HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 PEC 0413 thru 0727PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
4% April 13, 1992
AGENDA
12:30 PM Site Visits
2:00 PM Public Hearing
Site Visits Public Hearina
4. 1. A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for
the Schofield Residence, 1448 Vail Valley Drive /Lot 18, Block 3, Vail
Valley 1st Filing.
Applicant: John Schofield
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
5. 2. A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade
for Lot 8, Bighorn Estates/4249 Nugget Lane.
Applicant: Barry & Debbie Schrager
Planner: Shelly Mello
2. 3. A request for a minor subdivision and a variance from Chapter
18.22.050 - Lot Area and Site Dimensions, Public Accommodation Zone
District, and a variance from Chapter 17 - Subdivision Regulations for
Villa Valhalla, a portion of Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing /384
40 Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Villa Valhalla Association, Inc. represented by
James Pansing
Planner: Jill Kammerer
4. A request for a conditional use permit for a construction staging site
located at the Vail Associates West Day Lot, Lots A and B, Morcus
Subdivision.
Applicants: Vail Associates /Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. 5. A request for an exterior alteration at the May Palace Restaurant, 223
East Gore Drive /Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Switzer
Planner: Shelly Mello
6. A request for setback and site coverage variances for the Wilhelm
Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane (West Unit) /Lot 5, Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
TABLED TO APRIL 27, 1992
7. Review and comment on letter to U.S. Forest Service regarding
Colorado Heli -Ski application.
8. Approval of March 9 and March 23 meeting minutes.
f
•
Of
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 13, 1992
Present
Staff
Diana Donovan
Kristan Pritz
Kathy Langenwalter
Mike Mollica
Gena Whitten
Jill Kammerer
Dalton Williams
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
Absent
Greg Amsden
Chuck Crist
Ludwig Kurz
The meeting was called to order at 2:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the Schofield
Residence, 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st Filing,
Applicant: John Schofield
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen summarized the request. He indicated staff recommended approval of the
extension, but said there was one remaining issue which he would like the Commission to
address, and that was the treatment if additional retaining walls.
The applicant, John Schofield, said he would try to construct the project without any new
retaining walls. The existing one in the right -of -way would remain and the proposed timber
staircase would act as a retaining wall, but additional walls would probably not be needed.
He mentioned it would be difficult to match the rock of the existing retaining wall if more
retainage is needed. He also asked for clarification, since the Design Review Board had
specifically requested a timber retaining wall.
Diana Donovan felt strongly that if additional retaining was necessary, rock should be used.
The consensus of the Commissioners was that rock be used, and they asked staff to also relay
this recommendation to the DRB.
Kathy Langenwalter moved the request for an extension of a previously approved setback
variance for the Schofield Residence, 1448 Vail Valley Drive/Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley
1st Filing be approved per staff memo, with a condition that any retaining walls, which are
separate from the timber staircase, be constructed of rock similar to what currently existed on
the property. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved, 4 -0.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 13, 1992 • Page 1
i- v
. 2. A request for a variance from the maximum allowable driveway grade for Lot 8,
Bighorn Estates /4249 Nugget Lane.
Applicant: Barry & Debbie Schrager
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello explained the variance requested was for a 2.9% driveway slope in excess of the
maximum 12% allowed by the Town. She briefly explained the history of the site and
similar variances which had been approved by the Town. Staff recommended approval, with
conditions stating they believed the landscaping and grading would mitigate the impacts.
Rick Rosen, representing the applicant, said that if the utility box needed to be removed, the
applicants would also remove the wall in that area. He asked that the motion for the variance
be stated with the condition that staff and the applicants continue to work together for a
solution to that area, and indicated the box and surrounding slope may need to be raised.
Dalton Williams said as long as the issue was resolved, the variance was acceptable.
Kathy Langenwalter asked why the driveway grade had increased. Michael Hazard, the
architect, said it was something which had occurred on -site as a result of conversations
between the owners and the contractor. Rick elaborated, and indicated part of the problem
was a 20 -foot access easement between this property and the adjacent. He said a mistake was
made in increasing the grade.
4b Shelly explained that staff determined the access easement Rick was referring to was a
drainage, utility and access easement, and that the staff had determined that it was not
appropriate to allow the owners of Lot 8 to use it for a driveway. Shelly also clarified that
the easement was located on the adjacent property.
Dalton Williams moved to approve the request for a variance from the maximum allowable
driveway grade for Lot 8, Bighorn Estates /4249 Nugget Lane per the staff memo, with the
understanding that the staff would work with the developer to resolve the placement of the
utility boxes. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved by a unanimous vote of
4 -0.
3. A reauest for a minor subdivision and a variance from Chapter 18.22.050 - Lot Area
and Site Dimensions, Public Accommodation Zone District, and a variance from
Chapter 17 - Subdivision Regulations for Villa Valhalla, a portion of Lot J, Block 5A,
Vail Village 5th Filing/384 Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Villa Valhalla Association, Inc. represented by
James Pansing
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer summarized the request. Staff recommended approval of all the requests.
Harry Davidson, President of the Villa Valhalla Association and Reed Lichtenfeld, the
Die Association's attorney, were present for the hearing.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 13, 1992 • Page 2
. Diana Donovan spoke for the Commission, stating they did not have problems with the
request, and it appeared to clear up the previous confusions and problems on the two lots.
Kathy Langenwalter was pleased to move the request for a minor subdivision and a variance
from Chapter 18.22.050 - Lot Area and Site Dimensions, Public Accommodation Zone
District, and a variance from Chapter 17 - Subdivision Regulations for Villa Valhalla, a
portion of Lot J, Block 5A, Vail Village 5th Filing/384 Gore Creek Drive be approved per
staff memo with the findings it was not a grant of special privilege, nor would it be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. A second to the motion was made by
Dalton Williams. It was approved by a vote of 4 -0.
4. A request for a conditional use permit for a construction staging site located at the
Vail Associates West Dav Lot, Lots A and B, Morcus Subdivision.
Applicants: Vail Associates /Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy briefly reviewed staff's memorandum. Staff recommended approval of the request with
conditions as listed in their memo.
Diana Donovan asked if the Commission could approve the permit for the period it would be
needed for in 1993, in addition to the time period needed for 1992. She also asked if some
type of sign could be erected on the corner of West Lionshead Circle to give direction to the
delivery drivers. Kristan Pritz suggested a sign of approximately 5 sq. ft. which said "West
Day Lot." Dalton Williams suggested an alternative sign which read "Construction Staging
Site." Kristan agreed staff could work out the specific wording and placement.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for a conditional use permit for a construction
staging site located at the Vail Associates West Day Lot, Lots A and B, Morcus Subdivision
be approved per staff memo with the addition the conditional use permit would be valid for
the corresponding dates in 1993 for similar use. In addition, a sign would be posted to
provide clear direction to delivery truck drivers. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It
was unanimously approved, 4 -0.
5. A request for an exterior alteration at the May Palace Restaurant 223 East Gore
Drive/Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Switzer
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello presented the request. Staff recommended approval with the condition that, if
the canopy were removed, the DRB would reconsider the flat roof.
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned with the detail on the door. Neil Schram, Manager of the
May Palace, explained the treatment, and the rationale behind the decision. Kathy believed
the door should look like a continuation of the wall to the left, as it was on the same visual
• plane. Specifically, she thought the window height and wood treatment should be similar.
She had no problem with the exterior alteration itself, however, she was concerned with the
detailing proposed.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 13, 1992 • Page 3
After Neil agreed to submit more detailed plans at the time it was approved by the Design
Review Board, he asked if the canopy could be pulled out an additional 2 feet. Shelly asked
that it be designed and brought to the DRB for their review.
Kathy Langenwalter moved the request for an exterior alteration at the May Palace
Restaurant, 223 East Gore Drive/Part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing be
approved per staff memo with a strong recommendation to the Design Review Board that the
airlock be designed either as a glass enclosure, or to fif in with the existing design treatment,
or become its own "statement." Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was approved by a
unanimous 4 -0 vote.
6. A request for setback and site coverage variances for the Wilhelm Residence, 4289
Nugget Lane (West Unit)/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Dalton Williams moved to table the above request to the April 27, 1992 meeting. Gena
Whitten seconded the motion. It was unanimously tabled, 4 -0.
7. Review and comment on letter to U.S. Forest Service regarding Colorado Heli -Ski
application.
The Commissioners were concerned that the Bald Mountain area was proposed to be used for
Heli- Skiing. They were also concerned with how the skiers would be removed from private
land at the bottom of the "runs."
Diana Donovan asked where the warming but proposed would be located. She strongly
opposed having a helicopter staging area in the Valley.
Staff agreed to call the Forest Service and follow up with them via a letter.
8. Approval of March 9 and March 23 meeting minutes.
Dalton Williams moved to approve the meeting minutes of March 9 and March 23, 1992 as
amended. Kathy Langenwalter seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously
approved the motion, 4 -0.
The Commission discussed with staff how future driveway variances after construction could
be avoided.
Kristan Pritz announced Ludwig Kurz had tendered his resignation from the Commission due
to the fact he would be in Europe a great deal of time, and would not be able to attend
meetings.
• After further updates, the meeting was adjourned at 4:30PM.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 13, 1992 • Page 4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the
Schofield Residence, 1448 Vail Valley Drive /Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley 1st
Filing.
Applicant: John Schofield
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
John Schofield applied for a setback variance on May 16, 1991 to expand the garage at his
residence at 1448 Vail Valley Drive. After a number of revisions in the design, the Planning
and Environmental Commission gave approval for a front yard setback variance on June 24,
1991. The approval will allow the garage to encroach 12.5 feet into the front setback. The
PEC did not approve the driveway plan which would have provided a loop driveway partially in
the Town's right -of -way adjacent, to the Schofield property. The applicant has not constructed
• the project at this time, and would like an extension to the variance approval. Under the new
regulations for variances, this extension will be valid for two years, and will expire on April 13,
1994, if approved.
The attached staff memo and PEC minutes describe the proposal and relevant issues in
detail. The condition of approval requiring an updated letter from the owner of the west side
of the duplex is still applicable, and will need to be provided when the applicant undertakes
the construction project.
cApe6memos\schofeld.413
•
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 24, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for the Schofield Residence, Lot 18,
Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing/1448 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: John Schofield
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The current variance proposal, made by the applicant, John Schofield, is an expansion to the
existing garage to accommodate one additional car. Currently, the site has a three -car garage.
Two of the spaces are for the primary unit, and one is for the secondary unit. The Schofields
have recently purchased the secondary unit and would like to expand their one -car garage into
a two -car garage. The location of the structure will be 7.5 feet from the front property line.
The standard for front yard setbacks is 20 feet. Thus, this proposal will encroach 12.5 feet
into the setback.
For the purposes of this variance memo, staff would like to break the discussion of the
proposal into two parts. The first will analyze the garage, and the second will analyze the
driveway in front of the residence. The driveway portion of the proposal does not need
variance approval. If it were applied for independently, the only approval it would need
would be Design Review and a revocable right -of -way permit. Since it is shown on the site
plan for the variance, staff believes it should be evaluated as part of this request.
A. Description of Garage
The proposed addition would expand the existing garage 27 feet to the east. (The 27
feet is measured from the front to the back of the addition.) The door to the new
space will be set at an angle to the three garage existing doors. The new space will be
accessed from the existing driveway, which would not necessarily need to be
expanded. The garage would be built into the hillside, and as a result, the roof would
be a combination of sod, decking and walkway. (Please see the attached plans.) A
portion of the garage will be built on land commonly held by Mr. Schofield and the
owner of the primary unit. After the neighbor returns from travelling, Mr. Schofield
will get approval for the addition or alter the design so that it is entirely on the portion
40 1
• of the lot he owns. The site plan shows where the duplex subdivision line is located.
The applicant is proposing to plant 5 aspen, 12 junipers and transplant 3 spruce around
the addition. These will be located approximately 10 feet to the east and south of an
existing group of Mugo pines that will be removed.
•
•
B. Description of Driveway
The applicant would like to pave the right -of -way between his front property line and
the edge of Vail Valley Drive to allow for additional exterior parking. The area to be
paved would be approximately 45 feet long and 10 feet wide. This new parking area
would be located immediately east of the existing driveway and would extend east of
the Schofield's dwelling unit (please see site plan). There would have to be 6 Mugo
Pines removed to accommodate this new parking area. There is an existing 2 -foot
high rock wall which would separate the cars parked in this area from the traffic along
Vail Valley Drive.
II. BACKGROUND
On December 10, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) reviewed a
request made by the Schofields for a new, two -car garage, which included a second driveway
for the site. The Schofields are no longer pursuing that design since the construction costs
exceeded what they had anticipated. The PEC approved the 1990 request with three
conditions of approval, which involved adding landscaping in three areas: at the front of the
existing driveway, around the walkway to a new entry door, and in a new landscape terrace
created by breaking up a retaining wall on the north side of the driveway. None of those
conditions directly relate to the current proposal, as it is significantly different.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning: Duplex
Site Coverage:
Height:
Setbacks
Front:
Rear:
East Side:
West Side:
Allowed Existing
4,209 sq. ft. 3,667.1 sq. ft.
33 ft.
20 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
15 ft.
* Area of setback variance request.
2
Proposed Total
410.1 sq. ft. 4,077.2
11 ft. (garage only)
7.5 ft.*
83 ft.
17.5 ft.
28 ft.
• IV. 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
variance based on 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. Structure
Staff believes the relationship of the proposed structure to the rest of the
neighborhood will be positive as it will not be very visible. The way
the applicant has proposed to angle the new door will make the addition
less visible and will avoid the appearance of four garage doors in a row.
In the previous review, the Planning Commission believed additional
landscaping should be added to the site to improve the relationship to
the surrounding area. The three conditions of approval the PEC made
• all involved landscaping. In this case, the applicant plans to plant 12
new junipers, transplant 3 existing spruce, and plant 5 new aspen. Staff
believes the additional landscaping will improve the relationship of the
structure to the surrounding neighborhood, and that the proposed
amount of landscape material is adequate, given the potential impact of
the addition.
b. Driveway
Staff believes the driveway portion of this proposal will result in a
negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood. Paving the right -of-
way would not only add to the amount of asphalt, but it would require
removing 6 Mugos. The applicant has planned to rebuild an existing
stone wall in this location to protect the parking spaces from snow
removal operations. However, staff believes a 2 -foot high wall without
any landscaping on either side of it would not adequately screen the
parking.
0 3
• 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.
a. Structure
Staff believes the request to build the garage in the front yard setback is
reasonable. We believe there is a need for relief from the strict
interpretation of the zoning code, because the existing building has been
constructed on the front property line on an angle. The location of the
existing building limits the expansion potential of the secondary unit so
that any addition to the garage requires construction in the front yard
setback. In the previous memo, though staff did not recommend
approval, staff did state that the hardship criteria had been met due to
the location of the existing house.
b. Driveway
Staff understands that the applicant desires additional exterior parking.
Because the new garage space will be built at an angle, and because the
width of the existing driveway will not be expanded, the applicant will
not be increasing the number of exterior surface parking spaces.
Though additional parking in the driveway may be desirable for guests,
the planning staff believes the visual impacts of the parking does not
justify locating it in the right -of -way.
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. Structure
Staff sees no impact of the proposed structure on the above criteria.
b. Driveway
When staff discussed the proposed driveway with the Public Works
Department, they expressed concern over this use of the right -of -way.
Traffic facilities may be impacted if this request is approved as
proposed. Expansion plans for Vail Valley Drive, which include a 2-
foot expansion to the driving lanes and future construction of bike lanes
and sidewalks, could not be done if this driveway is built. At a
0 4
• minimum, this portion of the request would require a revocable right -of-
way permit which the Public Works staff have said they would not
support.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
• b. 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.
C. 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
Staff recommends approval of the variance request for the construction of the garage. Staff
believes that finding one is met as approval of this request would not constitute a special
privilege. Other variances have been granted in the past based on the hardship of an existing
building location. In this case, not only is the existing building located on the front setback,
but it is built on an angle, so that any expansion of the secondary unit requires encroachment
into the front yard setback. Staff believes the second finding is met, as the garage would
have no affect on public health, safety or welfare. Regarding finding number 3, staff finds
that 3(b) is met. The building location is an extraordinary circumstance found on this site,
which is not necessarily found on other sites in the same zone district.
0 5
• Though the garage meets the variance criteria and findings, in staff's opinion, the driveway
portion of the design should not be approved. Because of the negative visual impacts, as well
as the concern from the Public Works Department about the use of the right -of -way for this
purpose, staff believes the area should remain as landscaping.
Staff recommends approval of the variance for the garage with the condition that the applicant
secure approval from the owner of the primary unit to encroach into common Lot C or
modify the addition.
c:pe6memoftchofeld.624
0
0 6
•
i
i
1
se =..� •c •mss i. � .. r�y7� -� �. .. "
rs ,x %`:�_ TfMbE7t
LU
rM F7
El EEI
•�''r �• d'.' ' 4�11LPS
0
IFMI
*%1GT. C�'.Rt
s'- .:/:Sir ..�. ; •L*�.w -
fl, ME
x=' � x }, ` ; ,( �� � `-^1- •a �� � ,� .e �'Y�7;fr�J 1. .. � .- •'.;
I*
00
NA
v
tv
•
•
j
1
i
I
Z
c
l
i
� s
z3 �
a
80
kn N7L H
1 Q
�C
VA
. L
y
•
� 0
I
. 1
Q
l
1.=
IL
•
FOL�
� s1�
ar:.5 _
I
. 1
Q
l
1.=
IL
•
•
00,
�y
1
.� 'LL V t
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
• June 24, 1991
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Ludwig Kurz
Jim S hearer
Absent
Connie Knight
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Mike Mollica
Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The public hearing was called to order at 2:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A request for a worksession for height parking and density (GRFA /common area)
variances for the Sonnenalp Part of Lots K & L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First Filing/
20 Vail Road.
• Applicant: Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Kristan Pritz explained the changes in the proposal from the one submitted several months
previously. These included asking for variances for common area/accessory use, height and
parking, instead of proposing a Special Development District. Kristan explained the issues
staff believed were important to discuss, and these included the proposed parking,
landscaping, employee housing, and a stream walk.
At the conclusion of Kristan's presentation, Jay Peterson, the applicant's representative,
further explained the proposal. Regarding the parking, Jay indicated applicants were working
with the staff to reach a compromise between the number of spaces provided and interior
landscaping. The height variance was being requested in order to accommodate "chillers," a
form of cooling for the rooms, in an enclosed area of the roof to most effectively screen the
bulk and noise from the units.
Jay presented applicant's position that a 35% allowance for common area in a 100% lodge
project was not sufficient. A first -class facility would usually have a greater demand for
common area. He indicated that the GRFA for the project was actually below that which was
permitted for the site.
Diana stated the common area variance made sense, but she agreed with staff that employee
• housing should be addressed. While a couple units might not really fit in with this proposal,
she did not believe it was fair to require other developers to require the housing without
getting guarantees from this proposal.
Chuck Crist asked how the site would be accessed for construction. Ken O'Brien stated there
would be a crane for a short period of time. The current parking lot would be used for a
staging area. He mentioned that concrete for the parking was also being considered to reduce
the heat from asphalt. He stated the construction period would be approximately 8 months,
starting April 1, 1992. They hoped to have 100% occupancy by Christmas, 1993
Jay Peterson thanked the Commissioners for their comments, and stated they would be back
July 8 with a final proposal.
2. A request for a front setback variance for the Schofield residence, Lot 18, Block 3,
Vail Valley First Filing/1448 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: John Schofield
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello presented the request for the front setback variance. The variance was requested
in order to allow for a garage addition to the secondary unit. In addition, staff asked the
Commission to consider the request to place a driveway across the front of the lot to allow
for turnaround and parking. Although no variance was necessary for the driveway request,
• staff viewed this as an element of the request. Additional landscaping was proposed for this
site.
After reviewing the variance criteria, staff recommended approval of the variance for the
garage, citing findings 1, 2 and 3(b) in support with the condition the owners gain approval of
the duplex property owner to encroach into the common area. Staff did not recommend
approval of the driveway plan as proposed.
John Schofield explained that with the current driveway, when cars were in the driveway,
there was no way out of the garage without moving at least one car. He believed the
proposed driveway was a good solution to backing out onto the road, and would provide
better access. He mentioned there were other property owners in the area with a similar
driveway design. If Vail Valley Drive were to be widened, they, too, would be negatively
affected. He was willing to accept that possibility. Mr. Schofield showed pictures to the
Commission illustrating other owners' solutions. As he viewed his situation, the only other
solution he saw was to widen the existing driveway to allow for a straight shot. Additionally,
he believed the Mugo pines should be removed for safety reasons. Tom Baccus, an audience
member, asked where the pines were located. Mr. Schofield showed where they were on the
plans.
• 4
Ludwig Kurz asked how the proposed new garage would help the use. Mr. Schofield stated it
• would eliminate one car from the driveway. Jim Shearer questioned how many of the similar
driveways viewed in the photographs were also in the road easement. Mr. Schofield indicated
all were. Kristan Pritz said she was not sure that was correct, as the photographs showed
many different options for a turnaround, and she believed they were not similar to the
situation at hand.
Jim stated he supported the entire proposal, with the exception of the driveway. He thought
the additional pavement would hurt the "curb appeal" of the property, hated to lose the
landscaping, and would prefer a walk wall to the timber steps. Mrs. Schofield answered they
had originally proposed stone, but the DRB had changed it to timber to better fit in with the
neighborhood. Diana Donovan also wanted to see stone. However, the DRB had the final
say.
Diana had no problem with the garage variance, but had difficulties with the drive. John
Schofield asked if she had an alternative for the drive. Diana was not sure, but she pointed
out many other homes in this area have back -out driveways. She did conclude, however, that
the Mugo pines should be moved to help sight access. Shelly Mello suggested cutting back
the corner area to increase visibility. Diana thought that perhaps an angle to widen the
access. She suggested working the details out with staff. Kristan agreed to work with the
applicant as well as the Town Engineer to determine an acceptable driveway plan.
Chuck Crist moved to approve the request for a front setback variance for the Schofield
• Residence, Lot 18, Block 3, Vail Valley First Filing/1448 Vail Valley Drive per the staff
memo, with the findings as indicated in the memo. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was
unanimously approved, 4 -0.
3. A request for a side setback variance for the Heiman Residence, Lot 9, Block 1, Gore
Creek Subdivision /5134 Grouse Lane.
Applicant: Mr. and Mrs. Paul Heiman
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Shelly Mello gave the staff presentation of the request. She indicated there was one
correction, and that was the dwelling would remain a single family residence. She explained
the reason for the requested variance was to increase in the existing non - conformity with
regard to setbacks. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the condition that the
utility easement be vacated before a building permit was issued.
Sam Sterling represented applicants. He indicated there appeared to be an error in the GRFA
numbers indicated in the memos, those discrepancies being GRFA figures and that after
further evaluation, only 7 trees would be removed. Staff noted the corrected figures for the
file.
• 5
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from Ordinance 2, Series 1983, AN ORDINANCE
REPEALING AND REENACTING TITLE 17 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL
CODE SETTING FORTH NEW SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS AND
CONSTRUCTION DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE TOWN AND
PROVIDING DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO which sets forth the
maximum allowable heated driveway grade at 12 percent if the Town
Engineer's approval is obtained; for the Schrager Residence, Lot 8, Bighorn
Estates /4249 Nugget Lane
Applicant: Barry & Debbie Schrager
Presenters: Greg Hall /Shelly Mello
0 I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
•
The applicant is requesting approval of a variance from Ordinance 2, Series of 1983 relating
to heated driveways, for a slope in excess of 12 percent. Under this Ordinance, the maximum
allowable slope of a heated driveway may be 12 percent, provided the Town Engineer's
approval is obtained. However, minor deviations to this 12 percent maximum may be
allowed subject to Section 17.28.160 of the Subdivision Regulations.
The driveway was proposed and approved at a 12% grade, and is heated. The driveway was
not constructed to the approved plans and is at a 14.9 percent slope. The applicant did not
obtain the Town Engineer's approval prior to constructing the driveway. Therefore, a
variance to allow the maximum allowable grade of 12 percent to be exceeded by 2.9 percent
is required.
II. BACKGROUND
The construction plans submitted to the Town at the time of building permit reflected a 12%
heated driveway. The Town Engineer has indicated he may approve driveways which exceed
12 %, but not more than 14 %. The Town Engineer has the authority to approve a heated
driveway grade which exceeds 12 percent based on Section 17.28.160 - Plan Revisions of the
Subdivision Ordinance which states:
1
• "Should circumstances warrant changes to the approved plans or specifications,
the proposed revision must be submitted and written approval must be obtained
from the Town Engineer. No work shall proceed on that portion of the project
being revised until said revisions are submitted, approved, and distributed.
Minor deviations from the plans or specifications may be (approved sic) by
written permission from the Town Engineer or his representative on the job. It
shall be the responsibility of the developer to have his engineer provide the
Town Engineer with a set of "as- built" plans at the completion of the project
verifying all elevations, utility locations, and any other change that has taken
place. (Ord. 2 [1983], $ 1 [part])"
The Town has historically interpreted that up to a 14 percent grade is a "minor deviation"
from the maximum heated driveway slope of 12 percent.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
* Maximum allowable heated driveway slope: 12%
Constructed driveway slope: 14.9%
Amount driveway slope exceeds allowable: 2.9%
* NOTE: This 12% maximum slope may be exceeded subject to the provisions of
Section 17.28.160 - Plan Revisions of the Subdivision Ordinance.
• IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
is
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends approval of the requested
variance based on 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 Community Development Department and Public Works staff believe that
the existing design does not present a change to the existing level of safety to
the general public or the users of the driveway. Because of the extensive
proposed landscaping plan, the design and appearance of the driveway will not
have any significant negative impacts on adjacent properties. The landscaping
plan consists of a mixture of evergreens, aspens and mugo pines located on
both the east and west property lines. The proposal also includes bringing the
grade within 18 inches of the top of the driveway walls. The combination of
the grading and the landscaping will screen the driveway from the adjacent
properties. The applicant will also be required to paint the utility units located
4
I
• on the walls which encroach in order to improve the appearance of these units
from adjacent properties.
In addition, there are certain permanent encroachments into the adjacent
property and utility easements which have not been approved. The applicant
must obtain approval of these encroachments, or remove them, prior to the
issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for the project.
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.
Staff believes allowing the grade of 14.9 percent will not be a grant of special
privilege. Ordinance 2 of 1983, which addresses the maximum slopes
permitted for driveways, has been in effect since 1983. The current Town
Engineer has been reviewing driveways for compliance with this ordinance
since 1989. The Town Engineer is aware of eight driveways which were either
approved or built at grades which exceed the 12 percent maximum grade
specification. Two of these driveways were associated with existing houses in
which modifications to the houses triggered the Design Review Board guideline
• requirement that the driveways be paved. In both of these instances, there
were existing garages, and neither the elevations or grades associated with the
driveway or the existing garages could be changed. The three driveways
associated with new construction, which were approved by the Town Engineer,
and which exceeded the 12 percent grade are:
• 16 Forest Road, where the grade was approved at 14.4 percent;
• Garden of the Gods (SDD #19), where the driveway was approved at
13.8 percent;
• 186 Forest Road, where the driveway was approved at 14 percent.
However, when constructed, the driveways associated with the last two projects
were constructed at grades of 14.4 percent and 13.8 percent respectively. In
addition, a variance was granted in January, 1992 for a residence at 16 Forest
Road for a driveway with a grade of 19.7%.
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.
As previously stated, staff believes approval of the driveway as constructed,
does not pose a greater threat of an accident occurring between the users of the
0 3
• drive and traffic or pedestrians on Nugget Lane. The Community Development
and Public Works staffs believe that the constructed driveway is a safe
situation.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance from Ordinance 2 of 1983 to allow the
maximum allowable driveway slope to be exceeded. Staff believes to approve such a
variance would not be a grant of special privilege and that Sections B(1), B(2) and B(3)(c) of
the variance findings or criteria are applicable. The staff believes that the impact of the
driveway will be sufficiently mitigated with the proposed landscape and grading plans. We
also believe that the existing driveway configuration with a 14.9% grade is a safe situation.
Prior to the issuance of a final Certificate of Occupancy for this project, all landscaping and
grading must be complete. In addition, the applicant must present approval from the adjacent
property owner and utility companies for all permanent encroachments into easements and
onto adjacent properties, or remove the encroachments before a final Certificate of Occupancy
will be released. The applicant will also be required to paint the electrical units on the walls
which encroach, in order to improve the appearance of these units.
0 4
• Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, if this
application is approved, this approval shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two
years of the date of issuance and diligently pursued to completion.
c:\4Yec\rnemos\schrager.413
•
•
5
;gJilll 1
m mm
i m� n � nnmm o z i
i,
,Al
1
C `Z ►;
i a _•
yr r ,
� O
• v . �1 r A r
I
1
u J Y 4 Iq S
At
SIR-
lit
Ld
Y I
�. Ir
W
>V \ ',,\ ,y`Nj /. ,\ •� •Y�r r...rr rrrr �r ' � .. fV ('1
,` \ l
I \ J 4 5
r
lij jo 11
1
pf a
e F J i
dJ`r
• I � n W
I
lAir" �A
b
yy
M
V 7�m _
g' ul
qD
N
49 R`
\: :5 I
�..lw
Y iN
N �
i
i
Y
a
♦
�qq
_ \ vj, a
S �
b
yy
M
V 7�m _
g' ul
qD
N
49 R`
\: :5 I
�..lw
Y iN
N �
i
i
Y
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision and variances from Chapter 18.22.050 - Lot
Area and Site Dimensions, Public Accommodation Zone District, and Chapter
17 - Subdivision Regulations for Villa Valhalla, a portion of Lot J, Block 5A,
Vail Village 5th Filing/384 Gore Creek Drive
Applicant: Vail Associates/Villa Valhalla Association, Inc. represented by
James Pansing
Planner: Jill Kammerer
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
A. Minor Subdivision
• This proposal involves the vacation of a lot line between two portions of Lot J, Block
5A, Vail Village Fifth Filing which are located within the Public Accommodation zone
district. The existing Villa Valhalla Condominiums are located on the eastern portion
of Lot J. The western portion of Lot J includes the surface parking area currently
used by the Christiania which is owned by Vail Associates. Between these two
portions of Lot J is a third portion of Lot J (3,010 sq. ft.) which was deeded by Vail
Associates to the Villa Valhalla in 1976. Villa Valhalla Association seeks to
incorporate this 3,010 sq. ft. subject strip of land into the general common elements of
the condominiums. Villa Valhalla Association, Inc., is making this application in
order to officially recognize this deed which transferred ownership from Vail
Associates to Villa Valhalla Condominiums. At the time the 3,010 sq. ft. portion of
Lot J land sale occurred the subdivision regulations were in effect. This land sale
resulted in the creation of one lot which conforms to the subdivision regulations (the
eastern lot) and one lot which does not conform to the subdivision regulations (the
western lot). Therefore, the land sale is an illegal subdivision. For this reason, a
minor subdivision approval is necessary.
B. Variance to Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area and Site
Dimensions
Section 18.22.050 - Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area and Site
Dimensions reads as follows:
• 1
• "The minimum lot or site area shall be 10,000 sq. ft. of buildable area, and
each site shall have a minimum frontage of 30 feet. Each site shall be of a
size and shape capable of enclosing an area 80 feet on each side within its
boundaries."
Not all of the lot area and site dimension standards of the Public Accommodation zone
district are currently being met nor will they be met under this lot line vacation /minor
subdivision request. Consequently, the applicant must obtain approval of a variance
from Section 18.22.050 - Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area and Site
Dimensions.
C. Variance to Subdivision Regulations: Compliance Section
Section 17.04.040(B) - Compliance of the Subdivision Regulations reads as follows:
"Prohibitive conveyance. No lot or parcel of land, nor any interest
therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold, subdivided or acquired
either in whole or in part, so as to create a new nonconforming lot or to
avoid or circumvent or subvert any provision of this chapter."
Under the proposed lot line vacation request, the resulting western Lot J parcel will be
a non - conforming lot. Therefore, pursuant to Chapter 17.30 - Variances and
• Amendments of the Subdivision Regulations, a variance from Section 17.04.020(B) -
Compliance is necessary.
•
II. BACKGROUND
• The Vail Village Fifth Filing plat was filed with Eagle County on November 12, 1965.
• The Villa Valhalla Condominium building was constructed in the summer of 1967.
• The condominium map for units 1 through 12, Villa Valhalla Condominiums, was
recorded with Eagle County on December 27, 1967.
• The Town of Vail Subdivision Regulations were first adopted by Ordinance 4, Series
of 1970, on January 12, 1970.
• The Public Accommodation Zone District was adopted by Ordinance No. 8, Series of
1973.
• On March 15, 1976, a portion of Lot J was transferred from Vail Associates to the
"Villas Condominium Association ". The portion of the parcel transferred in 1976 is
the subject of this memo. The 1976 deed contained an error regarding the Villa
Valhalla Association, Inc.'s name. Therefore, in 1991, Vail Associates executed a new
Quit Claim deed, correcting the name as set forth in the 1976 deed. That deed was
recorded on February 28, 1991.
2
• III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
A. Lot Size:
1. Existing
*West Ownership (Vail Associates): (.2526 acre)
11,003.26 sq. ft.
East Ownership (Villa Valhalla Assoc): (.2433 acre)
10,598.14 sq. ft.
2. Proposed
West Ownership (Vail Associates): (.1835 acre)
7,993.26 sq. ft.
*East Ownership (Villa Valhalla Assoc): (.3124 acre)
13,608.14 sq. ft.
THE FOLLOWING ZONING INFORMATION APPLIES ONLY TO THE EASTERN
PORTION OF LOT J (Villa Valhalla Association). Please see the attached Exhibit A
for analysis of the Western Portion of Lot J (Vail Associates):
B. Density (25 dwelling units per buildable acre):
. 1. Existing Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.2433 acre):
Allowed: 6 dwelling units
Existing: 12 dwelling units
Proposed: No Change
Amount over allowable: 6 dwelling units
2. *Proposed Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.3124 acre):
Allowed: 7 dwelling units
Existing: 12 dwelling units
Proposed: No Change
Amount over allowable: 5 dwelling units
C. GRFA (80% of buildable site area):
1. Existing Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.2433 acre):
Allowed: 8,479 sq. ft.
Existing: 11,360 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
Amount over allowable: 2,881 sq. ft.
* Includes 3,010 sq. ft. tract of land which is the subject of this memo.
3
• 2. *Proposed Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.3124 acre):
Allowed: 10,887 sq. ft.
Existing: 11,360 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
Amount over allowable: 473 sq. ft.
D. Common Area (35% of allowable GRFA):
1. Existing Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.2433 acre):
Allowed: 2,967 sq. ft.
Existing: 2,952 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
Amount under allowable: 15 sq. ft.
2. *Proposed Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.3124 acre):
Allowed: 3,810 sq. ft.
Existing: 2,952 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
** Amount under allowable: 858 sq. ft.
E. Site Coverage (55% of site area):
• 1. Existing Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.2433 acre):
Allowed: 5,829 sq. ft.
Existing: 5,116 sq. ft.
Proposed: No Change
Remaining: 713 sq. ft.
•
2. *Proposed Eastern portion of Lot J parcel (.3124 acre):
Allowed:
7,484 sq. ft.
Existing:
5,116 sq. ft.
Proposed:
No Change
Remaining:
2,368 sq. ft.
* Includes 3,010 sq. ft. tract of land which is the subject of this memo.
** The existing structure exceeds the maximum allowable GRFA by 473 sq. ft., therefore,
only 385 sq. ft. of common area is available to be added to this lot if the minor
subdivision request is approved. Staff does not believe it is appropriate to restrict the
development rights on the newly created eastern portion of Lot J (.3124 acre) as the
lot will be a legal, conforming lot and the square footage which can be constructed
can be for common area uses only.
19
• In summary, if the requested lot line vacation request is approved, the applicant would have
sufficient common area and site coverage to construct 385 sq. ft. of additional common area.
The following is a comparison of how the existing and proposed lot areas meet the
requirements of Section 18.22.050 - Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area and Site
Dimensions section of the code:
*Existing Existing Proposed *Proposed
West Parcel East Parcel West Parcel East Parcel
Enclose 80 ft. x 80 ft.
Yes
No
No
Yes
10,000 sq. ft. Minimum
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
30 ft. Frontage Minimum Yes Yes Yes Yes
* Includes 3,010 sq. ft. tract of land which is the subject of this memo.
As shown in the chart above, under the existing lot area situation, the east parcel does not
meet current zoning regulations with regard to enclosing a square 80 feet by 80 feet. Under
the proposed lot line vacation scenario, the west parcel would not meet current zoning
• requirements with regard to an 80' x 80' enclosure or the minimum lot size. However, the
east parcel of land to be created under this lot line vacation request would meet all zoning
requirements. Please note this parcel is already developed and the only additional
development potential resulting from this minor subdivision/lot line vacation request would be
the ability to construct a 385 sq. ft. common area addition. The west parcel loses
development rights as described in Exhibit A.
IV. 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 minor subdivision and
variance requests based on the following factors (please note there are no criteria for
reviewing a minor subdivision, other than compliance with the applicable zoning code section
relating to lot area and site dimensions):
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
0 5
0 a. Section 18.22.050 Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area
and Site Dimensions variance request:
The requested variance from the lot area and site dimension
requirements of the Public Accommodation zone district would not
adversely affect the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. The
western parcel, the Vail Associates owned property, is currently used by
the Christiania Lodge for parking. The Christiania currently has an
agreement with Vail Associates which allows them a perpetual right to
park on Lot P -3 which is located immediately west of Lot J. Vail
Associates is currently using Lot P -3 for their parking. Under the
Christiania SDD redevelopment scenario, the Christiania would relocate
their parking to P -3, and Vail Associates would in turn relocate their
parking to Lot J.
b. Chapter 17.04.040(B) - Compliance variance request:
This section of the code reads as follows:
"Prohibitive conveyance. No lot or parcel of land, nor
any interest therein, shall be transferred, conveyed, sold,
subdivided or acquired either in whole or in part, so as to
• create a new nonconforming lot or to avoid or circumvent
or subvert any provision of this chapter."
Under the proposed lot line vacation, the resulting western portion of
Lot J will create a new, nonconforming lot. The Villa Valhalla
Association has been maintaining and utilizing this property since 1976.
As previously stated, the adjacent property was used for parking since
before the 1976 land sale and will continue to be used for parking,
unless development is pursued by Vail Associates or the joint
loading/parking facility is constructed. Staff believes the requested
variance will not negatively impact other existing or potential uses or
structures in the vicinity.
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.
0 6
0 a. Section 18.22.050 Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area
and Site Dimensions variance request:
The applicant first attempted to purchase this land on March 15, 1976,
in order to provide access to the west side of their building. According
to the applicant, it was their understanding they owned the property
until the error regarding Villa Valhalla Association's name on the 1976
deed was discovered in 1991. In October, 1976, the Design Review
Board approved the construction of a sidewalk and landscape
improvements on this tract of land. The applicants have stated they
have been utilizing this 3,010 sq. ft. strip of land, and maintaining it
since the initial purchase in 1976. The addition of the subject parcel to
the Villa Valhalla Condominiums will cause Vail Associates' tract to
become a non - conforming lot. The only increase in development
potential on the Villa Valhalla lot as a result of the lot vacation would
be the ability to construct 385 sq. ft. of common area. Staff believes
relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement of the
code is appropriate in this instance as the resulting developed eastern lot
will become conforming and use of this lot and the adjacent western
lot will not be negatively impacted. However, development rights are
decreased by the request.
• b. Chapter 17.04.040(B) - Compliance variance request:
As previously stated under the proposed lot line vacation request, the
resulting western portion (Vail Associates') of Lot J, which is a
conforming lot, will become a nonconforming lot and the eastern lot
(Villa Valhalla Association's) which is presently developed and which
is presently nonconforming will become conforming. The net result of
this land sale /minor subdivision is the same as the existing situation.
There will be one conforming lot and one non - conforming lot. Staff
believes relief from the strict and literal interpretation and enforcement
of the code is appropriate in this instance as the resulting developed
eastern lot will become conforming and use of this lot and the adjacent
western lot will not be negatively impacted.
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.
• 7
0 a. Section 18.22.050 Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area
and Site Dimensions variance request:
Staff finds the requested variance will have no significant impact on any
of the above considerations.
b. Chapter 17.04.040(B) - Compliance variance request:
Staff finds the requested variance will have no significant impact on any
of the above considerations.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
• 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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
Staff recommends approval of the minor subdivision, variance from Section 18.22.050 -
Public Accommodation Zone District Lot Area and Site Dimensions, and Chapter 17 -
Subdivision Regulations requests. Staff does not believe approval of the requests would be a
grant of special privilege, and would not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare.
Staff believes a hardship would be imposed on the applicants if the strict and literal
• 8
• interpretation of the zoning code were to be enforced. Further, strict interpretation of the
zoning code would result in inadequate access to the west side of the applicant's building.
Findings supporting the variance are Findings 1, 2 and 3(a -c).
As previously stated, staff believes it is appropriate in this instance to support the minor
subdivision request as there is no net increase in the number of non - conforming lots. Under
this minor subdivision request, the conforming western lot will become non - conforming.
However, the non - conforming eastern lot will become conforming.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the variance
approvals shall lapse if the minor subdivision plat is not filed with Eagle County within two
years of the date of Planning and Environmental Commission approval.
c:*Omem oAvillava1.413
•
• 9
I .
10
I•
•
Density:
GRFA *:
Common Area:
Site Coverage:
Exhibit A
Western Portion of Lot J (Vail Associates)
Existing
6 Units
t 8,803 sq. ft.
3,081 sq. ft.
6,052 sq. ft.
Proposed
4 Units
± 6,395 sq. ft.
2,238 sq. ft.
4,396 sq. ft.
* GRFA numbers are only approximations, as the buildable area has not been defined.
10
P -2
-gym R =108.13'
t: 66.92'
�i 4D 90o00oo:- -
m 0x97 °11 110 :20.00,
" R :33'� Ls 31.42
20, 20 L 129.92
Y
Y
tio� i�+
,bs90 o L =21
2
4s3t 4t 7
' r
i
M
60• 1.-
N s� i 4.67
� 1
102609'00"
R = 20.00
L= 35.60 1 R =122.48
L =120.17'
i
f
\t�
P. �+ s
00 1
�' "'.
���• �o d6 142,49' UTILITY �pti 81.34 �� N
3 (\,
° � �g �c1 � EASEMEIIITS ' tS•3'S (D `� � "_ti
vrzood
lb
tin
RZ 174. coo
9�6 -
' 10 UTILI.
o „ 00 _
tii J � r
0 t. *
! 167.16'2q" S o
S N _
17240200
Icy t? 18 46' �- ?CIO `v
t.: 27,11' (t/ Coo V 4= IS 1 �i �► '
'� V"''181•)2'OON O (L. iF ri�j � /L 1 ' r
' N
p r
j 'ry �1 181 ' Vi rP�ti�
08
`L 21.46 o� ti Q C
C 183.1200„ V •�
•► 0) 21. N 0 ON
CFO "181 °16'00" __ N o N -. n (J t Ab
r j�
Q 0 : o a ° t ,�' �i •.
182•5y '� • P -3
A lam, - u � � J J � II
?Z.0,51 a ^ �p : As 740 52'00" /
�`— 11 ° — r- — °ci► R s 77.98'
Q ".181° 'OQ „ , 72•d0 a L: IOL90'
(D JTTI�I�5 c s 10 UTILITY M I o
FM) _ 1 179 QOOQ" EASEMENT .y1
�� .� X0'1 VAIL VILLAGE 5TH FILING
cj1 6.87' _ _ I / NOVEMBER 12 1965
-- - "•172 °38'30,
,1 �/ 'T �� __. obi!► a Ii .J
CORNN:E _
L14SE Isr F1 C, _ rL aM;�
I
1. FI NG
4
"LL 51diR1N6 �°�
ACE
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
o i w xo'
SCALE: r . 10
PART OF LOT
1
w. moo
MINOR SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR VILLA VALHALLA
TOWN OF VAIL, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
C= 24° 37'08°
R _ 180.77'
L = 77.67'
T= 39.45'
CH,N80 °55'34 "E 77.08
e. d ........
CI L.9.. nS
N.a1.NT /
C—
r aEEµ dq
�aE zo I8 a
LQT
PART OF LOT /0000' I J
5A515 OF BEARINGS DETAIL Ls .: iaii
SCALE I" . 60
mxc[
EA fN.a �
[00C OIFMNCxr�\
•
fD0[ D/ Cw'fL.[Ni �wN
,� � CFITI.1� �•. -
A-T�
naanx
xele.
_ c
o..te.. ....
�\\ 30 .T'
nori nernx
-
T.e !
.aLD[ O .
71'NQ p,
._coxc
Nun p rorr,
1.s
. . F 4O ] . . ..1 ..e.. . . - a• s a^
6�..l
Ile n 11 1 w
.f °.ou.. a. rs
sc[ l � .
r.
r ,
b
bre or� Owl 4eE � 1i
1 O t...u�.a
1 [,
a
� CONCIRTf N 11 rr .n.. .:
I4 .... �...... n,
cc E. 0
O cwlnrT of
loYw =,
n.mr,e Te
's'
� 'xtAlrf tr. 1,Yxb �,.
�C�' / F r FCC '•A r•a M1.eO[, .Iiw ri�K)
wa°nu°.a ['.sera 35 00 .LNSO +M° �'aaii
i�
S'c wvs< �� y 70.00 p0 W /•�
' SFr /tnnwN � LS He Zfaa /
t
401
A =25 °06'0 =.� /� RASH ROAD
R.120 HpN
L =52.65'
T.26.75'
CH =582 °33'02"W 52.23'
R
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a construction staging site located at
the Vail Associates West Day Lot, Lots A and B, Morcus Subdivision.
Applicant: Vail Associates /Sonnenalp Properties
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
Johannes Faessler, owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel, is proposing to use the south half of the
Vail Associates West Day Lot for a temporary construction staging site for the Bavaria Haus
redevelopment. The West Day Lot is located on the southwest corner of South Frontage
Road and West Lionshead Circle. The neighboring uses of the site are:
West - Vail Associates Shops and Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation
District Offices;
South - A 10 -15 foot tall berm and Gore Creek;
North - The tennis courts for the Vail Spa;
East - The parking structure for the Marriott.
The staging area will be located on the south half of the lot. The applicants will erect a 6-
foot tall chain link fence, double sided with green mesh, which will divide the lot. The mesh
on the fence will screen the staging area from the north. On the south and west sides of the
staging area, existing berms screen the lot. On the east side, the applicant is proposing to
erect a chain link fence, double sided with mesh, for the portion between the Marriott parking
garage and the berm on the south end of the site (please see attached site plan).
The applicant proposes to use the staging area for two primary purposes. The first is for a
"lay down area" for materials which cannot be stored at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus
construction site. These kinds of materials are items such as electrical and plumbing supplies
which are needed on a daily basis. These materials will be stored inside semi - trailers located
on the site. The applicants expect to need a maximum of 8 semi - trailers for storage purposes.
These will be approximately 8' x 40' and 10' tall. The other use for the site is to store pre-
cast and steel materials overnight on delivery trucks. The steel and pre -cast will be
1
• manufactured in the Denver area and will be trucked to Vail. The applicant anticipates semi -
trucks arriving in Vail a maximum of one day before the material is needed in the
construction project. At the most, it is projected that two semis may wait at one time to
deliver their loads to the construction project. These semis will not be stored for more than
one night on the staging site.
Staff expects the traffic generated by this construction staging site to be as follows:
For lay down materials:
• 3 -4 semi deliveries per week; and
• 3 -4 pick -up or flat bed truck trips to and from the construction site per day.
For overnight storage of semis delivering pre -cast and steel materials:
• 1 -2 trips daily for the month of June; and
• Every other day for the months of July and August.
Currently, the entire West Day Lot is used for VA employee parking. On the average, 200
cars are parked there each day. During summer months, VA estimates that approximately 40-
50 employees will park cars there each day. Given this plan, 90 -100 parking spaces will
remain on -site for VA employee parking
The site will not be used for construction worker parking. The construction workers will be
required to park at the Village Parking structure.
• No signs to identify the staging site are proposed by the applicant. Drivers will be given
directions to the site that will not rely on signage along the route.
•
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 development objectives of the zoning code, as listed in Section 18.02.020,
state that zoning standards should, "provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable community." Because the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus renovation has been
reviewed by the Town Council, PEC, DRB, and has been approved by all
boards, staff believes that it has been determined that the project supports the
viability of the Vail Community without causing disorderly growth. The
current request for a conditional use is needed because the construction site at
2
• the Bavaria Haus is small, relative to the magnitude of the redevelopment
project. Because the off -site staging area is critical for the expansion, staff
believes that the proposal meets the development objective stated above.
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.
Staff believes no issues listed above will be effected, except possibly
transportation facilities. This is discussed in detail below.
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.
Staff spoke with Ted Ryczek of Vail Associates, and understands that VA uses
the West Day Lot for approximately 200 employees to park each day during
the winter. There is no overnight parking allowed in the lot, so a minimum of
one vehicle trip to and from the site is associated with each parking space.
During the summer, the total drops to approximately 40 -50 cars. With the
• proposed staging site, there will be approximately two semis hauling pre -cast
concrete material and one semi delivering general supplies each day. In
addition, there may be up to 3 -4 pick -ups or flat bed trucks making trips to and
from the construction site each day. This results in a maximum of 7 trips to
and from the site daily. Staff bases this information on discussions with John
Cochran, the Construction Superintendent. He believes his estimates are high
and that, for most days, the number of trips will be less than 7. In addition to
the construction site trips, there will be approximately 40 -50 employees parking
their cars on the remaining portion of the West Day Lot.
•
Though the three semi trips to and from the site each day may cause more
noise than the typical automobile and may slow traffic, staff believes the total
number of daily trips to the site, estimated at 57, is less than what is typically
experienced during the winter. Because of this reduction in the number of
trips, staff believes the traffic flow in the area will be acceptable.
Staff is concerned that all of the West Day Lot be available for employees
when VA opens the mountain next fall. Staff believes that the conditional use
should be valid until November 1, 1992. VA believes the employee parking
needs prior to November 1 can be met by the north half of the lot. Next
spring, the applicants will likely return to the PEC to renew this conditional use
3
. approval for Phase II of the Bavaria Haus construction. Completion of the
project is expected in the fall of 1993.
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 issue staff believes will impact the character of the area is the visual
appearance of the construction site. The most visible object on the site will be
construction trailers used to store heating and plumbing supplies. There may
be stockpiles of supplies outside the trailer, but in that event, staff understands
the supplies will not exceed approximately 5 -6 feet in height. The applicant is
proposing to erect a chain link fence with double thickness green mesh to
screen the staging area from the north. This fence will tie into the berm on the
west and will tie into the Marriott parking structure on the east. The applicant
should also screen the gap from the Marriott parking structure to the 10 -15 foot
tall berm on the south side of the site. On the south side of the site, staff
believes the existing berm adequately screens the site. From West Forest
Road, neighbors may see the top two or three feet of the semi - trailers, but they
will not see any of the miscellaneous stockpiling on the site. On the east side,
there is an existing berm which will screen all traffic on Forest Road from any
construction staging activity. The berm in this area is approximately 30 feet
• tall. Given the height of this berm, staff believes no additional screening is
needed.
•
Staff discussed the noise which may be created at this construction site with
the Construction Superintendent. Noise may be caused by the beepers on
vehicles which automatically turn on when they are in reverse. Staff
understands from the Construction Superintendent that none of the trucks or
semis have these beepers, and the only time this will be heard from the site is
when a forklift or front end loader is needed to unload an incoming truck. The
applicants estimate this will occur approximately 3 -4 times a week, for
durations of up to approximately 60 -90 minutes. Given this amount of time,
staff believes the impacts will be reasonable.
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the conditional use, with the conditions that:
1. The applicant shall limit all vehicular trips to the construction staging site to the
northwesterly 60 feet of West Lionshead Circle. Trips to the site shall not use the
portion of West Lionshead Circle which runs between the Marriott, Vail Spa,
L'Ostello and Concert Hall Plaza. Access shall be from the Frontage Road and West
Lionshead Circle adjacent to the West Day Lot.
2. The conditional use approval is valid until November 1, 1992. At that time, the entire
site shall be made available to VA employee parking.
• Based on these conditions, staff believes the proposal meets the criteria and findings of a
conditional use permit. Specifically, Finding No. 1 is met, in that staff believes the proposed
location is in accordance with the purposes of the zoning title. Furthermore, staff believes it
is in accordance with the purposes of the zone district, as the Town has recently amended the
zone district to include this specific use as a conditional use. Staff also believes that Finding
No. 2 is met in that the way the staging site will be used and operated will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare. Specifically, staff believes the traffic impacts will be
reasonable. Lastly, staff believes that the proposal meets Finding No. 3, in that it complies
with the applicable provisions of the zoning title.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not
commenced within two years.
c.\pec\s onen alpIcon dim s.413
•
5
8 9 0
ARCEL A TRACT D
• TRACT C
EE SHEET 5 POTATO PATCH DR. 3 5 VAIL PO'
• 42 � ` o • � 37 , ��q� 7 754 4 T58 SEC ON [
• Vb��/'CC�NNq AWE L %/ 7 56
"' 3s 5 36 Tae
zs zi1 � 4 738 O
� �j
g 25 6 740
18 950 27 1'� SANDY LANE
42 4 I
3 744 746
�
3 RESTAURANT IS
O BLK. I
CD CID POTATO PATCH SOLAR
CLUB RED SANDSTONE VAIL
ELEMENTARY 501
•
• 551 •
In o UNPLATTED
' 6 e 9 INTERSTATE 7
PHASE PHASE ( I N T.O. V-)
PHASE • TRACT E
PHASE PEDESTRIAN
IV 25 OVERPASS ' , 0
1 2 3 • 4 SUN VAIL •
891 •
897 895 • VAN AGE 2
RE,; sANOSTat PHASE P01 T
7I�� IV AI NSH
5 V WEST- 508 (�
8 7 6 NORTH DAY I\ WIND 1 I$t. I ING
896 896 89
PARKING LOT � LION
SANDSTONE
9 10 TOT LOT VAI IONSHEAD 50o VAIL •
I I ' 4th. F ING LAN 610 RK
LIF555USE 3 511 I �F
741 O ENZIAN P- • IRCADEAD E
12 RCAUE
1 L VILLAGE 2 70TRACT F 616 TaA 531 REE
I TRl TC SL'N5 GONDOLA 45
9th. FILING MONTANEROS O75 600
• VAIL SPA • 4 2 4 LIONSHEAD 5 •
710 68 TR T H CENTER
GE 8 5
C`a LION'S SQUARE • /
M RRIOTT i� NORTH I
p� MARK o 635 TRACT 0
��1 714
WEST p
�
VAIL ASSOC. LION'S SQUAR I
MAINT. SHOP WEST ANTLERS • LODGE TRACT B
862 DAY C 80 660
LOT A 3 i
VAIL VI AGE TRACT A
525 FOREST ROAD
2nd. FILI G D LIONSHEAD
TOT LOT
VAIL LION 11,
S KI E R BRIDGE
SEWER
PLANT TRACT B
TRACT C 846 2 6
I�
890 5
`O
\ 52 45 3 625 TENNiS 1�
8 7 6 695 615 COURTS `a 463
765 745 725 •
• •�fsT I OR
O Rp a�3
4
UNPLATTED I 666 ' 2 •
15 14 13 12 11 10 9706 696 17 636 616 5 4 r/ 586 556 TRACT A 1 486 6
800 798 796 756 736 716 �L 61 466
• VA V LLA E 6 �
VAIL LIONSHEAD
MORCUS SUBDIVISION
SFNIT BY:WEITZ -COHEN CONST, CO.; 3- 2 -92 ; 17:56 ;
•
J�
W
W
d
O
J?
C
E:::71
4
s
r:K,)(xx, xxxxy
W
cz
w
O
J
x
U
X /
X
x
X /
X
x
X
3038606698-; 813034764608- 8130;# 4
F
- — _-
C4
r� �� r l�
cra
z
d
z
�
E-
c~n
c
J�
W
W
d
O
J?
C
E:::71
4
s
r:K,)(xx, xxxxy
W
cz
w
O
J
x
U
X /
X
x
X /
X
x
X
3038606698-; 813034764608- 8130;# 4
F
- — _-
C4
r� �� r l�
cra
z
d
z
SF %N BY :WEITZ -COHEN CONST, CO.; 3- 2 -92 ; 17 :55 ;
E-:� / -00,0�Tx
� x
x
x
v
� x
rw
YxxxxxxxXX
114e-S k-
---4 f ee rl / n
3038606698-► 813034764608-8130;# 4
x
Q
n�turI6S �Clf¢,y�� S�ctc 7�trC
N
W
U
E-�
Gx7
a
�
�n
�fm
0
E-:� / -00,0�Tx
� x
x
x
v
� x
rw
YxxxxxxxXX
114e-S k-
---4 f ee rl / n
3038606698-► 813034764608-8130;# 4
x
Q
n�turI6S �Clf¢,y�� S�ctc 7�trC
N
W
U
E-�
Gx7
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an exterior alteration in Commercial Core I in order to allow
construction of an airlock entry for the May Palace, 223 East Gore Drive /Part of
Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Peter Switzer
Planner: Shelly Mello
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is proposing to construct a 6' -8" x 4' -1 " airlock with a gross floor area of 30 sq.
ft. for the May Palace Restaurant. The restaurant's entrance is on the west side of the
Creekside Building on the second level. The applicant has indicated that the existing airlock
does not sufficiently reduce winter air flows into the restaurant, thus creating a situation where
it is difficult to maintain a comfortable temperature and conserve energy. The applicant
believes the construction of this airlock will alleviate this situation as well as define the
• restaurant's entrance. The existing yellow canopy will remain and cover the flat roof of the
proposed airlock.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this exterior alteration request:
A. Zone District: Commercial Core I
B. Site Coverage: No Change
C. Parking: No parking fee is assessed on this type of improvement.
D. GRFA: No Change
III. 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 ensure adequate light, air, open
•
• space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural
qualities that distinguish the Village."
The infill project is in compliance with the purpose of the CCI zone district. The addition will
not affect the scale of the building.
IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR THIS PROPOSAL
The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan includes 4 elements which establish the review
criteria for this application. The first of these is referred to as the Guide Plan which includes a
number of sub -area concepts, many of which identify potential areas for future development
and other improvements. Secondly, the Urban Design Considerations express the large
scale, land use planning and design considerations, and finally architectural /landscape
considerations which will be reviewed by the Design Review Board, establish the criteria for
evaluating detailed design considerations of a proposal. The Vail Village Master Plan and the
Vail Streetscape Plan address specific goals pertaining to the enhancement of the walking
experience throughout the Village that must be considered in this application. In addition,
• traditional zoning considerations are also a factor in this proposal.
V. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN FOR VAIL VILLAGE
There are no specific sub -areas relevant to this proposal.
VI. 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 characteristics of the Village and provide the tools to ensure new
development is consistent with this established character. These considerations include the
following:
A. Pedestrianization:
The proposed addition will not have an impact on the existing pedestrian flow because
of its second floor location.
B. Vehicular Penetration:
Vehicular penetration or circulation will remain unchanged as a result of this proposal.
0 2
• C. Streetscape Framework:
There will be no impact on the streetscape framework by this expansion.
D. Street Enclosure:
The purpose of this consideration is to maintain a comfortable relationship between the
width of streets and the height of buildings. The one story airlock addition in this
second floor area will have no effect on the street enclosure of the Gore Creek
Promenade. It does not increase the overall height of the building and does not
encroach into the pedestrian corridor.
E. Street Edge:
There are no standard setback requirements in Vail Village. Rather, proposals are
looked at in relationship to the site and development surrounding the site to insure a
strong street edge. The street edge will not be impacted by this proposal.
F. Building Height:
Building height will not be increased by this addition.
G. Views and Focal Points:
• The proposed expansion does not affect any adopted view corridors. The airlock will
have no impacts on the line of sight from either the Children's Fountain or the Gore
Creek Promenade.
H. Service and Delivery:
The proposed expansion will not affect current service and delivery patterns.
Sun /Shade:
There will be no increase in the shadow pattern as a result of this addition because it
is within the existing shade pattern of the Creekside Building.
J. Architectural /Landscape Considerations:
These design considerations are typically the purview of the Design Review Board.
The staff believes the construction of the proposed airlock in this space will improve
the appearance of this area by adding visual interest to the space. The staff was
initially concerned with the proposed flat roof on the addition. With this application, the
applicant proposes to maintain the existing canopy, which will cover the new flat roof.
The applicant has agreed to have the DRB reconsider the flat roof design if and when
the awning is removed at some future date. The staff fells this is an acceptable
solution.
0 3
• VII. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
The following are the goals and objectives of the Vail Village Master Plan supported by this
proposal:
Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of
community and identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial
facilities.
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.
2.5 Objective:
Encourage the continued upgrading, renovation and maintenance of existing
lodging and commercial facilities to better serve the needs of our guests.
VIII. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN
There are no specific criteria or issues in the Vail Streetscape Master Plan that would apply to
• this project.
IX. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of the requested exterior alteration. The review of the
relevant Urban Design Criteria and the Vail Village Master Plan Goals show that the proposal
is in conformance with the applicable sections of these documents.
The staff believes that the construction of this airlock area will add visual interest and will
improve the general appearance of the deck area. The proposed expansion will not have any
negative impacts on the surrounding area. Initially, the staff had concerns with the proposed
flat roof. Although it will not be visible with the current proposal because the existing awning
will remain, it would be visible if the awning were removed. The applicant has agreed to have
the DRB review the addition should the awning be removed.
cApe6maypalce.413
•
4
•
•
i J
u
8 � M
m
fl + 4
f-
4t
Z + r L
wa N 0
z
aoL x � W
\ J yY
n �
V
Y
a
u. c
3 �
j Q
Z
O
a
S
0
4
�
A
S
y
r
z
V
Y
3 F ul
7T 2 P
Q
X
�y
Q
Y
a
u. c
3 �
j Q
Z
O
0
W
z
3 F ul
7T 2 P
Q
7
�y
Q
aI
•
V
i-
N
X
L
r
STO;-e;F'to r
GOrisTr-ua
•
NEW ENTRY PLAN
•
_pop L MHe �r
7�v�J cPNnrr
N r7
•
>✓x i 5-T-! Hy T2 E4* $tYoN v
-CHI NESE..RESTAURANT. —
nr
-rl_ nom,
�-x l,a;.'T I �;
f3 LA I L c:,
PARTIAL SOUTH ELEVATION
.t
FILE COPY
*TOWN OF VAILV
75 South Frontage Road Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
303 - 479 -2138 1479 -2139
April 3, 1992
Mr. Jeff Bailey
District Ranger
U.S. Forest Service
Dillon Ranger District
P.O. Box 620
Silverthorne, CO 80498
Re: Colorado Hell -Ski
Dear Jeff:
Thank you for allowing the Town of Vail the opportunity to comment on Colorado Heli -Ski's application to the
•Forest Service for a special use permit. We have reviewed your summary of the proposal and the map
indicating the areas currently under permit and the new areas which are applied for under the special use
permit. The Town of Vail is specifically concerned with Area No. 19, which is located immediately north of
the Town of Vail and east of the Red Sandstone Road. Our concerns are as follows:
1. We are concerned with the potential noise impacts of having helicopter flights over the Town
of Vail. We would presume that those skiers attempting to utilize Areas 19 and 26 would
stage out of the Vail Pass helicopter staging area. If this is the case, the Town suggests that
helicopter flights to those areas stay north of 1 -70, at whatever distance is necessary so that
there will be no noise impacts to the Town. In addition to the noise impacts, we believe
Colorado Heli -Ski should stay north of 1 -70 because many of the medical helicopters which
service this area utilize the 1 -70 corridor as a navigation route. We believe this will minimize
the conflicts with medical and emergency helicopters.
2. It appears that some privately owned property may be included in the proposed permit
boundary for Area No. 19, specifically in the Spraddle Creek area. We would recommend
modifying the boundary to exclude all private lands.
3. Where will the skier pick -up occur for Area No. 19? Will these transportation related impacts
be studied? Will the skiers be picked up by vans, or will they be picked up by helicopter?
.4.1 't
Mr. Jeff Bailey
April 3, 1992
Page 2
Thank you again for allowing us to comment on the application for a special use permit. Should you have
any questions regarding our comments, please do not hesitate to contact me at 479 -2138.
Sincerely,
/��- mra,
Mike Mollica
Assistant Director of Planning
/ab
cc: Kristan Pritz
Dick Duran
f
•
171
RECTj
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest Dillon Ranger P. 0. Box 620
Service District Silverthorne, CO
80498
Reply To: 1950/2720
Date: March 13, 1992
MR MIKE MOLLICA, SENIOR PLANNER
TOWN OF VAIL
DEPT OF COMMUNTIY DEVELOPMENT
75 SO FRONTAGE ROAD
VAIL CO 81657
Dear Mike:
Colorado Heli -Ski has operated a back country helicopter skiing service under
Special Use Permit since 1981. The term of the permit will expire in December
1992, and CHS has applied for a new permit to be issued for a period of ten
years. The Dillon District is seeking public comments pertinent to the
issuance of this Special Use Permit. Environmental and decision documents will
be prepared for this proposal.
The history of helicopter skiing on the White River National forest goes back
more than a decade. In 1980, an Environmental Assessment was written by the
Sopris Ranger District to allow Colorado Ski Guides to operate. The following
year, they were also permitted on the Holy Cross District.
The authorization for Colorado Heli -Ski (and it's forerunner, Rocky Mountain
Heli -Ski) to operate includes Dillon Ranger District (since 1981), Holy Cross
Ranger District (since 1984) and Leadville Ranger District, Pike /San Isabel
National Forest (since 1990). Environmental documents on various aspects of
this helicopter skiing operation have been prepared in 1981, 1985 and 1988 by
Dillon Ranger District, and in 1990 by Leadville District.
The attached maps show terrain which Colorado Heli -Ski is applying for.
Included on the maps are areas CHS is now authorized to access via helicopter
for guided back country skiing. Also shown are areas which have been requested
by CHS, but are not now authorized. The date each area was first permitted by
an Environmental Assessment and Decision document are listed on the map.
Colorado Heli -Ski's operation consists of one helicopter and support vehicles.
Support vehicles consist of a trailer (as a warming house and for equipment
storage) and fuel and service truck for the helicopter. Clients are given the
choice of a half -day or all -day experience. Location of each day's skiing is
very dependant upon snow conditions and remote sites free of ski tracks.
Clients drive to a staging area (see maps) where they meet CHS and the
helicopter picks them up and transports them to skiable terrain nearby. CHS
decides where the snow conditions are optimal for backcountry skiing, performs
an avalanche hazard evaluation and determines whether the trip is a "Go" or
"NoGo ". The helicopter and pilot, Colorado Heli -Ski and its guides are
insured, operate within Federal Aviation Agency guidelines and work in
accordance with an approved operating plan, which covers: daily operations,
briefing and liability, guest skier ability, snow stability evaluation program,'
helicopter operations, guide qualifications and responsibilities, emergency
procedures, and check lists and reporting.
Colorado Heli -Ski provides backcountry ski access to about 1200 to 1500 clients
per year. The helicopter flies skiing clients on an average of 65 days each
winter, usually between January 1 and April 30. Additionally, CHS is involved
in 5 -10 search and rescue operation each winter. CHS provides other services
such as scenic flights and charters, which are not subject to special use
permit as they do not occupy public lands.
Some topics that may be of concern to you include possible disturbance of some
wildlife habitat and species, conflicts between motorized and non - motorized
uses in the backcountry, impacts to private land, and economic effects on
local economies. Your thoughts about this special use application are needed
for this planning process.- Issues that are important to you may affect the
issuance of this permit. Please respond in writing to the address in the
letterhead. If you wish to participate in this environmental analysis or to be
kept informed of the process, please respond to this letter. The time period
for public scoping will end April 15, 1992. If you have not responded by that
time, your name will be removed from the Colorado Heli -Ski public mailing list,
but may be contacted for future projects.
Sincerely,
/1_,_�_Vc
FF BAILEY
t0l'Dlistrict Ranger
enclosure
�, -n 7 (_41C x�
rl
f
•
ttq p 23
q
West r
pk �_
fj J�
as
Vte• Cottonw
`'Ii. 404, —0
a Goc ``
\
• a II
419 f to
■ 1
+ i
.�
s
m^
•
G
Big -
�J
f- PTr`,�
`
GiJ' •
17
Gv
I
1 r
•/a 1s6 11
as :+
az
1tl
' X12
•
G
Big -
�J
f- PTr`,�
`
GiJ' •
17
Gv
I
Seat 19
�I
�>w
___.!_J__J/!
+
#'
Lake'
I
33 34 I =s
i
4e � :\ •M
_ �♦
1,
._ 1 IaaM y a /9wOM•
le to la4l I" 1 {��
20 :1 � 2 North 'F -1---
K- +
O1, I 20 _ 1 1. r` p 1 23
2e n a
V
h -�
29 ;�Jll 1127
,a F�,j ,9 W rr y' CATARACT
+ k%—CREEK CG
33 1-44
/i = ♦ H I North Ifgk. � \ /•'':
e II Qj Le —
• � I ter- �. �.::- ;' ♦
\ O W �I1ahan C� f� I p 1 rip erarif
1 .. .. • •.:- "Eop% -smirr 1 I LoAn
- `' :::�- :.''•,;- ,'::..• ! ! to ���•C
c•:;�— +—
7 Im -
r.
R _�,:•: 1 I X
.�"�e�.laa9 � 1 ♦ I I �� Cafarad
�'••� � �' _ ��-� `�,12 � t` - I - - - -1 / M /n1v► -
- t 9 I 2e'� ` ,1� 21 I Cull I
♦ ' A I
1a I ." L 1 t I I t Eagles I Lake I
„ �� I I - - - -- Nest 4a- - - -- - --
'/ yp �1 a2 =s ' %iy �NfRl01AN 1 13397
I I I f I I 120. (2390 29 1 27 I n
Slate I �.� O I
I
Mtn.,-. 13334 34 Mt
-� „ >• 1 t 10t • , -� as 1 I ' Powell I- - -
_'� EAG LFS �� I
pretty?" N ESl
I ; ,_ � �, so
\ I I +1� I
1 r- n-,as rune I - :.: , I I I I
.,Rock Creek L ;I I
434 —� �f `� �I — z-
��- ba�aa a � � //� �:,� 'M I ` `� ��♦ /- - r - - tip- - -
d:> 1 .- _
7
12 iZ4 �i ! \ 11a, :•! `:' t"'�"`'.•' I ..: I i 10
ask 01`141 �I, —j�R il� I T� ` }::•::'"I` `�i :'�. '4I0 I J� s� I- --ThdSpider
13,'
11 R �1, D :•i::... 14 r I
l d , :.1� -e ( .. 12692
1 I ?' ♦f_
A
11� u 1 e � Is 14GL4��i� hl I -sl— y- �� -- � ry - - -4� - -'•• -1 --
Red and hitfi
1tr I N:a
I 9972
24 - t` 4120'« \` ":3 I a kit z I�� 1 I
+ 111t+ 122 i `- )3j�`� 7733 I • a` - I I- • -• I --
� � ?, t _
1 n •ro
N,�(LQe IG� � 21` ` I . !1
I CJ L;
OM 0_7w
� I V C7J
1 ,
U I y=
A
9 I ' 4 11
!I v
10
to
is 14
I �
i amt p v Q9.
— I
ud
j. G
c 26 27
Cl
ock
CIL
16*
fill 3•
32 J ♦p'C as
+
ce
y-C�9sB0� • _
70 °
24
+ + `1 + J
{ 19Y / L /V� 70 17 2
/lY
28 1 27
i.�1 It ao 2 If ' a7 Bald
� 9 =
s
.o ; Mtn
\11 I V I I 1 , ....:
3s \\ 36 71 1 32 I 3 3i
A
Qy � 1 I r•,
u • .C�K �j� 1 I VW
T � VAIL' 1 1 � 710 I
7�i4 I la 17 I MAUI C+atrf�
I7
to I 1s I
23 24 I• I
/ �♦ SY6si � 2t 112SO;r:22
M26 le
2s 3O 27
r i 2i i
I'_
,9 N I 3
_ I
l: I
I y •�
I ,
12 I n;
'ilu
It I ar I I I I
B e 1 • �0 1 I : I 4
L2-` s -� s _ I „t i e a �• • s t Tit► �Q00
y
-� -- FOREST- I - -- ' - - -� Mt IiAss�lw_• �V11d�no�s`.:' (— -►�- I,�p -� --
/ I Fryingpan _ I - I I
North I Wu 1 : • �� ( II
1.e I I I Lakes I I 1 _N I 1 I ': Crlate1 99
1 • u 2 2 I e 1 • 110 11::..:. 12 j , ll s • Lks + t1 I 12� c
'I ; WILDFrR&E$5 t Massive tta7 •' :. •f�•r
'^; Z
- - /�• - I - - - - 1 - '_ - - 1 - - - - I - - ••.•- - - 14421`��. - - - -�
[ ,
• `- ,s I u: r r Lake! I n 14 d: 1s M 1s n 16 { +�yT 1
\II i 1.
�:
I - I -SoutA I Wlow 1.{;_r
6. >utAFork - - -1- - I-- -- 1; - ;..- �� I I T 11P♦ _ I b
a .
ttiss I = �'JI 22 I.. I U 19 7. I 21 I 22 1 n 124 7 *, ' to + 21 n r•
. m - I - - - -
Io l .: ` I sEll�rw r c 1' _ I aAt.FJN -ooa t so ,� N • +
Z Rn ,' •- - - I
Lake r Mtn A� v! f > I t } ., meraM
2• �t� I �: ;:: I 1 1 24 1 to 1 70 6\ 2• - °mss tea: ' ke as is II = „ + 7s ' ♦� 4e
po \.',I ::• ' "1/` I I �% / I 1� ?r_ 130 a s I A II I )J I
In ; , 1 1 l I I ���~��4 x� iga �s� �l p !t MY. MASSIVE
''l• - Lek #_ _
k;: Q'i 1 1 I :::y_3,�;};;;�'•'� I . Gt•• T Ga w� +— TROUT CLL'3 + —
4 Blur
a4; •• I » I tl I ae ks •- 21 �
G �'` +- 23
2 a1 =fs� I B Cr
33 Lake :. i 1 �0 I I FHaml Iron ��= �3� i11 S4rin0 SECOr
I F
I.... Cho Ion. y ' GJ•
e ' ::� •• ann 1 '`a fi • - . a - 1. J 1 N • Creskl ° a + • \1 ' 4' +42 i�•1 jyjOU
:•� .. , .?, 3 fv,1 ' '�y I oy + R-� 4b
t sco I 114433 p —1 •„ = = = °iF f
t
,os ` Pask.l
in� 12 2 r • aJI1 I{ 10' 1r r If 'i: IYt�.. 7 a `- � - -�_ a �.\ t Ho
depen nc 23 I 1 :1-:1209S 1oi9s ' M� s :� J E2 f � I i
? +�C} Bartlett -k
�_a c,
'161 QAl p MINE 1 II
�
LLAK6 /EN(7 ,�• p ,sit
Mt Boy Par o 1 17 n 11) .•{, �1s 11 ,:.,. srCG.. 7
oho — \�+vb T + `N LAKES RESERVOIR I j
T ~ t t�I .ti I. -., ,r� xe: • Tw Lake Cr 2a 1
E.L.. 20 -� 74 20/ MOrllttlf�+L ,•`a?7..7� V t1 I �o �- sa y
Rock �r �, \ H I PARRY Ball 9wa 1
•••• PEAK -1 -- �,.`+,' H ye •71 I,
Lfwf t} I..^t. i Cree CQ I I 7-
I'e I ;: mk /" {•:. r "'l. T{NaN k _. �' t 1 n sc3 T.
tx a 2 :a '..I n Sta : r >xt aw SjtK 2> > 24 =e so 2• R Y 2r�26 rl 25
Mtn , ( } Cti ..I, I�J•f /I
F" CHAF'FEI: , �i a ,
12\ l I•:••, 74 !1 �• ?� N ;i�zt .2IM 77 �!7 31 + ( 3G /4.C,�M
:.i
a V 1 r a
X. i
:.
s4 aU ea n
....:. �'•. 39t :: Basin '�P yk� m 1
C� ( :� I w � m 1 r
;:.. c,- �
�M' �� F
rat
I t "18 a . a 2 I.�i w, • s :�I y� °s/�� 1 °2 pro ,
ni b :n. �! \ \�y ../ ��r)Z•r t C;r.a ny0 1 0
m 1 II
Ik 4# . i La Plat I —��� l X dCa;;, Cmk jr G
p• . I I 2 I j 1r:y • L Wilk.. yyMt" m 12 I 2 g e 12
wk, wk, it e I " Hop*
1�= A ep --'�✓ _--+ ---
�+ u i I S r
Mtn
;Mtn — - :.. I I Gtee
•.'1a a 1A 1 e c
i e 1a 1• G� a 1+ 12 Beaver ! ' o u
I . �4r.' ' I . _ City uar »' •�:•::.
Pass J / `` ,' r, ;::•�:'�T -�•? -� 1 e
I s 1 I 24 E 1 a4 7 20 CJ 1'
i
23 22 1 23 Lake -. I / / dale r. 31 rM Flans
4e 3 2a so 1 F. p �o 1 2• 24 I n �:. n • I 14
21 ` chore I 2s 4 fie a as :: E { i 1
l �• ti
1 l I ai,1 _a/_/ k'a► I Mount Oxford'
,
Vlr niv :. Middle
,.t1 3
Jsnkins;4 o I 31 ✓l KEE a 2a Ir a• I ss Mount I 24 k N ee `
—'� Mountain S�. Paak72 tp 0p `t I j 1F �►1�y L ,
�1 1 s• s•'!- .! _�' I�'S'"t'14197. 27 UTTLEJOHNS j✓�" - �t
as �C.ANNN.,•:�Y+.�...�
:v ik y' — Mlasou►I Mtn Pasaa
�-' r"
_. ,c! a 1 s dl . I t:a J 1 Laks'
• i • i : �>?�: ► I l0 34067' t' a ,� j
....
_... _I '1 fiuronPsak ':kr z II I `i') t iw 1
• s '`,(''i? ..� I s , G►IY21y I
Silver Bes1n 11ton[�� llvoe I , ;, ;�; `— � i _ �� Bsdroc 1�
1�
Peak
' - 1��1 G►anite"le 4�IA -1a ( �� ILaks f l t7
_ _ _ ---4 \, ..lt.>t::.• -- "- Mtn t' W 11 d • r n i • s 11 12
C o 11 el(� I t i I �rl pA ik ot � mImerald 1 '
rFO MrN SIMIMft 1 • ::.. I Pk l •�
wueF fi2C111f"' • `- 1<:iiit:_ . ;:t: ." . I Narrtsor .._... _._.. — r.,l- M IsSQ1LLl`_.,.� Basin— _ :a
1 +'tdke
KEYSTONE•
1bmww
t
1 1.• di9llrCaytor.
r+ 1 .670V
2s I
or
ft
April 27, 1992
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
Memorandum re: The Valley Phase
Dear Commissioners,
Acting on your suggestion, Mr. Gensler did meet today with
concerned parties of The Valley and Grouse Glen. The purpose of this
letter is to summarize the meeting and inform the Commission that there
was frank dialogue on both sides.
Mr. Gensler presented essentially the same plan as was presented at
the last Commission hearing concerning the development. Using an overlay
of his proposed plans, now drawn to match the scale of the 1980 approved
plan, he restated that his development impacts the surrounding environs
less than the 1980 plan. He also stated that the amount of paving would
be less.
Questions consistent with our concerns as outlined in our letter of
Feb. 22 were then posed. Specifically, where the areas of cuts and fills
would impact, which trees or groups of trees would be affected, and
questions concerning drainage. We also asked for a reconciliation of
square footage under roof comparing the two plans, as well as paved
areas, not only between the proposed and approved plan, but also the
minimum paving needed to satisfy the parking requirements.
Unfortunately, these figures were not available, nor were the drawings
conducive to answering these questions.
Alternative ideas to the proposed plan were presented by some of
the residents but these were inconsistent with Mr. Gensler's desire to
40 build exclusively single family homes. He explained that the economics
were such that single family worked out best for him.
Page Two
W-1
\.J
Mr. Gensler agreed to our request to have another meeting, where he
can present drawings which will highlight the above areas of concern, as
well as other drawings and figures which may help us understand his
position.
We thank the planning staff and commission for their concern and
want them to know that we are endeavoring to find an accommodation
benefiting all parties as well as the Vail Community.
On behalf of the residents of
The Valley and Grouse Glen
Sincerely,
Brian J. Doolan 49
C7
. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 27, 1992
Present
Greg Amsden
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
Dalton Williams
Absent
Chuck Crist
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
FILE COPY
The worksession was called to order at 1:35PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
A reauest for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis
facility, senerally located to the south of the Lionshead Skier Bridge and north of
Forest Road on the existing tennis courts.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Kent Myers, the Vice - President of Marketing for Vail Associates, informed the Commission
that the demographics of the people who would be interested in attending a TeamTennis
match were exactly who VA tried to attract for summer business. He emphasized that Vail
would be the only resort town to have a franchise team. In addition, the ownership had
strongly wanted to be in Vail, but indicated that VA had no financial commitment to the
venture, except for the purchase of box seats.
The applicants reviewed the proposal for the Commissioners. The issue of traffic was
addressed, with the applicants stating the only on -site parking would be a very small VIP
area, and they would be strongly promoting the Lionshead Parking Structure. They also
indicated there would be less concession traffic at this site than was typical for an
Amphitheater event.
Regarding lighting, the applicants indicated a limited need for lighting at dusk and for
television use. They said there would be directional lighting on the center court only, and
passed out pictures of the lighting proposed.
Applicants admitted the proposal was a temporary solution, and that if the franchise remained
in Vail, another solution would be needed.
Diana Donovan stated the VIP parking at the Amphitheater was out of control, and she did
not want to see the same situation at this facility. The applicants said the only VIP parking
• would be for President Ford, if he desired, and for handicap parking. Dalton Williams
suggested blocking the bottom of Forest Road, and giving passes for local residents so they
would be able to pass, thus restricting non - residential traffic.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 1
• Diana next addressed the issue of enclosure fencing, indicating her desire to see the fencing
"disappear" around the site, after being bright and festive to direct people to the entrance gate.
The applicants asked if advertising on the bridge would be appropriate. Dalton said he would
like to see pennants across the bridge. There was general discussion regarding what would be
required to have advertising, and Kristan Pritz and the Commissioners gave recommendations
to the applicants.
Dalton asked how Rob LeVine, a lodge owner in the area, felt about the proposal. Rob
indicated the more people, the merrier, and he did not feel the event could be too big or too
bright. He did not believe the lighting would bother his guests, as they would be used early
in the evening on just a few dates. The applicants did indicate that the lights might remain
on later than 9:30- 10:00PM in the case of a rain delay.
The applicants stated their intention that the spectators to the tennis matches eat and purchase
items in Lionshead.
Temporary signage was discussed, and applicants agreed to put together their proposals at the
time they applied for a special use permit.
Greg Amsden indicated his primary concern was on -site parking. The applicants indicated
there would be two trailers on -site for lockers and sports medicine uses. In addition,
television vans might be temporarily in place, and the players would be dropped off at the
• site, then their transportation would park elsewhere.
The Commission was very strong in its insistence there be no parking on Forest Road.
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned with the physical layout of the facilities, including the
exact location of the fencing, trailers, porta -lets, how it would look to the uphill neighbors,
location of light poles, and the lighting on the ends of the bridge. She believed the applicants
should stake every element, to assist them in thinking through the logistics, and ensuring the
details were addressed.
Diana indicated her preference that the lighting be on poles, and not located on trucks or
booms.
The applicants were very strong in voicing their desire to work with the Commission, and
thanked them for their comments.
At 2:20, the public hearing was called to order.
1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Neuswanaer
Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge/2642 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Planner: Jill Kammerer
• Kristan Pritz explained the history of this approval, stating the Commission had originally not
approved the variance, but the Town Council had overturned that decision. She indicated
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 2
• staff's recommendation was to approve the extension, even though the PEC originally denied
the request. Otherwise, Council would again have the opportunity to overturn that decision.
She felt this would be an unnecessary burden on the applicant.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for an extension of a previously approved
variance for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane, based
on the comments made by Kristan. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It was
unanimously approved by a vote of 5 -0.
2. A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the Wilhelm
Residence 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of
Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Kristan Pritz briefly reviewed the request. Staff recommended approval of the variances, with
the exception of the storage proposed on the west side of the lot.
The applicant, Bob Wilhelm, explained that since there was no garage for the unit, there was
very limited storage on site, and the extra shed was necessary.
Dalton Williams agreed with staff's recommendations, as did Gena Whitten and Kathy
• Langenwalter. Diana Donovan also agreed with staff's assessment, but stated if the applicants
found another location, she would be happy to review it at that time.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for front and side setback and site coverage
variances for the Wilhelm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates be approved per staff's memo, which
excluded the west storage area, with the findings that the lot layout constituted the hardship.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The unanimous 5 -0 vote approved the motion.
3. _A request for front and side setback variances to allow for the extension of balconies
at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 -15, Block 4, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association/Mark Foster, President
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello explained the requested variances. Staff recommended approval of the request
for Building A, finding a hardship existed, but recommended denial of the requested variance
for Building B, finding that the 0 setback which would result was unacceptable.
Mr. Castillo, representing the Homeowners Association, presented a letter to the
Commissioners from Mark Foster outlining the Association's position.
• Diana Donovan said Building B's open space was behind the building, and did not believe
pushing out the building in front was in the public interest.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 3
• Kathy Langenwalter agreed with staff's assessment that the requested variance for Building B
would result in an unacceptable encroachment. She found the request for Building A to be
more acceptable, since it was a side setback.
Gena Whitten was happy to see the upgrade, but found the variance request for Building B to
be excessive, and believed the mature trees should be protected.
Greg Amsden did not support a variance for Building B, agreeing that it was excessive.
Kathy Langenwalter moved the request for side setback variances to allow for the extension
of balconies at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 -15, Block 4,
Vail Village First Filing be approved for Building A, and the request for front setback
variances to allow for the expansion of balconies for Building B be denied per staff memo.
