.
-- The 11250 Ordinance" may be used to provide square
footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. If the 250
Ordinance is used for the Type I AFU in new
construction, the 250 sq. ft. may not be used in
the future for any further additions to the
residence. The two owners of a duplex or
primary /secondary residence may combine their 250
square foot allotment to create a 500 square foot
Type I AFU, if the property meets all the
requirements of the 250 Ordinance.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code."
2) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type II
• - The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450
square feet to 900 square feet, and shall include
a bath. Full kitchen facilities shall be
required. The maximum occupancy of the Type II
AFU shall not exceed two persons per bedroom.
The parking requirements shall be one parking
space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU
exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking
requirement shall be two spaces. All required
parking shall be paved, and all surface parking
shall be screened by a combination of landscaping
and berming.
- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line or the
provision of a shuttle service shall be required.
- The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed
restricted as an affordable, long term rental
according to Section 18.13.080(B).
- All development /zoning standards, listed in each
specific zone district, shall be met and, in
addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the
• 5
site has the ability to handle the added capacity
for trash and storage. All trash facilities shall
be required to be enclosed.
The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5
dwelling units for density purposes. Any project
proposing Type II AFUs will not be allowed to
exceed the maximum allowable GRFA for the zone
district if the 0.5 density standard is used.
All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code."
3) 1118.58.330 Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type III
The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200
square feet to 300 square feet, including a bath
and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall consist
of, as a minimum, a sink, small refrigerator and
microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities and a
lounge area shall be required for each five, Type
III AFUs in each building. Storage lockers and
laundry facilities shall also be provided.
. - A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs shall be allowed
per building.
one paved parking space per Type III AFU shall be
required. All surface parking shall be screened
by a combination of landscaping and berming.
- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line or the
provision of a shuttle service shall be required.
- The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be
one person per unit.
Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated
at 0.333 of one dwelling unit. Any project
proposing to utilize the Type III AFU shall not be
allowed to exceed the allowable GRFA of the zone
district, if the 0.333 density standard is
utilized.
All development /zoning standards, listed in each
specific zone district, shall be met and, in
addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the
site has the ability to handle the added capacity
for trash and storage. All trash facilities shall
0 6
be required to be enclosed.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 of the Town of Vaal Municipal Code."
IV. ISSUES TO BE DISCUSSED
A) Should the Town of Vail control, monitor or set rental
rates?
B) Should the Town proceed with the Type III AFU? The
Type III AFU received a cool reception by the public
during the public review process.
•
0 7
.
PETER COSGRIFF
JOHN W. DUNN
ARTHUR A. ABPLANALP, JR.
TIMOTHY H. BERRY
ALLEN C. CHRISTENSEN
LAWRENCE P. HARTLAUB
LAW OFFICES
COSGRIFF, DUNN & ABPLANALP
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
VAIL NATIONAL BANK BUILDING
SUITE 300
108 SOUTH FRONTAGE ROAD WE5T
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
TELEPHONE: (303) 476 -7552
TELECOPIER: (303) 476-4765
7 February 1991
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
IN LEADVILLE;
C05GRIFF, DUNN & BERRY
A O. BOX II
LEADVILLE,COLORADO 80461
(710) 486 -Ia95
RE; Christiania Lodge Density Variance Hearing
This office has, for the past several months,
represented Mill Creek Court Condominium Association in
association with several proceedings which were represented to be
associated with applications of the owners of the Christiania
Lodge for various approvals and variances required for the
addition of a new floor containing two residential condominiums
on top of the existing Christiania Lodge. Since the time of our
• earlier appearance before the Town of Vail, we also have been
engaged to oppose the Christiania Lodge project by Mr. and Mrs.
Jack Baylin, owners of a unit within the Chateau Christian
Condominiums which will be adversely affected by the variance(s)
under consideration and by the proposed expansion of the
Christiania Lodge. Mr. and Mrs. Baylin's late participation in
this proceeding was the result of the fact that the Christiania
remodeling proposal was first represented to Mr. Baylin as a
modification which would increase the roof line by approximately
3 -1/2 feet. His discovery that the new root line would be
between 14 and 16 feet higher than the existing eave over which
he enjoys a view of much of Vail prompted his opposition to the
redevelopment proposal as a whole.
our first involvement in the Christiania Lodge project
was in association with and opposition to what were then
identified as variances from the density, setback, and parking
requirements of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. After those
questions were abandoned upon our first client's objection, we
learned that the Design Review Board would consider a
significantly modified development plan. We raised objections
before the Design Review Board based upon what we believed to be
the non - compliance of the proposal with certain prerequisites
contained in the Vail Municipal Code. Upon examination, the Town
Attorney agreed with our position that consideration of the
revised proposal was in violation of the prohibitions relating to
• expansion of nonconforming uses, and design review consideration
THE PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION IS DUNN & ABPLANALP, P.C.IN VAIL.
of the proposal was deemed improper.
Following the determination that Design Review Board
consideration of the revised Christiania Lodge proposal was in
violation of the Vail Municipal Code, we learned that the
question of the Christiania Lodge expansion had been set for a
hearing before the Planning and Environmental Commission on the
11th of February, 1991, for the purposes of considering a
variance on a question of density. It is in association with
that hearing that this letter is being directed to the Town of
Vail Planning and Environmental Commission.
you may note that I have made no reference to any
"application" which is under consideration by the Town of Vail.
Upon and on several occasions since our involvement in this
proceeding, I requested the opportunity to review the application
and files related to the proceeding. Although I was permitted to
review a file in November, 1990, prior to a hearing scheduled for
three variance requests on the 26th of November, and to review
several conflicting sets of plats subsequent to that time, the
Department of Community Development denied that any file existed
until the Town Attorney intervened and I was permitted to review
two files related to the project on the afternoon of the 5th of
February, six days before the hearing now scheduled for the 11th
• of February. An initial examination of the files seemed to
indicate that there had never been an application made to the
Town of Vail for any density, setback, or parking variance
scheduled for the 26th of November, 1990, or the density variance
scheduled for consideration on the 11th of February, 1991,
despite the fact that those variance questions had been processed
by the Town of Vail as early as October, 1990. In fact, the only
application ever filed with the Town of Vail was a Design Review
Board review application filed on or about the 3rd of September,
1990, which was apparently summarily denied processing because of
the obvious conflicts between the application and applicable code
requirements. Upon a thorough review of the two files
represented to be in existence on the 6th of February, I was able
to confirm that, in fact, there have been no applications for
density, setback, or parking variances filed with the Town of
Vail through that date. The response of the Department of
Community Development representative was that she would contact
counsel for the Christiania Lodge owners and request that an
application be filed.
For more than two months, there has been some difficulty
identifying exactly what relief the owners of the Christiania
Lodge were applying for. The reason for that difficulty has
become apparent. No relief has been applied for. Apparently
there has been under discussion and consideration within the Town
of Vail Department of Community Development a desire on the part
• of the owners of the Christiania Lodge to engage in a
X
• redevelopment project, and that desire has been molded by the
owners and the staff in an effort to identify a method by which a
redevelopment program may meet the standards and criteria imposed
by the Vail Municipal Code, without ever reducing a proposal to
the form_ of an application which can be reviewed by concerned
parties`or considered by a reviewing Commission or Council. Such
a process is not authorized by the Municipal Code, and makes it
impossible for any interested person with legitimate objections
to analyze a proposal and provide the Town of Vail with a
critique. At any given time, criticisms may be made of a
specific set of plans, and a different set of plans surfaces.
The Vail Municipal Code requires, at Section 18.62.020, that an
[a]pplication for a variance shall be made on a form
provided by the zoning administrator.
According to the records which have been made available, no
application has ever been filed, either in the case of this
variance consideration or that which was before the Town of Vail
in October and November, 1990. As a matter of note, neither is
there any evidence in the files that the fee directed to be paid
by Section 18.62.030 has been paid to the Town of Vail.
A public hearing may not be scheduled in anticipation
of or in the absence of an application for a density variance.
The Vail Municipal Code provides, at Section 18.62.040, as
. follows:
Upon receipt of a variance application, the planning
commission shall set a date for hearing in accordance
with Section 18.62.070.
There exists no authority to schedule a hearing upon or otherwise
consider a variance for which no application has been made.
An application for a density variance, when filed, is
required to contain considerable information, among that is
[a] statement of the precise nature of the variance
requested, the regulation involved, and the practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the objectives of this title that.
would result from strict or literal interpretation and
enforcement of the specified regulation. Section
18.62.020.
Because of the absence of any application, the required
information has never been supplied or identified.
In fact, there is not so much as a letter requesting
any relief in the nature of the variance, a written communication
of any type from the owners of the Christiania, or any memoranda
by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission
suggesting that a request was made of the Town of Vail verbally
requesting any identifiable relief. Granted, there are various
conflicting plats in the possession of the Town of Vail which
. seem to indicate that a number of redevelopment plans have been
considered and reviewed by the planning staff. The most recent
plans exhibit "paste--ups" where the Town of Vail staff has
apparently attempted to modify plats which have been provided on
previous occasions by affixing drawings or portions of revised .
plats supplied by the Christiania owners or their
representatives. None of this material constitutes an
application or an identification of any proposed variance or its
justification.
it is apparent, based upon the foregoing circumstances,
that consideration of density, setbacks, or parking variances are
not only premature, but that the questions are not properly
before the Town of Vail. Even if the applicant were to file
proper applications and identify the relief which is sought, it
is impossible for any interested parties to adequately review an
application filed two or three weeks after a notice of a public
hearing is published and circulated.
There being no application for a density variance or
any other variance, relief, or approval, before the Town of Vail,
other than a Design Review application which was recognized for
its inadequacy at an early date, the Planning and Environmental
Commission hearing regarding a density variance for the
Christiania proposal should be canceled until such time as the
• proponents can and do file an application identifying the relief
sought and justifying that relief in accordance with the Vail
Municipal Code. At that time, and not before, the Planning and
Environmental Commission may have something before it to
consider. Until that time, there is serious question whether the
Planning and Environmental Commission has jurisdiction over the
matter scheduled for hearing.
if, despite the foregoing, the Planning and
Environmental Commission decides to consider the question of
whether a density variance should be granted to the Christiania
project, the following comments should be considered regarding
whether the owners of the Christiania are entitled to a density
variance:
1. It is the burden of the Christiania owners to
satisfy certain specific criteria, in order to be granted a
variance under the Town of Vail Municipal Code. Those standards
are not particularly different from any other variance. The
Planning Commission should consider several specific factors set
forth in Section 18.62.060.A. of the Vail Municipal Code,
including but not limited to the relationship of the requested
variance to other uses in the vicinity, the effect of the
requested variance on light and air, transportation and traffic
facilities, and such other factors and criteria as the Commission
deems applicable. A person desiring a variance must establish the
aexistence of several specific fact situations identified at
Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code. Among these are
the fact that the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege, that the granting will not be
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, and that the variance is to be granted either because
strict or literal interpretation of the specified regulation
would result in practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship, or that there exist exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the site which do not
generally apply to other properties, or that strict or literal
enforcement would deprive the owners of privileges enjoyed by
others. None of these requirements are or can be satisfied.
2. Despite the fact that it is necessary that owners
requesting a variance have the burden of proof it must
demonstrate that they are entitled to the relief requested, it
must be noted that, in the absence of any application or any
document whatsoever which might have generated the scheduled
hearing, the owners have neither identified the basis for their
assertion that they are entitled to relief, nor suggested there
is any justification whatsoever for any relief being granted.
Absent such an application which provides to the Planning and
Environmental Commission and interested parties, notice of the
subject matter, scope, and basis of the relief which apparently
is at issue before the hearing, neither the Planning Commission
. nor interested parties are able to prepare for or address matters
which may be under consideration.
3. Based upon the various staff reports contained in
the two files whose examination was permitted, a general idea of
the proposal which has been developed by the planning staff
and /or the owner apparently may be described as the elimination
and /or consolidation of accommodation units in a way which
reduces the density of the Christiania Lodge (but not to conform
with applicable zoning requirements) and attempts to shift a
portion of the existing density from existing accommodation units
into two new dwelling units which will occupy a newly constructed
fourth floor of the structure. As nearly as can be determined
from viewing the files and various plans, one dwelling unit will
be converted to an accommodation unit by elimination of cooking
facilities, two accommodation units would be rendered unusable as
independent units because of new construction, and four .
accommodation units would be consolidated into two accommodation
units but would remain independently accessible and usable if
their use were not monitored by the Town of Vail. Apparently the
control of these latter units is to be achieved by some
commitment on the owner not to rent separately the existing but
to- be- consolidated lodge rooms through some covenant with the
Town, and the subsequent enforcement of that covenant. The net
result is a reduction of dwelling units (or dwelling unit
equivalents including calculations for accommodation units) from
27 accommodation units (13 -1/2 dwelling units) to 22
accommodation units (equivalent to 11 dwelling units). As
recently as the consideration of the Sonnenalp redevelopment
proposal, the Town of Vail has placed considerable emphasis on
the maintenance and expansion of its inventory lodge rooms
available for rental. The Christiania Lodge variance and
associated remodeling would operate to defeat that stated goal.
4. The Town of Vail has under consideration or has
been urged to consider view corridors both from the area west of
Bridge Street easterly to the Gore Range looking over the
Christiania Lodge, and from Gore Creek Drive southerly to Vail
Mountain, again looking over the Christiania Lodge. Both of
these possible view corridors would be defeated by granting a
variance to the Christiania Lodge and by the proposed
redevelopment.
5. The Town of Vail Department of Community
Development has agreed with our office that the parking presently
being used by the Christiania Lodge occupies land over which the
owners of Christiania have no record interest. That land is
partly owned by Vail Associates, Inc., and is partly a dedicated
(but unconstructed) public street. Christiania was granted a
parking easement over a different piece of land substantially
. smaller than that presently occupied, but, based upon the
information available, that land seems never to have been used by
Christiania Lodge. It is now used in part for parking by Vail
Associates, Inc., and in part by the Town of Vail as a street
connecting Hanson Ranch Road and Gore Creek Drive. The
Department of Community Development advised the owners of
Christiania Lodge, by letter dated the 31st of January, which was
discovered by the undersigned yesterday, that the Christiania
proposal could not proceed unless it was established that "the
property meets parking requirements" and further requiring the
owners of the Christiania Lodge to provide written confirmation
that
V.A. will continue to accommodate the Christiania's
parking needs on V.A. -owned property.
Vail Associates, Inc., by a letter dated the 4th of February,
stated that Christiania Lodge could not be granted any further
rights, but that it would be permitted to use the land it is now
using "until the present issues, presently being studied, are
resolved among VA, Christiania and Town of Vail." Vail
Associates has not made any commitment regarding a long -term
right for Christiania to use its land, and, in fact, has denied
that request.
Several things would be accomplished by the approval of
a density variance for the Christiania Lodge and the
redevelopment plan which apparently has most recently been
. developed. None of those possible accomplishments are desirable.
First, the Town of Vail looses one - quarter of the lodge rooms
presently available in the Christiania Lodge. Second, the Town
of Vail assumes the difficult, if not impossible, burden of
monitoring whether or not adjacent rooms which are eminently
suitable for and have been used separately as Lodge rooms for
more than 20 years will no longer be used as separate
accommodation units. Third, the owners of the Christiania Lodge
will obtain a dispensation which they will be permitted to
construct two large residential condominiums, which, by their
nature and price, are extremely unlikely to join any rental
program. Fourth, the residents of and visitors to the Town of
Vail will lose a significant part of their views of the Gore
Range from the south end of Bridge Street. Fifth, the density of
the Christiania Lodge will remain essentially unchanged, in
violation of applicable Vail Municipal Code standards. Finally,
a parking situation under which the Christiania Lodge uses (a) a
tract of land to which it has no right and (b) a dedicated (but
unconstructed) public street will remain tenuous and inadequate
support for a lodge operation.
It should be observed that some argument has been made
to the Town of Vail that a 1968 agreement to engage in some
property exchanges and street vacations is binding upon the Town
of Vail, Vail Associates, Inc., and the owners of Christiania
Lodge. "Such an assertion is difficult to take seriously. Based
upon the information available, it seems that the street which
has long been maintained on the east side of the Mill Creek Court
Building has existed and been a part of the Town of Vail street
system since the time the Town was established. Since it clearly
has existed for almost 30 years, there can be little question
that the Town has adverse possession of that street and it cannot
be evicted. At the same time, the Town of Vail owns a dedicated
street through the center of the property presently occupied by
Vail Associates and Christiania Lodge parking facilities.
There is apparently some desire on the part of various
owners of property in the east Village that the area between the
Mill Creek Court building and Villa Valhalla be developed for
underground parking and that a public area be created on the
surface. The Town of Vail, through its ownership of at least
one - third, and probably closer to one -half, of the affected land,
has the ownership rights to make that happen. However, achieving
that end is not consistent with the approval of a density
variance for the Christiania Lodge which would rely upon, and
thereby possibly estop the Town of Vail from objecting to,
Christiania Lodge's occupancy and use, as a parking area, of
approximately one -half of the property owned by the Town of Vail.
Legal title to the area between the Mill Creek Court building and
Villa Valhalla is, even now, so tangled that the cooperative
development of that property, or even the identification of the
. various rights and interests, would be a significant challenge.
., I
•
•
The suggestion that the Town should place itself at a further
disadvantage in any such negotiations or determinations is truly
injurious to the Town's interests. It certainly ignores the
desires of the residents and owners of properties in the
neighborhood that something logical happen to the property
presently used without authority by Christiania Lodge but owned
by the Town of Vail and by Vail Associates, Inc.
In summary, there is no application properly before the Town
of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission for consideration
on the 11th of February. If an application is filed prior to the
hearing, that application will not have been filed as required by
the Municipal Code and both the notice and any hearing based upon
such a tardy application would be invalid. At such time as the
owners of the Christiania Lodge file an application for a density
variance (or any other relief permitted under the Municipal
Code), the Town of Vail may then have a question before it to
consider. That has not yet occurred. If the Planning and
Environmental Commission chooses to consider the question of the
density variance for the Christiania without an application, or
even with a tardy application, the information available clearly
establishes that a density variance would be inappropriate, in
violation of the Vail Municipal Code, and counter - productive to
the Town's stated position that lodge rooms should be increased
and not diminished, as is inherent in the Christiania
redevelopment program.
The hearing scheduled for consideration of a possible
density variance for the Christiania Lodge should be canceled,
and, if the Planning and Environmental Commission chooses to hold
such a hearing, any suggestion that a variance should be granted
should be denied.
AAA;3
xc: Jay Peterson
Mill Creek Court
Jack Baylin
Larry Eskwith
arc \v\TOVPLNGA
40
Condominium Association
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ,
March 25, 1991
AGENDA NOV �� I
1:30 Site Visits
2:15 Air Quality - PEC update on road sanding practices in
the Town of Vail.
Susan Scanlan /Pete Burnett
3:00 Public Hearing
Site Visits
3. 1. A request for a conditional use permit in
order to have a bed and breakfast operation
on Lot 16, Vail Village 11th Filing, 2910
Aspen Court.
Applicant: Patricia D. Funk
2. A request to rezone the following parcels
from Hillside Residential Zoning Section
18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural Open Space
Zoning 18.38 within a parcel commonly
referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
�- approximately 40 acre parcel located north
and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange
and east of the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2"
diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BLM
brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said
Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and
Range; thence, along the southerly line of
said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S89 46137 11W 900.07 ft, to
an existing #4 rebar with an aluminum cap
(PLS 16827) marking the intersection of said
southerly line and the existing ROW fenceline
for I -70; thence, along said ROW fenceline,
N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2"
angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in
said ROW fenceline; thence, continuing along
said ROW fenceline N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to
an existing 1/2" diameter steel pin with 1
1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the
intersection of said ROW fenceline and the
westerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence,
departing said ROW fenceline and along said
westerly line N00 21128 11W 63.50 ft; thence,
departing said westerly line, 141.00 ft along
. the arc of a curve to the left, having a
. ,
radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95
02 "4711, and a chord which bears NOa 21128 11W
125.38 ft to another point on said westerly
line, thence N00 21'28 1'W 108.14 ft, along
said westerly line; thence, departing said
westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of a
curve to the left, having a radius of 125.00
ft, a central angle of 29 42'2111, and a chord
which bears S61 40122 11E 64.09 ft; thence S76
31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along the
arc of a curve to the right, having a radius
of 2975.00 ft, a central angle of 01 1212911,
and a chord which bears S75 551'18 11E 62.73 ft;
thence S75 19103 11E 376.12 ft; thence 159.14
ft along the arc of a curve to the left,
having a radius of 1025.00 ft, a central
angle of 08 5314411, and a chord which bears
S79 45155 11E 158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 11E
344.03 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4
SW 1/4; thence SOO 11'12 "E 160.08 ft, along
said easterly line, to the point of
beginning, containing 7.742 acres, more or
less.
Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2"
diameter iron post with a 3' diameter BIM
brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said
. Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and
Range; thence N37 12119 11W 1077.36 ft to the
True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft
along the arc of a curve to the left, having
a radius of 245.00 ft, a central angle of 13
3513511, and a chord which bears N59 42159 11W
57.99 ft; thence N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence
84.47 ft along the arc of a curve to the
right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central
angle of 193 3513511, and a chord which bears
N30 17101 11E 49.65 ft; thence S52 55'12 11E
106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W 32.00 ft to the
True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183
acres, more or less.
Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2"
diameter iron post with a 3" diameter BIM
brass cap marking the 1/4 corner of said
Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and
Range; thence, along the easterly line of
said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, N00 11'12 "W 210.36 ft, to
the True Point of Beginning; thence,
departing said easterly line, N84 12147 11W
338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the arc of
a curve to the right, having a radius of
975.00 ft, a central angle of 08 5314411, and
a chord which bears N79 45155 11W 151.22 ft;
thence N14 4015711E 50.00 ft; thence N88
. 16129 11E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 11E 50.00
ft; thence S77 01143 11E 122.32 ft; thence
69.23 ft along the arc of a curve to the
right, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a
central angle of 31 4410311, and a chord which
bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45
17141 11E 35.99 ft to the easterly line of said
SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11112 "E 80.12 ft,
along said easterly line, to the True Point
of Beginning, containing 1.085 acres, more or
less.
Tract A, B, and C are referenced per the
approved subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle
Creek.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
1. 3. A request for setback and wall height
variances for the Neuswanger Residence, 2642
Cortina Lane, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
2. 4. A request for setback and site coverage
variances and an exterior alteration to the
Lifthouse Lodge at 555 East Lionshead Circle/
Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead ist Filing
Applicant: Robert T. and Diana Lazier
5. A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the
Municipal Code - Definitions; to add a new
definition for affordable housing unit.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Housing Authority Representatives will attend the
PEC meeting to discuss the following worksession
items:
6. A request for a worksession to amend Chapters
18.10 - Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two -
Family Residential District and 18.13 -
Primary/ Secondary Residential District to
allow affordable housing units as a
Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
7. A request for a worksession to amend Chapters
18.14 - Residential Cluster District, 18.16 -
Low Density Multiple Family District, 18.18 -
Medium Density Multiple Family District,
18.22 - Public Accommodation District,
18.24 - Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 -
Commercial Core 2 District, 18.27 -
Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
. r .
Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 -
Arterial. Business District and 18.36 - Public
Use District, 18.39 - Ski Base /Recreation
District; to allow affordable housing units
as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
8. A request for a worksession to amend Chapter
18.58 of the Municipal. Code - Supplemental
Regulations to provide specific
development /zoning standards for affordable
housing units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991
meeting.
10.-" Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design
Review Board for April, May and June
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
i March 25, 1991
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
Staff
Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello
Susan Scanlan
Betsy Rosolack
The meeting was called to order at 2:50PM by Chairperson Diana
Donovan.
Worksession - PEC update on road sanding practices in the Town of
Vail
The road sanding update was presented by Susan Scanlan,
Environmental Health Officer, and Pete Burnett, Acting Director
of Public Works. As a part of the presentation on the Town's
road sanding practices, Pete presented samples of the sanding
. material used by Public Works. The Town uses volcanic cinders on
all of the Town roads with the exception of the streets in the
Village core. The core area is "sanded" with 3/8" granite chips.
Pete presented samples of the clean cinders prior to use and
samples of the cinders after the material is swept from the road
surface. Pete explained that to recycle the material they sweep
from the streets would probably not be cost effective, as the
material would have to be washed and screened to prevent the re-
application of fine, dirty material. The cinders are relatively
soft and tend to break down easily, which creates a certain
amount of fine dust.
Pete further explained that while the granite chips used in the
core area are a cleaner sanding material and do not have the
tendency to break down, they are too heavy when loaded into the
Unimogs. A load of the granite chips in the Unimog would exceed
the axle weight for the vehicle. There would also be a greater
problem with broken and cracked windshields when hit with the
granite chips because of the hardness of the material.
Pete presented a sample of the material used for sanding by the
Colorado Department of Highways. The material is a combination
of granite chips, sand and salt. He explained that there is no
measuring done by CDOH when these materials are applied to the
road surface. They are simply applied indiscriminately during
periods of snowfall or anticipated icing of the roads.
1
. Pete said that it is his policy to sweep the roads when they are
dry between snow storms and when weather conditions permit. Pete
indicated that it takes roughly four days to clean up the sanding
material used at the 4 -way intersection for one period of
snowfall. The Town sweeper cleans the residential streets in
Town and the South Frontage Road from the Blue Cow Chute to the
Lionshead bus turnaround.
When asked what was the cleanest sanding material available,
Susan Scanlan related that the EPA is currently doing a study on
the durability and cleanliness of various sanding materials. The
study is expected to be completed within the next 8 weeks, and
the information will be relayed to the PEC. Susan also stated
that Steamboat Springs has submitted samples of their sanding
material for this study. This material is the same material used
by the Town of Vail. It is expected that the EPA will develop
guidelines for acceptable sanding materials based on the results
of this study.
Jim Shearer wondered if there is a machine which could both sweep
and vacuum. Pete answered that you can get them, but they are
very expensive.
Discussion followed concerning how much of the Town is sanded.
Pete said that many streets are sanded which may not normally
need sanding. He would like to be able to only do streets with a
certain slope and intersections with stop signs. He would like
some direction from the Town Council that Public Works could
reduce their sanding in this manner. Pete hated to do more
graveling than necessary, because he said that gradually the
gravel will take over a yard. He does tell people that if they
rake their yards to the edge of the road, the Town will pick up
the gravel at the road edge.
Pete estimated that they only sweep up about half the total
amount of sand or gravel that is put down.
Tom Steinberg felt that the biggest problem was the Highway
Department. He felt that if the Highway Department would spend
more money and listen to Pete, they would change their method of
sanding. Tom stated that the Highway Department supervisors meet
with the Board once a year, and suggested that perhaps Pete could
make a 15 minute presentation. The person who makes the decision
is the one who writes the checks. Pete suggested it should be a
joint venture between the Highway Department and the Town.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Town could do the on and off
ramps. Pete replied that the Town is only budgeted to do 32
miles of Town because of the cost of the sweeper and salary to
pay the workers. Pete explained that continuing to sweep larger
areas of CDOH roads will lead to budget overruns and shortened
life expectancy of the sweeper. The CDOH policy with regard to
iq
•
•
•
sw6opinj is to sweep once in May and once in October to permit
road striping to occur.
Diana Donovan felt that the Commission did not have enough
information to make a recommendation, and Tom Steinberg indicated
that after more information was obtained, the Commission would
receive that information.
One of the Commission members asked who sanded the.Frontage Road.
Pete replied that the state and the Town both did. This past
year, the Town had done more than in the past, because they kept
getting calls from the Police Department to sand the road.
Pete's concern about using chemicals in combination with sanding
material was that it would affect the water quality. He was
concerned that the Highway Department was considering the use of
calcium magnesium. Pete was asked where he stored the sand which
had been swept up. He said they stockpile it and give it to
people who need it for fill. The remainder is hauled to the
dump.
The Commission felt it was vital to deal with the Highway
Department as well as the Town of Vail roads, and asked for more
information. Pete and Susan agreed to come back with more
information at a later date.
At 3:26PM, the public hearing was called to order.
1. A request for a conditional use permit in order_ to have a_
bed and breakfast operation on Lot 16, Vail _Village 11th
Filing, 2910 Aspen Court.
Applicant: Patricia D. Funk
Betsy Rosolack explained the request for the conditional use
permit. Betsy reviewed the criteria and findings and the
requirements for a bed and breakfast. She stated that staff
recommended approval, because they felt all applicable review
criteria and findings had been satisfactorily met.
Betsy then read a letter from Frank Wimer opposing the bed and
breakfast. Pat Funk, the applicant, responded to each part of
the letter. In response to the paragraph about the bed and
breakfast being a commercial operation, Pat said this is a home
stay operation. She did not feel it was commercial. Mr. Wimer
stated he felt the Council was not highly focused when the bed
and breakfast proposal was considered. Pat's response was that
the Council was highly focused, the review was very extensive and
lasted many months.
Another part of the letter from Mr. Wimer stated that he felt the
owner of the other half of the duplex would probably not want to
3
have a B &B. Betsy replied that the owner of the other half of
the duplex had been notified, as had the other adjacent property
owners.
Pat Funk also mentioned that Mr. Wimer had been up last weekend,
and she was home, but he did not come over and talk with her
about this.
Diana Donovan mentioned that this was the first bed and breakfast
anyone had opposed. She stated that since this was a conditional
use, any problems which might arise could be dealt with. There
could also be conditions in the approval.
Chuck pointed out that the level of a bed and breakfast is not
very different from a short term rental. Diana reminded him that
in a bed and breakfast the owner has to be in residence.
Shelly Mello mentioned that.she had a lengthy conversation with
Mr. Wimer, and he felt strongly that the bed and breakfast was a
commercial use in a neighborhood, and would have an adverse
affect on the property values.
Connie Knight moved to approve the bed and breakfast per the
staff memo, and according to the findings under which conditional
uses were to be approved. Specifically, those conditions are:
. 1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the
purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the district
in which the site is located.
2. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained would not be
detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or
materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity.
n
U
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion, and the vote was 7 -0 in favor.
2. A request to rezone the following parcels from Hillside
Residential Zoning Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and Natural
Open Space Zoning 18.38 within a parcel commonly referred to
as S raddle Creek an approximately 40 acre parcel located
north and east of the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of
the Spraddle Creek Livery.
Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron ost
with a 3" diameter BLM brass ca marking the 1/4 corner of
said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range;
thence, along the southerly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, S89
4
•
•
46137 11W 900.07 ft, to an existingr #4 rebar with an aluminum_
ca j2 (PLS 16827 marking the intersection of said southerly
line and the existing ROW fenceline for I -701 thence, along
said ROW fenceline N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2"
x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW_
fenceline; thence, continuing along said ROW fenceline N66
52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel pin
with 1 1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection
of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4
SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said
westerly line N00 21128 "W 63.50 ft; thence, departing said
westerly line 141.00 ft along the arc of a curve to the
left, having a radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95
02147" and a chord which bears N00 21128 "W 125.38 ft to
another point on said westerly line thence N00 21128 11W
108.14 ft aloncr said westerly line; thence departing said
westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of _a curve to the
left havincT a radius of 125.00 ft a central angle of 29
4212111, and a chord which bears S61 40122 "E 64.09 ftr_.thence
S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft, a central_
anale of 01 12129 ", and a chord which bears S75 55118 11E
62.73 ft; thence S75 19'03 11E 376.12 ft
along the arc of a curve to the left ha
1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08 53144"
bears S79 45'55 "E 158.98 ft; thence S84
the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4;
160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to
hPrfinnina. containina 7.742 acres, more
Commencina at an
f
and a chord whic
14711E 344.03 ft
hence S00 11'12"
e point of
" diameter iron
post with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner
of said Section 5 and Section 8_of said Township and Range;
thence N37 12119 11W 1077.36 ft to the True Point of
Beginning; thence 58.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the
left having a radius of 245.00 ft a central angle of 13
35135" and a chord which bears N59 42159 11W 57.99 ft; thence
N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central_
angle of 193 35135" and a chord which bears N30 17101 "E
49.65 -ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W
32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183_
acres more or less.
. Commencina at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron
" diameter BLM brass c
of said SPrtinn 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Ranae;
thence, along the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, NU.O
11'12 "W 210.36 ft to the True Point of Beginning; thence
departing said easterly line, N84 12'47"W 338.80 ft; thence
151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, having a
radius of 975.00 ft a central angle of 08 53144" and a
5
chord which bears N79 45155 "W 151.22 ft; thence N14 _40_'5731E
50.00 ft; thence N88 16129 "E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 "E
50.00 ft; thence S77 01143 "E 122.32 ft; thence_ 69.23 ft
aloncr the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 44103 ", and a chord which
bears S61 09142 "E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 "E 35.99 ft to
the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11'12 "E
80.12 ft, along said easterly line, to the True Point of
Beginning,containing 1.085 acres more or less.
Tract A B and C are referenced per the approved
subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle Creek.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
Shelly Mello explained the request to rezone certain parcels
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space from Hillside Residential.