The motion was seconded by Gena Whitten. It was unanimously approved, 5 -0.
4. A reauest for a conditional use hermit to allow an outdoor dinins patio on the first
floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore Creek Drive /a Portion of
Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail/Sherry Dorward
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use
• permit with the condition that a master landscape plan be designed for the courtyard area
before scheduling any public hearing, whether that be with DRB or PEC, for the proposed
International wing.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, thought the master plan requirement was a
reasonable condition.
Diana Donovan was concerned about the placement of two tables in the design, as she
believed they were located in the public way. Jay Peterson and Paul Jepson, from the Lodge,
did not think those tables would actually be placed per the drawings presented.
Dalton Williams moved the request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining
patio on the first floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore Creek Drive /a
Portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing be approved per staff's memo, with the
recommendation contained within that memo. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved, 5 -0.
5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for Spruce Creek,
Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek, Phase III.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
• Andy Knudtsen summarized the proposed amendment. Staff recommended approval, stating
they believed good design solutions had been achieved.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 4
• Greg Amsden asked if the design had changed since the previous approval for 6 units. Andy
indicated the floor plans were different and the setbacks had been increased.
Gena Whiten moved the request for an amendment to an approved development plan for
Spruce Creek, Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek, Phase III be approved
per staff memo. The motion was seconded by Dalton Williams. A unanimous 5 -0 vote
approved the motion.
6. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point, 1881
Lionsridge Loop Road/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Vail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Kristan Pritz indicated that, because of a discrepancy in the survey, the applicants had
requested this item be tabled.
Dalton Williams moved to table the above item until the issues regarding the survey were
resolved, and they got organized. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The item was tabled
by a vote of 5 -0.
7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development District
No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First
• Filing/100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz reviewed the staff approved minor amendment.
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned the Vail Village Inn kept coming back and asking for
more and more, and thought the PEC should overturn the staff approval, as the roof change
resulted in an increase in mass and bulk for the building.
Dalton Williams thought part of the rationale for the condominium unit being approved was
the fact it could fit under the existing roof form, and now he felt the applicants were coming
back to ask for more by stating it did not fit, and additional space was needed.
Mike Lauterbach, the project manager, said the change in the roof was made for window
height and snow melt, as the Fire Department had expressed concerns over the snow melt on
the fire escape.
Kristan clarified the PEC did not have to approve that part of the change.
A general discussion took place regarding the roof form, the amount of common area in the
project, and the project in general.
• Kathy was concerned with increasing the square footage of the project, stating she believed
square feet was square feet, no matter what it was called, and it all affected mass and bulk.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 5
• Kristan indicated that if a limit on the amount of common area was desired, staff could take
the time to figure it out, but that the figure had not been determined. Kathy said she wanted
the total square footage of the entire project, not just GRFA numbers, before any new plans
were reviewed.
Following additional discussion of how square footage was evaluated for this project, Dalton
Williams said that on common areas, he had no problem with the existing areas. However,
regarding this 1,800 sq. ft. expansion, he believed it had formerly been "hidden," but did not
find it impacted the mass and bulk of the project, and therefore did not make a difference in
this approval. He did not want this to become a game developers could play in the future to
add more area to a project.
Kristan clarified the space had previously not been accessible, but that it had been within the
walls of the project.
Diana Donovan was concerned the appearance of the building had changed, somehow
changing the ability to view the tower from the front of the project, and wanted to see
previous approvals to compare the drawings. Kristan agreed to look for the original floor
plans, and suggested temporarily tabling the discussion until they could be found.
At that time, discussion moved to item 8.
• 8. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village
Area A Cosgriff Parcelfne Cascades, generally located south of Millrace
Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, and more specifically described
as follows:
A part of the SW '/a NE 1/a Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th
principal meridian County of Eagle State of Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said
Section 12 bears S 42'50'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85'43'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S
57 025'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32 °59'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65 °31'36" W 95.04
ft: thence S 69 °01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23 °24'09" W 319.09 ft to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello explained the staff approval.
After a general discussion of the changes to the retaining walls and landscaping which were
included in the minor amendment, Dalton Williams moved to uphold staff's approval of a
minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel[Me Cascades,
generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The approval was upheld by a vote of 4 -0, with Gena
Whitten temporarily absent from the room.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 6
• 10. A for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Christiania
Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing,
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams moved to table the above item until the June 8, 1992 meeting. Greg
Amsden seconded the motion. The item was tabled by a 5 -0 vote.
11. Approval of April 13, 1992 meeting minutes.
Dalton Williams moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1992 meeting as amended.
Greg Amsden seconded that motion. The minutes were approved by a 5 -0 vote.
9. Discussion of a reauest made by the United States Forest Service (Holy Cross and
Dillon District Rangers) regarding management practices in the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Area.
Applicant: William Wood and Jeff Bailey
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Discussion was held by the Commissioners, with recommendations and comments given to
Andy Knudtsen to be relayed to the Forest Service. The general consensus was that
management policies that would include a
is people to secure permits to enter a wilde
wilderness concept. For areas showing si
size of parking areas at trail heads. Or, if
sufficient, completely closing an area for a
alternative.
permit system should not be adopted. Requiring
mess area was fundamentally opposed to the
gns of overuse, the suggestion was made to limit the
steps such as restricting physical access was not
period of a few years would be an acceptable
At this point, discussion returned to item 7.
7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development District
No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First
Filing/100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz reviewed the previously approved plans.
Bill Pierce, the architect for the project, said the problem was the schematic plans were not
completely designed. After the previous approval, the Fire Department and others all wanted
changes to the design. He said there was a reason that the minor amendment procedure had
been created, and he felt too much was being asked.
Kristan indicated the same "problem" had occurred during the Garden of the Gods approval,
• and that it had been resolved by asking the same question needing to be asked at this time:
Is the 1,800 sq. ft. of common area being requested appropriate?
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 7
Dalton Williams did not have a problem with the 5% rule, except for its potential for abuse.
For example, if the 5% being requested were to be added to one side of a building, it would
significantly alter the mass and bulk of that building.
Diana Donovan asked if the Commissioners would uphold the staff approval concerning the
additional common area. Greg Amsden said he would, as there was nothing out of the norm
in the request, and it was within the footprint. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Greg, but
found other issues involved in this request. However, she would vote to approve the common
area changes. Gena Whitten could not find a reason to add the common area, and stated if it
had been requested in the beginning, it would probably have been granted.
Bill Pierce said it was not always possible to determine what the final hard -line drawings
would be when a project was begun. The purpose of this request was to make the project
look better and upgrade the property. Mike Lauterbach agreed, stating the development
process involves changes due to original oversights.
Diana was in favor of upholding staff's approval of the common area additions. However,
she felt the applicants were adding what they thought they could get, not necessarily what
they needed. Bill Pierce disagreed, stating it was only a 11h% change, and they could have
requested more.
Kristan said staff appreciated the developers coming forward with the change to try to work
• out a solution, instead of proceeding and telling the staff about the changes after the fact.
At that point, Dalton indicated he had misunderstood, and that he had previously believed the
developers had been "caught." In that case, he was strongly for the amendment.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold staff's approval of a minor amendment increasing the
common area for the Vail Village Inn project. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved unanimously, 5 -0.
Turning their attention to the roof changes, Kathy Langenwalter indicated she had a problem
with the roof change, stating it was a mass and bulk change, and was not under the purview
of the DRB to approve such a change.
Kristan indicated staff did not like the change when it was presented either, but felt it was a
DRB issue.
Greg Amsden believed the stepping down of the building made sense, especially when
drainage was taken into consideration. In addition, he believed it was appropriate when
viewed in context with the entire project, not just this phase.
Kathy believed the roof alteration changed the character of the building and project. Greg
reiterated his belief it flowed better. Gena agreed with Greg.
• Kathy had a problem with the process, firmly believing it should have been reviewed by the
PEC. Gena agreed, stating it should have come to the PEC before DRB.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 8
• After a discussion of different motions and their meaning, Greg Amsden moved to support
staff's approval of the roof changes as presented. Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
Gena reiterated her belief the change should have been brought before the PEC. Greg did not
feel it changed the SDD as a whole, and was a very minor change.
The vote taken on the above motion was denied by a vote of 1 -4, with Greg Amsden in favor
of the motion.
Dalton Williams moved to overturn staff's decision that the roof changes did not require a
minor amendment and was instead a DRB issue. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved by a vote of 4 -1, with Greg Amsden dissenting.
Gena Whitten moved to accept the roof change proposed. Greg Amsden seconded the
motion.
Kathy indicated she would like a site visit to make up her mind. Diana was opposed to the
change.
The meeting was recessed at 4:50 to allow for a site visit, and reconvened at 5:10.
Kristan informed the Commissioners that if staff had written a minor amendment memo
• regarding the change, they would have recommended denial. However, she reiterated they
believed it was a DRB decision.
Bill Pierce believed the change was compatible with the other buildings and the stepping
down in the project. He found very little difference in the design, and said it solved the snow
and ice problems.
Kristan presented the elevations from the 1984 approval of Phase IV, but said that had been
complete tear down and rebuild, as opposed to the renovation of an existing structure, which
was the current project.
Greg was in support of the roof as it was presented at this meeting, stating it flowed better,
tapered down better, and believed the original design was stepped too much.
Dalton preferred the original design, stating it was visually smaller, and the notch made it
aesthetically more pleasing.
Gena preferred the original design as well, as she believed the mass and bulk was affected by
raising the roof, and found no benefit to the Town from this change, only a benefit to the
developer.
Kathy also preferred the original, indicating there were mass and bulk increases, and that the
• lower profile was preferable. In addition, she said part of the original approval for the
condominium unit was because it was to be accommodated under the existing roof. She also
found the view through the building to be important.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 9
Diana agreed with Kathy. She agreed that space was important to the penthouse unit, but the
PEC had approved a specific mass and bulk for the building. She believed the previously
approved roof, with the notch, gave a view of the mountain, which was an important factor.
Since the buildings did not connect, she did not believe the roofs should all go together.
Greg did not find the view corridor to be an important consideration, as it would be difficult
for anyone driving on I -70 at 60 mph to see. He also did not see a great difference in the
design, and believed the safety factors were extremely important and needed to be addressed.
Diana agreed safety was important, but did not think this was the only way to address that
concern.
Bill Pierce said this project had gone through a very long process. He believed the applicants
had worked with the Town extensively through many review steps. He said if the new roof
were not approved, it would cause the cancellation of the entire project. He stated the change
was absolutely necessary for the roof to work, and to be able to sell the condo. Without that
sale, the project was financially unfeasible. The review of the project had gone on for 14
months, and this would be the final death knell. If a new roof design was not approved, the
old roof would simply be replaced on the building, and nothing further would occur.
Kathy asked if the roof height increase were that important, why hadn't it been addressed
previously. Bill answered that, around the first of the year, it had been determined that a
condominium unit was necessary for financial reasons. When they came in with that request,
• the floor plans had not yet been developed. Once the approval was given, then the specific
design for the condo was completed, and the roof issue became a concern.
Kathy said the condo was only approved because it had been represented to the Commission
that it could be placed in existing space. Bill said the square feet of the condo would remain
the same, they were simply trying to increase the quality of those square feet. In order to be
able to sell the unit, it needed windows opened to the south.
Bill wanted the Commission to realize how important these windows were to the project, as
the project could not succeed without a saleable unit.
The Commission discussed various roof options with Mr. Pierce and Mike Lauterbach.
Kathy did not think the master bedroom's windows were worth the increase in mass and bulk
to the building. Mike Lauterbach once again stated the condo could not be sold without
windows to the south.
Mike suggested a smaller dormer might solve the problem. Bill did not think that would
work well. Mike also suggested a smaller hip.
Returning to the motion on the floor, which would approve the roof design as presented (roof
with clipped gable only on the west end), the vote was 1 -4 to deny the design, with Greg
• Amsden in favor.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 10
Kristan asked the Commission to give the applicants clear direction on what could be done as
a solution. Mike Lauterbach reiterated his suggestion of a smaller hip, with a clip, as he
thought that could retain the look and feel of the project.
Several options were discussed by the Commission, staff and applicants.
Bill Pierce said they may appeal to Council, and they did not want to go through all this. He
had already examined the possibilities being put forth, and they did not work.
Mike said if the project was not completed by Thanksgiving, it was not worthwhile for it to
be done, and the project would simply become a re -roof if a building permit was not issued
on the project.
Diana thought a building permit could be issued for the design with the previously approved
roof, and work could be continued to find a solution to the roof.
Greg Amsden left the meeting at this point, at approximately 5:55PM.
Kathy also suggested a flat roof as a solution.
Mike thought either a flat roof or a 6 -foot clipped roof might work.
The consensus of the Commissioners was that the mass and bulk would need to remain the
Is same in order for the DRB to be able to approve any change. Kathy added that the main
concern was the mass and bulk and the north elevation. She also suggested a small arc roof
as a potential design solution.
Diana asked the Commissioners what would need to be brought back to the PEC. Kathy said
she needed to see any change to the major roof form. In addition, an asymmetry would need
to be approved by the PEC.
Kristan outlined the applicants' options at this point as follows, with the understanding that
advice from Larry Eskwith would be sought by staff concerning the process the next day:
1. Table the item until the May 11 meeting. A building permit could still be
issued with the previously approved plans.
2. Have a vote on the item at this meeting, with a clear direction of what was
needed for approval.
3. Vote on the item with no specific direction given for approval, then the
applicant might be able to appeal to Council.
Mike indicated a symmetrical roof may not be the final solution, and therefore, it would need
to be brought back to the Commission.
Diana Donovan appreciated the work which had been performed by Bill Fierce, and the
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 11
• Kristan asked the Commission to give the applicants clear direction on what could be done as
a solution. Mike Lauterbach reiterated his suggestion of a smaller hip, with a clip, as he
thought that could retain the look and feel of the project.
Several options were discussed by the Commission, staff and applicants.
Bill Pierce said they may appeal to Council, and they did not want to go through all this. He
had already examined the possibilities being put forth, and they did not work.
Mike said if the project was not completed by Thanksgiving, it was not worthwhile for it to
be done, and the project would simply become a re -roof if a building permit was not issued
or the project.
Diana thought a building permit could be issued for the design with the previously approved
roof, and work could be continued to find a solution to the roof.
Kathy liked Mike's suggestion of a smaller hip. ZQ
Greg Amsden left the meeting at this point, at approximately 5:55PM.
Kathy also suggested a flat roof as a solution.
• Mike thought either a flat roof or a 6 -foot clipped roof might work.
The consensus of the Commissioners was that the mass and bulk would need to remain the
same in order for the DRB to be able to approve any change. Kathy added that the main
concern was the mass and bulk and the north elevation. She also suggested a small arc roof
as a potential design solution.
Diana asked the Commissioners what would need to be brought back to the PEC. Kathy said
she needed to see any change to the major roof form. In addition, an asymmetry would need
to be approved by the PEC.
Kristan outlined the applicants' options at this point as follows, with the understanding that
advice from Larry Eskwith would be sought by staff concerning the process the next day:
1. Table the item until the May 11 meeting. A building permit could still be
issued with the previously approved plans.
2. Have a vote on the item at this meeting, with a clear direction of what was
needed for approval.
3. Vote on the item with no specific direction given for approval, then the
applicant might be able to appeal to Council.
• Mike indicated a symmetrical roof may not be the final solution, and therefore, it would need
to be brought back to the Commission.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 11
• Diana Donovan appreciated the work which had been performed by Bill Pierce, and the
suggestions given by Mike Lauterbach.
•
LJ
Mike asked if the applicants looked at a potential redesign and came back with alternatives,
would it then also need to be approved by the DRB? Kristan said it would, but she was not
as concerned with that approval as she was with the Planning Commission's decision, and
whether the correct process was being followed.
To conclude the meeting, it was decided the issue would be re- noticed for the May 11, 1992
meeting, and the applicants would return with different potential solutions for review by the
Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:10PM.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 12
40 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 27, 1992
AGENDA
11:OOAM Site Visits
1:30PM Worksession
2:OOPM Public Hearing
Site Visits
Worksesslon
5. 1. A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail
Team Tennis facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead
Skier Bridge and north of Forest Road on the existing tennis courts.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Public Hearing
2. 1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Planner: Jill Kammerer
9. 2. A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the
Wilhelm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn
Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
8. 3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for the extension
of balconies at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek
Drive /Lots 7 -15, Block 4, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association /Mark Foster,
President
Planner: Shelly Mello
7. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining patio
on the first floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore
Creek Drive /a Portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail /Sherry Dorward
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. 5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for
Spruce Creek, Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek,
Phase III.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
,tom
41 1. 6. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point,
1881 Lionsridge Loop Road /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve Gensler /Vail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
6. 7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special
Development District No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O,
Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing /100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
4. 8. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #4 -
Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally
located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort,
Vail, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/a NE 1 /a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of
the 6th principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the
center of said Section 12 bears S 42 050'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S
85 043'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57 025'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S
32 059'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65 031'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S
• 69 001'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23 024'09" W 319.09 ft to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
9. Discussion of a request made by the United States Forest Service (Holy
Cross and Dillon District Rangers) regarding management practices in
the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area.
Applicant: William Wood and Jeff Bailey
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
10. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
TABLED TO JUNE 8TH MEETING
11. Approval of April 13, 1992 meeting minutes.
•
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 27, 1992
Present
Greg Amsden
Diana Donovan
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
Dalton Williams
Absent
Chuck Crist
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order at 1:35PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis
facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead Skier Bridge and north of
_Forest Road on the existing tennis courts.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Kent Myers, the Vice - President of Marketing for Vail Associates, informed the Commission
that the demographics of the people who would be interested in attending a TeamTennis
match were exactly who VA tried to attract for summer business. He emphasized that Vail
would be the only resort town to have a franchise team. In addition, the ownership had
strongly wanted to be in Vail, but indicated that VA had no financial commitment to the
venture, except for the purchase of box seats.
The applicants reviewed the proposal for the Commissioners. The issue of traffic was
addressed, with the applicants stating the only on -site parking would be a very small VIP
area, and they would be strongly promoting the Lionshead Parking Structure. They also
indicated there would be less concession traffic at this site than was typical for an
Amphitheater event.
Regarding lighting, the applicants indicated a limited need for lighting at dusk and for
television use. They said there would be directional lighting on the center court only, and
passed out pictures of the lighting proposed.
Applicants admitted the proposal was a temporary solution, and that if the franchise remained
in Vail, another solution would be needed.
Diana Donovan stated the VIP parking at the Amphitheater was out of control, and she did
not want to see the same situation at this facility. The applicants said the only VIP parking
would be for President Ford, if he desired, and for handicap parking. Dalton Williams
suggested blocking the bottom of Forest Road, and giving passes for local residents so they
would be able to pass, thus restricting non - residential traffic.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 1
Diana next addressed the issue of enclosure fencing, indicating her desire to see the fencing
"disappear" around the site, after being bright and festive to direct people to the entrance gate.
The applicants asked if advertising on the bridge would be appropriate. Dalton said he would
like to see pennants across the bridge. There was general discussion regarding what would be
required to have advertising, and Kristan Pritz and the Commissioners gave recommendations
to the applicants.
Dalton asked how Rob Levine, a lodge owner in the area, felt about the proposal. Rob
indicated the more people, the merrier, and he did not feel the event could be too big or too
bright. He did not believe the lighting would bother his guests, as they would be used early
in the evening on just a few dates. The applicants did indicate that the lights might remain
on later than 9:30- 10:00PM in the case of a rain delay.
The applicants stated their intention that the spectators to the tennis matches eat and purchase
items in Lionshead.
Temporary signage was discussed, and applicants agreed to put together their proposals at the
time they applied for a special use permit.
Greg Amsden indicated his primary concern was on -site parking. The applicants indicated
there would be two trailers on -site for lockers and sports medicine uses. In addition,
television vans might be temporarily in place, and the players would be dropped off at the
• site, then their transportation would park elsewhere.
The Commission was very strong in its insistence there be no parking on Forest Road.
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned with the physical layout of the facilities, including the
exact location of the fencing, trailers, Aorta -lets, how it would look to the uphill neighbors,
location of light poles, and the lighting on the ends of the bridge. She believed the applicants
should stake every element, to assist them in thinking through the logistics, and ensuring the
details were addressed.
Diana indicated her preference that the lighting be on poles, and not located on trucks or
booms.
The applicants were very strong in voicing their desire to work with the Commission, and
thanked them for their comments.
At 2:20, the public hearing was called to order.
1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Neuswanaer
Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Kristan Pritz explained the history of this approval, stating the Commission had originally not
approved the variance, but the Town Council had overturned that decision. She indicated
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 2
staff's recommendation was to approve the extension, even though the PEC originally denied
the request. Otherwise, Council would again have the opportunity to overturn that decision.
She felt this would be an unnecessary burden on the applicant.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for an extension of a previously approved
variance for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane, based
on the comments made by Kristan. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. It was
unanimously approved by a vote of 5 -0.
2. A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the Wilhelm
Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of
Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Kristan Pritz briefly reviewed the request. Staff recommended approval of the variances, with
the exception of the storage proposed on the west side of the lot.
The applicant, Bob Wilhelm, explained that since there was no garage for the unit, there was
very limited storage on site, and the extra shed was necessary.
Dalton Williams agreed with staff's recommendations, as did Gena Whitten and Kathy
. Langenwalter. Diana Donovan also agreed with staff's assessment, but stated if the applicants
found another location, she would be happy to review it at that time.
Kathy Langenwalter moved that the request for front and side setback and site coverage
variances for the Wilhelm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates be approved per staff's memo, which
excluded the west storage area, with the findings that the lot layout constituted the hardship.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The unanimous 5 -0 vote approved the motion.
3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for the extension of balconies
at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 -15 Block 4 Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association/Mark Foster, President
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello explained the requested variances. Staff recommended approval of the request
for Building A, finding a hardship existed, but recommended denial of the requested variance
for Building B, finding that the 0 setback which would result was unacceptable.
Mr. Castillo, representing the Homeowners Association, presented a letter to the
Commissioners from Mark Foster outlining the Association's position.
• Diana Donovan said Building B's open space was behind the building, and did not believe
pushing out the building in front was in the public interest.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 3
• Kathy Langenwalter agreed with staff's assessment that the requested variance for Building B
would result in an unacceptable encroachment. She found the request for Building A to be
more acceptable, since it was a side setback.
Gena Whitten was happy to see the upgrade, but found the variance request for Building B to
be excessive, and believed the mature trees should be protected.
Greg Amsden did not support a variance for Building B, agreeing that it was excessive.
Kathy Langenwalter moved the request for side setback variances to allow for the extension
of balconies at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 -15, Block 4,
Vail Village First Filing be approved for Building A, and the request for front setback
variances to allow for the expansion of balconies for Building B be denied per staff memo.
The motion was seconded by Gena Whitten. It was unanimously approved, 5 -0.
4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining patio on the first
floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant 174 Gore Creek Drive /a Portion of
Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail /Sherry Dorward
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen reviewed the request. Staff recommended approval of the conditional use
• permit with the condition that a master landscape plan be designed for the courtyard area
before scheduling any public hearing, whether that be with DRB or PEC, for the proposed
International wing.
Jay Peterson, representing the applicants, thought the master plan requirement was a
reasonable condition.
Diana Donovan was concerned about the placement of two tables in the design, as she
believed they were located in the public way. Jay Peterson and Paul Jepson, from the Lodge,
did not think those tables would actually be placed per the drawings presented.
Dalton Williams moved the request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining
patio on the first floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore Creek Drive /a
Portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing be approved per staff's memo, with the
recommendation contained within that memo. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved, 5 -0.
5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for Spruce Creek
Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek Phase III
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen summarized the proposed amendment. Staff recommended approval, stating
they believed good design solutions had been achieved.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 4
• Greg Amsden asked if the design had changed since the previous approval for 6 units. Andy
indicated the floor plans were different and the setbacks had been increased.
Gena Whiten moved the request for an amendment to an approved development plan for
Spruce Creek, Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek, Phase III be approved
per staff memo. The motion was seconded by Dalton Williams. A unanimous 5 -0 vote
approved the motion.
6. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point 1881
Lionsridge Loop Road/Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve Gensler/Vail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Kristan Pritz indicated that, because of a discrepancy in the survey, the applicants had
requested this item be tabled.
Dalton Williams moved to table the above item until the issues regarding the survey were
resolved, and they got organized. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The item was tabled
by a vote of 5 -0.
7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development District
No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn, O Block 5 -D Vail Village First
• Filing/100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz reviewed the staff approved minor amendment
Kathy Langenwalter was concerned the Vail Village Inn kept coming back and asking for
more and more, and thought the PEC should overturn the staff approval, as the roof change
resulted in an increase in mass and bulk for the building.
Dalton Williams thought part of the rationale for the condominium unit being approved was
the fact it could fit under the existing roof form, and now he felt the applicants were coming
back to ask for more by stating it did not fit, and additional space was needed.
Mike Lauterbach, the project manager, said the change in the roof was made for window
height and snow melt, as the Fire Department had expressed concerns over the snow melt on
the fire escape.
Kristan clarified the PEC did not have to approve that part of the change.
A general discussion took place regarding the roof form, the amount of common area in the
project, and the project in general.
• Kathy was concerned with increasing the square footage of the project, stating she believed
square feet was square feet, no matter what it was called, and it all affected mass and bulk.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 5
• Kristan indicated that if a limit on the amount of common area was desired, staff could take
the time to figure it out, but that the figure had not been determined. Kathy said she wanted
the total square footage of the entire project, not just GRFA numbers, before any new plans
were reviewed.
Following additional discussion of how square footage was evaluated for this project, Dalton
Williams said that on common areas, he had no problem with the existing areas. However,
regarding this 1,800 sq. ft. expansion, he believed it had formerly been "hidden," but did not
find it impacted the mass and bulk of the project, and therefore did not make a difference in
this approval. He did not want this to become a game developers could play in the future to
add more area to a project.
Kristan clarified the space had previously not been accessible, but that it had been within the
walls of the project.
Diana Donovan was concerned the appearance of the building had changed, somehow
changing the ability to view the tower from the front of the project, and wanted to see
previous approvals to compare the drawings. Kristan agreed to look for the original floor
plans, and suggested temporarily tabling the discussion until they could be found.
At that time, discussion moved to item 8.
8. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village
Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of Millrace
Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort Vail and more specifically described
as follows:
A part of the SW I/4 NE 1/, Section 12, Township 5 S Range 81 W of the 6th
principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of said
Section 12 bears S 42050'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85'43'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S
57 025'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32 059'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65 031'36" W 95.04
ft: thence S 69 °01'36" W 103.02 ft: thence _N 23 024'09" W 319.09 ft to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello explained the staff approval.
After a general discussion of the changes to the retaining walls and landscaping which were
included in the minor amendment, Dalton Williams moved to uphold staff's approval of a
minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades,
• generally located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail.
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. The approval was upheld by a vote of 4 -0, with Gena
Whitten temporarily absent from the room.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 6
10. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the Christiania
Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road/Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams moved to table the above item until the June 8, 1992 meeting. Greg
Amsden seconded the motion. The item was tabled by a 5 -0 vote.
11. Approval of April 13, 1992 meeting minutes.
Dalton Williams moved to approve the minutes of the April 13, 1992 meeting as amended.
Greg Amsden seconded that motion. The minutes were approved by a 5 -0 vote.
9. Discussion of a request made by the United States Forest Service (Holy Cross and
Dillon District Rangers) regarding management practices in the Eagles Nest
Wilderness Area.
Applicant: William Wood and Jeff Bailey
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Discussion was held by the Commissioners, with recommendations and comments given to
Andy Knudtsen to be relayed to the Forest Service. The general consensus was that
management policies that would include a permit system should not be adopted. Requiring
• people to secure permits to enter a wilderness area was fundamentally opposed to the
wilderness concept. For areas showing signs of overuse, the suggestion was made to limit the
size of parking areas at trail heads. Or, if steps such as restricting physical access was not
sufficient, completely closing an area for a period of a few years would be an acceptable
alternative.
At this point, discussion returned to item 7.
7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development District
No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn, O Block 5 -D Vail Village First
Filing/100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz reviewed the previously approved plans.
Bill Pierce, the architect for the project, said the problem was the schematic plans were not
completely designed. After the previous approval, the Fire Department and others all wanted
changes to the design. He said there was a reason that the minor amendment procedure had
been created, and he felt too much was being asked.
Kristan indicated the same "problem" had occurred during the Garden of the Gods approval,
. and that it had been resolved by asking the same question needing to be asked at this time:
Is the 1,800 sq. ft. of common area being requested appropriate?
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 7
• Dalton Williams did not have a problem with the 5% rule, except for its potential for abuse.
For example, if the 5% being requested were to be added to one side of a building, it would
significantly alter the mass and bulk of that building.
Diana Donovan asked if the Commissioners would uphold the staff approval concerning the
additional common area. Greg Amsden said he would, as there was nothing out of the norm
in the request, and it was within the footprint. Kathy Langenwalter agreed with Greg, but
found other issues involved in this request. However, she would vote to approve the common
area changes. Gena Whitten could not find a reason to add the common area, and stated if it
had been requested in the beginning, it would probably have been granted.
Bill Pierce said it was not always possible to determine what the final hard -line drawings
would be when a project was begun. The purpose of this request was to make the project
look better and upgrade the property. Mike Lauterbach agreed, stating the development
process involves changes due to original oversights.
Diana was in favor of upholding staff's approval of the common area additions. However,
she felt the applicants were adding what they thought they could get, not necessarily what
they needed. Bill Pierce disagreed, stating it was only a 11h% change, and they could have
requested more.
Kristan said staff appreciated the developers coming forward with the change to try to work
• out a solution, instead of proceeding and telling the staff about the changes after the fact.
At that point, Dalton indicated he had misunderstood, and that he had previously believed the
developers had been "caught." In that case, he was strongly for the amendment.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold staff's approval of a minor amendment increasing the
common area for the Vail Village Inn project. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved unanimously, 5 -0.
Turning their attention to the roof changes, Kathy Langenwalter indicated she had a problem
with the roof change, stating it was a mass and bulk change, and was not under the purview
of the DRB to approve such a change.
Kristan indicated staff did not like the change when it was presented either, but felt it was a
DRB issue.
Greg Amsden believed the stepping down of the building made sense, especially when
drainage was taken into consideration. In addition, he believed it was appropriate when
viewed in context with the entire project, not just this phase.
Kathy believed the roof alteration changed the character of the building and project. Greg
reiterated his belief it flowed better. Gena agreed with Greg.
• Kathy had a problem with the process, firmly believing it should have been reviewed by the
PEC. Gena agreed, stating it should have come to the PEC before DRB.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 8
• After a discussion of different motions and their meaning, Greg Amsden moved to support
staff's approval of the roof changes as presented. Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
Gena reiterated her belief the change should have been brought before the PEC. Greg did not
feel it changed the SDD as a whole, and was a very minor change.
The vote taken on the above motion was denied by a vote of 1 -4, with Greg Amsden in favor
of the motion.
Dalton Williams moved to overturn staff's decision that the roof changes did not require a
minor amendment and was instead a DRB issue. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. It was
approved by a vote of 4 -1, with Greg Amsden dissenting.
Gena Whitten moved to accept the roof change proposed. Greg Amsden seconded the
motion.
Kathy indicated she would like a site visit to make up her mind. Diana was opposed to the
change.
The meeting was recessed at 4 :50 to allow for a site visit, and reconvened at 5:10.
Kristan informed the Commissioners that if staff had written a minor amendment memo
• regarding the change, they would have recommended denial. However, she reiterated they
believed it was a DRB decision.
Bill Pierce believed the change was compatible with the other buildings and the stepping
down in the project. He found very little difference in the design, and said it solved the snow
and ice problems.
Kristan presented the elevations from the 1984 approval of Phase IV, but said that had been a
complete tear down and rebuild, as opposed to the renovation of an existing structure, which
was the current project.
Greg was in support of the roof as it was presented at this meeting, stating it flowed better,
tapered down better, and believed the original design was stepped too much.
Dalton preferred the original design, stating it was visually smaller, and the notch made it
aesthetically more pleasing.
Gena preferred the original design as well, as she believed the mass and bulk was affected by
raising the roof, and found no benefit to the Town from this change, only a benefit to the
developer.
Kathy also preferred the original, indicating there were mass and bulk increases, and that the
• lower profile was preferable. In addition, she said part of the original approval for the
condominium unit was because it was to be accommodated under the existing roof. She also
found the view through the building to be important.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 9
• Diana agreed with Kathy. She agreed that space was important to the penthouse unit, but the
PEC had approved a specific mass and bulk for the building. She believed the previously
approved roof, with the notch, gave a view of the mountain, which was an important factor.
Since the buildings did not connect, she did not believe the roofs should all go together.
Greg did not find the view corridor to be an important consideration, as it would be difficult
for anyone driving on I -70 at 60 mph to see. He also did not see a great difference in the
design, and believed the safety factors were extremely important and needed to be addressed.
Diana agreed safety was important, but did not think this was the only way to address that
concern.
Bill Pierce said this project had gone through a very long process. He believed the applicants
had worked with the Town extensively through many review steps. He said if the new roof
were not approved, it would cause the cancellation of the entire project. He stated the change
was absolutely necessary for the roof to work, and to be able to sell the condo. Without that
sale, the project was financially unfeasible. The review of the project had gone on for 14
months, and this would be the final death knell. If a new roof design was not approved, the
old roof would simply be replaced on the building, and nothing further would occur.
Kathy asked if the roof height increase were that important, why hadn't it been addressed
previously. Bill answered that, around the first of the year, it had been determined that a
condominium unit was necessary for financial reasons. When they came in with that request,
• the floor plans had not yet been developed. Once the approval was given, then the specific
design for the condo was completed, and the roof issue became a concern.
Kathy said the condo was only approved because it had been represented to the Commission
that it could be placed in existing space. Bill said the square feet of the condo would remain
the same, they were simply trying to increase the quality of those square feet. In order to be
able to sell the unit, it needed windows opened to the south.
Bill wanted the Commission to realize how important these windows were to the project, as
the project could not succeed without a saleable unit.
The Commission discussed various roof options with Mr. Pierce and Mike Lauterbach.
Kathy did not think the master bedroom's windows were worth the increase in mass and bulk
to the building. Mike Lauterbach once again stated the condo could not be sold without
windows to the south.
Mike suggested a smaller dormer might solve the problem. Bill did not think that would
work well. Mike also suggested a smaller hip.
Returning to the motion on the floor, which would approve the roof design as presented (roof
with clipped gable only on the west end), the vote was 1 -4 to deny the design, with Greg
. Amsden in favor.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 10
• Kristan asked the Commission to give the applicants clear direction on what could be done as
a solution. Mike Lauterbach reiterated his suggestion of a smaller hip, with a clip, as he
thought that could retain the look and feel of the project.
Several options were discussed by the Commission, staff and applicants.
Bill Pierce said they may appeal to Council, and they did not want to go through all this. He
had already examined the possibilities being put forth, and they did not work.
Mike said if the project was not completed by Thanksgiving, it was not worthwhile for it to
be done, and the project would simply become a re -roof if a building permit was not issued
on the project.
Diana thought a building permit could be issued for the design with the previously approved
roof, and work could be continued to find a solution to the roof.
Greg Amsden left the meeting at this point, at approximately 5:55PM.
Kathy also suggested a flat roof as a solution.
Mike thought either a flat roof or a 6 -foot clipped roof might work.
• The consensus of the Commissioners was that the mass and bulk would need to remain the
same in order for the DRB to be able to approve any change. Kathy added that the main
concern was the mass and bulk and the north elevation. She also suggested a small arc roof
as a potential design solution.
Diana asked the Commissioners what would need to be brought back to the PEC. Kathy said
she needed to see any change to the major roof form. In addition, an asymmetry would need
to be approved by the PEC.
Kristan outlined the applicants' options at this point as follows, with the understanding that
advice from Larry Eskwith would be sought by staff concerning the process the next day:
1. Table the item until the May 11 meeting. A building permit could still be
issued with the previously approved plans.
2. Have a vote on the item at this meeting, with a clear direction of what was
needed for approval.
3. Vote on the item with no specific direction given for approval, then the
applicant might be able to appeal to Council.
Mike indicated a symmetrical roof may not be the final solution, and therefore, it would need
• to be brought back to the Commission.
Diana Donovan appreciated the work which had been performed by Bill Pierce, and the
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 11
. suggestions given by Mike Lauterbach.
•
•
Mike asked if the applicants looked at a potential redesign and came back with alternatives,
would it then also need to be approved by the DRB? Kristan said it would, but she was not
as concerned with that approval as she was with the Planning Commission's decision, and
whether the correct process was being followed.
To conclude the meeting, it was decided the issue would be re- noticed for the May 11, 1992
meeting, and the applicants would return with different potential solutions for review by the
Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 6:1OPM.
Planning and Environmental Commission • April 27, 1992 • Page 12
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: Tennis Stadium Complex for Vail Team Tennis/Vail Eagles
} ff: } }: ? ? ? ? ? +.•• f... -:r f!.•. {+r:: ?•:J :4: fr r+: x
:!! ? ?;:•x .: x .....::......... x:. x. ::x '.`• +....r {,.:::. x.::+ }...::{ }r /..+rY' /.•er r. + : rfi� ?::'f { ?:+.v.? /iyi.../ .�. {f•.:' +!.?ry -rr:.: xrn }::: ? ? ? ?O } }:• } } } }: ?: ?• } }:
::r:.?:rf + y/:+•:: •• .......... ?:.. r::•}•?!•:: 4/.•. �;?/ �f: ax,!;..::.; fl,.::?•::}':.::::::. �::::: ff{•. f+..:•:. �..... r :.. ................+�•........1... rf .. r....:...:::•::....::.....:: •....: } ? ?.:::!•.:: {i ??•::. }:• }:• }:....:::: •::::::::•
r; ... • {,.,r,.}.. .::: .ti. :!•::..:. r.. ::: rr:::. ::: ••::: : •: • v:: r .:::: • rr.:r. }.v: r: •:+.:.••::::: ••:::.: v::. ♦ .ir „ }.,.: +r..
. J+fr�.! x}yy .. •+�K:i .•. ff........ +f... r+... i...�..ff.• }ri4.3 }:•:�.... rf /.......x..n..:. .. ...Yiii.4:•.4......f .: .: Yfr{??.}' Ff.•:•'i::.•:M•:iK. }: +ri{ ? }??a,Y .fit ?• }rf.• }Yfi'. ?!f ? ?. %!!• }:• }: Y:= :• }:4:: }:• }:4: ?!:: ?�:i:
. {.•::.•.v. xr�.•r r{ ' r •r+./,•.vv. r: •�:.: vv r::: +' i:• }'r ".?:v:r % :: fix: n:•:.v •: r.:v:r :::: r::.nv::r.::: x::::.::•�::::.vv ::::::::::::::
ry ?:•r::• }+r��•Y. h}••'fi4;•! ?•Y.: x! +f? };: ?!!y :r!x f�4 }:• }'• .:..... }... r! +f. + ? +f.• }'f..... .
•.}:•f +x..; rn .:. ..v } +.......v J.v:.. �w:r. .. +-0Lv'+ . f r�:iif:.v x::x \•}:i ?• }:+i\ ?• }: +� + ?+
•v.•ii'vii' � ...: r:Y.. r.f } } } % } } } } } } }Y.... x.... .}} .f .. '?
?•rr .f%fC:• }.. }7? +• ... +�•.Y. ..F............. { /............ r....r {{C.F +. /.•: .f ::: +....: r...
%� rf :.:f�: .f. :.: Fr. ..rf� •.
.v }+ ff�.?xw xr F}. .4::v:::.•:.:•i.•:n+.... r.: r.:v.:.:: {.. 4. .:.} %rfir +}::i+ }$ {f�x'. {ff.0.' ff.' ��/
Fw % KC?!: f�+ r}{::• h*}} 4.:? v:+.•}' fk}``:: ifv:} 'r }::}•r: }�:::':'iF:�'i. {:: :i:L :i'i'i }'iir
:.w.+.vxrv.::v..{� L� <±.'•:i�. +•:•x:+x vnw:: x+.•.•: rv:: x.:: vw:+ x.% w. vn::•} �fv.•. vr+}::• xrxx: r:: xrx +:.+ %xv:•rxn:!vx:.v'fir�r.:xxr r v.. vw. vm... +..x:+:fi }::xxx::.w.vvx::+r.•x: x::::: x::: r:::: x:.vv }i::Y
The Vail Recreation District is proposing to construct a temporary tennis stadium complex on
the Lionshead tennis courts located to the north of Forest Road. The stadium complex will be
used for the Vail Team Tennis program this summer. The stadium complex is located on Vail
Associates' property. The seating capacity will be approximately 3,100 persons. The
structure will be needed between June 15 and August 15, 1992. The facility is approximately
20 feet high at its highest point. Tennis matches will be held approximately 7 times during the
summer at this site between 7:OOPM and 9:30PM. Temporary lights are also requested for
the courts and possibly the walking area from the Lionshead Skier Bridge up to the tennis
courts. A vending area, sponsors' tent, team dressing room and restrooms are also proposed.
The team dressing room and restrooms would most likely be located in metal trailers 16 -18
feet long.
is Staff has met once with the project proponents on April 16, 1992. Since the site for the
stadium complex is located on Agricultural /Open Space land, a conditional use permit is
required. This section of the code, Section 18.32.020 - Conditional Uses, states:
Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which involves
assembly of more than 200 persons together in one building or group of
buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational facility;"
In order to facilitate the review of this proposal, staff has scheduled PEC worksessions on
April 27 and May 11 to ensure that issues can be identified and resolved before the final
hearing on May 18th. We are also hoping that this approach will allow adequate time to
inform the surrounding neighborhood about the project. Design Review Board approval and
possibly a building permit will also be necessary.
Below are some of the issues which will be addressed through the planning process:
1. Impacts on the surrounding Forest Road neighborhood
• Management of parking /drop -off, particularly on Forest Road
• Lighting
• Pedestrian access to the site
• Noise
• Deliveries
• 2. Screening of trailers
3. Appearance of the stadium facility
4. Vending requests - Is a special events license appropriate?
5. Sign/banners for sponsors
•
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 27, 1992
AGENDA
11:OOAM Site Visits
1:30PM Worksession
2:OOPM Public Hearing
Site Visits
Worksesslon
5. 1. A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail
Team Tennis facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead
Skier Bridge and north of Forest Road on the existing tennis courts.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Kristan Pritz
Public Hearing
2. 1. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Planner: Jill Kammerer
• 9. 2. A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the
Wilhelm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn
Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
8. 3. A request for front and side setback variances to allow for the extension
of balconies at the Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek
Drive /Lots 7 -15, Block 4, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association /Mark Foster,
President
Planner: Shelly Mello
7. 4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining patio
on the first floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore
Creek Drive /a Portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail /Sherry Dorward
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. 5. A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for
Spruce Creek, Phase III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek,
Phase III.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
• Planner: Andy Knudtsen
• 1. 6. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point,
1881 Lionsridge Loop Road /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve Gensler /Vail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
6. 7. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special
Development District No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O,
Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing /100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
4. 8. A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #4 -
Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally
located south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort,
Vail, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/a NE 1 /a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of
the 6th principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the
center of said Section 12 bears S 42 050'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S
85 043'14" E 89.84 ft: thence S 57 025'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S
32 059'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S 65 031'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S
• 69 001'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23 024'09" W 319.09 ft to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
9. Discussion of a request made by the United States Forest Service (Holy
Cross and Dillon District Rangers) regarding management practices in
the Eagles Nest Wilderness Area.
Applicant: William Wood and Jeff Bailey
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
10. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
TABLED TO JUNE 8TH MEETING
11. Approval of April 13, 1992 meeting minutes.
40
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an extension of a previously approved front yard setback and wall
height variances for the Neuswanger Residence, Lot 6, Block B, Vail
Ridge /2642 Cortina Lane.
Applicant: Chris Neuswanger
Planner: Jill Kammerer
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On May 20, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved front yard setback
and wall height variance requests in order to allow the construction of a spa/sunroom in the
front setback on the east side of the proposed structure and wall height variances to allow
walls in the front yard to exceed 3 feet in height.
• The applicant has indicated his involvement in business ventures last summer did not allow
him the opportunity to commence construction of the proposed residence. However, it is still
the applicant's intent to construct the proposed residence.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the front yard setback and wall height
variance approvals, based on the attached PEC memo and subject to condition of approval
number 1 of the memo related to the wall height variance request, which states, "the applicant
be required to install additional plant material (including trees) in the area between the wall
tiers and in the area below the walls in order to minimize the mass and soften the impact of
these retaining walls. This plan includes a minimum of 8 shrubs, 4 spruce and 2 deciduous
trees. The specific design of the landscaping should be reviewed by the DRB." If approved,
this request is valid until April 27, 1994.
cApec\memos\neuswngr.427
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for front and side setback and site coverage variances for the
Wilhelm Residence, 4289 Nugget Lane, West Unit/Lot 5, Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert and Karen Wilhelm
Planner: Jill Kammerer
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant proposes to remodel an existing duplex unit. Under the redevelopment
proposed, an additional 191 sq. ft. of GRFA will be added to the residence. Chapter 18.71 -
• Additional Gross Residential Floor Area ( "250 Ordinance ") will be utilized in order to allow
the addition to be constructed. Under this redevelopment proposal, site coverage will be
increased by 177 sq. ft. In order to construct the modifications to the residence as proposed,
the applicant must obtain site coverage, and east side, west side and front setback variance
approvals. In conjunction with the redevelopment of this unit, the applicant will be installing
3 additional aspens along the western property line adjacent to the street. Further, the
applicant will be converting one existing woodburning fireplace to two gas fireplaces.
A. Front Setback Variance
Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storage (South Elevation)
The applicant proposes to expand the existing kitchen and construct a ski
storage area on the first floor. The existing structure encroaches 3' -5" into the
required 20 -foot front setback. The kitchen expansion/ski storage addition will
encroach 2' -9" further into the front setback. Therefore, a 5' -9" setback
variance is reauired in order to allow this kitchen ext)ansion/ski storage area to
be constructed, resulting in a 14' -3" front setback. (Please note this area also
requires an east side setback variance described in IC.)
•
• 2. Dining Room Bay Window
The applicant proposes to remove an existing dining room window and replace
it with a bay window. The existing structure encroaches 3' -11" into the front
setback in this area. The new bay window will encroach an additional 9 inches
into the required 20 -foot front setback. Therefore, a 4' -8" setback variance is
required to allow this bay window to be constructed, resulting in a 15' -4" front
setback. (Please note the kitchen expansion/ski storage addition will encroach
into the front setback to a greater extent than will this proposed bay window.)
B. West Side Setback Variance
1. First and Second Floor Bay Windows (North Elevation)
The applicant proposes to change existing first and second floor windows to
bay windows. The existing structure encroaches 6' -1" into the required 15 -foot
side setback. Therefore, a 6'1" setback variance is required, resulting in a
8'11" side setback. Although these proposed windows will not encroach into
the side setback to a greater extent than does the existing building, because the
proposed construction would increase the amount of GRFA within the required
setback, a side setback variance is required.
• 2. West Side Storage Area
The applicant proposes to construct a 5' x 10' exterior storage area on the west
side of the existing structure. The existing structure encroaches 5 feet to 3' -6"
into the required 15 -foot side setback in this location. This 46 sq. ft. storage
area would encroach a maximum of an additional 5' -3" into the required 15-
foot side setback. Therefore, a 10' -3" setback variance is required to allow this
storage area to be constructed, resulting in a 4' -9" side setback.
C. East Side Setback Variance
1. Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storage Area
The existing east side setback is 0. The building is built on the eastern
property line. This new kitchen expansion/ski storage area will also encroach
15 feet into the required 15 -foot side setback. Therefore, a 15 -foot setback
variance is reauired to allow the kitchen exnansion/ski storage area to be
constructed. The proposed addition will encroach to no greater extent than
does the existing structure.
0 2
• 2. Rear Exterior Storage Area
The applicant proposes to construct a new exterior storage area on the rear of
the building under an existing deck and stair. Please note the existing east side
setback is 0. The building is built on the eastern property line. This new
exterior storage area will also encroach 15 feet into the required 15 -foot side
setback. Therefore a 15 -foot setback variance is required to allow this exterior
storage area to be constructed. The proposed addition will encroach to no
greater extent than does the existing structure.
3. Loft Expansion
The applicant proposes to expand an existing loft by 39 sq. ft. of GRFA. This
new second floor area will not encroach further into the required 15 -foot side
setback than the 15 feet the existing structure encroaches. However, because
the proposed construction would increase the amount of development within
the required side setback, a side setback variance is required. (Please note all
variances are calculated to the building footprint. The eave is not included
which is approximately one foot in certain areas.)
D. Site Coverage Variance
Site coverage allowed on this lot is 20% of the lot size (.106 acres, or 4,617
sq. ft.). Therefore, the allowed site coverage is 923 sq. ft. The existing site
coverage is 995 sq. ft. (21.5 %). The addition will increase the site coverage by
177 sq. ft., for a total of 1,172 sq. ft. (25 %) of site coverage. A site coverage
variance is needed for the additional 177 square feet of GRFA.
1. Kitchen Expansion/Ski Storage Area
This proposed addition will result in an additional 53 sq. ft. of site coverage.
2. West Side Exterior Storage Area
The proposed 5' x 10' storage area would increase site coverage by 51 sq. ft.
Therefore, a site coverage variance is required in order to allow this exterior
storage area to be constructed.
3. Rear Exterior Storage
The applicant proposes to construct an exterior storage area under an existing
deck/stair. This exterior storage area will result in an additional 49 sq. ft. of
GRFA and 65 sq. ft. of site coverage. Therefore, a site coverage variance is
required in order to allow this exterior storage area to be constructed.
• 3
• II. BACKGROUND
The zoning for this property is duplex. Bighorn Estates, Lots 10 and 11 were subdivided into
townhomes, which were later divided into small lots, numbered 1 -7. This subdivision created
legal, non - conforming lots of a lot size smaller than that which would be allowed under
present zoning.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning:
Two - Family
Site Area:
0.106 acres /4,617 sq. ft.
GRFA:
Allowed:
1,579 sq. ft.
Existing:
2,337 sq. ft.
Proposed:
2,512 sq. ft.
Increase *:
191 sq. ft.
250 GRFA Remaining:
59 sq. ft.
•
* Increase in GRFA
is possible under 250 Ordinance
Site Coverage
(20% of Site Area):
Allowed:
923 sq. ft.
Existing:
995 sq. ft. (21.5 %)
Proposed:
1,172 sq. ft. (25 %)
Increase:
177 sq. ft.
Height:
No Change
Setbacks:
Front:
Required:
20 feet
Existing:
16' -9"
Proposed:
14' -3"
West Side:
Required:
15 feet
Existing:
W -9"
Proposed:
47 -9"
•
4
• East Side:
Required:
15 feet
Existing:
0 feet
Proposed:
0 feet
Rear:
Required:
15 feet
Existing:
15 feet
Proposed:
15 feet
IV. 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 front, east and west side
setback variances in order to allow the construction of the exterior storage area under the
deck/stairs and the bay windows on the first and second stories on the north elevation; the
kitchen/ski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south elevation. Staff
further recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance requests associated with
these additions. Staff recommends denial of the west side setback variance and site coverage
variance requests required to allow the construction of the 5' x 10' exterior storage area.
These recommendations are based on the following factors:
0 A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
a. Setback Variances
In general, the setback variances requested will have no negative
impacts on adjacent properties, excluding the west storage area.
Staff believes the west side storage addition will negatively
impact the property owner to the west. The resulting side
setback would be 4' -9 ". If the adjacent property owner were
also to pursue such an addition, the accessway to the rear yard
between the two duplexes would be very narrow. Staff believes
the addition of the west side storage area reduces, to a great
degree, the already small amount of open space which presently
exists between this dwelling and the adjacent residence.
0 5
0 b. Site Coverage Variance
Due to the unusual subdivision of the lot, staff believes it is
reasonable to allow some flexibility concerning site coverage.
This expansion, excluding the west storage area, will result in
additional site coverage of 125 sq. ft. Staff further believes
these additions will have no negative impacts on existing or
potential uses or structures in the vicinity. The staff does not
believe the additional site coverage for the west storage area is
appropriate.
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.
a. Setback Variances
The duplex lots which were created under the resubdivision of
Lots 10 and 11 of Bighorn Estates have lot configurations which
• make it almost impossible to modify the units without variances.
As previously stated, the existing units already encroach into the
required front and side setbacks. These encroachments are due
to the fact the lots are very narrow and small. Instead of a
minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet, this lot is 4,617 square
feet. Staff believes there are extraordinary circumstances due to
the original lot layout of these duplex lots.
Other duplexes in this resubdivision have received similar
setback variance requests. In November, 1988, Lot 3, obtained
approval of front, side, and site coverage variances in order to
construct a trash enclosure and to enlarge a kitchen. As
previously stated, the duplex lots associated with the
resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11 of Bighorn Estates are all
substandard in size. For this proposal, staff believes it is
reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the
front, east and west side setbacks to be a practical difficulty
warranting setback variances for the additions supported by the
staff. This degree of relief from the strict and literal
interpretation of the code is appropriate, and has been granted to
other property owners with similar circumstances.
0 6
• Staff does not believe, however, there is a practical difficulty
warranting the construction of the 5' x 10' exterior storage area
on the west side of the property. The degree of relief from the
setback for this request is not appropriate.
b. Site Coverage Variance
Because of the small lots, existing site coverage of all lots in the
vicinity is over the allowed. Staff feels that adding 125 sq. ft. of
site coverage to accommodate the exterior rear storage area, the
bay windows and the kitchen expansion/ski storage additions
does not increase to any great extent the existing site coverage.
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. Setback Variances and Site Coverage Variance
The staff finds that the requested variance will have no
significant effect upon any of the above considerations. As
. previously stated under this redevelopment proposal, the
applicant will be installing two additional aspen trees along the
western property line adjacent to the roadway. In addition to
installing these aspens, the applicant will eliminate an existing
woodburning fireplace and install two gas fireplaces. Staff
believes, with the exception of the proposed 5' x 10' proposed
storage area on the west side of the building, this proposal will
have no negative impacts on the factors listed above. With
regard to the proposed 5' x 10' exterior storage area, staff
believes the construction of such a storage area will limit access
to the rear of the property from the east side of the building,
which could negatively impact public safety.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
• 7
• 2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
• Community Development Department recommends approval of the front, east and west side
setback variances in order to allow the construction of the exterior storage area under the
deck/stairs and the bay windows on the first and second stories on the north elevation; the
kitchen/ski storage expansion, and dining room bay window on the south elevation. Staff
further recommends approval of the requested site coverage variance requests associated with
these additions. Staff recommends denial of the west side setback variance and site coverage
variance requests required to allow the construction of the 5' x 10' exterior storage area.
Staff believes the variances which are recommended for approval meet the criteria and
findings for a variance. Staff does not believe approval of these variances would be a grant
of special privilege, because variance applications have been approved for similar requests.
The proposal is not potentially injurious to the public health, safety and welfare. Lastly, the
staff finds the location of the lot lines to be an extraordinary circumstance that is not typically
found in the Two - Family zone district, and that other property owners in the same
development have received variances from the strict interpretation of the zoning code for
similar types of requests when there were no negative impacts from the requests.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
cApec\memos \wilhelm.427
•
S
N EA�MENt\ � S�
SE�AGK
a�N FAN A� P�
Qr-
GPEE
�pL '.
tz
r F 5
u �M
aE
°a ? �Ec ,n< ik
E� ESE wog
E
8.
w
N j
> O C N \
... �z
E eh $u o 99 \ \ aQ
oou o
° �'Q o
O Y Y
USE o E✓i
NE"
!^
u °E °-' ° O° p 1
�nu� Eo az.° �\ �
I.
Ru
r \ a
Z
a
n uunuunun �(� ��
cast- n� °o °ac
o
a
Eoo c vo ra
o
u �
oZ c��Yto uua \ N \
'o 000'soY«
EBc� \
o
u °
Loom � o n E
N
O N
«O O
u m
Yc
a
s •.
u
. u
v, Wr of
ri
a o
rn
nV o
Y p d
= o
Z
i
i5
R��
s €s
m
�S�EE
I �
�SgjL
a(�
�n _
S O 8 S.,
cn
O
Q O d E Y 4) �•.�
S
t
o o<��Y
,.4
.0
IL-OQ m uz
z
o
z
N EA�MENt\ � S�
SE�AGK
a�N FAN A� P�
Qr-
GPEE
�pL '.
tz
r F 5
u �M
aE
°a ? �Ec ,n< ik
E� ESE wog
E
8.
w
N j
> O C N \
... �z
E eh $u o 99 \ \ aQ
oou o
° �'Q o
O Y Y
USE o E✓i
NE"
!^
u °E °-' ° O° p 1
�nu� Eo az.° �\ �
I.
Ru
r \ a
Z
a
n uunuunun �(� ��
cast- n� °o °ac
o
a
Eoo c vo ra
o
u �
oZ c��Yto uua \ N \
'o 000'soY«
EBc� \
o
u °
Loom � o n E
N
O N
«O O
u m
Yc
a
s •.
u
. u
v, Wr of
ri
a o
rn
nV o
Y p d
= o
Z
i
i5
R��
s €s
�S�EE
�SgjL
a(�
U
e a I ahment o fence.,buAdin or ot�`e provem °�`�
,.* 9: _ 3) provemer
l fu _er certify that the Improvements on the above deacnUd`• -?'� " -
percel won, this date. February 24, 1992, except utility connec— at Lot 3, E
to entirely entirely within the boundaries of the parcel, except ti - 4) According
as shown, that there are no encroachments upon the described t.: - • �- No. 08005
premises by improvements on any adjoining premises, except as shown here
indicated, and that there is no APPARENT evidence or signof any flooding•
easement crossing or burdening any part of said parcel
noted. ,�1�!�tffu�i1s rr //
RED
Date -�� Steven K. Sco 0� r
Senior Vice Pr t tt 95' J •
Johnson, Kunk4oh, ociates, Inc. •�er�,
i �t fir!--'qq••`�0� LOT 4
L LAND
�.��'
,r'x. x.
g
It
Y _s
Al
Pill
po
1 1/2 STC
OG{ FRAME
t tee NGt
4289 NUGGET
��• �6• LANE
` \\ DECK
ASPHALT
\ PARKING i � •,
C) \ ••
p 4, / •••
NOTICE: According to Colorado law you MUST comnwice any io Ol acaon •••
booed upon any defect N this survey wphin Nree years Otter you -
first d --sd much deteot.:. In no went may any action booed upon
..v A.A—# 1. W. mw..J tie 'rornn.rnaed mete that ten )ears, from the _ _ � � ':)_ ,i.:,: .iiL.:.»v»: _ .' C,7 "�Y' 75iY�➢iia;.+••s,..+•.+�
I *
1L
I
cl
Gr-
Ci
.,T
OL;w L1y
Ili
I r-.- - -
1
1
r- -
m....
4
ST
i
1
u
7
cJ
d�
a I
on
�3
Q
t �
7Q
a
-
u
7
cJ
�?
2
xS
on
�3
V
�t
W
� y
�i 1 -
-412-
9
7
PUBLIC NOTICE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Staff will be reviewing a
Design Review Board application on May 6, 1992 in the Town of Vail
Municipal Building.
Consideration of:
1. A request for an additional 250 square feet of Gross
Residential Floor Area for the Wilhelm Residence located
at 4289 -B Nugget Lane. Lot 5, Bighorn Estates.
Applicant: Robert & Karen Wilhelm
The applications and information about the proposals are available
in zhe zoning administrator- s office di.iring re g _' ar oLLG°" .ce hors
for public inspection.
TOWN OF VAIL
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Pu/;id in the Vail Trail on April 17, 1992.
y �--
__ �
OUC> - ( � P ff-&(q�t •
J
w . J ci doh cj Jua � aI 4
Q��^
/--Nk vj-�( &A 1 I V1
sk LIV, c � d, JtL ' Uj
V)L,(Cyq�r
P
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow for the extension of balconies at the
Vail Trails East Condominiums, 433 Gore Creek Drive/Lots 7 -15, Block 4,
Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vail Trails East Homeowners Association/Mark Foster, President
Planner: Shelly Mello
i..:. r./ r. l...... r:::::: r::: r::: l?J. t`..:/J...:.:::.J...., �,£.. �J? ki •:• ?nr.:..r:::::::::..:�:.:::x . ........:...::...... .......•.... .... : .. .....:....?:.. .:�..... : ?;.;•:•;:;:::.::•: �••:? �:?:?:: i�:• x?:<: �::. s:.;. :.:t ?;::::.::•:::•: ?.::•::•r::.
...... r :.............................................. ..............................: •....:::R..::::: , ::: � ?.::::::::•:::::::::: k#:::•.• 4e? '.�..�LG.yr:Gfr75?'I /•.�.T.,,.; f {.::: ........:r......:: � Yr.: r ...: ?r...:r.................... r:.................... r.
:r : ?:..r ? ?. {;:::.:: ?r:. :.;;.;�y:::.;r:r ::::.;:.:::: •:::::: :::::: •..::r .:•:::::......:.:::.a::::::: •:::::::::::::::::.: �:::::::. �. �:. �:. �:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::. � ::::::::::::::::•::•: �:?<•::::•;:• w:::..•...•.... r:....::•::::::•::•::•:::<:.::•::.; .::.::•>:::::::;.;::::::::::::: •.
r:..:::::. r ::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::.::::r::.::: rr::::::::::::: r::::::::::: ::.:::: :::•i:•i:•ii:•is:•i:•ii:n:•: ?•:
:.x: ??. i4:•::::• i:.........: ? ?•::v: ??ni:•:H. ::: r:: ::::: ?::.•:: x:.;, ......::: ?m }: ? ?•i:•i:: {•i:J:. n•::: x::: :x:::: :::::::•i:•ib:.::•::v:.:. �::::: r :::::::::::::::v::.
::U ?? ?•: ?ii:L:? ? ?iii:ii: i iii? �i: ii?• iY:•? r ,' ? ?:•i:•i ? {i ?i:•iiiii ?i••:iw:: r:
sir ?.•ii'4:•Y4.4i: ^iii: b::: ?.i'.� :•i:•'i'r
:.�::.: ? {;:::: ry: v,:.y::: •i •:::::.,i:: .::::.:.. ..........::::: :: .... ::......: •:::: ;x::; ::::::::: x:::: w.�::.:'?:iiiiii •.�::.:: iii' v:::: �i: :ry}::j::::'• "•:'•' +'• "•'•'::� :..; r : .:........:::....
.::.�:.:.�.�:. :.: .. n :....... ........:.....:::.:::::::::::::::::::.......::: ::::::::::::::::::.�::::::::::: nom:......... n.... .......::::::::::.� :::::: w:n�.: .......::::.gin....•.....:...... .....::: v.:::::: ••'fvii:•i:•iii`.i:�iii }:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant, Vail Trails East Homeowners Association, is proposing a remodel of the
exterior of the Vail Trails Condominiums. Vail Trails East is zoned High Density Multiple
Family (HDMF), and as such the setbacks are 20 feet on all sides of the property. The
• project consists of three attached buildings. These units were built within the 20 -foot front
and side setbacks required in the HDMF zone district and, therefore, the existing buildings
and decks constitute a non - conforming structure. It is for this reason that setback variances
are required for most modifications to the project.
The remodel includes expanding the second floor decks on the south side of Buildings A and
B which will encroach into the 20 foot side and front yard setbacks, respectively (see attached
drawing). The request is to allow for a 3' -4" deck expansion on Building A and a 2 -foot
deck expansion on Building B.
Section 18.58.050 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code allows decks which are more than 5
feet above grade to encroach not more than half the distance into a setback, nor more than 5
feet. In this case, the buildings already encroach more than 5 feet into the setback. Building
A encroaches 16 feet into the 20 -foot side yard setback, which creates a 4 -foot setback. The
proposed deck does not encroach any further into the side setback than the existing building,
resulting in a 4 -foot setback. By expanding Building B's deck by 2 feet, a 0 -foot setback is
created. The building currently has a ground floor deck that extends to the property line,
creating a 0 -foot setback.
In March of this year, the DRB approved a number of exterior material changes for this
project. These changes include: new front doors, facing stucco walls to the south of the
units with stone, repainting the exterior and new deck railings.
•
• This proposal does not include a request for any additional GRFA. The south property line of
the project is adjacent to the road right -of -way for Gore Creek Drive. This right -of -way has
subsequently been vacated and the 40 -foot strip of land is deeded to the P -2 Association,
which consists of the surrounding condominium associations.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zoning: High Density Multiple Family
GRFA: No change to existing
Site Coverage: No change to existing
Height: No change to existing
Setbacks (Required 20 feet on all sides of property):
Allowed Existing Proposed
Building Decks* Building ** Decks Decks
North 20 feet 15 feet 7 feet N/A No Change
South 20 feet 15 feet 5' -6" 0 feet 0 feet
East 20 feet 15 feet 9' -6" 2 feet No Change
West 20 feet 15 feet 4 feet N/A 4 feet
* Decks more than 5 feet above grade
** Building refers to the entire structure (3 attached buildings)
• This project was condominiumized in 1964. Records show that it is currently located on Lots
7 -15 of Block 4, Vail Village First Filing. Unlike other projects we have reviewed recently,
the common walls of the units do not relate to the underlying property lines. In completing
this review, the staff considered the property lines as those which were established by the
condo plat in 1964. This property line surrounds the entire Vail Trails east development and
does not intersect the building. The staff finds that it is not necessary for any action (i.e.,
major subdivision) to be completed to eliminate the property lines between Lots 7 -15 because
the project was completed and condominiumized prior to the establishment of the Town of
Vail subdivision regulations. The project is considered legal, non - conforming. Eagle County
also considers this as a single parcel as opposed to 8 individual lots.
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 side yard
setback variance request to expand the second floor decks on the south side of
Building A, and denial of the front yard setback variance request to expand the second
floor decks on the south side of Building B, based on the following factors:
• 2
• A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity.
The requested side setback variance for the decks on Building A will have a
minimal impact on property owners to the west. The staff believes that said
encroachments will not negatively impact adjoining or neighboring properties.
Currently, Building A encroaches 16 feet into the side yard setback. Vail Trial
Chalets, the adjacent property to the west, encroaches 7' -6" into its side yard
setback. There is approximately 16' -6" between the two buildings. This
separation will not change as a result of the construction of the Building A
deck, because the deck is parallel to the property line and encroaches no more
than the existing building.
However, the staff finds that the requested 2 foot increase in the setback
encroachment for Building B will impact.the existing aspens located in the
planter in the front of the building. Although the location of the building could
be considered a hardship, we find that the impacts on the existing mature
landscaping, and the fact that a 0 -foot setback results from this request on the
second level in addition to the existing first level 0 setback, make this portion
of the proposal inappropriate. In reviewing this request, the staff considered
allowing the relocation of landscaping within the planter boxes by enlarging
them. However, we found that this would not be possible because it would
result in an increased encroachment of the existing parking into the right -of-
way. The greatest impact of this proposal would be on the 40 -foot vacated
right -of -way and those properties adjacent to Vail Trail's East.
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 location of the Vail Trails as it relates to the property lines established in
1964 make it difficult to modify the units without a variance request. In fact,
the existing units already encroach significantly into the required side and front
yard setbacks. The staff believes there are extraordinary circumstances due to
the original building layout of the Vail Trails East and that the approval of a
variance request for the Building A decks would not be a grant of special
privilege. Similar requests for setback variance have been made by individual
units of the Vail Rowhouses and Texas Townhouses. It should be noted that
setback variance requests have been approved in the past for both of these
developments. However, because of the impacts on existing mature vegetation
• 3
s a result of the deck expansion of Building B and 0 -foot setback, we do not
apport a further encroachment into the setback for Building B.
The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traffic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
'he staff finds that the requested variances will have no significant effect upon
ny of the above considerations.
'he Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
ndings before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in the same district.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
. a. 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.
b. 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.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the side yard setback variance request for the expansion of the
second level decks on Building A. We believe there are extraordinary circumstances on this
site (i.e., building location) which do not generally apply to other properties in this same zone
district. However, we are unable to recommend approval of the request to expand the second
level decks on Building B, because of the impacts on landscaping and the 0 setback that
results from the request. It is felt that the granting of a side setback variance for Building A
0 4
• would not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or to properties or
persons in the vicinity, nor would it be a grant of special privilege. However, we find that
the necessary removal of mature vegetation which would result from the approval of a
setback variance for Building B would be detrimental to the area.
The staff believes that findings III(B) 1, 2 and 3(a) apply to the side setback variance request
for Building A.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
c \ ec\memos \vailtra1.427
is 5
F:
I*
� 0
•
S�
C
v.
21
IN
ITI
f\
it
If
f\
•
•
1-61d /2 0s
•
r
,--31d 1 9 FAi Is
TO ?
0
.i
•
U
0
I�ld� C 2A -) Is
To
NLARK C. Fosn-El;
885 S:JUTA C.Di ORADO DCULEVAFtb
DENVER. COLORADC. SC222
IELE HONE
I-MMO: TO TOWN OF VAIL PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: MARY FOSTER, PRESIDENT, VAIL TRASLS EAST CONDOM- INIUMS
RE: VARIANCE REQUEST To FXTE�M FOUR BALCONIES AT VAS?, jRp.I=,$ FAST
DATE: APRIL 27, 1992, PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING 2 P.M.
I as sorry that I could rot, be at this meeting in person. Our
assoc_ation has requested apprcval for the extension of four
balconies, two on Building A and two on Building B. I understand
that the staff has recommended approval for the extension of the
balconies On Building A, but does not recommend the extension of
the balconies on Building B.
There are two reasons that we would like to extend these balconies.
As constructed the balconies are too narrow for use by the owners.
Vail is oriented to outdoor enjoyment and the approval of the
• balcony extensions would permit these unit oGmers to enjoy their
units, and asses:, to the outdoors. This is very important for the
ownors. We have obtained permission from the unit owners below and
h�,:ve carcfully reviewed the impact on light to the lower units.
Bc cause the balconies are carried on a header bea-n, the approxi-irate
two foot extension will not .imnact or. the light or view li71ps to
the lower units. In fact the extensions have been measured to stop
:short of the extended view and light lines from the lower units so
thu: absolutely no riEgat ve ].Tapact. Occurs.
Secondly, last year the Association hired pill Pierce to review the
architecture of the building and to make recommendations for
remodeling. One observation stood out; that our building lacked
dimension, there was no relief between units and therefore it looks
like a long, flat: and boring building. The extension of the
balconies at Building B axe also designed to relieve this design
flaw. The extensions will give the building some three
dLmersional feeling that it now lacks. we are expending a large
sum of mcrey this year to upgrade the building with new entries,
architectural entry doors, new balcony designs, paint and a river
rock retairLing wall. Without the apprcval of the extension to the
balconies on Building B, these improvements will be compromised.
The comments will be "Itt would have looked great if it were not so
flat, there^ is no sense of any dimension to the building". The
balcony rails approved by the Design Review Board vary between
•Buildings A, B, and c. By design the balconies need some relief or
dime:�sion.
Wc- have als jr5pEecteC' j. e 1aT?dSCanircr L' n t..t?e. areas in front cf the
co::_e_ . S�"mE' of the As: en trees have grown toa large for the
area in w?.,ich they arr� plantea, We will attempt to tra_nsplant
ttose trees and plant new trGF S i . tb_c:re Place. The extension of
the ha! conies on Blinding 3 have vary 1it.tle. impact on the
landscaping. To the extent the extensions would encroach on
existing trees, these trees already require attention to
accommodate the river rock wall and because they have outgrown the
arE,a. Landscaping is one of the most important items to the
Association. I assure you that no landscaping will suffer by the
extension of the balco:lies, we will replant as necessary to
maintain a landscaped facade.
Finally, the requested extension is for only approximately two
feet. This is not a gross enlargement of an existing st"uctlre.
Tne benerit to t-he own�'rs and t11(-, architectural relief it adds far
outwc-ighs any concern about F:xti m: i.ng ir7ta tree set back. Thc.
bal ccny ext er:s c.: Ul_ BLi1 G ing 3 w -1.11 not extend beyond the existing
zetairjng w�? i , noes not, interfere with the use of any other unit
owners, dues--, not encr�ach or any public uses, and does not impact
on any neiS.,.crinq builcings. lim ing owned a unit in Vail trails
Ee.se since 196; and seen tt:e const7scticn of sever,! bui,di_nas tha-z
t=t ly ir-iJam the open space i_'"1 fail, I ca-n see no reason that this
s=17- rect.F4t sho:,Id be w'_-en here is absolutely ro negative
cn?ti pc�_,;tive rEcults for oLr building. Your approval of
Our r%Gj,2eZZ t0 extend heal coil? Es is- c2'-'tic,?1 to the-, coat i nur_d
'to tLe b'�ill j . r1 a_: e unde-z stand that we have •
apnroa she:, t e reed to e�-ten6 these !�alconies with careful thought
about the in ccz Gil Gi:I" a�l;;� �1r1C ?7`d `r !3 1_T.11` � blf: hav(, within our
v -" o " -E.. tL'f': and Co^t 1C3E'r
ation.
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow an outdoor dining patio on the
first floor at the Lodge at Vail/Wildflower Restaurant, 174 Gore Creek Drive /a
Portion of Block 5C, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Lodge at Vail/Sherry Dorward
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
-..:: ::4 ::............:::.. y........:. f.::::::::::: ii•:: ..... v..:...::.:4i:i;i:L: ?ij:t:• is i ij}Li: {ii- :i'::............., r•:::: ::.::. +.•..: .. ... ...... ...... ...... ...............:.
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is proposing to expand the existing Wildflower outdoor patio by approximately
366 sq. ft. Currently, the patio is 1,627 sq. ft. in size. The total size of the outdoor patio is
• planned to accommodate 24 tables, which is 9 more than the restaurant had last summer. The
material used for the addition will match the existing pavers. Currently, the landscaping
around the patio includes a row of trimmed bushes planted next to sod. The proposed
landscaping includes 9 aspen, 37 shrubs and 370 sq. ft. of additional planting beds. The
existing trimmed bushes will be removed.
The zoning code allows for 80% of a site to be covered with buildings or ground level patios.
At this time, the site coverage for the Lodge is approximately 43,336 sq. ft., or 47.7% of the
site. The proposed deck will increase site coverage by 366 sq. ft. to approximately 43,732 sq.
ft. or 48.1 %.
The section of the Commercial Core I zone district that addresses landscaping states that:
"No reduction in landscape area shall be permitted without sufficient cause
shown by the applicant or as specified in the Vail Village Design
Considerations."
The planted area of the site is approximately 18,498 sq. ft., or 20.3% of the site area. With
the expanded deck, the planted area on the property will be reduced by 366 sq. ft. to
approximately 18,132 sq. ft. or 19.9 %.
• 1
• This expansion will require approval from the Town of Vail Liquor Board, and the applicants
will need to present the expansion proposal to the Board prior to constructing the patio. No
special requirements, such as a railing around the seating area, are anticipated to be required
by the Liquor Board.
II. ZONING STATISTICS
A. Zoning:
Commercial Core I
B. Site Area (for the Lodge Properties): 90,992 sq. ft.
Allowed
Existing
Proposed
C. Setbacks: None, except as required
East: 38 feet
38 feet
pursuant to the Vail
West: 175 feet
175 feet
Village Urban Design
South: 154 feet
142 feet
Guide Plan
North: 90 feet
90 feet
D. Site Coverage: 80% maximum
47.7%
48.1% or
or 72,794 sq. ft.
or 43,366
43,732 sq. ft.
E. Landscaping: No reduction, unless
20.3% or
19.9% or 18,132
recommended by the Vail
18,498 sq.
sq. ft. with a
• Village Urban Design
ft.
notation in the
Considerations
Vail Village
Urban Design
Guide Plan that
some of this
courtyard be
infilled with
pavers.
Please note that these area calculations do include the enclosed Arlberg garden room,
but that the Arlberg may not be approved site coverage. Staff reviewed the Town
records and examined the past plans and designs closely, but could not find any
document showing that this enclosure was approved. For this analysis, staff has
included it as site coverage. In the future, when the International wing is reviewed,
the Town may require the Lodge to apply for an exterior alteration for approval of the
Arlberg, or may require the Lodge to remove it. Staff did not believe this issue
should prevent the PEC from reviewing the conditional use request.
0 2
• 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 purpose section for the CCI zone district calls for lodges and commercial
establishments within the context of a predominantly pedestrian environment.
The purpose section emphasizes the pedestrian nature of the Village, as it calls
for "tightly clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and
public greenways." The Vail Village Urban Design Guide Considerations, on
page 22, call for dining decks and patios which "generally contribute to the
liveliness of a busy street, making a richer pedestrian experience." The Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan calls for "a future area - pavement treatment"
around the Wildflower Restaurant.
Staff believes that the development objectives, as defined by these documents,
call for dining patios such as the one being proposed, and that the additional
• dining patio space will compliment the pedestrian nature of this area.
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.
Staff believes there will be no impact on the issues listed above.
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.
Again, staff believes there will be no impact on the issues listed above.
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.
Staff is concerned about the impact this proposal will have on the character of
the open space surrounding the Wildflower, Hong Kong Cafe, One Vail Place
Building, and the rest of the Lodge facility. Given the fact that the Lodge
• 3
• recently submitted a revised plan for the International wing, staff believes the
courtyard character could dramatically change in the near future. This recent
application is based on an exterior alteration approved by the Town in 1983,
which called for the courtyard to be surfaced with brick pavers. Construction
of the International wing will remove a significant portion of the greenspace,
shown as the hatched area on attached site plan. In addition, the new traffic
patterns accompanying this expansion may require much of the courtyard to be
converted to pavers.
Because the revised International wing proposal does not include a
comprehensive design for the courtyard, staff is concerned that the landscaping
lost with the Wildflower expansion may be needed at a later date when the
International wing expansion is constructed. Staff believes that an appropriate
condition of approval is to require that a master plan for the courtyard be
designed and reviewed by the DRB prior to issuance of a building permit for
the International wing. Or, if the current exterior alteration request is pursued,
that a master plan for the plaza be designed and reviewed as part of the
exterior alteration process. The applicants have offered to remove the
Wildflower deck if, during the master planning process, additional landscaping
is needed in the courtyard.
Staff believes that, with these conditions of approval, the Town will have an
• opportunity to change the pavers back to landscaping at a later time. At this
time, staff and the applicants both see the Wildflower deck expansion as a
temporary solution. Given the fact the existing courtyard has approximately
11,243 sq. ft. of landscaping, staff believes the additional amount of pavers can
be accommodated while still preserving the character of the existing courtyard.
•
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
n
• III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of the request for an expanded outdoor patio, with the condition
that:
Prior to scheduling any public hearings for the current International wing expansion,
the applicant shall design a master plan for the courtyard and submit the plan for the
review and approval of the Town. The applicant shall, if deemed necessary by the
Town, remove all of the pavers associated with this conditional use in order to allow
additional landscaping.
Staff believes that this proposal meets the criteria for a conditional use permit, as discussed in
accordance with the purposes of the zone district. Staff believes Finding 2 is met, as the
operation of the outdoor dining patio will be operated in a way that is not detrimental to the
public health, safety or welfare. Lastly, staff believes Finding 3 is met, as the proposal meets
with the applicable provisions of the zoning title. With the condition of approval listed
above, staff believes the proposal should be approved.
OpeOmemosModge.427
•
0 5
O
Tl-
IL
, L�E
00
zo
4J
IL
rill
4J
IL
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an amendment to an approved development plan for Spruce Creek, Phase
III, 1750 S. Frontage Road West/Spruce Creek, Phase ID.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
^'..: .,., ww•. v.:..:: ii is {: }i: ?.iY: ?•:ii:v:?•.L:.i�'s: � v�;:::.f...: .::: /lhi.j'J >.•ii +:Y:: ?•Y.;:i•::
•::,.S:L:. ;. � ": dr::?::??.: s::::::::.>;:• :::::::... .....:t;:R;f'�=•: ::'t.'n'Y,.:.. :•??; ?::`.•:::;xy": . r.;., • :Y?}rwrf:•:::i:;;;.,.:;.•.•:: .rk. :•i .f•• ?:;' •:x+.•: •:.;:.: �::� •;:.:::.>:�
n......... h.... .. .vvvw .. .va{hn n.•:? .Y}f} :. ... �:iF v�x:rr ?.::. ?:; ?airy':
'•.?•:' ?4iv, :....y::::•F ..... ::..... ": 'Ai?i¢Y 'Li4v?Y f. i'Fi'...V•.. .vxn..a...:.
:irytiSij'v'• `�'' Yi %::{y�`n' Sit: ?n:' ?Ri+:YiitiS:i:'i':�.i:• •.w%A•.wJG. 9! l f:'ii.Cv:
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE USE
On May 31, 1979, Eagle County approved a three phase development plan for Spruce Creek. That
plan allowed 33 dwelling units and 57,750 sq. ft. of GRFA. The first two phases of that plan have
been constructed. The last phase was approved for 12 units, and 21,000 sq. ft. of GRFA. All three
phases were originally designed as a townhouse development.
In the summer of 1991, Mike Lauterbach proposed a different site plan concept, which included
detached single family homes instead of townhomes. On August 12, 1991, the PEC approved 6 single
• family homes with a total of 13,800 sq. ft. of GRFA. On October 14, 1991, staff presented a proposal
from Mike Lauterbach to reduce the density from 6 single family dwelling units to 5. All other
development standards (such as GRFA and site coverage) remained the same. At this time, Mike is
requesting to change back to the earlier PEC approval for 6 single family dwelling units on this site.
Again, all development standards, such as GRFA and site coverage remain the same.
•
The memos from August 12, 1991 and October 14, 1991 are attached for the Commission's
information. The conditions of approval the PEC placed on the project on August 12 are also
attached, and at this time, the applicant has already fulfilled all of the conditions except for one.
Specifically, the applicant has provided a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating the
applicant has met the requirements of the Corps for development on this site. Two areas had been
identified as possible wetlands, but after review, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that
they do not need to be protected or replanted. The applicant has provided documentation from Holy
Cross that the electric easement running through the center of the property has been abandoned. The
applicant has received approval from the Town Engineer for the drainage plan for the site. The
applicant has provided an accurate assessment from Ted Huskey for undergrounding utilities on this
site. In addition, the applicant has provided the escrow agreement and funds required for the
undergrounding effort. The one outstanding condition of approval regarding funds for bike path
construction will be completed by the applicant prior to the Town issuing any building permits for this
site.
April 27, 1992 • Page 1
II. EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSAL
Staff's concern throughout all of the reviews in this development focuses on the way the structures ,
relate to each other. Staff is concerned about the setbacks between structures, as well as the need for
variation among the buildings. Mike Lauterbach has worked with staff to address these issues by
grouping the driveways for buildings three and four and rotating buildings five and six so that the roof
ridges are oriented differently. The applicant has also committed to adjusting the design of each
facade by adding bay windows, using different types of garage doors, and in some cases, expanding
the garage so that the massing lines of the structure are altered. The setbacks between buildings range
from 11 -12 feet with the current plan. The original submittal provided setbacks ranging from 3 -14
feet. The plan with 5 homes allowed a setback range of 11 -13 feet. The PEC conditioned the first
approval by requiring a minimum of 10 feet between structures. Staff believes the current design, with
a range from 11 -12 feet, meets the standards the PEC applied to the earlier design.
Another issue of concern is the density increase from 5 units to 6. Because the original county
approval allowed 12 dwelling units on this parcel, staff believes that the current request for six can
still be viewed as a reduction in density.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this amendment to the Spruce Creek, Phase III, development plan with
the conditions that:
The applicant vary the facade treatment on each of the six homes. The variations shall •
include elements such as bay windows, different types of garage doors, and expansions
of the garage to vary the massing.
2. With this approval, the GRFA shall be allocated as follows:
The total GRFA allowed on this parcel shall be 13,800 sq. ft. Each of the 6 single
family dwelling units shall be allowed 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 225 sq. ft. credit is
included in these numbers and may not be added to the 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA
allocated to each dwelling unit. A 2 -car garage with the corresponding 600 sq. ft.
credit will be allowed to be added to each of the dwelling units.
3. All conditions of approval from the August 12, 1991 PEC decision remain in effect.
c Apec\memosUautrbch.427
April 27, 1992 - Page 2
SINUHNA%oi
)13M 'J HNIdjv
F?
April 27, 1992
V-
ca
.R
IU
r .. LJ:
- 10
r IA 11,
ICC / ? A? t-1- E L 5`1'7 1 d
April 27, 1992
i
•
•
•
•
•
. -- - _- --'_ -�_ ,' _. - .._' '_ .- r -- ._.... _n --•..- - ;lid`' - _ __ ; -� _ _ _ _ �
April 27, 1992
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission •
FROMI: Community Development Department
DATE: August 12, 1991
SUBJECT: A request to amend a development plan, previously approved by Eagle County,
for Phase III of the Spruce Creek Townhouses, 1750 South Frontage Road
West/Spruce Creek Townhouses at Vail.
Applicant: Michael Lauterbach /Carl Dietz
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
,.,..
BACKGROUND
Eagle County approved a development plan for the Spruce Creek Townhouses on May 31,
19 9. In that approval, the County allowed 33 units, each with 1,750 sq. ft. of floor area. The
total GRFA approved was 57,750 sq. ft. The first two phases of Spruce Creek have been bunt
e.a according to the County's plan. Phase I included 12 dwelling units and Phase II included
9 dwelling units. As a result, there is a remaining potential for an additional 12 units and
2'.000 sq ft. of GRFA on this site. A copy of the letter summarizing the Eagle County •
a,=,-va' is attached to this memo.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
T ~e applicant is proposing to build out the remaining land that is a part of the Spruce Creek
d�-- .elop7ent. The applicant intends to construct 6 single family dwellings with approximately
12,600 sq. ft. of GRFA. The applicant will construct driveways to each of the units. The
s`.ared driveways will be 12 feet wide and will originate from a central fire truck turnaround
(please see site plan). The applicant plans to construct landscaped berms between the
strictures and the South Frontage Road. Approximately 84 new evergreen trees and 66 new
aspen trees will be planted on the site. None of the existing vegetation along Gore Creek will
be removed.
The reason this request is before the Planning and Environmental Commission is because of
a requirement established by an ordinance passed by Town Council soon after the Wei+ \iaif
area was annexed. Ordinance No. 13, Series of 1981, stipulates that major changes t�
development plans for certain developments within the West Vail annexation area be
approved by the PEC. Spruce Creek was included as one of six developments whic,
required to receive PEC approval for any major site planning changes. The Ordinance did not
include any criteria to use when evaluating a site plan change, except that Residential Cluster
w2s considered to be the zone district for development standards. As a result, the PEC
•
August 12, 1991
should determine that the proposal will not create any negative impacts compared to the
•County approval. In the staff review of the proposal, density, environmental concerns, and
public improvements were identified as the three major issues of this proposal.
III. ZONING STATISTICS
A. Zoning: Residential Cluster
B. Site Area: 101,128 sq. ft.
C. Buildable Area:
Total Area: 101,128.0 sq. ft.
Floodplain: - 25,261.8 sq. ft.
40% slope: - 635.0 sa. ft.
Resulting buildable area: 74,531.2 sq. ft.
D. Development Potential:
IV. STAFF CONCERNS
A. Density
Staff believes that the amount of development requested to be bwit on this site is the
most important issue. The zoning statistics listed in the previous section show that in
every case, the current proposal results in less density than what the Residential
• 2
1'iugust 12, 1991
1979
Town of Vail
Eagle County
Residential
Current
Approval
Cluster Zoning
Proposal
Density
12 DUs
6 DUs per acre of
3.5 DUs per
buildable area =
acre of buildable =
10.3 DUs
6.0 DUs
GRFA
21,000 sq. ft.
18,632 sq. ft.
12,300 sq. ft.
(25%o of buildable)
Site Coverage
25,282 sq. ft.
25,282 sq. ft.
7,950 sq. ft.
(25.o c` tcta' area)
Height
33 ft.
33 feet
32 feet
Setbacks
Front'Side'
20/15/15/15
20/15/15/15
26/79/20/100
Side /Rear
Parking
2 spaces per
2.5 spaces per
The parking
1,750 sq. ft.
DU over 2000 sq.
requirement will
ft. of GRFA
be met
IV. STAFF CONCERNS
A. Density
Staff believes that the amount of development requested to be bwit on this site is the
most important issue. The zoning statistics listed in the previous section show that in
every case, the current proposal results in less density than what the Residential
• 2
1'iugust 12, 1991
Cluster zoning standards allow. Furthermore, the two standards regulated by the
County approval, density and GRFA, allow more density than either the RC standards
or the current proposal. Compared to the County approval, the applicant is proposing •
to construct one -half the number of dwelling units and approximately one -half of the
amount of GRFA. Each of the units will be allowed 2,050 sq. ft. of GRFA plus the 225
sq. ft. credit. The developer will not be allowed to transfer GRFA from one lot to
another. Because of the overall reduction in GRFA and number of units, staff believes
the proposal is reasonable.
B. Environmental Issues
The three concerns staff identified regarding environmental issues on this site include
the floodplain, the existing vegetation and wetlands. The applicant has designed the
site plan so that the buildings will be approximately 30 feet back from the 100 -year
floodplain boundary. Because of the generous buffer between the structures and the
floodplain, the 50 -foot Gore Creek setback is maintained without any encroachments.
All of the existing evergreen trees along the stream will be preserved, given the
proposed location of the houses. There are two areas of wetlands which the Army
Corps of Engineers are concerned about. They are approximately 600 sq. ft. each in
size. The Town's position regarding wetlands is that the applicant must provide a letter
from the Corps stating that construction on this site is acceptable and that an adequate
mitigation plan has been provided by the applicant for the wetlands area. Staff
believes that the environmental issues have been adequately addressed, with the
condition that the applicant provide a letter from the Corps of Engineers.
C. Public Improvements
1. The public improvements which concern staff include the existing
overhead utilities, bicycle circulation along the Frontage Road, and the
design of the access drives within the sites. In the past, staff has
consistently required that developers underground any existing overhead
utilities for developments such as this one. In several developments in
East Vail, between the Frontage Road and 1 -70, the developers have
undergrounded the section of overhead utilities adjacent to their
property. In those cases, the applicants were requesting single family
subdivision approvals. They did not need to come before the Planning
and Environmental Commission and were not requesting any variances.
In an effort to be consistent with past decisions, staff believes that the
overhead utilities that are adjacent to this property should be placed
underground. In discussions with the applicant, staff understands that
he would be willing to pay for his portion of undergrounding in
conjunction with a larger effort to place a greater length of existing
overhead utilities underground. The apr'T � ^�-+ rn nl
enough money to cover the cost in an escrow The i awn
would then use the money, after a plan had been established, for
undergrounding as much of the overhea.- ,,:,js as po�.s bye. Tt:
Huskey, with Holy Cross Electric Association, has estimated that the
cost of undergrounding is approximately $50 -75 a linear foot. Given the
3
•
August 12, 1991
length of the northern property line is 380 feet, the cost to the developer
would range between $19,000 and $28,000 for this project. Ted Huskey
did say that Holy Cross Electric would prefer to underground a larger
• segment than just what is adjacent to this lot.
2. The second issue is providing bicycle paths. Staff believes it is
reasonable to request the developer to make public improvements
adjacent to his property which have been called for by Town studies.
The Recreation Trails Master Plan calls for expanded shoulders on the
sides of the Frontage Road for bicycle circulation. The staff believes
that it may be appropriate to reconsider the Master Plan designation for
on- street bike lanes and also consider an off - street path for bicycles
only. At this time, staff is recommending that the applicant provide an
escrow account for the Town to use for construction of bicycle lanes or
paths. This would be used either to construct shoulders, or possibly a
detached path.
3. The access roads within the site have been designed with the concept
of providing as much landscaping as possible. The roadways have
been narrowed to 12 feet in some locations and are as narrow as they
can be and still meet the Fire Department and Public Works' regulations.
Staff believes that the concept of providing the narrow driveways that
access the dwelling units is a good design. Staff believes that the
parking supply is adequate as each house has two interior parking
spaces within each garage, two parking spaces immediately in front of
each unit and an additional guest parking space off the access drive.
• V. CONCLUSION
Is
Staff recommends that the PEC approve the applicants' request for an amended site plan for
Spruce Creek, Phase III. Staff believes that the level of development, specifically GRFA,
density and site coverage, are reasonable. In addition, staff believes that other issues, such
as the environmental concerns and public improvements, have been adequately addressed as
discussed above. Therefore, staff recommends approval with the following conditions:
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Provide an escrow account for the Town to use to underground the utilities
adjacent to this parcel. This account shall be $23,500, which shall cover the
costs of undergrounding in this location. If the surrounding properties are
interested in undergrounding utilities adjacent to their parcels, the Town may
use these funds in cooperation with other properties in a larger effort.
b. Provide $13 „s6,d to the Town of Jai, iur construction of eiiner the on- street biKe
lanes on the chnuldf q of the cotith F►nntage Road or thn !-nnstruction of a
August 12, 1991
C. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has
satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands.
d. Provide documentation from Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused •
electric easement running through the center of the property has been
abandoned.
e. Provide a drainage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town
Engineer.
c:"cnemas 4autrbac.6 12
5 0
August 12, 1991
E
August 12, 1991
Ir
11 �1 - i�S 3 IN'" I^'N,3 A 3 1 fJ
i
I
August 12, 1991
NJ r_'1V uu
I
d
•
•
•
•
•
rt`,
August 12, 1991
I
rt`,
August 12, 1991
i
August 12, 1991
•
•
•
•
i
1_
i
I
0
1 �
1
1L
August 12, 1991
MEMORANDUM
TO: Spruce Creek File •
FROM: Andy Knudtsen
DATE: August 13, 1991
SUBJECT: Phase III Spruce Creek Conditions of Approval
Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
a. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has
satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands.
b. Provide documentation from Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused electric
easement running through the center of the property has been abandoned.
C. Provide a drainage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town Engineer.
d. Provide the Town with $8,000 in cash to be used for bike path construction at any
location between Donovan Park and Dowd Junction.
e. Provide an accurate estimate from Ted Huskey, from Holy Cross Electric Association, •
for the cost of undergrounding the utilities adjacent to this parcel. In addition to the
estimate, the applicant shall establish an escrow account with the appropriate
agreements which the Town may use to underground utilities.
2. Prior to submitting an application for design review, the applicant shall modify the site plan,
and:
a. Move the eastern building 5 feet to the east.
b. Provide 4 more parking spaces, 2 on the east and 2 on the west side of fire truck turn-
around.
The Town shall waive all application fees for employee housing, if the applicant requests any
employee housing within one year of the approval date of this request.
4. All buildings shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as measured from each
foundation.
The total GRFA allowed on this parcel shall be 13,800 sq. ft. Each of the 6 single family
dwelling units shall be allowed 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 225 sq. ft. credit is included in
these numbers, and may not be added to the 2,300 sq. ft. of GRFA allocated to each dwelling
unit. A 2 -car garage, with the corresponding 600 sq. ft. credit, will be allowed to be added to
each of the dwelling units. •
Conditions of Approval - August 12, 1991
EXHIBIT A
►` �_• ORDINANCE N0. 13 ��.?•�`'. .:;..
75 s.
( Series of 1981) frog talc r ^ad
• vast, cc:cr,co 5!557
offrc. a .cs:n C:, -"k
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING ZONING DISTRICTS ON
CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS AND PARCELS OF PROPERTY IN
THE RECENTLY ANNEXED WEST VAIL AREA; ACCEPTING
PRIOR APPROVALS OF THE EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RELATING THERETO; SPECIFYING AMEND= PROCEDURES;
SETTING FORTH CONDITIONS RELATING THERETO; AMENDING
THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP FOR THE TOWN OF VAIL: AND
SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
WHEREAS, the town of Vail, Colorado, recently annexed the West
f Vail area, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, effective on December
31, 1980; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.68 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail sets forth procedures for the imposition of zoning districts
on recently annexed areas; and
WHEREAS, Section 31 -12 -115 (s) C.R.S, 1973, as amended,
requires the Town to bring the newly annexed West Vail area under
its zoning ordinance within ninety (90) days after the effective
date of said annexation; and
WHEREAS, because of certain actions taken by and approvals of
• the Eagle County Commissioners relating to the within specified
properties the Town Council is of the opinion that the zoning
designation for these areas should recognize said approvals and
conditions; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Environmental Commission of the Town
of Vail has considered the zoning to be imposed on the newly annexed
West Vail area at a public hearing and has made a recommendation
relating thereto, to the Town Council; and
q WHEREAS, the Town Council considers that it is in the interest
of the public health, safety and welfare to so zone said property;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN
OF VAIL, THAT:
:•:�,_ , Section 1. Procedures Fulfilled.
The procedures for the determination of the zoning districts to be
imposed on the newly annexed West Vail area as set forth in Chapter
18.68 of the Vail Municipal Code have been fulfilled.
i
•
r V1'L LL111J V. Lllt 11 t'N 11 .:1:IltXVU 0-t'bL V A L L .L1 L: u.
Pursuant to Chapter 16.68 of the Vail Municipal Code, the properties
described in subsections e, f, g, h & i below are a portion of the
West Vail area annexed to the Town through the enactment of Ordinance
No. 43, Series of 1980, of the Town of Vail, Colorado, effective on
the thirty -first day of December, 1980, and hereby zoned as follows:
a. The developments and parcels of property specified below in
Subsections e, f, g, h & i shall be developed in accordance With the
prior agreement approvals and actions of the Eagle County Coamissioners
as the agreements, approvals and actions relate to each development or
parcel of property.
b. The documents and instruments relating to the prior county
approvals, actions and agreements are presently on file in the
Department of Community Development of the Town of Vail and said
approvals, actions and agreements are hereby accepted and approved
by the Town of Vail.
c. All buildings for which a building permit has not been issued,
on the effective date of the annexation of West Vail shall comply with
Design Review Criteria of the Vail Municipal Code prior to the issuance
of a building permit.
d. The Community Development Department may issue staff approvals
for minor changes in site design or other minor aspects of the plan for
any of the specified developments or parcels. These proposed changes
may be approved as presented, approved with conditions or denied by the
Staff with an appeal within 10 days of the Staff decision to the
Planning and Environmental Commission. For major changes, such as
a re- design of a major part of the site, changes as use, density
control, height or other development standards, a Planning and
Environmental Commission review should be required. The procedure
for changes shall be in accordance With Chapter 18.66 of the Vail
Municipal Code.
e. The following developments and parcels of property shall be
subject to the terms of this ordinance:
(1) The Valley, Phases 1 through G.
(2) Spruce Creek Townhouses.
(3) Meadow Creek Condominiums.
•
•
•
,.•.
(4) Vail Intermountain Swim and Tennis Club. i
(5) Briar Patch, Lots G -2, G -5 and G -6
• Lionsridge Subdivision Filing No. 2.
(6) Casa Del Sol Condominiums.
For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approvals,
agreements or actions, the developments and parcels of property specified
in this subsection (e) shall be zoned Residential Cluster (RC).
f. Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 4, shall be subject to the
terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County
Commissioners' approval, agreement or action, this parcel of property
u
shall be zoned Single Family Zone District (SFR) with a special pro-
vision that an employee unit (as defined and restricted in Section 18.13.08C'
of the Vail Municipal Code) will be subject to approvals as per Section
18.13.080. The secondary unit may not exceed one third of the total
Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) allowed on the lot as per the
Single Family Zone District Density Control (Section 18.10.090 of the
Vail Municipal Code) and Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS).
g. Lot G -4, Lionsridge Subdivision, Filing No. 2, has been the
• subject of litigation in the District Court of Eagle County, and a Court
order has been issued regarding the development of this property. The
Town has further approved Resolution #5 of 1981 in regard to a subse-
quent agreement with the owner. The Residential Cluster (RC) Zone
District will be the applicable zone on this property to guide the
future development of the parcel, working within the bounds set by
the Court Order and Resolution No. 5, Series of 1981.
h. Block 10, Vail Intermountain Subdivision and the Elliott Ranch
Subdivision, shall be subject to the terms of this ordinance. For any
zoning purpose beyond the Eagle County Commissioners' approval, agree- i
meat or action, Block 10 and the Elliott Ranch, shall be zoned Primary /
Vail Intermountain, t
Secondary District. Lots 8, 15 & 16 of Block 10, !
shall be zoned Greenbelt & Natural Open Space (GNOS).
i. Vail Commons, Vail Das Shone Filing No. 4, shall be subject
to the terms of this ordinance. For any zoning purpose beyond the
Eagle County Commissioners' agreement, approval or action, Vail Commons
shall be zoned Commercial Core III (CCIII).
Section 3.
As provided in Section 18.08.030 of the Vail Municipal Code, the zoning •
administrator is hereby directed to promptly modify and amend the Official
1 Zoning Map to indicate the zoning specified herein.
Section 4.
If any part, section subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not
affect 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, sub- section, 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 5.
I .
The Council hereby states that this ordinance is necessary for the
protection of the public health, safety and welfare.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED �
ONCE IN FULL, this 3rd day of March, 1981, and a public hearing on this
ordinance shall be held at the regular meeting of the Town Council of
the Town of Vail, Colorado, on the 17th day of March, 1981, at 7:30 p.m.
in the Municipal Building of the Town of Vail. r
71 ' s
gray c r
1.
ATTEST:
own Clerk
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
BY TITLE ONLY 11arch 17, 1981.
ay or U
ATTEST:
•
EAGLE, COLO"DO 81631
TELEPHONE 303/328.7311
BOARD OF COUNTY
CONV,!,ISSIONEHS
Ext 241
0-DMINISTRATION
Ext 241 .
ANIMAL SHELTER
949.4292
ASSESSOR
_ Ext 202
BUILDING IN
INSPECTION
— E
A 226 or 229 Carl Dietz _
CLERK & P.D. Box 388 ,,
R_CORCER Vail, CO. 81657
Ext 2 i 7
COUNTY
ATTORNEY
May 31, 1979
S(j C'
Eat 242 RE: File No. Su- 112 -79 -P - Spruce Creek
_ ENGINEER
Eat 236
At th eeting o 4 May 1979, the Board of County
HEALTH C issioners a your preliminary plan for 33 units
HEALTH approve
_
Ext 238 f 1750 sq. ft. per un't This approval was granted with
ExTEN'5�Or� the agreement tha e path easement would be granted
AGENT ft. setback from the high water mark of
Ex: 247 Gore Creek would be strictly observed. If you have any /
LIERARY questions, please contact this office.
Ext 255
- LiC HEALTH
to Ext 252
- ail ti7u•5t`:44
P LAN N1r G
Ea; 226 or 229
- PURCHASIOdG/
PERS(�''NEL
Ext 245
R0 D L FRIDGE
Ext 237
SHERIFF
TB /,ik
Eag'e Ext 211
B25a1t 927.3244
Giiroan 827.5751
cc:
SOCIAL SERVICES
328.6328
TREASURER
Eri 201
,i
�s
�. e
Thomas Boni
Asst. Director of Planning
Board of County Commissioners
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission •
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: October 14, 1991
SUBJECT: Notification of Modifications Made to Spruce Creek, Phase III Site Plan
Applicant: Mike Lauterbach
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
✓ cf.., Y
W
On August 12, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a development
plan for the third and final phase of Spruce Creek. Mike Lauterbach, the applicant, had
proposed six single - family homes, each with 2,300 sq. ft. This development plan was a
reduction in density and GRFA from the 1979 Eagle County approval.
After the PEC approval, the applicant re- evaluated the proposal, and decided that it would be
better to delete one dwelling unit from the plan. The total GRFA for the site would remain the
same. The difference is that it is divided among five single- family dwelling units instead of six.
The attached sheet shows the conditions of approval which the PEC placed on the project.
The last condition deals with GRFA, and the changes discussed above have been •
incorporated into that condition.
Staff approved the proposed development plan change, with the understanding that staff
would notify the PEC of the change. If the PEC would like to review the staff decision, the
PEC may request a more thorough review.
•
October 14, 1991
I . Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall:
• a. Provide a letter from the Army Corps of Engineers stating that the applicant has
satisfied the requirements for developing a site partially covered by wetlands.
b. Provide documentation from Holy Cross Electric Association that the unused
electric easement running through the center of the property has been
abandoned.
C. Provide a dralinage plan of the site for the review and approval of the Town
Engineer.
d. Provide the Town with $8,000 in cash to be used for bike path constriction at
any location between Donovan Park and Dowd Junction.
e. Provide an accurate estimate from Ted Huskey, from Holy Cross Electric
Association, for the cost of undergrounding the utilities adjacent to this parcel.
In addition to the estimate, the applicant shall establish an escrow account with
the appropriate agreements which the Town may use to underground utilities.
2. Prior to submitting an application for design review, the applicant shall modify the site
plan, and:
a. Move the eastem building 5 feet to the east.
b. Provide 4 more parking spaces, 2 on the east and 2 on the west side of fire
•
truck turn - around.
3. The Town shall waive all application fees for employee housing, if the applicant
requests any employee housing within one year of the approval date of this request.
4. All buildings shall be separated by a minimum distance of 10 feet, as measured from
each foundation.
5. The total GRFA allowed on this parcel shall be 13,800 sq. ft. Each of the 6 5 single
family dwelling units shall be allowed X388 2,750 sq. ft. of GRFA. The 225 sq. ft.
credit is included in these numbers, and may not be added to the 2;388 2,760 sq. ft. of
GRFA allocated to each dwelling unit. A 2 -car garage, with the corresponding 600 sq.
ft. credit, will be allowed to be added to each of the dwelling units.
Opeclme moss pru ce 014
October 14, 1991
� owµ
� � ) ` � i ' r"A %�•.'�\ �;; `fir. � ��:> ' � _
.11,E ( i
At
ilk
Ir �
r
LJ
October 14, 1991
M
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to amend the development plan for the Vail Point Townhomes
(formerly the Talon Townhomes), 1881 Lionsridge Loop /Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot
27, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Third Filing.
Applicant: Parkwood Realty Company/Vail Point Condominium Association/
Represented by Steve Gensler
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Y{y. •:.�::::..:.... m:::: x :+ vvv.•.u..v :i.;• :yr.:: ;0^ f.•%� 'H.S f +' :. vx?? ti?{• ?ii:.? ?r { ?•i:4:4:4i':L4iiii:i•:
+. i�: �ii�i5<:?.'•: ti:': �;:: �iiv::. v::. v:::: G::, f,.:. v:• i:• i:.,.,.;, fry .::,r ..:...:::::::.�::f..r: ?.}• f.},: i. 4/..' �`. f2�' �'°•.<.•.- 6? .i:.:•:ix.:: ?- ::.:•r::...G.f /., %p' ...�i.. ....•...... :.:......................
.:.. ............................... ......................... �.ffff.••.: ?v..:.: ? {f,. f�%fQ ...... ...rx.:........................
}:: isviiii4iii :• }iiiiy }:?4:Liiiiiy;' ?.: }i: - iii:.; -::: ?::::::: ?:::::::::: ii:•i ?: ii:v: :v::.v::: ............ .:::::::::::::: :..::w:::, �:... ............ ....... ....... ��.. .....
: ri:::: k:%`::;::'::` �:::; �: fi; �::%::;:::<::::::::::% ri:" s3`?: �?.$:::::':':'-':,:; y::::::; i:;.:::.' t;:; i:%::::;:;'% �:::; i�:; �i;•;:;: n.`;: �: f::;:;< v>: ii:':::{:::::,>.:::::`• r:::;:;<'<::`:;::`:% �' i::: R:'; ':::;::::r:;`•.Y:;:!i:;':ii ? ?,: �..... :..:. ::! :..::.:.:.:.::::: i:: �: �: i:£; :;::::::::::::.:;:::'�:' +' >:i::
I. BACKGROUND ON THE VAIL POINT PROJECT
The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly the Talon Townhomes), Phases I, II and III,
was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1979
addresses the annexation. Medium Density Multiple Family zoning was applied to the
• development with conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. Vail Point has a specific
review process which was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail.
The annexation agreement stipulates the development plan must be approved by the Town
Council at a worksession. Even though the project is similar to a Special Development
District, the approval process is different in that the Town Council reviews the development
plan at a worksession. Any significant changes to the development plan must first go to the
Planning and Environmental Commission and then to the Town Council for final approval.
The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of two parcels. Phases I and II are
located on the Lot 1, Block 3 parcel which is on the north side of Lion's Ridge Loop, and
Phase III is located on the Lot 27, Block 2 parcel which is across the street on the south side
of Lion's Ridge Loop. Phase I construction, which includes twenty dwelling units having a total
GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. is completed and final Certificates of Occupancy have been .issued.
As originally approved, Phase II called for the construction of twenty dwelling units having a
total GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the PEC approved a modification to this
plan to increase the GRFA in Phase II by 750 sq. ft. This 750 sq. ft. was deducted from the
total allowable GRFA for Phase III. The current (July, 1990) DRB approved Phase II
development plan calls for the construction of nineteen dwelling units having a total GRFA of
28,795 sq. ft. Through the completion of Buildings 1 and 3 in 1990 -91, ten of the nineteen
units in Phase II were constructed. The foundations for the four unit - Building 2 were
constructed several years ago, under the original project's building permit. The applicant
proposes to remove and replace these foundations in keeping with the May, 1990 RBD, Inc.,
Engineering Consultants' study. (This study was further updated by letter on April 17, 1992.)
•
There has been no construction activity on the five unit- Building 4 or the recreation amenities '
package. The Phase III land planning approval process is proposed to begin in 1993. •
II. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Amend the development plan to allow for the deletion of one unit from
Phase IL
In 1990 -91, a total of ten units were constructed in Phase II Buildings 1 and 3. The
development activity remaining in Phase II is the construction of Buildings 2 and 4 (a
total of nine units) and the construction of the recreation amenities package. Under
the existing approved development plan, Building 2 construction would consist of four
units in one building on existing /repaired/replaced foundations and Building 4
construction would consist of five units in one building. The applicant proposes to
modify the development plan to change Building 4 construction to consist of 2 duplex
units, for a total of 4 units in 2 buildings (Building 4 and a new Building 5). Phase II
construction will also involve completing the construction of the recreation amenities
package, which includes a clubhouse, pool area, hot tub and tot lot. Please see the
current and proposed site plans attached to this memo.
B. A request for a decrease In GRFA for Phase II of 167 sq. ft.
Because of decreasing the density of the Phase II development, the applicant is
requesting approval to decrease the GRFA for Phase II by 167 sq. ft. The developer is •
requesting this 167 sq. ft. reduction in square footage be transferred back to the total
allowable GRFA for Phase III. As previously stated, in 1989, the PEC approved a
request for an increase in GRFA for Phase II of 750 sq. ft. This 750 sq. ft. was
transferred from the total allowable GRFA for Phase III on Lot 27. Through this
request, the applicant would return the GRFA which will not be utilized in Phase II back
to Phase III. Currently, the allowable GRFA for Phase III is 19,445 sq. ft. in 15 units.
Under the proposed amendment, the allowable GRFA for Phase III would become
19,611 sq. ft.
C. A request to Increase the GRFA for Phase III by 167 sq. ft.
Phase III is undeveloped. The approved plan allows for fifteen dwelling units having a
total GRFA of 19,445 sq. ft. (This 19,445 takes into account the transfer of 750 sq. ft.
of GRFA from Phase III to Phase II.) Medium Density Multiple Family zoning
standards apply to the property for setbacks, parking, etc. On September 11, 1989,
the PEC reviewed a conceptual site plan for Phase III. In order to begin Phase III
construction, the developer must submit a specific development plan which would
include a site plan, elevations of the units, floor plans of the units, landscape plan,
circulation plan, and parking for review and approval by the Planning Commission and
the Town Council
2 0
D. A request to amend the recreation amenities package
• The applicant is requesting approval of the relocation and redesign of the amenity
package location and the modifications to Building 4 because, according to the
applicant, the condition of the soil is such that if the amenity package were to be
constructed in the previously approved location, it would cause the road to collapse.
The amenities recreation package was approved by DRB on September 15, 1990.
The approved development plan calls for a clubhouse with a fireplace, a small tot lot, a
recreation building, a pool, and a hot tub to be located east of Buildings 4 and west of
Phase I Lot 21. Under the proposed plan, the recreation amenities package would be
located in the area between Buildings 4 and a new building, Building 5 (the two duplex
buildings).
The following is a summary of the proposed recreation amenities package:
1. A 2 -story clubhouse having a total square footage of 1,226 sq. ft. The
first floor would include locker rooms. The second floor would be a
community room to be used by owners of the project. The fireplace has
been eliminated.
2. A swimming pool area of approximately 1,648 sq. ft.
3. A swimming pool of 363 sq. ft.
4. A tot lot area of 770 sq. ft. The tot lot equipment includes a "fireman's
• center" wood and metal climbing feature and two tire swings.
5. A hot tub.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. A request to amend the development plan to allow for the deletion of one
unit from Phase II.
Staff recommends approval of the phasing plan to modification to allow the deletion of
1 unit from Phase II and the modification of the configuration. of Building 4 from 1
building containing 5 units to two duplex structures (Buildings 4 and a new Building 5)
with the condition the applicant regrade and revegetate Lot 27 in conformance with the
December 31, 1990 DRB approval. This regrading and revegetation work must be
completed prior to the Town's release of any building permits.
B. A request for a decrease In GRFA for Phase II of 167 sq. ft.
Staff recommends approval of the request to transfer 167 sq. ft. of GRFA from Phase
II back to Phase III. As previously stated, transferring this 167 sq. ft. of GRFA back to
Phase III will result in no net increase in GRFA for the project. As a result, Phase II
total GRFA would be 28,628 sq. ft., and Phase III GRFA would be 19,611 sq. ft.
0 3
Please note, final GRFA calculations at the time of building permit will determine the i
GRFA which may be transferred to Phase III. •
C. A request to amend the recreation amenities package
Staff recommends approval of the redesign and relocation of the recreation amenities.
Staff does have a concern regarding the proposed tot lot location. The proposed tot lot
location is east of Phase II Building 1 and west of Phase 1 Lot 36. This location is
uphill from and across the road from the clubhouse /pool /hot tub. Extensive regrading
is required to accommodate the tot lot. Staff recommends the applicant consider two
possible alternative locations for the tot lot. The first alternative involves locating the
tot lot in the same location as the pool. It appears this can be accomplished if the hot
tub is eliminated or relocated closer to the clubhouse and the pool shifted to the east.
Building 5 should also be shifted to the east as much as possible to allow more room
for the pool and tot lot. A second alternative would be to locate the tot lot on Phase I,
between Lots 30 and 31. This appears to have been the original proposed location for
the tot lot. Under both alternatives, staff would like to see seating, shade trees and
grass associated with the tot lot. We believe these alternative locations can be
finalized by the DRB.
In keeping with the September, 1990 DRB approved amenity package proposal, the
applicant will be installing the following plant material in conjunction with this final
buildout of Phase II:
8 Blue Spruce, 6' to 8'
26 Aspen, 2" to 3" caliper •
8 Tabletop Juniper, 5 gallon
11 Serviceberry, 5 gallon
Under the approved plan, the recreation amenities package must receive a final
Certificate of Occupancy prior to the issuance of any temporary or final Certificates of
Occupancy for any of the units associated with Buildings 2, 4 and/or 5.
D. A request to Increase the GRFA for Phase III by 167 sq. ft.
As previously stated, staff recommends approval of the request to transfer 167 sq. ft.
of GRFA from Phase II back to Phase III.
In summary, the staff supports the above amendments to the development plan for Phase II
and III of the Vail Point Townhouse development.
cApec\memos \vai fpnt.427
4 0
r
1
•
•
a
F O
z
CD
a
C:
O
d
cf)
L= c
�°
�c
Q!Y!pp
a
RN
•e ho
VIM
'A MAW
M
y._
t� ►
JR. Y
�r �`i tit• -. .y
r7..f •t
■� 4. 'e► _ � .�.�tl�����i.ftle����i'fl'�:tz�
Li
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to Special Development
District No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail
Village First Filing/100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
.......... n: v:. � :.......... ............................... :.•• ::w::::.................... .....:::::: ::w::::; .......... ........ .......... ...... f::.......................... .f. ?: {•::•i }Yf. ? ; {m „ ? { ? ?ry;:'1.r t ?.wa.:f
•.•rrf?: r:Ux r
.f..v
. {ffr•
f r: �•�.. n,, f.... :ti- :Uri..
.Hx: ..f.
:•;:•;:•:: u;?.»:;.::•::•::•::•::•:::•}}:;:-:::•:»»:-::•;:•;:•}:•}:•>:<.::.::<• a:::•::•::•>:•::•;:{.;:{{.::.>:->:-::•>:•>:•::•:::»:•}:.;:.::. }:.: :.>:�>: ?:i:�:•::•::::�i:�i: k:;:<:: i:: ii:; �` 5::::: S:; i::: �;::;: �: Y`.;: ri :�i::::ihi:�is :.......::.::.:. �::....
.{r f`••• .rr
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Josef Staufer, owner and operator of the Vail Village Inn, has requested a minor amendment
to the existing Special Development District No. 6. This minor amendment is requested
• pursuant to Chapter 18.40. 100 - Amendment Procedures, which provides for minor
modifications which are consistent with the design criteria outlined in the SDD section of the
zoning code. The Town zoning code defines "Minor Amendment” as meaning:
"[M]odifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the
basic intent or character of the approved Special Development District, and are
consistent with the design criteria of the SDD chapter. Minor amendments
may include ... changes to gross floor area (excluding residential uses) of not
more than 5% of the approved square footage of retail, office; common areas
and other non - residential floor area."
The proposed minor amendment for the Vail Village Inn is for 1,819 sq. ft. of additional
common area. The breakdown of the proposed additional common areas is as follows:
1. Level 1:
261 sq. ft.
2. Level 2:
432 sq. ft.
3. Level 3:
153 sq. ft.
4. Level 4:
123 sq. ft.
5. Attic Area:
850 sq. ft.
Total Common Area Added:
1,819 sq. ft.
• 1
• The additional common areas proposed include hallways, "back of the house" areas, such as
housekeepers' closets, and mechanical and equipment spaces. None of the common areas
proposed would increase the site coverage or height of the building, as all of these areas
either have floor area above or below them, or roof or attic area above them.
II. STAFF DECISION
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and has approved the minor amendment to SDD
No. 6, pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100(A). The staff has found that the proposed modifications
to the Vail Village Inn Phase IV -A would not alter the basic intent or character of the
approved Special Development District, and that the proposed modifications are consistent
with the design criteria of the SDD chapter. We also find that the gross floor area of the
changes does not exceed 5% of the approved square footage of retail, office, and other
common areas.
c \pec\memos \wi.427
•
40 2
V JVJL enPierceBriner
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS
April 13, 1992
40 Mike Mollica
Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, CO 81657
Re: Minor Amendment
Vail Village Inn Phase IV A
Dear Mike:
Per our conversation Friday, I have enclosed an Application for a
"Minor Amendment" to the Phase IV A Vail Village Inn Special De-
velopment District. The "Minor Amendment" involves the addition
of less than 5 percent of nonresidential area approved for the
Special Development District. These areas were added during the
development of the building plans from their Schematic Design con-
dition to their "Working Drawing" condition. The areas added in-
clude hallways, maid's closets, and mechanical equipment spaces.
The Application includes plans delineating the "added areas ", list
of Adjacent Property Owner's, a check for the Application Fee and
the Application itself.
The area added to Level 1 is 261 square feet. The area added to
Level 2 and 3 are 432 square feet and 153 square feet respec-
tively. There is an elevator and mechanical equipment room above
the elevator that contains 123 square feet. We are also planning
to place some mechanical equipment above the hotel rooms in Build-
ing 4. Although the ceiling heights are not fully determined for
these hotel rooms I can safely predict the area to be less than
850 square feet. The total "area added" is 1,819 square feet.
Although we have not conducted a thorough study of the "non-
residential" area of the entire Special Development District I,
offer the following brief summary of area we previously calcu-
lated:
Phase I, II, and III 25,338 sq. ft.*
Phase V 11,938 sq. ft.
Food & Deli 1,800 sq. ft.*
39,076 sq. ft.
Phase IV A
Building 3 (1st & 2nd floor) 5,830 sq. ft.
Building 4 (1st floor) 4,157 sq. ft.
9,987 sq. ft.
* Area derived from "Parking Study ". This total, 49,063 sq. ft.,
although not comprehensive, is adequate to permit "Minor Amend-
ment" status for our proposed "added area" (49063 x .05 = 2453 sq.
ft., compared to 1819 square feet proposed).
•
Pg. 1
MOLICA.DOC
POST OFFICE BOX 57 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAIL COLORADO 81658 303 476 6342 FAX 303 476 4901
P"U Mraa wc. ow Erna raa �
n
CT,
CTI
CD
0
O
•
•
Pg. 2
MOLICA.DOC
MtzlenPierceMner
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING INTERIORS
As we discussed on Friday, we are expecting staff approval of this
"Minor Amendment" at your staff meeting tomorrow. I understand
you will send out notification of your approval to the adjacent
Property Owners and that the approval will appear on the list of
Staff Approvals on the April 27th Planning and Environmental Com-
mission meeting addenda, although a formal PEC review is not re-
quired.
I will make the final adjustments to the plans that we discussed
on Friday regarding Zoning matters and have them to you early this
week. z /
ga d
I F. Pierce
hitect
POST OFFICE BOX 57 1000 LIONSRIDGE LOOP VAIL COLORADO 81658 303 476 6342 FAX 303 476 4901
p0aMTaa Me. ouMT2" Pon 90 a
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A review of a staff approval of a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade
Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of
Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, and more
specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/a NE 1 /a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th
principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of
said Section 12 bears S 42'50'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85'43'14" E 89.84 ft:
thence S 57 °25'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32 °59'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S
65 031'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S 69 001'36" W 103.02 ft: thence N 23 °24'09" W
319.09 ft to the point of beginning.
• Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
East -West Partners, developer of the Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades in Area A of Cascade
Village, has requested a minor amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 6.
This minor amendment is requested pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100 - Amendment Procedures,
which provides for minor modifications which are consistent with the design criteria outlined
in the SDD section of the zoning code. The Town zoning code defines "Minor Amendment"
as meaning:
"[M]odifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the
basic intent or character of the approved Special Development District, and are
consistent with the design criteria of the SDD chapter. Minor amendments
may include, but are not limited to, variations of not more than five feet to
approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans
that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the
LI
• special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding
residential uses) of not more than 5% of the approved square footage of retail,
office, common areas and other non - residential floor area."
The minor amendment is requested for changes to the approved landscape plan. There are
three amendments. The first changes the landscaping in the center circle of the common
driveway to at grade planting. The second and third changes involve the retaining walls
along the east property line. As approved, the retaining walls would have been built with
boulders. The landscaping and boulder retaining walls as proposed would have encroached
on the Westin property. The applicant has been unable to obtain the necessary permission to
allow these encroachments. A change to the grading/retaining plan is necessary in order for
the project to move forward.
The revised plan includes a change in materials from boulders to stucco and stone. The
landscaping has also been changed accordingly. (See attached plan.) In no case will the
walls exceed 6 feet in height. As proposed, the retaining walls adjacent to the roadway
would be a 3 -foot stone wall with a landscape step of 3 -4 feet with a 5 -foot stucco wall
behind. Both walls will be located on the Cosgriff parcel. The second wall located to the
east of the southeast unit would be entirely stucco and have a maximum height of 6 feet as
measured from grade.
• II. STAFF DECISION
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and has approved the minor amendment to SDD
No. 6, pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100(A). The staff has found that the proposed modifications
to the Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades parcel would not alter the basic intent or character of the
approved Special Development District, and that the proposed modifications are consistent
with the design criteria of the SDD chapter.
c:\pe0memos\cascade.427
• 2
b o� Cad E5
Ah
ad
°a 1
Iz
zo �c � d� E� �i $ `� � S� G wm� � c� •.
N n • �n n d w �m wt, (',
� w
u x
rcNU O \ V%
(� W ; z i+ /p 000
W <W
r
i
�WW � 1 �• it � Q� /� / /// s
W `\
min y i� /." \ \� •. \n
Z 1 \P
N�A v O S rcfri o'
Z o00 �.
s \
i
' e R
\
ry all.
I�x
\ 1
•
a.�3 � � ?;��` � :� ; �$�'..�Di � 3':� t� +�p ' ' i.r y; � �. I I'I ° � F . :t•'
J
O
ZO
Y6 O
7 ,
3
vo
Ub
Imam
All
b06 �9 1
• •-,�
0 71 e o
Lij
ku
tL
FFF K �ry N
2S t(�p ,9 •r
I o �
I z
w� N
I tIL 2 � S
Ir
r,, Y -4 Jo
t,% s� " �l��k�kl�i�AA3��A . � . ��� �.• .��� �,:� `� { � lily• ;'
eeraeiSapnnr i 3
•'lweja�' a• �:' •.7. eiai }�
AUM
_ 'mss lS * y' -!'..k �• -a y �: . �:'�:, �' �a! i S :, �� .:$c,r;�
'
W
Z ,
W
W
.. S
N
9
�1
>U
a
g
rr,
G `R
`S
,,,o■
�
al
S_w
_w
j
(C �� ^A�ryw
R�► a'y'I�MPIPq ii�ll�
1
�
,((.-.�``
r�4RL
p. pp ttyy
U88a igIk
y�
qrw
ti,
W
Z ,
W
W
.. S
N
9
�1
>U
a
g
rr,
G `R
`S
,,,o■
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 11, 1992
AGENDA
1:OOPM
Site Visits
1:30PM
Worksession
2:OOPM
Public Hearing
Site Visits
Worksession
A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail
Team Tennis facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead
Skier Bridge and north of West Forest Road on the existing tennis
courts, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of
the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block 2, Vail
Village 6th Filing, according to the map thereof recorded under
Reception No. 99380 in the office of the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerk
and Recorder bears S80 050'59 "W 103.58 ft; thence N08 009'53 "W
126.74 ft; thence N80 053'20 "E 286.55 ft; thence S07 047'19 "E 127.66 ft;
thence S81 °04'13:W 285.70 ft to the point of beginning, containing 0.835
acres, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Mike Mollica
Public Hearing
A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for
the Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing /2920
Booth Creek Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell Pitto
Planner: Mike Mollica
1. 2. A request to expand a previously approved conditional use permit
allowing a public utility and a request for a variance from Section
18.58.320 regulating satesilite dish antennas for 501 N. Frontage Road
West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: U.S. West New Vector
Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Jill Kammerer
•
3. A request to rezone the "Ski Museum" pocket park site from Public
Accommodation to Public Use District. The site is located at the
northwest intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, and more
specifically described as follows:
A part of Lot "B ", Amended Map of Vail Village, Second Filing, County of
Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 7, Township 5 South,
Range 80 West of the 6th P.M.: thence Southerly along the East Line of
said Section 7 a distance of 390.78 ft; thence on an angle to the right of
90 000'00" a distance of 25.00 ft to a point on the East Line of said Lot
"B ", said point being 73.00 feet Northerly from the SE corner of said Lot
"B" and the true point of beginning; thence continuing along the
aforesaid course a distance of 98.75 ft to a point on the Southwesterly
line of said Lot "B ", which is the Northeasterly line of W. Meadow Dr.;
thence on an angle to the left of 121043'21 " and along the curve to the
right having a radius of 175.00 feet and a central angle of 02 006'21 and
an arc distance of 6.43 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing along
said tangent a distance of 33.97 ft to a point of curve; thence on a curve
to the left having a radius of 75.00 ft and a central angle of 60 023'00"
and an arc distance of 79.04 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing
along said tangent a distance of 13.48 ft to the Southeasterly corner of
said Lot "B ", said corner being 25.00 ft Westerly of the East line of said
Section 7; thence on an angle to the left of 90 °00'00" and along the
Easterly line of said Lot "B" and along a line parallel to the East line of
said Section 7 a distance of 73.00 ft to the true point of beginning, more
generally known as NW corner of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive,
Vail, Colorado.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
4. A discussion concerning the roof form for Special Development District
No. 6, Phase IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village
First Filing /100 East Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
5. Approval of April 27, 1992 meeting minutes.
M
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 11, 1992
SUBJECT: Tennis Stadium Complex for Vail Team Tennis/Vail Eagles
Applicants: Vail Recreation District
Vail Associates
Roy Tucker, General Manager of Vail Team Tennis
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Recreation District is proposing to construct a temporary tennis stadium
complex on the Lionshead tennis courts located to the north of West Forest Road and
southwest of the Lionshead skier bridge. The stadium complex will be used for the
Vail Team Tennis professional program this summer only The stadium complex is
located on property owned by Vail Associates, however the Vail Recreation District has
a lease agreement to manage and operate the tennis courts.
The facility is proposed to be in place between June 15 and August 15, 1992. Tennis
matches are proposed to be held approximately 7 times during the summer at this site
between 7:00PM and 9:30PM. The seating capacity of the proposed tennis facility
would be approximately 3,100 persons. The facility would be approximately 20 feet
high at its highest point (top of the bleachers). Temporary lights are also requested for
the courts and for the pedestrian path from the Lionshead skier bridge up to the tennis
facility. A vending area, sponsors' tent, team dressing room and restrooms are also
proposed. The team dressing room and restrooms are proposed to be located in
portable trailers 16 -18 feet long. Please see the attached site plan for more
information on the layout of the facility.
Because the site for the stadium complex is located on property which is zoned
Agricultural /Open Space, a conditional use permit is required. This section of the
code, Section 18.32.020 - Conditional Uses, states:
"Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which
involves assembly of more than 200 persons together in one building or
group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational
facility."
OUTLINE OF USE
• TENNIS COURTS AT LIONSHEAD
Land owned bv: Vail Associates
Land leased by: Vail Recreation District (Multi year lease.)
Site to be used bv: The Vail Eagles, Vails first professional sports team. The Vail
Eagles are members of the professional TEAMTENNIS league.
Co: A temporary facility where World Class tennis can be
showcased in Vail.
NOTE: All structures used for this facility are designed for
temporary use.
•Z •
Within court area - Court 1 -5
• Court 1: Concession tents and sponsor booths.
Courts 2 and 4 : Temporary seats (box seats and bleachers)
Temporary lights (four poles)
Court 3: Center court for match play.
Court 5: Sponsor tents (food and beverage)
NOTE: Temporary lights are necessary for Nationally televised match on July 17.
Vail vs. Jimmy Connors and the Los Angeles Strings.
Also, as safeguard against rain delays', matches start at 7:00 p.m..
•.. . ...
1.) Temporary trailers for locker room facilities for players.
2.) Temporary self contained trailers for toilet facilities
NOTE: Trailers will be "covered" by lattice work or screening for visual
• appearance.
• 3.) Two or three small awning style tents
4.) Scoreboard (indicating team scores)
Within stadium complex:
1.) Sound System (public address)
2.) Sponsor banners
3.) 4' to 6' T.V. platform for national telecast
4.) Platform on north end of center court for presentation ceremonies. Temporary
platform approximately 6'X 10' wide X 20' in length.
Entrance and exit to stadium shall be from the Town of Vail's Lionshead parking
structure , through the Lionshead Mall and across the bridge. Area above the bridge
will have ski fencing to create a large corridor for controlled access to stadium.
Time Frames
The Vail Eagles have approximately 90 days before their first match. It is imperative
that within 30 days, 45 days at the maximum, all approvals necessary for operations
should be completed. Obviously, expediting all approvals for the use of the area is
critical.
0
•
DATE
THE VAIL EAGLES
1992 HOME SCHEDULE
FRIDAY, JULY 10
TUESDAY, JULY 14
FRIDAY, JULY 17
SATURDAY, JULY 18
FRIDAY, JULY 24
SATURDAY, JULY 25
SATURDAY, AUGUST
•
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4
THURSDAY, AUGUST
SATURDAY, AUGUST
MATCH
WICHITA at VAIL
NEWPORT BEACH at VAIL
LOS ANGELES at VAIL
SACRAMENTO at VAIL
PHOENIX at VAIL
NEW JERSEY at VAIL
RALEIGH at VAIL
PLAYOFFS
DIVISIONAL SEMIFINALS
6 DIVISIONAL FINALS
8 CHAMPIONSHIP
•
V
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Braver Creel(" Resorts
April 20, 1992
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
To the Vail Town Council:
On behalf of Vail Associates, I would like to express support for the
Vail Eagles, of the World Team Tennis League and their request to base
their operations out of Lionshead. The exposure the Eagles will bring
here this summer will greatly assist the Vail Valley Marketing Board's
efforts in promoting the Valley as a summer destination. Vail Associates
is also supporting the Vail Eagle's financially, via staff support,
and through the use of our operational facilities.
I feel strongly that if all entities within Vail support the Eagles,
that they will be successful in helping to establish the area as summer
tennis center.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the Vail Eagles.
They will surely raise the level of quality summer sporting events found
in the Valley.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATESV INC.
n`�1 Mgrer s (/
Vice President Marketing
KM/ ss
cc: Carol Frangos
George Gillett
Roy Tucker
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • USA — (303) 476 -5601
ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR.
ONE FINANCIAL PLACE
SUITE 1116
CHICAGO, IL. 60605
TEL.: (312) 663 -7086
May 4, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Recreation District.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Confirming our conversation today regarding.the hearing
scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail
Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing,
I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility.
My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent to the lot border-
ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court
was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium
on the elevated court would raise an obstruction that would
seriously block the view from both my house and a house that
I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously
effect the market value of the lot. Currently I am paying
taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of
$6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road
from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid,
the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort that will
ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this'
unnecessary project.
Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of
the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person.
I would like to be advised of the results.
Sincer iy r Rob rt S. n Sr.G
• RSE /msh
ROBERTS. ENGELMAN, SR.
• ONE FINANCIAL PLACE
SUITE 1116
CHICAGO, IL. 60605
TEL.: (312) 663 -70£36
May 4, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Recreation District
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Confirming our conversation today regarding,the hearing
scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail
Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing,
I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility.
My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent to the lot border-
ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court
was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium
on the elevated court would raise an obstruction that would
seriously block the view from both my house and a house that
I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously
effect the market value of the lot. Currently I am paying
taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of
$6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road
from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid,
the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort that will
ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this'
unnecessary project.
Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of
the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary.,
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person.
I would like to be advised of the results.
Sincerely
Rob rt S. n elma
• RSE /msh
ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR.
ONE FINANCIAL PLACE
SUITE 1116
CHICAGO, IL. 60605
TEL.: (312) 663 -7086
May 4, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Recreation District.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Confirming our conversation today regarding.the hearing
scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail
Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing,
I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility.
My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent to the lot border-
ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court
was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium
on the elevated court would raise an obstruction that would
seriously block the view from both my house and a house that
I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously
effect the market value of the lot. Currently I am paying
taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of
$6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road
from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid,
the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort that will
ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this'
unnecessary project.
Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of
the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person.
I would like to be advised of the results.
Sincer kne
Rob rt
RSEi msh
C,
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 5, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the
Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing /2920 Booth Creek
Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell Pitto
Planner: Mike Mollica
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On April 8, 1991 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a side
setback variance in order to allow for an expansion to an existing single family
residence. The approved setback variance would allow for the addition to encroach 10
•
feet -6 inches into the required 15 -foot side yard setback.
The applicant has indicated in the attached letter dated April 7, 1992, that should this
variance extension be approved, they propose to construct the addition this summer.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the previously approved side
setback variance, based on the attached PEC memo dated April 8, 1991 and subject
to the conditions of approval as indicated in the PEC meeting minutes dated April 8,
1991. The two conditions of approval are as follows:
That the applicant place additional landscaping along the south elevation of the
proposed addition. If any trees are removed during the construction process,
they shall be replanted or replaced.
2. That the new roof ridge of the proposed addition not exceed the height of the
existing roof ridge.
If the PEC approves this variance extension request, the side setback variance
approval would then be valid until April 8, 1994.
cApe6memos \pltto.511
•
1 MEMORANDIIM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: April 8, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance, Pitto Residence, Lot
3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing /2920 Booth
Creek Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell Pitto
r•:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to
expand their existing single family residence. A two story
expansion is proposed to the south of the existing home. On the
first floor, a family room, breakfast nook, bathroom and two -car
garage are proposed to be added. The second floor will include
an expanded master bedroom with master bath, walk -in closet, and
an office /dressing area. Two smaller bedrooms with baths would
be located a half level below the master bedroom, immediately to
the north.
This lot is located in the Two- Family Residential Zone District.
• With the exception of this request for a side setback variance,
no additional variances are requested, nor is there a request to
utilize the 250 Ordinance.
The applicant is proposing an addition which will encroach 101 -611
into the required 15 foot side yard setback. This setback area
is located on the south side of the lot, and parallels Gore
Creek, located further to the south.
•
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Zone District: Two - Family Residential
Lot Size: 17,315 sq. ft.
Allowable GRFA:
Existing GRFA:
Proposed GRFA:
Total GRFA:
4,831.5 sq. ft.
2,483 sq. ft.
1.916 sg. ft.
4,399 sq. ft.
Remaining GRFA After Proposed Expansion:
1
432.5 sq. ft.
The above GRFA calculations were determined using the "revised
definition of GRFA", which went into effect as of January 1, •
1991.
Site Coverage:
Total Allowable: 3,463
Existing: 2,419
Proposed: 1,044
Total: 3,463
Again, the above site coverage
the" revised site coverage def
went into effect as of January
III. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
sq. ft. or 20%
sq. ft.
sa. ft.
sq. ft. or 20%
numbers were determined by using
inition ", which was adopted and
1, 1991.
On May 22, 1989, the Planning and Environmental Commission
reviewed a similar request by Russ Pitto for a side setback
variance. The request, at that time, was also for a 10' -6"
encroachment into the required 15 foot side setback area. The
staff recommendation for Mr. Pitto's request was for denial.
The Planning and Environmental Commission, by a vote of 6 -0 -1
(Pam Hopkins abstaining), voted to approve the applicant's
request, with findings that the addition, as proposed, would have .
less of an impact on the adjacent stream, as well as on
neighboring properties. One condition of approval was that no
part of the proposed addition be any higher than the existing
ridge. (A copy of the meeting minutes is attached for your
information.)
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of
the Vail Municipal Code, the Community Development
Department recommends denial of the requested variance based
on 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.
Staff acknowledges that the applicant's requested
encroachment will have little impact upon other
existing residential uses in this area. We do feel,
however, that the proposed addition will have a
negative impact on the Gore Creek stream tract
immediately to the south of Lot 3. Although the stream
2 is
• tract is not owned by the Town of Vail (it is owned by
Vail Associates), we believe this open space area
should be maintained as much as possible for use by the
general public. Further, we believe the sensitive
environment of the stream tract should be protected
from encroaching development, and should be preserved
in its natural state.
It is also recognized by staff that the Upper Eagle
Valley Water and Sanitation District has constructed
utility facilities (i.e., a pump station with concrete
vaults) immediately'adjacent to the creek and south of
Lot 3, which certainly detract from the natural
character of the stream corridor. However, the
planning staff believes the encroachment of additional
development into this natural area, adjacent to the
stream tract, is not justified.
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
• It is the staff's opinion that the applicant has some
options to further develop this property without
encroaching into any of the required setback areas. We
believe the applicant could expand his home by pushing
out to the north and west, as well as south of the
existing garage. We feel it would be a grant of
special privilege to allow the applicant to expand into
the rear setback area on this property.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and
utilities, and public safety.
Staff believes the proposed setback variance request,
if approved, would have no significant impact upon any
of the above criteria.
B. Related Policies in the Vail Land Use Plan
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan, in Section 1.13, states the
following:
"Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land
feature as well as its potential for public use."
•
3
This policy statement reiterates the concerns staff has expressed
regarding maintaining the required setbacks adjacent to the Gore •
Creek corridor.
C. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make
the following findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of
the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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 applicant's request for a side
setback variance. Again, staff believes that additional square
footage could be added to the existing structure on other areas
of the property which would not require setback variances. We
believe that approval of this variance request would be a grant
of special privilege.
4 0
As in all variance requests, the finding must be made that there
is a physical hardship, or a unique situation, specific to this
property which would warrant approval of a variance. After
review of this proposal, staff has been unable to identify any
physical hardship which would warrant a setback variance
approval. More importantly, staff is of the belief that the
proposed encroachments toward the stream tract would have a
negative impact upon the public use of that area. Included in
our recommendation for denial, staff believes that none of
findings A, B, and C -1, 2 and 3 are applicable to this request.
Should the Planning and Environmental Commission decide to
approve Mr. Pitto's request for a setback variance, staff would
recommend that as a condition of approval, additional landscaping
be required to be installed as a buffer along the south elevation
of the proposed addition. We would recommend that the Planning
and Environmental Commission pass this condition along to the
Design Review Board for further analysis.
c: \pec \memos \pitto.408
•
5
4,
w
Ni
st Y � Py t. + �t tit � �,•. N •• •t• � Y � •' ... + •/• ... - I •
6.
•.i c h ~' s -tr.ir + ' ;q .r `• r _ �`. f r "L'• f 1 rtT.. L '� t.
ten,' -,.• -Y r`i.• �t , it L 1' ( , •. +) •,' 1 + '
yy
ffi 1t d.fS7r •',� L.�� �. t {i ;♦ .•� � T.% --',r ' :.r
.�r1 ! f• #+<i, ', •�fys? i'y'1�� +- •�, t •!t .� •.'� 1 � t x, • �•_ •t ••i,t r ! M. j 1 ' ' t• .
SyySSS1tt111����'' •► r' '',
r r 41'it y' "L ��;•1V�t•'+'F', �'.Ia !{♦ ,t. Y•y la �1,•! � 't l �' [ �jJ ~�• 1,7 •� f'. (!1 -
t'. T V ..f.,•. 4i'w.'••�w•(,�i�:••t � ►-�r -ham; .i.t e� .'IwJ� ";�'s`� �tj��. �j }�`•'' - L
�,liri•{•YI ?`�1•,,�!•��rri ti��.{ �;;.r. .. `.�� :tti •ii+iyl l. ^i •� \i� . •' .
r
06-j" �
77 004
ok
K
��T,.1 +X Yy' ,rat ♦ • � �t� •.►'�' � t ��' ' ,•�
�
•t �ti; • � 1 ',�/ �•� C'• -.4. t T �.s � '•��� ,.� ` Iy- 1r,1♦ ; i t,.. . •s.� �, � ��' • � `1!I' '�� •.
rrtTl� .* Tip �T •� �'k lT } ZP wAy,T ar �, I. 4 { l . r
« 1 ,
1' ✓. "'1 M',•ift '.. [ 1. r• �'�J�L, .�.�' • ;ry1k�1. •�J•. i +. _ _ � i
It
C.
! yy.d I T ♦ , ".,rr// . + a Y r' i� y M f,'.• r j. J • •..
1
N
t
•
i C
t
/.. tt •It •>.` . .'• 1 '1 '1 •/f I „ 1 - 1 ♦• 'a ./ �� - .y •: 1 11
r o J
�I j , !4i -ice'': !" �•
:fJV �'[.• II •t, _, r �, •9 , ..� ! :i j. T y t w , .•. . •,•�., t . ^ ,�wt.i1 • ~. •' : 1 .•
,F •f• T�i.r., t y• •. .l w,, ! { yfi „tr :t • Sry►� �1+ ♦• r1 F
� fir• +.= +� � T - • ♦ • _ � �•
a -
1 •
21 >11%,11
:li'['C' ► •V " � � �* t r,'S t •, r 't, � T' ti • �j 'POO
•• + '; r l 1` •L
•
3 4••
i
•
=� y
+1 '
', is •_� , � ,j J_�.. -i• i.i
L_ = ,` fir-.- •
•l+am L' _ - "
�i E
• s
'a
vi
•
L
v
i
A
'
`tit-,av
�1
i
A
•
0
;r:
� ' _, ��. ..: +� ��. - .. t . It f• «. .+ f �.•'�y f-`! �'+1 '. {... .t�,� 1'�� ��'- +.♦
_ { � L •. . 1' r mil' '_'. +% h � �•T �� ��+ ��• ♦ ti !, t '��' w
+ � ;.���" ��i *° L- :.tea .• * w • .• - y:j• f j- _ -� • • w.
- .. �' *t- .'f"'..j.� 1t►�.. S '[ .i1._ •• •w►? �!' „� - - �_ - ,.L 1 .* ,.•111
-
zL
-
0 Snowdon and Hopkins • Architects
201 Gore Creek Drive
Vail, Colorado
April 7, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Senior Planning Director
Ton of Vail Planning Dept
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, CO 81657
303 476 -2201
81657
RE: Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village 11th Filing
Mike:
I would like to request an extension of the planning commission
approval (4/8/91) for the Pitto residence on Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Village 11th Filing. This would allow us to continue through the Town
•of Vail process (Building Permit), and start construction this summer.
We received DRB approval on 11;20/91. I appreciate your understanding
.on this matter, and Russ Pitto and I look forward to finishing up the
.process. As I understand we will need to make a presentation at the
next available PEC meeting (5/11/92) to have the extension approved.
If there are any problems with the extension request, please let me
know.
If you have any questions, please give me a call.
Sincerely,
SNOWDON AND HOPKINS - ARCHITECTS
hR*a�
Craig N. Snowdon
Partner
CNN /slh
cc: Mr. Russ Pitto
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
April 8, 1991
Present
Staff
Diana Donovan
Kristan Pritz
Connie Knight
Mike Mollica
Ludwig Kurz
Jill Kammerer
Kathy Langenwalter
Andy Knudtsen
Jim Shearer
Shelly Mello
Gena Whitten
Betsy Rosolack
Tom Braun
Absent
Amber Blecker
Chuck Crist
The worksession was called to order at 1:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A worksession to consider a conditional use permit and a density variance to allow the
construction of additions to existing structures and the construction of employee
housing on the Days Inn site, 2211 N. Frontage Road/Lot 1, Block A, Vail Das
• Schone Third Filing, a resubdivision of Vail Das Schone First Filing
Applicant: Peter Jacobs of Days Inn
A representative for the applicant, Saundra Spaeh began the presentation by indicating the
three items the applicant would like the PEC to review. The first was employee housing, the
second was the redevelopment of the shoppette, and the final issue was the hotel upgrade.
Saundra indicated, in order to accomplish the proposed redevelopment, the Days Inn would be
requesting a density (GRFA and unity count) variance.
Jill Kammerer clarified that employee housing is allowed as a conditional use in this zone
district and, therefore, the applicant would also need to request approval of a conditional use
permit. She further indicated the Fire Department and Public Works Department staffs had
not yet reviewed the project.
Saundra stated to the Commission a considerable amount of landscaping would be added
under this proposal. Jill continued that this was viewed by staff to be a positive proposal,
especially with the provision of employee housing and additional landscaping. This site is
desirable for employee housing, as there is easy pedestrian access to public transportation and
services (i.e., grocery store, laundry, etc.).
To explain the employee housing proposal, Saundra began by showing the Commission it was
a simple design which would be located at the northwest corner of the site behind the existing
40 structures. There would be thirty -two 300 sq. ft. studios and eight 500 sq. ft. one bedroom
Jim amended the previous motion to add the following language to the beginning: He moved
that the ordinance be sent to the Town Council with a recommendation of denial of the staff •
recommendations in order for the ordinance to return to the Zoning Code Task Force to
clarify the issues stated above.
Ludwig Kurz amended his second to include the additional wording.
Jim stated his intent was that the good work which had been done on GRFA controls not be
negated, and he wanted the 250 ordinance tightened up to help those people for which it was
designed. He thought that the Town should encourage improvements, and make the process
as simple as possible for the "little guy."
Diana Donovan wished to go on record with the reason she would be voting against the
motion with the statement that she thought the Town needed to start fresh with a new
ordinance, not just doctor up the existing regulations. She also wanted to see if the Town
Council would give clear direction to the Task Force and PEC that they would stand behind
the Town in a potential lawsuit if the demo /rebuild provision were eliminated. Larry
Agneberg asked if Diana thought the ordinance should be repealed and a new ordinance be
developed. Diana replied yes, if the Council would back a hard line approach. Larry stated
that he would like to see the repeal delayed until a new ordinance was ready.
Jim stated that if he had to vote on the ordinance now, he would leave it as is, but work
toward modifying it based on the history of pioblems.
After fine- tuning of the specific wording, as finalized above, and with Jim and Ludwig's •
consent, the recommendation was voted upon. The vote was 4 -1, with Diana Donovan in
opposition.
The meeting was briefly recessed, and was called back into order at 5:10. At that time, the
following two agenda items were taken out of order in the interests of time and public
comment.
5. A request for a setback variance, Pitto Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village
Eleventh Filing/2920 Booth Creek Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell Pitto
Mike Mollica presented the staff memo and recommendations for this variance. The request
was for a 10' -6" side setback variance which had previously been approved, but had
subsequently lapsed. The zoning for the property is Two Family Residential (duplex), and
Mike briefly reviewed the zoning considerations. There was no concern for GRFA with this
request, but the site coverage would be at its maximum 20% if the variance were to be
approved and the addition constructed
18 •
Staff recommended denial of the request because they were unable to identify a physical
hardship. They felt the addition could be added elsewhere on the property without a variance.
Staff noted, however, that from the previous request, the applicant had lowered the height of
the structure per the request of neighbors.
The previous PEC approval of the variance was contingent upon the ridge height not
exceeding the existing structure's ridge height.
Staff believed that Findings A, B, and C (1 -3) were not applicable to this request. Should the
PEC support a variance, staff requested additional landscaping along the creek side of the
addition as a buffer for the adjacent stream tract.
Jay Peterson, legal representative for the applicant, stated that this proposal had been changed
since the previous variance had been granted, and that these changes were positive. The
owner had gone to the neighbors to determine their concerns, and the consensus was that they
wanted the addition to be placed as proposed in this application. The neighbors felt it would
impact their land least in this position. In order to place the addition in another location on
their lot, the house would have to be internally reconfigured and "flip- flopped" to
accommodate the expanded kitchen.
Regarding land use questions, Jay agreed that there needed to be a buffer between the house
and the creek. He indicated, however, that since the stream tract meanders, this location was
• actually further from the creek than if it had been placed on another area of the lot which
might not require a setback variance.
•
Jay emphasized that nothing had changed substantially since the previous PEC approval of the
setback variance, and that the neighbors were in favor of the addition. He believed the
proposal met the criteria for a variance, the purpose of which was to prevent practical
difficulties. The house is one of the older homes in the neighborhood, and the location was a
problem in designing the addition. The scale of the home fit well into the neighborhood. If a
strict interpretation of the code were used in this case, the neighbors would be negatively
impacted. Jay commented that the only options the owners would have would be to sell the
property or resort to a demo /rebuild.
Pam Hopkins was also present representing the applicant, and she pointed out that utilities
had been built on the creek bank. Diana Donovan explained that the previous variance
approval was partially due to the fact the creek was not pristine because there was an
extensive water pump and vault which had been placed in the easement. She also further
explained the design consideration of placing "the addition into the setback was partially
determined by the fact that either side of the house was essentially open space, and the
placement of the addition into the setback impacted fewer views and hid the addition from
more homes. In effect, the hardship was created by the neighbors. Jay Peterson agreed, and
stated the applicant had worked diligently to minimize the impacts to both the site and the
neighbors.
19
Connie Knight asked if there would still be room for a stream walk to be built, and Mike
indicated there would. The Town's recreation path is currently located on the south, or
opposite, side of the stream. 0
Ludwig Kurz moved for approval of the setback variance for the Pitto Residence, Lot 3,
Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing/ 2920 Booth Creek Drive, finding that the strict and
literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified regulation would result in a practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title. A
condition of approval would be that the owners place additional landscaping along the
southern elevation of the addition. If any trees are removed during the construction process,
they shall be replanted or replaced Jim Shearer seconded the motion.
An additional condition of approval was that the new roofline of the addition not exceed the
height of the existing roof ridge. The vote on the entire motion was 4 -0 -1, with Gena
Whitten abstaining, due to the fact that she was absent during the site visit.
Kathy Langenwalter returned to the meeting at this point.
6. A request for a setback variance at the Christiania Lodge. Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing/356 Hanson Ranch Road.
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Jill Kammerer briefly explained the request before the Commission was to grant a setback
variance to the eastern setback in order to allow the expansion of Christiania Lodge's lobby .
and a 44 sq. ft. expansion of the proposed eastern, third floor dwelling unit. She indicated
that there is a zero setback currently at this location. Findings A, B, and C (1 -3) support the
granting of this variance because the encroachment would not be increased.
Connie Knight asked if the parking questions had been resolved. Jill responded the only
recognized Lodge parking by the Town are the three spaces located on Christiania Lodge -
owned property immediately west of the Christiania Lodge structure. Under the original
purchase agreement with Vail Associates, the Lodge has the right to park in perpetuity on
Parcel P -3. However, the property they currently park on is Lot J. It would appear the
Christiania Lodge has never used Lot P -3 for parking. Therefore, the Town does not
recognize the parking spaces which could be accommodated on Parcel P -3. Jay Peterson,
attorney for the applicants, added that the square footage being added did not increase the
amount of paridng which must be provided by the Lodge. Jill concluded that no additional
units were being added under this proposal.
Kathy Langenwalter moved for approval of the setback variance at the Christiania Lodge, Lot
D, Block 2, Vail Village First Filing/ 356 Hanson Ranch Road per the staff recommendations,
with findings A, B, C(1 -3) applicable to this request. Ludwig Kurz seconded the motion, and
by a vote of 6-0, the variance was approved.
20 •
Plann�
PRESENT
Jim Viele
Diana Donovan
Peggy Osterfoss
Sid Schultz
Kathy warren
Pam Hopkins
Chuck Crist
and Environmental Commis ) pn
May 22, 1989
Minutes
STAFF PRESENT
Peter Patten
Kristan Pritz
Betsy Rosolack
Ir/
The meeting was called to order by Chairman Jim Viele at 3:00 p.m.
Item No. 1. Approval of minutes of May 8, 1989.
Diana Donovan motioned for approval of the minutes
seconded by Kathy warren.
Vote: 7 -0
W
Item No. 2. A request to amend SDD #4, Area D in order to relocate
a bus stop and to void an SDD condition of _approval
requiring the undergroundina of utilities.
Applicant: Vail Brewery Company.
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained that
the applicant was requesting several amendments to Ordinance No.
40
which was approved in 1988. The amendments would allow the applicant
to void a requirement that utilities be undergrounded, relocate a bus
stop, add a deceleration lane on South Frontage Road, achieve a minor
subdivision,
alland
theadd
amendme ts stairwell.
exceptThe
thestaff
requestmton was for
approval of void the
requirement of undergrounded utilities.
The staff felt that the condition of the undergrounding of utilities
was an important trade -off in the original negotiations between the
developer, staff and PEC and did not feel this condition should be
voided. The staff recommended that if the PEC did decide to remove
this requirement, the Commission should require the developer to
escrow money for the undergrounding of utilities when an to the
improvement project l,lthetstaff recommended the following
other amendment requ ests
condition:
The developer shall agree to construct the bus lane per Town of
Vail standards in the area of the porte cochere. The specific
design for the bus shelter shall be mutually agreed to by the
Area D owner and /or the developer, Colorado Division of
Highways, and the Town of Vail. The bus lane shall be
Item No. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to is
an addition at the Up The Creek Restaurant,
Gore Creek Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Uu The Creek Bar and Grill, Inc.
Because of an oversight that a Conditional Use Permit was necessary
for this request, the item was tabled to the next meeting.
Peggy motioned for tabling. Kathy seconded the motion.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 5 A request for a side setback variance to expand a
single family residence on Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Village Eleventh Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto 4
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained the
applicant's request for a side setback variance in order to expand
their single family residence. A two -story expansion was proposed
which would include the addition of a breakfast nook and family room
on the first floor, and a master bedroom on the second floor. The
proposed addition would encroach 10 feet 6 inches into the required
15 foot setback.
•
3.
r
The Community Development Department and Town of Vail Attorney
shall have the right to review and require changes in any '
'
"Agreements of tenants in common," "Conveyance of Easement and
Party Wall Agreements," and any other easement or ownership
agreements related to the development of parcels are developed
per the approved development plan and SDD 4 Ordinance.
4.
Any modifications or amendments to the minor subdivision
conditions of approval agreement shall be reviewed as a major
amendment under the procedures outlined in Section 18.40 of the
Town of Vail zoning code.
5.
The applicant shall be responsible for preparing the wording of
these agreements for review by the Planning staff and Town
Attorney. The specific legal wording must be submitted before
the minor subdivision is recorded with the County. The Town of
Vail shall record the minor subdivision plat. However it will
be the responsibility of the developer to cover any fees for
recording the plat.
Andy
Norris representing the applicant, agreed with the conditions.
Kathy
motioned for approval of the request as per the staff memo.
Chuck seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 -0 -1, Jim abstaining.
Item No. 4. A request for an exterior alteration in order to is
an addition at the Up The Creek Restaurant,
Gore Creek Building, Vail Village.
Applicant: Uu The Creek Bar and Grill, Inc.
Because of an oversight that a Conditional Use Permit was necessary
for this request, the item was tabled to the next meeting.
Peggy motioned for tabling. Kathy seconded the motion.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 5 A request for a side setback variance to expand a
single family residence on Lot 3, Block 1, Vail
Village Eleventh Filing.
Applicant: Russ Pitto 4
The staff presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. She explained the
applicant's request for a side setback variance in order to expand
their single family residence. A two -story expansion was proposed
which would include the addition of a breakfast nook and family room
on the first floor, and a master bedroom on the second floor. The
proposed addition would encroach 10 feet 6 inches into the required
15 foot setback.
•
Th'e staff recommende denial of this request. staff felt it was
evident that the add ion could be added to the ast of the existing
house without requir.L.,g a setback variance. Api-_oving this request
would be a grant of special privilege. The staff also believed that
the addition would have a negative impact on the stream tract parcel
to the south of Lot 3. The staff added that if the proposal was
approved, the PEC should make a condition that the applicant submit a
title report Schedule B to verify that there are no utility easements
in the area of the encroachment.
Jay Peterson was present to represent applicants. Craig Snowdon,
architect for the project, was also present. He gave background on
the project, explaining that the family had outgrown their house and
wished to add on with the least impact on neighbors. He stated that
an expansion in a different location than proposed would be
inappropriate. He claimed there were physical hardships due to the
location of the house and felt that the proposal would be consistent
with adjacent properties. Regarding the staff recommendation that
the addition be built onto the east of the house, Craig said the
applicant would have to rebuild the eastern part of the house in
order to build there. He conceded that other expansions were
possible but that the design would be awkward, impacts on neighbors
would be created, and that there would be a structural and physical
hardship in trying to tie the design into the existing design. He
presented 5 letters from adjacent property owners with no objections.
Sid said he could see where it would be difficult to put the addition
on the east and felt that adding on to any of the other sides didn't
make sense. He could find a hardship with the existing location of
the house. Peggy felt the the issue of compatibility was important.
She also felt it was important to be sensitive to the neighbors'
views and opinions. She asked what else the applicant would be
willing to do to make additional improvements. Craig said the Pittos
would have no problem with adding landscaping. Peggy said she would
support the variance since the applicant was willing to landscape,
the neighbors had no objections, and because other properties were
close to the stream.
Kathy had a problem with finding a hardship. She could see the
practical sense, but did not see that anything excluded other
possibilities. She felt supporting the proposal would be a grant of
special privilege.
Jay Peterson felt that the ordinance was being read too strictly and
that it was more important to consider the neighbors' concerns.
Jim stated that variances are created for the protection of neighbors
and noted that since the neighbors are satisfied, he could support
the request.
Craig pointed out that all affected property owners were notified and
that all points of view were discussed.
6
3
Russ Pitto, the applicant, said his main concern was not impacting
the neighbors. He felt that it would be more logical to deal with a
variance than with disturbing the neighbors.
Diana motioned for approval of the request because it was felt_ that
the addition as proposed would have less impact on the stream and on
neighbors A condition was added that no part of the addition could
be higher than the existing ridge. Chuck seconded the motion.
Vote: 6 -0 -1, Pam abstaining.
Item No. 6
Betsy Rosolack made the staff presentation. She explained that the
applicant was requesting rear setback and site coverage variances in
order to add a second floor addition to an existing residence and to
change the configuration of the existing garage. The staff
recommended approval and felt that approving the request would not be
a grant of special privilege.
Kathy motioned for approval of the request per the staff memo. Peggy
seconded the motion.
Vote: 7 -0
Item No. 7 Preliminary review: Red Lion major exterior
alteration CCI.
It was decided that the Red Lion major exterior alteration would be
reviewed on June 12, 1989.
;r
•
is
0
v
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 11, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to expand a previously approved conditional use permit allowing a
public utility and a request for a variance from Section 18.58.320 regulating
satellite dish antennas for 501 N. Frontage Road West/lot 8, Block 2, Vail
Potato Patch.
Applicant: U.S. West New Vector
Planner: Andy Knudtsen/Jill Kammerer
I. BACKGROUND
On October 8, 1990, the PEC approved a conditional use to allow US West/New Vector to
• construct a "cell site" adjacent to Solar Vail. This included a mechanical building 12' wide,
24' long, and 11' high, and 3 whip antennas mounted on the roof of Solar Vail. Staff had
classified this use as a "public utility and public service use," which requires a conditional use
in the HDMF zone district. The PEC approved the conditional use request with the following
five conditions:
1. The applicant shall screen the dumpster with a 5 -foot high fence, or other acceptable
solution;
2. The applicant shall plant seven spruce and five aspen trees in the area between the
mechanical building and the North Frontage Road;
3. The applicant shall treat the antenna with non - reflective material, if needed;
4. The applicant is to ensure that none of the retaining walls are built over 6 feet high;
and
5. The applicant shall submit a plan to improve the existing timber walls which will be
acted on within one year.
Following the construction of the cell site, the applicant completely rebuilt the timber
retaining wall staircase and dumpster enclosure with new timbers. The dumpster has been
relocated and "screened" by locating it at an angle, such that it cannot be seen from the North
Frontage Road. To satisfy the second condition, the applicant planted 8 spruce and 6 aspen.
1
• II. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED REQUEST
US West/New Vector Group is currently proposing to install 4 satellite dishes on the Solar
Vail building in order to improve the cellular transmission quality from the East Vail area to
the Dowd Junction area. The existing whip antennas on the roof of the building are intended
to remain as they are necessary for service to the Village and Lionshead areas, according to
the applicant. But because they do not adequately serve the areas outside the central core, the
applicant would like to add the satellite dishes.
The dishes are each 4 feet in diameter, and would be mounted on the east and west sides of
the building. Each side of the building would have a pair of dishes, one to send
transmissions, and the other to receive them. The dishes will be enclosed within a "chimney
chase." (Please see attached drawing.) The applicant will construct the chases around the
dishes in such a way as to make them appear to be chimneys on the Solar Vail structure. The
applicant will use louvers immediately in front of each dish within the chase structure so that
the enclosure does not block transmissions. Each chase will be capped with a chimney vent.
With the request to add satellite dishes, staff is requiring that a new conditional use be
evaluated for the proposed plans, as staff believes this is a significant addition to the previous
conditional use approval. In addition to the conditional use, a variance has been requested
since the proposed satellite dishes do not meet all of the standards of the zoning code
regarding satellite dishes. The specific variance requests include:
• Section 18.58.320(D)l. An increase in the number of allowed dishes on one
lot, from 1 to 4; and
Section 18.58.320(D)3. An increase in the height of the satellite dishes, from
15 feet to 36 feet.
III. FUTURE EXPANSIONS OF THE CELLULAR TELEPHONE SYSTEM
From discussions with Larry Storms, the consultant representing US West/New Vector, staff
understands that no additional equipment will be needed at this cell site in the future. The
dishes which are currently proposed will effectively transmit signals from East Vail to Dowd
Junction. The section of Interstate 70 between the Main Vail exit and Vail Pass has been
very difficult for the cellular telephone industries to service. As a result, both US West/New
Vector and Cellular One have been researching ways to enhance the signal in this stretch.
Additional equipment will probably be needed near the Forest Service campground in East
Vail for both companies. However, the effort to improve the cellular telephone system in this
area will not require additional equipment on Solar Vail. It should be noted that Cellular One
has a cell site located at the Red Sandstone Elementary School. Because US West/New
Vector has had difficulty in this stretch of the I -70 corridor (Main Vail Exit east to Vail
Pass), it is likely that Cellular One has had the same problems. It is also likely that Cellular
One may request satellite dishes such as the ones proposed at Solar Vail to solve the
transmission problems. Though staff has not heard from the Cellular One representatives at
• 2
LJ
•
n
LJ
this time, the PEC should be aware that Cellular One may be requesting similar approvals
for the Red Sandstone Elementary School site in the future.
IV. ZONING ANALYSIS
There are two sections of the zoning code which are applicable with this request. The first
involves the High Density Multi - Family zone district standards, and the second involves
criteria found in Supplemental Regulations, providing the standards for satellite dish
installations.
Zone District:
High Density Multi - Family Residential
Lot Area:
43,559 sq. ft.
East Side: 20 feet
49 feet
Code Requirement
Existing
Building Height:
45 feet
36 feet
Setbacks
Front:
20 feet
53 feet
West Side:
20 feet
29 feet
East Side:
20 feet
41 feet
Rear:
20 feet
120 feet
Common Area Allowed
(Note existing GRFA
is 10,902 sq. ft.):
3,815.7 sq. ft.
2,266 sq. ft.
or 35% of GRFA
or 20.8%
Density:
25 units per acre
24 units
Coverage:
55% of total site area
12.3% or
or 23,957 sq. ft.
5,357.7 sq. ft.
Supplemental Regulation Standards
Code Requirement Proposed
*Number: 1 dish per lot 4 on this lot
*Maximum Dish
Height: 15 feet 36 feet
Maximum
Size of Dish: 12 feet in diameter 4 feet in diameter
Setbacks
Front: 20 feet
57 feet
West Side: 20 feet
25 feet
East Side: 20 feet
49 feet
Rear: 20 feet
154 feet
* Variance required.
3
Proposed Chases and
Satellite Dishes
36 feet
57 feet
25 feet
49 feet
154 feet
2,331 sq. ft.
or 21.4%
No Change
12.4% or
5,390.2 sq. ft.
• V. CONDITIONAL USE 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 purpose of this zone district is as follows:
Section 18.20.010 - Purpose. "The High Density Multi - Family
district is intended to provide sites for multiple family dwellings
at densities at a maximum of 25 dwelling units per acre, together
with such public and semi - public facilities as lodges, private
recreation facilities and related visitor oriented uses as may be
appropriately be located in the same district. The High Density
Multi - Family district is intended to ensure adequate light, air,
open space and other amenities commensurate with high density
apartment, condominium and lodge uses, and to maintain the
desirable residential and resort qualities of the district by
• establishing appropriate site development standards. Certain
non - residential uses are permitted as conditional uses which
relate to the nature of Vail as a winter and summer recreation
and vacation community, and where permitted are intended to
blend harmoniously with the residential character of the district."
•
Staff believes that the proposed use, being one that is listed as a conditional
use for the zone district, is one that is compatible with the other uses in this
district, and is generally consistent with the purpose of this zone district as
long as the use is carefully sited and screened.
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.
Staff believes there will be no impact on the above - referenced issues.
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.
4
• Staff believes there will be little to no impact on the criteria listed above.
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.
Staff believes the proposed chimney chases, which will enclose the four
satellite dishes, have been designed in a way to compliment the existing Solar
Vail building. These details may improve the character of the Solar Vail
building by providing some relief to the east and west elevations. Staff
believes that, at a minimum, they do not detract from the appearance of the
building. The impact of the proposed chases will have no effect on
surrounding properties and uses, in staff's opinion. For the previous
conditional use, the Town required the applicant to landscape the east side of
the site, around the proposed improvements. At this time, staff believes that
there is adequate landscaping on the east side but that the west side should be
improved. Staff recommends that the applicant plant 3 spruce in the area
around the proposed west chimney chase.
B. Findings
• The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
•
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
5
• VI. VARIANCE 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 variance based
on 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.
Staff believes the character of the area, as discussed under the conditional use
criteria, will not be significantly changed. Staff believes the chases and three
spruces may improve the character of the Solar Vail building.
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 two specific variations from the code which are requested are as follows:
• 1. An increase in the number of allowed dishes on one lot, from one to
four; and
2. An increase in the height of the satellite dishes, from 15 feet to 36 feet.
•
Concerning the number of dishes on one lot, staff believes a strict enforcement
of the code regulation would result in a practical difficulty for the applicant.
Staff believes the unique attributes of the cellular telephone communication
system requires more dishes than the typical use of satellite dishes. Because of
the different nature of this use, staff believes there is no grant of special
privilege. The hardship in this case is that the communication system requires
a sending and receiving dish pointed in each direction. As a result, four dishes
are the minimum number which can provide the service which is requested by
the applicant.
Regarding the height of the dishes, staff understands there is a minimum 6 -foot
separation required between dishes for them to function adequately. Given that
the dishes are 4 feet in diameter, the minimum height required for this system
to operate correctly would be 14 feet. Because the system works on a "line -of-
site basis" (telephone transmission is only effective when one can see the
antenna) the dishes must be set high enough to be seen from Interstate 70.
Since the code only allows 15 feet of height, and since the applicant needs to
T
• set the dishes high enough to be in view of the Interstate, a variance is needed.
The 36 -foot height has been requested by the applicant as the applicant
believes this height will be most effective in transmitting the signals. Staff
believes that, given the technical requirements for the dishes, as well as the
architectural solution for mounting the dishes on the side of the building within
a chase, that a variance from this section of the code is reasonable.
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.
Staff believes the proposal will have no effect on the issues listed above.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
•
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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.
7
• VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends approval of both the conditional use permit and the variances based on the
criteria discussed above. Staff believes the findings have also been met, specifically for the
conditional use that:
1. Finding 1 is met as the proposed use is in accordance with the purpose of the
HDMF zone district;
2. The operation of this conditional use will not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare: and
3. The proposed use complies with all the standards of the zoning code, with the
condition that the variance requests are approved.
Concerning the variance, staff believes the findings are met as follows:
1. The technical requirements of a cellular telephone system are such that their
needs are unique from other satellite users, and because of the unique nature,
there is no grant of special privilege;
2. The variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare; and
3. The variance is warranted, as a strict interpretation of the code would result in
a practical difficulty for the applicant.
• Based on these findings, staff recommends approval of these variances with the condition that
the applicant plant three spruce on the west side of the building, in the vicinity of the
proposed chase.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approvals
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not
commenced within two years.
c:\pec\memos\uswest.511
•
N
•
r E xmwf D
BUUINO taOU M IC
offtn".
S�' Revises, 3/3V gyz
•
"no. r�► v. a
UM
rM
IW." M 6 Fall
G ►Its
i;�n$a
L,p"
•
0
ExHi6 rr D'
BUILDING ISOMETRIC
so wer
• nRf. IugIM t1t��I1M R�NM�I ty
/tf4 •pN�• �
MR.
MwM M �1
r-XHIE5IT- G
•
11�
S K�T6-H - 9 -- tq ew q 0 --
q , +, q o 50 L.Ag I
1Ro Fa 1.fr1UT T 9, A 'KcH
FrOK U.O S I �
: S /31 /q2
0
•
m
0
fl
�s���llljll�►
I 144'
!!
M ill
t•
1 �
I
1
1
I
I
' - J
A 4�.-
40
1•
I
iY
jnn
Z
s�
0 00
9
r
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 11, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to rezone the "Ski Museum" pocket park site from Public
Accommodation to Public Use District. The site is generally located at the
northwest intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive. (See attached
legal Exhibit A).
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
............ f ...:....:::::::: x::nnn ......:::::::: }ten ...::::....... rr:.:::::::.::+. v::::::::.? w:: ...:...............:.......:... r n +•4w:::::::.:::..v: ?n:•.v::::.
rxm:: ::::.. u: ::::::::::::: s: +...:•.v:::;; r.. �:::::::::::: x:: +.-:::::::::: ..;; ?.... r.......... v:::::: v: w:::::::::::.: v-w::: :.•:::,•ik +'4 } }•: ..................... ........ . .............................
.:....... .::. » .............. r... r. r:::.vx.:::;; vv:::: x::::+: w:::: :; •• :w:: r: r {.: r:nv
.. ri..xii}.. /....?..: ..: 3r.::: •S:ii: }: ?i•:• {,.$: }:; }:i: :vi + ?. .}:• '?. +i }:::??::: ??::. }: ? ::::::::: •:::: +: is .: •�
? '..... :. }x . :::: ii• ::::::::?::: ?:� } }v: ::.:� }: }nv:: n..... v .................... f...... r......:..•....... :........ :: {f {f { {.ff+x.l........ :....... xr. ....:...