According to the memo, on February 11, 1991, the final plat for a
major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved with several
conditions. One of the conditions was that after final plat
recording, and before any building permits were released for site
improvements or residences, the rezoning of the open tracts would
be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone for the
open tracts was Natural Greenbelt and Open Space. The applicant
chose to proceed with the rezoning prior to the recording of the
final plat. The staff will not proceed with the second reading
of the rezoning at the Council level until the final plat has
actually been recorded. This was to ensure that the legal
descriptions for the open space tracts match exactly the open
space tracts listed on the subdivision plat.
Shelly then read the evaluation of the zone change request with
regard to suitability of the existing zoning, the amendment
preventing a convenient working relationship with land uses,
whether the rezoning provided for the growth of an orderly,
viable community, and the fact that the land use plan designated
this area as Hillside Residential and the Greenbelt Natural Open
Space district was intended to keep the sites in the natural
state. She stated that staff recommended approval of the
rezoning, and that the request was carrying out a condition of
approval per the Planning and Environmental Commission's
conditions of approval for the final plat.
Joe Macy and Shelly also showed road, grading and slope easements
on the site plan. The proposed I -70 interchange would not be on
the Spraddle Creek property, but grading may be necessary on
Spraddle Creek property. Shelly stated that if the new exit from
1 -70 is put in place, the Planning Commission would probably
review the plan.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval per the staff memo, with
the notation that the southwest corner of Tract A provide a slope
easement for regrading should the Highway Department need to use
6
0
it in order to provide a new I -70 exit_. Gena Whitten seconded
the motion. The vote was 5 -0 -2, with Chuck Crist and Ludwig Kurz
abstaining due to conflict of interest.
3. A request for a setback and wall height variances for
Neuswanger Residence 2642 Cortina Lane Lot 6 Block
Vail Ridge__._
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Jill Kammerer reviewed the request for a front yard setback and
wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence. Staff
recommended approval of the front setback variance, and denial of
the wall height variance.
The applicant, Chris Neuswanger, explained there would be
backfill on the north side of the wall to create drainage away
from the proposed residence. Therefore, the walls on the north
side would hardly be visible from the north (Cortina Lane). The
requested wall height variances on the south side could be
reduced approximately two feet. With this reduction, the south
side of the eastern retaining wall would be 10 feet above grade
rather than 13 feet and the south side of the western wall would
be a maximum of 8 feet above grade.
Ludwig Kurz inquired as to whether or not the wall height
variance was directly related to wanting the flat area near the
home. Chris replied that they were. He proposed to make a flat
area of 4,500 sq. ft., in an area he thought was a logical
placement. He also felt the walls created a natural break.
Kathy Langenwalter asked about the distance of the pavement of
Cortina Lane to the garage door, and was told that it was 19
feet. She asked that it be 20, as that was what Public Works
would ask for in order to avoid the possibility of having cars
parked on the drive project into the street. Regarding the GRFA
under the garage, she felt she could support it because it was
underneath the garage, and if not used as GRFA, this dead space
would just be fill. She felt putting the GRFA under the garage
did tend to reduce the total bulk of the building. However,
Kathy could not support a wall height variance of any kind. She
felt it violated use of the hillside. She did not feel it was
appropriate to create a flat space on a hillside. She also
believed that the hardship for the wall had been created by the
applicant and there were other areas on the site where this flat
area could be created without the need for high walls.
Kathy mentioned to Mr. Neuswanger that he would not get much sun
on the east side in the afternoon. Chris indicated that his
personal preference was to have his hot tub on the east side. He
had previous east facing decks he felt had gotten quite a bit of
7
use. He felt a hot tub on the east side of this residence would
be more private, better sheltered, and more aesthetically
pleasing.
Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy. Ludwig Kurz disagreed with
Kathy. He felt that he could support the wall height variance
with the height reduction which had been presented.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a front yard
setback, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 20 feet
of driveway from the face of the garage to the edge of paving on
Cortina Lane. She also moved to deny the wall height variances.
Kathy indicated the motion for approval of the front setback
variance was supported by Findings A, B and C(1 -3) as set forth
in the staff memo. Additionally, Kathy could support the front
setback variance because the GRFA was below the grade of the road
which would reduce the appearance of the height of the building
from Cortina Lane. Regarding the denial of the wall height
variance, Kathy felt approving the wall height variance would be
a grant of special privilege, and the need for a wall height
variance was a self - imposed hardship. Ludwig Kurz seconded the
motion. The vote was 5 -2 in favor of the motion, with Chuck
Crist and Gena Whitten in opposition. Chuck felt the wall height
variance should be allowed because the steep lot was a hardship,
i.e., the hardship was not self imposed. Gena stated that she
would like to see Mr. Neuswanger re -work the plan rather than
simply vote against it.
4.
A request for setback and site coverage variances and an
Jill Kammerer described the request for setback and site coverage
variances, as well as the exterior alteration request.
Diana Donovan mentioned that the Commission had heard this
proposal two or three times previously, and would like to simply
discuss the changes. Jill replied that one of the concerns
raised by the Commissioners at the March 11 worksession, which
has been addressed under this plan, is the point at which the
addition's roof intersects the second floor balconies above. The
gray metal roof will slope continuously, and intersect with the
existing building at the base of the floor level of the second
floor balconies. Jill also explained that, on other
presentations, there had been no resolution of the landscaping.
A few months previously, on February 18, 1991, members of the
Town staff had met with a couple of members of the Lionshead
Merchants Association in order to get direction on what the
merchants may want to see in terms of landscaping in the area
adjacent to the Lifthouse Condominium Building. Those merchants
present expressed a desire to have additional landscaping
•
installed in this area in order to increase shade and create a
sense of enclosure. In response to merchants concerns, the
current proposal calls for the installation of six shade trees
adjacent to the existing Lifthouse. Four of these trees would be
installed along the west facade and two on the south facade. In
addition, staff has requested the applicant install a planter
with a large evergreen in the middle of the circular paving area
north of the Gondola Cafe. This tree could serve as a landmark
for the Lionshead area.
In conjunction with the installation of the trees and evergreen,
the applicant has proposed to eliminate a 50 square foot corner
of the existing flagpole planter. Jill explained the proposal
for the expansion of the Lodge and the landscaping met the
Lionshead Urban Design plan criteria.
Galen Aasland, project architect, showed the changes in the
elevations which have occurred since the last meeting. These
changes included: elimination of the small commercial space
storefront which projected out from the rest of the facade;
changing the entrance to Pedal Power from an angled configuration
to a flush entrance; modifying the connection point of the roof
of the addition to the existing building; moving the entrance to
the Lifthouse Condominiums forward approximately 2 feet so it is
flush with the rest of the building facade; modifying the roof
over the entrance to the condominiums to a gabled form; modifying
the columns in front of the other commercial spaces to 1 sq. ft.
square columns while retaining the log look only in front of
Banner Sports. The Commission discussed these modifications,
including the use of circular logs adjacent to Banner Sports and
the use of rectangular logs, painted the same color as the trim,
on the rest of the building addition.
Diana asked if the roof overhung the property line. Galen said
it did not. With regard to the six inch setback, Kathy asked
what was six inches from the property line. Galen replied that
some of the stone, roof overhang and front facia band were six
inches from the property line. Diana wanted to know the extent
to which the mall would be disturbed in constructing the
foundations for the addition. Jill indicated the foundations for
the addition are already in place. Bob Lazier, the property
owner, verified that this was in fact the case. In response to
questions from Diana and Kathy, Galen indicated the roof slope
would be 2 :12 and that gutters would be concealed behind the
facia band. Kathy was not comfortable with the long facia band.
She stated she had opposed it at other meetings. She believes
the band should undulate as the building facade does, and not go
straight across. She was also uncomfortable with the roof form
at the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech entrance, and felt the columns
made the space too tight.
9
• Chuck Crist asked the architect to explain the color scheme £o37
the addition. Galen indicated the stucco would be the same color
as the existing stucco, the facia band would be blue, the
circular (log) and square columns will be light gray and the roof
will be anthracite gray. Bob Lazier indicated he had tried to
create a separate identity for the Pedal Power commercial space
through this addition. Bob asked Kathy what form she would like
to see at this location. Kathy answered she liked the angled
form better, and felt something smaller should be done there.
Bob indicated there would be a shelf for display of merchandise
behind the high transom windows.
Jim Shearer felt the planters (tree grates) should be against the
building, and the facia board should undulate in and out as Kathy
suggested.
Jill indicated that, in order to install trees adjacent to he
building, the trees needed to be eight feet from the face of the
building to allow for branch growth.
Public comment was next. Dan Mulrooney, president of the
Lionshead Merchant's Association, spoke. He requested the
Commission vote on the building and make a decision on the
landscaping plan after construction on the building was
completed.
. Bill Orr, manager of Colorado Insight, opposed the circular
planter with the evergreen. He thought such a planter would
completely block the view of his store. Bill supported Mr.
Mulrooney's idea of waiting to do the landscaping until
construction on the building was completed.
Kathy asked Bill what landscaping he would support. Bill felt the
problems inherent in Lionshead were programmatic and not related
to the design or landscaping of the mall. He would support
activity, and would like to see the stage utilized. Diana asked
Bill how he would reply to the statement that some of the
merchants had given the staff with regard to the fact that the
plaza was hot in the summer and people did not want to be there
because the area lacked shade. Bill disagreed, repeating that
the proposed evergreen tree would be a physical barrier to his
store, would block visibility of 50% of his store and some of the
other stores at the far end of the mall, and would therefore
impact his livelihood. He was also concerned with the impact the
tree would have on the visibility to his store when the tree
grows. Bill favored low plantings which would not have as much
visible impact. He also felt the fire truck issue had not been
resolved. Jill explained the fire truck had been out to the site
on two occasions, and staff believed, with the modifications to
the previously proposed planter, and the removal of one light
pole, the fire truck could maneuver.
0 10
Chuck Crist asked Bill if he would oppose placing aspen troop in
• the circular planter. Bill said he did not, but felt art at this
location might be even better. He would like to see a plan
everyone could agree with.
Gary Haubert, of the Lionshead Bar and Grill, was concerned about
the view corridor. He presented photos showing the pedestrian
activity in the area for the Commission to review, and presented
a petition against the construction of the circular planter which
had 18 signatures. He gave a little history on the west end of
Lionshead, stating that years ago, the Landmark Building had been
allowed to slide out into the mall. He was concerned with the
circular planter's impact on sight corridors to the west. He
felt there was no pedestrian link between the major Lionshead
bed -base and the Mall. He also felt there was no continuation of
a walkway to the west end. When the Sunbird was vacant, people
would get to the circular planter area and turn back. He added
that, for about a year, he had been working with the Town to
improve Lionshead, and would like to have had some input. He
believed there needed to be a coordinated plan. He felt many
mistakes had been made in Lionshead. He agreed with Dan
Mulrooney and would like to wait until the building was completed
to decide the landscaping issue. He did not oppose the proposed
addition. Once the Lifthouse Condominium addition was completed,
Gary thought the landscaping could be coordinated using Lionshead
Merchant and Lazier project funds.
40 Jill asked Gary if the Lionshead merchants would be willing to
commit Lionshead Merchant's funds to landscaping. Gary replied
that he was not opposed to using some of those funds, but the
merchants wanted input as to what landscaping was going to be
installed. He felt the traffic pattern was different from what
the staff had indicated.
Jill repeated that the staff had met with some of the Merchant's
Association members in February, and had responded to what staff
thought were Association concerns. She felt that Lionshead
needed a focal point to draw people. She did not believe that
the traffic pattern of pedestrians would be disrupted. In
addition, she theorized that people needed something to draw them
further into the mall.
Discussion followed as to how to do the landscaping later, and
how to specify the amount of money to be put into the
landscaping. Diana asked the audience for a show of hands of who
was against the evergreen. Most of the people indicated their
opposition. By a further show of hands, those present indicated
their opposition to a grove of aspen in the same location, and
their support of a water feature or the placement of art.
Bob Lazier said it sounded to him if the tree were moved back,
there would not be opposition to it. Connie asked Bob if he
0 11
would be agreeable to placing money aside for landscaping and
. going ahead with the building. Bob replied he was amenable to
proceeding in th`s fashion. He wanted to obtain a building
permit before the parking fee was raised from $5,000 to $8,000
per space. He would escrow funds for the landscaping work. He
also said that he felt the Lionshead merchants should have a say
in the landscaping.
Dan Mulrooney wanted Mr. Lazier to start construction as soon as
possible, so construction would not disrupt the summer program.
Diana believed all considerations must be balanced for the good
of all involved.
Dave Reiker, a building contractor, pointed out that if the
landscaping were delayed through summer, it could be installed in
the fall. Chuck asked if the planters could be built later.
Galen replied they could.
Jill Kammerer then explained $30,000 was the estimated cost to do
the proposed landscaping, to remove and relocate two light
fixtures, to construct the circular planter as well as the other
planters, and to totally remove the existing flag planter (which
had been considered under a previous design).
Geoff Wright, manager of the Landmark, felt Jill had done a
pretty good job so far. He thought the tree was a good idea, but
also felt there was a need to listen to all of the Lionshead
merchants. He reminded the Commission the applicant was asking
for a setback into the mall. This addition would require the
removal of pavers which had been paid for by all of the Lionshead
owners. Galen reminded Geoff that Mr. Lazier had also helped to
pay for the pavers.
Martin Soloman, one of the owners of the Concert Hall Plaza, felt
the improvements on the Lifthouse Lodge would be very positive.
With regard to the landscape, he reflected that if there were
several low planted areas with seating, he would support that.
Jill suggested Mr. Lazier consider escrowing $30,000. If
additional funds were necessary, the Lionshead merchants could
contribute to the fund. Dan Mulrooney felt comfortable with that
arrangement.
Bob Lazier had no objection to that escrow amount.
Diana Donovan felt it was critical the Planning Commission
address the landscaping, and wanted to make it clear the $30,000
was to lessen the impact of the Lifthouse Lodge addition. Bob
Lazier indicated each process he had gone through had improved
the building. He did not think the building negatively impacted
the area. Diana responded that the $30,000 for landscaping was
partially to mitigate the impact of the variances being given to
the Lifthouse.
40 12
Kathy wanted to keep the two trees adjacent to the entry to tho
• Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums to as part of the addition
construction. She stated planting in this area would be on
Lifthouse property. Kathy wondered if a motion could be made
without the landscaping. Chuck Crist stated he thought there
could be a motion made on the building without addressing the
landscaping. Diana thought the landscaping should come back to
the Planning Commission for review after the merchants had worked
on it, to see if the Commission's concerns had been addressed.
Kathy was more comfortable with the variances than with the
exterior alteration. Diana felt confident that if the breaks
were made in the facia band, and the Design Review Board knew the
PEC's concerns about the design of the Pedal Power commercial
space roof lines, the exterior alteration could be approved. The
landscaping would have to be dealt with later, but not three
years from now. She suggested the Lionshead Merchants
Association come back to the PEC with a landscaping proposal in
late August so that it could be addressed by the PEC the second
meeting in September (September 23, 1991). She also felt that no
Certificate of Occupancy should be approved without the
landscaping.
The applicant felt he would not be occupying the building until
the landscaping was completed. Galen wanted an agreement to be
made. Jill's concern was everyone agree to the solution.
. Dan Mulrooney stated the Lionshead merchants would contribute
money for any agreed -to landscaping which exceeded the $30,000 of
escrowed Lazier funds. Jill asked Dan if they would also
contribute money for design work. Dan replied they would.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the site coverage and
setback variances and exterior alteration with the following
conditions:
1. The landscaping off of_the Lifthouse Lodge property be
worked out with the Lionshead Merchant's Association and
coordinated with the Community Development Department staff
and presented for review at the September 23, 1991 Planning
and Environmental Commission meeting.
2. In lieu of a landscaping plan at this time, the applicant
will place $30,000 in escrow for landscape improvements.
3. The planter on the applicant's property in front of the
Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance be constructed in
conjunction with the construction of the addition.
4. The facia band on the west wall undulate with the facade of
the building.
is 13
4
S. The columns near the Pedal Pawnr /Vail Ski Tnch entrance be
• removed.
6. The entrance to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech space be
carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board.
7. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board to
carefully look at how the detailing of the logs /columns will
relate to the proposed facade.
8. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board review
how the planter can better tie into the building.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was a unanimous 7 -0 in
favor of the motion.
5.
A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal Code -
Definitions; to add a new definition for affordable_ housing
unit
Applicant: Town of Vail
6.
A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.10 -
Single- Family District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential
District and 18.13 -- Primary/ Secondary Residential District
to allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
7.
request for a worksession_ to amend Chapters 18.14 -
_A
Residential Cluster District 18.16 - Low Density Multi le
Family District 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple Family
District, 18.22 - Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -
Commercial Core 1 District 18.26 - Commercial Core 2
District, 18.27 - Commercial Core _3 District, 18.28 -
Commercial Service Center District, 18.29 - Arterial
Business District and 18.36 - Public Use District 18.39 -
Ski Base Recreation District• to allow affordable housing
units as a Conditional Use.