• ....: :..: ..:....n.. fi............•.............:. :{{ f.{{{•: 3}}}:}}: ry} } } } }i'?in..n.......:::::::::. :.. .....:... .:.... .... ... ......... n.... .:................. . ...... {�.....:.:: : :...........:.........
.v v: :::.•.:h:?:.r •fw.:: ..,v: : ... +,.:.•: .:...... n n...... vi.•:::: ::: w:: ux v; :.......... • :::::::: ;•..
..•.......... ..x.n......m•...•.:::<...:.:::: r: f..iinx:.. ••.�:.....,, ..................... x::;}: 6: h: G: h::: v } } } }y +i: }:- }:• } } } } } } } }'iYii. ?v: v.. v.: :.b:...... .
:...: ............... r. +v:::.}...:.• :}' +, }r rig f? i` ry' i }::}{{i: }:• }:•:::::. :::. } } } } } }: iiiY:�
.... .. n....... r ............. ............................... f........:.:::. ?...... v.: v: Fi.{. }:• }:•:C ?• /.•:•i }:•: ?•:L:•::.:: n:: ?•::::' {..f{?% .......:.:v:: n.......
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Town of Vail is the owner of the property generally located at the northwest intersection
• of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, commonly referred to as the Ski Museum Pocket Park
site. This parcel was acquired from the Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company
on June 25, 1975, with the condition that the property be used exclusively for a museum or
other related public use for a period of twenty -five (25) years from the date of the deed. Up
until the fall of 1991, the Town had been using this site for the purposes of housing the
Colorado Ski Museum. During the fall of 1991, the Colorado Ski Museum relocated to the
Vail Village Transportation Center and the structure on the ski museum site has subsequently
been demolished. The property is currently vacant and the Town's intentions are to construct
a small pocket park in this location.
The Ski Museum Pocket Park site is currently zoned Public Accommodation (PA). As stated
in the Zoning Code, the Public Accommodation Zone District "is intended to provide sites for
lodges and residential accommodations for visitors, together with such public and semipublic
facilities and limited professional offices, medical facilities, private recreation, and related
visitor - oriented uses as may appropriately be located in the same district." As such, the PA
District only allows for lodges, and accessory dining decks as permitted uses in the District.
Conditional uses in the PA District range from professional and business offices, hospitals
and dental clinics, to theaters, meeting rooms and convention facilities, and churches. Public
parks and recreation facilities are also listed as conditional uses in the PA Zone District.
The Town of Vail is requesting that the zoning on the ski museum site be changed from
Public Accommodation to Public Use District (PUD). As stated in the zoning code, the
• Public Use Zone District "is intended to ensure that public buildings and grounds and certain
types of quasi - public uses permitted in the district are appropriately located and designed to
r
meet the needs of residents and visitors to Vail, to harmonize with surrounding uses, and in
the case of buildings and other structures, to ensure adequate light, air, open space, and other
amenities appropriate to the permitted types of uses." Public parks, playgrounds and open
space, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and seasonal structures or uses to accommodate
educational, recreational, or cultural activities, are all permitted uses within the Public Use
District.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
A. Suitability of the Proposed Zoning.
Although it is possible to request a conditional use permit to construct a pocket park
on the ski museum site, given the Public Accommodation Zone District, it is the
staff's opinion that the Public Use District is a much more appropriate zone district for
the uses anticipated for this site. We believe that the proposed pocket park more
closely meets the purpose section of the Public Use District, than the Public
Accommodation Zone District.
B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable relationship
among land uses consistent with municipal objectives?
The ski museum site has been specifically designated as a pocket park site in the
is recently approved Streetscape Master Plan. Preliminary design work for the pocket
park is currently underway, and it is anticipated that should this zoning change be
approved, the pocket park would be constructed during the summer of 1992.
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan has designated the ski museum site as a "transition
zone ". The Land Use Plan further defines a transition zone as an area in which
"activities and site design are aimed at encouraging pedestrian flow through the area
and strengthening the connection between the two commercial cores. Appropriate
activities include hotels, lodging and other tourist oriented residential units, ancillary
retail and restaurant uses, museums, areas of public art, natural exhibits, gardens,
pedestrian plazas, and other types of civic and culturally oriented uses.
The staff believes that the rezoning of this site from PA to Public Use District would
be consistent with the zoning previously placed on Gerald R. Ford Park. Town parks
are also zoned Agricultural/Open Space, and Greeenbelt Natural Open Space.
C. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable community?
The staff feels that this proposed rezoning, and use of this site as a pocket park, would
provide for the growth of an orderly and viable community, and would also strengthen
the pedestrian connection between the Village core and the Lionshead core. The
• Streetscape Master Plan addresses this site as follows:
-2-
zr
• "A pocket park is proposed on the ski museum site, creating a sense of pedestrian
entry for the corridor and a better visual connection to East Meadow Drive. The park
would include needed public restrooms, seating, and extensive landscaping."
r:
At this time, public restrooms are not included in the park design. If a restroom is
proposed in the future, it would require a conditional use review. The PUD allows for
site specific review of development standards through the conditional use process.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the proposed rezoning of this property from Public
Accommodation to Public Use District is for approval. We believe that the Public Use
District designation is the more appropriate zone district for the uses which are anticipated for
this property. We also believe that the addition of a pocket park on this site would be in
conformance with the Town's Streetscape Master Plan, and that the pocket park would be a
positive contribution to the community as a whole.
-3-
0-1-
• EXHIBIT A.
The site is located at the northwest intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, and
more specifically described as follows:
A part of Lot "B ", Amended Map of Vail Village, Second Filing, County of Eagle,
State of Colorado, more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast Corner of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West
of the 6th P.M.: thence Southerly along the East Line of said Section 7 a distance of
390.78 ft; thence on an angle to the right of 90 °00'00" a distance of 25.00 ft to a point
on the East Line of said Lot "B ", said point being 73.00 feet Northerly from the SE
corner of said Lot "B" and the true point of beginning; thence continuing along the
aforesaid course a distance of 98.75 ft to a point on the Southwesterly line of said Lot
"B ", which is the Northeasterly line of W. Meadow Dr.; thence on an angle to the left
of 121 °43'21" and along the curve to the right having a radius of 175.00 feet and a
central angle of 02 °06'21 and an arc distance of 6.43 ft to a point of tangent; thence
continuing along said tangent a distance of 33.97 ft to a point of curve; thence on a
curve to the left having a radius of 75.00 ft and a central angle of 60 °23'00" and an
arc distance of 79.04 ft to a point of tangent; thence continuing along said tangent a
distance of 13.48 ft to the Southeasterly corner of said Lot "B ", said corner being
25.00 ft Westerly of the East line of said Section 7; thence on an angle to the left of
. 90 °00'00" and along the Easterly line of said Lot "B" and along a line parallel to the
East line of said Section 7 a distance of 73.00 ft to the true point of beginning, more
generally known as NW corner of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive, Vail,
Colorado.
•
-4-
TOWN OF VAIL BOUNDARY
PMOUNTAIN BELL
160
149
• ABC SCHOOL,
TA IN g LEARNING TREE
ELL RD. 0 129
11
6)
PAD
POST
LOT D,
OFFICE
PARCEL B
SPRADDLE CREEK
RANCH
100 N. FRONTAGE RD.
PO ICE 8 I
2 C 0 OFFICES O MAIN VAIL
• 75 EXIT
VAIL 1
I
NAT'L BA K •
2 BLDG.
108 SCOR 10
D 1 121 HOLIDAY INN
SK AL 13 •
HOUSE ALPHORN TANDARI GATEWAY
STA. 12 LOT 0 •
141 121 C 28 •
DOW DR. A od N 5D •
AG 2n HOLIDAY VAIL VILLAGE INN 141 EAT W
4 3 HOUSE 142 122 2 I ,j a 100 .ROSSROADS 14 � TRANSPOR
162 82 j 9 B >• M 4 ARCADE P V CE2 �E
44 AIL P 5
FIRE • 15 E T 5
NG MEADOW DEPT. • SONNENALP TALISMAN W 22 F MEADOW
U1�
vAIL 42 swiss C7 VILLAGE AUS •
TRACT B PL G ® fOND Ily CHALET V CENTER SONNENALP
VILLA Ist 6 2 ? 120 5E 126 242TRAC
3 37 36 CORTIN BANK ro
3 153 123 22 f 124
17 0
TRAC J BAVA IA REE
27 HAPEL Hs R R SE 6 p P
EDELw_ RE K 5B 1223 F
19 o OWER A
154 284 • TRACT 2 93 wr 103 M c ITZMAR
3� 1 63 �Ow , 5LOD 183 193 201
A
5 I26 I 29 SOP 43 TRACT H 123 f
615 30 32 IER
115 WILLOW R VA RI • RCADE
N. 5B -19B N G
7 186 166 F RE T 45 35 35 • 44 I B I7 q0 133 cCi+A 5C 225 -1
9 B • RIVA
6 146 5 74 RIDGE S. A,B,C 174
126 3 THE T V
9A 8A 7 4 97 7 VAIL ROAD
167 147 127 • 107
. O PA L C RESUB. LOT C, BLK. 5C
�a�Cef T'AAK s, fe
PEPI 'S
231
31NO BLDG
250
1ZA LODGE
281 - 293
ICKET OFFICE.
B
BLOCK 2O
•
0
L�]
12:15PM
1:30 P M
2:OOPM
Site Visits
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 18, 1992
AGENDA
Site Visits
Worksession
Public Hearing
Worksesslon at 1:30PM
FILE COPY
Worksession on an Eagle County referral concerning an Environmental
Assessment for the Avon to Vail 115 KV Transmission Line:
Applicant:
Staff Member:
Public Hearing
Holy Cross Electric
Susan Scanlan
1. 1. A request for a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis
facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead Skier
Bridge and north of West Forest Road on the existing tennis
courts, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of the NW 1/4 of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80
West of the 6th PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado,
described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence the southeast corner of Lot 2, Block
2, Vail Village 6th Filing, according to the map thereof recorded
under Reception No. 99380 in the office of the Eagle County,
Colorado, Clerk and Recorder bears S80 050'59 "W 103.58 ft;
thence N08 009'53 "W 126.74 ft; thence N80 053'20 "E 286.55 ft;
thence S07047'1 9"E 127.66 ft; thence S81104'1 3:W 285.70 ft to
the point of beginning, containing 0.835 acres, more or less.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Mike Mollica
2. 2. A request for a wall height variance for the Bully Pub terrace and
a rear setback variance for the swimming pool at the Sonnenalp
Bavaria Haus, 20 Vail Road /Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First
Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. 3. Worksession on a conditional use permit for the Alpine Garden at
Ford Park.
4. Streetscape Plan- Distribution of Final Report.
5. Approval of PEC Minutes May 11, 1992.
!Ir
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 18, 1992
SUBJECT: Tennis Stadium Complex for Vail Team Tennis/Vail Eagles
Applicants: Vail Recreation District
Vail Associates
Roy Tucker, General Manager of Vail Team Tennis
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Recreation District is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a temporary tennis stadium complex on the Lionshead tennis courts,
located to the north of West Forest Road and southwest of the Lionshead skier bridge.
If approved by the PEC, the stadium complex would be used for the Vail Team Tennis
• professional program this summer only The stadium complex would be located on
property owned by Vail Associates, however the Vail Recreation District has a lease
agreement to manage and operate the tennis courts.
The facility is proposed to be in place between June 15 and August 15, 1992. Tennis
matches are proposed to be held approximately 7 times during the summer at this site
between 7:OOPM and 9:30PM. The seating capacity of the proposed tennis facility
would be approximately 3,100 persons. The facility would be approximately 20 feet
high at the top of the bleachers. Temporary lights are also requested for the courts
and for the pedestrian path from the Lionshead skier bridge up to the tennis facility.
The temporary lights around the court are approximately 40 ft. high. A vending area,
sponsors' tent, team dressing room and restrooms are also proposed. The team
dressing room and restrooms are proposed to be located in portable trailers 16 -18 feet
long. The siding of the trailers will be covered by blue fencing material. Please see
the attached site plan for more information on the layout of the facility.
Because the site for the stadium complex is located on property which is zoned
Agricultural /Open Space, a conditional use permit is required. This section of the
code, Section 18.32.020 - Conditional Uses, states:
"Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which
involves assembly of more than 200 persons together in one building or
group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational
facility."
•
II. THE PROCESS is
The PEC has previously reviewed this proposal at two worksessions (April 27 and May
11, 1992) to ensure that all issues and concerns were identified and that these points
could be addressed early in the planning process. Public notice has been sent to all
the adjacent and nearby property owners.
The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed this proposal on May 6, 1992 and the
final DRB review is scheduled for May 20, 1992. A building permit and an electrical
permit will be required for the project, as well as a Town of Vail special events permit.
111. 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.
As stated in the zoning code, the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District is
intended to "preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive •
development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use
consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain
types of private recreation facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the
Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain
predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive
urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of
the District."
The staff believes that the applicant's proposal for a tennis stadium complex in this
location complies with the purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone
District as stated above. Because this site is located south of the Lionshead core
area, and is not zoned CCII, there are no specific Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan
elements that apply to this site.
This proposal has been reviewed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, and it
is the staff's opinion that the following goals and policies are applicable to this
proposal:
2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve
year -round tourism.
9
• 3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time
businesses, on -going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should
be encouraged.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
The staff believes that if this conditional use permit is approved, the proposed tennis
complex may have some impact on the existing recreation facilities of the Town.
Because the proposed tennis complex involves the use of existing public tennis courts
in the Lionshead area, these 5 tennis courts would not be available for use by the
general public during the period of June 15 through August 15. The Vail Recreation
District is aware of this issue, and they are of the belief that the positive benefits to the
Town, of the tennis stadium complex, would outweigh the removal of these courts from
public use. On this issue, the planning staff would propose no specific
recommendation, and we would defer to the decision of the Vail Recreation District to
utilize these 5 tennis courts for the tennis stadium complex.
The planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed tennis stadium complex will have
no negative effects upon any of the other above- listed criteria.
• 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.
The traffic control /parking plan for the proposed tennis facility calls for all the public
parking for this facility to be located in the Lionshead Parking Structure. There will be
no parking allowed on West Forest Road. All promotional literature for the tennis
tournaments would include specific directions to the Lionshead Parking Structure. On
the match days, a 6 -foot "sandwich board" sign would be located adjacent to the
parking structure and the South Frontage Road, indicating the availability of public
parking in the Lionshead Parking Structure. From the parking structure, the public
would access the tennis facility via the Lionshead Mall and the Lionshead Skier Bridge.
All public access to the facility would be from the Lionshead Skier Bridge only, and no
p ublic access would be allowed from the West Forest Road area.
It is proposed that on the day of the matches, Vail Team Tennis would have personnel
stationed at the West Forest Road and the South Frontage Road intersection, thereby
further directing the public to the Lionshead Parking Structure. Property owners in this
general area would be allowed access to their properties. Vail Team Tennis personnel
would also be located at the intersection of West Forest Road and Beaver Dam Road.
The applicants have indicated that a maximum of 3 to 4 vehicles could be parked in
the existing driveway at the tennis complex. It is possible that one of these vehicles
would be used by President Gerald R. Ford, and the remaining 2 to 3 vehicles would
be used by the professional tennis players. No V.I.P. parking is proposed on the site
except for President Ford.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed traffic control and parking plan for this facility •
is a workable plan, and we believe that the impacts and inconvenience to the residents
of the area will be very minimal.
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 applicants have worked very closely with the Town staff, the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board with regard to minimizing
the impacts of this use upon the existing character of the area. The following is a
listing of the key issues regarding this proposal:
Perimeter fencing material - it is proposed that the entire perimeter of the tennis
stadium complex be fenced with a blue "ski - area" type mesh fencing. This
fence would be approximately 4 feet in height. It is also proposed that the
fencing which faces the residences along the West Forest Road area be green,
so that it will blend more with the surrounding area.
Lighting - It is proposed that there will be a maximum of 4 light poles located at
the four corners of the complex. The maximum height of the light poles would
be 40 feet. The applicants have indicated that the lights would be illuminated
for approximately 30 minutes, for each of the matches (9:00PM through
9:30PM) and then for another 30 minutes following the completion of the match •
so that the public could safely exit the stadium. All lighting will be focused
directly upon the stadium area, so as to not illuminate the residential area near
by.
General appearance of the stadium facility - At the request of the DRB, all of
the tents proposed in the stadium will be white. The banners /pennants, and the
flags, will only be installed on the day of the matches.
Noise -The applicants have agreed to meet the Town's noise standards which
specify that the maximum number of decibels permitted from 7:OOAM to
11:OOPM shall not exceed 55 decibels, (Section 8.24.060).
The staff has carefully reviewed the proposal with regard to its potential effect upon the
character of the area. We believe that the applicants have modified the proposal to
ensure that it is compatible with the area. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed
tennis complex facility will not have a negative impact upon the character of the area,
especially given the limited time frame of the proposal.
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the .
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for this proposed conditional use permit is for approval. We
believe that the applicants have addressed all of the issues and concerns which have
previously been raised by the staff, the PEC and the DRB with regard to the potential
impacts of this facility on the neighborhood. We believe the proposal to be in
compliance with the Criteria and Findings as listed in Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code and as discussed in this staff memorandum.
Should the PEC approve this conditional use permit request, the approval shall be
valid for the period of time from June 15 through August 15, 1992.
CAPMMEMOMTENNIS.518
•
gyp►" - ��lf�,��i����
IlK
5','x
AW
1
p�
0577J//
r t "i �= i is ti _ i
Above is a rendering of what the new tennis stadium in Lionshead will look like after it is set up for Team
Tennis training and competitions this summer. The facility is patterned after the stadium used at the
Lipton International in Florida, and will hold 3,100 spectators. Drawing by Lisa Forshag- Green.
•
•
•
. f � • _ is •/�IIT� _ 't 1�'
iY
` 1 � � - -e '� � - •� -.tea / 'i"y:.`
OL
lip
;: it i '' - • _ j
� r : tiy` :� •'. tjti . .�y ��� '1._' �•� bid �,.�1 �.ts•.`�'►� � � ,
' ''�. {�•;�k �"` ��' ��...�- :�' � 1_. ,r,r � . }IUD l�. ,�', . ',;. � �� . =:a
TO
to
NL
..�. ;. r •�1 F • i. :�• 'L.Of , -�'r,
Jj •ti- , ,.� tt •
XISTING TRAILER
TENT
UILDING
CAR
SCREENED
PORT -O -LETS
ENTRANCE I
CESSION I GRANDSTI
AREA SEATING
-p pp
SCOREBOARD
BOX
SEATS
TRAILER
CAR
N
a�
GRANDSTAN
SEATING
ENTER
XO
COURT
cn
mm
m
y
„
� p _.11101, I STAGE
w
Lu RIVER
E:
m
VIP AND
SPONSOR
TENT
TEMPORARY FENCING
(UP DURING EVENTS
ONLY)
•
•
DATE
FRIDAY, JULY 10
TUESDAY, JULY 14
FRIDAY, JULY 17
SATURDAY, JULY 18
FRIDAY, JULY 24
SATURDAY, JULY 25
SATURDAY, AUGUST
THE VAIL EAGLES
1992 HOME SCHEDULE
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4
THURSDAY,AUGUST
SATURDAY, AUGUST
•
MATCH
WICHITA at VAIL
NEWPORT BEACH at VAIL
LOS ANGELES at VAIL
SACRAMENTO at VAIL
PHOENIX at VAIL
NEW JERSEY at VAIL
RALEIGH at VAIL
PLAYOFFS
DIVISIONAL SEMIFINALS
6 DIVISIONAL FINALS
8 CHAMPIONSHIP
N o u �.
ev �► v N v ��• 4 tZ In �� ~X V d
p
U
• U I
�j
U�1
co
Q
u �
a �
1�
a�
�z
All
L�
�.w
z
l�
C
I!
,r
u
•
n
LJ
PLANNING COMMISSION OUTLINE
1.) Traffic Plan
Traffic will not be allowed on Forest Road. The only vehicles that will have access
to this area :
1.) Handicap drop off
2.) President Ford ( for security reasons)
3.) Players ( one vehicle)
4.) Medical/ Police
5.) Area Residents
There will also be "sandwich board" signs indicating the parking areas.(The
Lionshead parking structure)
2.) Lighting
There will be four poles of 40 feet in height, placed in the four corners of the
• stadium. The lights will be used for the nationally telecast, July 17 match against
Jimmy Connors and The Los Angeles Strings. They will also be used as a "filler"
for the matches at twilight. Each match begins at 7:00 pm and we anticipate about
30 minutes per match (9:00 -9:30) when the lights will be noticeable.
3.) Photo copy of bleacher specifications. ( See enclosed )
4.) Light Specifications
A.) Four Light poles
B.) Height -40 feet
C.) Location- four corners outside of fence.
D.) Safety lights on bridge
5.) Fencing Material
A.) Forest Road side: The fencing will be a shade of green that will blend well
with surroundings.
B.) Lionshead side: Festive color coordination with the area .
0
6.) Site Plan
A.) Location of trailers, restroom facilities, flag poles,scoreboard,tents... all will be
within fenced area-(See site layout)
1.) Trailer Dimensions (restrooms): 34'X 10'X 10'
2.) Tent Dimensions: 40'X 80', 7 ft at the sides and 18ft at the highest point
3.) Port-o -lets: Regular- TX 3.5'X3.5'
7.) Signage
A.) Pennants, banners, flags etc., will all be within the fenced area.
8.) Have requested from VA to upgrade flooring and painting of bridge.
9.) Will provide information to Town of Vail regarding food vending and health
situation.
10.) Parking
A.) All parking will be in Lionshead parking structure.
B.) No parking will be on Forest Rd.
C.) Six foot stand up sandwich board (Match days only) indicating parking areas.
D.) Tennis Ball Balloon will provide directional indication.
1.) Easily seen from 1 -70 and Frontage Roads.
12.) Screening
A.) Toilet facilites-- Screens will be used to disguise and plants will be used to
decorate.
•
r 1
U
•
•
•
Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Beaver Creek'- Resorts
April 20, 1992
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
To Elie Vail Town Council:
On behalf of Vail Associates, I would like to express support for the
Vail Eagles, of the World Team Tennis League and their request to base
their operations out of Lionshead. The exposure the Eagles will bring
here this summer will greatly assist the Vail Valley Marketing Board's
efforts in promoting the Valley as a summer destination. Vail Associates
is also supporting the Vail Eagle's financially, via staff support,
and through the use of our operational facilities.
I feel strongly that if all entities within Vail support the Eagles,
that they will be successful in helping to establish the area as summer
tennis center.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the Vail Eagles.
They will surely raise the level of quality summer sporting events found
in the Valley.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATES �, INC.
&13vmye'rs 61
Vice President Marketing
KN /ss
cc: Carol Frangos
George Gillett
Roy Tucker
Post Office Box 7 0 Vail, Colorado 81658 9 USA — (303) 476.5601
ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. •
ONE FINANCIAL PLACE
SUITE 1116
CHICAGO, IL. 60605
TEL.: (312) 663 -7086
May 4, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Recreation District.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Confirming our conversation today regarding.the hearing
scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail
Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing,
I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility.
My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent to the lot border- •
ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court
was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium
on the elevated court would raise an obstruction that would
seriously block the view from both my house and a house that
I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously
effect the market value of the lot. Currently I am paying
taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of
$6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road
from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid,
the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort that will
ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this -
unnecessary project.
Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of
the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person.
I would like to be advised of the results.
Sincerely
Rob /rt S. n el ma Sr.�G
RSE /msh •
u
•
•
BRUCE D.CHAPMAN*
DIANE R. LARSEN
'Also admitted In Fbrida
Dear PEC Member:
CHAPMAN AND L ARSEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
SUITE 498
VAIL, COLORADO 61657
May 11, 1992
This law firm represents Larry Field who
home located at 586 Forest Road. Mr. Field has
you that he is strongly opposed to utilitizin
for the Vail Team Tennis facility.
TELEPHONE. (303) 476 -0075
TELECOPIER (303) 476 -0078
E.I.N. 84- 1104400
Ls the owner of the
asked that I inform
g the proposed site
Mr. Field's house is directly across Forest Road from the
proposed facility. In his opinion that the proposed location is
not an appropriate location, either temporary or permanent, for
such a facility. He does not feel that a stadium structure is in
keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. He
objects to the noise that will be generated and the unpleasant
aesthetics of such a stadium. Several people that he has spoken
with have said that it is not a permanent structure and that they
agree that the proposed location would not be an appropriate long
term location. Mr. Field feels that if it is not appropriate for
the long term why should it be appropriate for the short term. It
may seem like the short term to you but it is a large percentage
of the time that Mr. Field and his family have planned to be in
Vail this summer.
Thank you for your consideration.
BDC:rlp
Sincerely,
0 MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 18, 1992
SUBJECT: Tennis Stadium Complex for Vail Team Tennis/Vail Eagles
Applicants: Vail Recreation District
Vail Associates
Roy Tucker, General Manager of Vail Team Tennis
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The Vail Recreation District is requesting a conditional use permit to allow for the
construction of a temporary tennis stadium complex on the Lionshead tennis courts,
located to the north of West Forest Road and southwest of the Lionshead skier bridge.
If approved by the PEC, the stadium complex would be used for the Vail Team Tennis
professional program this summer only The stadium complex would be located on
property owned by Vail Associates, however the Vail Recreation District has a lease
agreement to manage and operate the tennis courts.
The facility is proposed to be in place between June 15 and August 15, 1992. Tennis
matches are proposed to be held approximately 7 times during the summer at this site
between 7:OOPM and 9:30PM. The seating capacity of the proposed tennis facility
would be approximately 3,100 persons. The facility would be approximately 20 feet
high at the top of the bleachers. Temporary lights are also requested for the courts
and for the pedestrian path from the Lionshead skier bridge up to the tennis facility.
The temporary lights around the court are approximately 40 ft. high. A vending area,
sponsors' tent, team dressing room and restrooms are also proposed. The team
dressing room and restrooms are proposed to be located in portable trailers 16 -18 feet
long. The siding of the trailers will be covered by blue fencing material. Please see
the attached site plan for more information on the layout of the facility.
Because the site for the stadium complex is located on property which is zoned
Agricultural /Open Space, a conditional use permit is required. This section of the
code, Section 18.32.020 - Conditional Uses, states:
"Any use within public parks, recreation areas, and open spaces which
involves assembly of more than 200 persons together in one building or
group of buildings, or in one recreation area or other public recreational
facility."
•
If. THE PROCESS 0
The PEC has previously reviewed this proposal at two worksessions (April 27 and May
11, 1992) to ensure that all issues and concerns were identified and that these points
could be addressed early in the planning process. Public notice has been sent to all
the adjacent and nearby property owners.
The Design Review Board conceptually reviewed this proposal on May 6, 1992 and the
final DRB review is scheduled for May 20, 1992. A building permit and an electrical
permit will be required for the project, as well as a Town of Vail special events permit.
111. 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.
As stated in the zoning code, the Agricultural and Open Space Zone District is
intended to "preserve agricultural, undeveloped, or open space lands from intensive
development while permitting agricultural pursuits and low density residential use
consistent with agricultural and open space objectives. Parks, schools, and certain
types of private recreation facilities and institutions also are suitable uses in the
Agricultural and Open Space District, provided that the sites of these uses remain
predominantly open. Site development standards are intended to preclude intensive
urban development and to maintain the agricultural and open space characteristics of
the District."
The staff believes that the applicant's proposal for a tennis stadium complex in this
location complies with the purpose section of the Agricultural and Open Space Zone
District as stated above. Because this site is located south of the Lionshead core
area, and is not zoned CCII, there are no specific Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan
elements that apply to this site.
This proposal has been reviewed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan, and it
is the staff's opinion that the following goals and policies are applicable to this
proposal:
2.4 The community should improve summer recreational and cultural
opportunities to encourage summer tourism.
2.5 The community should improve non -skier recreational options to improve
year -round tourism.
L_
is
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
• encouraged in the core areas to create diversity. More night time
businesses, on -going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should
be encouraged.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population,
transportation facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities,
and other public facilities needs.
The staff believes that if this conditional use permit is approved, the proposed tennis
complex may have some impact on the existing recreation facilities of the Town.
Because the proposed tennis complex involves the use of existing public tennis courts
in the Lionshead area, these 5 tennis courts would not be available for use by the
general public during the period of June 15 through August 15. The Vail Recreation
District is aware of this issue, and they are of the belief that the positive benefits to the
Town, of the tennis stadium complex, would outweigh the removal of these courts from
public use. On this issue, the planning staff would propose no specific
recommendation, and we would defer to the decision of the Vail Recreation District to
utilize these 5 tennis courts for the tennis stadium complex.
The planning staff is of the opinion that the proposed tennis stadium complex will have
no negative effects upon any of the other above - listed criteria.
• 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.
The traffic control /parking plan for the proposed tennis facility calls for all the public
parking for this facility to be located in the Lionshead Parking Structure. There will be
no parking allowed on West Forest Road. All promotional literature for the tennis
tournaments would include specific directions to the Lionshead Parking Structure. On
the match days, a 6 -foot "sandwich board" sign would be located adjacent to the
parking structure and the South Frontage Road, indicating the availability of public
parking in the Lionshead Parking Structure. From the parking structure, the public
would access the tennis facility via the Lionshead Mall and the Lionshead Skier Bridge.
All public access to the facility would be from the Lionshead Skier Bridoe only. and no
public access would be allowed from the West Forest Road area.
It is proposed that on the day of the matches, Vail Team Tennis would have personnel
stationed at the West Forest Road and the South Frontage Road intersection, thereby
further directing the public to the Lionshead Parking Structure. Property owners in this
general area would be allowed access to their properties. Vail Team Tennis personnel
would also be located at the intersection of West Forest Road and Beaver Dam Road.
The applicants have indicated that a maximum of 3 to 4 vehicles could be parked in
the existing driveway at the tennis complex. It is possible that one of these vehicles
would be used by President Gerald R. Ford, and the remaining 2 to 3 vehicles would
be used by the professional tennis players. No V.I.P. parking is proposed on the site
• except for President Ford.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed traffic control and parking plan for this facility
is a workable plan, and we believe that the impacts and inconvenience to the residents •
of the area will be very minimal.
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 applicants have worked very closely with the Town staff, the Planning and
Environmental Commission and the Design Review Board with regard to minimizing
the impacts of this use upon the existing character of the area. The following is a
listing of the key issues regarding this proposal:
Perimeter fencing material - it is proposed that the entire perimeter of the tennis
stadium complex be fenced with a blue "ski - area" type mesh fencing. This
fence would be approximately 4 feet in height. It is also proposed that the
fencing which faces the residences along the West Forest Road area be green,
so that it will blend more with the surrounding area.
Lighting - It is proposed that there will be a maximum of 4 light poles located at
the four corners of the complex. The maximum height of the light poles would
be 40 feet. The applicants have indicated that the lights would be illuminated
for approximately 30 minutes, for each of the matches (9:OOPM through
9:30PM) and then for another 30 minutes following the completion of the match .
so that the public could safely exit the stadium. All lighting will be focused
directly upon the stadium area, so as to not illuminate the residential area near
by.
General appearance of the stadium facility - At the request of the DRB, all of
the tents proposed in the stadium will be white. The banners /pennants, and the
flags, will only be installed on the day of the matches.
Noise -The applicants have agreed to meet the Town's noise standards which
specify that the maximum number of decibels permitted from 7:OOAM to
11:OOPM shall not exceed 55 decibels, (Section 8.24.060).
The staff has carefully reviewed the proposal with regard to its potential effect upon the
character of the area. We believe that the applicants have modified the proposal to
ensure that it is compatible with the area. It is the staff's opinion that the proposed
tennis complex facility will not have a negative impact upon the character of the area,
especially given the limited time frame of the proposal.
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a conditional use permit:
That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the •
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for this proposed conditional use permit is for approval. We
believe that the applicants have addressed all of the issues and concerns which have
previously been raised by the staff, the PEC and the DRB with regard to the potential
impacts of this facility on the neighborhood. We believe the proposal to be in
compliance with the Criteria and Findings as listed in Section 18.60 of the Town of Vail
Municipal Code and as discussed in this staff memorandum.
Should the PEC approve this conditional use permit request, the approval shall be
valid for the period of time from June 15 through August 15, 1992.
C
C:\PEC\MEM0S\TENN1S.518
•
\ tli
{
Above is a rendering of what the new tennis stadium in Lionshead will look like after it is set up for Team
Tennis training and competitions this summer. The facility is patterned after the stadium used at the
Lipton International in Florida, and will hold 3,100 spectators. Drawing by Lisa Forshag- Green.
•
u
0
c� <
j7.� r is
G ll, � + '� �� ter. .M<', I •..,a..r►•- ��.,`i � z A,r�
jw
Tl
:'/,!yam }
• S 1. Vii. ,S. s.,ti + i ' . r t "�.ri' 't, �i � :. � •f
:µ..qty Y y °j•' 1` r
f
S. •� • Ii •f ;
ml
a il' 1 momssln _
XISTING TRAILER
TENT
UILDING
CAR
SCREENED
PORT -O -LETS
CESSION GRANDSTi
AREA SEATING
ENTRANCE -40- C
i -I-
RIVER
SCOREBOARD
BOX
SEATS
TRAILER
CAR
w
GRANDSTi
SEATING
CEN TER
x
COURT
D
m
_111111, I STAGE
Ic
VIP AND
SPONSOR
TENT
TEMPORARY FENCING
(UP DURING EVENTS
ONLY)
I�
0
CJ
•
DATE
THE VAIL EAGLES
1992 HOME SCHEDULE
FRIDAY, JULY 10
TUESDAY, JULY 14
FRIDAY, JULY 17
SATURDAY, JULY 18
FRIDAY, JULY 24
SATURDAY, JULY 25
SATURDAY, AUGUST 1
•
PLAYOFFS
MATCH
WICHITA at VAIL
NEWPORT BEACH at VAIL
LOS ANGELES at VAIL
SACRAMENTO at VAIL
PHOENIX at VAIL
NEW JERSEY at VAIL
RALEIGH at VAIL
TUESDAY, AUGUST 4 DIVISIONAL SEMIFINALS
THURSDAY, AUGUST 6 DIVISIONAL FINALS
SATURDAY, AUGUST 8 CHAMPIONSHIP
•
i
r
tl
` N
x
- 7 J
u �N
\fir 0 9 8 `- �^ '
7 � p
d �7
O n
J W y
U
V/
CD
1.L'
0
Q
CA
a V\3
a�
r�
�► N
T ~•
�u
b
•
r:
•
PLANNING COMMISSION OUTLINE
1.) Traffic Plan
Traffic will not be allowed on Forest Road. The only vehicles that will have access
to this area :
1.) Handicap drop off
2.) President Ford ( for security reasons)
3.) Players ( one vehicle)
4.) Medical/ Police
5.) Area Residents
There will also be "sandwich board" signs indicating the parking areas.(The
Lionshead parking structure)
2.) Lighting
There will be four poles of 40 feet in height, placed in the four corners of the
stadium. The lights will be used for the nationally telecast, July 17 match against
• Jimmy Connors and The Los Angeles Strings. They will also be used as a "filler"
for the matches at twilight. Each match begins at 7:00 pm and we anticipate about
30 minutes per match (9:00 -9:30) when the lights will be noticeable.
3.) Photo copy of bleacher specifications. ( See enclosed )
4.) Light Specifications
A.) Four Light poles
B.) Height -40 feet
C.) Location- four corners outside of fence.
D.) Safety lights on bridge
5.) Fencing Material
A.) Forest Road side: The fencing will be a shade of green that will blend well
with surroundings.
B.) Lionshead side: Festive color coordination with the area .
6.) Site Plan
A.) Location of trailers, restroom facilities, flag poles,scoreboard,tents... all will be •
within fenced area.(See site layout)
1.) Trailer Dimensions (restrooms): 34' X 10' X 10'
2.) Tent Dimensions: 40'X 80', 7 ft at the sides and 18ft at the highest point
3.) Port -o -lets: Regular- 7' X 3.5' X3.5'
7.) Signage
A.) Pennants, banners, flags etc., will all be within the fenced area.
8.) Have requested from VA to upgrade flooring and painting of bridge.
9.) Will provide information to Town of Vail regarding food vending and health
situation.
10.) Parking
A.) All parking will be in Lionshead parking structure.
B.) No parking will be on Forest Rd. •
C.) Six foot stand up sandwich board (Match days only) indicating parking areas.
D.) Tennis Ball Balloon will provide directional indication.
1.) Easily seen from 1 -70 and Frontage Roads.
12.) Screening
A.) Toilet facilites -- Screens will be used to disguise and plants will be used to
decorate.
• Vail Associates, Inc.
Creators and Operators of Vail and Braver Creek"- Resorts
April 20, 1992
Vail Town Council
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
To the Vail Town Council:
On behalf of Vail Associates, I would like to express support for the
Vail Eagles, of the World Team Tennis League and their request to base
their operations out of Lionshead. The exposure the Eagles will bring
here this summer will greatly assist the Vail Valley Marketing Board's
efforts in promoting the Valley as a summer destination. Vail Associates
• is also supporting the Vail Eagle's financially, via staff support,
and through the use of our operational facilities.
I feel strongly that if all entities within Vail support the Eagles,
that they will be successful in helping to establish the area as summer
tennis center.
Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the Vail Eagles.
They will surely raise the level of quality summer sporting events found
in the Valley.
Sincerely,
VAIL ASSOCIATESv INC.
K n s
Vice President Marketing
KN /ss
cc: Carol Frangos
George Gillett
• Roy Tucker
Post Office Box 7 • Vail, Colorado 81658 • USA - (303) 476.5601
r • +r "
ROBERT S. ENGELMAN, SR. •
ONE FINANCIAL PLACE
SUITE 1116
CHICAGO, IL. 60605
TEL.: (312) 663 -7086
May 4, 1992
Mr. Mike Mollica
Vail Recreation District.
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Mr. Mollica:
Confirming our conversation today regarding.the hearing
scheduled for May 18th, 1992, in reference to the Vail
Tennis facility that will abut lot 2, block 2, 6th filing,
I wish to enter a strong objection to the planned facility.
My house is on lot 3, block 2, adjacent to the lot border- •
ing the East side of the Tennis court. The Tennis court
was elevated when it was built and the plan to put a stadium
on the elevated cour't would raise an obstruction that would
seriously block the view from both my house and a house that
I might build on lot 2 for my children. Or, it would seriously
effect the market value of the lot. Currently I am paying
taxes on lot 2, block 2 of $9,407.86 and on lot 3, bock 2 of
$6,403.12. I have been a property owner on West Forest Road
from 1965. In view of my residence, the taxes I have paid,
the potential loss of value, the obvious discomfort that will
ensue from traffic and parked cars on my road, I object to this'
unnecessary project.
Please forward a copy of these objections to every member of
the Planning Commission and the Town Council, if necessary.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to attend the meeting in person.
I would like to be advised of the results.
Sincerely n ��
l�Rob rt S. n elma
RSE /msh
/ 1
•
BRUCE D.CHAPMAN*
DIANE R. LARSEN
'Also admitted in Florida
Dear PEC Member:
CHAPMAN AND L.ARSF.N, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
SUITE 498
VAIL, COLORADO 81657
May 11, 1992
This law firm represents Larry Field who is th e
home located at 586 Forest Road. Mr. Field has asked
you that he is strongly opposed to utilitizing the
for the Vail Team Tennis facility.
TELEPHONE. (303) 476 -0075
TELECOPIER: (303) 476 -0076
E.I.N. 84- 1104400
owner of the
that I inform
proposed site
Mr. Field's house is directly across Forest Road from the
proposed facility. In his opinion that the proposed location is
not an appropriate location, either temporary or permanent, for
such a facility. He does not feel that a stadium structure is in
keeping with the residential character of the neighborhood. He
objects to the noise that will be generated and the unpleasant
aesthetics of such a stadium. Several people that he has spoken
with have said that it is not a permanent structure and that they
agree that the proposed location would not be an appropriate long
term location. Mr. Field feels that if it is not appropriate for
the long term why should it be appropriate for the short term. It
may seem like the short term to you but it is a large percentage
of the time that Mr. Field and his family have planned to be in
Vail this summer.
Thank you for your consideration.
BDC:rlp
Sincerely,
i
•
B URTON E. Gt.AZO V
707 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 400
Northbrook, Illinois 60062 -2839
Ph: 708.539.0910
Fax: 708.291.7978
Fax Cover Sheer
Date: 5 -14 -92
# of 3
Pages:
finciuding cover pageJ
TO: Mike Mollica Fax No: 303.479.2157
Town of Vail. Community dev. Dept.
FROM:
W*
Message:
LJ
!t.
Burton E. Glazov
BURTON E. CLAZOV
May 14, 1992
-4
a
Mr. Mike Mollica
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, Colorado 81657
Re: Temporary Tennis Stadium
Gentlemen;
I am the owner of a single family residence at 454
Forest Road, several hundred feet from the site of the
proposed tennis stadium.
I protest the placement of this commercial facility
almost on the doorstep of many homes and request that
you deny the request for a permit.
A 3,000 bleacher seat stadium, intended for evening •
use to 9:30 p.m., with lighting, trailers for dressing
rooms and toilet facilities, sponsor tents, vendors'
facilities, a sound system, etc. is totally improper
on the Lionshead Tennis Court Site.
As a homeowner it is inconceivable to me that the Town
of Vail, with its stringent requirements and
limitations on home and business appearances and uses,
would approve this use in this place.
While this use is promoted as only "temporary ", it is
not unusual for the temporary to somehow become
Permanent. If this commercial tennis franchise were
to be successful in 1992, it wouldn't be a surprise
for the owners to want to stay in the same facility in
1993 and beyond.
The impact of the noise, pedestrian traffic, lighting,
appearance, etc. inherent in this proposed use of what
is -- and should be a park -like community tennis
facility should be carefully considered; not rushed
through in the course of one month.
707 SKOW.. R, X RL NARU. RTRAI„1
1rl3111(l k. U.046 f (Rd
ZOd t00 'OOSSV 1 93I111O0 9161 IG2 801 Sb,1t bt —SO -266[
•
•
60d 100
Mr. Mike Mollica
May 14, 1992
Page Two
As a nearby homeowner, I did not receive any Notice of
hearing before any Town of Vail body. Similarly the
amount of publicity given to this issue has been
minimal -- perhaps to mute the potential for homeowner
protest and action.
I agree with other homeowners who are opposing this
use of the tennis courts. Please vote against this.
Y rs very
urton i. Glazov��,
"i'� ? -1k
'OOSSH 1931111OJ 8161 161 801
9b :11 bi —SO -166[
•
•
ED
May 15, 1992
51992
VIA TELECOPY - 303- 479 -2157
Mr. Michael Mollica
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Vail, Colorado 81658
Dear Mr. Mollica:
I am the owner of a home located at 556 Foroct Road and I am
writing to you to let you know that I am strongly ag_ainat,
the construction of the tennis stadium.
Thic structure and its use is totally out of line in our
residential neighborhood, and I feel it is unfair to the
homeowners even for a temporary amount of time.
Thank you for your consideration.
X:\ ly you
rs, ,
George J. Prusain
GJP:d1h
Mwffkb.f•
a tswws �..ac4can
Sha -Li Leasing Assoria,tps, Inc.. 85 Chestnut Ridge Road, Montvale, NJ 07645 201 - 573 -1889
WU
Z6/ST/SO
t
r
BRUCE D.CHAPMAN'
DIANE R. LARSEN
'Also admitted in Florida
CI iAPMAN AND LARSEN, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW
143 EAST MEADOW DRIVE
SUITE 496
VAIL, COLORADO 61657
May 18, 1992
Re: Proposed Team Tennis Facility
Dear PEC Member:
TELEPHONE: (303) 476 -0075
TELECOPIER: (303) 476-0078
E.I.N. 84- 11044DO
We have been retained by Michael and Karen Herman who own the
house located at 706 Forest Road, and Julia Kauffman who owns the
house located at 636 Forest Road. Both the Hermans and Ms.
Kauffman feel that the commercial nature of the use is
inappropriate in a residential neighborhood. Ms. Kauffman's•house
is directly across the street from the proposed facility. Ms.
Kauffman plans to be in Vail most of the summer with her family.
The Hermans will be here from time to time during the summer.
They have both asked that I inform you that they join in the
letter dated May 11, 1992 written on behalf of Mr. Field, a copy
of which is attached, and that I urge you not to approve the
application for the proposed facility.
BDC:rlp
enclosure
letpec.wp
xc: Mr. and Mrs. Michael Herman
Ms. Julia Kauffman
Sincerely,
via facsimile: Mr. Mike Mollica, 479 -2157
Mr. Rob Robinson, 479 -2197
e..
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 18, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance for the Bully Pub terrace and a rear
setback variance for the swimming pool deck at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus,
20 Vail Road/Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
I. BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES
• The Town of Vail issued the building permit for the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus renovation on
April 6, 1992. The building permit plans meet the development standards of the Town's
zoning code in every case (except where the PEC approved variances for parking height and
common area). Staff has understood from the applicant that the final landscaping and patio
design for the swimming pool area, and the final landscaping and terracing of the Bully Pub
were issues which would be presented to the Town for variances after construction started.
The building permit plans which the Town used to review the permit, conform to the zoning
code, and the applicant has agreed to revert to these plans if the variances currently proposed
are not approved.
Pool Deck Setback Variance
Since this lot is zoned Public Accommodation, the zoning code requires a 20 -foot rear
setback. The supplemental regulations of the zoning code allow decks, such as the one
around the swimming pool, to encroach 10 feet into this setback. The applicant has designed
the deck to meet this standard, but is currently requesting to expand the deck further into the
setback. The cross - hatched area on the attached drawing shows the area of the deck which is
proposed to be expanded into the setback. If approved, the resulting setback for the deck
would be 2 feet on an 18 foot encroachment.
•
• Bully Pub Wall Height Variance
The supplemental regulations of the zoning code also regulate wall height. In the front
setback of properties, wall heights are limited to a maximum of 3 feet. The applicant has
designed a dining deck adjacent to the Bully Pub which has been split into two levels. Moss -
rock retaining walls surround each level of the deck and tie into the building facade. The
applicant is requesting a wall height variance to allow the wall separating the lower deck
from the upper dining deck to be 3' -6" tall. From the upper deck the wall would be 18
inches in height, and from the lower deck it would be 3' -6" in height. Please see the attached
site plan which shows the extent of the portion of the wall which would exceed the 3 foot
height maximum.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested
variances based on 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. Pool Deck
•
Staff believes that the proposed variance would not have a beneficial effect on
the surrounding area. During the review of the Bavaria Haus renovation (in
which variances were granted for height, parking and common area) the Town
staff, the PEC, and the Town Council all emphasized the importance of
providing a buffer between the Sonnenalp development and the Town of Vail
stream tract. The Town did not want to approve any development that would
preclude the possibility of a streamwalk on Town of Vail land in the future.
The staff is concerned that locating a pool deck this close to the property line
removes an existing natural buffer between the Sonnenalp and the streamwalk.
B. Bully Pub Wall Height
The impact of the proposed wall height variance on the character of the
surrounding area would be very little, in staff's opinion. As the request is for a
3' -6" wall, the difference between a wall conforming to the code and the wall
currently proposed would probably not be noticed. The landscape architects
who designed the terrace believe that the walls of the Bully Terrace are more
aesthetically pleasing with the additional 6" of height.
2
• 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.
A. Patio setback
Staff believes that there is no hardship or unique physical constraint on the
property which would justify an encroachment into the rear setback. Staff
believes that the siting of the buildings are such that an adequate distance is
provided from the rear property line, to allow a pool, deck, and courtyard area
to be constructed, without encroaching into the setback more than what the
zoning code allows.
B. Wall Height Variance
Staff does not believe there is a physical hardship of the property which would
justify a variance to the maximum allowable wall height. After several
discussions with the applicant's landscape architect, staff understands that there
are many architectural constraints, which make a 3' -6" wall a good solution.
Among these are:
• The selected light fixtures which will be encased in the wall require a
clearance between the floor and the cap that can only be accommodated
with a 3' -6" tall wall;
•
The stone cap on the top of the wall will be at the same elevation as the
banding on the facade of the building (with Y -6" tall wall);
The applicants evaluated lowering the elevation of the upper deck;
however, in order to meet the requirements for disabled access, there
can be no step down from the interior restaurant. By lowering the
upper deck, a stair would be necessary.
Staff realizes these concerns, however, we believe most of the concerns could
be resolved by raising the lower deck six inches and adding more berming on
the exterior of the lower wall.
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.
3
• A. Patio Encroachment.
Staff believes that the proposed expanded patio would not impact any of the
above - referenced criteria.
B. Wall Height Variance.
Again, staff believes that the proposed wall height variance would not affect
any of the above - referenced criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
• 3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
•
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of both variance requests. Regarding the findings, staff believes that
granting the variances would constitute a grant of special privilege that other people have not
enjoyed, due to the fact that there is not a physical hardship warranting the variances.
Finding 2 is met in both the situations, in staff's opinion, as neither request would be
4
• detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Finding 3 is not met by either variance
request, as enforcement of the setback regulation and wall height regulation do not result in
practical difficulties for the applicant; there are not extraordinary circumstances on this site
that warrant a variance; and finally, the strict interpretation of the setback regulation and wall
height regulation would not deprive the applicant of building a swimming pool deck in the
rear portion of the lot or building a patio with some retaining walls on the west side of the
property. Given the fact that the request does not meet all the criteria and findings, staff
recommends denial.
L�
•
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
5
is
I•
•
10
--1
0
_1
cJ
_1 +�
J �Q
v az
�� � w.� .wao w�� oonw a�aa s�►rw 4+iciaa rs�w em-r* —"__ __ __. . _..__, _ _,Y__...
s
10
J ' I
i
i
s �
1,
I*
I*
t :t�
INC
v
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: May 18, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a wall height variance for the Bully Pub terrace and a rear
setback variance for the swimming pool deck at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus,
20 Vail Road/Lot L, Block 5 -E, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES
• The Town of Vail issued the building permit for the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus renovation on
April 6, 1992. The building permit plans meet the development standards of the Town's
zoning code in every case (except where the PEC approved variances for parking height and
common area). Staff has understood from the applicant that the final landscaping and patio
design for the swimming pool area, and the final landscaping and terracing of the Bully Pub
were issues which would be presented to the Town for variances after construction started.
The building permit plans which the Town used to review the permit, conform to the zoning
code, and the applicant has agreed to revert to these plans if the variances currently proposed
are not approved.
Pool Deck Setback Variance
Since this lot is zoned Public Accommodation, the zoning code requires a 20 -foot rear
setback. The supplemental regulations of the zoning code allow decks, such as the one
around the swimming pool, to encroach 10 feet into this setback. The applicant has designed
the deck to meet this standard, but is currently requesting to expand the deck further into the
setback. The cross - hatched area on the attached drawing shows the area of the deck which is
proposed to be expanded into the setback. If approved, the resulting setback for the deck
would be 2 feet on an 18 foot encroachment.
• I
Bully Pub Wall Height Variance
The supplemental regulations of the zoning code also regulate wall height. In the front
setback of properties, wall heights are limited to a maximum of 3 feet. The applicant has
designed a dining deck adjacent to the Bully Pub which has been split into two levels. Moss -
rock retaining walls surround each level of the deck and tie into the building facade. The
applicant is requesting a wall height variance to allow the wall separating the lower deck
from the upper dining deck to be 3' -6" tall. From the upper deck the wall would be 18
inches in height, and from the lower deck it would be 3' -6" in height. Please see the attached
site plan which shows the extent of the portion of the wall which would exceed the 3 foot
height maximum.
II. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested
variances based on 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. Pool Deck
Staff believes that the proposed variance would not have a beneficial effect on
the surrounding area. During the review of the Bavaria Haus renovation (in
which variances were granted for height, parking and common area) the Town
staff, the PEC, and the Town Council all emphasized the importance of
providing a buffer between the Sonnenalp development and the Town of Vail
stream tract. The Town did not want to approve any development that would
preclude the possibility of a streamwalk on Town of Vail land in the future.
The staff is concerned that locating a pool deck this close to the property line
removes an existing natural buffer between the Sonnenalp and the streamwalk.
B. Bully Pub Wall Height
The impact of the proposed wall height variance on the character of the
surrounding area would be very little, in staff's opinion. As the request is for a
3' -6" wall, the difference between a wall conforming to the code and the wall
currently proposed would probably not be noticed. The landscape architects
who designed the terrace believe that the walls of the Bully Terrace are more
aesthetically pleasing with the additional 6" of height.
•
2
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.
A. Patio setback
Staff believes that there is no hardship or unique physical constraint on the
property which would justify an encroachment into the rear setback. Staff
believes that the siting of the buildings are such that an adequate distance is
provided from the rear property line, to allow a pool, deck, and courtyard area
to be constructed, without encroaching into the setback more than what the
zoning code allows.
B. Wall Height Variance
Staff does not believe there is a physical hardship of the property which would
justify a variance to the maximum allowable wall height. After several
discussions with the applicant's landscape architect, staff understands that there
are many architectural constraints, which make a 3' -6" wall a good solution.
Among these are:
• The selected light fixtures which will be encased in the wall require a
clearance between the floor and the cap that can only be accommodated
with a 3' -6" tall wall;
The stone cap on the top of the wall will be at the same elevation as the
banding on the facade of the building (with 3' -6" tall wall);
The applicants evaluated lowering the elevation of the upper deck;
however, in order to meet the requirements for disabled access, there
can be no step down from the interior restaurant. By lowering the
upper deck, a stair would be necessary.
Staff realizes these concerns, however, we believe most of the concerns could
be resolved by raising the lower deck six inches and adding more berming on
the exterior of the lower wall.
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.
0 3
A. Patio Encroachment. •
Staff believes that the proposed expanded patio would not impact any of the
above - referenced criteria.
B. Wall Height Variance.
Again, staff believes that the proposed wall height variance would not affect
any of the above - referenced criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons: •
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends denial of both variance requests. Regarding the findings, staff believes that
granting the variances would constitute a grant of special privilege that other people have not
enjoyed, due to the fact that there is not a physical hardship warranting the variances.
Finding 2 is met in both the situations, in staff's opinion, as neither request would be
4
is
• detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Finding 3 is not met by either variance
request, as enforcement of the setback regulation and wall height regulation do not result in
practical difficulties for the applicant; there are not extraordinary circumstances on this site
that warrant a variance; and finally, the strict interpretation of the setback regulation and wall
height regulation would not deprive the applicant of building a swimming pool deck in the
rear portion of the lot or building a patio with some retaining walls on the west side of the
property. Given the fact that the request does not meet all the criteria and findings, staff
recommends denial.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion.
•
0 5
3
zwz; ZZ\ \�
0
u
Q
�, Uu
ral-
fl
Ali
d d
11
'A
IYA \
8
I
jk
I
0
r 1
LJ
is
•
1�
u
t�
C�
ip --
Ll
0_
\J
>D
!_
C
c
�o
z a om
>>
as
z
J
t�
C�
ip --
Ll
0_
•
-'': -- -i7
. . . .............
J.
f
Ilz
•
•
•
FILE COPY
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 11, 1992
Present Staff
Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Mike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter Mary Caster
Gena Whitten
Dalton Williams
Absent
Chuck Crist
The meeting was called to order at 1:35PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
A request for a worksession on a conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis
facility, generally located to the south of the Lionshead Skier Bridge and north of West
Forest Road on the existing tennis courts.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Mike Mollica
There was general discussion relating to the proposed tennis facility.
2. A request for an extension of a previously approved setback variance for the Pitto
Residence, Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Eleventh Filing /2920 Booth Creek Drive.
Applicant: J. Russell Pitto
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the request. After some discussion, a motion was made by Dalton
Williams to approve the request. Gena Whitten seconded the motion. A unanimous 5 -0 vote
approved the motion.
3. A request to expand a previously approved conditional use permit allowing a public
utility and a request for a variance from Section 18.58.320 regulating satellite dish
antennas for 501 N. Frontage Road West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch.
Applicant: U.S. West New Vector
Planner: Andy Knudtsen /Jill Kammerer
The presentation was made by Kristan Pritz. A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter to
approve the request per the staff memo. The motion was given a second by Greg Amsden.
The motion was approved by a vote of 5 -0.
• 4. A request to rezone the "Ski Museum" pocket park site from Public Accommodation to
Public Use District. The site is located at the northwest intersection of Vail Road and
West Meadow Drive.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica presented the request to the PEC, stating that this was a Town of Vail
request, stating the change of zoning was consistent with the zoning of other town
parks in the area, as well as the Vail Land Use Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan.
Mike also stated that this request would need to be approved by the Vail Town
Council. Mike stated that the staff was looking for suggestions as to what should be
placed in the park, as well as the as naming the park. Diana Donovan voiced her
opposition to having the park named after a specific person. Kathy Langenwalter
suggested some sort of artistic benches and that a permanent art pedestal be a part of
the park. After further discussion, a motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter to
approve the Town of Vail's rezoning request and Gena Whitten seconded the motion.
A vote was taken and the motion passsed unanimously, 5 -0.
5. A discussion concerning the roof form for Special Development District No. 6, Phase
IV -A of the Vail Village Inn; Lot O, Block 5 -D, Vail Village First Filing /100 East Meadow
Drive.
Applicant: Josef Staufer
Planner: Mike Mollica
• Kristan Pritz summarized the resolution of the project for the Planning Commission.
She reviewed the issue, stating that this was an unusual circumstance and that she felt
the change in the roof was not a minor amendment to the SDD, but a DRB review.
She stated that the Town Council could have called up the DRB decision for review.
However, at this point, the decision could not be called up by Council or the PEC.
Diane Donovan stated the Planning Commission appreciated the comments given by
Bill Pierce and Mike Lauterbach.
6. Bruce Chapman asked to present a letter to the Planning Commission regarding Item
#1 on the worksession agenda. The letter was in protest to the tennis facility proposed
near Lionshead. The Planning Commission thanked him for the input and stated they
would be voting on the issue at the meeting next Monday, May 18, 1992.
7. Approval of April 27, 1992 meeting minutes.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the meeting minutes of April 27, 1992 with
corrections. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. The Commission unanimously
approved the motion, 5 -0.
The Commission discussed Kathy Langenwalter's suggestion of adult play equipment in public
parks. Kristan stated she would pass on the Commission's suggestions to Public Works. The
Commission also discussed the possibility of naming the ski museum pocket park in relation
to its midway point between Vail Village and Lionshead.
• Kristan also stated the AIPP had received a $2000 donation but had not been granted the
NEA grant. She also stated that Dan Dailey will initiate the clay work for the artwork.
Kristan stated that after the report is presented in July, the project may need to be delayed
until the spring of 1993 because of funding.
Discussion was held on the proposed West Vail Employee Housing Project. Kristan stated
questions should be directed to herself, Jen Wright or Jill Kammerer. The Commission stated
the need for incorporating some type of park area in the housing project. Kristan stated the
site had zoning for four primary /secondary units. Kristan also stated that a letter was being
sent to all the persons who recently signed and filed a petition with the Town of Vail
explaining the proposed housing development.
After further updates, the meeting was adjourned at 3:05 p.m.
is
n
U
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 1992
AGENDA
10:30AM Site Visits
12:45PM Worksession
2:OOPM Public Hearing
Site Visits Work Session
1. Worksession on progress made on the Town of Vail Water Quality Study ~/
for Non -Point Source Pollution.
Presenters: Lane Wyatt, Northwest Council of Governments
Susan Scanlan, Town of Vail
2 2. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district
change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple
Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix
Lane, more particularly described as:
• Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in
the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South,
Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the
east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a
point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant
from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a
point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE
1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of
intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE
114 of said Section 11;
•
v
• Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the
extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded
plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Site Visits Public Hearing
1. PEC Executive Session with the Town Attorney concerning legal
matters.
7 2. Discussion of a referral from the United States Forest Service regarding
a proposal for an 80 -foot tall tower to be erected at the end of the
runaway truck ramp off 1 -70 in East Vail.
Applicant: United States Forest Service /U.S. West New
• Vector /Cellular One
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. PEC notification concerning a minor amendment to SDD #4 - Cascade
Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of
Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, to allow a
maximum building height of 36 feet and to modify the existing approved
landscape plans.
Applicant: East West Partners, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Shelly Mello
4 4. A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor dining deck
in the Parking District at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Lionshead Parking
Structure Auxiliary Building/Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Avon Subs, Inc. /Subway represented by Jim Comerford
Planner: Jill Kammerer
3 5. A request for a Conditional Use Permit, to allow a use not conducted
entirely within a building, specifically, the exterior sale of produce, at
Cuitre, Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road
• West/Legally described as:
A parcel of land located in Section 12, Township 5, South, Range 81
West of the Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado,
r
• more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the northerly right of way line of U. S.
Highway 6, whence the northeast corner of said section 12 bears north
38 degrees, 07 minutes east 876.99 feet; thence south 73 degrees, 45
minutes west along said northerly right of way line a distance of 75 feet
to the true point of beginning; thence north 16 degrees, 45 minutes west
to the south right of way line of Interstate 70; thence in a southwesterly
direction along the south right of way line of Interstate 70 to the point of
intersection of that right of way line with the north right of way line of U.
S. Highway 6 and thence in an easterly direction along the north right of
way of U.S. Highway 6 to the point of beginning, County of Eagle, State
of Colorado.
Applicant: Vail Enterprises, Inc. represented by William VonSchneidaw
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
6 6. A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted
7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore
Creek, legally described as:
• A parcel of land situated in the south one -half of section 12, Township 5
south, range 80 west, of the sixth principal meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle
County, Colorado, said parcel being more particularly described as
follows:
Beginning at the southeasterly corner of Lot 5, Bighorn Subdivision
fourth addition; thence along the south line of said subdivision the
following two courses:
1. South 67 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds east a distance of 248.00
feet
2. South 82 degrees 00 minutes 00 seconds east a distance of 90.00
feet
Thence leaving said south line, south 31 degrees 35 minutes 25
seconds west a distance of 456.19 feet; thence south 39 degrees 42
minutes 33 seconds west a distance of 137.91 feet; thence south 62
degrees 22 minutes 36 seconds a distance of 177.17 feet; thence north
33 degrees 44 minutes 58 seconds west a distance of 502.26 feet to a
point on the east line of lot 1, Bighorn Estates; thence north 33 degrees
36 minutes 00 seconds east along said east line a distance of 358.13
feet to a point on the southeasterly right of way line of Nugget Lane;
thence along said right of way, 84.99 feet along the arc of a 65.00 foot
• radius curve to the left whose long chord bears north 56 degrees 10
minutes 32 seconds east, a distance of 79.06 feet to a point of
tangency; thence continuing along said right of way north 18 degrees 43
I
• minutes 00 seconds east a distance of 48.31 feet to a point on the south
line of said Bighorn Subdivision, fourth addition; thence along said south
line, south 64 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds east a distance of 50.80
feet; thence continuing along said south line, south 51 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds east a distance of 155.00 feet to the point of
beginning.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
7. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point,
1881 Lionsridge Loop Road /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve GenslerNail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
5 8. A request for a setback variance to allow the construction of an entry
gate at the Peterson Residence, 332 Beaver Dam Circle, Lot 6, Block 3,
Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Jay K. Peterson
• Planner: Andy Knudtsen
9. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an
exterior alteration in Commercial Core II, for the Lionshead Center
Building commercial expansion, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Lot 5, Block 1,
Vail Lionshead First Filing.
WITH- 10. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
DRAWN Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
FROM First Filing.
AGENDA
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
11. Appointment of a PEC member to serve on the DRB for the month of
JUNE.
12. Discussion of the appointment of a PEC member to serve as a alternate
for the DRB.
13. Discussion of appointment of a DRB member to attend PEC meetings
when SDD and exterior alteration applications are discussed as
worksession items.
• 14. Approval of the PEC Minutes of May 18, 1992.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: •
Development Department
DATE: June 8, ..
SUBJECT: Vail Nonpoint Source Study
I. BACKGROUND:
In January of 1992, the Community Development Department put together a task force
to initiate a nonpoint source water quality study. The study is being funded in part
through a technical assistance grant from the EPA which provides for NWCCOG staff
assistance. The task force is composed of Community Development staff, Public
Works staff, Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) and Town Council
representatives in addition to Lane Wyatt of NWCCOG. The study is a detailed
evaluation of both existing stream water quality and potential sources of urban
stormwater.
II. PURPOSE:
• The study was begun in response to EPA regulations which have been promulgated to
address nonpoint source pollution. The Town is striving to maintain a proactive
approach to a future potential problem. There are three main focus points for the
study:
To determine if there are existing negative water quality impacts in Gore Creek
which could be attributed to nonpoint sources of pollutants.
2. To evaluate potential sources of pollutants in order to gain information for
developing effective pollution control strategies.
3. To posture the Town of Vail for likely stormwater discharge permitting
requirements.
The determinations which must be made to evaluate Vail's status in relation to the
regulations are:
Monitor for dry weather flows in the stormwater drainage system to identify
loading from such sources as: infiltration, lawn watering, foundation drains, car
washing, illegal connections, etc.
2. Monitor flows in stormwater drains during storm events to determine the
possibility of water quality problems from metals, oil and grease, sediment, or
other human induced pollutants.
3. Monitor stream water quality during pesticide application at the golf course to
determine.if there are negative impacts to Gore Creek. .
4. Evaluate existing ordinances to determine if Vail has sufficient legal authority to
control discharges and enforce compliance.
III. GOAL:
The goal or projected outcome of the study is a detailed management program which
documents current and potential water quality problems and provides
recommendations on management practices and regulatory controls to protect water
quality from nonpoint sources of pollutants.
IV. WORK COMPLETED TO DATE:
The task force has essentially completed mapping the various storm drain systems in
the Town of Vail as well as identifying the basins which drain into specific areas. In an
effort to determine which pollutants may be affecting the water quality of Gore Creek,
testing/sampling sites have been established which are believed to be those which
have the greatest potential for problems. These sites are (1) along the golf course, (2)
the Village parking structure and (3) the West Vail drainage around the 4 -way
interchange. An exact determination of what parameters to test for is the next step in
the process before the actual sampling is done.
v*Lzan"*moc\n0npo1nt.6N •
0
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: Discussion of a Referral for TOV Comments from the United States
Forest Service Regarding a Proposed Request for an 80' Tall Tower to
be Erected at the End of the Runaway Truck Ramp in East Vail.
Applicant:
Planner:
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
U. S. West New Vector /Cellular One Represented by
Larry Storms and Dave Rudder
Andy Knudtsen
Two telephone companies, U. S. West New Vector and Cellular I, are proposing to install 5
• cellular telephone sites along the I -70 corridor between the Loveland ski area and the Town
of Vail. All five sites are in the National Forest. One of these sites is adjacent to the
runaway truck ramp at the base of Vail Pass in East Vail. The improvements proposed at this
location include a mechanical building for computer equipment and a tower for antennas.
The tower would be approximately 80 feet tall, 24 inches in diameter at the base, and 12
inches in diameter at the top. At the top there would be a triangular shaped super structure
which would support 6 antenna. There would be two antenna at each corner of the triangle,
one mounted upwards and one downwards. The antenna are approximately 10 to 12 feet in
length.
The site which the applicants have selected is located in a slight depression between the I -70
runaway truck ramp access road and old Highway 6. There are many tall evergreen trees
which immediately surround this site. It is located on Parcel H, which is owned by the Forest
Service, has been annexed into the Town and is zoned Greenbelt and Natural Open Space.
The site is owned by the National Forest and is within the boundaries of the Town of Vail.
Please see the attached maps for more information.
II. REVIEW PROCESS
The applicants have submitted a scoping proposal to the Forest Service. The Forest Service
has, in turn, routed the scoping proposal to the Town for our input. After the Forest Service
collects the comments from their referral agencies, they will require the applicants to write an
1P Environmental Assessment addressing the comments that have been raised. The Forest
Service anticipates the EA to be submitted in mid -July. At that time there will be an
• approximate 20 -day review period for the Town to comment on the EA. At this time, the
Town's efforts are to raise specific issues to be addressed in the EA later this summer.
III. STAFF CONCERNS AT THIS TIME
At this time, the concerns that have been identified can be grouped under two general
categories. The first deals with process. The second deals with the tower and the aesthetic
concerns related to its construction.
Process
1. The Forest Service has indicated to the Town that in their opinion they are not
required to conform to Town zoning or building ordinances before allowing Cellular
One to commence construction of the tower. It is the Town's position that Cellular
One must comply with all Town of Vail ordinances, including those controlling zoning
and building before commencing construction of the tower.
Aesthetic Concerns
1. What finish treatment and color should be applied to the tower in order for it to blend
into the hillside? What treatments have been used in the past on other towers to
is achieve this affect?
2. Are there alternatives to the super structure and antennas at the top of the tower?
3. Could the cell site be located higher on a hillside and eliminate the need for the
tower?
4. What other sites have been evaluated for the location of this cell site?
5. Can the building be located underground?
6. A visual study should be completed.
IV. CONCLUSION
Staff will compile all the issues that are raised by PEC and Town Council and will pass them
on to the Forest Service for incorporation into the Environmental Assessment. We anticipate
an opportunity to review the EA in mid -July.
•
i
i
i
•
0- il v, ' ?l 1, Ni
C
1rl cH�lNl � �
t 7 it1� 11
Ol�
1' 1\
e
u f;,
a
o a
m mmm
omi o�
-• N
4• 4 � �' � tai
r U U
c
4�
d'a
S 0'21'I6` w IJ7E
S 6-10*Oi`-w i3,i
P� v d�
D
O
.A .0 .
n '^
LN
m
n
m �
IN
0
V p A a c T
nI 7 m m � fD
�3
rD
.n.
T � O
C ^ C
t0gb r
Cb ] p ? r
o n Q ^ v
a sni<i
�° oil
lb
� � n
� L
C 47-1.
tp c
Q ; b
m 3
o
b 7
O O
no I �
� oyq�•fD
vQDW Q a
wO O b o
r F q -
2
c
Cal
xo
7 � �
t f
o c
O
4 n
V
co
4
O,
Y LA V
+'a
fu
2'
m�
iJ
NN
9", ONE
mm
C
1rl cH�lNl � �
t 7 it1� 11
Ol�
1' 1\
e
u f;,
a
o a
m mmm
omi o�
-• N
4• 4 � �' � tai
r U U
c
4�
d'a
S 0'21'I6` w IJ7E
S 6-10*Oi`-w i3,i
P� v d�
D
O
.A .0 .
n '^
LN
m
n
m �
IN
0
V p A a c T
nI 7 m m � fD
�3
rD
.n.
T � O
C ^ C
t0gb r
Cb ] p ? r
o n Q ^ v
a sni<i
�° oil
lb
� � n
� L
C 47-1.
tp c
Q ; b
m 3
o
b 7
O O
no I �
� oyq�•fD
vQDW Q a
wO O b o
r F q -
2
c
Cal
xo
7 � �
t f
o c
O
4 n
V
co
4
O,
Y LA V
�
fu
2'
HOU V Y &OJ V SU U V E U O V tN '
9", ONE
P
FU�J E -.. Af?A A11OE ROAD
18, TSS, R79W
���
E:IvJ(.;LLWO(A-), COLORADO
TY, COLORADO
694 -0161
0
�
�W
0
•, r
•
• .' ". :-•may: MAY
d 199E.
• SCOPING DOCUMENT
FOR
PROPOSED CET .T L T AP TVT V ' P " n N r V r nr, ",?"„NTI 4 TION SITE
DESIGNATIONS
MV ••� •
The Federal Communication Commission has licensed two service providers to U S WEST
NewVector Group, Inc.) ( "NewVector ") and the Independence Day 1988 Cellular Partnership
(a.k.a. "Cellular One ") to offer cellular telephone service in Colorado Rural Service Area No.
# ( "RSA -3 "). This service area includes west - central Colorado, and all of the White River
National Forest. To fulfill licensing requirements, the two companies have constructed several
communication facilities on private lands in the RSA -3, and currently provide service to much
of the area, particularly the population centers.
NewVector and Cellular One have proposed that the US Forest Service designate five new
electronic communication sites on National Forest Service land. The sites lie between the
Loveland Ski Area and the Town of Vail, along the Interstate -70 corridor, and would be
• designated for cellular telephone use only. These locations constitute all the cellular
communication sites necessary on National Forest lands between Idaho Springs and Glenwood
Canyon for the foreseeable future (3 -5 years).
The Forest Service has determined an Environmental Assessment of the proposal must be
prepared. Under provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the
Forest Service, the White River National Forest, is the agency responsible for preparing this EA.
Other agencies, including state and county, will also be involved with certain permitting aspects
of the project.
Four of the proposed sites, from the west portal of the Eisenhower Tunnel to the East Vail Truck
Ramp, are located in the White River National Forest, and will be considered in this
Environmental Assessment. The fifth proposed site, at the East Portal of the Eisenhower Tunnel
is located in the Arapaho National Forest, and will be considered in a separate Environmental
Assessment.
Interested persons, organizations, and agencies are encouraged to assist in the environmental
analysis process by providing their own information, comments on issues, and alternatives to be
addressed in the EA. This scoping document provides an overview of the proposed project and
results of preliminary scoping by the Forest Service. It also provides a preliminary determination
of the resources likely to be affected by the project and the issues to be addressed in the EA.
Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service at the following addresses by June 15,
• 1992:
S
•
•
n
U
Mr. Barry Sheakley
White River National Forest
Dillon Ranger District
P.O. Box 620
Silverthorne, CO 80498
(303) 468 -5400
Mr. Tim Grantham
White River National Forest
Holy Cross District
P.O. Box 190
Minturn, CO 81645
(303) 827 -5715
BACKGROUND ON THE CELLULAR TELEPHONE INDUSTRY
How a Cellular system operates
In the past, mobile telephones were only available to those individuals willing to tolerate the
considerable limitations of a system that utilized only 12 -20 channels and often had poor voice
quality and spotty coverage. 'These systems operated with one centrally located high - powered
transmitter to communicate with all of the mobile units in the service area. This technology did
not make large -scale service practical, because each of the system channels could handle only
one call at a time. Channels could not be reused because the transmitted signals were strong
enough to interfere with one another.
The current cellular telephone technology was developed to respond to these problems. This
system consists of many low- powered antennas in a honeycomb pattern of "cells" that invisibly
blanket the service area.
The cellular system consists of a cellular phone that both transmits and receives radio signals.
From the mobile phone, calls are sent to a central computer called the Mobile Telephone
Switching Office (MTSO). The MTSO connects the cellular phone transmission with the local
telephone company system which completes the call.
From Cell To MTSO To local
Telephone Co
N
Call Anywhere
in the World
4
,
As a caller drives from one cell to another, the call is automatically handed off to another cell
by computer. The cells are also overlapped to insure calling success even during the busiest
hours and days of the month. The system is engineered to provide excellent signal strength and
clarity.
NI, NO
I
4
%TISO
M TSO
All cellular systems are compatible, so when you, travel to another city which has cellular
service, your cellular telephone still works. As cellular mobile systems expand throughout the
nation, many major highway corridors between cities will be covered with additional cells. A
major benefit of the proposed Forest Service cell sites will be provide uninterrupted coverage
throughout the service area.
A Cell Site
Cell sites are required to transfer (handoff) the voice conversation from one cell to the other,
allowing the user to maintain the conversation as they are moving through the cellular system.
Cell sites generally consist of a single pole or telecommunications tower mounted with whip or
directional antennas, and perhaps a microwave dish. A small, unmanned single -story equipment
building, generally less than 600 sq. feet in size, house computers and other equipment.
Benefits of Cellular Service
Cellular telephones were originally considered a luxury, just like ordinary telephone and
television. Cellular communication is now a part of daily life, serving nearly everyone in the
community either directly or indirectly. Many people still have the perception that cellular
telephones are only used by fast -paced business people making deals from the driver's seat. That
perception ignores the very important health and safety role that cellular communication already
• plays in people's lives.
9
• Cellular telephones are used in emergency situations by citizens - to report accidents, to make
911 emergency calls and to report drunk drivers. In the last 12 months alone, over thousands
of 911 emergency calls using cellular telephones were placed in the Front Range area.
Additionally, in some areas, freeway emergency call boxes are cellular telephones, and each
averages 360 calls yearly. Any one of these emergency calls could be life - saving.
Emergency health and safety service providers - fire and police departments, paramedics, public
safety and search and rescue agencies - have discovered that cellular communication helps them
to better serve the public. For example, cellular telephones allow ski patrol and emergency
medical personnel to immediately access specialists, quickly transmit life- saving information, and
otherwise deal with emergency situations. That is one reason that many Colorado ski areas
already- provide cellular telephone service.
SCOPING ALTERNATIVES
The four proposed site designations are: at the west portal, Eisenhower Tunnel; the top of "B"
Lift, Copper Mountain Ski Area; just east of Shrine Pass; and at the end of the runaway truck
ramp off I -70 at East Vail.
Other alternatives to be considered in the EA are: Satellite; coaxial cable within the Eisenhower
Tunnel; the Peak 10 communication site; and two alternative sites on Vail Pass - the Colorado
• Highway Department Sand Shed, and the Polk Creek Truck Ramp. In addition, the EA will
consider a no action alternative.
PRELIMINARY IDENTIFICATION OF ISSUE
Brief descriptions of the issues associated with potentially affected resources are provided below.
These issues will be expanded and clarified based upon public input provided during the scoping
process.
Need
The EA will examine the present and anticipated needs, demands, and benefits to be derived
from cellular and similar telephone systems.
The EA will evaluate the alternatives for siting the proposed facilities on non - federal lands.
Vegetation
Potential impacts to wetlands and special- concern plants have been identified as an issue that
• should be addressed in the EA. Wetlands and floodplains, if any, will need to be identified and
areas of potential impacts addressed. Potential impacts on special - concern plants (threatened or
endangered species) also will be addressed.
4
• w r
Wildlife
Potential impacts of the project on big game, raptors, and special- concern sr*ecies has been
identified as an issue that should be addressed in the EA.
Cultural Resources
Potential impacts on cultural resources in the area has been identified as an issue that should be
addressed in the EA. Cultural resources of the project area should be evaluated to ensure that
potential sites on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places are documented and
protected.
Potential impacts of the project on public recreational use at Shrine Pass and Copper Mountain
have been identified as an issue that should be addressed in the EA. Both summer and winter
trail use occurs on Shrine Pass, and downhill skiing occurs at Copper Mountain.
Visual
Potential visual impacts resulting from development of the proposed sites has been identified as
an issue that should be addressed in the EA. Computer simulations, renderings and site
• inspections will be incorporated to evaluate the visual impacts of the proposal.
DECISION TO BE MADE
•
The decision to be made by the Responsible Official (Regional Forester) is whether or not to
amend the White River National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan to designate the
proposed sites or the alternatives as cellular communications sites.
5
Richard H. DeVoe
• 5185 Main Clore Drive
Vail, Colorado 81657
June 8, 1992
Planning and Enviornmental Commission
Town of Vail
Department of Community Development
Vail, Colorado 81657
Dear Commission Fiembers,
`,ie would like to strongly protest the proposed eighty
foot tall tower to be erected at the end of the runaway truck
ramp off I -70 in East Vail.
,rje made a major investment in our home in .East Vail in
1987. We chose a lot with very difficult and expensive found-
ation costs because of the beautiful views this lot offered.,
The lot is surrounded by National Forest to the rear also
extending to the east with a designated green space to the
west`. Our views across the runaway true'-, ramp off of I -70
in vast Vail are natural and spectacular.
It would be very upsetting to look out our windows and
• see an eighty foot tall tower built on the I,Tational Forest
land. If we wanted to view -cor,,riercial structures we would
have built elsewhere.
If this eighty foot tall tower is allowed to be constructed
blighting our natural spectacular view we will be damaged both
emotionally and financially.
On a much larger scale this proposed eighty foot tall tower
effects everyone in Vail. At a time when emphasis is on
beautifying the area along I -70 do we want to erect an eighty
foot tall tower that will be the first thing you see when you
enter East Vail and the lost thing you see when you .leave East
Vail, especially during our snow season with maybe a red light
on top? 'We hope not!
Sincerely.,
Richard H. DeVoe
Barbara J. DeVoe
40
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A review of a staff approval of 2 minor amendments to SDD #4 - Cascade
Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located south of
Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, and more
specifically described as follows:
A part of the SW 1/ NE 1 /a, Section 12, Township 5 S, Range 81 W of the 6th
principal meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, described as follows:
Beginning at a point whence an iron pin with plastic cap marking the center of
said Section 12 bears S 42'50'19" W 669.34 ft: thence S 85'43'14" E 89.84 ft:
thence S 57 °25'30" E 169.46 ft: thence S 32 °59'30" E 141.47 ft: thence S
65 031'36" W 95.04 ft: thence S 69 °01'36' W 103.02 ft: thence N 23 °24'09" W
319.09 ft to the point of beginning.
Applicant: East -West Partners
Planner: Shelly Mello
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
East -West Partners, developer of the Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades in Area A of Cascade
Village, has requested two minor amendments to the existing Special Development District
No. 4. These minor amendments are requested pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100 - Amendment
Procedures, which provides for minor modifications which are consistent with the design
criteria outlined in the SDD section of the zoning code. The Town zoning code defines
"Minor Amendment" as meaning:
"[M]odifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the
basic intent or character of the approved Special Development District, and are
consistent with the design criteria of the SDD chapter. Minor amendments
may include, but are not limited to, variations of not more than five feet to
approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans
that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the
w
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an outdoor dining deck
in the Parking Zone District at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Lionshead
Parking Structure Auxiliary Building/Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Avon Subs, Inc. /Subway represented by Jim Comerford
Planner: Jill Kammerer
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
Jim Comerford, the applicant, proposes to purchase and install 5 tables, with integral seating,
on the sidewalk area south of the Lionshead Auxiliary Building and east of the entrance to the
• Subway Restaurant. (Please see attached cut sheet.)
The Lionshead Auxiliary Building is located in the Parking Zone District which requires a
conditional use permit for commercial uses which are transportation, tourist or town related
and which are accessory to the parking structure. The sidewalk area where the dining area
would be located is presently surfaced with pavers. As proposed, the outdoor dining area
would include 5 tables, which would accommodate up to 30 people. The narrowest walkway
width between the proposed tables and the East Lionshead Circle roadway will be a minimum
of 10 feet.
If approved, the seating will be available for use beginning after the close of the ski season
and will run through October 15, 1992, and will be available for use by the general public and
will not be restricted for use only by Subway restaurant customers. In addition to providing
outdoor seating for the general public, the seating will provide an alternative for Subway
customers to using the seating inside of the restaurant.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The Town of Vail zoning code does not stipulate the need for any additional parking spaces
for outdoor dining decks. None of the other zoning or development standards would be
affected with this proposal.
III. RELATED POLICIES OF THE VAIL LIONSHEAD URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN
• There are no Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan Sub -Area Concepts which apply to this
area. The proposed deck complies with the following Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan
• Guidelines. Please note, the site is not zoned Commercial Core II and officially the design
guidelines are not applicable, however, staff believes these guidelines are helpful in reviewing
the proposal:
Decks and Patios:
E.1. "Functional decks or patios primarily for dining are strong street life
elements in Lionshead and are highly encouraged, on either the ground
or second floor level ".
E.2. "Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration
to: sun; wind; views; pedestrian activity; accessibility.
Accent Elements:
F.1. "Judicious use of colorful accent elements, consistent with existing
character of Lionshead are encouraged, such as:... annual color flowers
and beds or planters, in balcony or window boxes."
Staff did not find any applicable elements in the Streetscape Plan.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
• Upon review of Section 18.60 - Conditional Use Permits of the zoning code, the Community
Development Department recommends approval of the conditional use permit based on the
following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Relationship and Impact of the use on development objectives of the Town.
The staff feels this dining area is an appropriate site development. No landscaping will be
removed under this proposal. However, staff believes the addition of potted plants and
colorful table umbrellas, in addition to the placement of the tables, will add landscaping, color
and interest to the area.
2. The effect of the use on light and air, distribution of population, transportation
facilities, utilities, schools, parks and recreation facilities, and other public
needs.
The staff believes the proposed dining area will have no negative effect on the above listed
criteria. The dining area will be located in close proximity to one of the main Lionshead bus
stops. However, given the seasonality of the dining area, and the maintenance of a 10 -foot
minimum access way between the tables and East Lionshead Circle Drive, staff does not
believe the proposed dining area will negatively impact the public transportation system's
ability to continue to operate efficiently in this area.
• 2
• 3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestion, automotive and
pedestrian safety and convenience, traffic flow and control, access,
maneuverability, and removal of snow from street and parking areas.
The staff believes the proposed dining area will have no negative impacts on traffic flow and
control, access, maneuverability, etc., in that the dining area proposed would be located
entirely upon a pedestrian area (i.e., sidewalk). A minimum of 10 feet in width will be
maintained for this access. By restricting the operation of the outdoor dining area from after
the close of ski season through October 15th, the proposal will not impact snow removal.
4. Effect upon 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 the surrounding
uses.
Staff believes the proposed outdoor dining area would have a positive effect upon the
character of the immediate area. We believe it will enable the general public and those
restaurant patrons utilizing the table seating area to be outside which, in turn, will provide
activity to an area which historically has not had much outside activity. We believe this
outdoor activity in conjunction with brightly colored table umbrellas and landscaping in pots,
would add interest to the site.
V. FINDINGS
• The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use is in accord with the purposes of
the conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of request for a conditional use permit as we believe the
request meets the findings in Section V as described in this memo. The approval is subject to
the following conditions:
1. Due to the heavy skier pedestrian traffic, the dining area will not be operational
• during the ski season.
3
0 2. The dining area tables will be placed on the paved sidewalk area immediately
adjacent to the buildings.
•
U
3. The applicant will install table umbrellas and 5 potted plants in conjunction with
this conditional use approval. The pots in which the plants are to be located
shall be 2 - 3 foot in diameter /square. There shall be no advertisement on the
umbrellas.
Staff feels the request meets the findings for conditional use permit approval. The
landscaping in the area where the deck is to be located is sparse to nonexistent. The activity
of people utilizing the dining tables will add life and vitality to this area.
4
tc
CL
0
0
4-
u
0 (L
uxr
'alm
CXTXDCD
X-441 -
0 ■
-0
. .N.0 v
-00
00
a-ixn
G
U 0a)
to ui
T
O
S,
0
U3
■
■
0 I't
13
a
m
44-
JOAOd 1 \ \ o
'700,
CL-
i U�,r,
o
Ej r. ` g
Y x
0 'En X SH
EEE
Lio -0
El L
a. 0.0 c c c 3
0
•
•
IX
0 o
m
PlAr
0
u
uxr
'alm
CXTXDCD
•
D O.
G
to
I
'
.r
x CrXD) Lis
crxv)
cxuw;
be O )
*01D)
AC
W. tam)
0 40r-.
•
L
•
c >
0
U\
04
•
•
IX
0 o
m
PlAr
•
•
L
— ?,
_ r_P
HIGH LIGHT DOOLSIDE AND FOODSERVICE iOC.A7lO \5
Wi -'r. GRACEFUL. HEAVY -DUTY BO\1O\T= SEATING
Bomon: is dcsienec in both island -swig and grout -in configura-
tions. The•. are durabie r . noug to wtths:anc Fear -rounc weather
estremet. sun. sieet. or snow �N eight z-..- unit is 15- Pounds.
depending upon stoic. Generous IlF" d _mcter tabietop accommo-
dates food and oeverage service. On request. we wil'. pre -drill hole
iree for customer choice of umorclia. ordered separatei•• from urn -
brelia nanufacturc:. Bomont can be ordered with six round or
three curved seats.
Frames: are of square tubular steel construction for seat and table
supnorts and isiand -style legs: grout -in support posts are round.
Reijabic. eery- highi-,- weather- resistant nish is of polyester ther-
moset powder paint in biack or brown standard colors. White is
optional at extra cost. Isiand -stvle Bomon, legs have adjustable le-
velers with fasteners that attach to concrete. Grout -in legs can be
core - drilled 6" deep into existim concrete or installed in newly-
poured concrete. -
Seats and Tabletops: have durable. all - weather styling. too. in a
choice of popular colors. They are molded fiberglass reinforced
ester resins with attractive slate finish. Choose from brown.
at. bittersweet orange or white solidtones and brown. green.
v or blue marbletones (each marbled in a random pattern with
hitef.
O I- OOR BOMUN i F -96000
:5l. -% STY! F or GRO. ; -;N BONIONT
— rounc
Or
r v v o o s t
i
round
_) r
7C _ cur'. Ca
..ats
\ote: Grout -in round support posts core - drilled into existing
concrc:c are secured with _grout -in cement kit which accum-
panies order.
.0--
615 Centennial Drive /� FREE 300 -533 -0480
Kenyon, Minnesota 53946 Minnesota and Alaska (507) 789 -5222
FAX 507 - 789 -5454 TELEX: 70 -3208 (Folderaft LID)
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a Conditional Use to allow "a use not conducted entirely within a
building ", specifically the exterior sale of produce located at Cuitre, 1031 S.
Frontage Road West/legally described as:
A parcel of land located in Section 12, Township 5, South, Range 81 West of
the Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more particularly
described as follows:
Commencing at a point on the northerly right of way line of U. S. Highway 6,
whence the northeast corner of said section 12 bears north 38 degrees, 07
minutes east 876.99 feet; thence south 73 degrees, 45 minutes west along said
northerly right of way line a distance of 75 feet to the true point of beginning;
thence north 16 degrees, 45 minutes west to the south right of way line of
Interstate 70; thence in a southwesterly direction along the south right of way
• line of Interstate 70 to the point of intersection of that right of way line with
the north right of way line of U. S. Highway 6 and thence in an easterly
direction along the north right of way of U.S. Highway 6 to the point of
beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Applicant: Vail Enterprises, Inc. represented by William VonSchneidaw
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
...... ........ :: r. .. .:... .•. ... ....,.............:::: •.•.•........:...... .f..� fff :::uFf ..f :...,,t
...i ............. f....... .. rYf :f �.: . :ffrux.. .. rr.•: f... /"':::::::::..:::::::;:; � ':..:• {.....::::::::::...:-..•. v..•...�..: `.
: :::... ........ ........, ., :••. ••. :..:;.... '. }:• }:• } }:•:•::• }:v }:: v:::::::::::::::::::::::.:... x.•.nvr v:::::fir r: rr.r ,,..{{. / ..f.. ...: Lh•v: v:..
....:. }........:i.., .r.....,..n,, }r. .•.:}'t• ..:...vt• ............. . . . ..... ...... .......................:r:....t :••r $/ / .. e. }.:.. .:.,::i ,• w.•::.:• :?rtf.Y:tw:::: ffrr.::::::: n:i• }. ?• }.t:v::vi }: -rXr }i :.::: •:bv::::::::.
. ;.1.: i}.:... n ;4.v /.! r}Y:Y :. ffi.:.::::::: 8.; f.: {,f•..V.• }:: • • v ¢:..• .:.::........: .
.,::::::: •.,.:.,.. ..:::•,:• ::,•.. .....:..max: ?..{.::.:: •::.:::. �•::.? .:::::, :: ::::::::::::::::::::...::•.};.. {. :LN . {S'C`•
........: YL.....,.~. Ci:. r. ra. �...:.:{., . .::::::::::.�::::.,::::.:.:.::: ............ x.................... ............ :L : : : : :,..,•v.•f•�• �.f..,w.o-.�........:....,......
n......., . ..........:::.x.:v .....v.... .. . ...... r.. .. . .................. .............4 .....:.:•:: •:. :.M1M1..::::: „• ::::::::• } }'• }} :::::::,:::,:::::f:L. r {• }v::::::::: y:::::: •w::::::. ::: :..•.•::: _•:: :.:.::
. .....,..: .. ::, :. :•::::::::::::r:r:. .l. r: r. r:f::r:... }.,`. s:}.r... .. K: •: •r }:...... ::.........
. /.,. ...:�•. t: •.. �. .f..... .f: }. :L...., :. f. .:... ... r....::, f, c•::::::::::::.::::::.}.}:.}r �:>: r} r} xx•:?.:: �: �}:• x.? �: �:• }:•: <� }:� }:• }:• }:• } }; } } }:•x - }:•
::6;. }: :: ::� f ?cf :x :.,•:i:.xeLL.}::.::: ,.h}..}.•.•ff.?• }',rrr,✓.•rf? t>r� :.w:: r:•::??.}:!::::::.:.::.:.:,,,}}:.,. ,:.•x•.,,�:•. {?:. { {• }: :f;;:;•;: }•::•:a }}.:... ::.. r::. n :..:::.:::....;y5 }rr.: f, ... ...
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
William VonSchneidaw, the applicant, is requesting a conditional use approval in order to
operate a "Farmer's Market" in the Cascade Crossing Retail Center. The applicant's business,
currently located in the Center, is a gourmet food and liquor store. A conditional use is
required for the Farmer's Market because it will not be conducted within the building.
If this request is approved, the applicant plans to sell the produce from bins set under a 20' x
20' canopy. The bins will be set on two racks. Each rack will have an upper and lower tier,
and will be approximately 11 feet long, 6 feet wide and 5 feet tall. Photographs are attached
at the end of this memo showing the canopy and an example of the rack.
• The applicant plans to locate the canopy at the west end of the parking lot at Cascade
Crossing. The operation will take up approximately 2 parking spaces. The applicant has
selected this location as he believes it will provide the greatest exposure to the Farmer's
Market and will cause the least amount of impact to the other shops in Cascade Crossing.
The applicant plans to operate the Farmer's Market for a period of time between 11:00 a.m.
and 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday, Saturday and Sunday. The market will operate from
the date of DRB approval to November 1, 1992.
II. ZONING STATISTICS
Zoning: Arterial Business District
Required by Proposed by
Zoning Code Existing Applicant
Parking 35 spaces 34 32 spaces
Setbacks
Frontage Road 20 20 20
Side 15 15 n/a
Rear 10 5* 10
* Approved under a previous variance
• 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.
Staff believes that the proposed use is consistent with the development objectives of the
Town, as described in the purpose section of the Arterial Business District. In that section,
the code calls for "limited shopping and commercial facilities serving the town and Upper
Eagle Valley residents and guests" (Section 18.29.010). Staff believes that this Farmer's
Market is an example of a limited shopping facility and therefore is consistent with the
purpose section of the zone district.
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.
•
2
• Staff believes that there will be no impact by the proposed use on the distribution of
population, utilities, schools, parks and recreation or transportation facilities.
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.
Staff believes that the proposed use could negatively affect vehicular congestion and user
convenience, because it would be taking up 2 parking spaces. Cascade Crossing, with 10,270
square feet of retail area, requires 35 parking spaces. Currently there are 34 parking spaces
available for use. With the Farmer's Market, that number will be reduced by 2, resulting in
32 available parking spaces. The applicant has observed that the current mix of tenants in
Cascade Crossing are such that the parking lot was never full this past winter season. Given
that the spaces the applicant wishes to use are at the west end of the parking lot, are the
furthest from any of the shops, and would likely be the last to be used, staff believes that it is
the best location for the market. Because the commercial center is relatively new, and
because future parking demand may increase, staff would like to condition this request with a
one year limit so that the parking needs can be re- evaluated.
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.
is Staff believes that the canopy and racks of produce will add vitality to this shopping center.
We think that the scale of the use is compatible with the scale of these surrounding buildings,
and that it will be a use that is received well by the neighborhood. We believe that no signs
should be allowed with this use, as they might detract from the character of the area. We
understand the applicant will need to sign the bins under the canopy to identify the prices and
type of produce. DRB review and approval will be required for all major aspects of the
market, such as the canopy and the racks.
•
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3
0 3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable
provisions of the conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of this request with conditions. We believe that it meets the
criteria as discussed above as well as the findings. Specifically, staff believes that Finding
No. 1 is met in that the use in its proposed location is in accordance with the purposes of the
zone district. Finding No. 2 is met, in staff's opinion, because the proposed use will not be
detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Finally, Finding No. 3 is met in staff's
opinion, as the proposed use will comply with all of the applicable provisions of the zoning
code, specifically, that the parking demand and supply at Cascade Crossing is such that
locating the Farmer's Market on 2 of the spaces will not have a detrimental impact on the
overall operation of the commercial businesses there.
The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. The applicant shall not erect any advertising signs.
2. The applicant shall not use more area than 20'x20' for the sale of produce.
3. This conditional use is valid until November 1, 1992.
• Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval
shall lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and
diligently pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not
commenced within two years.
•
4
AJ
dMb
11 1 1 w Pi f
Ai
yti���f•e � t � 1.+ ,
� . p ni1 �t I I lwa. � �, 1� •
iic
1 ,
� I r ^t y• � •. t � �.y +
J
" l
1 L_
t 1
��tt � � •? i t 1'r `tas '�' '
n
U
I*
i
i
\t
L_J
l
O O
.< O
' 1 \
i
i
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted 7.5 acre
parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
..vl...... `�.:fi ?: ?f f /?%%! "> .: !`£:li /r,. >}::::;r/ i�c?i< {# i:: 1T 9fifli ::f::afF::::::::S::Yllili:::� :::T:2::::•f.:
-:�k•: :.f`.�5} 'V f�, •:�f::?.::`.•1 /j.,� � . .r.•: r. f:'•f'?•: :ilr ffff:f:
S� ?Fx�'f. :i::: ?•::•ri. r r�f??'rii :;if. .. �+fi.
...? FF. .: 1:: •: f'%5•t.•1::• }' f: } its ?i'..'•i'.fi�:ifi:O:h:•i:•i: i:•i: }{•i;{ ?4:v::li: ?.: ?4:•i
nl•:1:::.... :l�f :..f..:: ••x>}r�r'•.'•.'�.'•.'�:. �f.:vr~~:: %:: f %r{4.:' t�•.•.}•.'�f•f:f.::l•.ty, •: •:•:::.::•:fl° or.t�- �: };,.. .. r:....:�. •...:----.. � :: :::.:::::::.:.:::.:�:::._.:�:.�
.v :f � �?"`•:�Sf <: }�:• ::..F fi: ?•i: ?::: <:::ir':i:: / ...r��/ .fi �, ...1 .••` .v..:::: �F..il �:.i:•i:•'..;:.ilii. ?.....::.�f.
r rfl7: ?•1:4':� .. % }/ ...:.......:.. f..:::::..:.. n.., n;.}•::::• ;• ... F.. /.:: x: v:..:: . ?::??+ �r :f:Niir�:•f'f: : : /.4: ? ?wr r..:.lr :....:: r...
rr........ r:� . . r {% ... ........... .........:......fiF / k'F• f. . ...h..l... %� /F /.?... :.F.. r......... i.......... f ....v.. h...... 1....n� ?wnvi::w: ?:: •rr.:.:: r: i:'•vii•. }v:::::::::::::::: :.:.::_::::::. �:.�
:::::::.:•::.: rr: .f... r f• ::.::::: .r ................. ... .f.?r. .. .r. .rr rr.:::::::::: :::::::. :•::: :.......:: r:.:•:...::: :•::: ?:•:....:._�•.?lif- :i•:::: r::::::: ..........:..::::::: ...
.......... .% rs ........ :::::: •:: •:•.�:::: .. ,.:.::::: :•. f /.:r ., 1,.:..... ff:!�fa..7. N...:............r:.......... r: r......f....::::::::..f .:r::::::: ...::: ;::::: :. :..: ....::.:
.: /r+ r<.. .rr:.....:.. :f /.: .a.f ../ .f .r :.•: •:
:::>?::. •::f::•l:•x � •::?::: lf•:;. x• 1:::. 1:••:::•: ::::::::::•l:•»:•>::•i:•�lx:c.: ii:.:cla
{.lf: ?2�`:: ?.iiif.` ?: . x'?` s:'.. f'? l,: r:} isist::.:?? Gxx:::::::? �'?.:'•: •.•:fv /.•. > :..11::: ??.:iffFrf.. .M •rr• •;:•y :
:..... /./. r.:.' t.... G.. ff/. r%% f: K:'? i7•. v:: f:•:: �f: �:? �f:;::•`.? k�?:...//: rf: �f: �:::; r::: fff:: f:: fl:::/•::.:•.:r•:•::.: l: r::?•:::• l:•: f: i:• ii:?. lii:• i:• l:•::• l: •li:.i:•i:.fl:.s: ?.li:.>:�li:•:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Timberfalls is a 7.5 acre unplatted parcel, generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of
Gore Creek and Streamside Circle West, in the East Vail area. The property is bounded by
the Timberfalls Condominiums to the east, Gore Creek and duplex -zoned lots to the north
• (Streamside Circle), duplex -zoned lots to the west (Nugget Lane), and a large, unplatted
parcel of land zoned Agricultural and Open Space to the south.
The applicant, Ron Riley, representing Timberfalls Associates, recieved the following Town
approvals for the Forest Glen project on November 5, 1991:
1. The establishment of a Special Development District, and
2. Preliminary plan approval for a major subdivision.
The current request before the Planning and Environmental Commission is for the
review of the Final Plat for the Forest Glen Subdivision.
II. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
The property is currently zoned Special Development District, having previously been zoned
Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF). Under the LDMF zoning and based upon the
buildable area of this site, the zoning allowed for a total of 55 dwelling units. However, the
approved SDD development plan is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot, with the
exception of Lots 10 and 11, has the approval for one single family dwelling unit, plus one
"caretaker unit," for a total of 26 dwelling units. Lots 10 and 11 are designated as single
•
• family lots. The total GRFA approved is 62,700 square feet. LDMF zoning allowed for
81,062 sq. ft. of GRFA. The lot sizes range from approximately 14,900 sq. ft., up to
approximately 40,000 sq. ft.
Access into the subdivision will be provided via Nugget Lane, immediately south of the Gore
Creek Bridge. Access into the individual lots will be provided by a public, 24 -foot wide
road, approximately 550 feet in length, ending in a cul -de -sac. Lot numbers 10 -13 will have
a separate access just south of the main subdivision roadway. All utilities will be located
underground.
As discussed at the Preliminary Plan review, entry landscaping has been proposed as a part of
the subdivision design (please see the attached drawing). Due to the applicant's concerns
regarding maintenance and upkeep, and some potential wetlands issues (lack of water flows in
the summer and fall), the applicant has decided not to include the two small ponds, which
were part of the Preliminary Plan, into the final design.
The applicants' plan for the completion of the subdivision is to install the site infrastructure
during the summer and fall of 1992.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The table on the following page outlines the Timberfalls' zoning analysis, indicating the
is underlying zoning, which is LDMF and the approved Special Development District. The
project's departures from the LDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type.
•
0a
Underlying Zoning
a
Parking Per TOV parking standards Per TOV parking standards
* Note: GRFA shall be as described in Section 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code. It should also be
noted that the provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to certain
zone districts, does not apply to this SDD.
* *Note: On Lots 1 -5 the maximum allowable GRFA listed includes a minimum of 1,000 square feet,
which shall be utilized as basement space, located substantially below grade. The maximum
allowable GRFA on these lots for the above ground space is the total GRFA listed above minus
1,000 square feet. It is not a requirement that any dwelling unit have 1,000 sq. ft. of basement
space, but if a lot owner wishes to utilize all the allowable GRFA for a given lot, then a
minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. shall be required to be utilized as basement space.
On Lots 12 -14, 500 sq. ft. of the maximum allowable GRFA shall be utilized only as basement
space, as described above.
** *Note: The maximum allowable site coverage for each individual lot shall not exceed the maximum
allowable GRFA for each lot.
3
Low Density Multiple Family
Approved SDD
.
Site Area
326,700 sq. ft. or 7.5 acres
326,700 sq. ft. or 7.5 acres
Area Over 40% Slope
- 35,363 sq. ft.
- 35,363 sq. ft.
Area Located Within
100 -Year Floodplain
- 21,144 sq. ft.
- 21,144 sq. ft.
Buildable Area
270,209 sq. ft.
270,209 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area
10,000 sq. ft. of
Varies, from 8,176 sq. ft.
buildable area per lot
to 29,255 sq. ft.
Minimum Frontage
30 ft.
Varies, see attached
site plan
Setbacks
Front
20 ft.
20 ft.
Rear/Sides
20 ft.
20 ft. rear
15 ft. sides
Building Height
35 ft. - flat roof
33 ft. - sloping roof
38 ft. - sloping roof
Density
9 DUs per buildable acre,
14 DUs, 12 with
or 55 DUs for the site
caretaker units = 26 DUs
GRFA*
81,062.7 sq. ft. or 30%
62,700 sq. ft. or 23% **
of the buildable area
•
(plus 225 sq. ft. per DU)
Site Coverage
114,345 sq. ft. or 35%
62,700 sq. ft. or 23% * **
Landscaping
A minimum of 40% of each
A minimum of 40% of each
lot shall be landscaped
lot shall be landscaped
a
Parking Per TOV parking standards Per TOV parking standards
* Note: GRFA shall be as described in Section 18.04 of the Town's Municipal Code. It should also be
noted that the provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to certain
zone districts, does not apply to this SDD.
* *Note: On Lots 1 -5 the maximum allowable GRFA listed includes a minimum of 1,000 square feet,
which shall be utilized as basement space, located substantially below grade. The maximum
allowable GRFA on these lots for the above ground space is the total GRFA listed above minus
1,000 square feet. It is not a requirement that any dwelling unit have 1,000 sq. ft. of basement
space, but if a lot owner wishes to utilize all the allowable GRFA for a given lot, then a
minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. shall be required to be utilized as basement space.
On Lots 12 -14, 500 sq. ft. of the maximum allowable GRFA shall be utilized only as basement
space, as described above.
** *Note: The maximum allowable site coverage for each individual lot shall not exceed the maximum
allowable GRFA for each lot.
3
• IV. REVIEW CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
•
The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the Town
of Vail Subdivision Regulations and read as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other
agencies consulted under 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."
It is the position of the planning staff that the applicant has met the Final Plat requirements as
stated in the zoning code and that the Final Plat is in comformance with the previously
approved Preliminary Plan for the subdivision.
As stated at the Preliminary Plan review, the staff is of the opinion that the applicant has
designed a subdivision which is very responsive to the existing natural conditions on the site,
such as the Gore Creek 100 -year floodplain and associated setbacks, the natural topography of
the site, and the existing, mature spruce trees.
The applicant has incorporated architectural controls and design guidelines into the
subdivision's Declaration of Covenants, Conditions, Restrictions and Easements of Forest
Glen. The intent of these architectural controls is to supplement the existing Town
regulations regarding architectural design, (please see attached design guidelines). Dwelling
units and garages shall be designed within a single structure. The applicant has agreed to
abide by the requirements in Section 18.54.050(I) of the Municipal Code, should a separation
of the primary unit and/or caretaker unit and/or garage be requested.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation of the proposed Final Plat, for a major subdivision for Forest Glen,
is for approval. It is the staff's opinion that the applicants' request meets the Final Plat
(Major Subdivision) review standards as stated in chapter 17.16 of the zoning code.
F11
0 Staff recommends the following conditions of approval:
1. That the plat not be signed by the Town until a written agreement (Subdivision
Improvement Agreement, SIA) between the Town and the subdivider is completed, in
order to guarantee the construction and maintenance of the subdivision improvements.
The SIA shall be written pursuant to Chapter 17.16.250 of the Town's subdivision
regulations.
2. That the plat not be signed by the Town until the School Land Dedication Fee be paid,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 1, Series of 1991. The fee for this project totals $1,884.35
(26 units x .014495 x $5,000).
3. That the Town of Vail not issue any grading and/or building permits for the Forest
Glen Subdivision, without the "sign -off' and written approval of the Army Corps of
Engineers.
c .\pedNmemos\forestgl.608
C�
5
� 0
� 0
.1
10
k
�
:|
all
lit
�\
\
||
k
�
!
Q¥
$�
�
■§ |�||
k$
'
. ��§ � ■ -
)� ■|; |��&
@\
2
�
§
� §o
dkk
k§?
k \�
®¥
®
®w%
¥
<
% 2
+
0
\�
kL')�
#
'K k�
� \
�
�
.
k
�
:|
all
lit
�\
\�
( | |! § | | | | | | | | || d b
.,,....,..
aq
%
�
:
�
,1
k
;!!
|�\
§®
�.e
|
#!
\ ®■
\
||
■■
�
!
. -.•
�
■§ |�||
|�
'
. ��§ � ■ -
)� ■|; |��&
,`�|
2
�
\�
( | |! § | | | | | | | | || d b
.,,....,..
aq
%
�
:
�
,1
k
;!!
|�\
§®
�.e
|
#!
\ ®■
\
0
c
CL
Zy
_ i $ : � 4 i � 5 �3�
VA
Z
-N, - ^ - - ----------------
� 0
� W
RO° i
R
lift,
r
U,
0 (D
.
. . . . - - - - -
RO° i
R
•
•
EXHIBIT "B" Fr - MAY 1 1 fg92
FoRE;;T GLEN DESIGN GUIDELINES
A. General /Intent
1. It is the responsibility of each lot owner to understand and
comply with Town of Vail Zoning requirements which include
regulations reg;irding architectural and landscape design
guidelines.
2. These regulaticr,s and guidelines are intended to supplement
the Town's regulations and guidelines and where any conflict
occurs, the most restrictive provision shall govern. These
quidelines shall be utilized in conjunction with the Town of
Vail Design Review process and are meant to reinforce the
natural beauty %nd quality of Forest Glen.
• B. Architectural Guidel:nes
1. Intent. The in•.ont of these architectural guidelines is to
encourage indiv. dual expression in the design of each home
while at the sane time setting forth some basic criteria
which will prov;;e a certain level of consistency throughout
the development.
2. Roof Forms and )'aterials
a. The roof f-.-,-m and materials are a major element of
building f:;-m, In order to provide a compatibility
- among the :4 homes within Forest Glen only the
following r -,of shapes are permitted within Forest Glen:
- Gable ;goof
- Partist Hip Roof
- Full k, p Roof
b. The minimut roof pitch shall be 6 feet in 12 feet.
C. All roof M= "erials shall be natural wood
shingle /shts,
40
•
U
•
d. Roof overhangs protect walls and wall openings from
snow and rain and contribute to a buildings character.
Roofs shall overhang walls a minimum of 2411, except in
limited instances where such overhang would restrict
pedestrian movement.
3• Wai_1 MaterialslExt eriox Finishes
Wall materials and finishes can lend visual interest to
.` ;`a: home. With the exception of log homes in Forest
•''' Glen, all homes shall have exterior walls comprised of
at -least two materials with at least 20% of the wall
" surface covered by the secondary material. No more
than three different wall materials shall be utilized
upon the exterior of any home. Owners are encouraged
to utilize a combination of natural materials such as
wood, log, stone and stucco finishes. On wood surfaces
only transparent stain of natural earth tone colors
shall be utilized. No painted wood surfaces shall be
allowed. All exterior colors shall be natural, muted
earth tone colors.
b. The following exterior materials shall be prohibited:
- concrete block
- brick
- ceramic tile
- aluminum or plastic siding
- steel siding
- simulated stone or wood
- asphalt or hardboard siding
C. All windows shall be comprised of clear glass or
stained glass. No green tinted windows shall be
Dermitted.
4. Utility Boxes /Meters
a. All utility meters /boxes shall be concealed from view
from the street and integrated into the overall design
of the home.
5. Trash Enclosures
a. No free standing enclosures for trash shall be
constructed upon any lot. All trash storage areas
shall be designed to be integral with each home.
2
a. Each home shall contain a garage capable of enclosing
at least two automobiles.
C. Landscape Guidelines
1. Intent. The natural landscape of Forest Glen is one of the
site's most important qualities. Development of the site
must not destroy this quality but should enhance it. The
goal upon each site should be to protect and enhance as much
of the natural vegetation upon each site as possible when
designing a home. To enhance the existing natural
landscape, planted vegetation shall compliment native
species and be compatible with existing environmental
conditions. Care should be taken to protect existing
vegetation to be preserved during construction.
2. Plant Material Sizes. In order to ensure that planted tree
materials survive and have a pleasing appearance, the
minimum tree sizes at the time of planting shall be:
a. Deciduous trees:
b. Confiers:
3. Driveway Surfaces
Minimum 2 1/2 " Caliper
Minimum 8' height
a. Permitted materials for driveways are asphalt, unit
pacers, or concrete. If concrete is used it shall be
colored in natural earth tones.
4. Culvert Openings. When culverts are installed under
driveways which access Forest Glen Drive, their openings
shall be faced with natural river rock stone masonry. The
goal is to conceal the metal culvert ends from view from the
road.
6. Fences. Fences that arbitrarily follow individual lot
property lines shall not be permitted. When utilized to
enclose limited portions of a yard, fencing should be of a
design and scale that is compatible with the architecture of
the home and landscaping.
3
r � S
• ORDINANCE NO. 36
Series of 1991
AN ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27,
FOREST GLEN (A.K.A. TIMBER FALLS); ADOPTING A
DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO. 27
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.40 OF THE VAIL MUNICIPAL CODE
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN REGARD THERETO.
WHEREAS, Chapter 18.40 of the Vail Municipal Code authorizes Special Development
Districts within the Town in order to encourage flexibility in the development of land; and
WHEREAS, application has been made for Special Development District approval for a
certain parcel of property within the Town, generally described as an unplatted parcel located
East of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek and legally described In the attached Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 18.66.140, the Planning and Environmental
Commission held a public hearing on the proposed SDD, and has submitted a recommendation
for approval to the Town Council; and
• WHEREAS, all notices as required by Section 18.66.080 have been sent to the
appropriate parties; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council has held a public hearing as required by Chapter 18.66 of
the Vail Municipal Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF
VAIL, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
The Town Council finds that all the procedures for Special Development Districts in
Chapter 18.40 of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail have been fully satisfied.
Section 2
A Special Development District is established to assure comprehensive development and
use of an area in a manner that would be harmonious with the general character of the Town,
provide adequate open space and promote the objectives of the Zoning Ordinance of the Town.
Section 3
The Town Council finds that the development plan for Special Development District No.
27 meets each of the standards set forth in Section 18.40.080 of the Municipal Code of the Town
of Vail or demonstrates that either one or .more of them is not applicable, or that a practical
1
• solution consistent with the public interest has been achieved. In accordance with Section
• 18.40.040, the development plan for Special Development District No. 27 is approved. P pp The
development plan is comprised of those plans submitted by Inter - Mountain Engineering, Ltd., and
consists of the following documents:
1. Topographical Survey; dated 4/6/82, sheet 1 of 1, revised 10/4/84 and 1/29/85.
2. Slope Analysis; dated 9/4/91, sheet 1 of 1.
3. Tree Locations; dated 6/10/91, sheet 1 of 1, revised 6/23/91.
The development plan is also comprised of those plans submitted by Dennis Anderson
Associates, Inc., and consists of the following:
1. Illustrative Site Plan; dated 9/9/91.
2. Preliminary Site Plan; dated 6/10/91, sheet 1 of 1, revised 6/23/91.
The development plan also requires the approval of the Final Plat for the major subdivision, as
approved by the Town's Planning and Environmental Commission.
•
Section 4
Development standards for Special Development District No. 27 are approved by the Town
Council as a part of the approved development plan as follows:
A. SETBACKS:
Setbacks shall be 20 feet front, 20 feet rear, 15 feet sides and as further restricted
on the development plans set forth in Section 3 of this Ordinance.
B. HEIGHT:
Building height, for a sloping roof, shall not exceed 33 feet from existing or finished
grade, whichever is more restrictive.
C. DENSITY:
It Development in SDD No. 27 shall be limited to 1 single family dwelling for Lots 10
and 11; and to 1 single family dwelling, with an optional caretaker unit, for Lots 1 -9
and 12 -14. Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) shall be as described in Section
18.04 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. It should also be noted that the
provision for an additional 425 sq. ft. of GRFA, which is applicable to certain zone
districts, does not apply to this Special Development District. The GRFA for SDD
No. 27 shall be allocated as follows:
2
•
•
•
Lot Maximum Allowable GRFA
1 4,500'
2 4,500"
3 4,300'
4 4,500'
5 5,000'
6 4,000
7 4,800
8 5,000
9 4,800
10 4,500
11 4,000
12 4,300"
13 4,300"
14 4,200 "
On Lots 1 -5, the maximum allowable GRFA listed includes a minimum of
1,000 sq. ft., which shall be utilized as basement space, located
substantially below existing grade. The maximum allowable GRFA on
these lots for the above ground space is the total GRFA listed above minus
1,000 sq. ft. It is not a requirement that any dwelling unit have 1,000 sq.
ft. of basement space, but if a lot owner wishes to utilize all the allowable
GRFA for a given lot, then a minimum of 1,000 sq. ft. shall be required to
be utilized as basement space.
On Lots 12 -14, 500 sq. ft. of the maximum allowable GRFA shall be
utilized only as basement space, as described above.
1. All caretaker units shall be restricted to a maximum GRFA of 900 square
feet.
2. No caretaker unit shall be sold, transfered, conveyed or subdivided
separately from the main, or primary unit.
3. No caretaker unit shall be leased or rented for any period less than 30
consecutive days.
3
r
•
E.
F.
SITE COVERAGE:
The maximum allowable site coverage for each Individual lot shall not exceed the
maximum GRFA for each lot.
LANDSCAPING:
At least forty percent (40 %) of each lot shall be landscaped. The minimum width
of any area qualifying as landscaping shall be fifteen feet, with a minimum area not
less than three hundred square feet.
PARKING:
Parking for SDD No. 27 shall be met in accordance with the off - street parking
requirements as specified in Section 18.52 of the Municipal Code of the Town of
Vail.
Section 5
Amendments to the approved development plan may be granted pursuant to Section 18.40
of the Municipal code of the Town of Vail.
Section 6
Approval of Special Development District No. 27 shall be contingent upon the approval of
the Final Plat, for a major subdivision, for the property legally described in the attached Exhibit
A.
Section 7
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, 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 8
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.
4
1 �f
. Ott
0 Section 9
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 of by virtue of the provision repeated or repealed
and reenacted. The repeal of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any
ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein.
Section 10
All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, Inconsistent herewith are
repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise
any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed.
• INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
ONCE IN FULL, this 15th day of October , 1991. A public hearing shall be held hereon
on the 5th day of November , 1991, at the regular meeting of the Town Council of the
Town of Vail, Colorado, in the Municipal Building of the Town.
ATTEST: Kent R. Rose, Mayor
��u �AO � - �"�l �u,4��.
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED
by title this 5th day of November , 1991.
ATTEST: Kent R. Rose, Mayor
Pamela A. Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
s
5
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 23, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a major subdivision preliminary plan and a Special Development
District for an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel generally located East of Nugget Lane
and south of Gore Creek Drive.
Applicant: Timberfalls Association
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Timberfalls is a 7.5 acre unplatted parcel, generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of
• Gore Creek Drive in the East Vail area. The property is bounded by the Timberfalls
Condominiums to the east, Gore Creek and duplex -zoned lots to the north (Streamside
Circle), duplex -zoned lots to the west (Nugget Lane), and a large, unplatted parcel of land
zoned Agricultural and Open Space to the south.
The applicant, Ron Riley, representing Timberfalls Associates, is requesting approval of the
following:
1. The establishment of a Special Development District, and
2. Preliminary plan approval for a major subdivision.
The property is currently zoned Low Density Multiple Family (LDMF), and based upon the
buildable area of this site, the property is zoned for a total of 55 dwelling units. The
proposed development plan is comprised of 14 residential lots. Each lot, with the exception
of Lots 10 and 11, would permit one single family dwelling unit, plus one "caretaker unit,"
for a total of 26 dwelling units. Lots 10 and 11 would be designated as single family lots.
The total GRFA requested is 62,700 square feet. The lot sizes range from approximately
14,300 sq. ft., up to approximately 41,200 sq. ft. An existing creek is proposed to be
realigned to cross the subdivision. Two ponds will also be created at the entrance to the
subdivision.
•
Access to the site is proposed via Nugget Lane, immediately south of the Gore Creek Bridge.
• Access to the lots would be provided by a private, 22 -foot wide road, approximately 500 feet
in length, ending in a cul-de -sac. Lot numbers 10 -13 would have a separate access just south,
off of the main roadway. Please see the attached site plan for further information regarding
the layout of the lots and the access roadways. All utilities would be located underground.
The applicant's proposed SDD would exceed the underlying LDMF zone district in the
following areas:
1. Minimum Frontage - Lots 5, 10 and 11 do not meet the required 30 -foot
minimum frontage.
2. Setbacks - It is proposed that all lots have a 15 -foot side yard setback, versus
the LDMF required 20 -foot side yard setback.
3. GRFA - Although the proposed GRFA for the project as a whole is
substantially less than what the underlying zoning would allow, Lots Nos. 1 -4
are proposed to be allocated more GRFA than what the underlying LDMF zone
district would allow, given their individual "buildable area" sizes.
4. Minimum Lot Area - Lot 3 does not meet the LDMF required minimum lot
area of 10,000 sq. ft. of "buildable area." Lot 3, as proposed, would have
8,176 sq. ft. of "buildable area." All the other lots would meet the 10,000 sq.
ft. minimum lot area.
The Timberfalls parcel is located in the LDMF zone district. As such, the permitted uses in
• the zone district are as follows:
1. Single- family residential dwellings
2. Two-family residential dwellings
3. Multiple- family residential dwellings, including attached or row dwellings and
condominium dwellings.
• 2
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• The following table outlines the Timberfalls' zoning analysis, indicating the underlying
zoning, which is LDMF and the proposed Special Development District. The project's
departures from the LDMF zone district standards are highlighted in bold type.
Building Height 35 ft. - flat roof 33 ft. - sloping roof
38 ft. - sloping roof
• Density 9 DUs per buildable acre, 14 DUs, 12 with
or 55 DUs for the site caretaker units = 26 DUs
•
GRFA 81,062.7 sq. ft. or 30%
Underlying Zoning
of the buildable area
Low Density Multiple Family
Proposed SDD
Site Area
326,700 sq. ft. or 7.5 acres
326,700 sq. ft. or 7.5 acres
Area Over 40% Slope
- 35,363 sq. ft.
- 35,363 sq. ft.
Area Located Within
100 -Year Floodplain
- 21,144 s4. ft.
- 21,144 sq. ft.
Buildable Area
270,209 sq. ft.
270,209 sq. ft.
Minimum Lot Area
10,000 sq. ft. of
Varies, from 8,176 sq. ft.
buildable area per lot
to 29,255 sq. ft.
Minimum Frontage
30 ft.
Varies, see attached
site plan
Setbacks
Front
20 ft.
20 ft.
Rear/Sides
20 ft.
20 ft. rear
15 ft. sides
Building Height 35 ft. - flat roof 33 ft. - sloping roof
38 ft. - sloping roof
• Density 9 DUs per buildable acre, 14 DUs, 12 with
or 55 DUs for the site caretaker units = 26 DUs
•
GRFA 81,062.7 sq. ft. or 30%
62,700 sq. ft. or 2346 **
of the buildable area
(plus 225 sq. ft. per DU)
Site Coverage 114,345 sq. ft. or 35%
62,700 sq. R. or 23% * **
Landscaping A minimum of 40% of each
A minimum of 40% of each
lot shall be landscaped
lot shall be landscaped
Parking Per TOV parking standards Per TOV parking standards
* *Note: On Lots 1 -5 the maximum allowable GRFA requires that a minimum of 1,000 square feet be
utilized as basement space below existing grade. These basement spaces are allowed to be
"walk- out" basements. On Lots 12 -14, 500 square feet of the maximum allowable GRFA shall
be utilized only as basement space, as described above.
** *Note: The maximum allowable site coverage for each individual lot shall not exceed the maximum
allowable GRFA for each lot.
3
• III. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the 9 Special Development District (SDD)
development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the Zoning
Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. 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.
The planning staff is supportive of the applicants' proposed 14-lot preliminary plan
subdivision. We believe the applicant has designed a subdivision which is very
responsive to the existing natural conditions on the site, such as the Gore Creek 100 -
year floodplain and associated setbacks, the natural topography of the site, and the
large area of existing, mature spruce trees. No buildings are proposed within the 100 -
year Gore Creek floodplain or within the 50 -foot setback line from the center of Gore
Creek. On the larger lots in the proposed subdivision (Lots 7 -11), the applicant has
agreed to add a "no -build line" along the southern portion of those lots. The intent of
this line is to further control the locations of development on the lots, given the steep
hillside to the south. This "no -build line" is an additional level of control which the
staff strongly supports, and which we believe will be more effective than creating
building envelopes on each of the lots.
• The applicant is proposing architectural controls and guidelines which are intended to
supplement the existing Town regulations regarding architectural design. It is
proposed that these architectural guidelines will be incorporated into the covenants for
this subdivision. At the direction of the PEC, during the September 13, 1991
worksession, there will not be any additional architectural guidelines incorporated into
the SDD ordinance for this subdivision. It was agreed that the PEC and the staff both
felt comfortable utilizing the existing design review guidelines which the Town
currently has in place for single family and primary/secondary type development.
Dwelling units and garages shall be designed within a single structure. The applicant
has agreed to abide by the requirements in Section 18.54.050(1) of the Municipal
Code, should a separation of the primary unit and/or caretaker unit and/or garage be
requested.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
The staff believes that the applicants' proposed uses for the site, single family
and primary/care taker residential dwellings, are very compatible uses in this
zone district and in this neighborhood. We are supportive of the applicants'
• 4
request to reduce the overall density on this site, from 55 dwelling units, down
• to 26 dwelling units. We also support the applicants' request to reduce the
overall GRFA on the site by approximately 18,000 sq. ft. The staff has
carefully analyzed the applicants' request to redistribute the allowable GRFA
on a lot -by -lot basis, as indicated in the chart below. We feel comfortable with
the applicants' proposed GRFA distribution, given that certain lots will require
a percentage of the GRFA to be utilized as basement space, and also that the
proposed building heights will not exceed 33 feet. It should be noted that, in
the LDMF zone district, the maximum building height is 38 feet.
Proposed SDD LDMF
Lot Maximum GRFA Maximum GRFA
1 4,500* 3,129
2 4,500* 3,240
3 4,300* 2,453
4 4,500* 3,533
5 5,000* 6,050
6 4,000 5,002
7 4,800 7,032
8 5,000 8,777
9 4,800 7,018
10 4,500 4,546
11 4,000 4,063
• 12 4,300 ** 5,736
13 4,300 ** 5,683
14 4,200 ** 5,515
* On Lots 1 -5, the maximum GRFA listed includes a minimum of 1,000
sq. ft., which shall be utilized as basement space, below existing grade.
The GRFA maximum on these lots for the above ground space is the
total GRFA listed above minus 1,000 sq. ft. In other words, 1,000 sq.
ft. of GRFA is allowed only as basement space, in order to reduce the
above ground mass of the structures upon these lots. These basement
spaces are allowed to be "walk -out" basements.
** On Lots 12 -14, 500 sq. ft. of the maximum GRFA shall be utilized only
as basement space, as described above.
Since the September 9, 1991 PEC worksession, the applicant has amended the project
as follows:
1. Lot Nos. 1 -9 and 12 -14 shall be designated as single family lots with
the ability to have one caretaker unit.
2. Lot Nos. 10 and 11 shall be designated as single family lots.
0 5
3. All caretaker units shall be restricted to a maximum GRFA of 900 sq.
• ft.
4. No caretaker unit shall be sold separately from the main, or primary,
unit.
5. No caretaker unit shall be rented on a short term basis.
C. Compliance with parking and loading requirements as outlined in Chapter
18.52.
Parking for the subdivision will be provided in accordance with Chapter 18.52.100,
which is the standard parking schedule currently utilized for all developments within
the Town of Vail. There are no loading requirements associated with this
development.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
The Town of Vail Land Use Plan shall be utilized as a guideline in any request for a
Special Development District. This property has been identified in the Land Use Plan
as "Low Density Residential." The Low Density Residential designation reads as
follows:
• "This category includes single - family detached homes and two family dwelling
units. Density of development within this category would typically not exceed
3 structures per buildable acre. Also within this area would be private
recreation facilities such as tennis courts, swimming pools and club houses for
the use of residents of the area. Institutional/public uses permitted would
include churches, fire stations, and parks and open space related facilities."
This SDD proposal was also analyzed according to the Town of Vail Land Use Plan
Goals and Policies. Staff has identified the following goals and policies we believe to
be relevant to this proposal:
Goal 1.6 Development proposals on the hillsides should be evaluated on a case
by case basis. Limited development may be permitted for some low
intensity uses in areas that are not highly visible from the Valley floor.
New projects should be carefully controlled and developed with
sensitivity to the environment.
Goal 1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the additional growth in existing
developed areas (ill areas).
is 6
Goal 5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
• existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
Goal 5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for
a full range of housing types.
The staff believes that the applicants' proposed SDD and preliminary plan for a major
subdivision comply with the above - stated goals and objectives, as well as the Land
Use Plan's designation of "Low Density Residential."
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
The southern portion of the Timberfalls parcel is mapped as a "severe
rockfall hazard" on the Town of Vail hazard maps. A site specific
hazard investigation, completed by Art Mears on August 28, 1991,
summarizes the rockfall hazard as follows:
"In summary, rockfall does not appear to be a hazard on any
portion of the parcel, and should not serve as a constraint to
building on the site."
• 2. The northeast corner of the Timberfalls parcel is shown as being within
a "moderate hazard debris flow hazard area" on the Town of Vail maps.
According to Art Mears:
"Moderate hazard means Lots 5 and 6, and the building
envelopes, could be reached by muddy water, small rocks, and
vegetative debris during a rare debris flow event. Mitigation to
buildings on Lots 5 and 6 could be accomplished by flood
proofing and direct protection of exposed foundation and
building walls. Alternately, mitigation could be achieved by
designing a small settling pond and berm in the flat area above
the tennis courts. Final mitigation details for Lots 5 and 6
depend on architectural and landscaping details which are not
currently available. The mitigation on these lots, however, can
easily be incorporated into building design without adversely
affecting adjacent public or private property."
do 7
3. Art Mears has also completed an analysis of the snow avalanche
• dynamics and the existing avalanche berm capacity adjacent to this
parcel. His conclusions are as follows:
"1. The flow height of the design avalanche is less than the existing
berm height.
2. The maximum deposit height of the design avalanche is less than
the berm height.
3. Lateral spreading of the avalanche below the berms (in the
tennis courts) is accurately shown on the original drawings.
4. The existing berm, therefore, does not require modifications or
enlargements to mitigate the design avalanche."
The only hazard mitigation which would be necessary is for the debris
flow hazard on Lots 5 and 6. Staff recommends that language be added
to the face of the final plat indicating that a site - specific debris flow
mitigation plan be completed for Lots 5 and 6 prior to the issuance of
any building permits for the lots.
F. 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.
• The staff has reviewed this proposed development with regard to the purpose section
of the Special Development District chapter of the Town of Vail zoning code (Section
18.40.010), which reads as follows:
9
"The purpose of the special development district is to encourage flexibility and
creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the
town; to facilitate the adequate and economical provision of streets and
utilities; to preserve the natural and scenic features of open space areas; and to
further the overall goals of the community as stated in the Vail Comprehensive
Plan. An approved development plan for a special development district, in
conjunction with a property's underlying zone district, shall establish the
requirements for guiding development and uses of property included in the
special development district."
We believe the applicant has produced a very well - designed preliminary subdivision
plan, utilizing the flexibility of the SDD process. Again, we believe the applicant has
been very responsive to protecting the Gore Creek 100 -year floodplain and the existing
mature vegetation on the site. For example, the applicant has reduced the density on
Lots 10 and 11 to single family only dwellings. By proposing single family dwellings,
the applicant is able to provide access to these lots via a 15 -foot private driveway
0
III
• easement. This access easement passes through a very heavily - wooded area. Had the
applicant proposed primary/secondary type units on Lots 10 and 11, the private access
easement would have to be widened to 22 -feet in width.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off -site traffic circulation.
The on -site circulation system is designed to be a 22 -foot paved, private roadway, with
a 40 -foot right -of -way. The access road will terminate with a cul -de -sac, which has
been designed to meet the Public Works and Fire Departments' standards.
The staff has reviewed the potential off -site impacts of this subdivision, specifically
with regard to the existing Nugget Lane bridge over Gore Creek. The Town Engineer
has reviewed this issue, and has discovered that this bridge was completely rebuilt by
the Town in 1981. It was rebuilt with a restricted width of 13.4 feet. It should also
be noted that, at the time the bridge was being reconstructed, this property was zoned
for 55 dwelling units. Although the Town staff has some concerns with the narrow
width of this bridge, the Public Works and Fire Departments and the planning staff all
agree that it should not be the applicants' responsibility to upgrade the bridge so that it
could accommodate 2 lanes of traffic.
• H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
The applicant has verbally stated they will be proposing specific landscaping in the
area of the subdivision entry, possibly in the form of an entry gate and associated
plantings. The preliminary site plan does indicate two ponds, which would be located
near the subdivision entry, along the northern boundaries of Lots 12 and 14. The staff
feels comfortable in deferring the detailed grading and landscaping plans for the
ponds, entry gate and landscaping until final plat. The PEC, at the September 9, 1991
worksession, also agreed this would be reasonable.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
The applicants' plan for the completion of the subdivision is to install the site
infrastructure during the spring and summer of 1992. It is proposed that all
infrastructure improvements be completed during this period, and that lot sales and
individual home construction could occur simultaneously.
• 9
IV. CRITERIA FOR A MAJOR SUBDIVISION
• The PEC review criteria for major subdivisions are found in Section 17.16.110 of the Town
of Vail Subdivision Regulations and reads as follows:
"The burden of proof shall rest with the applicant to show that the application is in
compliance with the intent and purposes of this chapter, the zoning ordinance and
other pertinent regulations that the PEC deems applicable. Due consideration shall be
given to the recommendations made by public agencies, utility companies and other
agencies consulted under 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."
A. Public Agency and Utility Company Reviews
Notification has been mailed to the following agencies and, as of this date, no
comments have been received by the Town of Vail:
1. U.S. Forest Service
2. Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District
is 3. Public Service Company of Colorado
4. Holy Cross Electric Association
5. U.S. West Communications
6. Heritage Cablevision
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the applicants' proposed Special Development District and
preliminary plan for a major subdivision is for approval. It is the staff's opinion that the
applicants' request would further the goals of the community, as stated in the Vail
Comprehensive Plan, and that the proposed SDD meets the criteria, as stated in the SDD
chapter of the zoning code (Section 18.40.010). We believe the applicant has been very
sensitive in the overall design of the subdivision, specifically with regard to the 100 -year
floodplain, the site's topography and the existing vegetation on site. Staff recommends the
following conditions of approval:
1. That engineered drainage and roadway plans be provided during the final plat review.
2. That detailed grading, drainage and landscaping plans be provided, as discussed in
Section III(H), above.
• 10
• 3. That an engineered utility plan be provided at final plat.
4. That language be added to the face of the final plat, indicating that a site - specific
debris flow hazard mitigation plan be completed for Lots 5 and 6, as discussed in
Section III(E), above.
The applicant has discussed with the staff the possibility of maldng minor changes to the
development plan, such as slightly moving lot lines to accommodate the results of the detailed
engineering studies which are a part of the final plat submittal. It is also possible that the
applicant may propose the access road to be a public road (This would require an additional
10 feet of right -of -way.) The staff feels that these types of minor changes, which do not
substantially alter the character or intent of the approved SDD and preliminary plan, are
acceptable at the final plat review.
c:\QecNmemos%mbrf&L923
•
• 11
11 133HS 33S
0 3NIl
ZS TV j
z
O
� F-
0
J Z
U-10
OWN
Z5
010
V) M
5l_
z
O_
Q
0
1`
W
Q
N
S
W
Z
Z
0
_N O
J
m0
O O *t
S
��\ T
MS I
fir■ ■
Il1r■wwr
unnr
■try■
vrn
/z 7 /
• W •11•
N
� I
z�
W5;� LLI
/- wg
m
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
L
8
8
\
W
J
'
L11
f ---
• W •11•
N
� I
z�
W5;� LLI
/- wg
m
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\
\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
L
8
8
:1 ` \ \�\ \mil
oQ
V)
LL
F— Q
�z
W
J
'
L11
f ---
LLJ
cr
:1 ` \ \�\ \mil
oQ
V)
LL
F— Q
�z
W
J
'
L11
f ---
:1 ` \ \�\ \mil
oQ
V)
LL
F— Q
�z
•
0
,
a J d CF
PIE .00
m
m m
,GC
egi r. 4 ..
!L 7 S G. .4th [
j
1 � 1
m _ F
W 2
@ p r OW
on
W N 3Cc r
mr > I •, 0
uj
If If cv)
cm
\ � 1
, �n �n4 , � •, g 1
�• �`0 i / I ti o N �
✓ o.. _ �—
� •i
i °^ // �// t, °tea
C ^mq
�--'/ ohs
c")� #4
ADS "► �� t
cli �o22
3
O
s
s
m
a`
�►1• �1 J W� � ;�.
1
I -
m
m W
W
L A
Q m
m � g
U
m
}
Q
s
7
N
LU
N
O
z
\NW
E
ai ti
_ « _ « : R «
< $ 7 $ 7
�. �t !•ti1�j <<! -�`� ,, {r` j =i�lis ill ; i ;
{i��
I l i s- i 1 ij i f '
i`�11'a l! ��; • • j �
!1' l;;�i�i ill fi
JI
11cnitli:M! Ai ! );!
it t
IN
Ad
od
114 t
• g l ,' a R$$ G:� �
�� ; ' �•': � 1 �`� , i ��'• I' "�,. - -_ _ mob,
Doti ,,i ; • :� i '' � . �1' , ;�'•'� �,; == =�\
r'• , it ! `;} '•+ ;,, �'•;1 `•• \\ `' � -�, _,;
I �' ' / :!_` 1 ; • • 111.I•.,'•\', ;',
• j� +� ti`s} �'�� •��
r
• pp d
f , [t! j+ �s !. t �1, t t {i`t to s: j{ a ,•�6..(1 1 —�� � 4 �� 4
• ,l� 1� , �� �' �I �` 6 �t �Ij INN
i rer�ff { i
r
i{ i '''! ltr►i� f�t�� JJ ,ogg
!' �c C`i t�l '�i cl1 t =� ��! jlij ��l'�t 6llL +� rz�R y
i:i fill', 1'ii1,
lb�
TP C
•
•
•
ARTHUR I. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Consultants
222 fast Gothic Ave.
Gunnison, Colorado 81230
303 — 641.3236
August 28, 1991
Mr. Ron Reilly
Timberfalls Association
228 Ridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Reilly:
At your request, I completed a site inspection of an unplatted
parcel west of the Timberfalls development in East Vail on August
27, 1991. The purpose of the site visit was to quantify the
potential rockfall hazard on the site. The southern portion
(approximately 25 %) of this parcel is mapped as "severe" rockfall
hazard on Town of Vail maps. In addition to the site inspection,
I conducted a study of aerial photographs dated 1939, 1950, 1962,
1974, and 1984. Some of these photos pre -date development and
provide an excellent view of the area prior to man's disturbance
and can be used to locate rocks which may have fallen into the
area that was to become the parcel in question.
The following observations and conclusions result from my study.
a. Rock deposits characteristic of rockfall origin
were not identified on the site through aerial -photo
inspection or the site visit.
b. The slope above the site consist of a mature forest
with no perched boulders capable of rolling and
bouncing down the slope and reaching the parcel.
c. The distinct limestone cliff band, which serves as
a rockfall source at many Vail areas, does not crop out
on the slope above the parcel.
In summary, rockfall does not appear to be a hazard on any
Portion of the parcel and should not serve as a constraint to
building on the site.
Please contact me if you have any questions.
Sincerely, 6l I
x) 1 l L CL CGS
Arthur I. Mears, P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
Mau Wasting • Aoalanchea • Avalanche ControlEaglrreemtg
ARTHUR 1. MEARS, P.E., INC.
Natural Hazards Coruultants
• 222 L.ui C.Ahlc rare.
Gunnison. Colorado 81230
303 - 641.3236
September 4, 1991
Mr. Ron Reilly
Timberfalls Association
228 Ridge Street
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Mr. Reilly:
At your request, I have completed (a) an analysis of avalanche
dynamics and existing avalanche -berm capacity at Timberfalls, and
(b) an evaluation of the debris -flow hazard. This work was based
on a site inspection conducted on August 27, 1991 and upon
revised avalanche- dynamics calculations.
AVALANCHE DYNAMICS AND BEP-M CAPACITY
An original avalanche analysis and berm specification was
completed by Mr. Hans Frutiger, a Swiss avalanche - control
• engineer, in 1973. The analysis reported here applies current
avalanche- dynamics methods, including modified Swiss and American
procedures (Salm, 1990; Mears, in prep.), to compute the
avalanche dynamics and adequacy of the existing berms.
The following summarizes the methodology used. Computational
details are included in the Appendix.
•
1. Design - avalanche ( 11100- year" return period) runout
distance was determined through inspection of a
regional database of extreme avalanches. The runout
distance ends on the north side of Gore Creek assuming
natural terrain without the berm in place.
2. A design slab thickness of 1.60m over the starting
zone area of 44,400m3 was estimated by analysis of
extreme storm data.
3. Velocity, flow height discharge, and deposit
height, were computed through application of the Swiss
avalanche- dynamics procedures (Salm, 1990). The runout
distance was forced to stop at the point determined in
step 111," above. The present berm configuration and
location of excavations and tennis courts were used in
final calculations.
Mau Wasting • Avalanches • Avalanche ControlEnOmerins
The following conclusions about berm effectiveness were reached
• as a result of this analysis and site measurements.
1. The flow height of the design avalanche is less
than the existing berm height.
2. The maximum _deposit height of the design avalanche
is less than the berm height.
3. _Lateral spreading of the avalanche below the berms
(in the tennis courts) is accurately shown on the
original (Frutiger, 1973) drawings.
The existing berm, therefore, does not require modifications or
enlargements to mitigate the design avalanche.
DEBRIS FLOWS
The northeast corner of the unplatted parcel (on the west'sde of
the avalanche berm) is shown as being within a "moderate- hazard ".
debris -flow area on the 1984 Town of Vail "Geologically- sensitive
area" (GSA) maps. This includes portions of proposed lots 5 and
6, as shown on the Timberfalls site plan dated 6/10/91. Moderate
hazard means Lots 5 and 6 and the building envelopes could be
reached by muddy water, small rocks, and vegetative debris during
a rare debris-flow event. Extensive building damage and /or loss
of life will not be a problem. The return period of the design
• debris -flow is = 100 years.
Mitigation to buildings on Lots 5 and 6 could be accomplished by
flood - proofing and direct protection of exposed foundation and
building walls. This method has been used at other buildings in
Vail. Alternately, mitigation could be achieved by designing a
small settling pond and berm in the flat area above the tennis
courts. Final mitigation details for Lots 5 and 6 depend on
architectural and landscaping details which are not currently'
available. The mitigation on these lots, however, can easily be
incorporated into building design without adversely affecting
adjacent public or private property.
Please contact me if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
A thur I. Pie ars P.E.
Avalanche - control engineer
Encl. Appendix
•
•
r1
�J
i`
•
•
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 23, 1991
Present
Chuck Crist
Diana Donovan
Connie Knight
Jim Shearer
Absent
Ludwig Kurz
Kathy Langenwalter
Gena Whitten
Staff
Kristan Pritz
Jill Kammerer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolack
Amber Blecker
The worksession was called to order at 2:1OPM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A request for a worksession to review wetland mitigation proposal for areas along
Gore Creek.
Applicant: Upper Eagle Valley Water and Sanitation District
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen explained the request. Staff supported the proposal with one condition. After
staff's presentation, the consultants explained the benefits from the plan.
Diana Donovan asked if the work would be duplicating what had already been done on the
golf course. The consultants answered that it was a continuation of the work. Diana was
also concerned over the health of the beaver pond. The consultants replied that the water in
the ox -bow could help the beaver pond. The consultants also stated that they were looking at
moving rocks for drop structures in the winter with SnoCats to minimize the impacts to the
riparian corridor; however, they did not yet have approval from Vail Associates to use their
equipment.
Jim Shearer questioned the verbiage of "new" wetlands. He thought this was more restoration
than creation. The consultants answered that it was restoration and not creation.
After a discussion of interpretive markers, Diana said she was supportive, but did not want to
make it a requirement as it apparently did not have funding. She liked the fact that the
mitigation would be located within the same riparian corridor where the impact would occur.
Chuck Crist asked if the flow into the beaver pond was going to be restored. The consultants
said some would be.
- -''
.;r
After a discussion as to locations, Diana concluded the discussion by stating she preferred the
natural drop structures to head gates for directing water into the ox -bow.
2. A request for a maior subdivision and a Special Development District for an unplatted
7.5 acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive,
Applicant: Timberfalls Association
Planner: Mike Mollica
Kristan Pritz explained the proposal. She stated that, since this was a request for
downzoning, staff had reviewed the request and believed the lower density was appropriate
for the site. Staff recommended approval of the request with the conditions as listed in the
memo.
Peter Jamar, representing the applicants, indicated he agreed with staff's memo, including the
conditions, and reminded the Commissioners that this would not be the last time the proposal
would be brought before them, as the final plat also would need to be voted upon.
Diana Donovan asked for clarification of what was being voted on at this time. Kristan
explained it was the recommendation to Town Council for the Special Development District,
the preliminary plan for the major subdivision, and indicated that the SDD should be made
conditional upon approval of the final plat. Diana questioned approving a concept for an
SDD, rather than a plan. Peter agreed to make the SDD conditional upon final plat approval.
. Kristan read the subdivision regulations, which stated that the final plat must substantially
conform to the preliminary plan.
Chuck Crist asked for an explanation of the road for Lots 10 and 11. Peter said it would be a
private drive, with the units on Lots 10 and 11 restricted to single family dwellings only, so
the road could be 15 feet wide.
Chuck also wondered what the process would be for the development. Ron Riley, one of the
developers, said that next summer, after the subdivision agreement and final plat were
completed, the utilities and roads would be installed. He mentioned that some of the property
closings might be concurrent with the installation of utilities.
Chuck believed that more permanent residents could result from this development than from
the previously approved condominiums. Ron Riley upheld that opinion, stating that 30 -40%
of those interested in the development were permanent residents.
Diana wondered how the requirement that at least 1,000 sq. ft. of GRFA be placed in the
basement on certain lots would be enforced. Kristan said it was part of the SDD
documentation. Diana also asked if the bridge could be signed as a narrow bridge. Kristan
• 2
T
agreed to look into that possibility. Diana questioned if the entire subdivision was a private
road, was entry signage required? Staff indicated that was an option for the developers to
decide. Diana asked if there was enough snow storage on the site. Peter answered there was
plenty.
Jim Shearer moved to approve the request for a major subdivision, and recommend approval
to the Town Council of the request for a Special Development District for an unplatted 7.5
acre parcel generally located east of Nugget Lane and South of Gore Creek Drive, with a
notation that Section III(B)(3 -5) are recommended in an effort to provide employee housing
as a goal for the Town. The recommendation and approval are based on the SDD criteria and
major subdivision benefit to the Town as outlined in staff's memo. Chuck Crist seconded the
motion. The unanimous, 4 -0, vote approved the motion.
3. A request for a major amendment to Special Development District No. 2, Pinos del
Norte, Building C, Northwoods Condominium s/600 Vail Valley Drive.
Applicant: Pinos del Norte Condominium Association
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen presented the request. Staff recommended approval of the requested
amendment, stating that the architect, Kirt Segerburg, had successfully incorporated the
Streetscape and Trails Master Plan concepts into the proposal, and then he listed the specific
elements of the development plan.
• Saundra Spaeh, representing the applicant, was concerned that the pavement area was too
wide. She preferred a minimum of 7 feet for the sidewalk, rather than 8. Andy stated that
the Town Engineer recommended a 1 -foot increase of each drive lane, and that width be
added to the overall amount of pavement in the area. Diana Donovan preferred a decrease in
the road width to a decrease to the sidewalk area. Kristan Pritz agreed to ask the Town
Engineer about the possibility, but she could not guarantee he would approve. Diana pointed
out her belief that if the road was widened, it would only encourage drivers to go faster, and
might even encourage illegal parking. Kristan replied that the curb would help discourage the
potential for illegal parking.
Diana suggested placing the extra trees, to be removed from the current Pinos site, across the
road from Pinos del Norte. Kristan asked if an acceptable option would be to place those
trees on the soccer field, as she was not sure the Town could water the trees sufficiently
across from Pinos. Diana did not believe it was a good example for the Town to say they
could not water trees. Kristan agreed that the trees would look nice across the road, but she
could not commit Public Works to that condition. Diana believed it should be a condition of
approval, and Council would always remove that portion if Public Works could not agree.
Diana was also concerned with the street lighting in the area. She asked that a requirement
be included to locate a light along this sidewalk.
• 3
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to amend the development plan for the Vail Point Townhomes
(formerly the Talon Townhomes), 1881 Lionsridge Loop /Lot 1, Block 3, and Lot
27, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Third Filing.
Applicant: Parkwood Realty Company/Vail Point Condominium Association/
Represented by Steve Gensler
Planner: Jill Kammerer
...... ...:::: .....: x....... x:.::. :. :::.:xr.x:x::xx::::::::::x::r :.r:r +...:..�::..�:::r::::. r.....t .. ....:..:.:: r:{: x: x:.}.{{,:::{{{::. ..;:. } }; } >::•r.:.: {:. }:. }: { :r.:
.. :ir.•rxxfrx;:.r :.::.:.. {f :f f ? :.?.• . ...V' '�:
'.ti }:• .'.: xv :. : r ? ?.} }:::: :. +r�ff { K•} tih: •:•.• ....................:::... .......... x..rFr:f +iF }}�y x:: { +:nw.v:: {•:�: }::: •:::::::::::::::::::::.}
............. }.....:. {: %4{t+,�{t,+itr$.xv:i: Ui}+.....••...•.....: f .............. r.................... x:::::: r........ ............{r�% :.- ..rb..... .. i�.... {i . .. %... � ......... .....
. %.. ,r, �'•.. ... r •.•.;� }:::'•: ff:h:• }::?.x ? !.}}}.^:i:: vi2::: :i::L:::}:::�':::ii::i. +•:::<:i
:::::•: rr. +;. ...'r.' % { :..• :::: x :. • !'-.•�..v::::: •r {ry:: •x::::: •::: x: u: -.•x::::: u:::::::::: x:::::..? {.:.... u::::::: •.. :•f r } %f..'�f i.?n•:•: }:{::::'r?rf. }L...x f /?...+ / .f.......: {i. ..... � ..............................
fi.. ?... ... {. : .: •:::...:: •:: ?. ; ?. t. {... {.::::: •:::r..rf fff.<.•r.•x•::: � ?: •.•.• .•::::.: •r . / :. ...� .r
r::::::.;•. ....:.. •: •{ .: +,.:::: • . •:::::::: -.:::: •::::::::::.:�:• . . r...: rf f'.`::ri........ .:r:r..........r.f.?::{... :.:. , S•r..- :::.... r}
......... ......: •:•• :::::.............: x:..:...::.::::::. ::�:.::.,rxr.....r............r .f!'. { ::rx:x........ rrr•.....:. r..........: ?.::.::::•.x ..
.M1....:....xxr?iux .... .... :... x ...:::: • • :..::::...........:........... n..... .................x .. ?J.• • ?i. {• }:tii {. }'+ r?}... rr:.::::., ....; ....:::::::::::::::::.i:{
; ......:�::::::::. :: :.,,,.. •.:.:xx fi:..•: ` +'} : x: xrr: rr«?: i{.:{.: c•::.. r: rff.%.::.,:..:. xxc{{.{ v. �....,.:,:,..:::.: f{{{{{{.{.: i{{{ ...............;_ �......... r.... ...............................
BACKGROUND ON THE VAIL POINT PROJECT
This item was tabled without discussion at the April 27, 1992 PEC meeting.
• The Vail Point Townhome development (formerly the Talon Townhomes), Phases I, II and III,
was annexed into the Town of Vail on July 17, 1979. Ordinance No. 30, Series of 1979
addresses the annexation. Medium Density Multiple Family zoning was applied to the
development with conditions outlined in the annexation agreement. Vail Point has a specific
review process which was defined at the time the project was annexed into the Town of Vail.
The annexation agreement stipulates the development plan must be approved by the Town
Council at a worksession. Even though the project is similar to a Special Development
District, the approval process is different in that the Town Council reviews the development
plan at a worksession. Any significant changes to the development plan must first go to the
Planning and Environmental Commission and then to the Town Council for final approval.
The Vail Point Townhome development is comprised of two parcels. Phases I and II are
located on the Lot 1, Block 3 parcel which is on the north side of Lion's Ridge Loop, and
Phase III is located on the Lot 27, Block 2 parcel which is across the street on the south side
of Lion's Ridge Loop. Phase I construction, which includes twenty dwelling units having a total
GRFA of 27,759 sq. ft. is completed and final Certificates of Occupancy have been issued.
As originally approved, Phase II called for the construction of twenty dwelling units having a
total GRFA of 28,045 sq. ft. In September of 1989, the PEC approved a modification to this
plan to increase the GRFA in Phase II by 750 sq. ft. resulting in a total of 28,795 sq. ft. This
750 sq. ft. was deducted from the total allowable GRFA for Phase III. The current (July, 1990)
DRB approved Phase II development plan calls for the construction of nineteen dwelling units
having a total GRFA of 28,795 sq. ft. Through the completion of Buildings 1 and 3 in 1990-
91, ten of the nineteen units in Phase II were constructed. The foundations for the four unit-
401 Building 2 were constructed several years ago, under the original project's building permit.
• The applicant proposes to remove and replace these foundations in keeping with the May,
1990 RBD, Inc., Engineering Consultants' study. (This study was further updated by letter on
April 17, 1992.) There has been no construction activity on the five unit - Building 4 or the
recreation amenities package which is located in the center of the site. The Phase III land
planning approval process is proposed to begin in 1993.
SUMMARY OF CONSTRUCTED AND PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS GRFA
Building 1 6260 constructed
Building 2 6234 proposed under this development plan amendment
Building 3 8812 constructed
Building 4 7376 proposed under this development plan amendment
28,682 sq. ft. GRFA permitted /proposed
Total Phase II GRFA Allowed: 28,795
Total Phase III GRFA Proposed: 28,682
113 sq. ft. GRFA proposed to be transferred back
to Phase III.
III. REQUESTED AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN
A. Amend the development plan to allow for the deletion of one unit from
• Phase II.
In 1990 -91, a total of ten units were constructed in Phase II Buildings 1 and 3. The
development activity remaining in Phase II is the construction of Buildings 2 and 4 (a
total of nine units) and the construction of the recreation amenities package. Under
the existing approved development plan, Building 2 construction consists of four units
in one building on the existing foundations and Building 4 construction consists of five
units in one building. The applicant proposes to modify the development plan to
change Building 4 from one five unit building to two duplex buildings. This results in a
reduction in Phase 11 density of one unit and a total unit count of 18 units. The
recreation amenities package, which includes a clubhouse, pool area, and hot tub, is
located between the two duplex buildings. The tot lot is proposed to be located at the
east end of the upper drive. Please see the current and proposed site plans attached
to this memo.
B. A request for a decrease in GRFA for Phase 11 of 113 sq. ft. and to transfer
this GRFA back to Phase III.
As a result of decreasing the Phase II development density, the applicant is requesting
approval to decrease the Phase II GRFA by 113 sq. ft. The developer is requesting
this 113 sq. ft. reduction in square footage be transferred back to the total allowable
GRFA for Phase III. As previously stated, in 1989, the PEC approved a request for an
increase in GRFA for Phase II of 750 sq. ft. This 750 sq. ft. was transferred from the
total allowable GRFA for Phase III on Lot 27. Through this request, the applicant
• would return the GRFA which will not be utilized in Phase II back to Phase III.
2
• Currently, the allowable GRFA for Phase III is 19,445 sq. ft. in 15 units. Under the
proposed amendment, the allowable GRFA for Phase III would become 19,558 sq. ft.
Medium Density Multiple Family zoning standards apply to the property for setbacks,
parking, etc. On September 11, 1989, the PEC reviewed a conceptual site plan for
Phase III. In order to begin Phase III construction, the developer must submit a
specific development plan which would include a site plan, elevations of the units, floor
plans of the units, landscape plan, circulation plan, and parking for review and
approval by the Planning Commission and the Town Council.
C. A request to amend the recreatlon amenities package
The applicant is requesting approval of the relocation and redesign of the amenity
package location and the modifications to Building 4 because, according to the
applicant, the condition of the soil is such that if the amenity package were to be
constructed in the previously approved location, it would cause the road to collapse.
The amenities recreation package was approved by DRB on September 15, 1990.
The approved development plan calls for a clubhouse with a fireplace, a small tot lot, a
recreation building, a pool, and a hot tub. Under the proposed plan, the clubhouse,
swimming pool and hot tub portions of the recreation amenities package would be
located in the area between the two new duplex buildings and the tot lot area will be
located at the east end of the upper drive.
• The following is a summary of the proposed recreation amenities package:
A 2 -story clubhouse having a total square footage of 1,226 sq. ft. The
first floor would include locker rooms. The second floor would be a
community room to be used by owners of the project. The fireplace has
been eliminated.
2. A swimming pool area of approximately 1,470 sq. ft.
3. A swimming pool of 363 sq. ft.
4. A tot lot area of 770 sq. ft. The tot lot equipment includes a "fireman's
center" wood and metal climbing feature and two tire swings.
5. A hot tub.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
A. A request to amend the development plan to allow for the deletion of one
unit from Phase II.
Staff recommends approval of the phasing plan modification to allow the deletion of 1
• unit from Phase II and the modification of the configuration of Building 4 from 1
3
• building containing 5 units to two duplex structures (Buildings 4 and a new Building 5)
with the condition the applicant regrade and revegetate Lot 27 in conformance with the
December 31, 1990 DRB approval. This regrading and revegetation work must be
completed prior to the Town's release of any building permits or the Developer must
enter into a development agreement with the Town and provide funding sufficient to
cover the cost of regrading and revegetating Lot 27. The developer must submit a
copy of the bid to regrade and revegetate Lot 27 to the Town in order for the Town to
determine the amount of funding which will be sufficient to cover the cost of this work.
If the development agreement option is utilized, the revegetation work must be
completed before any Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Buildings 2, 4, or 5 will
be released by the Town.
B. A request for a decrease In GRFA for Phase II of 113 sq. ft. and Increase
GRFA by 113 sq. ft. for Phase III.
Staff recommends approval of the request to transfer 113 sq. ft. of GRFA from Phase
II back to Phase III. As previously stated, transferring this 113 sq. ft. of GRFA back to
Phase III will result in no net increase in GRFA for the project. As a result, Phase II
total GRFA would be 28,682 sq. ft., and Phase III GRFA would be 19,558 sq. ft.
Please note, final GRFA calculations at the time of building permit will determine the
GRFA which may be transferred to Phase III.
C. A request to amend the recreation amenities package
• Staff recommends approval of the redesign and relocation of the recreation amenities.
Staff would like to see seating, shade trees and grass associated with the tot lot; the
addition of trees and/or shrubs south of the pool deck between the deck and the
access drive and the addition of plant material in the area west of Building 4 and east
of Building 5. We believe these modifications can be finalized by the DRB.
In keeping with the September, 1990 DRB approved amenity package proposal, the
applicant will be installing the following plant material in conjunction with this final
buildout of Phase ll:
8 Blue Spruce, 6' to 8'
26 Aspen, 2" to 3" caliper
8 Tabletop Juniper, 5 gallon
11 Serviceberry, 5 gallon
Under the approved plan, the recreation amenities package must receive a Final
Certificate of Occupancy prior to the issuance of any Temporary or Final Certificates of
Occupancy for any of the units associated with Buildings 2, 4 and/or 5.
In summary, the staff supports the above amendments to the development plan for Phase II
and III of the Vail Point Townhouse development subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant regrade and revegetate Lot 27 in conformance with the December 31, 1990
• DRB approval. This regrading and revegetation work must be completed prior to the
4
• Town's release of any building permits or the Developer must enter into a development
agreement with the Town and provide funding sufficient to cover the cost of regrading
and revegetating Lot 27. The developer must submit a copy of the bid to regrade and
revegetate Lot 27 to the Town in order for the Town to determine the amount of
funding which will be sufficient to cover the cost of this work. If the development
agreement option is utilized, the revegetation work must be completed before any
Temporary Certificate of Occupancy for Buildings 2, 4, or 5 will be released by the
Town.
2. Recreation amenities package must receive a Final Certificate of Occupancy prior to
the issuance of any Temporary or Final Certificates of Occupancy for any of the units
associated with Buildings 2, 4 and/or 5.
3. Applicant modify landscaping plan at the time of DRB review to provide seating, shade
trees and grass in association with the tot lot; to place trees and /or shrubs south of
pool deck between the deck and the access drive; and to place additional plant
material in the area west of Building 4 and east of Building 5.
Following PEC review of the modifications to this development plan, the proposal will be
reviewed by Town Council.
c:\pec\memos \vailpnt.608
•
5
IVA,
izkN
bllz
TC,
4
Ila
if
l_A7 47__
ARMS W.
. A
ll-
A
1 .�
`g z s
• - ? �'
N Z'
y 0 '< C
f
2w
Go
1-cp CL
OD
Z
rte- IY ly J •) Q '� �p�
I•
I*
•t�' }C.,'., ITITI 1,
� o wy
Y
t,a
%hT Q
n
tat Y are...: I•_� 1 1-: i y. v}
0
J
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 8, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a setback variance to allow the construction of an entry
gate at the Peterson Residence, 332 Beaver Dam Circle, Lot 6, Block 3,
Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Jay K. Peterson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Lfl.+ ff ?4 ;{+:+r4:•:•:?: fFI i ? ?? +?x. } }:• }' } }Y +iff..;.: x:::::: r,: }::F:: ::: v,
.{ x%r ' C• +r�:: :� "i>::�;:�:`�• % " {. ::: }� .r:. ?.frt ?::::: yf.; • ::: ft• }:4•.:a:4::. }x x•:::4 >,• }:t::.:•.;.: >::t•:4:• }: <.} }: ?t ?. �:?•:a ? < :.;.:::
..4 \•. �•:::.• '• + %..... f {f /.. :•. h........: }iJ. •�f:,,.;r+{;:� : "i O: Fri' :.:fr:• .{ J�?�:�': %`�:�•� ::: �;: ��':: `5:�:.`•:�:�:�:�i:�::�::�S::S:: •: ?-
:4•: •::......... ..::•:: +; • .:�... ......... }.........i .r....:: }.... %•: �:• }: ?• } }:• }.r.,.;::,;:/ . }: ?t4 :r ,f..,`�.�'„�:c: •::.t:::::4//. �t ?. • ..:f ./:..:{r i:: r: x:?-}':•}:+:::•}:... � ..........................:...
�F:.: f f : r}/.+..:: .: rtt� .: •. fi :..:::::: r: f�i:::::::::: •: F :::::::::n n:r:��.'�.•�•:r,:r F f::.. ..,} : •:>?:: • : : :.::::.. .; . {....::: ...,.
{• {• / :•::! :. f...? \.. :^............ ? +:.. f.. ...4 :� :�,••••!.•:. }: ?4i;: .,..�:. { } ?: .Nf.•i }'4:•. •:ifl. :i:: +f::4:• } }i: }::•
:f.•. sF f • }:?::v f ?•f v: :.. : %�:: • ?::• .,..•f. .v {.. %'r'r'� ...:: }.'•:• .. f.....}: n•'J }:•::•i:��Yr:
n � x yr {ff •r:. +.•.:?i {' /.•'f.•ri; } } } } }i 'ff xh :•?ti•:?4.:. ..:3 /.• : v /.v::::::: f.r.•�:v:•'f. +4:... ::::i•'?'i•:•:�:u .w:....x.•.......... fl.? ? : /. :i:'4:•i:. } }:•::•::
: ?v:! f. l '..c . !/ r ? ?•�: / {fis:• }:v3x•. / :i ?:�:�::�::;?•x xurf:. :{'. }.:::::::.... x :: r.. ;...0 : :.
;i+ .. { f '....... +•f :v' %if�4• ..: rr. rxf4;. .ii�:4:• }'•YYi:i::::: +'+ +i. J! {Yi .'•:t ? ?t4 }: ?•::•
... ?.•.rr::: :i ffr{ ..4 :r.`u�. rf ......::. +:::::::.:::.}:::::::: {/' r'r,:; �: t::::::::.+ r/.•}:•}: •}:r:::.:..:: /:::.::: }: };s.:4rr :f .t:::: {!r:•r:f.} »s:.:: ?, <;� .:. r: :. t•::::•};:•::•}: rtx::•:::. f•::::}: t:: y:::: ::::•'i.:.:: :::>r::.•.•.:::::.�
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct an entry gate for the secondary unit on a
primary/secondary structure located at 332 Beaver Dam Circle. The entry gate is made up of
six foot high walls which support a gable roof. (Please see drawing.) The planning staff has
• determined that the "entry gate" is a structure because of the roof element, and as a structure,
it should comply with setback standards. The "entry gate" would be constructed north of the
existing primary/secondary building in the side setback. Please see site plan. If approved,
the resulting side setback would be 1.5 feet. The setback variance requested is 13.5 feet.
The residence on the site has a 4 -car garage fronting Beaver Dam Circle. As one faces the
garage, to the right is a stair case leading to the porch and entry for the primary unit. To the
left is a walkway around the garage, approximately 120 feet in length, leading to the entrance
of the secondary unit. The proposed entry gate would accentuate the pathway leading to the
secondary unit.
•
• II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zone District - Primary/Secondary.
Standard requiring a variance.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested
• variance based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
•
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures In the vicinity.
Staff believes that, if approved, the entry gate will not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood. We believe that it is compatible with
the surrounding area and that it reflects the architectural style used for
the primary unit. If approved, there would be a 1.5 foot setback on the
north. This setback is substantially less than the required 15 feet.
However, the neighboring parcel to the north which would be affected by
this setback encroachment is the unplatted parcel owned by Vail
Associates. This is a large tract of land along the stream zoned
Agriculture /Open Space that is not developed. As a result, the 1.5 foot
setback does not, in staff's opinion, create an unacceptable relationship
between uses in the vicinity.
PAP
Allowed
Proposed
by Code
by Applicant
Setbacks
Front
20
20
Side
15
138
Side'
15
1.5
Rear
15
130
Site Coverage
4855.2
4814.3
GRFA
4677.6
0
Height
33 feet
10 feet
Standard requiring a variance.
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community Development Department recommends denial of the requested
• variance based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
•
The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses and structures In the vicinity.
Staff believes that, if approved, the entry gate will not detract from the
appearance of the neighborhood. We believe that it is compatible with
the surrounding area and that it reflects the architectural style used for
the primary unit. If approved, there would be a 1.5 foot setback on the
north. This setback is substantially less than the required 15 feet.
However, the neighboring parcel to the north which would be affected by
this setback encroachment is the unplatted parcel owned by Vail
Associates. This is a large tract of land along the stream zoned
Agriculture /Open Space that is not developed. As a result, the 1.5 foot
setback does not, in staff's opinion, create an unacceptable relationship
between uses in the vicinity.
PAP
• 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.
Staff believes that there is no physical hardship on this site which would
warrant relief from the strict enforcement of the setback regulation. We
believe that there is a solution for an entry gate which could be
constructed which would meet the zoning code. For example, a
combination of pillars, walls, and light fixtures could be designed in such
a way as to provide essentially the same effect without requiring a
variance. The current design, made up of six foot high walls with a roof
set on the walls, could be modified, in staff's opinion. The roof is the
component of the design which requires the setback variance. If the
applicant were to remove it, a variance would no longer be necessary.
Because the applicant has options in this case, staff believes a
consistent application of the setback standard is appropriate and that
relief is not warranted.
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.
Staff believes that there will be no impact from the request on the
criteria listed above.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
• conditions applicable to the same site of the variance that do not
3
• apply generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. 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
Staff recommends denial of the request. As shown above, staff believes it does not meet all
of the criteria. Concerning the findings, because there would be no impact to health, safety or
welfare, we believe that Finding 1 would be met. However, Finding 2 and 3 would not be met
because, staff believes there would be a grant of special privilege because there is no
physical hardship or extraordinary circumstance that would justify a variance. Staff believes
that by removing the roof and designing an entry gate with just pillars, walls, and light fixtures,
the applicant could achieve his goal without needing a variance.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently
pursued to completion.
is
•
4
it
10
�7_ "I
6' -Oa
P s -
c-A r
•
3T-tjF- vf-066r3 THF-
L___
ON
G. i L E
Ll
av
10 ii
T-
uri, r
1\5 r r A LT'
I va
-Mts rHr.
.ti
�
L�j Qv
(1�
cl
t
I —� 3 � I � v t %=•
� Q _
A -_,�\
bL
A N
J y I f_ I I tiJ
J�jiL
I�
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
May 18, 1992
Present Staff
Greg Amsden Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langenwalter Mike Mollica
Gena Whitten Mary Caster
Dalton Williams
Absent
Chuck Crist
The meeting was called to order at 1:55PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. Worksession on an Eagle County referral concerning an Environmental Assessment for
the Avon to Vail 115 KV Transmission Line:
Applicant: Holy Cross Electric
Staff Member: Susan Scanlan
• Susan Scanlan, Environmental Health Officer, introduced the members of Holy Cross
Electric who were in attendance to present the proposed Avon to Vail transmission
line. Bob Ballinger reviewed the needs of Holy Cross due to power outages and repair
procedures . The cost of this project is projected to be approximately $3.1 million plus
one -half million for substation work. He stated that a great deal of time and effort had
gone into reviewing this project. Construction costs should be together by 10/92 and
bidding should begin in November of 1992. Construction should begin in May of 1993
with completion scheduled for October of 1993. Questions were raised regarding cost
increases to subscribers of Holy Cross. They stated the cost should be covered by
growth in service territory. There was also concern as to how many trees were to be
cut, and how much natural landscaping would be disturbed. Bob stated that any
structures would be in natural metal colors. There was concern on the part of the
Commission relating to the visibility of the line in the Potato Patch area and the road to
Piney Lake. Holy Cross members were asked to take view impacts into consideration
when developing their plans. The Planning Commission stated they would be drafting
a letter to Eagle County with their concerns and suggestions.
2. The second item on the agenda was a public hearing regarding a request for a
conditional use permit for the Vail Team Tennis facility, generally located to the south
of the Lionshead Skier Bridge and north of West Forest Road on the existing tennis
courts, and more specifically described as follows:
A part of the NW 1/a of Section 7, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of the 6th
PM, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado.
Applicant: Vail Associates/Vail Recreation District
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica presented the item to the Planning Commission, stating that this request
had been reviewed by them previously and gave an overview of the project. The dates
for this event are June 29 through August 10, 1992. Mike stated that the staff
recommends approval of the request as the applicants have complied with all points as
outlined in the staff memo. The Planning Commission has received 5 letters from
surrounding property owners, 4 in protest and 1 in favor of the event. Steven Foster of
the Vail Recreation District and Roy Tucker, representing Vail Team Tennis, gave their
presentations to the Commission. Some of the concerns addressed were color of the
perimeter fencing, traffic control, security, and drop -off points. The applicant stated
that the fence color facing the residential area would be a forest green color.
Jim Cannon, representing his father - George Cannon, who resides at 616 Forest Road,
addressed the Commission. He stated that due to the lateness of the issue reaching
his father for comment, they had agreed to not oppose the project at this time.
However, he wished to voice his concerns relating to the tournament. Mr. Cannon
expressed his appreciation of the Town staff in working with him on this issue. He did
encourage the Vail Recreation District to look for an alternate site if this event was to
be held again in the future, as he would definitely oppose the location if it were to be
scheduled again next year.
Bruce Chapman, an attorney representing several residents in the area, had previously
submitted letters of opposition, and reiterated their concerns to the Commission. He
voiced his disagreement with the articles annotated in the Town of Vail Land Use Plan.
• Thea Rumford, who resides at 675 Forest Road, asked the applicant what plans had
been made for vending products at the event. Roy Tucker stated that the only vending
equipment that would be on -site would be a Wendy's food cart which would be located
in a site not visible to local residents in the area. The question was raised as to why
the tennis courts in Ford Park were not being considered for this event. Mr. Tucker
responded that this was the only site that met the size requirements for a professional
tennis tournament, and also the VRD would need to cancel many summer events
during the time of the tournament if it were held at Ford Park. They felt that there was
less impact on the Town's tennis program at the proposed facility. Mr. Tucker stated
that his group was looking for funds and an alternate site for a permanent stadium.