Applicant: Town of Vail
8.
A request for a worksession to amend Chester 18.58 of the
Municipal Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide
specific development/zoning development/zoning standards for affordable housing
units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Peggy Osterfoss from the Housing Authority met with the Planning
Commission in response to questions the Commission had brought up
during the March 11, 1991 meeting. Peggy explained that the
Authority had been meeting twice a week in order to become
familiar with funding, legal restrictions and terms. With regard
to restrictions, enforcement and rental issues, Peggy felt the
• 14
I
Authority was not yet ready to deal with those issues.
• The Commission's concern was passing the changes to the zoning
code without the restrictions and enforcement being in place.
They were especially concerned about regulating the amount of
rent that could be charged.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, felt it was appropriate to set
guideline criteria and require that the criteria be set by the
Town Council or their designee. One concern was how would the
rents and restrictions be enforced and monitored. Diana Donovan
was concerned that the restrictions be run as long as the
building stands, rather than a certain number of years. Peggy
replied that the guidelines -would be determined, and she
suggested a joint session between the Housing Authority and the
Planning Commission.
Diana stressed that the Housing Authority must have the ability
to address the problems without passing another ordinance.
After more discussion, Diana moved to recommend the zoning
changes to the Town Council as set forth in the staff memo.
These are, specifically,
A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family Distract, 18.12 Two - Family
Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential
District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing
Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language
shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit -- Type I, as defined under
Section 18 .58.330 (A) . "
B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density
Multiple Family, 18.18,medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22
Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26
Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28
Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District,
18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone
Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing
Units, Types - II and III, as a Conditional Use. The
specific language shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined under
Section 18.58.330(B) ".
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined
under Section 18.58.330(C) ".
C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended
0 15
0
•
to include a now definition as follows!
"Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing
Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted
floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals,
or ownership, by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley
(Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail,
Avon and their surrounding areas) ".
D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the
Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail Zoning
Code, to set forth the specific development and zoning
standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and
III. The specific language shall be as follows:
1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) -_Type _I
- The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq.
ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen
facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities
in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum
occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2
persons.
The unit shall be located within or attached to
the existing unit or units, according to Section
18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary
Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The
Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or
attached, garage provided the garage is located
within the required setbacks, and provided all
existing, enclosed parking remains.
The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary
use of the property as a single family,
primary /secondary or duplex residence.
- The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as
a long -term rental to local residents, according
to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
- One paved parking space is required for the Type I
AFU, and the addition of enclosed parking is
strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be
screened by a combination of landscaping and /or
berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be
evaluated to ensure that the Town's current
parking standards are met on- -site. If parking
deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be
0 16
eliminated by the provision of all additional
parking spaces required under the Town's current
parking standards. It the property is
undeveloped, or if the existing structure is
proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum
of one enclosed parking space shall be required on
the site.
- The architectural design, materials and colors of
the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with
the existing structures on the site. Vehicular
and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not
adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of
adjacent uses or structures.
All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping), as well as all
of the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code.- In addition, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the ability to
double its capacity for handling trash and
storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
- Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot
size requirement of the zone district shall be
eligible for a Type I AFU.
Based on the assumption that the current "250
Ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning
code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to
be allowed only for the provision of square
footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as
opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an
additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this
additional 250 square feet is used specifically
for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests
for the 250 allowance will be processed by the
Town on a first -come, first -serve basis.
Properties which have already received the 250
allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not
be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this
provision.
All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
0 17
2) 1118.58.330(B) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Typo II
- The Type II AFU shall range in size From 450
square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full
kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen
facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The
maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not
exceed two persons per bedroom.
- The parking requirements shall be one parking
space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU
exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking
requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All
required parking shall meet the parking standards
of the underlying zone district and all surface
parking shall be screened by a combination of
landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a
Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the
Town's current parking standards are met on -site.
If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies
shall be eliminated by the provision of all
additional parking spaces required under the
Town's current parking standards.
Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
. The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed
restricted as an affordable, long -term rental
housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) --
Density Control.
-
All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of
the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
-- All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type II AFU's.
0 18
The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5
dwelling units for density purposes.
All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
3) "18.58.330(C) Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type-III
- The Type III AFU shall range in size-from 200
square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include
• bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as
• minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator
and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities
and a lounge area shall be required for every
five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common
storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also
be provided in each building.
- A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is
recommended. However, with proper justification
this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly
proven by the applicant that an increase in the
recommended maximum number of AFU's per building
. will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or
structures in the vicinity.
one parking space per Type III AFU shall be
required. All required parking shall meet the
parking standards of the underlying zone district
and all surface parking shall be screened by a
combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each
request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to
ensure that the Town's current parking standards
are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist,
said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the
provision of all additional parking spaces
required under the Town's current parking
standards.
- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
- The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be
one person per unit.
is 19
- Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated
at 0.333 of one dwelling unit.
- All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e
GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as
all of the other applicable provisions of the
Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant
must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type III AFU's.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled
by an entity appointed by the Town Council.
Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena
so
Whitten having left the meeting.
9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting.
Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Grist seconded to approve the minutes
as written. The vote was 6 -0.
•
10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board
for April, May and June
Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month
of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena
would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist
volunteered to serve during July- September.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM.
20
Kathy wanted to keep the two trees adjacent to the entry to the
Lifthouse Lodge Condominiums to as part of the addition
construction. She stated planting in this area would be on
Lifthouse property. Kathy wondered if a motion could be made
without the landscaping. Chuck Crist stated he thought there
could be a motion made on the building without addressing the
landscaping. Diana thought the landscaping should come back to
the Planning Commission for review after the merchants had worked
on it, to see if the Commission's concerns had been addressed.
Kathy was more comfortable with the variances than with the
exterior alteration. Diana felt confident that if the breaks
were made in the facia band, and the Design Review Board knew the
PEC's concerns about the design of the Pedal Power commercial
space roof lines, the exterior alteration could be approved. The
landscaping would have to be dealt with later, but not three
years from now. She suggested the Lionshead Merchants
Association come back to the PEC with a landscaping proposal in
late August so that it could be addressed by the PEC the second
meeting in September (September 23, 1991). She also felt that no
Certificate of Occupancy should be approved without the
landscaping.
The applicant felt he would not be occupying the building until
the landscaping was completed. Galen wanted an agreement to be
made. Jill's concern was everyone agree to the solution.
. Dan Mulrooney stated the Lionshead merchants would contribute
money for any agreed -to landscaping which exceeded the $30,000 of
escrowed Lazier funds. Jill asked Dan if they would also
contribute money for design work. Dan replied they would.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the site coverage and
setback variances and exterior alteration with the following
conditions:
1. The landscaping off of the Lifthouse Lodge property be
worked out with the Lionshead Merchant's Association and
coordinated with the Community Development Department staff
and presented for review at the September 23, 1991 Planning
and Environmental Commission meeting.
2. In lieu of a landscaping plan at this time, the applicant
will place $30,000 in escrow for landscape improvements.
3. The planter on the applicant's property in front of the
Lifthouse Lodge Condominium entrance be constructed in
conjunction with the construction of the addition.
4. The facia band on the west wall undulate with the facade of
the building.
• 13
.7
•
•
use. He felt a hot tub on the east side of this residence would
be more private, better sheltered, and more aesthetically
pleasing.
Diana Donovan agreed with Kathy. Ludwig Kurz disagreed with
Kathy. He felt that he could support the wall height variance
with the height reduction which had been presented.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a front yard
setback, subject to the applicant providing a minimum of 24 feet
of driveway from the face of the garage to the edge of paving on
Cortina Lane. She also moved to deny the wall height variances.
Kathy indicated the motion for approval of the front setback
variance was supported by Findings A, B and C(1 -3) as set forth
in the staff memo. Additionally, Kathy could support the front
setback variance because the GRFA was below the grade of the road
which would reduce the appearance of the height of the building
from Cortina Lane. Regarding the denial of the wall height
variance, Kathy felt approving the wall height variance would be
a grant of special privilege, and the need for a wall height
variance was a self- imposed hardship. Ludwig Kurz seconded the
motion. The vote was 5 -2 in favor of the motion, with Chuck
Crist and Gena Whitten in opposition. Chuck felt the wall height
variance should be allowed because the steep lot was a hardship,
i.e., the hardship was not self imposed. Gena stated that she
would like to see Mr. Neuswanger re -work the plan rather than
simply vote against it.
4.
A request for setback and site coverage variances and an
Jill Kammerer described the request for setback and site coverage
variances, as well as the exterior alteration request.
Diana Donovan mentioned that the Commission had heard this
proposal two or three times previously, and would like to simply
discuss the changes. Jill replied that one of the concerns
raised by the Commissioners at the March 11 worksession, which
has been addressed under this plan, is the point at which the
addition's roof intersects the second floor balconies above. The
gray metal roof will slope continuously, and intersect with the
existing building at the base of the floor level of the second
floor balconies. Jill also explained that, on other
presentations, there had been no resolution of the landscaping.
A few months previously, on February 18, 1991, members of the
Town staff had met with a couple of members of the Lionshead
Merchants Association in order to get direction on what the
merchants may want to see in terms of landscaping in the area
adjacent to the Lifthouse Condominium Building. Those merchants
present expressed a desire to have additional landscaping
is
5. The columns near the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech entrance be
removed.
6. The entrance to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech space be
carefully reviewed by the Design Review Board.
7. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board to
carefully look at how the detailing of the logs /columns will
relate to the proposed facade.
8. A recommendation be made to the Design Review Board review
how the planter can better tie into the building.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. The vote was a unanimous 7 -0 in
favor of the motion.
5.
6.
7.
go
Applicant: Town of Vail
A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.10 -
Sin le -Famil District 18.12 - Two-Family Residential
District and 18.13 - Primary/ Secondary Residential District
to allow affordable housina units as a Conditional Use_.
licant:
A request for a worksession to amend Chapters 18.14
Residential Cluster District 18.16 - Low Density Multiple
Family District, 18.18 - Medium Density Multiple Family
District, 18.22 - Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -
Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 - Commercial Core 2
District 18.27 - Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
Commercial Service Center District 18.29 - Arterial
Business District and 18.36 - Public Use District, 18.39 -
Ski Base /Recreation District; to allow affordable housing
units as a Conditional Use.
A licant: Town of Vail
units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Peggy Osterfoss from the Housing Authority met with the Planning
Commission in response to questions the Commission had brought up
during the March 11, 1991 meeting. Peggy explained that the
Authority had been meeting twice a week in order to become
familiar with funding, legal restrictions and terms. with regard
to restrictions, enforcement and rental issues, Peggy felt the
14
•
it in order to provide a new 1 -70 exit.. Gena Whitten nneondod
the motion. The vote was 5 -0 -2, with Chuck Crist and Ludwig Kurz
abstaining due to conflict of interest.
3. A request for a setback and wall height variances for the
Neuswanger Residence, 2642 Cortina Lane, Lot . 6. :._ Block B,
Vail Ridge_.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Jill Kammerer reviewed the request for a front yard setback and
wall height variances for the Neuswanger residence. Staff
recommended approval of the front setback variance, and denial of
the wall height variance.
The applicant, Chris Neuswanger, explained there would be
backfill on the north side of the wall to create drainage away
from the proposed residence. Therefore, the walls on the north
side would hardly be visible from the north (Cortina Lane). The
requested wall height variances on the south side could be
reduced approximately two feet. With this reduction, the south
side of the eastern retaining wall would be 10 feet above grade
rather than 13 feet and the south side of the western wall would
be a maximum of 8 feet above grade.
Ludwig Kurz inquired as to whether or not the wall height
variance was directly related to wanting the flat area near the
home. Chris replied that they were. He proposed to make a flat
area of 4,500 sq. ft., in an area he thought was a logical
placement. He also felt the walls created a natural break.
Kathy Langenwalter asked about the distance of the pavement of
Cortina Lane to the garage door, and was told that it was 19
feet. She asked that it be 20, as that was what Public Works
would ask for in order to avoid the possibility of having cars
parked on the drive project into the street. Regarding the GRFA
under the garage, she felt she could support it because it was
underneath the garage, and if not used as GRFA, this dead space
would just be fill. She felt putting the GRFA under the garage
did tend to reduce the total bulk of the building. However,
Kathy could not support a wall height variance of any kind. She
felt it violated use of the hillside. She did not feel it was
appropriate to create a flat space on a hillside. She also
believed that the hardship for the wall had been created by the
applicant and there were other areas on the site where this flat
area could be created without the need for high walls.
Kathy mentioned to Mr. Neuswanger that he would not get much sun
on the east side in the afternoon. Chris indicated that his
personal preference was to have his hot tub on the east side. He
had previous east facing decks he felt had gotten quite a bit of
7
Authority was not yet ready to deal with those issues.
The Commission's concern was passing the changes to the zoning
code without the restrictions and enforcement being in place.
They were especially concerned about regulating the amount of
rent that could be charged.
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney, felt it was appropriate to set
guideline criteria and require that the criteria be set by the
Town Council or their designee. One concern was how would the
rents and restrictions be enforced and monitored. Diana Donovan
was concerned that the restrictions be run as long as the
building stands, rather than a certain number of years. Peggy
replied that the guidelines would be determined, and she
suggested a joint session between the Housing Authority and the
Planning Commission.
Diana stressed that the Housing Authority must have the ability
to address the problems without passing another ordinance.
After more discussion, Diana moved to recommend the zoning
changes to the Town Council as set forth in the staff memo.
These are, specifically,
A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family
Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary Residential
District shall be amended to allow one Affordable Housing
Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use. The specific language
shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as defined under
Section 18.58.330(A)."
B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density
Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family, 18.22
Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I, 18.26
Commercial Core II, 18.27 Commercial Core III, 18.28
Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial Business District,
18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/ Recreation Zone
Districts shall be amended to allow for Affordable Housing
Units, Types - II and III, as a Conditional Use. The
specific language shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined under
Section 18 .58 .330 (B)
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined
under Section 18.58.330(C) ".
• C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be amended
15
• 50.00 ft; thence N88 16'29 "E 257.20
50.00 ft: thence S77 01143 "E 122.32
along the arc of a curve to the right, having a of
125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 44'03_ ", and a chord which
bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 11E 35.99 ft to
Tract A, B, and Care referenced per the approved
subdivision Final Plat-for S raddle Creek.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
Shelly Mello explained the request to rezone certain parcels
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space from Hillside Residential.
According to the memo, on February 11, 1991, . the final plat for a
major subdivision for Spraddle Creek was approved with several
conditions. One of the conditions was that after final plat
recording, and before any building permits were released for site
improvements or residences, the rezoning of the open tracts would
be approved by the Vail Town Council. The requested zone for the
open tracts was Natural Greenbelt and Open Space. The applicant
chose to proceed with the rezoning prior to the recording of the
final plat. The staff will not proceed with the second reading
of the rezoning at the Council level until the final plat has
. actually been recorded. This was to ensure that the legal
descriptions for the open space tracts match exactly the open
space tracts listed on the subdivision plat.
Shelly then read the evaluation of the zone change request with
regard to suitability of the existing zoning, the amendment
preventing a convenient working relationship with land uses,
whether the rezoning provided for the growth of an orderly,
viable community, and the fact that the .land use plan designated
this area as Hillside Residential and the Greenbelt Natural Open
Space district was intended to keep the sites in the natural
state. She stated that staff recommended approval of the
rezoning, and that the request was carrying out a condition of
approval per the Planning and Environmental Commission's
conditions of approval for the final plat.
Joe Macy and Shelly also showed road, grading and slope easements
on the site plan. The proposed I -70 interchange would not be on
the Spraddle Creek property, but grading may be necessary on
Spraddle Creek property. Shelly stated that if the new exit from
1 -70 is put in place, the Planning Commission would probably
review the plan.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval per the staff memo, with
the notation that the southwest corner of Tract A provide a slope
easement for regrading should the Highway Department need to use
• 6
•
C7
U
to include a new definition as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable Housing
Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a restricted
floor area, that shall be used for long -term rentals,
or ownership, by employees in the Upper Eagle Valley
(Gore Valley, Minturn, Red Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail,
Avon and their surrounding areas) ".
D. The addition of a new Section 18.58.330, within the
Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail Zoning
Code, to set forth the specific development and zoning
standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types I, II and
III. The specific language shall be as follows:
1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit AFU - Type I
-- The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq.
ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen
facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities
in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum
occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2
persons.
The unit shall be located within or attached to
the existing unit or units, according to Section
18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary
Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The
Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or
attached, garage provided the garage is located
within the required setbacks, and provided all
existing, enclosed parking remains.
-- The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary
use of the property as a single family,
primary /secondary or duplex residence.