Gena Whitten stated that the Commission had gone on site visits to the affected
residences on Forest Road and surrounding areas. She stated that Roy Tucker had
done a professional job of coordinating this event and was in support of it. Kathy
Langenwalter expressed her opinion that the trailers be combined, as opposed to two
separate trailers on the site. Greg Amsden stated, for the record, that the adjacent
property addresses provided by the County were the only record the Town had to
notify adjacent property owners. Diana Donovan questioned whether the fence would
be erected for the entire time or if it would be removed when the matches were not
going on. Mr. Tucker stated that the perimeter fence would remain intact for the entire
tournament, as they would probably damage it if they were to frequently remove it. Mr.
Tucker stated that the plan was to have the lighting facing down toward the court, and
• auxiliary lighting would be used only after each match for the safety of the spectators.
The Commission did state that they would be in touch with the VRD and Mr. Tucker
over any concerns they received from the public. After further discussion, Dalton
Williams made a motion to approve the request with the corrections of only one
sponsor vehicle be allowed on -site, the west fence would be faced with green fencing
material, and the use of no more than 2 trailers on -site. Gena Whitten seconded the
motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0. Diana asked that
the applicants keep the Commission up to date on their progress.
2. A request for a wall height variance for the Bully Pub terrace and a rear setback
variance for the swimming pool at the Sonnenalp Bavaria Haus, 20 Vail Road/Lot L,
Block 5 -E, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Johannes Faessler
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen, project planner, reviewed the request with the Commission.
The first part of the request related to the swimming pool deck being extended 8
additional feet into the rear setback. The second part of the request was to raise the
middle wall of the Bully Pub dining deck 6 inches. Andy stated the staff was
recommending denial of both requests. David Beadle, landscape architect for the
project, explained what the request entailed. He emphasized that the proposal would
allow additional landscaping and more circulation around the pool area. Ken O'Brien,
project architect, discussed the wall height variance. The Commission stated that they
did not see a hardship in the request for the additional 8 feet of deck expansion, but
felt that the 6 inch addition to the interior wall was justified. After further discussion, a
motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter to approve the request for the additional 6
inches to the wall and to deny the request for the 8 foot addition to the deck on the
• setback. Gena Whittan seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 5 -0.
3. Worksession for a conditional use permit for the Alpine Garden at Ford Park.
Marty Jones and Rob Galvin addressed the Commission. Some PEC members stated
their concerns for the proposed office /meeting room to be located in the park.
Discussion also occurred regarding the ponds and the accessibility of them to children
playing in the tot lot nearby. Parking issues were also addressed. There was much
discussion regarding the need of an office /meeting room in Alpine Gardens as there
was already a facility similar to what the applicant was proposing at the Nature Center.
Marty Jones stated that he felt the strength of his organization and the positive
experiences of the Gardens warranted the request. A suggestion was made to use the
old school house for this facility, but it was felt that the school house was actually a
museum and could not withstand the traffic and heavy use it would receive as an
office. After much discussion, Marty Jones was asked to put a plan together
incorporating all of their suggestions and present it to the Commission at a later date.
4. Streetscape Plan- Distribution of Final Report.
The Streetscape Plan was distributed to the Planning Commission.
5. Approval of PEC Minutes May 11, 1992.
The minutes of the May 11, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission meeting
were read and a motion was made to approve the minutes with corrections by Dalton
Williams. A second was made by Kathy Langenwalter. A vote was taken and the
motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
After a reminder on recycling procedures by Kathy Langenwalter, the meeting was
adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
•
It
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 1992
AGENDA
12:00 Noon
Site Visits
1:30 PM
Worksession
2:00 PM
Public Hearing
Site Visits Work Session
1. A worksession to discuss the feasibility of creating an
Environmental Board in the Town of Vail.
Presenter: Susan Scanlan
Site Visits Public Hearing
1. A request to extend for 2 years the September 9, 1991 front
setback variance approval for the Krediet residence located at
224 Forest Road, Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Jill Kammerer
2. A request to extend for 2 years the June 10, 1991 site coverage
variance approval for the Stanley residence located at 1816
Sunburst Drive, Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a Resubdivision of
part of Sunburst.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
3. 3. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn
First, 3916 Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Partners,
Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
1. 4. A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452
Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
r
4. 5. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast
ON located in the primary/secondary zone district at 4768 Meadow
Drive, Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition.
Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter
Planner: Shelly Mello
2. 6. A request for setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031
Eagle's Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: G &S Partnership
Planner: Jill Kammerer
7. A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential
Floor Area, of the Municipal Code relating to Employee Housing
Units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jill Kammerer
8. Approval of PEC Minutes of June 8, 1992.
•
• TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MEMORANDUM
Planning & Environmental Commission
Community Development Department
June 22, 1992
RESEARCH ON ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSIONS
.... rm:• }•:.r.•.v:• }::::::::ny }:. •;;. } } {:.v::::::: rr.�n. �y::: r: •'}.....x.{{ xm ::::::: n }Y {. }: {.Yr yv ::...:.:::.: ::.xvr:vuti:i::�:.....:::....::• :•.
�/ r} r. ffff.ff... .... W... .n......: } ::.............. .:. ......r.....: ?....rxy:..w'�:::: .. r:r::.r:,r.. } }i.� } }:.
...... ..,�fy{�jr{{f f J.l` /.. ii?fffi%'i: ... rf....: ..... �� . ....... ......: ..:.. ...... ...
xrf•
.... rrr. ? .......................... .......:. •.. ..... .............. .. }::::rrr:::.:::.:.... .;•::::::.
r rr }:•rrr. • • :............... :::.: }:: • ••..:...:..... ......f.
?f.•:r•i�yv::: r:::: r: rrr.:yy.:: r.•r:r
y'•:•: ?r ' fi:}}}:• }:• }: {. } }: {!i {• }: {• }:•ii:::::v' iii: i:? r:: i}:::}:•}}:: i:^:•} i}:: i::::: vi: {iu::::i:::i::iii:•iiii::t•:
xrirxrrrri } }}: {• }:
.f O w. J rrr f'.r:i }iv:::;:; ••.�•::: •: •:.::: :':r rrr ..... .. ... .. .... :.::w:v:::,�w•::••,� :::........ ............. ...... ::::::
f.....fi f x.. r... r. x....: r ....: v::::::::: •i }:::. r. r:: xr
•:::} �ix5} iY4r �rjr.•.• �• r+.•.•.•::.... r.....:. y ....................... yrr.. n:.. n....... y. xxrrr......................... x... r....................... v.. xn: rrruu:.. x.......................... ............................... r.......... x............
The staff was recently asked to investigate the format and function of Telluride's
Environmental Commission. In addition, the staff also contacted several other communities to
ascertain whether environmental issues were addressed by a separate environmental
commission or whether the addressing of environmental issues was the responsibility of the
planning board.
I. Telluride Environmental Commission
A. Structure:
The commission is made up of 7 members, 5 voting members and 2 alternates. The
alternates are able to vote in those circumstances when all 5 voting members are not
• present for a meeting. They currently have one board member who is also a member
of P &Z Board - not required.
- The Environmental Commission serves as an advisory board and does not have
legislative power.
- Five of the seven members must be residents of Telluride and 2 members may be
county residents.
- Members are appointed by the Town Council to serve a 2 year term.
- The Commission as a whole meets once per month, but subcommittees may meet
more often.
- Quarterly joint meetings are held with the Town Council.
- Budget of $4000 -$5000 annually to be spent at the Board's discretion for a variety of
purposes.
- The Town Clerk serves as Town Manager's representative to the Board - no vote.
B. Issues Addressed by the Environmental Commission
The Environmental Commission conducts research and studies into environmental
issues for Telluride Valley, not just the city which is the reason for 2 county members
on the board.
The Commission reviews landscape plans, drainage plans, etc. and recommends
legislation to the Town Council.
Currently they are working on the clean indoor air act, addressing slipping PM10
values in relation to air quality, water efficiency and wetlands. In the past the
Commission has been responsible for a very restrictive no smoking ordinance (clean
• indoor air act), curbside recycling, woodstove ordinance, composting, landfill issues,
w
1
I
logging and mining issues, and the development of energy and water efficiency
• standards for new buildings.
C. Interactions with Other Boards
The Commission is responsible for reviewing a wide range of environmental issues
both in conjunction with development projects and those not related to a specific
project. They then make recommendations to Council based on their research and
findings. The Commission functioning in this advisory capacity is able to work with the
public to reach a concensus on issues to be presented to Council. The end result is
streamlined presentations which require less Council time. They will also make
recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Board on environmental aspects and
impacts of potential projects.
The Commission is also approached by the County, which has no environmental
board, to address issues of environmental concern, such as wetlands legislation which
has benefits for both groups.
They are also attempting to educate the public about environmental issues.
D. Comments from Environmental Board Members:
The Planning & Zoning Board does not have sufficient time to adequately address
environmental issues other than landscaping. The Planning and Zoning Board meets
twice per month and spends 5 -6 hours per meeting addressing development issues.
• - Through the Environmental Board the environmental issues are addressed early in the
review process instead of at the end or as an afterthought.
Kathy Greer -feels the Commission fills a need and since the Town Council and
Planning & Zoning Board are very busy the environmental issues can be addressed
early to give a consensus to Council who in turn is requested to spend less time
addressing these issues.
Would recommend a member of Planning and Zoning Board also be a member of the
Environmental Board.
Small budget allows them to help fund projects (small) such as the School River
Watch, a program sponsored by State Water Quality Control Commission and the
Division of Wildlife, in which kids collect data on the rivers in Colorado,TelIuride
Institute and a wetlands conference which they put on last year for developers, builders
and environmentalists.
Dyno Wall - Chair of Commission
It is very useful to have a crossover person from the planning board on this
commission.
Commission is a great idea, it is very proactive in choosing projects and getting
legislation on the books.
P &Z is too busy to handle all of the projects.
Serves as a middle step between the public and Town Council, Council wants to hear
the Board's recommendations.
N
• Alice Bixsby
- The thought of P &Z addressing all environmental issues as well as the P &Z issues
horrifies her.
- The commission is able to make the environmental issues slightly less political by
stepping away from the financially driven development issues and viewing issues from
the public health aspect and the broader public good.
- The environmental issues tend to take a back seat to the dollar driven development
issues.
- P &Z decisions require immediate answers and the group is given too much to do to be
able to adequately address both aspects of the projects.
Rudy Davison - Planning and Zoning Chair
Environmental Commission is not a legislative body, P &Z is however. Environmental
Commission makes P &Z aware of their positions, to date they have been in agreement
on all major issues.
It would be a good thing if planning commission would have more interaction with
environmental board.
Wetlands and fireplaces are 2 major issues on which the boards have interacted.
Other Communities
• In an attempt to obtain a broad picture of what is occurring in other communities, the staff also
contacted City of Boulder, Boulder County, Aspen /Pitkin County, Steamboat Springs,
Snowmass Village, Craig, Breckenridge and Crested Butte. All parties contacted indicated no
separation between planning and environmental issues.
They are addressed by the Planning Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission or a
similar board. In most instances they function as our PEC does by reviewing a project and
either approving or denying the project with or without conditions. The results of the reviews
are reported to the Town Council or County Commissioners who may choose to review the
decisions. In some of the smaller communities the Planning Board will made
recommendations on projects to the Town Council or County Commissioners for their
decisions.
is
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a 2 year extension to a previously approved front setback
variance for property located in the Primary /Secondary Zone District, the
Krediet Residence, Lot 11 -A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing /224 Forest Road.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Jill E. Kammerer
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On September 9, 1991 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a
front setback variance in order to allow for an expansion to an existing primary unit.
The approved setback variance would allow for the addition to encroach 12 feet -8
inches into the required 20 -foot front setback.
• II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the previously approved front
setback variance, based on the attached PEC memo dated September 9, 1991 and
subject to the conditions of approval as indicated in the PEC meeting minutes dated
September 9, 1991. The conditions of approval are as follows:
If the large aspen adjacent to the west of the construction site dies, it will be
replaced with two 14 -16 foot spruce.
2. The area to be infilled under the carport shall not exceed 400 sq. ft. of GRFA.
3. The large spruce in the center of the construction area shall be relocated. It that
spruce, or any other spruce planted as a part of this project, dies within 2
years, it shall be replaced with a spruce between 14 -20 feet in height.
4. All aspens which must be removed in order to allow the construction of this
garage to occur, shall be relocated to another portion of the lot.
If the PEC approves this variance extension request, the front setback variance
approval would then be valid until September 9, 1994.
iscApe6memosWedlet.622
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: September 9, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a front setback variance for property located within the
Primary/Secondary zone district, the Krediet Residence, 224 Forest Road/Lot
11 -A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Jill Kammerer
' r.', 5+::;;;++:;:.'• i' :�; +:;:::b >':�;::•`. <;;:;:;Y:�: •• i'::;:�'::•':�:::>:�s'::- :�,:•' �:: ..::�i':•::;:::;:;:;;;:n;::;::; �;:;;:;.;,.;;;....>.;;• •:;:, �;:;:;.::< r:•::;.:..;:: c;:.;:;.;;:;:;:,..,.:.,...;...,.;;:•>::,,.`:::>:: �:;^;"';< �: �: �:: 5:': � :�:�::: +.: «:�:: +:r':'::•r.. <:�r �sR�:: i'::::;: �':::.,: �:•;:;:!.':' r :: <..y:;..,;r;.;;;,............
zi
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
Under this redevelopment proposal, the applicant proposes to construct a garage, with 639 sq.
ft. of additional living area (GRFA) above the garage, and to infill a carport area with 309 sq.
• ft. of living area (GRFA). The new garage addition will be located to the west of the existing
residence. The carport area to be infilled is located beneath an existing second floor
cantilevered recreation room/entryway on the north side of the structure, adjacent to Forest
Road.
The site slopes up to the south from the low point on the north side of the lot. The carport is
currently accessed by a steep driveway off of Forest Road.
A front setback variance is required in order to allow the infilling of this carport area. The
cantilevered area currently encroaches 12' -8" into the front (north) setback. The proposed
infill addition would encroach 12' -8" into the front setback. The applicant is requesting a
variance to allow the construction of this addition 7' -4" from the front property line.
Therefore. the applicant's requested variance is to encroach 12' -8" into the required 20 -foot
front setback. A setback variance is not necessary for the garage and living area above the
garage.
:7
II.
ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
•
A.
Zoning:
Primary/Secondary
B.
Site Area:
22,263 sq. ft.
C.
GRFA - Primary and Secondary Residences Combined
Allowed:
5,326 sq. ft.
Existing:
4,091 sq. ft.
Proposed Increase:
1,066 sq. ft.
Remaining:
169 sq. ft.
D.
GRFA - Primary Unit
Existing:
2,196 sq. ft.
Proposed:
3,262 sq. ft.
Increase:
1,066 sq. ft.
E.
GRFA - Secondary Unit
Existing (No change proposed)
1,895 sq. ft.
F.
Site Coverage (20% of Site Area)
Allowed:
4,453 sq. ft. (20 %)
Existing:
2,014 sq. ft. (9.1%)
•
Proposed:
2,734 sq. ft. (12.3 %)
Increase:
720 sq. ft. (3.2 %)
Remaining:
1,719 sq. ft.
G. Height
Allowed:
Proposed:
H. Setbacks
33 feet
No change to existing maximum height
Front*
Required: 20 feet
Existing: 7 feet -4 inches
Proposed: 7 feet -4 inches
Note: Area of addition would be set back T -4" from property line
* Area of requested setback variance. All other setbacks are
unaffected.
I. Parking: The required 5 spaces are accommodated on site. No additional parking
is required with this proposal.
J. Proposed Primary Unit Garage: 518 sq. ft.
• 2
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
variance based on 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 requested front setback variance, if approved, would not adversely affect
the use or enjoyment of adjacent properties. The existing structure encroaches
12' -8" into the required 20 -foot front setback. The area of the proposed
addition will encroach no further into the required front setback than the
existing structure. By concentrating the development on the western and the
northern portion of the lot adjacent to Forest Road, less site disturbance will
occur. If the applicant were to construct the same size addition, but not locate
the addition under an area which currently encroaches into the front setback,
the new living area would be located further up the slope, thereby creating
greater and unnecessary site disturbance.
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 addition could be constructed elsewhere on the site and not
encroach into the front setback. To the west of the existing primary residence,
in conjunction with this addition, the applicant is proposing to construct a two -
car garage with GRFA above the garage. Staff believes the construction of this
garage will improve the general appearance of the lot by allowing for the
interior storage of automobiles.
The applicant does not have the ability to construct the addition to the east
because of the proximity of the existing secondary unit to the applicant's
primary unit. Any addition to the south would necessitate extensive site work
due to the topography of the site. For this proposal, staff believes it is
reasonable to consider the existing residence's location in the front setback to
be a practical difficulty warranting a front setback variance. The applicant is
requesting a variance to infill a carport area which does not exceed the existing
front setback encroachment. This degree of relief from the strict and literal
interpretation of the code is appropriate, and has been granted to other property
is 3
•
0
owners with similar circumstances. Because of these factors, the request is not
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.
With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing,
approximately 18 -20 foot evergreen, the proposed addition will have no impact
on any of these considerations. The applicant has agreed to transplant this tree
to the southwest corner of the site.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same district.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the requested front setback variance, subject to conditions, due
to the fact the existing house is currently located in the front setback and less site disturbance
results from this location for the proposed 'addition. The fact there is GRFA remaining on the
0 4
site also warrants support of the variance request. Staff believes the setback variance is not a
grant of special privilege, as this type of situation has justified other setback variances in the
• past. The variance criteria cited included Findings 1, 2, 3(a -c).
The conditions of approval are as follows:
1. The existing spruce tree impacted by the construction will be relocated
2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall install a construction fence to
protect existing vegetation in the front setback. The fence shall establish the boundary
which no construction activity will cross.
cem os\1avdieL909
•
• 5
� 0
� 0
10
Ill
V —
Z 5
Fill
w
n
t -t}- N
a
.0 c
o�
°
°>
o
N o
.p v
11!
O >
o
t7
,
N
d
o0
N
a
0
°
°>
>-
S
D CO O
11!
N 0.
z
�S
r
•
•
•
.o co
0 i
Wn ,o
7 c
o r� o
q v
O
�a M >
N
> N
� � o
o 0 0
E a
'O CO o
a `o W) o
Z7 _!L N 0.
v� N
z �
�1
•
1L °
N
LN
1 J.
1
•
,o m
o LO
Wn ,o
v cc)
a n o
er V
D >
N
o
�O
chi 3 ?`+
CL c
d ^° o
-" rn
0-0
c
t.v
0
'n _c m o
w „
a W) o
�o �c r a
•
S
z_
a
fl
IU
i
v.
Q
i--
m�
•
10
in
.o no
o to
Wn ,o
7 c
o N o
D
v v
D C; o
D d >
N
m 3 >_° r
ac'��
o
O r D a
E
"C .0 CO O
co z
O O `n O
.X N 0.
a
�
}
N
_.1
=
0
II
Z
•
•
•
FILE
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
September 9, 1991
Present
Staff
Chuck Crist
Kristan Pritz
Diana Donovan
Mike Mollica
Connie Knight
Jill Kammerer
Ludwig Kurz
Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langenwalter
Shelly Mello
Jim Shearer
Betsy RosoIack
Gena Whitten
Amber Blecker
The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
C C
G
1. A reouest for a worksessi_on for an exterior alteration of Crazv Shirts, Unit 2, Bridge
Street Condos, Bridge Street Building. 250 Bridge Streeta of D, Block 5B. Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: The Mainland Co.. Inc.
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer reviewed the proposal and explained the staff's areas of concern. Jack Snow,
representing the applicants, stated that he believed there were two issues in the proposal- -the
exterior alteration and infill, and the alterations to the bay window and door. He said the
owners had asked for this worksession to receive a preliminary endorsement from the
Commission for the changes. If they received that endorsement, the applicants were willing
to work together with the staff to determine an acceptable landscape plan.
Diana Donovan asked for the consensus of the Commissioners on the project. The consensus
was that there were no major problems with the proposed exterior alteration.
Jack Snow discussed the planters. He said the intention was to keep the area as open as
possible in order to maintain circulation to the stores. Kathy Langenwalter asked if the
existing stairway south of the Gold and Silversmith commercial space entrance would be
retained. Adjacent shop owner, Jim Cotter, said that approximately 80% of the traffic to his
store used that stairway, and he did not want to see this stairway eliminated and replaced with
a planter.
Diana expressed her preference to have vertical landscaping, and was not as concerned with
the actual square footage of landscaping provided. Jack said it made sense to keep the area
open, but did not want the trees to screen the display windows. Jim Cotter added that if
shoppers had to look into the windows from a distance of 5 feet, they would not be able to
Ludwig Kurz agreed with Kathy's comments regarding narrowing the stairs. He asked if the
• stairs and sidewalk would be concrete or pavers. Jack replied that pavers would be used.
Ludwig asked that the aspen at the northern corner be saved, and believed the landscaping
along Vendetta's wall was a good trade -off.
Diana agreed with the landscaping along Vendetta's. She strongly recommended using pavers
on the stairways. She also advocated vertical landscaping, and suggested trying to find aspen
with high branches. She did not want any net loss of landscaping.
Jill reminded the applicants that if there was a net loss of the landscaping, they would have to
justify it to the Commission.
2. A follow -up to the August 12, 1991 PEC review of the staff approval of the minor
amendment for Garden of the Gods, SDD No 22, Lot K Block 5A, Vail Village 5th
Filin_g/365 Vail Vallev Drive.
Applicant: Margaret Hill Marital Trust
Planner: Shellv Mello
Jim Shearer moved, and Chuck Crist seconded, to table this item to the September 23, 1991
meeting. The motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.
3.— A rettuest for a front setback variance for the Krediet Residence 224 Forest Road/Lot
11 -A. Block 7. Vail Village Fir_ st Filing.
• Applicant. John Krediet
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer explained the request, stating that staff recommended approval with conditions.
Kathy Langenwalter represented the applicant.
Diana Donovan asked Kathy where the large spruce tree would be relocated. Kathy explained
the large spruce tree would be relocated to the northwest corner of the site. Diana then asked
Kathy to establish the maximum increase in GRFA which would result from this addition.
Kathy explained the site plan to the Commissioners. She stated she could not give an exact
GRFA figure at this time, but would like a variance to state the addition would be not more
than 400 sq. ft., which would still keep the GRFA for the site under the maximum allowable.
Connie Knight asked if there was an issue of how the GRFA for the site was allocated
between the Primary and Secondary units. Kathy answered that was addressed through
private covenants between the two owners.
.'..Diana requested that the large aspen to the west of the garage be protected, and that all
existing aspen which need to be removed in order to allow the construction of the garage be
relocated. Kathy asked what the Commission would prefer if the large aspen could not be
saved. She wanted an alternative, but stated the applicants would do everything they could to
protect that tree. Gena Whitten preferred to state that saving that tree was a condition of
0 3
approval. Connie Knight agreed with it being a condition of approval or, alternatively, that it
be replaced with three trees. She also requested a guarantee period of 2 years.
Gena also requested that the trees along the road be examined, as they appeared to be
diseased. Chuck Crist suggested requiring that any dead trees be removed. Kathy asked that
request be changed to any dead trees in the area of construction be removed.
Jim Shearer wanted the smaller aspens in the area transplanted, or replaced, at a 1:1 ratio,
with all attempts made to save the large aspen adjacent to the building area. He also
requested a 2 -year warranty period for the transplanted and affected trees. If the large aspen
did not survive the construction, he suggested replacing it with 2 spruce.
Ludwig Kurz did not believe the large aspen would survive construction, and pointed out it
was already dying at the top. He would consider the tree a "goner." He suggested replacing
it with 2 spruce of at least 20 feet. Kathy preferred to replace it with trees of 14 -16 feet, as
those would compliment the other large spruce to be relocated, rather than having it appear
like soldiers in a line.
Diana agreed with having the aspen replaced with 14 -16 foot spruces, and also wanted the
approval conditioned that the large spruce be transplanted, along with any aspen directly
affected. Any dead trees in the area of the construction would be removed. She asked for a
2 -year guarantee on any landscaping. Kathy asked for consistency in the warranty period,
requesting the same conditions as what was given Spraddle Creek. Diana remembered
Spraddle Creek Subdivision was required to provide a warranty of 2 growing seasons to
• ensure the evergreens.
Diana clarified the conditions of approval as follows:
1. If the large aspen adjacent to the west of the construction site dies, it will be replaced
with two 14 -16 foot spruce.
2. The area to be infilled under the carport shall not exceed 400 sq. ft. of GRFA.
3. The large spruce in the center of the construction area shall be relocated. If that
spruce, or any other spruce planted as a part of this project, dies within 2 years, it
shall be replaced with a spruce between 14 -20 feet in height.
4. All aspens which must be removed in order to allow the construction of this garage to
occur, shall be relocated to another portion of the lot. -
Chuck Crist moved that the request for a front setback variance for the Krediet Residence,
224 Forest Road/Lot 11 -A, Block 7, Vail Village First Filing be approved with the conditions
noted above. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved 6-0-1, with Kathy
Langenwalter abstaining.
4
•
C
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
On June 10, 1991 the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) approved a site
coverage variance in order to allow for an expansion to a secondary unit. The
approved site coverage variance would allow for the addition to exceed the existing
site coverage by 6% and the allowable site coverage by 12.6 %.
The applicant's representative, Jack Snow,
that should this variance extension be apps
construction of the addition in this fall.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
has indicated in his letter of April 22, 1992
)ved, the applicant would commence
Staff recommends approval of the request to extend the previously approved site
coverage variance, based on the attached PEC memo dated June 10, 1991 and
subject to the following conditions of approval as indicated in the June 10, 1991 PEC
meeting minutes:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain a geologic
hazard study for the site. The applicant will be required to perform any
mitigation required under the study.
2. Installation of additional landscaping in the front yard. Staff suggests this
additional landscaping include 3 spruce (two at 6 feet in height and one at 10
feet in height) and 8 aspen.
3. Existing siding be removed and replaced with stucco.
If the PEC approves this variance extension request, the site coverage variance approval
would then be valid until June 10, 1994.
0 OpecVnemos\stanley.ext
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
r�
U
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 10, 1991
SUBJECT: A request for a site coverage variance for an existing Secondary unit within a
primary/secondary development, located on Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a
Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst /1816 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE VARIANCE REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a site coverage variance in order to infill an approximately 10 foot
wide area, located between the primary and secondary units, and a portion of the covered
walkway to the secondary unit.
The allowable site coverage on the site is 3,214 sq. ft. The existing site coverage is 3,404 sq.
ft. The proposed site coverage is 3,622 sq. ft. The site is currently 6% or 190 sq. ft. over the
allowable site coverage of 20 %. The applicant's request is to allow a 6% increase ill site
coverage over the existing site coverage. This site coverage increase amounts to an additional
218 sq. ft. over the existing site coverage. This results in the project being 408 sq. ft. over
the allowed site coverage. If the expansion is approved, site coverage would be 32.6% or
12.6% over the allowable. Therefore a site coverage variance is necessary for the additional
6% of site coverage over the allowed. The applicant must obtain DRB approval of additional
GRFA square footage as allowed under the 250 Ordinance for the secondary unit in
conjunction with this variance request in order for the redevelopment as proposed to occur.
The project is currently 829 sq. ft. over the allowable GRFA for the site.
II. BACKGROUND
On March 6, 1991, the Design Review Board reviewed the redevelopment proposal for the
stricture, which included the addition of three spruce trees. The DRB voted unanimously to
approve the proposal, subject to the following conditions:
1. Resolution of site coverage interpretation issue by Community Development
Department staff.
1
2. New stone work must match existing, or existing stone work be removed and
• all new stone be installed. If new stone is to be installed, material must be
presented to DRB for review and approval.
The applicant also desires to infill the walkway to the front door of the primary unit. This
walkway is located underneath a deck. The applicant believes that under the revised 1991
site coverage regulations, the walkway to the primary unit which is located beneath a deck,
should count as site coverage. Therefore, the applicant has appealed the staff's decision
regarding what constitutes site coverage under the 1991 revised site coverage definition (see
attached letter from applicant's representative, Jack Snow). This memo will address only the
site coverage variance request as it relates to the secondary unit.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
Site Area: 16,069 sq. ft.
Site Coverage:
Allowable: 3,214 sq. ft. (20 %)
Existing: 3,404 sq. ft. (26 %)
Proposed: 3,622 (32.6 %)
Proposed over existing: 218 sq. ft.
Proposed over allowed: 408 sq. ft.
GRFA:
Allowed: 4,707 sq. ft.
Existing: 5,536 sq. ft.
Proposed: 5,745 sq. ft.*
* This amount of proposed GRFA includes the existing GRFA plus the 250 sq. ft. minus
41 sq. ft. that is being removed from the project.
IV. 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
variance based on 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.
Due to the location of the areas which the applicant proposes to infill, staff
believes approval of the variance will have no impact on other existing or
potential uses and structures in the vicinity. The additions will not be highly
visible as the new square footage is located primarily between the two units.
• 2
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.
As currently constructed, two large roof areas drain onto the deck area between
the two units. This situation presents major drainage problems for the existing
structures. The 218 sq. ft. variance could possibly be avoided by using the 250
sq. ft. if the addition were designed entirely within the existing walls of the
secondary unit. However, staff felt it was reasonable to allow for the additions
to be located in the space between the two units. Staff believes the granting of
this variance request is warranted because of the unique circumstances
surrounding how the structures were built and the resulting drainage problems.
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.
Approval of the requested variance would have no effect on the above factors,
with the exception of public safety. The lot is located in a blue and red
avalanche area, high severity rockfall and high hazard debris flow. All studies
per the Town of Vail hazard regulations shall be completed and, if necessary,
mitigation measures incorporated into the building permit application before a
building permit will be released for the expansion. No portion of the
expansion can occur in the red avalanche zone.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following
findings before granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
0 3
b. 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.
C. 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
Staff believes there is a basis to support a site coverage variance request for infilling the area
between the primary and secondary residences and the covered walkway to the secondary unit
because of the unusual configuration of the two units on the site.
Staff recommends approval of this variance request, subject to findings 1, 2, 3(A), 3(B) and
3(C). Staff supports this application subject to the following conditions:
1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must obtain a geologic
hazard survey for the site. The applicant will be required to perform any
mitigation required under the study.
2. Installation of additional landscaping in the front yard. Staff suggests this
additional landscaping include 3 spruce (2 at 6 feet and 1 at 10 feet) and 8
aspen.
c.*c\m em os\s tan1 ey.610
0 4
•
t" 1.i •. Al
RICH AND KR USEN DESIGN
ARCHITECTURE AND DEVELOPMENT
May 10, 1991
Planning and Environmental Commission
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail Co. 81657
Re: Appeal of Planning Staff Decision and, if necessary Variance
for the Stanley Duplex (1816 Sunburst Dr.).
Dear Sirs:
The basis of this appeal is the belief that we are proposing to
reduce the violation of a nonconforming building. Currently (and
with this proposal) the duplex is under on GRFA, but over on
allowable site coverage. The approach was, therefore, to infill
areas of existing site coverage with living space and thus provide
the needed floor area without increasing the existing site
coverage. Our bone of contention is, therefore, the definition of
site coverage, and specifically what is existing coverage on this
lot.
This is a two fold issue; let's start with the easy one. We
proposed to infill the existing covered walk believing that the
newly adopted regulations clearly address this. "Building area
shall include all buildings, carports, porte cocheres, arcades, and
covered or roofed walkways." Therefore, one would reason, a covered
walk is in fact building area. Not so, at least according to the
planning staff, they feel that the following sentence modifies this
to exclude any covered walk within 4' of the face of the building.
"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 column." I am fairly fluent in the English language,
but for the life of me I can not see how any sentence beginning "In
addition to the above, building area shall also include..." can
reduce those items considered site coverage. If the intent is to
exclude all construction within 4' of the perimeter walls then in
the future this regulation should be amended to state that clearly.
The second area of confusion, is the narrow slot between the
buildings that:
1.) is a violation of several design review guidelines:
a) roofs should not drain onto decks.
b) Duplexes shall be designed to appear as a single
is unit.
2.) presents major drainage problems for the existing
structures.
P.O. BOX 45 EDWARDS, COLORADO 81632 • 303-926-2286
The existing slot is ten feet across covered at ground level with
decking and with a roof that overhangs from either side to provide
• a narrow 6' wide slot to the sky. It was our belief that the
clarification sent by the planning staff that stated that "cutouts"
would be counted as building area addressed this issue. While, this
certainly is not as cut and dry as the previous issue this seems a
reasonable interpretation of the letter. If this staff decision can
not be overruled at the appeal stage this certainly seems a fair
candidate for a variance.
1.)The proposed construction would in fact reduce the
apparent mass and bulk of the structure by reducing the
excessive overhangs.
2.) Solve the existing drainage problems.
3.)Bring the building in line with the DRB guidelines (it
has been approved pending resolution of the site coverage
issue).
4.) All of this while totally out of view of the neighbors
and having no impact whatsoever on light, air,
transportation, population traffic, utilities or public
safety.
In conclusion, a great deal of time (and Mr Stanley's money) has
been spent on what was felt to be reasonable interpretations of the
towns guidelines. While, we understand, it is no simple task to
write these guidelines, until they are properly edited it seems
only reasonable that they are interpreted on what they say, not on
the unexpressed intent.
Thank you. f _
S inc-6 '6'Y
Jack K. Snow
Architect
•
1�
--.--'-~-
_
0
`
�
`
\.
\
|
|
�
|
!
/
' .
`
\ /
�
-
CA
r` r.;,��auv
^
'~~
~
�
-- }
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 10, 1991
Present
Staff
Diana Donovan
Kristan Pritz
Connie Knight
Mike Mollica
Lathy Langenwalter
Jill Kammerer
Jim Shearer
Andy Knudtsen
Shelly Mello
Betsy Rosolak
Amber Blecker
Absent
Chuck Crist
Ludwig Kurz
Gena Whitten
The worksessions were called to order at 12:15PM by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. A presentation and discussion with the U.S. Forest Service on the Land Ownership
Adiustment Analysis.
Rich Phelps/Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica explained the purpose of this meeting was to examine changing Forest Service
boundaries, and introduced Rich Phelps of the U.S. Forest Service. Rich explained the goal
of the process was to determine the desires of the Town and the Forest Service with respect
to the boundaries. In addition, they were developing criteria to evaluate individual land
ownership questions, and identifying every parcel of land to keep, dispose of, or obtain.
The process for this evaluation consisted of:
1. Send letters to land owners and municipal entities to determine the scope of what
should be examined.
2. Develop a strategy /criteria for evaluating land.
3. Display plan to public.
4. Amdend plan based on comments by public.
The purpose for coming before the PEC now was to establish a task force, perhaps consisting
of PEC members, staff, and Forest Service personnel to assist in developing criteria and a
review process, and utilimately have a joint presentation with the Town Council and Forest
Service to the public in order to make final revisions to the plan.
Tom Steinberg asked how this evaluation differed from that done approximately 10 years
allow for an 18 -hole miniature golf course on property zoned Commercial Core 11, generally
• located south and west of Chair 8 (Born Free Express), Tracts C and D, Vail Lionshead First
Filing per staff memo and with the condition the course remain open until dusk. Jim Shearer
seconded the motion. It was approved 4 -0.
3. Atmeal of a staff decision regarding site coverage for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1,
Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive.
Appellant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
4. A request for a site coverage variance for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1. Vail Valley
Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer explained the issues in both the appeal and the application. The issue
surrounding the appeal was whether the existing walkway covered by a deck counted as site
coverage. Jill read the code as recently amended. Staff determined it did not count, and
therefore enclosing the area would require a variance.
Jack Snow, representing the applicant, asked the Commissioners to put themselves in the
shoes of the applicant, who was trying to follow the rules. He stated that he believed a
roofed walkway was site coverage. Kathy Langenwalter responded by saying that the deck
• covered the walkway, but it was not roofed. This specific issue had been discussed during
the zoning code changes, and she believed staff was correct in their interpretation. Jack
believed that as the code was written, it was contradictory to the intent. Kathy was in favor
of upholding staff decision in this case. Jack still believed it was confusing, stating that the
roof was either covered or roofed, and he was not sure what the distinction was. Kathy said
that since water could come through from the above deck, it was not considered "roofed."
Kristan said the code was clear how to count the area, and when they had met with the
architect on the plans originally, the architect had asked that the walkway not be considered
site coverage.
Kathy Langenwalter moved to uphold the staff decision regarding site coverage for the
Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816
Sunburst Drive based on the fact the walkway was covered by a deck, not roofed, and
therefore did not constitute site coverage. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was
approved, 3 -1, with Connie Knight voting against because she believed the code was
confusing.
4. A request for a site coverage variance for the Stanley Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley
Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst Drive.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
• 7
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer explained the request was to infill an area between the primary and secondary
units. Staff recommended approval of the request.
Diana Donovan asked what the zoning of the adjacent property was. Jill replied it was owned
by the Town.
Jack Snow, representing the applicant, showed the proposed design. He said there was still a
drainage problem with the proposal, but it would be controllable. He felt the proposal was a
reasonable solution to the problem.
Connie Knight asked if there would be new stonework in the front. Jack indicated there
would.
Kathy Langenwalter questioned the hardship on the property. Jack indicated staff said the
existing construction was the hardship, a the area was a "disaster." It was the intent of the
owners to clean up the look and function of the area. Kristan Pritz further explained that
there were severe site hazards on the lot and the infill was a better solution than moving the
structure closer to the hazard.
Kathy asked for a condition of approval that exterior changes, such as stucco for the entire
building, be made.
• Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve the request for a site coverage variance for the Stanley
Residence, Lot 1, Vail Valley Third Filing, a Resubdivision of Part of Sunburst/1816 Sunburst
Drive be approved per the staff memo, and the finding that unusual circumstances exist
through seaparate buildings and roofs resulting in an icing condition. The infill would require
the use of the 250 Ordinance as outlined in the staff memo. The conditions of approval
would be as stated in staffs memo with the additional condition that the existing siding be
removed and replaced with stucco. Jim Shearer seconded the motion. It was approved, 4 -0.
After the vote, Kristan commented that this was an excellent example of the 250 Ordinance
used to upgrade a property.
5. An appeal of a staff decision concerning a density variance granted to the Treetops
Condominiums, Lot 6 Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/452 East Lionshead Circle.
Appellant: Treetops Condominium Association
Planner: Mike Mollica
6. An appeal of a staff decision not to allow subdivision of a triplex -type building on a
lot less than 15,000 sq ft in size Lot 5 Vail Village West, Filing 1/1762 Alpine
Drive.
Appellant: Bill Post
• 8
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast located in
the Primary/secondary Residential Zone District, at 4768 Meadow Drive,
Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition.
Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter
Planner: Shelly Mello
.: � ?: >:: >::i: iii ii • :;•::
i ?lip
it f.{;: ti; r, Y'•;{ ti% istiti;; a;.;. c;;? y. v; isi::? ic% iR:%:?+ ti: ti% i:%:? tir:?: : %i:: <i <i5iiiii: ?ti %i5:vi5iix %iv vii: ?i <: ? { } }: ? %:: ? %Y:C: iii:% ii:?: i:? t? cF;?:}}}':}}} :r ?;tiy:::::: ?S2yy::::::::::5: :: ::::'vii. +•:•`: ::i:: ::: < ? <`•i ?}
.i;:;:• ... .:. v: rrr:: rrr ::::::::::.
f........... r. r . ... .... ..................... r.... r. ............ ............................... .r: f.•x:. .: ?::::::::::... ... .............:...::. }:•}:.::::: •• ?r ^: }:ry:•:::.•: •.
f. n .............x..: r..... F. ......................... r. r::::i w:::::::::::: ?m::::::.•x.•::..• w.....'
n.r ....... ?. } }.•:::: :::•::.• :•..• ....................... r.:: rw.•:.v :•:::: nv:: n........::r:::: :•: ::::.:::........n.............. r................. r:•:- . ?w.fx::.:; n, •:::.':::: i. {::. }}:• }:i::;::.;
}i:^:•Y:iY:i:•:v v? :• { ? +f. +i :•}:•} :• }:• }: +fx{ ?S:•Y: ?r: } }YY:•: ?'.- •YYY:fYY:• }:
...................... v:.:..': r.:....:............. xx::::r::::; :.••;; •wr x::. v:::: x:xx:.•
;:.::'•:.•.:..::: ?:: x: x ?4:.. r..... ....r..r.f:::• }:• }:?{ ?!ff /.+f•. n'•.' +•..8•vvx:.: ::: ::::::::. ... : •.... �.f:••: • .. i :•• ::::::v: r.::
: i:::•. •... ........r .....r.....•r::: vv• x• r...rv:::::.•:.•::::::::::: w:;•}i }:4:4:4:•: :•Y;•YY:} }:.:. .............................
•Frr•::::.v::f
.v ......•..:. :...... ...r . fv: •:.v: {.• :: 1.. }:• }:• }:• } } }:• } } }: ?�:• }r...r ?.rrr ............. r... x. +ff f.: ? ?:x:::::: •vF4:4':.......: x: :x::xx:::: ?•: u::::::x? YY�r}a:ri %: r .
.....•..v :. .:x.:. r rr:: rry .:.v.• :.u..vv: }: ?� } }:::v:::::: v::::r: rvY:4 }ii }:f: ::: r: %•i $: :ii:Y�r• r.. rv:., -: •.y::: •: n'f.• } } }YY� ?Ax }•Y::•: v,�•,•,r,
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
In December of 1989, the Vail Town Council passed Ordinance No. 31, Series of 1989
•
to allow Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail. The definition in that ordinance
states:
"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."
The Klawiters have applied for a conditional use permit to allow them to use 3
bedrooms in their home, which is located in the Primary /Secondary Residential zone
district, for a Bed and Breakfast rental. The area to be used for bed and breakfast
contains a total of 500 square feet. 2 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 the development objectives of the
Town.
• The Town Council encourages Bed and Breakfasts in the Town of Vail
as a favorable type of lodging for tourists.
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.
6 guests can be accommodated at one time, and it is unlikely that there
would be more than 3 guest vehicles. There is a Town of Vail bus stop
in the vicinity. 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 that there would be 3 additional vehicles driving to the Klawiter
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. 31, Series of 1989. Bed and Breakfast Operations
shall be subject to the following requirements:
a. Offstreet 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 Klawiter property contains 3 enclosed and 6 exterior parking
spaces. The parking requirement for the other side of the duplex
and the Bed and Breakfast is 5 parking spaces.
b. Enclosed trash facilities and regular garbage removal service
shall be provided.
The trash containers will be housed in the garage with regular
trash pick -up.
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.
A name plate has not been applied for at this time.
e. If a Bed and Breakfast operation shall use property or facilities
owned in common or jointly with other property owners such as
parking spaces or a driveway in duplex subdivisions by way 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.
Not applicable.
IV. FINDINGS
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit for a Bed and Breakfast operation:
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.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Community Development Department 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.
.7
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, 3916
Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine
Partners, Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
..... x ..... r ...:.............. nri: GY ?•::::: ::: : } }::•::•. ?•:: ^:4••; iii::.;.: ? ?.: ?.i•::•:'•. iii}' riiiii : ? ? ?4: ?•} }:::•i:•ii: ?.ii'f: •i:•::•::•:: :F::•YFr:::::.::�:• iii:•:: 6 ?: ?r ?h:4:4:•iY. ?.:::•i:6::•::•.
....0 . M l..xv.?..? ?.•.t�....rr.xfft.:.. \ ......................v.
8i'f.•r:Y: ? :: ii:•i:•::�hi ? ? ? +.r. ? ?ii:• iii::•: i'?.?::::•:: 3:??• i:•}::• iii?: ti??i ? ^:•::•i:•i: ? ? ?•::•i:•::•:::•i} iii ?:•r ?? ? ? ?•i:•::•::h: ?xrri {.;
:.i:4:::: rvx.; •rr; .• ::: n:v:v�..• ;•; •:x :x:::::::: i }Y ::•} };;;.v vii::; }:r:ii:: ii::.i.:::.:: ? ?: iiriirf.•f .. n•., w.,.. ....
............ .r. . ...... . .........r. . ........ r . .... r............ r :•: x:• i:; n}.:..,.• vx::: :::::::. :....::.•.:::...r:::::: •: x::?::::::::::. ii}:•::•:: r: iih:•::• i1? r:• i:•::•' i::.:• isX..}: •i:•i: ? ? ? ?ti�:•::•:'S:•i'iiiiiv.
.l,.r?.•.::.:i vvx �CGnvvw.•..K -.•r:: r:: fi?v:::.:.:... :..........n x. f.+ff........:. {;r:- t.•t:.:v::f....v::: •.:
.. r. x .................xx.x? rr. r. x............. .x..... ........:..... nv:::::.: xrvr:: x:::: x:x r• : •v:l v::. }i::
l v:n: \:+.•:. :•.r..:•.. ...... ......... /.. ...: ... rxx:::::r.:::: -:: .......rr.x:::::::::::::;• :: w::: :; ...: •.••. :.•...:... ..::::::F:.; -::: v::::: i:...... r.......... FF........... ffr {, {:...:..........
iir.. :ri?.r,..::::::: ?r; xr:: r: r :.. ..............:??.?.n.......v:. r. rff ...::::: ?• .. r`...
fi� {.iv. �: r.:..::.v:rf f.• '? 81.... •:n : r•::.:::., r,:• ::•::•::•: ?i:•i :............... n.xu ... ....... n.....r .
......::.: :n• w . r...: x:: rffv::.. v. ryxx.:::: •: rrxx ::::::::.:::::::r r xrxrrr. xr.. r..... rr .uuxuxr�..ryirywx,;;!!.:::.vv :rixv:l..? ?r. ? ?•::•i:i4::•.v :iw:::? ? ?::...........r ........ ......
:5,:'�'!.'•'.CV:`•: ?u ?u•: f?tY1 .:•.:::.•::Y:: �Y :::::: �f::::•:::?:•: v ::::::::.r.• ::::::.::.�.:vv:::: r::./.• xvm :::::•:::.:..: :............... //..... .....xr..:..x..:...............
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, owner of Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, is requesting a minor subdivision in
order to divide Lot 5 into two lots. Lot 5 is currently vacant, however the property does have
the remains of a partially constructed foundation located upon it.
The surrounding zoning includes Two Family Residential to the east and north, Single Family
• Residential to the northeast, and Agricultural and Open Space zoning to the west. The
property located to the south of Lot 5 is in the White River National Forest, and is not within
the Town's municipal limits.
Lot 5 is located within the Two Family Residential zone district. Portions of Lot 5 are
encumbered with the following geologically sensitive designations:
• 40% slopes
• Red hazard avalanche
• Blue hazard avalanche
• High severity rockfall
• High hazard debris flow and high hazard debris avalanche
The applicant's proposal is to subdivide the property, approximately in half, which
would create two separate, buildable lots. The zoning for each lot will remain duplex.
However, the applicant Is limiting development on each new lot to one single family
dwelling with an optional caretaker unit. The GRFA Is also proposed to be restricted to
8,804 square feet, which Is 3,745 square feet below the current allowable GRFA If each
new lot has duplex zoning.
n
U
11. BACKGROUND AND HISTORY
• A. In October of 1983, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved a
rezoning and a minor subdivision for an adjacent duplex lot, located at 3967 Lupine Drive.
This rezoning and minor subdivision allowed two single family lots to be created (3967 and
3977 Lupine Drive) from the one duplex lot.
B. On February 12, 1990, the PEC, by a vote of 7 -0, unanimously recommended
approval of a zone change request for Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, from the existing
Two Family Residential zone district (duplex) to the Single Family Residential zone district. At
this same meeting, the PEC, by a vote of 5 -2, approved a request for a minor subdivision
which would have created 4 single family lots from the existing Lots 4 and 5. Both the
rezoning and a minor subdivision request were subsequently reviewed by the Vail Town
Council on February 20, 1990. At this meeting, the Town Council denied the request for the
zone change and the application for the minor subdivision.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing Duplex
Existing Duplex Zoning
Zoning
with Minor Subdivision
Proposal
Lot 5A
Lot 5B
Lot 5A Lot 5B
Lot Area
Gross Area:
40
67,012 sq.ft.
30,296 sq.ft.
36,716 sq.ft.
Same as Duplex zoning
40% slopes, red
- 26,688 sq.ft.
- 13,788 sq.ft.
- 12,900 sq.ft.
with minor subdivision
hazard avalanche:
NET BUILDABLE
AREA:
40,324 sq.ft.
16,508 sq.ft.
23,816 sq.ft.
2. GRFA
7,950 sq.ft.
6,114 sq.ft.
6,435 sq.ft.
4,379 sq.ft. 4,425 sq.ft.
3. Density
2 DU's
2 DU's
2 DU's
2 DU's plus 2 optional
caretaker units
As indicated above in the zoning analysis, the maximum GRFA listed for Lots 5A and 5B
includes the 425 square foot "bonus" that the Two Family Residential zone district allows for
dwelling units (as indicated in Chapter 18.12.090(a). Should a lot owner decide to construct a
caretaker unit on the property, the GRFA for that caretaker unit must come out of the
maximum allowable GRFA for the lot. The additional 425 square foot "bonus" shall not be
applicable to the caretaker unit. Each new single family dwelling unit would also have the
right to construct a garage per Section 18.04.130 of the Town of Vail Municipal Code. The
optional caretaker units do not qualify for the garage "credits ".
• 2
At the request of the staff, the applicant has agreed to allow for an optional caretaker unit in
• each of the dwelling units on Lots 5A and 513, and the following restrictions will apply to the
caretaker units:
• The caretaker unit shall be restricted to a maximum GRFA of 900 square feet.
• Any and all GRFA utilized for the construction of the caretaker unit shall be deducted
from the maximum allowable GRFA for the specific lot the caretaker unit is located
upon.
• No caretaker unit shall be sold, transferred, conveyed or subdivided separately from
the main, or primary unit.
• No caretaker unit shall be leased or rented for any period less than 30 consecutive
days.
Should a lot owner wish to construct a caretaker unit, the above listed restrictions for
caretaker units shall be agreed to in writing, by the lot owner(s), prior to the Town's issuance
of a building permit for the unit. Said agreement shall be filed on record in the office of the
Eagle County Clerk and Recorder on a form approved by the Town Attorney, for the benefit of
the Town, to insure that the restrictions shall run with the land.
IV. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
is A. Lot Area
Chapter 18.12.050 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot or site area for
a property located within the Two Family Residential zone district be 15,000 square feet of
buildable site area. As indicated in Section III of this staff memorandum, the zoning analysis,
the proposed Lots 5A and 5B would both meet and exceed the required minimum lot size.
B. Frontage
Chapter 18.12.050 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot have a minimum frontage
of 30 feet. The applicant's proposed minor subdivision meets this requirement, as Lot 5A has
a proposed frontage of approximately 91 feet and Lot 5B has a proposed frontage of
approximately 115 feet.
C. Site Dimensions
Chapter 18.12.050 of the Municipal Code requires that each site be of a size and shape
capable of enclosing a square area 80 feet on each side within its boundaries. The
applicant's proposed configuration for Lots 5A and 5B are of a size and shape that they can
meet and exceed the 80 feet square area regulation.
• 3
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
is The staff recommendation for the applicant's proposed minor subdivision request is for
approval with two conditions. It is the staff's position that all of the required
zoning /development standards for a minor subdivision request have been either met or
exceeded. The staff would recommend that the following conditions of approval be placed
upon the minor subdivision:
1. That prior to the Town's issuance of a building permit for the development of either Lot
5A or 56, that a site specific geologic hazard report be completed. The geologic
hazard report shall take into account the proposed architectural design of the
residence, as well as the overall site planning.
2. It shall be a condition of this minor subdivision approval that the primary method of
mitigation for the geologic hazards shall be internal (built into the structure). It is
acceptable to have limited external mitigation as a part of the project, as long as this
mitigation is approved by the Design Review Board and does not constitute major
regrading or earth moving on the site. One example of an acceptable external method
of mitigation would be to incorporate "garden walls" into the site planning for the
property.
•
0 4
c:pec \memosV upine.622
WHITE R IVER
NATIONAL FOREST \\
Tp1. CREEK •_••• BCMAfORtl Yl51R1 _1 —�` )4
WiI( N GREEN
1 ME'411OW5 NTEPSTdTE 70
T. �1
i,�
VICINITY MAP
LOT 16
BIGHORN SUBDIVISION SECOND ADDITION
NO —LF
FINAL PLAT, A RESUBDIVISION OF
TOWN
FOUND A PLAIN NA. 4
REBAR \
28v
R = 500.00'
/ L
L = 100.00
/ T = 50.17'
/
IT 1= s
101JNDAN°. 5RE8ARWITH
• L'J AN. .15. COP
S. NR. 551
/ ENT LOT 58
/ O.BA29 ACRES
o /F.
2 L_
98 31'
N89 *49'06"W
FOUND A N. a RE BAR
WITH AN ALUMINUM CAP
L.S. NR 16827
UNPLATTED
SCALE I" = 30'
•
UTk ITI
EASEMENT
10 A N. 5 REBAR
WITH AN ALUMINUM CAP
L.S. Nn ILLEUG1tl `E
I +lIS °A'E, 6 HlW CORNER,
(GROUND UNSTABLE,
�G
96.45
� , LOT 5A
"
—
U.6955 ACRES
—J
194.7 71
N W COR , N.E. 1/4,
S22 °49'00 "E, 15.001
S.E. 1/4, N. E, 1/4,
10 NO A N°. 5 REBAR
JNI CAP
WITH - LAP
SEC, 11
L.S. 1. 4151M1N
- UND A No REBAR wITN
11nA1
ALUMINUM CAP L.S. N. 16827
p[o1
"I
To 0
s
R = 500.001
DO
.,
E15
o = 18 °00,00"
a'
ao
— In
U
T = 79.19
-i
\
Q
\
U
D
\O
UTk ITI
EASEMENT
10 A N. 5 REBAR
WITH AN ALUMINUM CAP
L.S. Nn ILLEUG1tl `E
I +lIS °A'E, 6 HlW CORNER,
(GROUND UNSTABLE,
�G
-o�
SUM
S22 °49'00 "E, 15.001
1 aD
St AI
- UND A No REBAR wITN
11nA1
ALUMINUM CAP L.S. N. 16827
p[o1
"I
Q
s
R = 500.001
.,
o = 18 °00,00"
a'
L =ISZOT(CALC.15708')
T = 79.19
\
\
CH =S31 °490011E 156.43
\
\v
\O
S
\ FOVND A PLAIN NA. a REBAR
J
\ FOUND d Na. 5 REBAR WITH
dN ALUMINUM CAP
F = 500.00 1 .5 uA. 551
515 °27 E, 1.22 FROM CI)I NERI
=06 °x2'27" \ S40 °49'00 "E, 33.75'
L - 57.08
T - 28.57' \
CH = S37 °32'47 'E 57_05' yF0UN0 4 PLAN NR.4 REBAR
-- -- Ai. �uL J, nO Lo Colorado I.M you aunt covmenL any legal ac n based UWS any Jef °cl
1 I`I1111!Inw lyl 14.A t.Illlr Val i 1 chre vey MA Lh in three years after you of is st J�acoverL SUCK det eL 1. In n even
1', �:;I l)t111:�11na I ± "fil n1y ny n based u1R> 1nY Lhi su vey be commenced more than tc yU r..
fJwalU >, (.II NICi I: f�umltl- 1111 ul Lhe .err,flca CionC Shd— h—,—
III 1 !IA!1 I -IDU
2 II) I
lu r
111
I1,1 I.
LOT 4
L11NIV
fll I
Ja 1'.I
AII-
T --
7'n.n I
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at Vail, 1452 Ridge
Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
':i: fff%�.W.�^:�. 5+.w fJ. % .. IX$ N,.? �?:?•: 4�:?•::•::• i:?: ff% 1. G' fif: is ? ?rr ;: ;:;:�:: ?• % ? ? ?l:+i ?? { {si ryi:4::+':W.. +.?rrr r:l. ? + /. +ff }%fH.... if. +{ffff . +f %�?:: :: +r;r::i.; . H.?LS:ri}•.' ?.:J:•rfirff.?4YffF ffFFr,: r {'{fYfr: ??
'v ut sr. +•s:?evf : ?: +:r,.;;..;:;,,t:�,r:;::u:,%: ••;ff. {i: >:?. :?:; ? ? „ ?;....,+ff r: {rt::�:•k.•::u:;ctf f f ;ffr; {I.,m;. ?x� }�y��C „<! ; ;•• :: r'f.••:::•
.. �H; .n:::::v.•::: .:....... .: ff ,Lf . •••'�:?''�:•::'ffrif f iY.•: ?.::-i::.•: $:i ?::�iiii: x fi:.rii.• + }!. i' /.f {{ {fff::: ir::: ?:i'ii.
: f;x•.cx .!x <::: f:iii;;'f. }!j }} : ;J..6' . } : :, ;f}� f rv:..�..•x
<:i''i.':`: /x:,w f`.a ?.';• :,rr: +ff /%/ff:•:: +f:f ::�x +fffffnffr..` ?mfr.,.:.,....... /�� •.'
ssx :,�ffru6cnacff }ff .. f . >:c2't:•'+.'•:�ffs: {ff;r:.:.:�. %�: :;•r::.: +::.,:::,:: ::'........:.......,... .. ,ff/f:........: ::: •^f:..:i::: �.. x!}:::... .. t?:::. ":o:
:::: x ?h:•sC.sxca�udc'a}}?:fi iC" . daCccx?'?? Y':: fti.,<'.:: �}} idsCdL' J/.• 1}}• ffnf::•.:•.:::: t: S:. :• :':.,;::kb�:i:2'?Y?c?f}}:'}hf },{Li'i.6c:CGf /f}iicF ?r:c ?,, fff ccc.•. xnncC V} i<• x:: f.+. f} f}/. i?:::: �,' •,'• %,dic:•f.:�:Y,,• « :1 } /: /,;uf x:r. ?•:..:
DESCRIPTION OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT REQUESTED
The applicant is requesting a revision to the existing Lot 4, Second Amendment to the Ridge
at Vail plat in order to reconfigure the existing 40 -foot by 60 -foot building envelope in order to
take advantage of the views of the Gore Range which would be obtained from a new
residence located within this building envelope. Please see the attached proposed building
envelope plan. The existing building envelope for Lot 4 was established on January 15, 1982
• by the Second Amendment to the Ridge at Vail, a Resubdivision of Lots 3, 4 and 5 plat.
BACKGROUND
The existing site is zoned Residential Cluster. However, the Declaration of Protective
Covenants for the Ridge at Vail which was executed on July 29, 1980, set forth development
parameters for all lots associated with the Ridge. For the most part, these protective
covenants are more restrictive then the RC zone district development standards. Although the
Town of Vail does not enforce private agreements, the applicant has indicated it is his
intention to design and build the proposed residence in conformance with these protective
covenants with the exception of the restriction for gross residential floor area. The maximum
amount of GRFA which will be constructed on the site is limited by the second amendment to
the Ridge at Vail plat, to a maximum of 2,400 square feet. This platted GRFA maximum is
more restrictive then the GRFA which could be constructed on this lot under the protective
covenants or under RC zoning.
On January 14, 1980, the Town of Vail mailed a letter to Eagle County commenting on the
proposed preliminary plan for The Ridge at Vail. With regard to Lot 4 the PEC had the
following comments:
"The excessive slopes on Lot 4 make it almost unworkable. If Lot 4 were deleted, the
road could be shortened and the western most townhouse on Lot 5 could be moved
down off the ridge. The architect for the project is confident a well designed building
•
would make Lot 4 acceptable. If Lot 4 is incorporated into Lot 5 and the building
• design 'can be tied to condominiumization approval, we will review the design more
favorably.
Approval of any building on Lot 4 will be given only if the design is for an unobtrusive
building, which steps into the slope and is located on slopes under 40 %."
On February 11, 1980, the Board of County Commissioners approved the preliminary plan for
The Ridge at Vail. The approval was for 6 townhomes, 3 duplex lots and one single family lot
(Lot 4).
On July 25, 1981, PEC approved a minor subdivision request for Phase IV of The Valley (The
Ridge at Vail) which combined a portion of Lot 4 and 5. Formerly Lot 5 had an "arm" which
extended along the top of the ridge to the west along the north side of Lot 4. For
maintenance purposes and to make Lot 4 a more viable lot, this Lot 5 "arm" was incorporated
into Lot 4. A condition of the 1981 approval was that the existing building envelope remain.
Prior to the combination of the "arm" of Lot 5 with Lot 4, the area of Lot 4 was 14,418 sq. ft.
In August of 1985 a request to relocate the building envelope was submitted to the Town.
This application was later withdrawn.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
The following chart compares the development standards set forth in the RC zone district to
• the covenants and restrictions for the Ridge at Vail and the Ridge at Vail plat.
RC
Protective
Zoning
Covenants
As Platted
"GRFA
4,568 sq ft
2,825 sq ft
2,625 sq ft
Site Coverage
6,818(25%)
6,818(25%)
N/A
Building Height
33'
30
N/A
Setbacks
Front
20'
15'
N/A
Rear
15'
15'
N/A
North Side
15'
25'
N/A
South Side
15'
15'
N/A
Density
2 units
one single family
N/A
Allowable GRFA in the RC zone district is based upon buildable area. These GRFA
fiugures include 225 sq. ft. bonus which is allowed under RC zoning for single family
units constructed in this zone district.
• 2
There is no information in the Town's files which specifically addresses the reasoning for
• locating the building envelope where it was platted. However, staff believes the reason for
locating the envelope as platted was two -fold:
1. To minimize the amount of disturbance to the site in constructing a residence at this
location and;
2. To minimize the view of the residence from the valley floor.
The lot area is .626 acres. Under the protective covenants, no more than one single family
home may be constructed on Lot 4. The lot is located at the end of Ridge Lane immediately
west of the 6 -unit Ridge Townhome development. The lot slopes from a low point on the
north side of the site to a high point on the south side of the site. The average slope on the
site is 38 %.
In comparing the two envelopes, the staff looked at loss of trees, driveway grade and retaining
walls, site disturbance, and views associated with each envelope. In both building envelope
configurations, the impact of the garage and the access drive on the lot is essentially the
same.
Due to the steep slopes associated with this lot, staff also explored the site impacts of
positioning a garage at the end of the cul de sac. A garage at this location would result in the
need for substantial soil retaining and site disturbance as well as a setback variance.
Additional trees would be saved by placing a garage at the end of the cul de sac. Further, it
IS does not appear that at the termination of the cul de sac one would view a set of garage
doors. Staff believes the placement of a garage next to the cul de sac is less desirable site
planning then allowing a driveway, which works with the contours, to provide access to the
site and the siting of a garage further to the north out of the end -of- the -road sight line. For
these reasons, staff supports maintaining the northeast corner of the building envelope
configuration.
There are 14 lodge pole pines within the existing building envelope. Under the proposed
building envelope there would be 8 lodge pole pines located within the proposed building
envelope. It appears that approximately 7 trees can be saved under the new program.
In order to mitigate the potential visual impact of any new residence constructed within the
new envelope from the valley floor, the applicant proposes to limit the height of development
which would occur within the building envelope as shown on the attached cross section.
Briefly, the applicant proposes to limit the maximum building height in the southern 20 feet of
the proposed building envelope to an elevation of 8503 feet. In conformance with the
protective covenants, the maximum height allowable for any structure constructed in the
northern half of the building envelope will be 30 feet:
On June 16th, the staff visited the site with the project architect, Duane Piper, and the
applicant, Frank McKibben. At this meeting the applicant anchored a helium balloon on a 30-
foot tether to the existing southeast envelope corner and a helium balloon on a 24 -foot tether
to the southeast corner of the proposed envelope. Staff then traveled to the valley floor to
evaluate the extent to which each of these balloons could be seen. In summary, the staff
• 3
believes reconfiguring the building envelope and limiting the height in the southern half (20
• feet) of the new building envelope to an elevation of 8503 feet, will result in no significant
increase in building exposure as seen from the valley floor when compared to the existing
building envelope. It is also important to note portions of existing adjacent residences are
clearly visible from the valley floor all along this ridge.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed building envelope with conditions. Staff believes
the limits on height, which the applicant is proposing, will minimize the visibility of the home
from the valley floor below. Further, the site planning as proposed by the applicant appears to
minimize the amount of site disturbance which will occur in constructing a home at this
location while also considering the visual impact of the structure to adjacent properties and
from the valley floor. The following conditions of the approval will be stipulated on the minor
subdivision plat:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and structure
shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. A driveway envelope shall be indicated on the plat per architect's site plan dated June
19, 1992.
3. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
•
is 4
bbl \ a i I m
• \\ 1 i \ g I 3�#
\ \ J,1
I
I
fill
o
• G1f \ \\ c \\I 0
*IJ
�j� �� S■ � s�` qqet
Qe 10 N P"
Am
Ilk*
'`
In
J
N
\\
O
7 S
\\
rre
\ \
''0
3•�IlZtts
I I
a"
LU
W cc
/
r
\
Af -- •
I
1
W
-- 0
f/1
< < >8
K O O V
4�
^V
ovo� J
\
O
O
Q
ooWoa
V
J
b
\
�o1
/
It
Ilk
V
'o
bbl \ a i I m
• \\ 1 i \ g I 3�#
\ \ J,1
I
I
fill
o
• G1f \ \\ c \\I 0
*IJ
�j� �� S■ � s�` qqet
Qe 10 N P"
Am
.; ,�,���,♦. ♦fit ►♦,� ► ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦� ♦••��
Gov V
FA
AWN
og
�.� lw
lw
:�o, op
: 0,/
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, located within the
Primary/Secondary zone district at 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail
Village Eighth Filing.
Applicant: G & S Partnership
Planner: Jill Kammerer
I. BACKGROUND
On March 23, 1992, the PEC approved rear, east side and west side setback
variances for an existing single family residence located at 1031 Eagle's Nest Circle.
These setback variances were requested in order to allow the proposed redevelopment
of an existing residence to occur. Under this previous application, the interior of the
existing single family residence was to be totally remodeled, an additional 288 square
feet of GRFA was to be added to the residence, the existing flat roof was to be
changed to a sloped roof and a number of cosmetic exterior facade changes were
proposed. The additional 288 sq. ft. of GRFA was proposed to be located in a new
3rd floor on the eastern end of the existing structure. Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area ( "250 Ordinance ") was proposed to be utilized in order to allow
this addition to be constructed. Also, under the previous redevelopment proposal, site
coverage was proposed to be reduced by 91 square feet.
II. DESCRIPTION OF THE SETBACK VARIANCES REQUESTED
The applicant now proposes to withdraw the previously submitted and approved
application and to submit a new application. Under the revised application, the
footprint of the existing building will remain unchanged and no additional GRFA will be
added to the residence. However, in removing an existing trash /storage enclosure
which is located to the west of the existing residence, the GRFA will be reduced by 53
square feet. Therefore, the additional gross residential floor area chapter of the code
will not be employed. However, new exterior materials will be applied to the facade of
the building and the existing flat roof will be changed to a sloping roof. It is this
proposed sloping roof which necessitates the request for rear, west side and east side
setback variances. Also under this proposal, site coverage will be reduced by 66
square feet.
•
A. Rear Setback Variance (North)
• The applicant proposes to construct a sloped roof over the existing flat roof.
The required rear setback in this zone district is 15 feet. The existing building
encroaches 6 feet into the required rear setback. Under this proposal, the roof
structure will encroach 7 feet into the required 15 -foot setback, resulting in an 8
foot rear setback.
B. East Side Setback Variance
The required side setback for this zone district is 15 feet. The existing structure
encroaches into the side setback 5 feet, therefore, the resulting east side
setback is 10 feet. Under the proposed application, the roof structure will
encroach 2 feet -6 inches into the required east side setback. Therefore, a 2
foot -6 inch setback variance is required to allow the roof to be constructed.
resulting in a 12 foot 6 inch east side setback.
C. West Side Setback
As previously stated, the side setback requirement for the zone district is 15
feet. The existing structure encroaches 4.5 feet into the west side setback.
Also encroaching into this setback is a trash /storage enclosure which the
applicant proposes to remove. The trash /storage enclosure currently
encroaches 10 feet into the west side setback. The proposed sloped roof
• addition will extend into the required side setback, therefore, the applicant must
obtain a west side setback variance. The proposed roof addition will encroach
to a lessor extent then does the existing trash /storage enclosure. However, the
roof addition will encroach 7 feet into the required 15 west side setback
resulting in an 8 foot west side setback.
III. HISTORY
The residence was constructed in June of 1976. At the time the residence was constructed,
the required side and rear setbacks were 12 feet -6 inches. PEC approval was obtained to
allow the structure to encroach 2 feet -6 inches into the required west side and rear (north)
setbacks resulting in 10 -foot setbacks from the north and west property lines.
In general, the staff recommended approval of the 1976 variance as the proposal would not
impact adjacent structures, and would also respect view corridors. It was also felt the location
of surrounding residences and the small lot size (9,322 sq. ft.) created a situation that
warranted the variances.
In May of 1983, the PEC approved site coverage and east side setback variance requests in
order to allow the construction of a 120 sq. ft. bedroom addition east of the existing residence
which encroached 5 feet into the required east side setback. At the time this east side
setback was granted, required side and rear setbacks were 15 feet. Therefore, the resulting
eastern side setback was 10 feet. Under this approval, site coverage was exceeded by 178
sq. ft.
• 2
In 1983, even though staff recognized there were special circumstances associated with the
• lot, it was the staff's belief there were other locations which would allow for the construction of
the bedroom within, or at least closer to, the required setbacks and recommended denial of
the requested east side setback variance. The PEC approved the request with two members
voting against the variance.
In July of 1986, the PEC approved rear and west side setback variances and a site coverage
variance request in order to allow the construction of a living room addition which encroached
5 feet into the required 15 foot rear setback and a 2nd floor cantilevered bedroom addition
which encroached 1.5 foot into the required 15 foot west side setback. Under the 1986
approval, maximum allowable site coverage was exceeded by 366 sq. ft.
Based on the 1992 Improvement Location Certificate which has been submitted with the
previous application, the 1986 living room addition was constructed per the approved plans.
However, as constructed the living room addition encroaches 2 feet into the eastern side
setback.
The final setback encroachments which need to be discussed are an existing 6 foot -6 inch
rear setback bay window encroachment and west side trash /storage enclosures encroachment
of 10 feet. The Town does not have any records regarding the review or approval of either of
these additions.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• Zoning: Primary/Secondary
Site Area: 0.2140 acres /9,322 sq. ft.
GRFA
Allowed: 3,006 sq. ft. (Includes 250 Ordinance)
Existing: 2,700 sq. ft.
Proposed: 2,647 sq. ft.
Decrease Under This Proposal: 53 sq. ft.
Site coverage (20% of site area)
Allowed: 1,864 sq. ft.
Existing: 2,283 sq. ft.
Proposed: 2,217 sq. ft.
Decrease Under this Proposal: 66 sq. ft.
Height
•
Allowed: 33 ft.
Proposed: 30 ft.
3
Setbacks
• Front
Required: 20 feet
Existing: 49 feet
Proposed: 49 feet
*West Side
Required: 15 feet
Existing: 5 feet
Proposed: 8 feet
*East Side
Required: 15 feet
Existing: 10 feet
Proposed: 10 feet
*Rear
Required: 15 feet
Existing: 9 feet
Proposed: 8 feet
Area of requested setback variances
• IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62.060 of the Vail Municipal Code, the
Community Development recommends approval of the requested rear, east and west side
setback variances, based on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. The relationship of the requested variance to other existing or
potential uses or structures In the vicinity.
a. Rear setback variance:
Immediately north of and adjacent to the rear setback lines, is a utility
easement which is also used to provide pedestrian and golf cart access
to the golf course. The requested rear setback variance if approved
would not adversely affect the use or enjoyment of the adjacent
properties. When originally constructed, the PEC granted the necessary
approvals to allow the structure to encroach 5 feet into the required 15
foot setback, resulting in a 10 foot setback. As a result of the
construction of a bay window the existing structure currently encroaches
0 4
6 feet into the required 15 foot setback. The extent to which the
• building facade encroaches into the setback will remain unchanged
under this proposal. However, through the construction of the sloped
roof, the roof will encroach into the required 15 foot setback. The extent
of the roof encroachment will be 7 feet, resulting in the 8 foot setback.
Staff believes the roof encroachment will have no negative impact on
adjacent properties.
b. East side setback:
The existing structure currently encroaches 10 feet into the required 15-
foot east side setback. As a result of constructing the new roof, the roof
will encroach 2 feet -6 inches into the required 15 -foot east side setback.
The extent of this roof encroachment is less then the extent of the
existing structure's encroachment into the setback. Staff believes this 2
foot -6 inch encroachment into the eastern side setback, to allow for the
construction of the roof, will not negatively impact adjacent properties.
C. West side:
Under this redevelopment proposal the amount of encroachment into the
west side setback would be decreased through the removal of the
trash /storage enclosure. However, the proposed sloping roof would
extend into the required west side setback. The existing structure
• currently encroaches 10 feet into the required 15 -foot side setback. As
a result of the redevelopment proposed, the structure would encroach
no further into the required 15 -foot setback. However, the proposed roof
would encroach 7 feet into the required 15 -foot setback resulting in an 8
foot west side setback. Staff believes the proposed encroachment will
have no negative impact on adjacent properties.
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 title without grant of special privilege.
a. Rear Setback Variance: Under this development proposal the applicant
is decreasing the amount of site coverage by 66 square feet. Any
addition to the north, east or west would necessitate approval of a
setback variance. For this proposal, staff believes that it is reasonable
to consider the existing residence's location in the east, west and rear
setbacks to be a practical difficulty warranting a rear setback variance
for the roof overhang. It is staff's opinion that the original rationale for
the granting of the setback variances is reasonable and still pertains to
the proposal being reviewed, and is not a grant of special privilege to
continue the setback encroachments. A degree of relief from the strict
and literal interpretation of the code is appropriate and has been granted
to other property owners with similar circumstances.
0 5
b. East Side Setback: Staff believes it is reasonable to consider the
• existing residence's location of the setback to be a practical difficulty
warranting an east side setback variance.
C. West Side Setback Variance: As previously stated under the proposed
development, the applicant will be decreasing the amount of
encroachment into the west side setback. The amount of encroachment
into the west side setback under this proposal would be decreased from
10 feet to 7 feet.
Staff believes that construction of the sloping roof will improve the general appearance
of the property. The degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the code
is appropriate.
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.
With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing large
aspen tree, the proposed variances will have no major impact on these
considerations. The applicant has agreed to relocate the existing tree to the
southeast corner of the site. In addition to the transplanting of this aspen, the
applicant will add 4 additional aspen to this same area.
• The previous variance approvals were based on the fact that the variances
maintained separation between adjacent houses and also respected their views.
Staff believes that this proposal will have no impacts on the factors above.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
is 6
C. 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
Based on Findings 1, 2, 3 (a thru c) the Community Development Department staff
recommends approval of the requested east and west side setback variances and
approval of the rear setback variance. Staff believes the setback variances are
warranted because of the unusual (small) lot size and the location of the existing
structure in the setbacks. The setback variances do not greatly increase the bulk of
the building or negatively impact the adjacent properties. The proposal will not be a
grant of special privilege as this type of interpretation has been used with other
properties.
Please note, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, this approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within 2 years of the date of issuance and diligently
pursued to completion.
Opec4nemoftrubbs.2
is 7
19
�Y
i
• .Id
C,
P
Z
A
3
3
c
,
i
,
1p
r
�r
%r
•
�G
s
J
v
•
•
y
�5
LL
F� \
D
3
✓ L
� 3
z
c�
k9;
�Yy
•
r
I
r-�-r
•
•
•
�s
J
V l
LL1
•
•
•
0
R
2
e
W
Y
c
Z
Y
i
$
i u
a
�o
Z
w
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor
Area, of the Municipal Code relating to Employee Housing Units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Presenter: Jill Kammerer /Kristan Pritz
..rx . F....w :Sri ..•::: x:::: r. +. ::... :: ..... ........................ v..' :......• v:::::::::::;^}::}: Jii} isv}}::......::.: ................:::::::::::::::
• x�.:... .... :.............:...... ..... x ...... ...........:........ n............ •: ::::...:.................:::::: w.:::::::.::::nw..::::::::: v::::: r:: :? 4: 4:':':• is0} isL}}:•}: 4:•}:: v:{::::::.; w::::: n: ::::::::::.:v::::::::::::::::::
..... r. n:.: { {: •:. :.. :•: : 4S}}:•:: h:• i::?:::?:.•'.•}}:•::? �r::. i::??•:?•}::;}: i:: y}:i} isi'}:• i:.. ..x ............................ n...................... r: :v:::::::. }'.vii::h:• }y -: n:v: •: ••:
c?•::? LLL.} w}:? o:<./!;•:.}• rfc�-}:•:}/. u.•• r.?.}}+.•: Lyc?.} r:} ris:•}: ui??. �?: L•}: L• x•}:•:•;•.- a}}}:•:?•:? L? LL;;.}:?•:?? L.::-::• r::.}:-:}::• r::::::: r:::::: x•::•:?•}:. x•}:•:?: rt....: .................. r ....................:.........{ .L.:
..............
REQUEST
Staff would like to incorporate amendments to the 250 Ordinance into the proposed
Housing Ordinance. Although this issue was discussed by both PEC and Council, it
was not until recently that it was suggested by Council that the 250 Ordinance be
amended along with the creation of the Housing Ordinance. The request includes:
1. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be utilized for permanently restricted employee
housing units provided than an equal amount of allowable GRFA is used as a
match.
2. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the 5 year or 6 year waiting
period.
II. 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. The 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. Following months of study, worksessions and public hearings with the
Council and the PEC, the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was unanimously approved
by the Town Council on November 20, 1990.
On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed recommendations
of the Community Development Department's proposed modifications to the zoning code
relating to the provision of employee housing units (EHU's). The 250 Ordinance amendment
was not incorporated into this request.
On August 12, 1991 the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the staff's
•
proposed ordinance which would modify the zoning code to allow for the provision of
employee housing. At this meeting, staff recommended Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code
• (the 250 Ordinance) be modified to allow it to be used to encourage property owners to
construct employee housing. This chapter of the code currently provides for an additional 250
square feet of GRFA to dwellings which meet certain criteria. One of the criteria is that at
least 5 years must have passed from the date the dwelling unit was issued a Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy, or a minimum of 6 years must have passed from the date the
original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit, in order for the
dwelling unit to qualify for the additional GRFA. The issue raised by the staff at this meeting
was whether or not the Town should allow the immediate use of the 250 Ordinance to those
applicants who proposed to apply the 250 square feet of GRFA to employee housing units.
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended the 250 ordinance be modified to
allow the 250 to be available for EHU's without requiring the period of time stipulated in the
existing code.
On August 27, 1991, the Town Council reviewed the proposed Employee Housing Ordinance
as modified per the PEC's recommendations. The Council also approved the concept of
allowing the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the expiration of the 5 year waiting period,
providing the 250 was to be utilized to provide an employee housing unit. The Town Council
further recommended the use of the 250, in advance of the expiration of the 5 year waiting
period, be restricted in the following manner: Up to 250 square feet of the "250" can be
incorporated into an EHU on "day one" (i.e., without having to wait the 5 year period, as
currently stipulated in the "250 Ordinance "), provided an equal amount of allowable GRFA for
the lot is used as a match. If the applicant elects to use less than the 250 square feet of the
"250 ", (and will match the lesser amount with allowable GRFA) the balance of the "250" which
is not incorporated (used) in conjunction with employee housing unit shall not be available
• until the 5 year period currently stipulated in the "250 Ordinance ", has lapsed.
This concept was further discussed when the employee housing ordinance was reviewed by
Town Council on April 28, 1992. At this meeting, the Town Council instructed the staff to
modify the 250 Ordinance as discussed above. Although the concept of modifying the 250
Ordinance to allow it to be used in advance of the 5 year waiting period when used in
conjunction with the construction of an EHU has been discussed on many occasions, it has
never been formally advertised and published. In discussing this issue at today's meeting, if
the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval of the modifications to
Chapter 18.71 of the zoning code as discussed, the ordinance setting forth these changes will
be considered by Council at the same time as the EHU ordinance is considered. Attached is
a copy of Chapter 18.71.020.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the Chapter 18.71. - Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area section of the code, as stated below:
1. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be utilized for permanently restricted employee housing
units provided than an equal amount of allowable GRFA is used as a match.
2. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the 5 year or 6 year waiting period.
•
•
18.71.020 Single family dwellings and two family dwellings.
• Any single family dwelling or dwelling unit in a two
family dwelling not restricted by the Town of Vail to 40
housing for full time employees of the Upper Eagle Valley
shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a
maximum of two hundred fifty square feet of GRFA per
single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit in
addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for
the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the
single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall meet the
following criteria:
A. At least five years must have passed from the date the
single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit was
issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a
minimum of six years must have passed from the date
the original building permit was issued for the ,con -
struction of the dwelling unit.
B..
T",:: single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have
received its final certificate of occupancy.
C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA
under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail
zoning requirements and applicable development
498 -16
(Vail 1 -)-89)
•
U
•
ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it
shall be approved by the planning and environmental
commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an
application is made in accordance with this chapter. Any
single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is
totally removed shall: (I) be replaced with any prior
existing nonconforming uses or development standards
totally eliminated; (2) obtain a building permit within
one year of final design review board approval or the
approval for additional GRFA shall be voided; (3) be
allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zoning
plus a maximum of two hundred fifty additional square
tee t.
D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units
on the same fot as the applicant shall be notified of any
application under this chapter that involves anv external
alterations to an existing structure. Notification pro-
cedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the
zoning code.
E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage
or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will
not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed parking
area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed
parking area shall accompany the application under this
chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the
conversion.
F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in
Chapter 18.52 due to any GRFA addition pursuant to
this chapter shall be met by the applicant.
G. All proposals under this section shall be required to
conform to the de .-ign review guidelines set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any single
family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is
proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town
of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter
18.54 of the Vail 'Municipal Code. Before any additional
GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this
chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance and
upkeep of the existing single family dweling or dwelling
498 -17
( Vail 1 -3-89)
J
•
•
•
ZONING
unit and site, including landscaping to determine whether
they comply with the design review guidelines. No
temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for
any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this chapter until
all required improvements to the site and structure have
been completed as required.
H. The provisions of this section are applicable only to
GRFA additions to single dwelling units. No pooling of
gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single
family dwelling or two family residential dwellings units.
No application for additional GRFA shall request more
than two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential
floor area per single family dwelling or dwelling unit.
(Ord. 36(1988) § 2: Ord. 4(1985) § 1.)
•
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 8, 1992
Present
Staff
Greg Amsden
Kristan Pritz
Chuck Crist
Jill Kammerer
Diana Donovan
Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langenwalter
Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams
Shelly Mello
Mary Caster
Absent
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 12:45 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. Worksession on progress made on the Town of Vail Water Quality Study for Non -Point
Source Pollution.
Presenters: Lane Wyatt, Northwest Council of Governments
Susan Scanlan, Town of Vail
• The PEC viewed a video which explained the basics of non -point source pollution.
Staff then explained the progress of the study to date and the direction to be followed
in the future. A general question and answer session followed to address
specifications.
2. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko
property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Public Hearing
3. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session and Dalton
Williams seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was taken and the Planning and
Environmental Commission then adjourned to go into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney.
4. The next item on the agenda was a referral for TOV Comments from the United States
Forest Service Regarding a Proposed Request for an 80' Tall Tower to be Erected at
the End of the Runaway Truck Ramp in East Vail.
Applicant: U. S. West New Vector /Cellular One Represented by
• Larry Storms and Dave Rudder
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Diana Donovan stated that this would be an informational discussion only and its sole
intent was to provide information to the applicants regarding issues to be addressed in
the Environmental Assessment. Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, introduced the
applicants and reviewed the request. Andy explained the review process, stating that
the Forest Service was seeking input at this time from interested parties with concerns.
Once all concerns had been identified, an Environmental Assessment would be written
evaluating them. The Forest Service had said that it would circulate the completed EA
to the Town in approximately mid -July for review and comment. Andy then stated the
current position of the Town of Vail, which was that:
"The Forest Service has indicated to the Town that in their opinion they are not
required to conform to Town zoning or building ordinances before allowing
Cellular One to commence construction of the tower. It is the Town's position
that Cellular One must comply with all Town of Vail ordinances, including those
controlling zoning and building before commencing construction of the tower."
Though this was the position of the Town, Andy said that comments about the tower
were still appropriate, as the concerns needed to be included in the Environmental
Assessment.
• The applicant for U.S. West Vector Cellular, Larry Storms, then addressed the
Commission. He identified the specific site and said his firm may not be constructing a
cell site at this location until some time in the future. Dave Rutter, Senior Vice
President of the Walter Group, addressed the Commission. He said that his company
designed the system for Cellular One. He stated that several sites had been reviewed
for this project and the proposed site was the most beneficial for his company. He
stated that this would consist of two 80 -foot towers. He then offered photographs of
the site generated by a computer which showed the tower. The Commission
questioned what color the proposed towers would be. Mr. Rutter stated that any color
the Commission desired of would be what he would provide. The Commission
questioned the visibility of the generator, propane tanks and buildings. They also had
questions about impacts from a portable generator. Mr. Rutter stated that the building
would be screened by trees and would not be visible from Highway 6.
Diana then called for questions or comments from the public. The first person to
speak was Art Kleimer, 5174 Main Gore Drive. Mr. Kleimer stated that his residence is
directly in line with the proposed tower and that it was clearly visible from his home.
He invited the applicants to his home to see for themselves how much of an impact
this tower would have on his view. He felt that the community needed to work together
to prevent such things from being allowed in the Vail area. He stated there were other
sites that could be used and did not feel it should be located at the proposed site. He
also stated he felt this site would disturb the wildlife in the area, as there would be a
need to maintain the equipment located there. Eric Berg, 5195 Main Gore Drive,
addressed the Commission, stating he was not opposed to progress, but felt that a
0 2
more appropriate place could be found and felt that more time needed to be allowed to
• look for alternative sites. Rick Rosen, Business Owner, 1000 S. Frontage Road West,
stated he felt the Commission needed to work with the Forest Service and everyone in
the valley for a workable solution for a tower, stating that there is a definite need to
provide better cellular telephone service in East Vail. Richard Devoe, 5185 Main Gore
Drive, submitted a letter to the Commission expressing his concerns with the tower.
Rica Mouw, 5084 Main Gore Drive, addressed the Commission, stating that she
agreed with the other residents in the area and expressed an additional concern about
noise and access to the facility, as well as mitigation and final landscaping of the
disturbed area. Dalton Williams encouraged everyone to go up to the proposed site
and actually see where the tower would be located. He stated that previous towers at
Red Sandstone School proved to be hidden from the site of viewers.
Dave Rutter stated the pole would be 12" in diameter at the top and 2 feet at the
bottom and would be a pole, not an actual tower. The Commission asked Dave Rutter
to put balloons up where the tower would be before the Town Council went for a site
visit on Tuesday, June 9th. Dalton Williams stated that the height was an issue as well
as the appearance of the tower. Greg Amsden stated that he had walked
approximately 150 yards from the proposed site to a location where he could see
Snowshoe Lane and Main Gore Drive and that because of this distance, the buildings
would not be likely to be seen from Main Gore Drive. He was still concerned about the
tower though. He also questioned the use of lighting.
Tim Grantham, from the U. S. Forest Service, then stated that they were soliciting
• public input regarding this matter which would be weighed very carefully before any
decisions were made as to granting the use of this property. The Planning
Commission encouraged residents to be at the site when the Town Council made their
site visit June 9th.
Diana thanked all concerned for their input and said the Town looked forward to
reviewing the proposal further after the EA was completed.
5. The next item on the agenda was the PEC notification concerning a minor amendment
to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located
south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, to allow a
maximum building height of 36 feet and to modify the existing approved landscape
plans.
Applicant: East West Partners, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello, Town Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that
there had been no alteration to the basic intent of the approved SDD and that the
proposed modifications were consistent the design criteria of the SDD. After some
discussion, the Commission consented to the staff's recommendation for approval.
6. The next item for discussion was a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an
• 3
outdoor dining deck in the Parking District at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Lionshead
• Parking Structure Auxiliary Building/Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Avon Subs, Inc. /Subway represented by Jim Comerford
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Town Planner, presented the item to the Commission, stating that the
staff was recommending approval of this request with conditions, as listed in the staff
memo dated June 8, 1992. She stated that the staff felt this request would bring street
life to the area proposed, and the public would be able to use the seating as well as
the patrons of the Subway. The applicant would also be requested to provide outdoor
potted plants and umbrellas to the area. Bob Lee, representing the applicant, stated
he owned a Subway location in Dillon and felt the proposal would benefit the general
public as well as the business owner. There was no input from the public.
Kathy Langenwalter stated she was in favor of the proposal as long as there were no
problems with snow removal in the winter, should the applicant choose to leave the
tables up during that time. Chuck Crist and Dalton Williams agreed with Kathy's
comments. Greg Amsden stated a concern over pedestrian traffic; Dalton Williams felt
that the tables would be located far back enough from the walkway that this should not
be a concern. Greg Amsden also felt that the staff should look into the liability
insurance concerns before going ahead with this proposal. Diana Donovan stated that
she wanted to insure that there would no additional expense to the Town for snow
removal and that Public Works would need to give their okay to allowing the tables to
• remain during the winter months, if the applicant chose to do this. She also stated that
the Design Review Board should approve the design of the benches and tables and
felt the applicant could come up with a more appropriate design. She also felt the
newspaper stands could be relocated in that area. Kristan stated that Mike Mollica and
Andy Knudtsen were working on a study relating to newspaper stands throughout the
Vail area and would be presenting the Commission with a study in the near future.
Kathy Langenwalter then made a motion to approve this request subject to the
following conditions as listed in the staff memo dated June 8, 1992, and the concerns
discussed at this meeting:
The dining area tables will be placed on the paved sidewalk area
immediately adjacent to the buildings.
2. The applicant will install table umbrellas and 5 potted plants in
conjunction with this conditional use approval. The pots in which the
plants are to be located shall be 2 -3 foot in diameter /square. There
shall be no advertisement on the umbrellas.
3. Outdoor dining area may be operated year round. However, potted
plants will be removed during the winter.
4. Applicant to investigate and resolve any liability issues which may exist
with the Town in allowing this use of Town -owned land.
0 4
5. Snow removal plan for this dining area must be approved by the Public
• Works Department. Applicant may be responsible for snow removal.
The PEC further requested staff ask the DRB to closely review the quality, color and
material of the umbrellas, tables, pots and plant material.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
7. The next item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use Permit, to allow a
use not conducted entirely within a building, specifically, the exterior sale of produce,
at Cuitre, Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vail Enterprises, Inc. represented by William VonSchneidaw
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, presented this item to the Commission, stating that the
applicant intended to put a farmer's market operation outside of his business location
in Cascade Crossing Retail Center. Andy stated this would be in operation until
November 1, 1992. The addition of the tent and bins would take up two parking
spaces from the retail center. Additional signage would not be allowed. The
Commission questioned the applicant on the use of the red and white striped tent. The
applicant stated that the tent would not be used on a regular basis, as he used the tent
• in his catering business as well. Dalton Williams stated that he didn't feel specific days
of operation should be limited and that the approval should be for 7 days a week.
After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the request with
conditions as outlined in the staff memo and amended by Dalton Williams.
Specifically, the conditions were:
1. The applicant shall not erect any advertising signs.
2. The applicant shall not use more area than 20'x20' for the tent and sale of
produce.
3. This conditional use is valid until November 1, 1992.
4. The applicant may operate the conditional use seven days a week.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
8. A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel
generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
The applicant had not arrived as yet and the Commission moved on to the next
item on the agenda.
• 5
9. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point, 1881
• Lionsridge Loop Road /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve GenslerNail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Town Planner, reviewed the staff memo with the Planning Commission.
She stated that this item would be reviewed by the Vail Town Council on June 9th. Jill
reiterated the modifications that had been made to the development plan and the
recreation amenities package, including a tot lot to be constructed. The applicant was
also present at the hearing and voiced his consent to all conditions of approval. After
some discussion, Dalton Williams made a motion to approve the modifications to Vail
Point and Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
10. A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel
generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the proposed request, stating that the proposal would reduce
the overall density on the site, mitigate the potential debris hazards and landscape the
entry to the project. Mike stated that the applicant had been very cooperative with the
• Town in following through with the project and that all the issues had been resolved in
the SDD preliminary plan. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the
conditions that the plat would not be signed until the school fee was paid, the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement was executed, and the wetlands issue is
resolved. Mike stated that Ron Riley, the applicant, is working with the Corps of
Engineers to resolve the wetlands issue. After continued discussion, Dalton Williams
made a motion to approve this request for a major subdivision per the staff
memo /conditions of approval. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
11. A request for a setback variance to allow the construction of an entry gate at the
Peterson Residence, 332 Beaver Dam Circle, Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Jay K. Peterson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen, planner on this project, reviewed the request with the Commission,
stating that the goal of the applicant was to construct an entry gate leading to the
entrance of the secondary unit and to accentuate the pathway at the front. The staff
recommended denial of this request based on the Criteria and Findings section of the
staff memo dated June 8, 1992. It was staff's belief that there was no physical
hardship or extraordinary circumstance that would justify a variance. Staff believed
that the goal of the applicant could be achieved by changing the design in such a way
that no variance would be needed. The staff and the Commission both complimented
0 6
the applicant on the overall project. Greg Amsden expressed his feeling that an
• alternative solution could have been reached when the first remodeling plans were
drawn up and felt that this request could not be based on a hardship. Kathy
Langenwalter felt this would be a granting of special privilege to allow the applicant to
proceed with this request. The applicant, Jay Peterson, stated that the property had
sold, and that he may appeal his request to the Town Council or come up with an
alternative plan. After some discussion, Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to deny
this request based on no hardship. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
•
12. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior
alteration in Commercial Core ll, for the Lionshead Center Building commercial
expansion, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, reviewed this request with the Commission, stating that
this was an application being submitted for the CCI and CCII bi- annual submittal
process and he recommended a 90 -day review period. He stated that this was the
only application the Town had received for this deadline. After some discussion, Greg
Amsden made a motion to approve this request with a 90 -day review period, and
Dalton Williams seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
13. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
14.
OR
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica, Town Planner, informed the Commission that the applicants, Paul and
Sally Johnston, have formally withdrawn their request at this time.
Appointment of a PEC member to serve on the DRB for the month of JUNE.
Kristan Pritz, Community Development Director, spoke to the Commission concerning
the importance of having a PEC member attend scheduled DRB meetings and site
visits, especially with so many projects being done this summer.
The PEC members agreed to the following DRB schedule:
Diana Donovan -
Chuck Crist -
Greg Amsden -
Kathy Langenwalter -
June 17th
July and August
September and October
November and December
Discussion of the appointment of a PEC member to serve as a alternate for the DRB.
Diana Donovan volunteered to be the alternate PEC member for DRB meetings.
• 7
0 16. Discussion of appointment of a DRB member to attend PEC meetings when SDD and
exterior alteration applications are discussed as worksession items.
is
It was agreed by the Commission that a Design Review Board Member will attend PEC
meetings when SDD and exterior alteration worksession items are on the agenda.
17. Approval of the PEC Minutes of May 18, 1992.
A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Dalton Williams to
approve the PEC minutes from the May 18, 1992 meeting as written. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
b. East Side Setback: Staff believes it is reasonable to consider the
• existing residence's location of the setback to be a practical difficulty
warranting an east side setback variance.
C. West Side Setback Variance: As previously stated under the proposed
development, the applicant will be decreasing the amount of
encroachment into the west side setback. The amount of encroachment
into the west side setback under this proposal would be decreased from
10 feet to 7 feet.
Staff believes that construction of the sloping roof will improve the general appearance
of the property. The degree of relief from the strict and literal interpretation of the code
is appropriate.
3. The effect of the requested variance on light and air, distribution of
population, transportation and traff ic facilities, public facilities and
utilities, and public safety.
With the exception of the addition requiring the transplanting of an existing large
aspen tree, the proposed variances will have no major impact on these
considerations. The applicant has agreed to relocate the existing tree to the
southeast corner of the site. In addition to the transplanting of this aspen, the
applicant will add 4 additional aspen to this same area.
• The previous variance approvals were based on the fact that the variances
maintained separation between adjacent houses and also respected their views.
Staff believes that this proposal will have no impacts on the factors above.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
•
•
•
�s
e
�� €I IL I i
'r
� Y
o �
� � � a p
• � � �;
� �
'I �
f
t-„'_
I i
I
�� � �
� ��
��
/I I` N
fig
.�
.--� -, I
i 1►�
�,
�.,
,�
,,�1��
�, �,
,,
�;
� � �,� i
,i
���
iI
'I I �
�_: L� '
• O � - i �
�' � II � '�_1'
i �
2 � II �--, � r °"
W i � ��
� �
�_ r
1 �i �? 1
,�r- -� �
� I I f � I
� j i I ice.. �> _ � _7
�:
i 1 �.
�- -- - --
� ^y �
i�
' � i
i
i
' I� � I
� � �— -�
is �
• I
i ' ,� -T
C
r.
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: June 22, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to amend Chapter 18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor
Area, of the Municipal Code relating to Employee Housing Units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Presenter: Jill Kammerer /Kristan Pritz
REQUEST
Staff would like to incorporate amendments to the 250 Ordinance into the proposed
Housing Ordinance. Although this issue was discussed by both PEC and Council, it
was not until recently that it was suggested by Council that the 250 Ordinance be
amended along with the creation of the Housing Ordinance. The request includes:
1. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be utilized for permanently restricted employee
housing units provided than an equal amount of allowable GRFA is used as a
match.
2. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the 5 year or 6 year waiting
period.
II. 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. The 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. Following months of study, worksessions and public hearings with the
Council and the PEC, the Town of Vail Affordable Housing Study was unanimously approved
by the Town Council on November 20, 1990.
On March 25, 1991, the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed recommendations
of the Community Development Department's proposed modifications to the zoning code
relating to the provision of employee housing units (EHU's). The 250 Ordinance amendment
was not incorporated into this request.
• On August 12, 1991 the Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed the staff's
proposed ordinance which would modify the zoning code to allow for the provision of
employee housing. At this meeting, staff recommended Chapter 18.71 of the Municipal Code
• (the 250 Ordinance) be modified to allow it to be used to encourage property owners to
construct employee housing. This chapter of the code currently provides for an additional 250
square feet of GRFA to dwellings which meet certain criteria. One of the criteria is that at
least 5 years must have passed from the date the dwelling unit was issued a Temporary
Certificate of Occupancy, or a minimum of 6 years must have passed from the date the
original building permit was issued for the construction of the dwelling unit, in order for the
dwelling unit to qualify for the additional GRFA. The issue raised by the staff at this meeting
was whether or not the Town should allow the immediate use of the 250 Ordinance to those
applicants who proposed to apply the 250 square feet of GRFA to employee housing units.
The Planning and Environmental Commission recommended the 250 ordinance be modified to
allow the 250 to be available for EHU's without requiring the period of time stipulated in the
existing code.
On August 27, 1991, the Town Council reviewed the proposed Employee Housing Ordinance
as modified per the PEC's recommendations. The Council also approved the concept of
allowing the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the expiration of the 5 year waiting period,
providing the 250 was to be utilized to provide an employee housing unit. The Town Council
further recommended the use of the 250, in advance of the expiration of the 5 year waiting
period, be restricted in the following manner: Up to 250 square feet of the "250" can be
incorporated into an EHU on "day one" (i.e., without having to wait the 5 year period, as
currently stipulated in the "250 Ordinance "), provided an equal amount of allowable GRFA for
the lot is used as a match. If the applicant elects to use less than the 250 square feet of the
"250 ", (and will match the lesser amount with allowable GRFA) the balance of the "250" which
is not incorporated (used) in conjunction with employee housing unit shall not be available
until the 5 year period currently stipulated in the "250 Ordinance ", has lapsed.
This concept was further discussed when the employee housing ordinance was reviewed by
Town Council on April 28, 1992. At this meeting, the Town Council instructed the staff to
modify the 250 Ordinance as discussed above. Although the concept of modifying the 250
Ordinance to allow it to be used in advance of the 5 year waiting period when used in
conjunction with the construction of an EHU has been discussed on many occasions, it has
never been formally advertised and published. In discussing this issue at today's meeting, if
the Planning and Environmental Commission recommends approval of the modifications to
Chapter 18.71 of the zoning code as discussed, the ordinance setting forth these changes will
be considered by Council at the same time as the EHU ordinance is considered. Attached is
a copy of Chapter 18.71.020.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the proposed revisions to the Chapter 18.71. - Additional Gross
Residential Floor Area section of the code, as stated below:
1. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be utilized for permanently restricted employee housing
units provided than an equal amount of allowable GRFA is used as a match.
2. To allow the 250 Ordinance to be used prior to the 5 year or 6 year waiting period.
2F �r—,>
•
18.71.020 Single family dwellings and two family dwellings.
Any single family dwelling or dwelling unit in a two
family dwelling not restricted by the Town of Vail to
housing for full time employees of the upper Eagle Valley
shall be eligible for additional GRFA not to exceed a
maximum of two hundred fifty square feet of GRFA per
single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit in
addition to the existing GRFA or the allowable GRFA for
the site. Before such additional GRFA can be granted, the
single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall meet the
following criteria:
A. At least five years must have passed from the date the
single family dwelling or two family dwelling unit was
issued a temporary certificate of occupancy or a
minimum of six years must have passed from the date
the original building permit was issued for the ,con -
struction of the dwelling unit.
a T':= single family dwelling or dwelling unit shall have
received its final certificate of occupancy.
C. Proposals for the utilization of the additional GRFA
under this provision shall comply with all Town of Vail
zoning requirements and applicable development
(Vail I -)-89)
498 -16
0 0
r --�- ..
•
ADDITIONAL GROSS RESIDENTIAL FLOOR AREA
standards. If a variance is required for a proposal, it
shall be approved by the planning and environmental
commission pursuant to Chapter 18.62 before an
application is made in accordance with this chapter. Any
single family dwelling or two family dwelling which is
totally removed shall: (1) be replaced with any prior
existing nonconforming uses or development standards
totally eliminated; (2) obtain a building permit within
one year of final design review board approval or the
approval for additional GRFA shall be voided; (3) be
allowed a maximum of the GRFA allowable by zoning
plus a maximum of two hundred fifty additional square
feet.
D. Adjacent property owners and owners of dwelling units
on the same lot as the applicant shall be notified of any
application under this chapter that involves any external
alterations to an existing structure. Notification pro-
cedures shall be as outlined in Section 18.66.080 of the
zoning code.
E. If any proposal provides for the conversion of a garage
• or enclosed parking area to GRFA, such conversion will
not be allowed unless a new garage or enclosed parking
area is also proposed. Plans for a new garage or enclosed
parking area shall accompany the application under this
chapter, and shall be constructed concurrently with the
conversion.
F. Any increase in parking requirements as set forth in
Chapter 18.52 due to any GRFA addition pursuant to
this chapter shall be met by the applicant.
G. All proposals under this section shall be required to
conform to the design review guidelines set forth in
Chapter 18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Any single
family dwelling or dwelling unit for which an addition is
proposed shall be required to meet the minimum Town
of Vail landscaping standards as set forth in Chapter
18.54 of the Vail Municipal Code. Before any additional
GRFA may be permitted in accordance with this
chapter, the staff shall review the maintenance and
upkeep of the existing single family dweling or dwelling
498 -17
0
(Vail 1 -3-89)
•
ZONING
unit and site, including landscaping to determine whether
they comply with the design review guidelines. No
temporary certificate of occupancy shall be issued for
any expansion of GRFA pursuant to this chapter until
all required improvements to the site and structure have
been completed as required.
H. The provisions of this section are applicable only to
GRFA additions to single dwelling units. No pooling of
gross residential floor area shall be allowed in single
family dwelling or two family residential dwellings units.
No application for additional GRFA shall request more
than two hundred fifty square feet of gross residential
floor area per single family dwelling or dwelling unit.
(Ord. 36(1988) § 2: Ord. 4(1985) § 1.)
C,
is
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 8, 1992
Present
Staff
Greg Amsden
Kristan Pritz
Chuck Crist
Jill Kammerer
Diana Donovan
Andy Knudtsen
Kathy Langenwalter
Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams
Shelly Mello
Mary Caster
Absent
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 12:45 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
1. Worksession on progress made on the Town of Vail Water Quality Study for Non -Point
Source Pollution.
Presenters: Lane Wyatt, Northwest Council of Governments
Susan Scanlan, Town of Vail
• The PEC viewed a video which explained the basics of non -point source pollution.
Staff then explained the progress of the study to date and the direction to be followed
in the future. A general question and answer session followed to address
specifications.
2. A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko
property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Public Hearing
3. Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to adjourn to Executive Session and Dalton
Williams seconded the motion. A unanimous vote was taken and the Planning and
Environmental Commission then adjourned to go into Executive Session to discuss
legal matters with Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney.
4. The next item on the agenda was a referral for TOV Comments from the United States
Forest Service Regarding a Proposed Request for an 80' Tall Tower to be Erected at
the End of the Runaway Truck Ramp in East Vail.
Applicant: U. S. West New Vector /Cellular One Represented by
is Larry Storms and Dave Rudder
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Diana Donovan stated that this would be an informational discussion only and its sole
intent was to provide information to the applicants regarding issues to be addressed in
the Environmental Assessment. Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, introduced the
applicants and reviewed the request. Andy explained the review process, stating that
the Forest Service was seeking input at this time from interested parties with concerns.
Once all concerns had been identified, an Environmental Assessment would be written
evaluating them. The Forest Service had said that it would circulate the completed EA
to the Town in approximately mid -July for review and comment. Andy then stated the
current position of the Town of Vail, which was that:
"The Forest Service has indicated to the Town that in their opinion they are not
required to conform to Town zoning or building ordinances before allowing
Cellular One to commence construction of the tower. It is the Town's position
that Cellular One must comply with all Town of Vail ordinances, including those
controlling zoning and building before commencing construction of the tower."
Though this was the position of the Town, Andy said that comments about the tower
were still appropriate, as the concerns needed to be included in the Environmental
Assessment.
• The applicant for U.S. West Vector Cellular, Larry Storms, then addressed the
Commission. He identified the specific site and said his firm may not be constructing a
cell site at this location until some time in the future. Dave Rutter, Senior Vice
President of the Walter Group, addressed the Commission. He said that his company
designed the system for Cellular One. He stated that several sites had been reviewed
for this project and the proposed site was the most beneficial for his company. He
stated that this would consist of two 80 -foot towers. He then offered photographs of
the site generated by a computer which showed the tower. The Commission
questioned what color the proposed towers would be. Mr. Rutter stated that any color
the Commission desired of would be what he would provide. The Commission
questioned the visibility of the generator, propane tanks and buildings. They also had
questions about impacts from a portable generator. Mr. Rutter stated that the building
would be screened by trees and would not be visible from Highway 6.
Diana then called for questions or comments from the public. The first person to
speak was Art Kleimer, 5174 Main Gore Drive. Mr. Kleimer stated that his residence is
directly in line with the proposed tower and that it was clearly visible from his home.
He invited the applicants to his home to see for themselves how much of an impact
this tower would have on his view. He felt that the community needed to work together
to prevent such things from being allowed in the Vail area. He stated there were other
sites that could be used and did not feel it should be located at the proposed site. He
also stated he felt this site would disturb the wildlife in the area, as there would be a
need to maintain the equipment located there. Eric Berg, 5195 Main Gore Drive,
addressed the Commission, stating he was not opposed to progress, but felt that a
• 2
more appropriate place could be found and felt that more time needed to be allowed to
• look for alternative sites. Rick Rosen, Business Owner, 1000 S. Frontage Road West,
stated he felt the Commission needed to work with the Forest Service and everyone in
the valley for a workable solution for a tower, stating that there is a definite need to
provide better cellular telephone service in East Vail. Richard Devoe, 5185 Main Gore
Drive, submitted a letter to the Commission expressing his concerns with the tower.
Rica Mouw, 5084 Main Gore Drive, addressed the Commission, stating that she
agreed with the other residents in the area and expressed an additional concern about
noise and access to the facility, as well as mitigation and final landscaping of the
disturbed area. Dalton Williams encouraged everyone to go up to the proposed site
and actually see where the tower would be located. He stated that previous towers at
Red Sandstone School proved to be hidden from the site of viewers.
Dave Rutter stated the pole would be 12" in diameter at the top and 2 feet at the
bottom and would be a pole, not an actual tower. The Commission asked Dave Rutter
to put balloons up where the tower would be before the Town Council went for a site
visit on Tuesday, June 9th. Dalton Williams stated that the height was an issue as well
as the appearance of the tower. Greg Amsden stated that he had walked
approximately 150 yards from the proposed site to a location where he could see
Snowshoe Lane and Main Gore Drive and that because of this distance, the buildings
would not be likely to be seen from Main Gore Drive. He was still concerned about the
tower though. He also questioned the use of lighting.
Tim Grantham, from the U. S. Forest Service, then stated that they were soliciting
• public input regarding this matter which would be weighed very carefully before any
decisions were made as to granting the use of this property. The Planning
Commission encouraged residents to be at the site when the Town Council made their
site visit June 9th.
Diana thanked all concerned for their input and said the Town looked forward to
reviewing the proposal further after the EA was completed.
5. The next item on the agenda was the PEC notification concerning a minor amendment
to SDD #4 - Cascade Village Area A, Cosgriff Parcel/The Cascades, generally located
south of Millrace Condominiums and west of The Westin Resort, Vail, to allow a
maximum building height of 36 feet and to modify the existing approved landscape
plans.
Applicant: East West Partners, represented by Ned Gwathmey
Planner: Shelly Mello
Shelly Mello, Town Planner, presented the item to the Commission. She stated that
there had been no alteration to the basic intent of the approved SDD and that the
proposed modifications were consistent the design criteria of the SDD. After some
discussion, the Commission consented to the staff's recommendation for approval.
6. The next item for discussion was a request for a Conditional Use Permit to allow an
• 3
outdoor dining deck in the Parking District at 395 E. Lionshead Circle /Lionshead
• Parking Structure Auxiliary Building/Vail Lionshead 1st Filing.
Applicant: Avon Subs, Inc. /Subway represented by Jim Comerford
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Town Planner, presented the item to the Commission, stating that the
staff was recommending approval of this request with conditions, as listed in the staff
memo dated June 8, 1992. She stated that the staff felt this request would bring street
life to the area proposed, and the public would be able to use the seating as well as
the patrons of the Subway. The applicant would also be requested to provide outdoor
potted plants and umbrellas to the area. Bob Lee, representing the applicant, stated
he owned a Subway location in Dillon and felt the proposal would benefit the general
public as well as the business owner. There was no input from the public.
Kathy Langenwalter stated she was in favor of the proposal as long as there were no
problems with snow removal in the winter, should the applicant choose to leave the
tables up during that time. Chuck Crist and Dalton Williams agreed with Kathy's
comments. Greg Amsden stated a concern over pedestrian traffic; Dalton Williams felt
that the tables would be located far back enough from the walkway that this should not
be a concern. Greg Amsden also felt that the staff should look into the liability
insurance concerns before going ahead with this proposal. Diana Donovan stated that
she wanted to insure that there would no additional expense to the Town for snow
removal and that Public Works would need to give their okay to allowing the tables to
• remain during the winter months, if the applicant chose to do this. She also stated that
the Design Review Board should approve the design of the benches and tables and
felt the applicant could come up with a more appropriate design. She also felt the
newspaper stands could be relocated in that area. Kristan stated that Mike Mollica and
Andy Knudtsen were working on a study relating to newspaper stands throughout the
Vail area and would be presenting the Commission with a study in the near future.
Kathy Langenwalter then made a motion to approve this request subject to the
following conditions as listed in the staff memo dated June 8, 1992, and the concerns
discussed at this meeting:
1. The dining area tables will be placed on the paved sidewalk area
immediately adjacent to the buildings.
2. The applicant will install table umbrellas and 5 potted plants in
conjunction with this conditional use approval. The pots in which the
plants are to be located shall be 2 -3 foot in diameter /square. There
shall be no advertisement on the umbrellas.
3. Outdoor dining area may be operated year round. However, potted
plants will be removed during the winter.
4. Applicant to investigate and resolve any liability issues which may exist
with the Town in allowing this use of Town -owned land.
• 4
5. Snow removal plan for this dining area must be approved by the Public
• Works Department. Applicant may be responsible for snow removal.
The PEC further requested staff ask the DRB to closely review the quality, color and
material of the umbrellas, tables, pots and plant material.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
7. The next item on the agenda was a request for a Conditional Use Permit, to allow a
use not conducted entirely within a building, specifically, the exterior sale of produce,
at Cuitre, Cascade Crossing Retail Center, 1031 S. Frontage Road West.
Applicant: Vail Enterprises, Inc. represented by William VonSchneidaw
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, presented this item to the Commission, stating that the
applicant intended to put a farmer's market operation outside of his business location
in Cascade Crossing Retail Center. Andy stated this would be in operation until
November 1, 1992. The addition of the tent and bins would take up two parking
spaces from the retail center. Additional signage would not be allowed. The
Commission questioned the applicant on the use of the red and white striped tent. The
applicant stated that the tent would not be used on a regular basis, as he used the tent
• in his catering business as well. Dalton Williams stated that he didn't feel specific days
of operation should be limited and that the approval should be for 7 days a week.
After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the request with
conditions as outlined in the staff memo and amended by Dalton Williams.
Specifically, the conditions were:
1. The applicant shall not erect any advertising signs.
2. The applicant shall not use more area than 20'x20' for the tent and sale of
produce.
3. This conditional use is valid until November 1, 1992.
4. The applicant may operate the conditional use seven days a week.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously.
8. A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel
generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
The applicant had not arrived as yet and the Commission moved on to the next
item on the agenda.
• 5
9. A request for approval of a modification to the final phase at Vail Point, 1881
• Lionsridge Loop Road /Lot 1, Block 3, Lionsridge Filing No. 3.
Applicant: Steve GenslerNail Point Condominium Association
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Town Planner, reviewed the staff memo with the Planning Commission.
She stated that this item would be reviewed by the Vail Town Council on June 9th. Jill
reiterated the modifications that had been made to the development plan and the
recreation amenities package, including a tot lot to be constructed. The applicant was
also present at the hearing and voiced his consent to all conditions of approval. After
some discussion, Dalton Williams made a motion to approve the modifications to Vail
Point and Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
10. A request for a major subdivision, Forest Glen, located on an unplatted 7.5 acre parcel
generally located east of Nugget Lane and south of Gore Creek.
Applicant: Timberfalls Associates, Ronald H. Riley
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the proposed request, stating that the proposal would reduce
the overall density on the site, mitigate the potential debris hazards and landscape the
entry to the project. Mike stated that the applicant had been very cooperative with the
• Town in following through with the project and that all the issues had been resolved in
the SDD preliminary plan. Staff recommended approval of the request, with the
conditions that the plat would not be signed until the school fee was paid, the
Subdivision Improvements Agreement was executed, and the wetlands issue is
resolved. Mike stated that Ron Riley, the applicant, is working with the Corps of
Engineers to resolve the wetlands issue. After continued discussion, Dalton Williams
made a motion to approve this request for a major subdivision per the staff
memo /conditions of approval. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
11. A request for a setback variance to allow the construction of an entry gate at the
Peterson Residence, 332 Beaver Dam Circle, Lot 6, Block 3, Vail Village 3rd Filing.
Applicant: Jay K. Peterson
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen, planner on this project, reviewed the request with the Commission,
stating that the goal of the applicant was to construct an entry gate leading to the
entrance of the secondary unit and to accentuate the pathway at the front. The staff
recommended denial of this request based on the Criteria and Findings section of the
staff memo dated June 8, 1992. It was staff's belief that there was no physical
hardship or extraordinary circumstance that would justify a variance. Staff believed
that the goal of the applicant could be achieved by changing the design in such a way
that no variance would be needed. The staff and the Commission both complimented
• 6
the applicant on the overall project. Greg Amsden expressed his feeling that an
• alternative solution could have been reached when the first remodeling plans were
drawn up and felt that this request could not be based on a hardship. Kathy
Langenwalter felt this would be a granting of special privilege to allow the applicant to
proceed with this request. The applicant, Jay Peterson, stated that the property had
sold, and that he may appeal his request to the Town Council or come up with an
alternative plan. After some discussion, Kathy Langenwalter made a motion to deny
this request based on no hardship. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
-0
12. A request for the establishment of a 60 or 90 day review period for an exterior
alteration in Commercial Core II, for the Lionshead Center Building commercial
expansion, 520 E. Lionshead Circle, Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing.
Andy Knudtsen, Town Planner, reviewed this request with the Commission, stating that
this was an application being submitted for the CCI and CCII bi- annual submittal
process and he recommended a 90 -day review period. He stated that this was the
only application the Town had received for this deadline. After some discussion, Greg
Amsden made a motion to approve this request with a 90 -day review period, and
Dalton Williams seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 5 -0.
13. A request for an extension of a previously approved variance for the
Christiania Lodge, 356 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot D, Block 2, Vail Village
First Filing.
14.
15.
Applicant: Paul & Sally Johnston
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica, Town Planner, informed the Commission that the applicants, Paul and
Sally Johnston, have formally withdrawn their request at this time.
Appointment of a PEC member to serve on the DRB for the month of JUNE.
Kristan Pritz, Community Development Director, spoke to the Commission concerning
the importance of having a PEC member attend scheduled DRB meetings and site
visits, especially with so many projects being done this summer.
The PEC members agreed to the following DRB schedule:
Diana Donovan -
Chuck Crist -
Greg Amsden -
Kathy Langenwalter -
June 17th
July and August
September and October
November and December
Discussion of the appointment of a PEC member to serve as a alternate for the DRB.
Diana Donovan volunteered to be the alternate PEC member for DRB meetings.
7
0 16. Discussion of appointment of a DRB member to attend PEC meetings when SDD and
exterior alteration applications are discussed as worksession items.
r�
U
It was agreed by the Commission that a Design Review Board Member will attend PEC
meetings when SDD and exterior alteration worksession items are on the agenda.
17. Approval of the PEC Minutes of May 18, 1992.
A motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter and seconded by Dalton Williams to
approve the PEC minutes from the May 18, 1992 meeting as written. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 5 -0.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 4:45 p.m.
E
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
40 JULY 13, 1992
AGENDA
11:00 AM Site Visits
12:30 PM Worksession
2:00 PM Public Hearing
Site Visits Work Session 12:30 PM
A request for a work session for a minor subdivision and a zone district
change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple
Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix
Lane, more particularly described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in
the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South,
Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the
east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a
point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant
from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a
point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE
1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of
intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE
1/4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the
extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded
plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
5 2. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a minor
alexterior alteration and site coverage variance to allow for the
expansion of an existing outdoor dining deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant.
193 Gore Creek Drive /Part of Lot A, Block 513, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
• Planner: Shelly Mello
Site Visits Public Meeting 2:00 PM
7 1. A request for a minor exterior alteration to add an elevator to units 301
and 302 of the Mill Creek Court building. A part of Lot I Block 5A, Vail
Village 5th/ 302 Gore Creek Dr.
Applicant: John Kaemmer /Ann Brown
Planner: Mike Mollica
4 2. A request for approval of a conditional use permit to allow a preschool
at the Vail Interfaith Chapel. 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Benny Clark, Vice Pres., Vail Religious Foundation/Vail
Baptist Church
Planner: Mike Mollica
3 3. A notification of a staff approval for a minor amendment to SDD #25,
Days Inn, to allow for changes to the east and north elevations of the
building at 2271 North Frontage Road/Tract C, Collins -Wirth Subdivision.
Applicant: Jim Wilson /Peter Jacobs
Planner: Shelly Mello
2 4. A request for a variance from the minimum lot size and a minor
subdivision for part of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd
Filing/ 2388 Garmisch Drive.
Applicant: Jeff Hanson
Planner: Shelly Mello
5. Appeal of staff interpretation of Section 18.58.300 - Setback from
watercourse of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Appellant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Jill Kammerer
6 6. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously
approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge
Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: Jill Kammerer
7. A request for a work session for an amendment to an approved
development plan to allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The
Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
8. A request for a variance to Section 18.58.320 to allow for satellite dish
antennas to be located at The Wren and Apollo Park Condominiums.
Tract D, Vail Village 5th Filing /442 and 500 Frontage Road East.
Applicant: Wren and Apollo Condominium Associations
• Planner: Tim Devlin
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
9. A request for setback variances to allow the construction of a deck at
the Kandell residence. 4259 Nugget Lane East/ Lot 2 Bighorn Estates,
Resubdivision of Lots 10 and 11.
Applicant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Jill Kammerer
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
10. Appointment of PEC representative to Municipal Building Task Force.
11. Approval of June 22, 1992 meeting minutes.
•
n
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
• July 13, 1992
Present
Staff
Greg Amsden
Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen
Jill Kammerer
Chuck Crist
Shelly Mello
Diana Donovan
Mike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter
Tim Devlin
Dalton Williams
Andy Knudtsen
Mary Caster
Absent
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 12:35 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
Worksession
1. A request for a work session for a minor subdivision and a zone district change from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple Family, for the Schmetzko
• property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, more particularly described as:
Parcel A. A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in
the South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South,
Range 81 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly
described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11; thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
bearing south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the
east line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a
point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant
from and parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a
point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the
SE 1/4 of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE
1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of
intersection with the extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE
is 1/4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the
• extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section
11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Section 11, being the point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded
plat thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen made the staff presentation followed by the applicant's presentation by
Mark Donaldson and Rick Rosen. Mark Donaldson asked a question regarding the
statement in the staff memo stipulating that the GRFA would have to be distributed
evenly among all 7 units. Andy responded that once the acceptable number of units
were determined, that the Town would be interested in seeing that number of units with
an appropriate amount of GRFA in each one. It was not the desire of the Town to see
LDMF densities of GRFA used on the site for only a few dwelling units. After some
discussion of the employee housing unit issue, each of the Planning Commission
members stated his or her position.
Chuck Crist said that the requested density of 9 units was acceptable. Requiring an
SDD to document all of the decisions would be nice, but not necessary if a different
document could be recorded that would be as effective. Chuck wanted to know who
would own the employee housing. Rick Rosen said that ideally they would be free
• market units restricted to purchasers who were employees. If that alternative was not
suitable to the Town, then a homeowners' association would rent the units. Kristan
Pritz told the Commission that employee unit deed restrictions do not allow the sale of
the units. Rick then said that he may want to reconsider the two unit employee
housing component of the proposal. What he had in mind when he suggested it was
something like the Pitkin Creek situation. Mark Donaldson asked the Commission if
the two employee units that had been proposed were a critical component of the
request. The PEC responded that they were. Chuck Crist continued with his
comments and said that for sale units for employees would be acceptable to him. His
last comment was that the view corridors from the property should be addressed with
the site plan.
Dalton Williams said that for sale employee housing units were acceptable to him.
However, he would prefer that they be rented by the Condominium Association.
Dalton had questions about the water channelization. Specifically, where would the
water go once it left the spillway of the debris basin and went down the driveway?
Would it impact the Days Inn parking lot?
Kathy Langenwalter said that the current site plan was a good design solution. Given
this site plan, Kathy said the density of 9 units was okay. However, in order to insure
that this site plan would be constructed in the future, requiring an SDD was imperative
for her to support the rezoning request. She believed the site plan could be improved
by reducing the 2 to 1 slope, documenting how the annual cleaning of the basin would
• 2
take place, and preserving the 2 guest parking spaces.
is Greg Amsden had no problem with the 9 units and agreed with Chuck Crist about the
view corridors. Jeff Bowen was concerned about density, unless the request included
an SDD component. With an SDD, Jeff believed that the density would be okay. Jeff
was particularly concerned about page 4 of the Arthur Mears report. He wanted to
know who will be responsible for the annual cleaning of the debris basin. Mark
Donaldson responded to this comment and said the homeowners' association would
take the responsibility. Diana specifically had questions about the site coverage. She
requested the applicants show all of the area which would be site coverage as the
current plans only reflected the first floor.
In general the Commission believed that the site plan was a good solution for providing
a debris flow basin without impacting the adjoining properties too much. They all
agreed that this site plan should be documented in conjunction with the rezoning so
that a future developer would have to comply with its standards. However, they did not
necessarily want to require an SDD if documentation requiring this particular site plan
to be constructed in the future could be handled in a different manner.
2. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit, a minor alexterior alteration
and site coverage variance to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor dining
deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. 193 Gore Creek Drive /Part of Lot A, Block 56, Vail
Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
• Planner: Shelly Mello
Ned Gwathmey presented the proposal. There was general consensus that the
location of the deck was acceptable as long as more planting was added to the plan.
3. A request for a minor exterior alteration to add an elevator to the Mill Creek Court
building. A part of Lot I Block 5A, Vail Village 5th/ 302 Gore Creek Dr.
Applicant: John Kaemmer /Ann Brown
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike presented the request to the Commission. The Commission requested that the
size of evergreen and aspen trees, proposed to be located, be documented and felt
that the elevator would not be a problem in this area. After some discussion a motion
was made by Dalton Williams to approve the minor exterior alteration and Greg
Amsden seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
4. A request for a conditional use permit to allow a preschool at the Vail Interfaith Chapel.
19 Vail Road/Tract J, Vail Village 1 st.
Applicant: Benny Clark, Vice Pres., Vail Religious Foundation/Vail
Baptist Church
Planner: Mike Mollica
. 3
Mike reviewed the request with the Commission, stating that the concerns the staff had
• in regard to this request were mainly with the drop -off area in front of the church. Mike
stated that this area needed to be identified and the pavement striped. Mike stated
that this reuqest was for a one -year period only and there would be no exterior
changes to the existing building. The question was raised as to a fence being erected
and Diana stated this request would be going to DRB. After some discussion, Chuck
Crist made a motion to approve the conditional use permit per the staff memo and
Dalton Williams seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6 -0.
5. A notification of a staff approval for a minor amendment to SDD #25, Days Inn, to
allow for changes to the east and north elevations of the building at 2271 North
Frontage Road/Tract C, Collins -Wirth Subdivision.
Applicant: Jim Wilson /Peter Jacobs
Planner: Shelly Mello
The PEC had no problem with the minor amendment.
6. A request for a variance from the minimum lot size and a minor subdivision for part of
Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing/ 2388 Garmisch Drive.
Applicant: Jeff Hanson
Planner: Shelly Mello
These two items were reviewed by the Commission with Shelly Mello. Shelly stated
• that the purpose of the request was to combine Lot 8 and 9, through the minor
subdivision process and that there was a physical hardship warranting the approval.
The staff approval was based on the criteria in the staff memo. After further discussion
a motion was made by Kathy Langenwalter to approve the variance as per the staff
memo. Greg Amsden seconded the motion. Kathy Langenwalter moved to approve
the minor subdivision and Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. The vote was unanimous,
6 -0.
7. Appeal of staff interpretation of Section 18.58.300 - Setback from watercourse of the
Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Appellant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Jill Kammerer
The applicant was not represented at the meeting. Jill presented the appeal to the
Commission, stating that the definition of "channel" was being disputed. It was agreed
that the measurement should take place from the middle of the creek or river. Two
letters were presented to the Commission in opposition of the appeal. After some
discussion Jeff Bowen made a motion to support the staff interpretation and Dalton
Williams seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
8. A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously approved
• exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge Street/Part of Lots B and
C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill presented the request to the Commission. A discussion followed regarding what
type of landscaping that should be required in front of the building facing Bridge Street.
The original plan was to have an evergreen tree planted in the planter. The possibility
of planted pots that would be removed in the winter was discussed. A poll of the
Commission was taken and the general consensus was that the original proposal
should be implemented. Kathy Langenwalter stated that since she was not able to go
on site visits she would abstain from commenting or voting. Ned Grathmey, the
architect on the project, asked the Commission if the item could be tabled at this time
to the first meeting in August, so he could work with the applicant in coming up with a
suitable solution. Dalton Williams made a motion to table this item and reschedule to
the August 10, 1992 meeting. Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5 -0, with Kathy Langenwalter abstaining. A discussion was
held regarding the newspaper stands located in front of the Ore House. It was
suggested that Rod Slifer contact the Vail Daily and Vail Trail and ask them to remove
the stands.
Items 9, 10 and 11 had been requested to be tabled until the July 27, 1992, meeting. Kathy
Landengwalter made a motion to table these items and Dalton Williams seconded the motion.
• A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.
9. A request for a work session for an amendment to an approved development plan to
allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of
Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
10. A request for a variance to Section 18.58.320 to allow for satellite dish antennas to be
located at The Wren and Apollo Park Condominiums. Tract D, Vail Village 5th
Filing /442 and 500 Frontage Road East.
Applicant: Wren and Apollo Condominium Associations
Planner: Tim Devlin
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
• 5
11. A request for setback variances to allow the construction of a deck at the Kandell
• residence. 4259 Nugget Lane East/ Lot 2 Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10
and 11.
Applicant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Jill Kammerer
TABLED TO JULY 27TH PEC MEETING
•
12. Appointment of PEC representative to Municipal Building Task Force.
Jeff Bowen was appointed to the Municipal Building Task Force.
13. Approval of June 22, 1992 meeting minutes.
Jeff Bowen made a correction to the minutes. A motion was made by Chuck Crist to
approve the June 22 minutes as corrected. Dalton Williams seconded the motion. A
vote was taken and the motion passed 5 -0, Kathy Langenwalter abstaining.
CAPEMMINUTEM071392
0 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a worksession for a minor subdivision and a request for a zone
district change from Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multiple
Family, for the Schmetzko property, generally located at 2239 Chamonix Lane,
more particularly described as:
Parcel A: A tract of land containing one acre, more or less, located in the
South 1/2 of the South East 1/4 of Section 11, Township 5 South, Range 81
West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11;
thence westerly along the northerly line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 bearing
south 86 20' W a distance of 167.80 ft. to a point:
Thence southerly along a line 167.80 ft. distant from and parallel to the east
line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4, a distance of 200.00 ft. to a point:
Thence easterly a distance of 167.80 ft. along a line 200.00 ft. distant from and
• parallel to the north line of said SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 to a point on its east line;
Thence easterly on a line parallel to the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4
of Section 11, a distance of 50.95 ft. to a point:
Thence northerly and parallel with the west line of the east 1/2 of the SE 1/4 of
said Section 11, a distance of 200.00 ft. to the point of intersection with the
extension of the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11;
Thence westerly on a deflective angle left of 95 21'00" along the extension of
the north line of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of said Section 11, a distance of
50.95 ft. to the NE corner of the SW 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 11, being the
point of beginning.
Parcel B: Tract A, Vail Heights Filing No. 1 according to the recorded plat
thereof.
Applicant: Erich Schmetzko
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
?;f,; }:.;?.: ?:?.f ?+f frf +., ?i ? ? ?i• }:•Y:•Y:iN . f.!r;.o :•.:r?.::
r.• xu:: : r: rvrr: xrr ?r,: r. frr: ::::rxxfx,;vr::: rrurr+..: :::: r {rrrxx ..v ?rry}}v„u,:,rr. :ro:::.•:: ...::n.r...... rr.nx. ...... xrw::iS •::.::• } }: }::•}f:: ? ?•Y:bw:' ? ?•i:
:•;fiY.•::f !!. r$.'f.•. x::: v:::::.. .. %H.: {.•::::::..r.. .. { .............. v frYYi: ? ?8 `CiiYf.•............... ... `.`.h.......r
..........::. r: r.?• r:::: ::•} } } }:•}:• }:• }:• }:• } %�: }: ?fi:: i. r: rrr::.:.: r. ?r :n..n........ h . :...rr r.......
.....n. a .. :......::::.: ••: f•: ff? f....................... ............................... .... {f.... �. ....v:•:.•.v.;Yj�?: ?::•'Y: . ?•:f: } + +.��.f... ... . ....:.:... rw:::: ? +::•::::.• .. • } } }•::..•• ..........::::::: n }' +• }:• }Y• }.; r.; - }.•
'<...b::::f• }"r x {f .v�:::: M1:. }ur.}.r :. fn.....r. {,..... :Y.. }:•Y " {.•:•Y:•Y' +rr. {r... r.: ?5..::::: nv:::r
vn........M1 M1M1}:,rr,r,r ..::ffi %fv. ?•v: r.•::: r::. rv..•.v:::::x:::::::::: •r •.•:::::::.•::.. .::f x: r:r•: w:.6:in } }:S}: :.rvr.
xxr. •: •::......:.: f ... ...... \n. ...........f.. ........ r ..............F:..f......v . v............. r:.. .. .... .. ... r.. ... f.:..Y .;... vv•:h';,..; •::. . + /. ? ?: ?;: }:3 }•i.;:: ?}
t... \r.:: • ::. ..: {:ir •: �vh•:. •.•: ::fi: f.•::: f +ff:: rf ri.: ?• } }�':: rf .:r:.:'•v• f!. ? ?4:• }: {:t {: ?.Y: {•v::• }' r ".vt.•.�2.;..: : ;f,.: r?f.• f! %f /,r, }frn,;rr,. }:::: �:v } } ?v:
: +:: w,.•r : :. / : /. /.•.: ?a:::i• }:,. }•; ?>Y.: y:.'•YY: +: •.Y•.Kn' • ?:� ?: + : }..;;..•,•...f f.•. } }•.•r } } }:f .. ...�.�1:....: ff . :.:...:r:::::Y::Yr. ? ?•: •Y..:{£S {:.. :.a
.,•.....::. f :.r:• ..... %....:....:........... f.. {...... •�trr:4 :.. r f { . •r: SS; }r}r •r:rk: ..:: •::: r. ............. r. {:..:. •:: •.wf. :., fff� {{
............:..t...........r:.r :. ..... f.•::.: �:....:{.{.: r' fi......... r......:{.•.?• r:::::::::.....• ............ ..........f...f.:.......r......
..............n .... .................:............. i. r:........Y :r ?• :::... rr, rrr . +.•:::::::::::::::.v::::'w:'
.............. r .... .............. ................. .......:.... v :......................••:: :•: :.::.; ...... rw::::::::;; .•v• :v.•. v.•.•.• :::::.... ....... ......:::.•.•:::::. }•:::::::::: • {Y:.;.•:. ?•.: ?:ri: :n:• } }Y'f
............ nn... x......... . .: ........ ...... ....... . . ....... ... ..... ..:.: . ..:...:. •:::: f.•:n........... v::.... r....... . x�x::r •: •: w ........ r.:::::::: rfr..r rr. . •nY:•'•"� ' fl r. Y::: ::;:; }.SY:. } }: ? ? ?;: } }:• }: ^i } }�:
f..::rs•. ....• . +. •:::. .. �•... f.. ::::. i •:Y:;• ........ Fi. ,,,,,...,... .?'.. r. / ....... ........}.,. f. ... {.i?.s..viC..< ......... ........
•
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUESTS
• The applicants, Erich and Lily Schmetzko, are requesting to rezone their property from
Primary/Secondary Residential to Low Density Multi - Family Residential. Their property is
located at 2239 Chamonix Lane, and is made up of 2 unplatted parcels. In addition to the
rezoning request, the applicants are proposing a minor subdivision to vacate a lot line and
create one lot. The proposed LDMF zoning would allow nine dwelling units, two of which the
applicants are proposing to permanently deed restrict as employee housing. This site is
currently vacant and it is located in both rockfall and debris flow hazard areas.
Staff believes that there are four key issues relating to the rezoning request:
A. How should the hazards be mitigated and is the proposed mitigation compatible
with the neighborhood?
B. What is the appropriate density for the site?
C. What issues are involved in the subdivision request?
D. What would future development look like and would it be compatible with the
neighborhood?
II. BACKGROUND
On March 9, 1992 and June 8, 1992, the PEC reviewed this request during worksession
hearings. The primary focus of the discussions related to hazards. Specifically, the PEC
requested information from the applicant indicating the extent of the site needed for mitigation
• as well as any adjacent properties which would be required to construct the hazard mitigation.
This piece of information has been provided at this time. The PEC had expressed concern
that if extensive areas of the site and the adjacent properties were to be disturbed for
mitigation, that an upzoning may not be appropriate.
This spring, after the snow melted off the site, Art Mears was able to thoroughly evaluate the
hazards. His extensive report is attached to this memo and provides the information which
the PEC requested. Within the report Mears states that " rockfall mitigation will not be
necessary at this building site" because his "analysis using the CRSP model indicated that
rockfall will not reach the building site." Regarding the debris flow hazard, Art Mears
recommends that adequate mitigation can be provided by a drainage basin, located
completely on the Schmetzko property. A description of the proposed design for the
mitigation is provided later in this memo.
Vegetation on this site is limited primarily to sagebrush and aspen, with the exception of two
large spruce trees on the northeast corner of the site. The site rises above Chamonix Lane at
approximately a 20 -25% slope. To the west, most of the lots around this parcel are
developed. To the east is the Pine Ridge Condominium complex. All of the land north of
Chamonix Lane is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential and most of it has been developed in
excess of the density standards of Primary/Secondary zoning. Many of the lots have multi-
family housing on them.
In the early 1980s, the Town of Vail created a drainage channel across the Schmetzko
• 2
property. This was done immediately after a severe debris flow event, during a spring when
• debris flows were occurring frequently. The Town acted in an emergency situation, to try to
protect the neighborhood. Mr. Schmetzko brought a lawsuit against the Town, in an effort to
have his property restored to its original condition. The Town and Mr. Schmetzko settled this
legal action and as part of the settlement, the Town agreed to restore the site to its original
grades. The Town regraded the site in early July (of 1992) to fulfill its obligations to Mr.
Schmetzko.
•
In the past, several utility companies installed utility lines across the Schmetzko property. In
the same settlement, the utility companies understood that they would have to compensate
Mr. Schmetzko for the use of his property. The utility companies decided that a simpler
solution was to relocate the utility lines off the property than to pay for the use of the land.
Staff understands that most of the lines have been removed except for a private sewer line.
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Below are tables showing various development potentials.
Table 1 - Area
Total
Total
Acreage
Square Footage
Parcel A 1.00
43,560 sq. ft.
Parcel B .1204
5,244.6 sq. ft.
Totals: 1.1204
48,804.6 sq. ft.
Buildable
Buildable
Square Footage
Acreage
40,744 sq. ft.
.935
4,877 sq. ft.
.112
45,621 sq. ft.
1.047
Table 2 - Development Potential Under Different Zone Districts Compared to the Proposal
Density Allowed Allowed
Per Code GRFA
Primary/Secondary 3 DUs + 1 6,190.2 sq. ft.
(Existing Zoning) with 2 Employee Unit
Parcels
Residential Cluster
6 DUs per
11,405.3 sq. ft.
Combined Lots
buildable acre
LDMF
9 DUs per
13,686.3 sq. ft.
Combined Lots
buildable acre
Land Use Plan /MDR
3 -14 DUs per
N/A
buildable acre
Schmetzko Proposal
7 DU's + 2 Employee Units
approx. 12,650 sq. ft.
•
3
Table 3 - Density on Surrounding Lots*
Approximate*
• Approximate*
Existing Number
Density
Lot Acreage
Zoning
of Dwelling Units
D( U /Ac)
(Vail Heights)
1 .5
P/S
6
12
2 .5
P/S
10
20
3 .5
P/S
11
22
4 .5
P/S
10
20
(Vail Das Schone)
4 .18
P/S
4
22
5 .2
P/S
6
30
6 .18
P/S
4
22
7 .16
P/S
2
12
8 .18
P/S
2
11
9 .18
P/S
2
11
11 .32
P/S
4
12
12 .32
P/S
0
Undeveloped
13 .4
P/S
2
5
14 .5
P/S
0
Undeveloped
15 .6
P/S
5
8
19 .45
P/S
0
Undeveloped
20 .45
P/S
2
4
• *
Without complete survey information,
staff estimated the lot size
using the address map and
comparing the lots above to
lots in the vicinity which staff had survey information on.
IV. EVALUATION OF THE REZONING REQUEST
As this is a worksession, staff will not provide an analysis of the rezoning criteria. The
criteria listed below will be addressed fully at a later date.
A. Is the Proposed Zoning Suitable?
B. Is the amendment proposal presenting a convenient, workable
relationship among land uses consistent with municipal objectives?
C. Does the rezoning proposal provide for the growth of an orderly and
viable community?
• 4
V. DISCUSSION OF KEY ISSUES
• Before a final PEC hearing and discussion of the formal criteria listed above, staff believes the
key issues outlined below should be addressed:
A. How should the hazards be mitigated?
Art Mears' recommendations call for a drainage basin to be constructed on the north end of
the property, which would collect the debris flow. The basin would need a minimum capacity
of 3,100 cubic yards and would have a spillway for water drainage. The spillway would have
horizontal pipes located at approximately 18" intervals. The spacing will allow the water and
fine debris to flow through the basin, off the property. The pipes will stop larger debris.
Mears is requiring that the basin be inspected annually. He states that after any debris flow
activity, the basin must be cleaned out. Annual cleaning will insure that the minimum volume
will always be available to collect debris in the event of a debris flow. With this design, it is
intended that most of the debris will be stopped on -site.
The applicant has provided a site plan showing the hazard mitigation plan with the proposed 9
units. The area of the site which is dedicated for the hazard mitigation takes up a significant
portion of the site. Staff was concerned that the regrading required in order to accommodate
the mitigation work and the dwelling units would have resulted in steep finished grades with
several large retaining walls. The applicant has indicated that the design maintains a 2:1
slope on all disturbed areas.
The current site plan shows two areas with retaining walls. In addition, the top of the wall
• surrounding the debris flow basin is exposed four feet on the south side. This exposure can
be seen in the areas where the wall extends on either side of the dwelling units. Immediately
behind the dwelling units, the wall has been incorporated into the foundation of the structure.
From the north, six feet of the wall can be seen, except at the spillway, where 14 feet of wall
can be seen. The appearance of this area is a concern.
In general, staff believes that the mitigation plan does not result in too many retaining walls.
However, the site plan must be modified to show landscaping as plantings are key to reducing
the visual impacts of this solution. Specific areas which must be addressed include:
• Screening the daylighting of the drainage pipes,
• Shifting the wall away from the mature trees located in the northwest corner of_ the
site to ensure their survival,
• Planting trees, where possible, north of the debris flow basin to screen it from
neighbors situated north and above this site, and
• Creating a more natural grading pattern for the basin while still providing the needed
basin capacity. This would be accomplished by undulating the uniform grading that is
proposed.
B. What Is the appropriate density for this site?
0 5
Staff believes that the 9 units requested under LDMF zoning would not appear out of context,
• given the densities of development on adjacent properties. However, staff continues to be
concerned about the overall appearance of the lot, given the magnitude of the mitigation
plans. With the requested zoning, the applicants may be trying to put too much on the site.
Considered alone, the nine units appear to be a reasonable use of the site. However,
considered with the mitigation, staff believes that the development capacity of the site is fully
maximized. Staff believes that this level of density should be approved only if sufficient
detailed information (such as finished topography and landscaping) is provided prior to
rezoning and is guaranteed to be incorporated into the development in the future. Staff
believes the best way to ensure this is to approve any rezoning request as a Special
Development District (SDD). More discussion about the need for this is provided below.
Staff would like to point out that the tables in the zoning analysis show that the nine units per
buildable acre proposed with the Low Density Multi - Family zoning falls within the range of the
Land Use Plan, and is less than the density on most of the sites in the vicinity. All of the sites
in the vicinity are zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. However, they are legal non-
conforming in that they exceed the current density standards of the zoning code.
The applicant is proposing that two of the nine units on -site be restricted as employee housing
units, which is a positive benefit to the Town. The applicant and staff have discussed the
timing of the construction of these employee units and have agreed that the units will be
constructed simultaneously with the rest of the development. Specific wording will be worked
out between the applicant, Town Attorney and staff prior to a final review by PEC.
C. What Issues are Involved In the subdivision request?
• It appears, at this time, that the applicant can meet all of the subdivision standards for a minor
subdivision in the LDMF zone district. These standards include lot area (10,000 sq. ft. of
buildable area), frontage (minimum 30 feet), and size (minimum 80' x 80'). The applicant
could also meet the subdivision standards for Residential Cluster and Primary/Secondary
zoning. Prior to a final hearing, the applicant will need to provide a complete minor
subdivision application which meets all of the Town standards.
The replatting process provides an opportunity to document the resolution of the hazard
mitigation issue and the employee housing issue if an SDD is not used. Staff believes that
the resolution of the number and size of employee units to be built, as well as the hazard
mitigation to be constructed, should be documented at this time. The applicant could
hypothetically develop the site as single family residences without the debris flow basin since
the Town code does not require mitigation for single family or duplex construction. However,
staff believes requirinq mitigation, regardless of development type, is critical. This position is
based on the belief that a request for higher densities should only be approved if mitigation is
mandatory.
As stated above, the replatting process provides an opportunity to document the resolution of
specific issues. As staff has worked with the applicant in defining the hazard mitigation plan,
staff believes that there is a need to document more than the mitigation and employee
housing issues. With as much development as the request entails, staff believes that the site
plan which has been produced to show the feasibility of this development should be used as a
is 6
requirement of the future developer. Specifically, staff believes that approval of the rezoning
• request, if appropriate, should be done as a Special Development District (SDD).
The purpose of an SDD, as defined in Section 18.40.010 of the Zoning Code, is to "encourage
flexibility and creativity in the development of land in order to promote its most appropriate
use; to improve the design character and quality of new development within the town; (and) to
preserve the natural and scenic features of open space area... ". Staff believes that since
these types of issues have come into play on this project, the SDD process appears to be an
appropriate tool to use to review this request. The review procedures for the rezoning
request and an SDD are the same, as both require a review by the Planning and
Environmental Commission and two readings of Council.
With as SDD, the benefits to the Town include better documentation, regarding:
• the employee housing, including size, location, and timing requirements;
• the mitigation plan, requiring it to be completed and finished in a way that is sensitive
to the neighborhood;
• a landscape plan, specifically one that is designed and planted in a way that buffers
this development from the rest of the neighborhood; and
• the distribution of GRFA, such that it be allocated evenly among the 7 "free market'
units and not be grouped together in a few "high end" units.
• In general, staff believes that the amount of work that has been invested in the site plan
design to date by both the applicant and Town staff, should not be easily changed by a future
developer who may purchase and develop the property.
D. What would future development look like?
Some of the assumptions made for this site plan are that the building envelopes for the free
market units would be 24 ft. by 32 ft., or 768 square feet (The envelopes shown on the site
plan reflect only the first floor, and measure 24 ft. by 24 ft.) The development of each
townhouse would include a two -car garage in the basement and 2 stories of GRFA above
that. The resulting 3 -story townhouse could conform to the 33 -foot height limitation in the
LDMF or RC zone districts. The resulting GRFA would be approximately 1,550 square feet for
each free market unit with 900 square feet in each of the 2 employee housing units. The total
GRFA would be approximately 12,650 square feet. These numbers will be slightly reduced,
after deducting the allowable GRFA credits. The areas of overlapping stairs and the first 25
square feet of an airlock would be deducted from GRFA calculations. Garage area would not
be counted either, and has not been included in the numbers above.
The approximate total GRFA of 12, 650 is less than the 13,686.3 sq. ft. allowed under LDMF
zoning but more than the 11,405 sq. ft. allowed under RC zoning. The site coverage
proposed is approximately 6200 sq. ft., which is less than what is allowed by RC zoning
(12,201 sq. ft.) or LDMF zoning (17,081 sq. ft.).
• 7
With the proposed site plan, the applicant meets the parking standards. With this plan there
• are 16 enclosed spaces and 10 exterior spaces plus 2 guest parking spaces. The parking
requirement is 18 spaces. Six of the nine units will have parking spaces available in front of
the garages. Three units will only have the garage spaces. The applicant has tried to add
surface parking. However, staff believes that using the setback and requiring a retaining wall
in order to have two guest spaces outweighs the benefits of them when the project already
exceeds the required amount of parking by 8 spaces. We would recommend that the
applicant rework the design to delete the spaces and landscape this area. Per the Zoning
Code, Residential Cluster zoning requires that one parking space per dwelling unit be
enclosed. This proposal, as currently designed, would meet this requirement. Under LDMF
zoning, there is not an enclosed parking requirement.
Previously, staff was concerned about a conceptual architectural design that included
structured underground parking. Staff was concerned that this was not financially feasible.
Staff does believe that the plan for 2 -car garages at the lowest level of each townhouse is
generally consistent with other development that is being done in the Town of Vail at this time
and is a reasonable expectation from the potential developer of this site.
Concerns from other departments in the Town have been addressed. None of the driveway
slopes exceed 8 percent. Most of the Fire Department concerns have been addressed as a
fire truck turnaround has been located at the top of the driveway, which meets Town
standards. The Fire Department will require a fire hydrant to be located at the top of the
driveway.
V. CONCLUSION
• Staff does not have a formal recommendation for this worksession. Staff believes the
development on the site maximizes the site's potential at LDMF densities. Staff is concerned
that the mitigation plan and housing plan will appear to be too much density to the
surrounding neighbors unless specific plans (including site, grading, floorplans, elevations, and
landscaping) can be approved as part of the rezoning request. This could be done through
the SDD process, which staff recommends.
cApec\memos\schmtzko.713
• 8
U
DEBRIS -FLOW AND ROCKFALL ANALYbm
AND MITIGATION CONCEPTS
SCHMETZKO PROPERTY, VAIL, COLORADO
Prepared For
Mr. Richard P. Rosen
r
Prepared By
Arthur I. Mears, P.E., Inc.
Gunnison, Colorado
April, 1992
,'
a
1 OBJECTIVES AND LIMITATIONS
• This analysis of debris -flow and rockfall hazard and mitigation on the Schmetzko
property in West Vail was requested by Mr. Richard Rosen. The analysis has the
following objectives:
l�
J
a. Analysis and quantification of rockfall;
b. Specification of rockfall mitigation;
c. Analysis and quantification of debris flow;
d. Specification of debris -flow mitigation; and
e. Description of the risk from geologic hazards.
The report has the following limitations which should be understood by all those
planning and permitting development in this hazard area:
a. This site specific analysis may be appropriate for this site only and is
not necessarily applicable to other sites;
b. The dimensions (depth, width, length) of the debris -flow mitigation
system proposed in this report must be maintained at all times in order
for the system to be effective; and
c. There exists some small probability that the design debris -flow
volume assumed in this study will be exceeded and the protection plan
proposed will not contain the entire flow.
I]e
n
LJ
2 ROCKFALL ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
2.1 ROCKFALL HAZARD
According to Town of Vail mapping, a portion of the property is exposed to "moderate
severity" rockfall hazard. This study analyzed potential rockfall hazard in detail so that
structural mitigation could be incorporated into design, if necessary.
The rockfall source area affecting the property and building site is located in and
directly below sandstone cliff outcroppings approximately 850 feet northwest and 350
feet above the proposed building site. A site investigation conducted on March 28
evaluated the following:
a. Design rock size (found to be a 2 -foot diameter rock);
b. Terrain profile; and
c. Surface roughness, hardness, and vegetation cover.
These factors ( "a," "b," and "c ") were used in the Colorado Rockfall Simulation
Program (CRSP) to compute rockfall velocity, bounce height, and travel distance. The
analysis using the CRSP model indicated that rockfall will not reach the building site.
This conclusion could not be supported by site inspection of the proposed building
area because this area has undergone extensive earthwork modification since a debris
flow in May, 1984; earthwork removed field evidence of previous rockfall.
2.2 ROCKFALL MITIGATION
Rockfall mitigation will not be necessary at the building site. Although rockfall may
reach the northern edge of the property during extreme conditions, any rock reaching
the property would stop in the debris -flow mitigation basin discussed in Section 3 of
this report.
• 2
3 DEBRIS -FLOW ANALYSIS AND MITIGATION
• 3.1 DEBRIS -FLOW HAZARD
A debris flow occurred on the property during May, 1984. This flow spread laterally
1 over the property, transported large boulders and mud into buildings east of the
property, and caused moderate damage. Because debris flows may occur in the
future and constitute a hazard at this location, mitigation is required.
3.2 DEBRIS -FLOW CHARACTERISTICS AT SITE
Debris flows may result during times when the soil cover is saturated, internal soil
strength is small, and surface and subsurface runoff is high. In 1984 the debris flow
resulted as a small debris avalanche occurred at approximately 8,800 feet elevation
on the east - facing slope in the canyon north of the property and deposited into the
stream channel. The stream was experiencing high snowmelt water runoff at the time,
combined with the debris avalanche, and produced a debris flow. The resulting debris
flow consisted of a mixture of water, mud, rocks, and organic material that descended
the stream channel and deposited on the alluvial fan upon which the buildings and
property are located. Rocks up to three feet in diameter were transported by the flow
onto the private property. The flow transported some of the debris against the
buildings and deposited some debris on the alluvial fan above the building sites.
•Debris flows of this magnitude appear to be rare events with relatively long return
periods at this site. No similar events have been reported since the early 1960's when
Vail was founded. Furthermore, inspection of aerial photography dated 1939, 1950,
1962, and 1974 indicates that flows have not occurred at least since the early part of
the 20th century; they probably have not occurred at this site for at least 100 years.
Events of this magnitude may have a return period of roughly one century (an annual
probability of 1 %). However, specification of a return period is speculative given the
available data base and the statistical interdependence of debris -flow and landslide
activity on steep slopes in the Vail area.
3.3 DEBRIS FLOW DYNAMICS
Debris flow dynamics must be calculated to design structural defense facilities and
prevent flows from reaching and damaging buildings. The important design
parameters resulting from a dynamics analysis are: (a) flow thickness, (b) impact
pressure, (c) velocity, and (d) flow volume. The following assumptions and
procedures were used to compute these design parameters.
a. An initial release volume of 1000 m3 (1,300yd3) released as a debris
avalanche from the steep east - facing slope at approximately 9,000 feet
elevation similar to many releases observed in May, 1984.
• 3
I I.-. - . I-
b. The debris -flow mass is assumed to stop at approximately the
8,000 -foot elevation level, thus zero velocity was assumed for this
10 elevation. High -water discharge will, of course, continue to transport
and disperse debris below 8,000 feet.
c. Flow velocity, flow thickness, and mass distribution through time was
computed by applying a stochastic flow model that simulates flow
distribution thrcugh time. Additional details of the modeling procedure
are in Appendix A. This detail of debris -flow dynamics can be used by
the engineer in final design modifications of the defense system, if
required.
3.4 DEBRIS -FLOW MITIGATION
Debris -flow mitigation will consist of three parts:
a. Designing a debris -flow impact surface on the uphill side of the
building or downhill side of the basin;
b. Providing sufficient storage volume for the flow; and
c. Providing for water runoff during periods of normal high water runoff
and providing channelization from the deposited debris. mass.
• Parts "a" and "b" are discussed in this report. Design details of the water
channelization must be provided as in standard storm runoff studies, are beyond the
scope of this study, and probably cannot be specified without architectural design
details or final building layout. The debris flow basin and dam system are sketched in
Figures 1 and 2.
3.5 EFFECTIVENESS AND MAINTENANCE OF MITIGATION SYSTEM
In order to remain effective against debris flows of design magnitude, the basin and
impact wall mitigation system must be maintained at the design size even if another
debris flow occurs and partially or completely fills the basin. The following must be
inspected each year, or after any debris flow:
a. Impact wall height -- a wall height of approximately 11 feet must be
maintained (Figure 2 A, B, and C);
b. Basin volume -- the basin storage volume (3,100 yd 3) must be
maintained (plan view shown in Figure 1, cross - section shown in Figure
2A)
c. Normal water —runoff channel -- the channel, designed to convey
normal stream water runoff (not debris flows), must be maintained at all
1 times above, through, and below the basin /dam system.
l
The annual inspection must determine if conditions "a," "b," and "c" are satisfied. If
they are not, the mitigation system may not be effective against a debris flow of
design magnitude.
Some small probability exists that flows of larger than design magnitude will occur. An
example of a larger event occurred in Booth Creek during May, 1984. Such a large
debris flow appears to be unlikely at this location because large volumes of
unconsolidated glacial deposits are not present on the valley walls above the site.
• 5
f
0
0
s�
a
a
4 HAZARD TO ADJACENT PROPERTY
The proposed debris -flow mitigation system will not increase the hazard to adjacent
public or private properly. The dam /storage basin system proposed will, in fact reduce
the hazard to adjacent property if (a) the basin and channel are tied in properly to the
uphill terrain, (b) the wall and basin are built to the design standards specified, (c) the
design flow volume is not exceeded, and (d) the drainage channel is property located
and designed.
5 RESIDUAL HAZARD IN AREA
The structural defense system proposed in this study is intended to protect buildings
and persons who are in the building when the debris flow occurs. However, the
persons one wished to protect may be outside when the debris flow occurs and
therefore could be e;:posed to the hazard regardless of the mitigation system.
Although rockfall does not reach the buildings and does not require structural defense,
rolling rocks may constitute a hazard to persons within the debris basin or on the
slopes behind the property.
These residual risks are small and usually are discounted in planning residential
development. The Town of Vail has no hazard restrictions in residential areas where
buildings or other fixed facilities are planned. This small risk outside of buildings can
be reduced even further if residents are aware of the potential problem and take
normal precautions during periods likely to produce debris flow or rockfall. Self -
education about debris flow, rockfall and other geologic hazard is recommended for
residents of this area.
• 6
It.... -. - : , , , -
IAPPENDIX A: Debris -flow dynamics
10 Debris flow dynamics were calculated through application of a 2 -step procedure as
follows:
a. STARTING AND STOPPING POSITIONS. The debris flow starting and
stopping positions were determined from studies of valley geometry, locations
of previous source areas, and depositional features on the alluvial fans. No
attempt was made to predict debris -flow stopping positions through dynamics
modeling.
b. DEBRIS FLOW DYNAMICS. Debris -flow dynamics were computed
through application of a stochastic particle- dynamics model in which the
initial avalanche mass was represented as a large number of particles
accelerating down the slope into the debris -flow channel. The model
was used to represent the assumed release volume and further
simulates additional entrained material as the flow spread between lateral
and longitudinal boundaries observed in the field.
Approximately 90% of the flow volume (3,100 yd3)is found to pass the
design location (8,010 foot elevation), in a period of 9.2 seconds. This is
considerably more than the release volume (1,300 yd3), and accounts for
entrainment of debris in the channel. A flow width of 66 feet (20m) is
• assumed on the upper alluvial fan from field evidence. The peak flow
thickness is computed as 6.1 feet. Flow velocities of 22 to 28 feet/sec
were calculated at the 8,010 foot elevation level. The computed flow
thickness, impact pressure, and velocity at the 8,010 -foot elevation are
shown on Figures 3, 4, and 5. Each of these flow parameters are shown
as a function of time since the beginning of the debris avalanche.
lie
(A) Basin cross section
_ Debris flow
direction
- 6o' -
(B) Impact wall detail
y 1.0'
5.1'
4•.5,
<— 2170
psf
(C) Spillway detail
(1" =10')
(Impact (Impact
Wall) Wall)
NOTE: Drainage channel must be designed
for peak water runoff associated with
this drainage basin. Runoff discharge is
not calculated in this report.
FIGURE 2. Debris -flow mitigation basin, showing cross - section view
(A), impact loads on wall (B), and "spillway" design. Steel bars across
spillway must also resist the loads shown in (C).
c;
i
lie
CD
LL
U)
CD
a
Y
U
F-
0
M
CJ
c
FLOW THICKNESS
Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation
41.8 44.9 48.0 51.0 54.1 57.1 60.2 63.3 66.3 69.4
Time Since Flow Start (Sec)
FIGURE 3. Debris flow thickness as a function of time since the start of
the flow. For design purposes, the average flow thickness (4.5 feet) over
the three maximum time intervals (from 44.9 to 54.1 seconds) was used
for the design flow thickness.
Sul
•
U
O
�U
O
N
3
0
LL
FLOW VELOCITY
Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation
-+ +•+. &ro. v 0 1 , u 04.1 01.1 6U.2 63.3 66.3 69.4
Time Since Flow Start (Sec)
FIGURE 4. Debris flow velocity as a function of time since the start of
the flow. For design purposes, the average velocity (26 ft/sec) over the
three time intervals of maximum flow thickness (from 44.9 to 54.1
seconds) was used for the design velocity.
lie 9
r;
L
CL
L
Qi
N
ai 1
a
• a 1
E
El
IMPACT PRESSURE
Debris flow at 8010 feet elevation
41.8 44.9 48.0 51.0 54.1 57.1 60.2 63.3 66.3 69.4
Time Since Flow Start (Sec)
FIGURE 5. Debris impact pressure as a function of time since the start
of the flow. For design purposes, the average impact pressure (2,170
psf) over the three time intervals of maximum flow thickness (from 44.9
to 54.1 seconds) was used for the design impact pressure.
• 10
APPENDIX B: Design of Mitigation
• Mitigation design consists of (a) specifying an impact wall height and strength to resist
impact, (b) specifying a debris basin volume, and (c) maintaining an open channel for
normal spring runoff. The procedures for calculating "a" and "b" are discussed in this
appendix.
a. IMPACT WALL. The height of the impact surface is determined by
adding the average of the three maximum flow thicknesses shown in
Figure 3 ([6.1 + 4.1 + 3.3]/3 = 4.5 feet) to the modified velocity head
V2 /4g, where velocity, V is the average velocity during these same three
time intervals. Thus the modified velocity head, from Figure 4, is
calculated ([28 + 27 + 22]/3)2/128.8 = 5.1 feet, and the impact wall height
is 4.5 + 5.1 = 9.6 feet. The impact loading on the wall is the average
impact pressure (2550 + 2350 + 1600)/3 = 2170 psf over a height of 4.5
feet. This pressure decreases linearly to zero from the top of the flow at
4.5 feet until the top of the impact wall is reached at 9.6 feet. The
recommended wall height of 11 feet provides a "safety factor" of 1.4 feet.
The impact design parameters are shown in Figure 2B. Depositional
loading will occur against the wall after the flow has stopped, but
depositional loads will be less than impact loads.
b. BASIN VOLUME. The debris storage basin can be any shape as
• long as the volume of the dam can contain the design debris flow (3,100
yd3). A recommended layout for this basin is shown on Figure 1
however, a final shape can be modified in final landscaping plans. The
basin must be designed so that water will drain freely through the basin
and down the channel. Maintenance must ensure that the basin does
not serve as a pond for standing water. We recommend that a site
inspection be conducted to ensure the basin serves the intended
purpose of protecting the site.
c. DRAINAGE CHANNEL. A drainage channel must be maintained at
the eastern side of the property. The purpose of this channel will be to
convey normal spring runoff through the property, it is not intended to
convey debris flows. This channel must also convey water after a large
debris flow occurs, therefore an opening must be built into the wall that
will stop debris but allow water to flow into the channel. This channel �
"spillway" must be blocked by horizontal pipes approximately 18" to 22"
apart that will enable passage of water and fine debris but not rocks.
These pipes must be designed to resist the impact loads specified in
Figure 26.
• 11
• �.�— ovals 0008000 •r •ooss .os
—p,,,olnoe 49810 •e noa evoo ._
SOZ ell ^S OIPnIS—
3029- 646 /Xtl�
00Z9- 646 /SO£
S80183INI • ONINNVId • 38nio311H0HV
O d ` Si0311H08V NOSG -IVNOCI A8M. UOiOIA
J
(.OS) 3 d'I XINOWUHO
i X11
CM.LvoO'1 (3wv am- iV'1.Ial.11 3g 0j. 114V't1QJ.H 3tw -
/ nt� Cp�1V' 9Wt&M lll9l.t� at1VZ" /-DA10
'.l-WO M -U\3t1 9U@JOZ t10� -
;MWC WA uOn= 9U01V' WV'tl9 %9 —
5aOV'd5 07. - UMOHS 91 1 , aV 4
sOOV'CIS vl - CMtl�t1 9U*At1Vc1 -
_ s1JUn 9-RW Idw9 •1.�-vs OOa-M) - uOu
9L S1 Wn -::M9 .L9:At1V'W •1. --4VG 009L4J - uV'a -
CUM
IjG''
MW OMW 4 11 6W WA
1 / I ea,.ruN+a"gm-WA S 101
j 41 101
-
_1
L _J
{ 101 ' \ — — / \ — 0664-- u rw t
1 d J j air
096L"
-
I•
0009
' 9'061• _ -M/A
9wj- 92+sF lTapE
1' 1- r� to
g11AVIMNGY
wnt ` 9'16F
"MA ow 4al
/
Fill am \ I
30=
ON 133HS
ON 80/'
G
Flit
Pro
�
� I III 1
\A ` �\
\ \ ' �
� a / f•
�.
�
.MM1 • sK wr,r
i � /
I I s / �I 1 I 1
� \ .-
� .. "� � -' � .r
/aro'w'�
I
I l
l l � //
�
l r
r � .�;•
I
1
I
r` f
G r"XNM -•eve
9 10 1
30=
ON 133HS
ON 80/'
G
•
n
oz. 0P.10103 V 'OOft roe
piensln B N-0 0 lava 0900
9UL 11 S olpvlS
903S- 61,6 /XV3
0OZ9- 61,6/£0£ I lip, (Sir,
S801831Ni • ONINNV'ld 38%o31IH0HV
'O'd ` S103.LIH08d N0SalVN0a >IadN ` H0101A
(.0S) 3 d1 XINOWHHO
I I
3*6W -WA .40 WMO.L 3til tl
(331VOOl CWV CM-i"ftl'JX" -19 0.1. J.WVtIMW 9t 6l —
OL _ S idnOtldd� t0ll*df Ikd t10-4 C M-e r i7 W
i S"11d.L�CI CU V '91.11 3
LL 1"'11.10 MaA t1 9 ":Z tlOd —
tL' ` 2AWa WMIM uO-1ZZ 914011 WVtl9 ' /.A —
11 /
L/ / 5 t1dS 9Z - W' OHG gQ:>ItIdd
L S99bdS OL - CMtWlMtl 91 :AtIvcl —
9L _ I S.I.It lft �o-rdwa 'J.�Ws OOa-M) - ugu
/ - L SIM 3'19Vla*1tlVW '1:06 0091 -W - uVu —
i '4low
i
a1>w au *M spas *0 wrw a10 1 -WA
t 1 10-1 ,
_ r /
n
4101 , _ _ _ '
-mm M10
OIJLL
\ \ / __ •'
�,/' � ' \ I rani T .� •. ,' \ - = 9'Ibt•
\ \ 1 l + ' iat �rcxto[t
lb 0o
/ / / 1 , ♦\ \ ✓mod .-° �!! !.�
WON • vu uru am
C;/
9 10-1
30-
ON 133HS
0
ON 60f
r
WOW "WA
10-i
VWWA" 1i
TItlM
0
(.0s) 31
OL",
� 5
It
1
O9l.d,'
1
•�K
ozo,a ea .e onr 'oe es *.a
z'm,.,•m °e v —o I..e n a eroo
BOZ a '.s : .1—s
50ZS- 646YXV�
OOZS- 646'/£0£ _
S80I83INI • VNINNVId 38ni3311H08V
O'd ' S103llHDdV NOS(]-IVNOQ >iHVN 80131A
XINOWWH3
I I
gtU -WA :40 I4MOI 3Hl T19e1
C IV00'1 WV Ctg"1'ib'.LS1.11 -:49 of 114vtla. 3t6 —
GIVAOtic WV i lam- n.4 ).kv 2f 0zi Ci tomes
'
s-1 VIaC C WV 9WW-:M1. Ra C *6VZVH /IA10
'�.-WO Mkt{ 9{.itt.loZ t10d —
aaM u0-1ZZ 91.10-- 3CMt19 •/A
qll-
s3'1ddS QZ - W OHS Itivcl
s3ovc4G OL - cmtirm- ! osu>1tivc{
s.L wn a o'iciw3 •.L.-j-DS 000L -m) - ueL
s.Wn s-1sv1.3�ltlt�w 'ia:rm Oo%44{ - uVu —
SLOW
m *111 wows m 9HA
41 10-1
roM *ru *ter WM -WA
s 10-
r
l � �
I a tl
,
'WrM M HOW A 7� �t w� I f i �� 1 I i// I ♦ s
•�•'"' wr rM tler � r w o I I I � I � I I � \ / / � � �• r r r •� .i
� I I I I I I 6Z0o � \ r •� ��
autSM -WA
9 10-1
IdM a10 .iol
do dol
p
err::; a
30T
ON 80r
9~ OWA
i' 10-I
A% Wd.?M tl
-MA
7
Gos)
OL6
OL ' -
1
OI6L
I
I
XINOWUHO
�f1
a3.LV001 W ca-MvIr" lab O.I.L. 1J.1 ticjki 9*66 —
'srdAotldda tL:atL*-d =4 Jj4v t10=l (23t#If1U 3ti
G-HVlgCi WV 9k Htl3- =WP9W9 CItVzvt-/IAI9
" zL
'),-WO M2Aatl 9WWO:Z td0: —
WAltlU gam a0-Izz 9u01d wvZ49 %C —
5:40` C4G OZ - WMOt-tS AYSO�,Itldd
L
s--:IOdds a - MtMM4 91 bltlVcl —
SIM MJ41clwa 'J.-A'VG OOOIfiL) - UQ6
1
Si wn zmevi3:ltivw *.L=i s 009L -u - ,v. —
L
GLLOU
L
rawoo rdw e *A sae N/
mm VA 1n AO • w ai
I
wo
M w MOM @W'KA
I
mu wv wtws wb +vA S 101
4b 10.1
j
l
� � A
T
•
0
,a .wt
•
e
yaw. W ury wa+
rawoo rdw e *A sae N/
mm VA 1n AO • w ai
� � A
•
0
,a .wt
•
e
•
y1f wWA
i 10-I
0aw"m w
-rwA
h.
I
oL6
oL.''
e
r'
1
OIL
P�l-'O.
I
Jr.
�r
0
Ul
w+wwarouwrwaroA
�•�
ws VA
9 1o1
•
XINOWHHO
1
't7 3tUd -HVA .40 WMO.J. EIMI tL:14
I
CM.LV001 CWd Cg-M.LGU -:9 0.3. 1.61V -6 LH 9-6l —
S�AOrlddd t1a11tinA 1,kv tiod cmt roati
S71VIM WV 9WZI;R-=W l M CItlVZV'H /"MIO
y'L
1-wo Mkt{ 9WWOZ tlod —
2nWa 3AM uO-tZZ 9W0-ib' 9Cltrtl9 W —
SaoV'dS QZ - WMOHS 9WI>l�dd
L
5goV'ds vl - cMtWlMtl 9w�itivcl —
Gl Wn MLLO- cd ,G •1.4-DS OOOL -Z) - 46
' - 1
s1.61n 3-l9Vla>ltIVW *I d*S 009L -(U - uVu —
L
SE1oW
M WW MWW 010 -WA
4, to l
/ I
\ l
M MW W* • 00 .WA
S 10-I
a` d
IVA Ido Idol
Ao Idol
•
:10
ON 133HS
ON 001'
0
OR
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a conditional use permit and site
coverage variance to allow for the expansion of an existing outdoor
dining deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. 193 Gore Creek Drive /Part of
Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Planner: Shelly Mello
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining
deck at Sweet Basil's Restaurant located in the Gore Creek Plaza building in Vail Village. A
site coverage variance may also be necessary for this request if the combined area of the at
grade decks, building and underground parking area are determined to exceed the allowable
site coverage of 80 %.
The Gore Creek Plaza Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a
conditional use permit to add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located
along the south elevation of the Gore Creek Plaza Building, and would be located partially
upon public right -of -way. The deck would be expanded 43 square feet to the east on the
applicant's property and 98 square feet to the south on the Town right -of -way for a total of 141
sq. ft. of additional deck area. The deck and stone ledge as proposed extend 6 feet 6 inches
into the right -of -way. 3 -4 four person tables will be located on the additional deck area. The
height of the deck is 16 inches above grade.
Additional streetscape improvements are also included in this application. They include:
Additional landscaping in the planter located between the John Galt entry and Gore
Creek Plaza Building entry - 1 spruce and several shrubs.
2. One evergreen located adjacent to the southeast corner of the deck.
3. Charcoal gray pavers on private property and extending 6 feet 6 inches onto right -of-
way with a double soldier course.
4. Planter boxes along the deck railing.
1 •t d n
v i U d
• i
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor exterior alteration to add an elevator to the Mill Creek
Court building. A part of Lot I Block 5A, Vail Village 5th/ 302 Gore Creek Dr.