- The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as
a long -term rental to local residents, according
to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
- One paved parking space is required for the Type I
AFU, and the addition of enclosed parking is
strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be
screened by a combination of landscaping and /or
berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be
evaluated to ensure that the Town's current
parking standards are met on -site. If parking
deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be
WA.-
46'3711W 900. 07 ft, to an oxistiho -r #4 rebar with an aluminum
. ca PLS 16827 marking the intersection of said southerly
line and the existing ROW fenceline for 1 -70; thence, along
said ROW fenceline, N73 52116 11W 215.13 ft to an existing 2"
x 2" angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW
fenceline; thence continuing alonq said ROW fenceline N66
52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter steel ]2in
with 1 1 2" diameter BLM brass cap marking the intersection
of said ROW fenceline and the westerly line of said SE 1/4
SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW fenceline and along said
westerly-line N00 21128 "W 63.50 ft; thence de artin said
westerly line, 141.00 ft along the arc of a_curve to the
left having a radius of 85.00 ft a central angle of 95
02'4711, and a chord which bears N00 .21_'_28 "W 125.38 ft to
another point on said westerly line, thence N00 21_128 11W
108.14 ft, along said westerly line; thence, departing said
westerly line, 64.81 ft along the__arc of a curve to the
left having a radius of 125.00 ft a central angle of 29
42'2111, and a chord which bears S61 401_22 11E 64.09 ft; thence
S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence_ 62.73 ft along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 2975.00 ft a central
angle of 01 12129 ", and a chord which bears S75 55118 11E
62.73 ft; thence S75 19103 11E 376.12 ft; thence 159.14 ft
along the arc of a curve to the left, havinga radius of
1025.00 ft, a central angle of 08.53'44 ", and a _chord which
bears S79 45155 11E 158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 "E 344.03 ft to
the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4i thence S00 11112 "E
. 160.08 ft, along said easterly line, to the point of
beginning, containing 7.742 acres more or less.
Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron
nost with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4 corner
of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Range;_
thence N37 12119 "W 1077.36 ft to the True Point of
Beginning; thence 58.12 ft along the arc of a curve to the
left, having a radius of 245.00_ft, a central angle of 13
35135" and a chord which bears N59 4259 "W 57.99 ft; thence
N66 30146 11W 44.39 ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a
curve to the right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central
angle of 193 35135" and a chord which bears.N30 17101 "E
49.65 ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft,- thence S37 04148 "W
32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing 0.1183
acres, more or less.
Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 l 2" diameter iron
post -with a 3" diameter BLM brass ca markin the 1/4 co
of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township and Ran
hence, al
11'12 "W 210.36 ft, to the True_ Point of.Beginning; thence,
departing said easterly line N84 12147 "W.338.80 ft; thence
151.37 ft along the arc of a curve to the right, h_avinq_a
radius of 975.00 ft, a central angle of 08 53'44", and _a.
P-.�
■
eliminated by the provision of all additional
parking spaces required under the Town's current
parking standards. If the property is
undeveloped, or if the existing structure is
proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum
of one enclosed parking space shall be required on
the site.
- The architectural design, materials and colors of
the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with
the existing structures on the site. Vehicular
and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not
adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of
adjacent uses or structures.
- All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping), as well as all
of the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code. In addition, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the ability to
double its capacity for handling trash and
storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
- Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot
size requirement of the zone district shall be
eligible for a Type I AFU.
- Based on the assumption that the current "250
Ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning
code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to
be allowed only for the provision of square
footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as
opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an
additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this
additional 250 square feet is used specifically
for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests
for the 250 allowance will be processed by the
Town on a first -come, first -serve basis.
Properties which have already received the 250
allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not
be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this
provision.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
17
2) "18.58.330 (B) Affordable Housin Vnit APU - T e TT
�- The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450
square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full
kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen
facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The
maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not
exceed two persons per bedroom.
- The parking requirements shall be one parking
space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU
exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking
requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All
required parking shall meet the parking standards
of the underlying zone district and all surface
parking shall be screened by a combination of
landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a
Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the
Town's current parking standards are met on -site.
If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies
shall be eliminated by the provision of all
additional parking spaces required under the
Town's current parking standards.
Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
-- The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed
restricted as an affordable, long -term rental
housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) -
Density Control.
- All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of
the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type II AFU's.
is 19
- Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated
at 0.333 of one dwelling unit.
- All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e
GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as
all of the other applicable provisions of the
Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant
must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type III AFU's.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled
by an entity appointed by the Town Council.
Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena
so
Whitten having left the meeting.
9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting.
Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Grist seconded to approve the minutes
as written. The vote was 6 -0.
•
10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board
for April, May and June
Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month
of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena
would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist
volunteered to serve during July- September.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM.
20
- The Type TT AFU shall be calculated as 0.5
dwelling units for density purposes.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
3) 1118.58.330(C) Affordable Housin Unit AFU - Type III
The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200
square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include
• bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as
• minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator
and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities
and a lounge area shall be required for every
five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common
storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also
be provided in each building.
- A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is
recommended. However, with proper justification
this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly
proven by the applicant that an increase in the
recommended maximum number of AFU's per building
will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or
structures in the vicinity.
- One parking space per Type III AFU shall be
required. All required parking shall meet the
parking standards of the underlying zone district
and all surface parking shall be screened by a
combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each
request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to
ensure that the Town's current parking standards
are met on -site. If parking deficiencies exist,
said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the
provision of all additional parking spaces
required under the Town's current parking
standards.
Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be
one person per unit.
20
.
PAte said that it is his policy to nwnnn the roads wh4?n they are
• dry between snow storms and when weather conditions permit. Pete
indicated that it takes roughly four days to clean up the sanding
material used at the 4--way intersection for one period of
snowfall. The Town sweeper cleans the residential streets in
Town and the South Frontage Road from the Blue Cow Chute to the
Lionshead bus turnaround.
When asked what was the cleanest sanding material available,
Susan Scanlan related that the EPA is currently doing a study on
the durability and cleanliness of various sanding materials. The
study is expected to be completed within the next 8 weeks, and
the information will be relayed to the PEC. Susan also stated
that Steamboat Springs has submitted samples of their sanding
material for this study. This material is the same material used
by the Town of Vail. It is expected that the EPA will develop
guidelines for acceptable sanding materials based on the results
of this study.
Jim Shearer wondered if there is a machine which could both sweep
and vacuum. Pete answered that you can get them, but they are
very expensive.
Discussion followed concerning how much of the Town is sanded.
Pete said that many streets are sanded which may not normally
need sanding. He would like to be able to only do streets with a
• certain slope and intersections with stop signs. He would like
some direction from the Town Council that Public Works could
reduce their sanding in this manner. Pete hated to do more
graveling than necessary, because he said that gradually the
gravel will take over a yard. He does tell people that if they
rake their yards to the edge of the road, the Town will pick up
the gravel at the road edge.
Pete estimated that they only sweep up about half the total
amount of sand or gravel that is put down.
Tom Steinberg felt that the biggest problem was the Highway
Department. He felt that if the Highway Department would spend
more money and listen to Pete, they would change their method of
sanding. Tom stated that the Highway Department supervisors meet
with the Board once a year, and suggested that perhaps Pete could
make a 15 minute presentation. The person who makes the decision
is the one who writes the checks. Pete suggested it should be a
joint venture between the Highway Department and the Town.
Kathy Langenwalter asked if the Town could do the on and off
ramps. Pete replied that the Town is only budgeted to do 32
miles of Town because of the cost of the sweeper and salary to
pay the workers. Pete explained that continuing to sweep larger
areas of CDOH roads will lead to budget overruns and shortened
life expectancy of the sweeper. The CDOH policy with regard to
0 2
— Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated
at 0.333 of one dwelling unit.
- All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e
GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as
all of the other applicable provisions of the
Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant
must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type III AFU's.
All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
In addition, Diana felt that the rent management would be handled
by an entity appointed by the Town Council.
Jim Shearer seconded the motion. The vote was 6 -0 in favor, Gena
Whitten having left the meeting.
9. Approval of minutes from March 11, 1991 meeting.
Jim Shearer moved and Chuck Crist seconded to approve the minutes
as written. The vote was 6 -0.
10. Appointment of PEC member to serve on Design Review Board
for April, May and June
Jim Shearer agreed to be on the Design Review Board for the month
of April. At that point, the Commission would determine if Gena
would be willing to serve during May and June. Chuck Crist
volunteered to serve during July - September.
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30PM.
21
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
• March 25, 1991
Present
Staff
Chuck Crist
Jill Kammerer
Diana Donovan
Shelly Mello
Connie Knight
Susan Scanlan
Ludwig Kurz
Betsy Rosolack
Kathy Langenwalter
Jim Shearer
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 2:50PM by Chairperson Diana
Donovan.
Worksession - PEC update on'road sanding ractices in the Town of
Vail.
The road sanding update was presented by Susan Scanlan,
Environmental Health Officer, and Pete Burnett, Acting Director
of Public Works. As a part of the presentation on the Town's
road sanding practices, Pete presented samples of the sanding
material used by Public Works. The Town uses volcanic cinders on
all of the Town roads with the exception of the streets in the
Village core. The core area is "sanded" with 3/8" granite chips.
Pete presented samples of the clean cinders prior to use and
samples of the cinders after the material is swept from the road
surface. Pete explained that to recycle the material they sweep
from the streets would probably not be cost effective, as the
material would have to be washed and screened to prevent the re-
application of fine, dirty material. The cinders are relatively
soft and tend to break down easily, which creates a certain
amount of fine dust.
Pete further explained that while the granite chips used in the
core area are a cleaner sanding material and do not have the
tendency to break down, they are too heavy when loaded into the
Unimogs. A load of the granite chips in the Unimog would exceed
the axle weight for the vehicle. There would also be a greater
problem with broken and cracked windshields when hit with the
granite chips because of the hardness of the material.
Pete presented a sample of the material used for sanding by the
Colorado Department of Highways. The material is a combination
of granite chips, sand and salt. He explained that there is no
measuring done by CDOH when these materials are applied to the
road surface. They are simply applied indiscriminately during
periods of snowfall or anticipated icing of the roads.
1
•
�J
49
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 25, 1991
RE: A request for a conditional use in order to allow for the
operation of a Bed and Breakfast business on Lot 16, Vail
Village 11th Filing, 2910 Aspen Court.
Applicant: Patricia D. Funk
I. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance
No. 31, Series of 1989 to allow Bed and Breakfast operations
in the Town of Vail with certain criteria. The definition of
a Bed and Breakfast given in that ordinance states that:
"A Bed and Breakfast means a business which accommodates
guests in a dwelling unit in which the Bed and Breakfast
proprietor lives on the premises and is in residence
during the Bed and Breakfast use."
A Bed and Breakfast may short term rent separately up to 3
bedrooms or a maximum of 900 square feet of the dwelling unit,
whichever is the most restrictive.
Ms. Funk has applied for a conditional use permit to
allow her to use three bedrooms in her home for Bed and
Breakfast rental. Her property is one half of a duplex
in a Two Family Residential zone district. The bedrooms
and baths contain a total of approximately 600 square
feet. Two guests could stay in each bedroom for a total
of 6 guests.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Section 18.60, the Community Development
Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit
based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and impact of the use on development
objectives of the Town_
The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in
the Town of Vaal as a favorable type of lodging for
tourists.
� • F
� r
-- All of the development /2oninq standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met (i.e
GRFA, site coverage, setbacks, etc.) as well as
all of the other applicable provisions of the
Town's zoning code. Additionally, the applicant
must demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
- All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type III AFU's.
All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
E. The staff recommendation is for approval of the
proposed modifications to the Town's zoning code.
The staff acknowledges that some of the above listed
development standards are repetitive, in that they are
listed elsewhere in the zoning code. However, it is
our intent to specifically reiterate said development
standards so that applicants can simply, and quickly,
review the affordable housing sections of the code and
obtain a clear understanding of the Town's
requirements. This is not to say that other
development standards, such as the design guidelines,
do not apply, but to simply list what we believe to be
some of the more important standards.
0 8
2. The effect of the use and air,
distribution of population, transportation
• recreationfacilities, e and other. public and
-- - facilities, is facilities
needs.
•
Two guests in each bedroom can be accommodated at
one time, and it is unlikely that there would be
more than three guest vehicles. There is a bus
stop not more than 200 yards from the home. It is
felt that the impact on the use of parks and
recreation facilities and on transportation
facilities would be minimal.
3. Effect upon traffic with particular reference to
congestion, automotive and pedestrian safety and
convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from the
street and parking areas.
It is likely there would be at most, three
additional vehicles driving to the Funk residence.
Staff feels that this would be an insignificant
impact upon traffic.
4. Effect upon the character of the area in which the
proposed use is to be located, including the scale
and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
surrounding uses.
The staff feels that the character of the area will
not be negatively impacted by the addition of a Bed
and Breakfast in this area. No exterior changes to
the residence are proposed to accommodate the Bed
and Breakfast.
5. Bed and Breakfast operations may be allowed as a
conditional use in those zone districts as
specified in Title 18 of the Vail Municipal Code
for Ordinance No. 32, Series of 1989. Bed and
Breakfast operations shall be subject to the
following requirements:
a. Off- street designated parking shall be
required as follows:
One space for the owner/proprietor_plus one
space for the first bedroom rented plus 1/2
space for each additional bedroom rented.
The Funk property
0 2
contains more than the
•
`J
is
3) 1118.58.330(C) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type III
The Type III AFU shall range in size from 200
square feet to 300 square feet, and shall include
• bath and kitchenette. The kitchenette shall, as
• minimum, consist of: a sink, small refrigerator
and microwave oven. Central kitchen facilities
and a lounge area shall be required for every
five, Type III AFUs in each building. Common
storage lockers and laundry facilities shall also
be provided in each building.
A maximum of 15, Type III AFUs per building is
recommended. However, with proper justification
this number can be exceeded. It must be clearly
proven by the applicant that an increase in the
recommended maximum number of AFU's per building
will have no negative impacts on adjacent uses or
structures in the vicinity.
- One parking space per Type III AFU shall be
required. All required parking shall meet the
parking standards of the underlying zone district
and all surface parking shall be screened by a
combination of landscaping and /or berming. Each
request for a Type III AFU shall be evaluated to
ensure that the Town's current parking standards
are met on- site. If parking deficiencies exist,
said deficiencies shall be eliminated by the
provision of all additional parking spaces
required under the Town's current parking
standards.
- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
- The maximum occupancy of a Type III AFU shall be
one person per unit.
Density for the Type III AFU shall be calculated
at 0.333 of one dwelling unit.
7
required three parking spaces. There is a one
car garage and room for 4 or more additional
. cars to park in front of the garage.
b. Enclosed trash, facilities and regular garbage
removal service shall--be--provided.
Ms. Funk has covered garbage cans in the
garage and regular garbage removal service.
C. Removal of landscaping for the provision of
additional parking is strongly discouraged.
There will be no removal of landscaping,
d. Each Bed and Breakfast shall be allowed one
residential name plate sign as defined and
regulated by the Town of Vail Sign Code.
e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use
property jointly with other property owners,
such asparkina spaces or a driveway in duplex
subdivisions by wad of example and _ not
limitation, the written approval of the other
Property owner, owners, or applicable owners!
association shall be required to be submitted
with the application for a conditional use
permit.
• Ms. Funk's driveway and parking spaces are
entirely on her own property.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a conditional use permit:
A. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the
purposes of this Ordinance and the purposes of the
district in which the site is located.
B. That the proposed location of the use and the conditions
under which it would be operated or maintained would not
be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare
or materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
C. That the proposed use would comply with each of the
applicable provisions of this Ordinance.
0 3
V
- The parking requirements shall be ane parking
space per bedroom. However, if a one bedroom AFU
exceeds 600 sq. ft. in size, the parking
requirement shall be increased to two spaces. All
required parking shall meet the parking standards
of the underlying zone district and all surface
parking shall be screened by a combination of
landscaping and /or berming. Each request for a
Type II AFU shall be evaluated to ensure that the
Town's current parking standards are met on -site.
If parking deficiencies exist, said deficiencies
shall be eliminated by the provision of all
additional parking spaces required under the
Town's current parking standards.
-- Accessibility to the Town of Vail bus line (within
• reasonable walking distance) or the provision of
• private van /shuttle service shall be required.
The intent of this requirement is to discourage
the use of private automobiles and to encourage
the use of the public bus system within the Town.
The Type II AFU shall be permanently deed
restricted as an affordable, long -term rental
housing unit according to Section 18.13.080(B) -
Density Control.
. - All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping) as well as all of
the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code. Additionally, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the capacity to
handle additional trash and storage demands. All
trash facilities shall be required to be enclosed.
All existing, platted lots which are less than the
required minimum lot size of the zone district,
shall be allowed to apply for the Conditional Use
Permit for Type II AFU's.
The Type II AFU shall be calculated as 0.5
dwelling units for density purposes.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
0 6
40
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Community Development staff recommends approval of this
application for a Bed and Breakfast operation. Staff finds
that all applicable review criteria and findings have been
satisfactorily met.
c:b &bcu
0 4
M
The architectural design, materials and colors of
the Type I AFU must be visually harmonious with
the existing structures on the site. Vehicular
and pedestrian access to the Type I AFU must not
adversely affect the privacy or enjoyment of
adjacent uses or structures.
All of the development /zoning standards, set forth
in each specific zone district, shall be met
(density control /GRFA, site coverage, setbacks,
height, parking and landscaping), as well as all
of the other applicable provisions of the Town's
zoning code. In addition, the applicant must
demonstrate that the site has the ability to
double its capacity for handling trash and
storage. All trash facilities shall be enclosed.
Only lots which meet, or exceed, the minimum lot
size requirement of the zone district shall be
eligible for a Type I AFU.
Based on the assumption that the current 11250
ordinance" will be deleted from the Town's zoning
code, the staff is proposing the 250 continue to
be allowed only for the provision of square
footage (GRFA) for the Type I AFU. Each lot, as
opposed to each dwelling unit, would be allowed an
additional 250 square feet of GRFA, only if this
additional 250 square feet is used specifically
for the construction of a Type I AFU. Requests
for the 250 allowance will be processed by the
Town on a first -come, first -serve basis.
Properties which have already received the 250
allowance, under the "old" 250 Ordinance, will not
be eligible to receive additional GRFA under this
provision.
- All owners of the lot must sign the Conditional
Use permit application. Adjacent property owners
shall be notified of the public hearing, per
Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits, of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code."
2) 1118.58.330(B) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type II
The Type II AFU shall range in size from 450
square feet to 900 square feet. A bath and full
kitchen facilities (per definition of kitchen
facilities in zoning code) shall be required. The
maximum occupancy of the Type II AFU shall not
exceed two persons per bedroom.
0 5
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to rezone the following parcels from Hillside
Residential Zoning Section 18.09 to Greenbelt and
Natural Open Space Zoning 18.38 within a parcel
commonly referred to as Spraddle Creek, an
approximately 40 acre parcel located north and east of
the Main Vail /I -70 interchange and east of the Spraddle
Creek Livery.
Tract A: Beginning at an existing 2 1/2" diameter iron
post with a 3" diameter BLM brass cap marking the 1/4
corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said Township
and Range; thence, along the southerly line of said SE
1/4 SW 1/4, S89 46137 11W 900.07 ft, to an existing #4
rebar with an aluminum cap (PLS 16827) marking the
intersection of said southerly line and the existing
ROW fenceline for 1 -70; thence, along said ROW
fenceline, N73 52'16 "W 215.13 ft to an existing 2" x 2"
angle iron fence post, set in concrete, in said ROW
fenceline; thence, continuing along said ROW fenceline
. N66 52157 11W 240.74 ft, to an existing 1/2" diameter
steel pin with 1 1/2" diameter BLM brass cap marking
the intersection of said ROW fenceline and the westerly
line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence, departing said ROW
fenceline and along said westerly line N00 21128 11W
63.50 ft; thence, departing said westerly line, 141.00
ft along the arc of a curve to the left, having a
radius of 85.00 ft, a central angle of 95 0214711, and a
chord which bears N00 21'28 "W 125.38 ft to another
point on said westerly line, thence N00 21128 11W 108.14
ft, along said westerly line; thence, departing said
westerly line, 64.81 ft along the arc of a curve to the
left, having a radius of 125.00 ft, a central angle of
29 4212111, and a chord which bears S61 40122 11E 64.09
ft; thence S76 31132 11E 359.54 ft; thence 62.73 ft along
the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of
2975.00 ft, a central angle of 01 1212911, and a chord
which bears S75 55118 11E 62.73 ft; thence S75 191103 11E
376.12 ft; thence 159.14 ft along the arc of a curve to
the left, having a radius of 1025.00 ft, a central
angle of 08 5314411, and a chord which bears S79 45155 11E
158.98 ft; thence S84 12147 11E 344.03 ft to the easterly
line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4; thence S00 11'12 "E 160.08
ft, along said easterly line, to the point of
beginning, containing 7.742 acres, more or less.
• 1
„r
D. The addition of a now Section 18.58.330, within th&
Supplemental Regulations section of the Town of Vail
Zoning Code, to set forth the specific development and
zoning standards for Affordable Housing Units - Types
I, II and III. The specific language shall be as
follows:
1) 1118.58.330(A) Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Type I
The Type I AFU shall range in size from 300 sq.
ft. to 700 sq. ft. A bath and full kitchen
facilities (per definition of kitchen facilities
in zoning code) shall be required. The maximum
occupancy of the Type I AFU shall not exceed 2
persons.
-- The unit shall be located within or attached to
the existing unit or units, according to Section
18.54.050 (I) - Duplex and Primary /Secondary
Development, of the Town of Vail zoning code. The
Type I AFU may be incorporated into a detached, or
attached, garage provided the garage is located
within the required setbacks, and provided all
existing, enclosed parking remains.
The Type I AFU shall be incidental to the primary
. use of the property as a single family,
primary /secondary or duplex residence.
The Type I AFU shall be permanently designated as
a long -term rental to local residents, according
to Section 18.13.080(B) - Density Control, of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
One paved parking space is required for the Type I
AFU, and the addition'of enclosed parking is
strongly encouraged. All surface parking shall be
screened by a combination of landscaping and /or
berming. Each request for a Type I AFU shall be
evaluated to ensure that the Town's current
parking standards are met on -site. If parking
deficiencies exist, said deficiencies shall be
eliminated by the provision of all additional
parking spaces required under the Town's current
parking standards. If the property is
undeveloped, or if the existing structure is
proposed to be demolished and replaced, a minimum
of one enclosed parking space shall be required on
the site.
0 4
Tract B: Commencing at an existing 2 1/211 diameter
• iron post with a 3' diameter BLM brass cap ma king the
1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said
Township and Range; thence N37 12119 11W 1077.3 ft to
the True Point of Beginning; thence 58.12 ft long the
arc of a curve to the left, having a radius o 245.00
ft, a central angle of 13 3513511, and a chard which
bears N59 42'59 "W 57.99 ft; thence N66 30'46" 44.39
ft; thence 84.47 ft along the arc of a curve o the
right, having a radius of 25.00 ft, a central -angle of
193 3513511, and a chord which bears N30 17'01 "E 49.65
ft; thence S52 55112 11E 106.60 ft; thence S37 04148 11W
32.00 ft to the True Point of Beginning, containing
0.1183 acres, more or less.
Tract C: Commencing at an existing 2 1/2" diameter
iron post with a 3" diameter BLM brass cap marking the
1/4 corner of said Section 5 and Section 8 of said
Township and Range; thence, along the easterly line of
said SE 1/4 SW 1/4, N00 111112 "W 210.36 ft, to the True
Point of Beginning; thence, departing said easterly
line, N84 12147 11W 338.80 ft; thence 151.37 ft along the
arc of a curve to the right, having a radius of 975.00
ft, a central angle of 08 53'4411, and a chord which
bears N79 45155 11W 151.22 ft; thence N14 40157 11E 50.00
ft; thence N88 16129 11E 257.20 ft; thence N12 58117 11E
50.00 ft; thence S77 01143 11E 122.32 ft; thence 69.23 ft
• along the arc of a curve to the right, having a radius
of 125.00 ft, a central angle of 31 4410311, and a chord
which bears S61 09142 11E 68.35 ft; thence S45 17141 11E
35.99 ft to the easterly line of said SE 1/4 SW 1/4;
thence S00 11'12 "E 80.12 ft, along said easterly line,
to the True Point of Beginning, containing 1.085 acres,
more or less.
Tract A, B, and C are referenced per the approved
subdivision Final Plat for Spraddle Creek.
Applicant: George N. Gillett, Jr.
I. INTRODUCTION
On February 11, 1991, the final plat for a major subdivision for
Spraddle Creek was approved with conditions by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. One of the conditions stated that:
0 2
• III. Staff Recommendation
In order to implement the Phase I recommendations of the
Housing Study, as outlined in Section 11 of this memorandum,
the staff is proposing the following zoning code amendments:
A. Chapters 18.10 Single Family District, 18.12 Two - Family
Residential District and 18.13 Primary /Secondary
Residential District shall be amended to allow one
Affordable Housing Unit -Type I as a Conditional Use.
The specific language shall be as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type I, as defined
under Section 18.58.330(A)."
B. Chapters 18.14 Residential Cluster, 18.16 Low Density
Multiple Family, 18.18 Medium Density Multiple Family,
18.22 Public Accommodation, 18.24 Commercial Core I,
18.26 Commercial Core 11, 18.27 Commercial Core III,
18.28 Commercial Service Center, 18.29 Arterial
Business District, 18.36 Public Use and 18.39 Ski Base/
Recreation Zone Districts shall be amended to allow for
Affordable Housing Units, Types - II and III, as a
• Conditional Use. The specific language shall be as
follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type II, as defined
under Section 18.58.330(B)".
0
"Affordable Housing Unit - Type III, as defined
under Section 18.58.330(C)".
C. Chapter 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code shall be
amended to include a new definition as follows:
"Affordable Housing Unit (AFU) - Affordable
Housing Unit shall mean a dwelling unit, with a
restricted floor area, that shall be used for
long -term rentals, or ownership, by employees in
the Upper Eagle Valley (Gore Valley, Minturn, Red
Cliff, Gilman, Eagle -Vail, Avon and their
surrounding areas) ".
"After final plat recording and before any building permits
• are released for site improvements or individual residences,
the following conditions must be met:
1. The rezoning of all open space tracts within the
subdivision shall be approved by the Vail Town Council.
The requested zone designation shall be Natural Green
Belt /Open Space. This condition shall also be listed
in the subdivision agreement before the final plat is
recorded."
The applicant agrees to this condition. However, instead of
waiting until after the final plat is recorded, the applicant
would like to begin the process of rezoning the open space tracts
so that, in the event that all the other conditions of approval
are addressed, a building permit may be received as soon as
possible.
Staff will not proceed with second reading of the rezoning
ordinance at the Council level until the final plat has actually
been recorded. The reason for waiting until the final plat is
recorded before the rezoning is finalized is to make sure that
the legal descriptions for the open space tracts will match
exactly the open space tracts listed on the subdivision plat. At
this time, the staff has metes and bounds descriptions that match
the parcels identified on the plat as open space. Staff and the
applicant are delaying the second reading of the Council action
40 on the rezoning in order to ensure that there are no
discrepancies between the legal description and the plat.
11. EVALUATION OF ZONE CHANGE REQUEST FROM HILLSIDE RESIDENTIAL
ZONE DISTRICT TO GREENBELT/NATURAL OPEN SPACE
A. Suitability of Existing Zoning
The staff and Planning and Environmental Commission have
determined that it is appropriate to rezone the open space
tracts to Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zoning. The
Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zoning states, in Section
18.38.010:
"The Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is
designed to provide areas which, because of their
environmentally sensitive nature, should be protected
from encroachment by any man made structure other than
picnic grills and tables; and is necessary to achieve
the purposes proscribed in Section 18.02.020. The
Greenbelt and Natural Open Space District is intended
to ensure that designated lands remain in their
natural, undisturbed state. The intent shall not
preclude improvement of the natural environment by the
removal of weeds, deadfall or similar compatible
improvements. . . "
ID 3
. TI. Description of the Requests
Following completion and adoption of the Affordable Housing
Study, the planning staff is now proposing to implement the
Housing Study's Phase I recommendations. Phase I
recommendations consist of the following:
A. Provision for one deed - restricted, affordable housing
unit in the Single Family Residential, Two- Family
Residential, and Primary /Secondary Residential zone
districts. The purpose of this amendment is to allow
for the addition of one permanently deed - restricted,
affordable housing unit per Single Family, Duplex, or
Primary /Secondary lot in the low density neighborhoods
of the Town, while continuing to maintain the existing
character of the low density residential areas. The
affordable housing unit would be listed as a
Conditional Use in each of the above named zone
districts.
B. The provision for deed - restricted affordable housing
units to be located in the Residential Cluster, Low
Density Multiple Family, Medium Density Multiple
Family, Public Accommodation, Commercial Core I,
Commercial Core II, Commercial Core III, Commercial
Service Center, Arterial Business District, Public Use
District and Ski Base /Recreation zone districts. As
similarly stated in paragraph A above, the purpose of
this amendment is to allow for the addition of
permanently deed - restricted, affordable housing units
in the above -named zone districts, while continuing to
maintain the character of each specific zone district.
The affordable housing unit would be listed as a
Conditional Use in each of the zone districts.
C. The creation of a new definition, for an 11affordable
housing unite. The specific purpose of this amendment
is to encourage the provision of affordable housing
units in a manner which would be cost effective, and at
the same time provide a quality living environment for
its occupants, in a manner that is sensitive to the
neighborhood's scale, density and overall design.
Affordable Housing Units will be classified into three
categories; Type I, Type II, and Type III, as more
specifically defined below. It should be clearly
pointed out that all of the development /zoning
standards within each specific zone district will still
be required to be met, when an "affordable housing
unit" is constructed on a lot.
0 2
N
Staff believes that by rezoning these parcels to Greenbelt/
• Natural Open Space, the intent that they remain as open
space will be fulfilled.
B. Is the Amendment Preventing a Convenient, Workable
Relationship with Land Uses Consistent_ With Municipal
Objectives?
The rezoning effort is consistent with municipal objectives
to maintain these areas as open space within the Spraddle
Creek Subdivision.
C. Does the Rezoning Provide for the Growth of an Orderly,
Viable Community?
The rezoning supports the effort to provide for orderly
growth while also maintaining important open space areas
within the new subdivision.
D. Land Use Plan
The Land Use Plan designates this area as Hillside
Residential. The Greenbelt /Natural Open Space Zone District
is intended to keep these sites in their natural state.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the rezoning. This request is
carrying out a condition of approval per the Planning and
Environmental Commission's conditions of approval for the final
plat for the major subdivision. A condition of staff approval is
that the final plat be recorded, at the office of the Eagle
County Clerk and Recorder, before the second reading of the
rezoning ordinance at the Town Council level.
c: \pec \spraddle \tracts.325
is 4
M
•
T0: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.04 of the Municipal
Code - Definitions; to add a new definition for
affordable housing unit; and
A request to amend Chapters 18.10 - Single- Family
District, 18.12 - Two - Family Residential District and
18.13 -- Primary /Secondary Residential zone district to
allow affordable housing units as a Conditional Use;
and
A request to amend Chapters 18.14 - Residential Cluster
District, 18.16 - Low Density Multiple Family District,
18.18 - Medium Density Multiple Family District,
18.22 - Public Accommodation District, 18.24 -
Commercial Core 1 District, 18.26 - Commercial Core 2
District, 18.27 - Commercial Core 3 District, 18.28 -
commercial Service Center District, 18.29 - Arterial
Business District, 18.36 - Public Use District, and
18.39 -- Ski Base /Recreation District to allow
affordable housing units as a Conditional Use; and
A request to amend Chapter 18.58 of the Municipal
Code - Supplemental Regulations to provide specific
development /zoning standards for affordable housing
units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
I. Background and History
In January, 1990, the Town of Vail, assisted by the
consulting firm of Rosall, Remmen, Cares (RRC), of Boulder,
Colorado, began the task of developing an affordable housing
study for the Town. A goal of the study was to provide a
series of policies and recommendations addressing the
community's need for expanding the supply of affordable
housing for both year -round and seasonal, local residents.
The Town Council immediately established a Housing Task
Force. Council appointments to the Task Force included
representation from the Council, the Planning &
Environmental Commission (PEC) and members of the community
at large. Following months of study, work sessions and
public hearings with the Council and the PEC, the Town of
Vail Affordable Housing Study was unanimously approved (by a
vote of 6-°0) by the Town Council on November 20, 1990.
0 1
N
.d.
' 4
o ci 0
�j1-
o
..-
W
cn
Lo J
"`"—
00
C)
m
D
V)
W
W
U
N
W
J
0
LO
M
�
CL
■
q
O
t-�.1
•
•
•
Page 36 — Vail Dally Friday, March 22, 1991
We Don't Need
The of h e r
Trees
o all
Right Smack
in the Middle of
Lionshead Mall.
Paid for by the Committee For an Open Mall
0
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for front yard setback and wall height
variances for the Neuswanger residence, located within
the Primary /Secondary Zone District, 2642 Cortina Lane/
Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge Subdivision.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
I. DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCES REQUESTED
A. Front Setback Variance:
Under Section 18.69.050 of the zoning code, there is no front
setback requirement for garages, on lots where the average slope
of the site beneath a proposed structure and parking area exceeds
30% (except as may be required by the Design Review Board). The
Neuswanger lot is accessed from the north off of Cortina Lane.
The subject site slopes down to the south from the high point on
the north side of the lot adjacent to Cortina Lane. The low
point of the site is located along the southern property line.
The majority of the slopes on the site exceed 30 %. In fact,
adjacent to Cortina Lane, in the area where the new residence is
proposed to be located, the average slope is 450.
The applicant is requesting approval of a front setback variance
in order to construct a residence in conjunction with an attached
garage, in the front setback, 5' -0" from the front (north)
property line. This 15 -foot encroachment into the front setback
would result in a 5' -0" front setback. Therefore a 15 foot front
setback variance is required.
The proposed residence is 3 stories tall. From Cortina Lane the
residence will appear to be 1 story tall. Two stories of GRFA
are proposed to be constructed beneath the garage in the front
setback. The garage will be accessed by an expanded steel mesh
grate driveway platform. The floor of the garage will be at
roughly the same elevation as the elevation of Cortina Lane. The
applicant is requesting to construct GRFA in the front yard in
conjunction with the garage, in order to eliminate the need for a
excessive fill to be added below the garage.
0 1
fowl
75 south frontage road
vail, colorado 81657
(303) 479 -2138
(303) 479 -2139
March 20, 1991
office of community development
Dear Member of the Lionshead Merchants Association,
Enclosed is a courtesy notice of the March 25, 1991 Planning and
Environmental Commission Meeting Agenda.
Please note that in conjunction with the Lifthouse Lodge addition
(Item No. 4), the Community Development Department planning staff
is recommending the applicant provide additional landscaping in the
Gondola Plaza. The proposed landscaping includes the construction
of an approximately 21 to 25 foot wide circular planter in the
middle of the circular paving area north of the Gondola Cafe. The
planter will be identical in material (rock faced) and height (1811)
. to the planter in front of Banner Sport's entrance. A large
specimen evergreen is proposed to be placed in the center of the
planter in addition to low ground cover and flowering bulbs.
Electrical service will be provided to this planter in order to
provide for the lighting of the " Lionshead Christmas Tree ".
Photographs illustrating the location of the proposed planter and
the planter's potential impact on the mall are available for review
at the office of the Community Development Department. Please feel
free to stop by our office to review these photographs.
The PEC meeting on Monday, March 25th is a public meeting and you
are welcome to attend this meeting in order to make your opinion
regarding the landscaping and proposed redevelopment known.
If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please
feel free to contact Jill Kammerer at the Community Development
Department, 479 -2138 or Dan Mulrooney at 476 - -2754.
Sincerely,
J'11 Kamm r7e-
enior
an
enc.
•
B. Wall Height Variances:
In addition to the front setback variance, the applicant is
requesting approval of wall height variances. Under Section
18.58.020 (C) of the zoning code, walls may not exceed three feet
in height within any required front setback and may not exceed
six feet in height on any other portion of the site.
The two walls for which variances are requested are located on
the east and west sides of the residence within the required
front setback. The purpose of these walls is to create fairly
level side yards. On the east, the applicant proposes to
construct an at -grade deck which will be accessible from the
lower level master suite. A small, sodded side yard is proposed;
to be located adjacent to this at grade deck.
The north side of the eastern retaining wall will be a maximum of
7 feet above grade. The south side of this same wall will be a
maximum of 13 feet above grade. The north side of the western
retaining will be 7 feet above grade and the south side of the
wall will be a maximum of 15 feet above grade. please see
attached drawing to understand the wall heights and locations.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. This lot is located within the Primary /Secondary Zone
. District.
B. All of the adjacent properties are zoned
Primary /Secondary. Adjacent lots to the north, south,
east and west are vacant and undeveloped at this time.
III. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of criteria and findings, Section 18.62.060 of the
Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development Department
recommends approval of the requested front setback variance and
denial of the requested wall height variances based upon the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors
1. The relationship of the requested variance to
other existing or potential uses and structures in
the vicinity.
a. Front Setback Variance
The requested setback variance, if approved, would
not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of
adjacent properties. By concentrating the
40 2
0
^
0
COLOnADO
INSIGHT
TOWN OF VAIL
PLANNING -AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
ATT:CHRISTAN PRITZ
��/0�T
AT Al MEETING OF THE LION9HEAD MERCHANTS AS8OCIATlON ON
MARCH 12TH, A F?EVIEW OF THE EXPANSION OF- THE LIFT HOUSE
LOD8E AT THE BANNER SPORTS LOCATION WAS DI�CUSSED. WE HAVE
NO OBJECTION TO THIS PROPOSED EXPANSION. HOWEVER, AT THAT
TIME, IT WAS PROPOSED BY THE ARCHITECT FOR THIS EXPANSION
THAT THE PLANTER AND THE FLAGS THAT PRESENTLY EXIST IN THE
CENTER OF THE MALL BE REMOVED. IN THEIR PLACE WOULD B� A
MUCH LARGER PLANTER, A SEATING AREA AND A LARGE PINE TREE.
WE ARE ABSOLUTELY OPPOSED TO ANY SUCH ADDITION SINCE IT
WOULD OBSCURE THE WEST END OF THE MALL FOR THOSE PEOPLE
WALKING IN FROM THE EAST END OF THE MALL. THIS WOULD FURTHER
SEGMENT THE MALL INSTEAD OF CREATING A CENTER FOCAL AREA FOR
A GATHERING SPACE.
THE PRESENT CONFIGURATION OF THE MALL PILLOWS FOR EASE OF
SNOW REMOVAL AND GOOD VISIBILITY FROM ONE END TO THE OTHER.
VERY TFe#LY YOURS,
5AArrT-'. L A D D
RKETING DIRECTOR
3/15/91
CC:RICHARD BROWN
JAN WEZWICK
492ELKJN$HEAD CIRCLE mxAIL, COLORADO 81657
THREE LOCATIONS mVAIL21 BLDG, 303~A76-3689m LANDMARK 303'476*4875 m LODGE 808'476'4$65
U�
0
development on the northern portion of the lot
adjacent to Cortina Lane, less site disturbance
will occur in constructing this single family
residence. Allowing additional GRFA to be
included in the front setback beneath the garage
level eliminates the need for retaining walls and
fill in an area where living space can be
constructed. If the applicant were to construct
the same amount of GRFA, but not locate any of the
GRFA in the front setback, the living area of the
simply be located further down the southern slope,
thereby creating greater and unnecessary site
disturbance.
b. Wall Height Variances
Staff believes the proposed wall heights will
negatively impact adjacent property owners. Both
the eastern and western retaining walls will be
visible from properties located below this lot.
Individuals on the south who look up hill, will
see 13 and 15 foot tall retaining walls.
Since the retaining walls seem unnecessary for the
construction of the residence, and are proposed in
order to create a flat yard for the applicant, we
believe the request to be inappropriate, espec-
ially given the potential impacts the walls would
create for the neighborhood residents.
2. The degree to which relief from the strict and
literal interpretation and enforcement of a
specified regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treatment among
sites in the vicinity, or to obtain the objectives
of this title without grant of special privilege.
a. Front Yard Setback Variance
Because of the steepness of the lots in this
subdivision, there are several properties in the
area which have taken advantage of the section of
the zoning code which allows the construction of
garages to occur in the front yard. Although
these homes do not have GRFA in the front yard
associated with the garages, staff believes the
fact that allowing GRFA in the front yard will
minimize site disturbance, warrants relief from
the strict and literal interpretation and
enforcement of this provision of the code.
Further, staff believes allowing the construction
of GRFA in the front setback on this lot will not
0 3
F 1'ufil K11.- MHC1:1) fi. G3;i?!,ili rx -r (u tar , Sr_, i-�-1y u= 1W r-11A r-U.L
fi MA 13 'q,; 11�c�� LrAkl 0 F'I�.�SUZTC 307 VAIL- �:O. ____ _ - ._d� . - • - - - - - P.c /Z
JAY K. PMRSON
I
1
�9WTE 467 VAI6 NATi NAL 6ANK f$01"C MCp iXbg, 476,4092
1 ]dz) SOU`iH FAONTAGF RQAD W&F6T 11AX LINA
J�? K. I'MRON MAYLCOiOWU*LW? _ , 05wi +k7D•6487
I
f
MEMORANDUM
TO: RIQHaD BROWN (VIA PACSIMILE NO, 758- 5270*)
JAY X. pSM96N
TE; UGH 15, 1991
P"E . LUTHOUSE EXPANSION
ear Richard:
't 18 my understanding that you conzont tb the expansion of the
rtifthouse Commercial area, as currently proposed by Bob Lazier. It
y Further understanditg, ht'awov6r, that you do no agree with tha
qurrent� proposal for the lan6bcaping in that a large Christmas Tree
he proposed aroa would black vil ;ibility to the LandNiark Commercihl
shape glong with ether shop at that end of Lionshead. It is my
4nderstanding that you would prefer the relocation or elimination of
he Christmas Tree in order that it does not blook the commercial
rear.
:F. you have any quastions please contact ne at my oifice.
ince3rely t
erson
CONTSEAI�'
I
The undersigned as general partner
F�roperties hereby consents to and agrees
II NDWI< COMMERMAL PROMMS
i�
By:
char &(., arUwn, a Gotneral i)artno-�,r
I
I
of LandMark Commercial
with the above memorandam.
is
In
be a grant of special privilege.
0 b. Wall Height Variances
Access to this lot is extremely difficult due to
the fact that the average slope is approximately
45 %. The slopes of the site are such that the
construction of the retaining walls as proposed
allows the applicant to create a side yard. on
the east, this side yard would be accessible from
the lower level master suite. Staff believes the
creation of such a side yard, given the slope of
the lot, is unnatural and artificial and does not
warrant the granting of wall height variances.
Staff would encourage the applicant to relocate
the desired lawn /deck area to the south side of
the structure. A lawn /deck area at this location
would work with the existing slope of the lot.
The slope in this area is not as steep and
further, the lawn /deck area would still be
accessible from the master suite. In lieu of
relocating the lawn /deck area to the south, staff
suggests the applicant consider taking up the
necessary grade through the use of a series of 3
foot high, stepped retaining walls.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
air, distribution of population, transportation
and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
a. Front Setback and Wall Height Variances
Staff finds the requested variance will have no
significant impact upon any of the above
considerations. Public works has reviewed the
proposal and approves of the garage location in
the setback. Snow plowing can be accommodated.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental_ Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
A. 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.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
is 4
/EAVF�
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek"' Resorts
March 22, 1991
Town of Vail
Planning and Environmental Commission
75 South Frontage Road West
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Application for Expansion within the Lifthouse
Lodge Condominiums
Dear Members of the Commission and Staff:
This letter is written in response to a concern expressed by
Bob Lazier, applicant for the proposed expansion referenced above,
concerning a line delineating a 10 foot set back contained on the
plat map for Vail /Lionshead Filing No. 1 relating to Lot 3, Block
1, with respect to which Vail Associates, Inc., as a signer of such
plat map and the accompanying covenants and restrictions, at one
time may have had an interest in enforcing.
Specifically, Vail Associates, Inc. has been requested to
review the proposed expansion and remodeling of the first or ground
floor level of the Lifthouse Lodge involving the entry to the
Lifthouse Lodge condominiums from the Lionshead Pedestrian Mall,
and retail /commercial space on the south and west elevations, in
accordance with the architectural renderings of Galen A. Aasland
dated March 19, 1991. Members of my staff and I have reviewed such
plans and Vail Associates would not object to the site location as
defined in the above - referenced architectural renderings.
If you have any questions or concerns regarding the position
of Vail Associates, Inc. relating to the application of Robert T.
Lazier for his property located in the Lifthouse Lodge Condominium
building, please feel free to contact the undersigned.
. LL:ga
Very truly yours,
VAIL SSOCIATES, INC.
Larry !ichlito�
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 0 USA - (303) 476 -5601
materially injurious to properties or improvements in
the vicinity.
• C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. 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.
3. 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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. Front Setback Variance
Staff recommends approval of the front setback variance.
Staff does not believe approval of the request would be a
grant of special privilege and would not be detrimental to
the public health, safety or welfare. The topographic
conditions of the site have created unique development
considerations for this site. The planning staff believes a
hardship would be imposed on the applicant if the strict and
literal interpretation of the zoning code were to be
enforced. Further, the strict interpretation of the front
setback requirements would result in an inferior building
design in that a greater area of the site would need to be
disturbed in constructing the residence. Findings
supporting the variance are A, B, C -2.
B. Wall Height Variance
Staff recommends denial of the requested wall height
variance. Staff does not believe the requested variance
meets the criteria or findings necessary to justify a
variance. Although the existing slopes on the site in the
area where the home and the walls are to be constructed
average 45 %, staff does not believe this creates a situation
where the applicant would be unable to construct a series of
stepped retaining walls and still achieve the desired goal
of creating a side yard for his residence. Staff further
believes the applicant's goal of creating a side yard is an
0 5
I
II
f
o grouse
I �
CONDOMINIUMS
555 East Lionshead Circle
I
i
Vail, Colorado 81657
I
303- 476 -2340 • 800 -654 -0635
FAX 476 -9303
3
I
I
i
i
To the Town of Vail:
I
The Lifthouse Board of Directors has approved the
j • current plans for the Lifthouse commercial expansion.
s
I
ely,
s
i
I
Doug Walk
General Manager
DW /vb
i
unnatural manipulation of the existing site. The provision
of a formal, at grade, yard is possible on the southern side
. of the residence. A yard at this location would still be
accessible from the master suite, would create less site
disturbance and can be achieved with lower retaining walls.
If the Planning and Environmental Commission determines that
the granting of wall height variances to allow the
construction of these retaining walls is warranted, staff
would recommend the applicant be required to soften the
impact of these retaining walls through the provision of
landscaping.
c: \pec \memos \neuswngr.325
Pi
0 ro
_�,�
,�
l
•
r -1
LA
•
W :-
. I 1f
wco
n
�
u
0
E
0
H
c
n
m
a
0
•
JI
I
Flu
G
w
0
Q
Q
OC
!L
Q
OC
O
O
u
S
u
Q
li
0
H
O
OL
CL
A
W
O
J
N
. 1
f
�1S
jjI
� II �
1�
'� .:
F � �
� I
� � � � I
•
•
J J
, t y
J /
t \ ,
\
J \I \fy lyl
t `F fAJ \
\14 \
l \•
'y /yl yJ f
\ y \ \ 4
AJ`Jyl \Ry.
yl ylyF f
tJ\ \ y \
\ \ t t \
y� /yfy /A
ItI`J AI
t \ \
\i i ryft
77
0
W
__J
W
co
Oh{ E IlAS�{rp
�f
A �
i�
d
•
b-
[V
J
W
W
J
LC
W
CL
CL
C�
limitations on other properties classified in the same
district.
B. That the granting of the variance will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare, or
materially injurious to the properties or improvements
in the vicinity.
C. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the
following reasons:
1. The strict literal interpretation or enforcement
of the specified regulation would result in
practical difficulty or unnecessary physical
hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this
title.
2. There are exceptions or extraordinary circum-
stances or conditions applicable to the same site
of the variance that do not apply generally to
other properties in the same zone.
3. 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.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for
variances on the southern and western setback, and a site
coverage variance based on findings A, B, and C -2.
The project also meets the exterior alteration criteria. Staff
recommends approval of the exterior alteration as the request
generally meets all of the criteria set forth under Sections III
and IV of the memo.
c: \pec \memos \{azier.325
0 11
•
•
•
..0 1 .6
A 371
kl
00
LV
.j
redevelopment of Banner Sports is to insure all of the
facades are designed in a compatible manner and to
. increase the visibility of these spaces.. The proposed
addition will create much needed pedestrian level
interest along the west facade of the building adjacent
to the northern end of the Gondola Plaza. Both the
proposed landscaping and the addition will bring the
building down to a comfortable human scale. Staff
believes the granting of the site coverage variance
will have a positive impact on existing and potential
uses and structures in the vicinity. However, as
previously stated, there are members of the Lionshead
Merchants Association who believe the installation of
the proposed circular planter in the area north of the
Gondola Cafe will impede pedestrian flow to those shops
at the western end of the mall.
B. The strict literal_ interpretation or enforcement of the
specified regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship
inconsistent with the ob'ectives of this title.
I. Setback and Site Coverage variances.
Staff believes the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan
takes precedence over the Zoning Code in guiding the
staff's position on this matter. The Guide Plan
specifically calls for the addition and landscaping
improvements proposed under this application.
C. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation facilities, utilities_, .
schools arks and recreation facilities and other
public facilities needs.
1. Setback and Site Coverage variances.
The staff finds that the requested variance will have
no negative effect upon any of the above
considerations. In fact, staff believes the proposed
addition and landscaping will improve the Gondola Plaza
pedestrian /gathering experience, while not impeding
snow removal or safety access to the mall and building.
VI. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the
following findings before granting a variance:
A. That the granting of the variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the
10
•
•
r`
J
W
W
J
u
•
V. CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS FOR SETBACK AND SITE COVERAGE
. VARIANCES
A. Relationship to existing and potential uses and
structures in the vicinity..
I. Setback
Staff believes the proposed front setback variance
request, if approved, would not negatively impact other
existing or potential uses and structures in the
vicinity.
Sub -Area Concept No. 25 of the Urban Design Guide Plan
for Lionshead specifically calls for a 1 -story
commercial expansion with an attractive facade, as is
proposed, in order to emphasize pedestrian scale and to
create an activity edge for the plaza.
Under Sub -Area Concept No. 22, the Guide Plan calls for
the provision of additional portable summer -time
landscaping in the area where the applicant proposes to
install 4 deciduous trees. Although the proposed trees
are not portable, staff believes these trees will meet
the Sub -Area goal of providing additional color and
creating a more intimate scale for the plaza.
is Staff believes the installation of a tall evergreen in
the middle of a circular planter will meet the goal of
Sub -Area Concept No. 21, which calls for the
installation of a "tall sculpture feature at (the)
highest- visibility point as viewed from either end of
the mall." Staff does not believe the proposed
Lifthouse addition or landscaping will negatively
impact the function of or pedestrian flow through the
Gondola Plaza.
In summary, the expansion will have a positive impact
on surrounding properties and pedestrian areas while
insuring that maintenance and safety functions can
still occur.
2. Site coverage variance
As previously stated, Sub -Area Concept No. 25 of the
Urban Guide Plan for Lionshead specifically calls for a
one -story commercial addition in the area where this
addition is proposed. At staff and PEC members'
request, the applicant has addressed the facades of the
Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space and the
Lifthouse Lodge condominium entrance. The objective of
addressing these spaces in conjunction with the
0 9
• C �. j 5 V
c1
1
Q
_ � v
co LL
J
1
s /
U
• ice.. ��.
1Xlt!}}
w
J
J W i s
LLUJ
co
LL
a
i� <
LU -`
UJ —1
�L?
W
73
IOL
SV'W�
v,rA.
W tt
J
W f �
gIMR�•l�
1' ^'MwSW
W JyS'�y.''.54�•.:1
The applicant proposes to install 4 deciduous
the west facade of Banner Sports on Town owned
19 deciduous trees along the south facade of the
the entrance to the Lifthouse Condominiums.
•
•
trees along
land and two
addition near
All of these
trees will be installed in groups of 2, in 51x 10' planting
areas which are protected by a 4 to 6 inch curbs.
To date, the architect, Town landscape architect and members
of the Public Works, Community Development and Fire
Department staffs, as well as members of the Lionshead
Merchants Association (LHMA), have met on several occasions
to develop a landscaping plan for the plaza area west of the
Lifthouse Lodge which will accommodate everyone's desires.
Although the Town staff and the project architect are
generally in agreement with the attached landscaping
proposal, the Lionshead Merchants Association have not
reached a consensus on the landscaping issue. The
merchants will not be meeting to take a formal position on
the proposed landscaping prior to the March 25, 1991 PEC
meeting. In order to ensure that all of the members of the
LHMA have been informed of the upcoming meeting, the
attached notice was mailed to members of the merchants'
group. To date, the staff has obtained feedback both pro
and con on the proposed circular planter in the plaza. Some
individuals who have businesses located west of the point
where the circular planter is proposed to be located believe
the planter will impede pedestrian traffic to and visibility
of their stores.
Fire and Public Works Department's vehicles can access the
northern end of the Gondola Plaza from the west side of the
existing flag planter. However, accessing the northern
plaza area at this location will require the Public Works
Department to park and operate their snow removal equipment
at the bottom of the stairway leading out of the plaza and
up to the parking lot located north of the Landmark
Condominium Building. This machinery /pedestrian conflict
area remains a concern to the Public Works Department. They
are concerned with the safety of pedestrians using the
stairway during times of snow removal. A representative of
the Public Works Department may be present at the PEC
meeting to present the Department's views on the building
redevelopment and landscaping proposal.
Staff is supportive of the landscaping plan as proposed.
H. service and Delivery:
This addition will not have any impact on the existing
loading and delivery services for the building. This
activity occurs on the north side of the building.
8
. i ■
t!1
W
N
(n
a
ce
ca
LLI
a
z
I
a
W
Ix
Q
in
Lil
m
. OC
J
W
a
ZB
LLI
3
W
a
t
m
w f
e
There are a number of transom type windows proposed over
. entrance ways. Under the redevelopment proposal, which was
reviewed by the PEC on March 11, 1991, the window pane sizes
varied from one transom to another. The applicant has
modified these transom window panes so they now are a
unified size.
In response to staff and PEC members' concerns regarding
whether or not the proposed addition would increase
visibility to the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial
space, and concerns regarding the resulting "tightness" of
the pedestrian space, the applicant has pulled back the
facade of the small commercial space south of the Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial space so that it is flush
with the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech facade.
The commercial space entrance ways are recessed 3 -1/2 to
4 -1/2 feet and are highly transparent in keeping with the
Lionshead Guidelines. In staff's opinion, the proposal
meets concerns relating to the Facade Transparency design
guideline.
E. Decks and Patios:
No decks or patios are proposed.
F. Accent Elements:
The only accent element proposed is exterior lighting on
both the west and north facades.
G. Landscaping:
Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to
install 6 deciduous trees adjacent to the expansion, to
construct a 21 to 25 foot diameter circular planter in the
middle of the circular paving area north of the Gondola Cafe
and to decrease the size of the existing flag planter which
is located west of the Banner Sports entrance by 50 sq. ft.
Two existing light fixtures, which are generally located at
the western and southern ends of the "flag planter" will be
relocated to the west of Banner Sports' west facade,
depending on the lighting needs of the area.
A large specimen evergreen is proposed to be placed in the
center of the planter in addition to low ground cover plants
and flowering bulbs. Electrical service will be provided to
the planter in order to provide for the lighting of the
"Lions -head Christmas Tree." Staff believes the
construction of this planter and the installation of the
large evergreen will help create a sense of enclosure,
create shade, and soften the starkness of the plaza area.
•
1
0
0
ss
LU
u
z
L1J
O
LU
LU
cD
z
4
m
]G
i
O �
L
� O
oc u
�N
�C ko
} N
C. Facades - Walls /Structures:
The materials proposed to be used in construction (wood,
glass and stucco) are encouraged under the Lionshead Design
Considerations. The stucco texture and color will match the
stucco on the existing structure and the window and door
trim color will match the color of the window trim on the
existing structure. Unpainted wood surfaces will be stained
to match the color of the wood pillars on the interior of
the Banner Sports commercial space. This color is quite
light. The Design Considerations recommend wood be stained
to a medium range or to match the main building. The stucco
color on the main building is light. The applicant proposes
to use smooth log pillars to mark the Banner Sports
commercial space. These log pillars will be used to divide
the expanse of glass in the windows of the Banner Sports
facade.
The facades of both the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial
space and the Lifthouse Condominium entrance have been
brought out to the property line. The entire 18" base of
both the west and south facades will be faced with stone.
All of the colors and materials to be used in the addition
are generally encouraged under the Lionshead Design
Guidelines, and will relate well to the existing structure.
Through the use of these materials and colors, the addition
will avoid having a "tacked on" appearance.
D. Facades - Transparency:
Ground floor display window sills are located 18- inches
above the walk level in keeping with the Lionshead Design
Considerations. Display windows will be 6 -feet tall.
Windows to be installed will match the color (clear) of the
existing windows.
The transparency of the windows on the southern and western
facades and of those windows adjacent to the commercial
space entrances are in keeping with the Lionshead Design
Considerations.
The transparency of the south and west facades will meet the
recommended 1170% of the surface area of the ground floor"
facade transparency guidelines. This situation creates an
interesting and inviting experience for the pedestrian
thereby meeting one of the major goals of the Urban Design
Plan for Lionshead - to "develop vitality, visual interest
and pedestrian scale ". On the west facade, 4 deciduous
trees will be planted in front of ground level stuccoed
areas.
is 6
0 TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
HATE: March 25, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for site coverage and setback variances and
an exterior alteration in Commercial Core II (CCII) for
the Lifthouse Lodge, located at 555 East Lionshead
Circle, legally described as a portion of Lot 3, Block
1, Vail Lionshead First Filing
Applicant: Robert T. and Diane J. Lazier
I. DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST
A. Setback Variance
The applicant proposes to construct a 2,114 sq. ft. one -
story addition to the Lifthouse Lodge building. The
addition will extend 31-5" to 23' -9" out from the existing
building facade. This one -story addition wraps around the
north and west facades of the Banner Sports and Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces, and the entrance to
the Lifthouse Condominiums. The Banner Sports entrance is
proposed to be relocated to the very southwest corner of the
building. The structure currently encroaches 1' -6" into the
required setback on the south and 1' -3" into the required
ten foot setback on the west. Setback variances are
required in order to allow the addition to encroach 10' into
the required 10' setback on the west, resulting in a zero
setback situation. On the south, the expansion encroaches
91-6" into the required 10 foot setback, which results in a
6 -inch setback.
This 2,114 sq. ft. addition will increase the Lifthouse
Lodge Condominium lobby by 162 s.q ft., the Banner Sports
retail space by 1,401 sq. ft., the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech
retail space by 241 sq. ft., and will create a new retail
space of 97 sq. ft. between Pedal Power and Banner Sports.
B. Site Coveraae Variance
Because of the potential impact an addition which just
addressed the Banner Sports Commercial Space would have on
the visibility of the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial
space, and on the visibility of the Lifthouse Condominiums
0 1
B. Roofs:
Flat, shed, vaulted or dome roofs are encouraged. A peaked
roof is proposed over the commercial space and condominium
entrances. The proposal calls for a metal roof which will
be gray in color. The Lionshead Design Considerations set
forth metal as an acceptable roofing material provided it is
ribbed or standing seam and a dark color. Therefore, the
proposed roof material and color are acceptable.
In front of the second story balconies, the roof will slope
back to a point where it intersects with the floor level of
the existing second story decks. In those areas where the
vertical plane of the facade extends back further than the
vertical plane of the deck, the roof will maintain the same
slope and slope back to the point where it intersects with
the facade of the building.
The applicant investigated matching the roof pitch on the
addition to the adjacent Montauk Restaurant roof pitch.
Because of the differences in the amount these facades
project into the mall, the applicant concluded that matching
the two roof pitches was not appropriate.
The Lionshead Design Considerations recommend that roof
overhangs range from 3- inches to 36- inches. The proposed
roof overhang will range from 6- inches to 4 -1/2 feet. The
distance the facade projects out from the building varies,
while the distance the roof line projects out from the
building, remains constant. Consequently, the roof overhang
varies. The area of greatest overhang occurs at the
entrance to the commercial spaces. The Lionshead Design
Considerations suggest roofs that extend beyond 36- inches
are acceptable when used to create covered walkways. In
this situation, the large roof overhangs provide sheltered
entrances to commercial spaces.
Previous staff concerns regarding the proposed addition
roof /existing building connection points have been addressed
under this proposal. The addition's connection to the
existing building at the floor level of the second story
decks is visually pleasing and will eliminate the
cantilevered appearance of the second story decks. The
connection of the addition's roof to the existing building
is an important design element. Respecting strong
architectural lines is critical to successfully integrating
an addition with an existing structure.
0 5
entrance, the Planning and Environmental Commission and the
staff encouraged the applicant to address these areas in
conjunction with the Banner Sports redevelopment proposal;
the understanding being a site coverage variance would
likely be required.
Under this proposal, the applicant has addressed the design
of the commercial space and condo entrance. Consequently, a
site coverage variance will be required to allow the
addition, as proposed, to occur. Under the CCII zone
district, the maximum site coverage allowed for this lot is
14,231 sq. £t. (70 %). Under this redevelopment proposal,
the site coverage proposed is 15,114 sq. ft. (74 %). The
site coverage will exceed the allowable by 883 sq. ft. (4 %).
Therefore a site coverage variance is required to allow the
site coverage to exceed the allowable_ site cov_erage_by4 5t_._
C. Exterior Alteration Request
This project is located in Commercial Core II, which
requires that any exterior expansion be reviewed by the PEC
using the exterior alteration criteria. The total square
footage for the commercial and common area expansion is
2,114 square feet.
D. Landscaping
No plant material will be removed, however, approximately
2,114 sq. ft. of hardscape (pavers) will be removed under
this proposal. The site landscaping will exceed the
landscaping requirement for the CCII zone district.
Landscaping standards require a certain percentage of
hardscape (pavers) to softscape (plant material) landscaping
on a site. The site does not currently meet zone district
softscape landscape requirements. Through the removal of
hardscape in conjunction with the redevelopment, and the
addition of 39 sq. ft. of softscape, the project will come
closer to conforming to landscape standards. The 39 sq. ft.
of plant material to be provided on -site is in the form of a
portion of a 50 sq. ft. at -grade planted area. A total of
three of these 50 sq. ft. planted areas are proposed. Each
of these 50 sq. ft. planted areas will contain two deciduous
trees and ground cover. Two of these 51x 10' planted areas
will be located along the west facade of the building on
Town of Vail owned land. The third planted area will be
located along the south facade of the Lifthouse Lodge
building, in part on Town of Vail owned land (11 sq. ft.)
and in part on Lifthouse owned land (39 sq. ft).
Additionally, 457 to 602 sq. ft. of plant material is
proposed to be added off --site on Town of Vail land in the
form of a 21 to 25 foot diameter circular planter. This
0 2
•
Proposed Off -Site Softscape
457 to 602 sq. ft.
(Varies because diameter'
of circular planter has
not been finalized.
Diameter will be between
21 and 25 feet.)
III. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR LIONSHEAD
The following sub -area concepts relate to the proposed
redevelopment (see attached map for reference number location):
GONDOLA PLAZA
25. Commercial expansion (1 story) to emphasize pedestrian scale
and attractive facades for improved commercial use, aided by
fountain as pedestrian draw. At north end, commercial
expansion (1 -2 stories) to create a third activity edge to
plaza, with opportunities for 2nd level sun- pocket dining
terraces.
This urban design consideration recommends the Lifthouse
Condominium Building be expanded in the same areas proposed
to be expanded under this redevelopment proposal. In fact
the Guide Plan recommends the Pedal Power /Vail Ski Tech
facade encroach even further to the west onto Town of Vail
owned land.
22. Existing mature vegetation preserved for green, color, and
scale. Supplement with portable summer -time planters for
additional color and more intimate scale for plaza.
21. Tall sculpture feature at highest - visibility point as viewed
from either end of the mall.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR
LIONSHEAD
A. Height and Massing:
The proposal calls for construction of a one -story addition
to the south and west facades of the Lifthouse Condominium
Building, adjacent to the Banner Sports, and Pedal
Power /Vail Ski Tech commercial spaces and the Lifthouse
Condominium entrance. The Lionshead Design Considerations
encourage the creation of well- defined ground floor
commercial /pedestrian areas, and one -story building
expansions.
0 4
planter is proposed to be located in the center of the
circular paving pattern area north of the Gondola Cafe. The
planter would contain one large specimen evergreen tree, low
ground cover plants and flowering bulbs.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the relationship of the redevelopment
proposal to CCII zone district development standards:
1. Zone District: Commercial Core II
2. Lot Area: 20,334 sq. ft./ .4668 acres
3. Site Coverage: Allowed 14,231 sq. ft.
(.70 of site area) Existing 13,000 sq. ft.
Proposed 159114 sq. ft. (74%)
Site Coverage Overage 883 sq. ft. ( 4 %)*
* Variance required
4. Setbacks:
The East and North setbacks will remain unchanged under
this proposal.
South: Required: 10 feet
40 Proposed: 6 inches*
West: Required: 10 feet
Proposed: 0 feet*
•
* Variance required
5. Parking - The provision of 5.79 additional parking
spaces is required. The applicant must pay into the
Town's Parking Fund per the Pay in Lieu Program.
(Please note the current fee of $3,000 per space is to
be increased to $8,000 per space.)
6. Height - The 15' -6" maximum height of the addition will
not impact the maximum height of the existing
structure.
7. Landscaping (20% of site area)
Required: 4,066 sq. ft.
Existing: 6,100 Hardscape (Paving /Decks)
460 Softscane (Planting)
6,560 Gross (32 %)
Proposed: 3,986 Hardscape (Paving /Decks)
499 Softscape (Planting)
4,485 Gross (22 %)
.?