Applicant: John Kaemmer /Ann Brown
Planner: Mike Mollica
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicants are represented by Sidney Schultz, a local architect, and are requesting a
minor exterior alteration in the Commercial Core I zone district in order to add an elevator on
the northwest corner of the Mill Creek Court Building. The addition of an elevator in this
location would involve the reconfiguration of the existing planter area currently surrounding the
stair tower, and the upgrade of the planter walls.
• For the purposes of reviewing this request with regard to the Town's development standards,
this elevator is considered "common area" as it is proposed to access both the second and
third floors of the north wing of the Mill Creek Court Building. The elevator creates an
additional 36 sq. ft. of common area. As indicated below in Section II of this staff
memorandum, the proposed elevator would slightly increase the existing site coverage and
common area numbers for the Mill Creek Court Building. There are no variances
associated with this request.
II. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following summarizes the zoning statistics for this minor exterior alteration request for the
Mill Creek Court Building:
A. Zone District: Commercial Core I
B. Lot Area: 10,039 sq. ft.
C. Density: No change proposed
D. GRFA: No change proposed
E. Site Coverage:
• Allowable Site Coverage = 8,031 sq. ft. (80 %)
Existing Site Coverage = 6,351 sq. ft. (63 %)
Additional Site Coverage Proposed = 33 sq. ft.
Total Site Coverage = 6,384 sq. ft. (63.5 %)
Remaining After Addition = 1,647 sq. ft.
F. Common Area:
Maximum allowable common area = 2,811 sq. ft. (35% of allowable GRFA)
Existing Common Area = 2,696 square feet (33.5 %)
Additional proposed common area = 36 square feet
Total common area = 2,732 square feet (34 %)
Remaining after addition = 79 sq. ft.
• G. Building Height: No change proposed
H. Parking. No change proposed
III. 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 ensure adequate light, air, open
space, and other amenities appropriate to the permitted types of buildings and
uses. The district regulations in accordance with the Vail Village Urban Design
Guide Plan and Design Considerations prescribe site development standards
that are intended to ensure the maintenance and preservation of the tightly
clustered arrangements of buildings fronting on pedestrian ways and public
greenways, and to ensure continuation of the building scale and architectural
qualities that distinguish the Village.
The applicant's proposal to add an elevator and to reconfigure the existing planter at the Mill
Creek Court Building would be in compliance with the Purpose Section of the Commercial
Core I zone district as stated above.
IV. COMPLIANCE WITH THE URBAN DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS FOR VAIL VILLAGE
•
A. Pedestrlanlzation:
The main pedestrian walkway between Gore Creek Drive and Hanson Ranch
Road will not be modified as a result of this proposal. The applicant has
proposed to modify only the pedestrian access to the northwest stair tower of
the Mill Creek Court Building. For a more detailed review of the proposed
layout, please see the site plan attached to this memorandum.
The existing landscape planters are currently constructed of railroad
ties /timbers. As recommended in the recently adopted Streetscape Master
Plan, the applicant has proposed to upgrade the planter walls, and is proposing
the use of stucco to match the Mill Creek Court Building. The Streetscape
Master Plan strongly discourages the use of railroad tie timbers for planter
construction. As a result of the reconfiguration of the planter area, one existing
Lodge Pole pine will need to be relocated approximately 6 to 8 feet south of its
existing location.
Overall, the staff is supportive of the applicant's proposed modifications to the
planter area, and it is our belief that these modifications will be a positive
improvement to the existing situation.
• B. Vehicular Penetration:
No impact.
C. Streetscape Framework:
No impact.
D. Street Enclosure:
No impact.
E. Street Edge:
No impact.
F. Building Height:
The height of the proposed elevator would be 37', which is seven feet above
the existing roof and which is substantially below the highest ridge of the Mill
Creek Court Building, which is approximately 47' in height. The staff has
categorized the elevator as an architectural projection, pursuant to Chapter
18.58.090, which allows "towers, spires, cupolas, chimneys, flagpoles and
similar architectural features to extend above the height limit a distance of not
is 3
more than 25% of the height limit or 15 feet." Please see the attached
• elevation drawings.
G. Views and Focal Points:
The staff has reviewed the applicant's proposal with regard to the adopted view
corridors for the Town of Vail. It is the staff's opinion that the applicant's
proposal to add an elevator to the northwest end of the Mill Creek Court
Building will not impact or encroach into any of the adopted view corridors.
H. Service and Delivery:
No impact.
Sun /Shade:
Because the proposed elevator tower would be located under an existing roof
overhang, there will be no impact with regard to sun /shade as a result of this
project.
V. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN AND THE
STREETSCAPE MASTER PLAN.
A. The Vail Village Master Plan addresses the Mill Creek Court Building with sub-
area concept No. 3 -5, Mill Creek Court. The concept is as follows:
No. 3 -5 Mill Creek Court - Partial in -fill of the Mill Creek Court Building
courtyard (1 story retail) in conjunction with the development of a public
plaza and embolies to the walkway along Mill Creek. Purpose of
improvements is to strengthen pedestrian circulation in this area of the
Village."
The staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail
Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
1.2 Objective: Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of
residential and commercial facilities.
3.1 Objective: Physically improve the existing pedestrian ways by
landscaping and other improvements.
B. The Streetscape Master Plan does call for improvements along the adjacent
Mill Creek stream tract, also known as Ted Kindel Park. The plan calls for
landscaping, seating and additional lighting along Mill Creek and a general
upgrade and improvement of the stream channel through this area. Because of
the limited scope of the applicant's development proposal, the staff believes
that the applicant's desire to upgrade the existing planters adjacent to the Mill
Creek Court Building sufficiently mitigates the addition of an elevator.
0 4
C. The staff has recently been working with a group of homeowners from the area
• with regard to the overall upgrade and improvement of the Mill Creek stream
tract. Should this design move along quickly, the staff would recommend that
the applicant delay the proposed upgrades to the landscaping planters until a
final design has been completed for the area. There is a possibility that the
pedestrian walkway through the Mill Creek area may be modified slightly.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff's recommendation on the applicant's request for a minor exterior alteration is for
approval. The staff believes that this minor exterior alteration request complies with the
Design Considerations for Vail Village as well as the Streetscape Master Plan. We believe
that the proposed modifications to the landscape planters will be a positive upgrade to this
area of the Mill Creek Court property. The staff would recommend the following condition of
approval:
1. That should the relocated evergreen not survive for a period of two years from the date
of relocation, that the applicant shall replace the evergreen with a tree of a similar size
and species.
2. If the Mill Creek area is redesigned as discussed above, staff would recommend the
option of obtaining a letter of credit or cash escrow for the proposed improvements to
the landscape planters so that a coordinated design can be completed for the entire
Mill Creek area.
• Opec\kaemmer.713
• 5
•
1
\
•
•
1
1
GORE CREEK ORAVE
PROPOSED
ELEVATC^
x \
m
d
� I
I
I
HANSON RANCH ROAD
LOCATION MAP
J"I?F
Hrw
Ghl bl
V.imws 4 t� L u,+-r
,,o mx -rc.W uuir e6.VW
HI
IFF
I
u�j'a H�.�TGNKTiNb D ---- D
- Q
S0111� ���ATIo�!
1 9 () 2
Off f i p () i t
75 � 1(mtb Fj c)nt aqt: Road
Vail, CO g161-)7
R c, : B r c) w 1 -, -- '\1 j, I I C I - o e k Cc.) u Y, f R o rt I o d (, I
Dear Andy
.
T ti I -I d c - r t , I I J staff w j 11 1:) e r e-,, i I I q r.q cokwn ' s a t)lj cat j-()n
f e in od (- -I I
I -j I g t- I 11 1 J, t t n the M -i 11 Creek c" e k (-)I 1 1 1 1 d i 1-1 ( and
add i n q a I'l ox o r i c) r 01 e v a I: .
I I cam. Brown td dS, A C IA S t C) (I) e Y c) f c) t I r Ma n a (f (? m e ri i C c-, III y,)a n 1n Other
1:-)t1j I (I i rIgc.-; f oc vc-' I Is. She rej--)I -u-1sorl t -S t Vie-, ideal con(lc) c)w]-ler f c)I, Vail 1
Sho I ipqrad( and b(,au t i f i F, h o r pr (:)pet_ tie;; h i le ,11 acs i-rici
th( w in a I- (,I'll al N*i) Jl CiIII. 1j 'I co-Iii 1,-ij-mt ion
a I w a vc; Lo o
Vtiil's bed base.
'11"0, of ail adorp"IaLe aild
-�t ur -�) the t-orlI1111111-ity.
a a r ch i t.e( . - a I I u t i I b U 1 j III po r t an t t ( -
Tt w u I d be ,,- e r v i mp()r Cant ,I t. p 1, (1 c, o s s c, c)I I I d i
Rr. o w I-1 a,-Ic, I"I I: a 1-1 i_)., a d\ i > i 11 f C.; t -I If f d s o 111 e 11 t c) f t, I I
r c-) al t ',,I e P1. a ri 11 L ji q III i i c) n r4. f t c� T- v I I i r r o v li ow. f; I I w a-
-i I [I o -i s r, f t 1,.f c- o sq, o n e o(l"so ad vi .C, 111
p[.()v-0p h r wi t. 11
aft-ky- vou h,vo r(,\ iewed the projoct.
Th,ink Vcm rco- vc)m C,- �_-o) rlaI -1
p R i / 1 -1
Christiania ,at Vail
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow a preschool at the Vail
Interfaith Chapel. 19 Vail Road/Tract J, Vail Village 1st.
Applicant: Benny Clark, Vice Pres., Vail Religious Foundation /Vail
Baptist Church
Planner: Mike Mollica
xM• f.:w::::.: nv .•.:?. rr x. . .::::: v{? n.: f{. 5.,.? .........................f.:::: .. v: ...:.
..:.v v::+:.•:::.vr .. .. • }'f..•:IX?{? .i }:: }:v.:•::::: :•.•: ry +rfir: }:::: }vr :> ...........+.• ?�:v::::....... J....?:.v.}r},n {:x,•: x:: �•r. ..::x ..... ............................... ... . . •.F ::: . } } } }'• }'v }:•�i' }:•::• }i::iii:?
v:v::•v.:':: +• }Y• }. ........ :r r:..:::::::v:: • :•:.•: w::::::. } } }':: /.�f ? ?r:: ?:?.}: v}: v:. :..: :...........:...r....... r: •r ::...::.:::: ••:.ri::::::::::. }':::::::: •:::: �: +::::......: +} . ., {,
:.... y:, ... ......... %r ........... ..::.•:::: w:•::::::::::::: •.: :..........:... n..... ..::::.nvv:::, { { { {�. ?•: :::n::v. rr ...... .r. :..:.: ^::v:::::::::::rv: n::::::::::::::
....... :::: r::.•.•.: /}?::::::::.:::v. ?... .... .. .....:v :::... .....::::: fv: ?:.::::::::::: •i .:....: •:::: r:::::: r::::::::::.:::.•:::r• :x :::::::: x:rx {.v ....... f.. n.. n..........
.:..:v: r.:: xr::::::::::: v:::::::.•r.•vv:::rv:. ,.•v.f... ..... fv ::w::::: • ................r..........;; ...,.............; .; r. .... .::::.......::.:...::::..:... r. ?•} :v:: >.4:•:::::::w.
:...:.::::::.......?.{ : : :.... ?.: •:::::::::: .......::.....r }:r••::.:::: }: - :::::.....: •. • ...:::.....r . .:......:: +:: - :::.:::•:::::..•:: •r.v:...::..::. •:::::::.:.rrS, r.:.....:..:. r.£•.::•.:.•:::::...:.:?•........ ..... /.. {......................
..:::::::: •: w:::v'::i ? :�.. r.... r.. x..:......n....... :..... r. x.+ ::: v:. nf ..:. ...............r.....Y..:...... \........v.....n....... .
u::.•?.•::•:::::.:.... ri:} �'?}} isf?. ry}: {iS:fi:• }.v.•.iw:::vv:• }::.:.::. • . ?xr..vnv:.:::.: ......
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The Vail Religious Foundation is requesting a conditional use permit to operate a religious
education preschool program at the Vail Interfaith Chapel, located at 19 Vail Road. According
to the Vail Religious Foundation, the program is designed as a preschool program, and not as
a day care, which they believe is essentially an extension of their Sunday School Program.
The property on which the Vail Interfaith Chapel is located, is zoned Agricultural and Open
Space. Churches, rectories and related structures, as well as semi - public and institutional
uses, such as convents and religious retreats, are all listed as conditional uses in this zone
district. Because this preschool program is a change in use, a conditional use permit is
required.
The preschool would be located on the lower floor of the north wing of the Vail Interfaith
Chapel. This is an existing space and there are no modifications proposed to the structure.
The number of children anticipated to be enrolled in the preschool will range from 12 to 15 per
day, with a maximum of 15 children. Two instructors would run the program. The program
would run from 8:30 A.M. to 11:30 A.M., five days a week. On Monday, Wednesday and
Friday the class will be for 4 year olds. Tuesdays and Thursdays will be reserved for 3 year
olds.
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:
_r _—.._ ... .... ......... .� �.. v.�.y„uwa, u.7 " ulv'+ -VII QIGQ, QIIU
that the Chapel needs to ensure that visitors do not park in the drop -off area, in order
• 2
A. Consideration of Factors:
• 1. Relationship and Impact of the use on the development objectives of the Town.
The Community Development Department believes that the ability to provide a quality
preschool is a benefit to the citizens and guests of the Town of Vail. As stated in the
Town's Land Use Plan, Goal No. 1.1 maintains that "Vail should continue to grow in a
controlled environment, maintaining a balance between residential, commercial and
recreational uses to serve both the visitor and the permanent resident." Additionally,
the Land Use Plan states that "community services should keep pace with increased
growth" and "the Town of Vail should play a role in future development through
balancing growth with services."
It is the staff's belief that the proposed use would support the above - listed goals of the
Land Use Plan. We also believe that preschools are currently in short supply in the
Vail Valley and that the proposed preschool, being centrally located within the Town,
would provide a much needed service.
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.
It is the opinion of the Planning staff that the proposed preschool will have no impact
upon any of the above - mentioned criteria.
• 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.
The staff does have some concerns with regard to the potential traffic impacts
associated with the preschool. Assuming that the maximum number of children attend
the preschool, and assuming that each one of the children arrives via a separate
vehicle, then the maximum increase in traffic would be a total of 15 vehicles utilizing
the "drop -off" area at approximately 8:30 A.M. and then again at 11:30 A.M. The
current parking /drop off area, located immediately in front of the Chapel, is generally
viewed as a very congested area with both vehicles and pedestrians. There currently
exists 6 parking spaces in the front of the Chapel. Additionally, there is room for
approximately 3 vehicles in the "drop -off" zone. Along the north side of the Chapel
and to the rear there is a total of 27 parking spaces, 6 of which are specifically
reserved for members of the clergy. These parking spaces are used on a joint -use
basis with the adjacent First Bank. The two preschool instructors would park in this
area, and this has been agreed to by First Bank.
The concern that the staff has is not with the number of designated parking spaces for
the Chapel, but with the drop -off area. This area is not currently signed as a drop -off
area, and the staff has noted vehicles utilizing this area as parking spaces. We
believe that this drop -off zone needs to be clearly designated as a drop -off area, and
that the Chapel needs to ensure that visitors do not park in the drop -off area, in order
• 2
to improve traffic circulation.
• The Vail Religious Foundation has modified some of the meeting times of other groups
utilizing the Chapel so that there will be no overlap with the preschool schedule. On
Tuesdays and Thursdays, an Alcoholics Anonymous group meets from 6:45 to 7:45
A.M. The size of this group is approximately 10 to 12 people. On Monday,
Wednesday and Friday, a larger Alcoholics Anonymous meeting of approximately 30
people, would meet at 12:30 P.M. These meeting times have been modified to
accommodate the proposed preschool hours.
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's only concern with regard to the proposed preschool, and its potential affect
upon the character of the area, is with reference to traffic congestion as indicated in
Criteria #3 above. Since there will be no modifications to the existing building to
accommodate the preschool, the staff believes that the proposal will have no affect
upon the above criteria.
B. Findings
The Plannina and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
1. That the proposed location of the use in accord with the purposes of the conditional
• use permit section of the zoning code 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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of the
conditional use permit section of the zoning code.
III. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff recommends approval of the applicant's request for a conditional use permit to
operate a preschool out of the Vail Interfaith Chapel. We believe that the proposed use would
provide a benefit to the community. Because the staff has some concerns with regard to
safety and traffic congestion along Vail Road, we would recommend the following conditions
of approval:
1. That the drop -off area be clearly identified (i.e., signs) and the pavement striped
accordingly. A minimum of 3 drop -off spaces shall be provided.
2. That this approval shall be valid for a period of 1 year only. This will allow the
K3
staff the opportunity to review the traff ic/parking concerns and to re- evaluate the
• conditional use permit after a year of operation.
Please note that, under Section 18.60.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently
pursued to completion, or if the use for which the permit is granted is not commenced within
two years.
C'MghDAflb409gNTEWArrH.7113
0 4
I�B
*OF VAIL
•
Mike Mollita
Town of Vail
Community Development
Dear Mr. Mollic.a:
• •
17 VAIL ROAD VAIL, COLORADO 81657 303.476 -5686
June 18, 1992
Our bank was recently approached by Glenda Wentworth and Tanya Summerville
regarding their proposal for a weekday preschool program at the Vail
Interfaith Chapel. Obviously, parking is a major issue in light of the level
of activity at both the chapel and FirstBank of Vail.
We feel comfortable that we can adapt to the increased car traffic as long as
parents are dropping off and picking up their children in front of the church.
I understand that there will be a maximum of 15 children attending school on a
daily (Monday through Friday) basis.
Bank traffic and church - sponsored groups (including Alcoholics Anonymous,
etc.) would make drop -off and pick -up at the back entrance of the church
prohibitive.
Glenda and Tanya also mentioned their desire to construct a fence around the
lawn west of the chapel, and we have no objection to that improvement.
If you have any questions, please contact me.
KPM /wc
Sincerely,
Kevin P. McDonald
Senior Vice President
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A notification of a staff approval for a minor amendment to SDD #25, Days
Inn, to allow for changes to the east and north elevations of the 7- Eleven"
Building or Chamonix Corners at 2271 North Frontage Road/Tract C, Collins -
Wirth Subdivision.
Applicant: Jim Wilson/Peter Jacobs
Planner: Shelly Mello
DESCRIPTION OF THE REOUEST
Jim Wilson and Peter Jacobs, tenant and owner of the "7- Eleven" Building in SDD #25, Days
• Inn, have requested a minor amendment to the existing Special Development District No. 25
which was approved in Ordinance #18, Series of 1991. The minor amendment is requested
pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100 - Amendment Procedures, which provides for minor
modifications which are consistent with the design criteria outlined in the SDD section of the
zoning code. The Town zoning code defines "Minor Amendment" as meaning:
"[M]odifications to building plans, site or landscape plans that do not alter the
basic intent or character of the approved Special Development District, and are
consistent with the design criteria of the SDD chapter. Minor amendments
may include, but are not limited to, variations of not more than five feet to
approved setbacks and/or building footprints; changes to landscape or site plans
that do not adversely impact pedestrian or vehicular circulation throughout the
special development district; or changes to gross floor area (excluding
residential uses) of not more than 5% of the approved square footage of retail,
office, common areas and other non - residential floor area."
The minor amendment requested is to allow for an additional deck and entry on the north and
east elevations to provide access to the Finishing Touch to be located on the second floor of
the building (as viewed from the south). A ramp will be added to the north elevation of the
building to provide disabled access. A deck (from grade to the second level, on the east
elevation of the building) will also be added to provide additional access to the building.
0
w
f
There will be no loss of landscaping as a result of the addition of these decks. Please see
• the attached drawing.
II. STAFF DECISION
Staff has reviewed the applicant's request and has approved the minor amendment to SDD
No. 6, pursuant to Chapter 18.40.100(A). The staff has found that the proposed modifications
to the project would not alter the basic intent or character of the approved Special
Development District, and that the proposed modifications are consistent with the design
criteria of the SDD chapter.
The Council and applicant agreed to a condition of approval for the SDD which states:
Section 4 (F): Chamonix Corners Shopping Center ( Shoppette Building).
"The applicant or his successor in interest shall expend not less than $90,000.00 by
September 30, 1996 to upgrade the exterior of the Shoppette Building. On July 1st
and December 1st of each year, applicant or his successor in interest shall provide the
Director of Community Development Department with a written summary describing
any work which may have been performed during said period, and evidence such
funds have been expended. If, prior to September 30, 1996, the Director of
Community Development Department has determined the applicant or his successor in
interest has expended a minimum of $90,000.00 for said exterior improvements, the
Director of Community Development Department shall provide the applicant or his
• successor in interest with a written statement to this effect and the applicant or his
successor in interest shall then be released from the obligations asset forth in this
paragraph."
The minor amendment is not considered to be part of the upgrade requirement as described
above.
Ope6memosMinishing touch.713
0 2
I-;-
?i
. r�
� 0
� Ojl•OY I b7�•o�l C�2hr.�) i
-PLAN NORTH
FLOOR PLAN -
owNlNv � I�r
� -1 I
---
EAST ELEVATION
Imo.
NORTH ELEVATION
11,'ou
I ti r'pD({aLIS���
— AWHN Hcv
. - .60;"
0
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM: A request for a variance from the minimum buildable lot
area for part of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing/
2388 Garmisch Drive.
Applicant: Jeff Hanson
Planner: Shelly Mello
The applicant is requesting a minor subdivision and variance in order to combine the eastern
portion of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone #2. The staff recommends approval of
both requests with a condition that access easements for the existing access to adjacent lots
across the proposed lot be established and recorded with the minor subdivision. The staff
and applicant have agreed to this condition in order to 1) address the existing encumbrances
on the lot and 2) to formalize an existing agreement between the applicant and the owners of
• Lot 10 which addresses the rights of the property owners to access drives.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a variance from the minimum buildable lot area for part of
Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G, Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing/ 2388 Garmisch
Drive.
Applicant: Jeff Hanson
Planner: Shelly Mello
DESCRIPTION OF REQUEST.
The applicant, owner of Part of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Das Schone #2, is requesting a
a variance from the minimum buildable lot area in order to combine part of Lot 8 and 9 into a
primary/secondary lot. A variance from the buildable lot area is necessary to complete a
• minor subdivision for this lot because the proposed lot does not meet the minimum buildable
area of 15,000 sq. ft. Buildable area means "any site, lot, parcel or any portion thereof which
does not contain designated floodplain, red hazard avalanche area, or areas in excess of 40%
slope." (As per Section 18.04.045 of the Town Municipal Code.) The buildable area of the
proposed lot is 12,562 sq. ft. Please see the attached site plan.
BACKGROUND
A variance was granted by Eagle County in 1974 which allowed for a subdivision of Lot 8 into
2 lots (an east and west parcel). A 4 -plex exists on the western portion of Lot 8 and Lot 7
and the eastern portion of Lot 8 is vacant. Lot 9 is also vacant.
The combined buildable lot size for the eastern part of Lot 8 and Lot 9 is 12,562 square feet,
while the total lot size is 21,562 square feet. The eastern part of Lot 8 and Lot 9 as they
exist, are legal lots with less than 15,000 square feet total lot size. Under current zoning, part
of Lot 8 would be allowed a primary unit with a restricted secondary employee unit. Lot 9
would also be allowed a primary unit with a restricted secondary employee unit.
Access to the western part of Lot 8, Lot 7 and 10 cross the eastern part of Lot 8 and Lot 9.
There are no platted easements for either access.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
• Eastern Existing
Part of Lot B Lot 9 Proposed
Zoning: P/S P/S P/S
Lot area: 7,881 13,611 21,492
Buildable lot size: * ** * ** 12,562
Allowable Density: 1 unit with Same as 2 free
restricted Lot 8 market units
emp. unit
*Allowable GRFA: 1970 sq. ft. 3402 sq. ft. 4399 sq. ft.
* *Allowable Site Coverage: 20%-1576 20%-2722 20%-4298
15%-1182 15%-2041 15%-3223
* Allowable credits are not included in this figure.
** Site Coverage may be restricted to 15% of the total lot size, if the average slope below
the proposed residence and parking area is greater than 30% as per Section
18.69.050 of the Municipal Code.
* ** Information on the buildable lot size for the east part of Lot 8 and Lot 9 was not
analyzed. The buildable area for the proposed lot is less than 15,000 sq. ft. and,
• therefore, the individual lots would not meet the minimum buildable lot area.
IV. 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
variance based on 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 surrounding area is zoned Primary/Secondary Residential. The adjacent
properties are a mixture of multi - family structures to the east, west and south
and 2- family homes to the north. The proposal is compatible with the
surrounding uses.
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.
• 2
As these two properties exist, two units could possibly be sited on the eastern
. part of Lot 8 and two units could be sited on Lot 9. By completing the minor
subdivision and creating a single lot, the lot would be more in conformance with
the subdivision regulations (frontage and site dimensions), however, it would
remain non - conforming in regard to the buildable lot area.
In reviewing this request, the staff analyzed the possible pre- existing conditions
of the site prior to the installation of the driveway which crosses the site access
to Lot 10. As it exists, there are slopes greater than 40% to the north and
south of the road cut, which appear to be the result of the road cut. An
estimate of the average slope through this area, including the roadway appears
to be approximately 37 %. Based on this research, the staff concludes that prior
to the installation of the driveway the lot would have most likely met the
buildable lot area of 15,000 square feet. The staff believes that relief is from
the standard of buildable area is appropriate and would not be a grant of
special privilege based on the following reasons:
1. The man made disturbances create areas where the slope
exceeds 40 %. Without these disturbances, the staff concludes
that the lot would meet the buildable area requirement.
2. The two existing lots do not meet the standards for buildable
area although the proposed lot does not meet the buildable lot
size, it will be more in conformance than the existing situation.
• 3. The new lot will meet all other lot configuration standards.
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.
If the two access points are to remain, the staff would require that private
access easements across the proposed lot for the use of Lots 7, the western
part of Lot 8 and Lot 10 be established prior to the Town recording the minor
subdivision plat. The driveways to Lots 7, 8 and 10, across the proposed lot,
would need to meet the Town's standards.
Iy ,
.1
V^ I
• � 1
is
The granting of this variance will not effect any of the remaining above criteria.
B. The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings
before granting a variance:
That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified in
the same district.
2. 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.
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the following reasons:
a. 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.
b. 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.
C. 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 recommends approval of the variance with two conditions: 1) That an access
easement, which meets Town of Vail standards, be platted across the proposed lot for the
owners of Lot 10 prior to the recording of the minor subdivision plat. 2) An additional access
easement will also be platted for the access which crosses the proposed lot to the western
part of Lot 8 and Lot 7. Both easements shall be indicated as private access easements on
the minor subdivision plat.
The staff finds that the strict and literal enforcement of this regulation would result in practical
difficulty or unnecessary physical hardship as described on Page 5 of the memo under
Criterion 2. The granting of the variance is based on the finding in Section 10 (B) (1,2,3 b and
c) of this memo.
Please note that, under Section 18.62.080 of the Town of Vail Zoning Code, the approval shall
lapse if construction is not commenced within two years of the date of issuance and diligently
pursued to completion.
CAPEMMEMOSWAILDASS.713
0 4
• MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a minor subdivision for part of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block G,
Vail Das Schone 2nd Filing/ 2388 Garmisch Drive.
Applicant: Jeff Hanson
Planner: Shelly Mello
-•:: •- rr. v:: -::: • xr .;: • ::: x r r .. ..; %:: j'r..: v.M1 .' �i +,. +: +:8. r,., + +.;:,:.; ' 'rr r...,.. .µr+ f:�`.rr.
.r %r:-- %+rr,.::><•?h•. �}�z:f' } +••`t %• ... f? �C ,C.o }.<;?.. },,+.f.::rr,.!:;•.:r •:::t } }. `: yi'? �;? K�,' G..::•::•':: r.. �• a} r .;�'+,::t, }} },rr.,C:t'.'•.'•�'} : }.... ... }..G•: }:f�:.f•.:...,i:;..;:r.
•• v.•,t•,.•.•,.� t.} ca�frss� r.,�+�if;:l,:��•..�.},r; .,r: }:: `k�:,.,. :;,::sy�.. : r5�'�°a.,r.,i'�;.,.::xs.,. r::rrf ;.:: •;.:::: }. :r:::.::Sv:r u/ fi. t�::: :r :r,:,•r %f }r :rpr,�.,.�.,.�.. }: :r.. :..t...;u,: }::
. Li :•y:•:u.... �.:.r:Cu \:•..:.::..: {'f f'�ff F•i'i':f..v::::::.•.+•: ;•iifY: j {iif �:.; r:�•f%% r :• /..:f•:.:.. ffrf.•:.:. r..r r:•:.:.:. :.:r. �r •::: <:i' {,:::;;,•. }:i r.cr. .
:•• } } /.•::: �...: :.•".hr.!,.: • r: ••::::•`.•%:..¢• rr �'•:<::}}: 7'?> :.,.• :.•.+•f %:::•::::r:::::.�., :•:;3•: •:: •Jr:::r•v !/: •::: /. {•: •::::: Y::• } }:•::• }: ::+ .:%::::r:r /:•rrrr f�::::::r• :l.•..: ::
. ta:,;:.•.•:•... w.:•. a}x•�}}}:.•:::,.,• {,.?::..•:x•. t:::::.;!;: r::..:•}:•:}:•:::. : }:•::: }:• }:r...lr;;.::.:.:.•:: • ::.: : { {,. /r.:•::::..r•:•::::.:: r t... r:: tr::•}: ,:,rrrir•::xii:::•r/ /,..,.:::r• rtr::::::,.r.:. }.;...
/• },,.. %....r. } }.....: f: r / r� � rra.:: r. :.• }: +: r
3' �•• r' �r.'. e•. �: �}} x:. w}} } } } };}::. :r. :.n :r�..•e+:�r /rrr: •:...:: •.::r..: fir% ra: r::: r::•}:•} rrr: rrrf}};;; wr/:: ca::/ rr%//.% r/ r%% fr:•::••.}:<•}:•}:•}:•'•:•} r: r• rrl li�rfrr. +.:ce }:<::• }rr>rrY. ::w;. }rf..., :•:rfr r�+lnc +.:• }:• }rrrrrfr�r�rf
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant, owner of Part of Lot 8 and Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Das Schone #2, is requesting a
minor subdivision in order to combine part of Lot 8 and 9 into a single lot. The approval of a
variance from the buildable lot area will also be necessary in order to complete this minor
subdivision. The eastern portion of Lot 8, in question and Lot 9 are currently vacant.
• A variance was granted by Eagle County in 1974 which allowed for a subdivision of Lot 8 into
2 lots (an east and west parcel). Attached please find a copy of a letter from Eagle County
which discusses the County's understanding of the subdivision of Lot 8. It is their finding that
a variance was granted for the subdivision of Lot 8, however they are unable to comment on
the purpose of action. A 4 -plex exists on the western portion of Lot 8 and Lot 7. The
applicant's proposal is to combine the eastern portion of Lot 8 and Lot 9 and create a single
primary/secondary lot. Please see the attached site plan.
Lot 8 and 9 are located within the Primary/Secondary Residential zone district. Portions of Lot
8 and 9 are encumbered with the following geologically sensitive designations:
• 40% slopes
• Medium severity rockfall
II. ZONING ANALYSIS
Existing east Existing
part of Lot 8 Lot 9 Proposed
Zoning P/S P/S P/S
Lot Area: 7,881 13,611 21,492
•
•
•
•
Buildable Lot Area: N /A * **
Allowable Density: 1 unit with
restricted
emp. unit
*Allowable GRFA: 1970 sq. ft.
* *Allowable Site 20%-1,576
Coverage: 15%-1,182
Allowable credits are not included in this figure.
N /A * **
Same as
part of
Lot 8
3402 sq.ft.
12,562
2 free
market
units
4399 sq.ft.
20% - 2,722 20% - 4,298
15% - 2,041 15% - 3,223
** Site coverage may be restricted to 15% if the average slope below the proposed
residence and parking area is greater than 30% as per Section 18.69.050 of the
Municipal Code.
* ** Information on the buildable lot size for the east part of Lot 8 and Lot 9 was not
analyzed. The buildable area for the proposed lot is less than 15,000 sq. ft. and
therefore, the individual lots would not meet the minimum buildable lot area.
III. MINOR SUBDIVISION REVIEW CRITERIA
A. Lot Area
Chapter 18.13.050 of the Town's Municipal Code requires that the minimum lot
or site area for a property located within the Primary/Secondary Residential
zone district be 15,000 square feet of buildable site area. As indicated in
Section II of this staff memorandum, the zoning analysis, the proposed lot does
not meet the required minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet of buildable lot
area. The approval of a variance from the buildable lot area is required to allow
the minor subdivision.
B. Frontage
Chapter 18.13.050 of the Vail Municipal Code requires that each lot have a
minimum frontage of 30 feet. The applicant's proposed minor subdivision
meets this requirement.
C. Site Dimensions
Chapter 18.13.050 of the Municipal Code requires that each site shall be of size
and shape capable of enclosing a square are 80 feet on each side within its
boundaries. The configuration of the proposed lot is of a size and shape that
the proposal can meet the 80 feet square area regulation .
D. Other Related Issues - Employee Housing
• In reviewing this application, the staff considered requiring allowing an
employee unit with a free market unit for the proposed lot. We felt that it was
unreasonable to require this because the applicant was taking two lots with two
free market units and two restricted units , and creating one developable lot
with two free market units which results in better planning.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommendation for the proposed minor subdivision request is for approval with the
following conditions:
1. A variance from the buildable lot size be approved by the Planning and Environmental
Commission.
2. If the access to Lot 10 (adjacent lot to the east) the proposed lot is to remain, an
access easement, which meets the Town of Vail standards, must be recorded prior to
the recording of the minor subdivision plat. Currently Lot 10 has a minimum of 9
parking spaces off of Garmisch Drive .
3. An additional access easement will also be required for the portion of access which
crosses the eastern portion of Lot 8, to the remainder of Lot 8 and Lot 7.
•
CAPEMMEMMHANSON.713
f 1
I• J
10
2417 15 16 Ij 1E
13 14 407 2397 2317
10 7 2427
43
2447 I I 1L
9. 445
2457 2418 wc-
2 8 6 2 10 -11
2487 7 455 OQ` 24 2428 G 2 7
4
5 6 46 � � Ig 14 13 34
1 3 4 7 475 467 QQ� 3 l7 6 3
2 35 12 11c
97 2 247 45 18 99 3 f
1 19 409 N`y` LAN
26 V 28 246 20 GNk
488 2478 2476 21 41 t
j 244 24 23 2 2' 4 TRACT D
49) 2439 2437 i
N7 450 4 9 10 11 43 WENDY ' S 2313
24 434 2399 TRACT
B1
• TEXACO_
7
3
WAMONIX RD.
CHAMONC �
2293 -CORNERS
TRACT 1T�ACT C
PHILLIPS
C)WET V11L
FXIT
•
41
O
Q
m
�j
r�
r-
� �1
J
i
'u
r�
r-
� �1
J
SENT BY -EAGLE COUNTY
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENt
rSPAR I'MLN I
(30:1) 328-0730
; 6 -16 -92 ; 14:24 ;
3033
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
March 16, 1992
Ms. Shelly Mellow
Town of Vail Community Development
75 S. Frontage Rd.
Vail, Colorado 81657
3034792157;# 1/ 1
REVD J W4 1 61992
500 BROADWAY
P.0 -BOX 179
EAGLE. COLORADO 8 163 I
W (303) 328.7207
RE: The Subdivision of Lots 7 & 8, Block G, Vail Das Shone 12
Dear Shelly,
At the request of Mr. Jeff Hansen, I have reviewed with staff and
the County Attorney's Office the plat of the Alpen Chalets
Duplex, recorded March 11, 1974 in book 233, on page 706.
It is the opinion of the County staff that, while the plat is not
• complete to today,s standards, the intent of the plat was to
further subdivide Lots 7 & 8, Block G, Vail Das Shone #2. It
appears that an east parcel, a west parcel, and remainder lot 8
were created.
If you have any questions do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely, -
Tom Allender
Eagle County Community Development
cc. file
'.PA
L-A
d -- /d 7a-
Post -It' brand fax transmittal memo 76T1 �t of papea .
i'o FF. L- 9 /r G� ., I��M• sr 3 Lg e-1 y'y -7457
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: Appeal of a staff interpretation of Section 18.58.300 - Setback From
Watercourse, of the Town of Vail Municipal Code.
Appellant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Jill Kammerer
The applicant is appealing the staff's decision on the method used to determine the center of
an established creek or stream channel. Section 18.58.300- Setback From Watercourse,
reads as follows:
"Minimum setback from a creek or stream shall be not less than 30 feet from the
center of the established creek or stream channel as defined by the Town
Comprehensive Base Maps, provided, however, that the setback from Gore Creek
shall be 50 feet. Natural creek or stream channels may not be rechanneled or
changed." (Emphasis added by staff.)
Please note the Town Comprehensive Base Maps identify what is considered an "established
creek or stream ".
In determining the required setback from a watercourse, the Community Development
Department staff measures the setback from the center of the creek. The staff has contacted
four local surveying companies (inter- Mountain, Eagle Valley, Alpine and Johnson & Kunkel)
and has confirmed that the surveyors all measure the center of a creek the same way as the
Town staff. The surveyors determine the width of the channel or stream's water surface edge
to edge and divide this distance in half to establish the center from which the required 30 -foot
or 50 -foot setback is measured. This method of establishing the center of the stream course
is in conformance with the primary definition of channel as set forth in Webster's II New
Riverside University Dictionary.
Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary defines channel as follows:
"1. A stream or riverbed.
2. The deeper part of a river or harbor, especially a deep navigable passage."
The appellant, Bob Kandell, believes the staff should apply the second definition as set forth
in Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary in determining the point from which a 30-
foot or 50 -foot setback is measured. Given the applicant's position, the point from which the
required 30 -foot or 50 -foot setback is measured would be the center of the deepest part of the
is creek or stream. Please see the attached sketch indicating the two concepts.
Staff believes it is appropriate to use the method currently used by the Community
Development Department which relies on the first definition. Using the deepest portion of the
stream bed does not appear to be the fairest way to establish the center of the stream
channel. For example, if a property owner happened to be adjacent to the deepest area of
the stream bed, using the applicant's rationale, the setback requirement would be more
restrictive for his /her property. It is the staff's opinion that the current approach provides a
more equitable method for determining the stream center, and this method has been
consistently utilized by the staff in the review of previous development applications.
CAPEOMEMOSWANDELL 713
•
0 2
•
0
5D
501 .1
A,
A
•
n
u
0
7 /glq2
/. 6-67:t dam- 14
1-,�4,e .b o.e — 4'--7--e ,
01k o x 1 ��
July 12, 1992
Planning and Environmental Commission
The Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Subject: PEC meeting, July 13, 1992, in reference to an appeal
by Bob Kandell.
A memorandum from Community Development to PEC dated July 13,
1992, addresses the reasoning for the appeal.
We do not feel that Gore
imagination, meet any of
or harbor, especially on
Creek is refered to as a
river or harbor. In our
Colorado River. Neither
would be considered as a
Creek, could under any stretch of the
the criteria for being called a river
with a deep navigible passage. Gore
mountain stream not as a mountain
area we have the Eagle River and the
of these, at least in Eagle County,
deep navigible passage.
It, therefore, seems that the correct definition for Gore Creek
would be the first definition refered to in the memorandum.
• This definition, as stated by the staff of CDD, is the fairest
way to establish the center of the stream channel. We do feel
an established procedure which has met the test of consistency
and equitabiiity should not be changed to accomodate individual
requests.
Perhaps, if the established procedures for obtaining a building
permit had been followed, prior to erecting this deck, an
appeal would have been unnecessary. We see no reason to
grant special privileges to anyone who would circumvent the
prescribed methods of operation.
Sincer�Ion;4'
(,L
Harriet & Bob Me Cue
4269 Nugget Lane
Vail, Co 81657
•
T(:��'
•
n
Rot��rt W i 11-�e 1m.
4289B Nugget Lane
Vail Colorado 81657
(303) 476 -1783
July 12, 1992
Planning and Environment Committee
The Town of Vail
75 S. Frontage Road
Vail, Colorado 81657
Subject: Mondav, . July 13), 1992 PEC Meeting regarding Bob
Kandeli's appeal
Dear Co,ii?P_t-U-e Members,
It is my unde-rstandinj�_- that the appellant in ad.dinQ a deck to the
rear cf his property did so outside of the Variance and DRB
process. This process is in existence to allow the neighborhood
to review a project`., plans and express any concerns. There are
concerns from the appellant's immediate neighbors and they were
not given that opportunity to voice those concerns.
It is also my understanding that the philosophy of the PEC and
DRB is such that significant and justifiable criticisms of a
remodeling plan from immediate neighbors would prompt a
disapproval from the respective committee. Since the process was
not followed, it seems to me that redefining the: center of the
creek for the appellant would only endorse his bypassing the
system. Using the "deeper part of the creek" definition would
put the rear setback for my property much closer than it is
currently defined since the deeper part appears to be very close
to the south bank of the creek at the rear of my property and
tarould therefore create a restriction to me at my residence.
For these two reasons i support the staff in their recommendation
to maintain the existing definition, one that is fair to
homeowners all along the Creek.
• Sing, lob Kandell understandable wants to improve his property by
adding a deck to the rear of his home, he should submit a
variance request because of the side setback considerations from
both neighbors (east and west) and because of the rear setback
considerations (center of Gore Creek). Having approval with this
step, he should submit a DRB approval application for his design.
Having approval with this step, he could then keep his newly
created deck or make the necessary changes as outlined by the
DRB.
•
•
Copy to:
Jill Kammerer, TGV
Bob and Harriet McQue
Bob Kandell
Sinc ely
Robert M. Wilhelm
MEMORANDUM
is TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 13, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to modify the landscaping plan associated with the previously
approved exterior alteration proposal for the Slifer Building, 230 Bridge
Street/Part of Lots B and C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Rod and Beth Slifer
............. ........Planner:............... Jill.. Kammerer...,:,....:..:...:.:..,.::.:..:::::......:..:.:.. .,::.:..,... : ::::.. :...::..::., .:..:..:.> ..,...:::.::..>
::•f. ivfi:::::::::: {.iiii::iii:iv` viii iiii�'+
4:F +: 3:•: :i }$iiii:•iii.:•::•i:•iii: i ii % ::4i:•i:4:::biX < {'ii:•i::: }Y;»
::.ii: i:• +:•: n: v:::: v::fi iii:} Y:: :::::.:'b::..w:::,;.;. }i::::i:: try::. isi4:• i::• 6:{:: ii:::. i:.::. i:: 4iiiiiiirvi :::::.• } :::::::::...:::: ...
.. ....: :•...........::.. �::::::::. vm:;::. .»::n:�.::::::::fii';::�:•}:•r? iii::::::: r:::i;ii:• iiii rr i' isiiii ::::::::::' ?'i.::: }S:•i::i i::i$: is i::':: iii: iii: :ii: {:i::ii:•iiiiiiii;::•: ii: iii::•i.
...... r ..... ...:........ ...... . .............. .:..... ....... .:.......... r.. r. ..... ...... ...... _ ».iii: i::i {::::.: •:::: ' y:::: ::::::.:::::::::.�::::::::::.:� :4:::::; • w:•:.•:.yii �'ii:
........... r...: ................. .... .... ...... ....... ......................... ............................... ........•:: r...:... ....::: il.: w:::::: »v: ::.; ....... :.......::.....::..:..i.:�.�::i iii:4...::::.....:
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
On February 24, 1992, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved an exterior alteration
and a site coverage variance request for the Slifer Building. Construction on this project is now
substantially completed. At this time, the applicant is requesting the PEC approve a modification to
the approved landscaping plan. Specifically, the applicant proposes to delete a portion of the brick
pavers, which wrap around a planter to connect it to a drain inlet, and to delete an 18 -inch tall stone -
faced planter, which was proposed to be constructed immediately south of the addition's entrance
door. The planting area in this planter was to be 8 square feet.
•As a part of the redevelopment proposal, the applicants removed an existing Norway Maple from their
property and installed the approved Town of Vail Streetscape Master Plan paving on a portion of the
property which they own adjacent to the building. In addition to installing the pavers, the applicants
constructed an 18 -inch tall, stone -faced planter in the area between the addition and the Ore House's
exterior dining deck wall. The net planting area in this planter is 39 square feet. A flowering
crabapple and low growing junipers have has been installed in this planter.
In constructing the addition, the applicants have installed a window which extends almost to the
ground on the north elevation of the bay window addition. If the PEC requires the applicant to
conform with the originally approved plan, this window will need to be removed and the area where
the window was located will need to be infilled before construction of the planter could occur.
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
We believe the applicant has constructed a very positive addition which benefits the Village.
However, staff still believes the installation of the previously approved 18 -inch tall, stone -faced planter
in this area is the preferred design solution. However, if the Planning and Environmental Commission
approves the landscape plan modification per the applicant's request, staff would recommend the
following condition of approval:
1. The applicant shall provide a minimum of two flower pots during the summer in conjunction
with this approval. The pots in which the plants will be located shall be a minimum of 2 to 3
foot in diameter /square and approximately 3 feet in height. (The applicant has already
complied with this comment. Staff would like to insure that the planters are placed outside the
. doorway each summer.)
-w
0 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
June 22, 1992
Present
Staff
Greg Amsden
Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen
Jill Kammerer
Chuck Crist
Shelly Mello
Diana Donovan
Mike Mollica
Dalton Williams
Tim Devlin
Gena Whitten
Mary Caster
Absent
Kathy Langenwalter
The meeting was called to order at 1:35 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
Worksession
Worksession to discuss the feasibility of creating an Environmental
Board in the Town of Vail.
Presenter: Susan Scanlan
• Susan gave a presentation to the PEC about the research on environmental
commissions, specifically the Telluride Environmental Commission. Comments were
made by the Council. Diana Donovan felt that there were enough boards at the
present time and it would be difficult to find interested persons in the area to serve.
Dalton Williams stated he felt such a board would be another "hoop to go through ", but
felt there were interested people in town that would apply for the commission. It was
felt that a voluntary board would be beneficial to the new Environmental Policies
Officer, Russell Forest, who will be joining the Community Development Department on
August 10th. It was felt by the Commission that this board would best be served by a
county-wide commission. The PEC thanked Susan for her research on this issue.
The Public Hearing portion of this meeting was then opened by Chairperson Donovan.
Chairperson Diana Donovan introduced the new PEC member, Jeff Bowen, and welcomed
him to the Board.
2. A request to extend for 2 years the September 9, 1991 front setback variance approval
for the Krediet residence located at 224 Forest Road, Lot 11-A, Block 7, Vail Village
First Filing.
Applicant: John Krediet
Planner: Jill Kammerer
9 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting, June 22, 1992
.-A
•
Jill reviewed the request with the Commission, stating that this was merely a request
for a 2 -year extension to the variance previously approved by the Planning and
Environmental Commission. After some discussion, Dalton Williams made a motion to
approve the variance request extension and Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.
3. A request to extend for 2 years the June 10, 1991 site coverage variance approval for
the Stanley residence located at 1816 Sunburst Drive, Lot 1, Vail Valley 3rd Filing, a
Resubdivision of part of Sunburst.
Applicant: Jack Stanley
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill reviewed this request for the Commission, stating the request was for a two -year
extension to a site coverage variance as previously approved by the Planing and
Environmental Commission. As there were no changes to the request, Chuck Crist
made a motion to approve the request and Jeff Bowen seconded the motion. A vote
was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.
As the applicant was not yet present for item # 4 on the agenda it was agreed to move
to Item #6 on the agenda.
4. A request for setback variances for the Grubbs Residence, 1031 Eagle's Nest
Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village 8th Filing.
Applicant: G &S Partnership
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill reviewed this request for the Commission, explaining that the setback variance was
being requested in order to allow the construction of a sloping roof within the rear, east
and west setback. This was the only change being proposed by the applicant. The
staff stated that a hardship did exist in this case due to the small lot size. Secondly,
when the residence was originally constructed, it was built in the setbacks. After
some discussion a motion was made by Dalton Williams to approve this request and
Greg Amsden seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6 -0.
5. A request for a conditional use permit for a bed and breakfast located in the
primary/secondary zone district at 4768 Meadow Drive, Lot 1, Block 7, Bighorn
Subdivision 5th Addition.
Applicant: Wolfram Klawiter
Planner: Shelly Mello
The Commission felt the owner should be required to place a sign on the property
indicating which front door was to be used for the bed and breakfast and that there
should also be mention of the avalanche hazard on the sign. A concern was raised as
ItPlanning and Envlronmenial Commission Meetlng, June 22, 1992
2
V`
• to the applicant being able to use additional space for the bed and breakfast other than
that which had been approved. Kristan Pritz stated that the whole bed and breakfast
issue was on an honor system and hoped that the applicant would abide by these
rules. Shelly stated that all adjacent property owners had been notified of this request
and there was no opposition. Chuck Crist then made a motion to approve the request
and Gena Whitten seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 6 -0.
6. The next item to be discussed was #7 on the agenda, a request to amend Chapter
18.71 - Additional Gross Residential Floor Area, of the Municipal Code relating to
Employee Housing Units.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner, reviewed the request with the Commission. Greg
Amsden asked if passing this request would allow an applicant to add a third unit to
their property. Jill stated under the previously endorsed affordable housing ordinance
code amendments this was possible, depending on the size of the lot.
Primary/secondary and two family lots under 15,000 sq. ft. would still only be allowed a
maximum of 2 units while similarly zoned lots greater than 15,000 sq. ft. in size would
be allowed to construct an EHU (a third unit). However, the code amendment under
consideration today related only to the "250" chapter of the code. The staff felt that
• this code amendment would be effective in providing employee housing. Greg also
stated he was concerned with the impacts an increase in traffic and parking would
have on the neighborhoods if density is allowed to increase throughout the
neighborhood.
There was discussion relating to the enforcement of this request, including the
possibility of short terming these units. The staff stated that only Type 1 employee
housing units could be sold. After further discussion, Chuck Crist made a motion to
recommend to Town Council to amend Chapter 18.71 of the Town of Vail Municipal
Code per the staff's memo relating to the 250 ordinance and Dalton Williams seconded
the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed 5 -1, Greg Amsden voting
opposed. Kristan Pritz asked Greg to state his reason for opposing and he stated that
he was concerned with the impacts increased density could have on the neighborhood.
Greg Amsden felt that the Town would not be able to keep up with the problem.
Diana Donovan then stated that the PEC needed to go into Executive Session with
Town Attorney Larry Eskwith to discussion legal issues. Dalton Williams made a
motion to adjourn the meeting and Greg Amsden seconded the motion. A vote was
taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.
The Planning and Environmental Commission meeting was recalled to order by
Chairperson Diana Donovan after the Executive Session.
• Planning and Envlronmenial Commission Meetlng, June 22, 1992
K
is
0 7. The next item reviewed by the PEC was Item #3 on the agenda, a request for a minor
subdivision for Lot 5, Block 2, Bighorn First, 3916 Lupine Drive.
Applicant: Marty Abel, President of Sable Lupine Partners,
Ltd.
Planner: Mike Mollica
Mike Mollica reviewed the request with the Commission, stating that the applicant is
proposing to reduce the GRFA on the property, which is zoned duplex. The applicant
is proposing one single family dwelling with an optional caretaker unit. The applicant,
Marty Abel, stated he felt if the project was built -out using the allowable GRFA it would
be an excessive amount of building for the lot. After some discussion, Greg Amsden
made a motion to approve the request per the staff memo. Chuck Crist seconded the
motion. The Commission had several questions regarding the geologic hazards. Diana
Donovan asked Greg if he cared to amend his motion to exclude the optional caretaker
units. It was suggested by Kristan Pritz that the Commission be polled to see how the
vote might go. The Commission's response was that 4 Commissioners would not vote
for the option of a caretaker unit and 2 members would consider the option. After
further discussion, Greg Amsden withdrew his original motion and made a second
motion to approve the minor subdivision, per the staff, memo, excluding the optional
caretaker units. Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously, 6 -0. Kristan Pritz stated that this approval will be written on the
plat for future reference.
• 8. The next item on the agenda was a request for a minor subdivision for Lot 4, Ridge at
Vail, 1452 Ridge Lane.
Applicant: Frank McKibben
Planner: Jill Kammerer
Jill Kammerer, Senior Planner, reviewed the proposed building envelope location
modification with the Commission, stating the staff recommended approval. Under the
request a cap would be placed on the building height and several trees on the site
would be saved which would have been lost if the existing building envelope were to
be maintained. Kristan Pritz stated that height restrictions would be recorded on the
plat. The staff further recommended the applicant record a driveway /garage access
envelope on the plat. In attendance were the applicant, Frank McKibben, and the
architect, Duane Piper. After some discussion, Greg Amsden made a motion to
approve the request subject to the following conditions:
1. Within the southern 20 feet of the proposed building envelope, the roof and
structure shall not exceed an elevation of 8503 feet.
2. On the balance of the site (north portion of the site), the maximum building
height shall not exceed 30 feet from existing or proposed grade, whichever is
more restrictive.
Planning and Environmental Commission Meetlng, June 22, 1992
4
0 1 A driveway /garage access envelope shall be indicated on the plat.
4. Any garage associated with the project shall be located in the Northeast corner
of the site.
5. GRFA shall not exceed 2400 sq. ft. + 225 sq. ft. for a total of 2625 sq. ft.
Chuck Crist seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
9. The last item on the agenda was the approval of PEC Minutes of June 8, 1992. There
were no changes to the minutes as written. Chuck Crist made a motion to approve the
minutes of the June 8, 1992 Planning and Environmental Commission and Greg
Amsden seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
6 -0.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
C7
I* Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting, June 22, 1992
5
e
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
JULY 27, 1992
AGENDA
12:00 PM Site Visits
2:00 PM Public Hearing
Site Visits 12:00 P.M.
The Valley
Waterford
Lionshead Center
Sweet Basil
Public Hearing 2:00 P.M.
1. A request for a conditional use permit and a site coverage variance to allow for the
expansion of an existing outdoor dining deck for Sweet Basil Restaurant, 193 Gore
Creek Drive, part of Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Planner: Shelly Mello
2. A request to amend a condition of a previously approved variance and exterior
qk alteration, regarding the CCI parking pay -in -lieu fee for the Red Lion Building, located
at 304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vencura, Ltd /Jay Peterson
Planner: Mike Mollica
3. A request for a work session for a conditional use permit for an addition to the
Municipal Building to house the Vail Police Department, located at 75 South Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existing Municipal Building), and as legally
described below:
A part of the Southeast 1/4 of Section 6, Township 5 South, Range 80 West of
the Sixth Principal Meridian, County of Eagle, State of Colorado, more
particularly described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of said
Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 seconds West and along the
East line of said Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 the East line of said
Southeast 1/4 of said Section 6 72.75 feet to a point, said point being 110.00
feet northeasterly from the southerly right -of -way line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as
measured at right angles thereto; thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11
seconds West and along a line parallel to said southerly right -of -way line
145.50 feet to The True Point of Beginning; thence North 16 degrees 08
minutes 47 seconds East 78.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 seconds
West 152.57 feet; thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40 seconds West
J .
•
•
192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet
to a point, said point being 110.00 feet northeast from said South right -of -way
line of U.S. Highway No. 6 as measured at right angles thereto; thence South
79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and along a line parallel to said South
right of way line 585.56 feet to The True Point of Beginning.
Except that portion conveyed to the Board of County Commissioners of Eagle
County, and the Department of Highways, State of Colorado by rule and order
recorded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Mike Mollica
TABLED TO AUGUST 10, 1992
4. A request for setback variances to allow the construction of a deck at the Kandell
residence. 4259 Nugget Lane East/ Lot 2 Bighorn Estates, Resubdivision of Lots 10
and 11.
Applicant: Bob Kandell
Planner: Tim Devlin /Mike Mollica
TABLED TO AUGUST 10, 1992 PEC MEETING
5. A request for a variance to Section 18.58.320 to allow for satellite dish antennas to be
located at The Wren and Apollo Park Condominiums. Tract D, Vail Village 5th
Filing /442 and 500 Frontage Road East.
Applicant: Wren and Apollo Condominium Associations
Planner: Tim Devlin
TABLED TO AUGUST 10, 1992 PEC MEETING
Work Session:
1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration for the Vail Lionshead Center
Building, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/ 520 East Lionshead
Circle. (45 minutes)
Applicant: Oscar L. Tang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
2. A request for a work session for an amendment to an approved development plan to
allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase IW1700 Block of
Buffehr Creek Road. (30 minutes)
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
3. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to
amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel located at 1275 Westhaven
Drive and as legally described as: (45 minutes)
That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 81 West
of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described
as follows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly right -of -way line of Interstate Highway No.
70 whence an iron pin with a plastic cap marking the center of said Section 12
bears S 33 01019" W 1447.03 feet; thence along said southly right -of -way line
two courses
1) N 52 °50'29" E 229.66 feet
2) N 74 038'17" E 160.70 feet;
' thence departing said southerly right -of -way line N 88 045'57" E 138.93 feet;
thence S 40 045'14" W 94.32 feet; thence S 180 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S
01 021'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12 007'36" W 110.25 feet; thence S
28 028'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 017'04" W 211.16 feet; thence N
49 042'56" E 97.80 feet; thence N 37 009'31" W 95.59 feet; thence S 52 050'29"
W 55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non - tangent curve to the left
having a radius of 65.00 feet, a central angle of 61 014'42" and a chord that
bears N 580 55'53" W 66.22 feet; thence N 37 009'31 " W 118.50 feet To The
True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State of Colorado.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Planner: Shelly Mello
Town of Vail
Community Development Department
Published in the Vail Trail on July 24, 1992
0
MEMORANDUM
to
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing
outdoor dining deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of
Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Planner: Shelly Mello
:��k�:+.:+ •$�'{� /• � OC+f; .' •��IhYYYr . '�� r,.c5'w'6�C+ :: r,�.•':�
,;•,,: i >.+`�J.1.i';'••.Y••S�•J,.y; .y ::.,'.•..: ii:,'/{ if{ J{ J/. J` i.'.•{ ffJ``r J{ r£ �:%`. F!?.`.`».::: 5� .,`xY,..�':•.�;�.:•�•.+�.{;3'' J' .+•.�,+..'•: •: �.:'`.:•2. •.•�,,, {
.. •:: :J. +.;': :i.;:f; }:J:... :,Y „!{.,.,�Y#i.•Jrr..:: :�r?ii•'� %��fa•: %`'.��''.''•.'�':''•;i�'..:.., Y�;..�,.,�. /il,:':;:
;+�'(¢' }•J •r;�.Y };. .. Y!..Y:�b; ?•?FY:�:•. .. •'::::r9.;.: .:%Y':t''iJYr':• J ;•:;;.�fr :Y:J /.•::. ,y :,,• /J. { „JJJ•:•Y �•x;SR
it•:i��v�'�{Ji.�t:'.L':2 i. �6".' ides Ylu:: 3. vY.. �::{: r: xAi}%{ �$' x.•%:. .:•iY:•:.i..•:•:.Y:i...:•....v. n:f...0 i:i'J. firl JJiFl JJi1l' FF. J�:.:. v... v:..... i.:: i.:{ i{{ rrh' n:. in/ {ir:..'1.L3��.YY'..:.r:.:iF...: . /. /.vv...
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at
Sweet Basil's Restaurant located in the Gore Creek Plaza building in Vail Village. The Gore Creek
Plaza Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a conditional use permit to
add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the south elevation of the Gore
Creek Plaza Building, and would be located partially upon public right -of -way. The deck would be
expanded a maximum of 4 feet to the east on the applicant's property and 6.5 feet to the south on the
Town right -of -way for a total of 122.5 sq. ft. of additional deck area. Approximately 80 sq. ft. of the
deck is proposed to be on the public right -of -way. 3 -4 four person tables will be located on the
additional deck area. The height of the deck is approximately 24 inches above grade. The planter in
front of the deck is 16 inches high as measured from the street grade. There is no parking fee
associated with this type of project.
The applicant has also proposed streetscape improvements with this application. They include:
Additional landscaping in the existing planter located between the John Galt entry and the
Gore Creek Plaza Building entry - 1 spruce and several shrubs. An additional planter to the
south of the existing planter. The stone will match the existing stone on the building.
2. A 16 - 18 inch high stone planter wall, extending east -west along the front of the deck and
also north -south for a portion of the deck adjacent to the restaurant entry, will be installed and
maintained by the property owner. The stone will match the existing stone on the building.
3. Charcoal gray pavers on private property, with the double soldier course at the property line,
and running adjacent to the deck expansion where the deck crosses the property line are
proposed. No pavers are proposed in the "community” dumpster area to the west of the
building nor are they proposed to the east of the deck expansion between the deck and the Bell
Tower Building.
•
+
,
MEMORANDUM
to
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a conditional use permit to allow for the expansion of an existing
outdoor dining deck at Sweet Basil Restaurant. 193 Gore Creek Drive/Part of
Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Planner: Shelly Mello
:��k�:+.:+ •$�'{� /• � OC+f; .' •��IhYYYr . '�� r,.c5'w'6�C+ :: r,�.•':�
,;•,,: i >.+`�J.1.i';'••.Y••S�•J,.y; .y ::.,'.•..: ii:,'/{ if{ J{ J/. J` i.'.•{ ffJ``r J{ r£ �:%`. F!?.`.`».::: 5� .,`xY,..�':•.�;�.:•�•.+�.{;3'' J' .+•.�,+..'•: •: �.:'`.:•2. •.•�,,, {
.. •:: :J. +.;': :i.;:f; }:J:... :,Y „!{.,.,�Y#i.•Jrr..:: :�r?ii•'� %��fa•: %`'.��''.''•.'�':''•;i�'..:.., Y�;..�,.,�. /il,:':;:
;+�'(¢' }•J •r;�.Y };. .. Y!..Y:�b; ?•?FY:�:•. .. •'::::r9.;.: .:%Y':t''iJYr':• J ;•:;;.�fr :Y:J /.•::. ,y :,,• /J. { „JJJ•:•Y �•x;SR
it•:i��v�'�{Ji.�t:'.L':2 i. �6".' ides Ylu:: 3. vY.. �::{: r: xAi}%{ �$' x.•%:. .:•iY:•:.i..•:•:.Y:i...:•....v. n:f...0 i:i'J. firl JJiFl JJi1l' FF. J�:.:. v... v:..... i.:: i.:{ i{{ rrh' n:. in/ {ir:..'1.L3��.YY'..:.r:.:iF...: . /. /.vv...
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED USE
The applicant is requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for an outdoor dining deck at
Sweet Basil's Restaurant located in the Gore Creek Plaza building in Vail Village. The Gore Creek
Plaza Building is in the Commercial Core I zone district, which requires a conditional use permit to
add an outdoor dining deck. The deck is proposed to be located along the south elevation of the Gore
Creek Plaza Building, and would be located partially upon public right -of -way. The deck would be
expanded a maximum of 4 feet to the east on the applicant's property and 6.5 feet to the south on the
Town right -of -way for a total of 122.5 sq. ft. of additional deck area. Approximately 80 sq. ft. of the
deck is proposed to be on the public right -of -way. 3 -4 four person tables will be located on the
additional deck area. The height of the deck is approximately 24 inches above grade. The planter in
front of the deck is 16 inches high as measured from the street grade. There is no parking fee
associated with this type of project.
The applicant has also proposed streetscape improvements with this application. They include:
Additional landscaping in the existing planter located between the John Galt entry and the
Gore Creek Plaza Building entry - 1 spruce and several shrubs. An additional planter to the
south of the existing planter. The stone will match the existing stone on the building.
2. A 16 - 18 inch high stone planter wall, extending east -west along the front of the deck and
also north -south for a portion of the deck adjacent to the restaurant entry, will be installed and
maintained by the property owner. The stone will match the existing stone on the building.
3. Charcoal gray pavers on private property, with the double soldier course at the property line,
and running adjacent to the deck expansion where the deck crosses the property line are
proposed. No pavers are proposed in the "community” dumpster area to the west of the
building nor are they proposed to the east of the deck expansion between the deck and the Bell
Tower Building.
•
4. Granite pavers are proposed for the main entry to the Gore Creek Plaza Building and Sweet
Basil to match those at the John Galt entry.
5. A decorative metal railing will be located around the perimeter of the deck. Planter boxes will
be located on the railings during the summer months.
II. BACKGROUND
On June 23, 1992, the Town Council approved the applicant's request to proceed through the planning
process for a conditional use permit. This initial approval was required because a portion of the
proposed improvements for the deck expansion would be located within the public right -of -way.
In 1990, owners of Sweet Basil Restaurant requested to expand the deck on the south side of the Gore
Creek Plaza building adjacent to Gore Creek Drive. The Council denied the request based on the staff
recommendation. At that time, the staff recommended denial of the request and directed the applicant
to reapply once the Transportation Master Plan and the Streetscape Master Plan were approved by the
Town Council. It was felt that the information from these documents was critical in reviewing this
application. With the completion of the Master Transportation Plan and Streetscape Plan, the owners
are again seeking permission to expand the deck.
III. RELATED POLICIES IN THE VAIL VILLAGE URBAN DESIGN GUIDE PLAN AND THE
VAIL VILLAGE MASTER PLAN
• There are no specific Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan sub -area concepts which apply to this
proposal. However, the Vail Village Design Considerations specifically address decks and patios as
follows:
"Dining decks and patios, when properly designed and sited, bring people to the
streets, opportunities to look and be looked at, and generally contribute to the
liveliness of a busy street -- making a richer pedestrian experience than if those streets
were empty.
A review of successful decks /patios in Vail reveals several common characteristics:
direct sunlight from 11:00 -3:00 increases use by many days/year and protects
from wind;
elevated 2 feet to give views into the pedestrian walk (and not the reverse);
physical separation from pedestrian walk of 3 -5 feet (planter better than a
wall);
overhang gives pedestrian scale /shelter.
• 2
•
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
sun
wind
� 8hcl� �pa�e
• Umbrella �r ,���r e!e�n���f
�Df CO{OY aV1,� �Ga�e
• l�nd��ape e�:lr�vre --� �
"7)ei re
ctinIn
0
views
pedestrian activity"
5f�, IGff+� I�ft.
The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub -area concepts which directly relate to
this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail
Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
"Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and
identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
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.
2.2.1 Policy:
The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the
primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and
character of the core area of Vail Village.
• 3
•
0
Decks and patios should be sited and designed with due consideration to:
sun
wind
views
pedestrian activity"
•bok,.qn or 41', mrhall�
4o ehcl�E ppke
• Ombrdla or ofkr e!e&M
-�r color ad Gale
• l�nd��ape en:lr�vre �
!freef %Uq,aY
clininQ
., III! ►p. -
The Vail Village Master Plan does not contain any specific sub -area concepts which directly relate to
this proposal. However, the staff believes that the following goals and objectives, as stated in the Vail
Village Master Plan, are relevant to this proposal:
"Goal #1 - Encourage high quality redevelopment while preserving the unique
architectural scale of the Village in order to sustain its sense of community and
identity.
1.2 Objective:
Encourage the upgrading and redevelopment of residential and commercial facilities.
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.
2.2.1 Policy:
The design criteria in the Vail Village Urban Design Guide Plan shall be the
primary guiding document to preserve the existing architectural scale and
character of the core area of Vail Village.
40 3
2.4 Objective:
Encourage the development of a variety of new commercial activity where compatible
with existing land uses.
2.4.2 Policy:
Activity that provides night life and evening entertainment for both the guest
and the community shall be encouraged.
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.
3.1.1 Policy:
Private development projects shall incorporate streetscape improvements (such
as paver treatments, landscaping, lighting and seating areas), along adjacent
pedestrian ways.
3.3 Objective:
Encourage a wide variety of activities, events, and street life along pedestrian ways
• and plazas.
3.3.2 Policy:
Outdoor dining is an important streetscape feature and shall be encouraged in
commercial infill or redevelopment projects.
Goal #6 - To ensure the continued improvement of the vital operational elements of the
Village.
6.2.2 Policy:
Minor improvements (landscaping, decorative paving, open dining decks, etc.),
may be permitted on Town of Vail land or right -of -way (with review and
approval by the Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission
when applicable) provided that Town operations such as snow removal, street
maintenance and fire department access and operation are able to be
maintained at current levels. Special design (i.e. heated pavement),
maintenance fees, or other considerations may be required to offset impacts on
Town services."
The Streetscape and Master Transportation Plans are discussed under the Criteria and Findings
Section of the memo.
• 4
IV. CRITERIA AND FINDINGS
The following are the criteria and findings which shall be utilized during the review of this
conditional use permit. 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 the development objectives of the
Town.
As stated in the zoning code, the Commercial Core I (CCI) Zone District is
intended to "provide sites and maintain the unique character of the Vail Village
commercial area, with its mixture of lodges and commercial establishments in
a predominantly pedestrian environment. The CCI district is intended to insure
adequate light, air, open space and other amenities appropriate to 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 arrangement of buildings fronting on
pedestrianways and public greenways, and to insure continuation of the
building scale and architectural qualities that distinguish the Village."
• The staff believes that the applicant's proposal complies with the Vail
Village Urban Design Guide Plan and the Vail Village Master Plan as
indicated in Section III of this memorandum. We believe that outdoor
dining decks, associated with a restaurant, are an appropriate site
development in the Village core. The proposed improvements are
consistent with the objectives and plans of the recently adopted
Streetscape Master Plan and the Master Transportation Plan.
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.
It is the staff's opinion that the proposed outdoor dining deck will have no
negative effects upon any of the above listed criteria.
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.
The staff finds that this application will not impact any of the above criteria.
The minimum street width will be maintained so as to allow snow removal,
loading on the south side of the street as well as emergency services. Public
Works and the Fire Department have approved the design. The deck
0 5
expansion is compatible with the parking and loading plan presented in the
Master Transportation Plan.
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.
Since the PEC worksession held on July 13, 1992, the applicant has revised
the proposal. The changes include the introduction of an additional planter
between the John Galt entrance and the Gore Creek Plaza Building entrance, as
well as a planter along the south and west sides of the proposed deck
expansion. The staff finds these to be positive additions to the project. We
do, however, believe that a clumb of aspens should be added to the portion of
the planter along the west side of the deck, as well as adding a clump of aspen
to the east side of the planter (versus a single ornamental tree as proposed on
the east corner of the deck). We believe this landscaping will soften the
comers of the deck and blend well with the adjacent property's landscaping.
We understand the owner's concerns about shade and blocking views from the
deck. However, we believe the aspens will add much needed landscaping.
Their open canopy, should not create too much shade on the deck.
As proposed, the applicant has relocated the brick paver soldier course to
extend along the property line and adjacent to the deck where it crosses the
property line in accordance with the Streetscape Master Plan.
• The charcoal grey brick pavers, originally proposed to be located adjacent to
the dumpster facility, (to the west of the Gore Creek Plaza Building) and those
east of the deck, have been deleted from the proposal. The staff finds that it is
important that the charcoal pavers be installed as initially proposed in the area
to the east of the deck expansion and the soldier course be located along the
property line in this area. The staff believes that the removal of the brick
pavers to the west of the building in the "community" dumpster area adjacent
to the Sitzmark as initially proposed is acceptable. We believe the applicant's
proposal to pave is sufficient as long as the alley area between the Bell Tower
Building and Gore Creek Plaza Building is surfaced with pavers. The rock
wall on the west end of John Galt provides a good point for ending the pavers.
Granite pavers matching those at the south John Galt entrance will be used for
the entry to the building and restaurant. The staff finds that these changes will
have a positive impact on the character of the area. The combination of
additional planting and paving are consistent with the objectives and plans of
the Streetscape Master Plan.
0
B. Findings
The Planning and Environmental Commission shall make the following findings before
granting a conditional use permit:
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.
3. That the proposed use would comply with each of the applicable provisions of
this Ordinance.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The staff finds that the deck expansion along with the streetscape improvements will be positive
improvements for the area. The combination of the improvements are consistent with the objectives of
the Vail Village Urban Design Considerations, Streetscape Master Plan, Vail Village Master Plan, and
the Vail Master Transportation Plan. We believe the request meets all the findings for a conditional
use.
• The staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit request with the following conditions:
1. A clump of aspen trees be added to the planter west of the deck and a clump of aspen
be added in the planter ont the southeast corner (versus an ornamental tree as
proposed);
2. Charcoal brick pavers be used, as initially proposed, to the east of the deck expansion
between the Bell Tower Building and the Gore Creek Plaza Building; and
3. The DRB review the railing detail and consider the use of a more decorative railing
and planter box system. They should also carefully review the type of shrub being
proposed in the planter areas.
C APECVME.MOM W EET BAS.713
•
17-S
•
di
T
I
k
lilt-
tj
il
IL J t)
1r V
tl
qa-
-4
VN
sk,
r-4--
-4
VN
sk,
• PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 27, 1992
Present
Staff
Greg Amsden
Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen
Shelly Mello
Chuck Crist
Mike Mollica
Diana Donovan
Tim Devlin
Kathy Langenwalter
Andy Knudtsen
Dalton Williams
Mary Caster
Gena Whitten
The meeting was called to order at 2:45 p.m. by Chairperson Diana Donovan.
Public Hearing
A request for a conditional use permit and a site coverage variance to allow for the
expansion of an existing outdoor dining deck for Sweet Basil Restaurant, 193 Gore
Creek Drive, part of Lot A, Block 56, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Planner: Shelly Mello
• Shelly presented the request to the Commission. She stated the main concerns of the
staff were the provision of additional landscaping, the locations for the use of charcoal
pavers and the deck railing material. Ned Gwathmey, representing the applicant,
addressed the Commission reviewing the proposal. He stated that the applicant
agreed with all of the staff's recommendations with the exception of the railing and
landscaping. There was discussion regarding the paving around the deck as far as
pavers versus the asphalt presently there. It was agreed that the pavers should
replace the asphalt for a more uniform look. A discussion followed regarding the
planting of a tree in the planter in the southwest planter area. Kevin Clair, the
applicant, felt a tree planted in front of his door would deter customers from entering
his establishment. After some discussion, it was agreed by the applicant and the
Commission to plant two trees on either side of the business in the two "notches" of
the planter not yet indicated on the plans. After further question, Jeff Bowen made a
motion to approve the request with the inclusion of the tree solution and the use of
pavers around the soldier course to be included per the staff memo. Greg Amsden
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed, 5 -2, with Kathy
Langenwalter and Diana Donovan voting against the motion because they did not
believe public dining decks should be located on public land and that there was private
land to expand the deck onto.
2. A request to amend a condition of a previously approved exterior alteration, regarding
the CCI parking pay -in -lieu fee for the Red Lion Building, located at 304 Bridge
Street/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vencura, Ltd /Jay Peterson
Planner: Mike Mollica
I
Mike addressed the Commission, giving the background of the request. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicant, stated that the applicant had complied with the requests of
the Town Council when the original exterior alteration was approved. He stated that
the applicant had given up 2 dwelling units and GRFA, and believed that Item #12 of
the conditions of approval was not fair to him. It was noted by the staff that the Bell
Tower Building and Pepi's ski storage were not requested to pay the increased fee
adopted. There was no public input regarding this request. After further discussion,
Greg Amsden made a motion to approve the applicant's request. Gena Whitten
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 7 -0.
3. Items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda had been requested to be tabled until the August 10,
1992 meeting. Dalton Williams made a motion to reschedule these items. Chuck Crist
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously,
7 -0.
Work Session
1. A request for a work session for an exterior alteration for the Vail Lionshead Center
Building, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/ 520 East Lionshead
Circle.
Applicant: Oscar L. Tang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy presented the request to the Commission, stating that the staff felt overall this
• was a good design but was concerned about the white metal mullions, the window
groupings, landscaping, the setback variance, and service and delivery issues. Bill
Pierce, the architect representing the applicant, addressed the Commission, stating the
project was in the schematic stage at this point and there had been a lot of give and
take and compromise put into this project as they dealt with property owners and
business owners located in the building. There was much discussion following
regarding the proposed changes to the existing building. It was felt by all parties that
the landscaping at the west end of the building was needed and could be enhanced.
There was discussion as to what could be done to the building itself to soften the lines,
such as rounded corners, additional planters and landscaping, exterior paint, etc.
Specifically, each Commission member stated their opinions on the proposal. Greg
Amsden said that the use of wood instead of white metal for the store shop fronts
would be an improvement. The roof over the proposed additional was not a concern to
him at this time. He believed that the landscaping and entry to Alfie Packer's needed
further study. Regarding the northeast corner of the building, he believed that two
solutions would be acceptable to him: the applicant could either change the semi-
circle of planting behind the skier sculpture to allow pedestrian access or the applicant
could trim off the proposed corner of the building.
Kathy Langenwalter said that she wanted to see changes in the amount that the
building encroached into the setback. The full 10 -foot setback was not required, but 8
feet of setback would be good. Concerning the skier sculpture, Kathy stated that any
modifications to it should involve reworking all of the area around it, and that clipping
off corners on each side to improve pedestrian access was not a solution to consider.
-2-
• She concluded her comments by stating that the building needed to become softer.
Dalton Williams was concerned about the image of the facade, and suggested that it
should match the building better. He believed there could be a better material selected
instead of the metal and thought that it should be something "mountainy." He
continued by saying the stores needed more individual character, that the landscaping
island near the entrance needed to be softened, that the landscaping by Alfie Packer
Grill needed to be maintained at the same square footage as currently exists, and that
there was no room for planters or tree grates in front of the addition.
Gena Whitten believed that the use of white mullions on the facade needed to be
changed and suggested that wood would be a better material. She liked the "ins and
outs" of the facade, but thought that the frequent use of them made the building too
regular. She believed additional study needed to be given for both corners of the
building, the one by the Alfie Packer Grill, as well as the northeast corner of the
building. She stated that a minimum 5 -foot setback was needed.
Chuck Crist thought that the facade needed more relief and that more variety should
be planned into the design. He suggested that dining tables and an awning could help
provide variety. Concerning pedestrian access by the northeast corner, he said that
the building corner needed to be cut or else the planter by the skier sculpture needed
to be removed entirely. He concluded by saying that the white metal was not an
appropriate material on the facade.
• Diana Donovan concluded the Board's comments by saying that the Alfie Packer entry
area should be reworked, the building should be pulled back, the addition should be
softened and the entrance to the condominiums should not be made into a "hole."
The Commission expressed their appreciation to the applicant, represented by Dana
Tang, and the architect for their work thus far and stated they looked forward to
working with them in the future to upgrade this area of Lionshead.
2. A request for a work session for an amendment to an approved development plan to
allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of
Buffehr Creek Road. (30 minutes)
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen addressed the Commission regarding this worksession item. He
reviewed the staff memo with the Commission, stating that this project had originally
been approved in 1990. The applicant, Ed Zneimer, addressed the Commission,
giving an overview of the project to date. There was much discussion following relating
to the location of the entrance road to the project and the driveways to each building.
There was discussion relating to the size of the buildings and the tradeoffs to change
the preliminary design. Landscaping was also discussed.
Direction was given to the applicant to work with staff on siting the road and the
building envelopes. The PEC stated that they wanted to see the envelopes situated in
-3-
• ways that preserved as many of the trees on the site as possible.
3. A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade Village to
amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel located at 1275 Westhaven
Drive.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Planner: Shelly Mello
The staff reviewed the memo and stated that at this time the staff is concerned with
Compatibility of mass with surrounding uses;
2. Increase of landscaping, especially at the Cascade Village entrance, by
decreasing at grade parking and circulation;
3. Improvements to Westhaven Drive in order to meet TOV standards and
subsequent dedication of roadway to the Town of Vail;
4. Resolution of interdependent parking plan for the Cornerstone and Waterford
projects.
5. All conditions set forth by the Public Works Department and Fire Department,
which relate to proper drainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior
• to the approval of the S.D.D.
The applicant then commented on the general building concept and their intent to
resolve the interdependence with Cornerstone, the adjacent property. The members
commented and in general felt that the massing, especially on the west and south
elevations, should be raised, the parking should meet the 75% enclosed requirement,
the interdependence with Cornerstone must be resolved, the parking problems in
Cascade Village should be addressed in this application if possible and the Westhaven
should be dedicated to the Town.
0
4. The minutes of the July 27, 1992 meeting were reviewed. A motion was made to
approve the minutes as written. A vote was taken and the motion passed
unanimously, 7 -0.
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6:00 p.m. approximately.
-4-
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request to amend a condition of a previously approved exterior alteration,
regarding the CCI parking pay -in -lieu fee for the Red Lion Building, located at
304 Bridge Street/Lots E, F, G and H, Block 5A, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicant: Vencura, Ltd /Jay Peterson
Planner: Mike Mollica
BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Jay Peterson, acting on behalf of the owners of the Red Lion Building, Vencura, Ltd., is
requesting that the Town amend a condition of a previously approved exterior alteration in the
Commercial Core I zone district.
During the spring of 1990, the applicants received the necessary Town of Vail approvals to
redevelop the Red Lion Building. These development approvals included a site coverage
• variance, a stream setback variance, a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck, an
exterior alteration for Commercial Core I and a modification to View Corridor No. 1.
Subsequent to the Planning and Environmental Commission's review of the above requests in
1990, the Town Council appealed the decisions of the PEC and called up the redevelopment
proposal for review. On May 1, 1990, the Town Council reviewed the PEC decisions. During
the review of the exterior alteration approval, the Town Council added an additional condition
of approval. This condition specifically stated that the applicant would be required to pay any
incremental increase in the Town's pay -in -lieu parking fees that may be established within two
years from the time a building permit is issued for the project. As indicated in the attached
minutes of this meeting, this additional condition of approval was accepted by the applicant's
representative, Jay Peterson, at the previous Town Council evening meeting on April 17,
1990. It Is this condition of the exterior alteration approval with which the applicant is
requesting to be deleted.
On April 2, 1991, the Town Council approved Ordinance No. 6, Series of 1991, on second
reading. This ordinance specifically amended Section 18.52.160 of the Vail Municipal Code
and set the parking -in -lieu fees for Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II at $8,000 per
parking space. Subsequent to the approval of this ordinance the parking pay -in -lieu fees, for
development within Commercial Core I and Commercial Core II, were set at $3,000 per
commercial space and $5,000 per residential space. The result in this increase in the parking
pay -in -lieu fee, for the Red Lion Building redevelopment, resulted in an additional fee of
$14,600. The fee calculated under the "old" system, totaled $18,360. The fee calculated
under the "new" system, equals $32,960.
•
II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• The staff does not have a formal recommendation of the applicant's request to delete
Condition No. 12 of the exterior alteration request for the Red Lion Building. It is the staff's
position that because Condition No. 12 of the exterior alteration approval was a condition
specifically added by the Town Council, that the Council should make the decision to either
approve or deny the applicant's request.
•
CAPEMMEMOMREDLION.727
•
REVISED
TO: Town Council
FROM: Community Development
DATE: April 25, 1990
RE: Appeal of PEC decisions of Red Lion redevelopment and
consideration of Ordinance No. 16, amending View
Corridor No. 1.
The first of two separate items to be reviewed by the Council is
a recall of the Planning Commission's approval of the Red Lion
redevelopment. The background information on this request is
provided on the April 17th Council memo and the three PEC memos.
One modification to this proposal, that was agreed to by the
applicant is that the owners will pay any increase in the
parking fund rate if the rate is changed within two years of the
issuance of a building permit for this project.
The second item pertains to amending Vail Village View Corridor
No. 1. The accompanying memos provide background information on
• this request. In response to the Council's discussion of this
amendment, the staff has requested additional information from
the applicant and has discussed the view corridor with Jeff
Winston.
1) The applicants have provided
the Village from the parking
Golden Peak House. This was
whether any other properties
the view corridor if they we
the 43 foot height limit.
a cross - section of
structure to the
done to demonstrate
would encroach into
re redeveloped within
2) Jeff Winston was the lead consultant involved in
establishing the Village view corridors. Jeff has
reviewed this project and concurs with the staff
recommendation. He reiterated that the purpose of
this view corridor was to maintain views of the
mountain, the Clock Tower and the Rucksack Tower.
It was his feeling that the line could have been
drawn at the Golden Peak House ridge and the
objective of this corridor would be met. The
proposed Red Lion ridge would not diminish any
view of Vail Mountain.
.J •
•
V
FROM:
Town Council
Community Development Department
DATE: April 27, 1990
RE; The appeal of the Red Lion redevelopment approvals and
Ordinance No. 15.
The Council's review of the-Red Lion redevelopmintintende proposal
to
entails five (5) separate requ
assist the Council by outlining each of the motions necessary in
responding to these requests.
A site coverage variance to permit a .25�cwasse in
this property's site coverage. This request
approved by a 6 -1 vote. A motion to uphold or overturn
this request is necessary.
2; A stream setback variance to allow a 2 foot
encroachment into the required 30 foot stream setback.
This request was approved by a 6 -1 vote. A motion to
uphold or overturn this request is necessary.
3• A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on
the east side of the Red Lion Building. This request
was approved by a 7 -0 vote. A motion to uphold or
overturn this request is necessary.
4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area
by a
the Red Lion Building. This request was approved
5 -2 vote with 11 conditions as outlined in the April
y
17th, 1990 memorandum to the Town Council. A 12th
condition to be added to this approval would require
king
the owners to pay any incremental increase in par
fees that may be established within two years from the
time a building permit is issued for tpronecessary. is
motion to uphold or overturn this request
If the planning Commission's
upheld by the Town Council,
approval Upon the approval o
wo approve tie modi°f cats
ordinance was approved by a
to approve or deny ordinance
as outlined in the April 17,
approval of these four requests is
their
Va- the Co,ltil�..�ndton::: ,.
�Q • na�� Ordinance No. 16
This
on of View Corridor No. 1• A motion
4 -2 vote at first reading.
No. 16 with 2 recommended conditions
1990 memorandum, is necessary.
MINUTES
•VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING
MAY 1, 1990
7:30 P.M.
C
A regular meeting of the Vail Town Council was held on Tuesday, May 1, 1990, at 7:30
p.m., in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBERS ABSENT:
TOWN OFFICIALS PRESENT:
Kent Rose, Mayor
Lynn Fritzlen
Jim Gibson
Mery Lapin
Robert LeVine
Peggy Osterfoss
Tom Steinberg, Mayor Pro Tem
Charlie Wick, Assistant Town Manager
Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town Clerk
The first item on the agenda was approval of minutes of the April 3 and 17, 1990,
meetings. Rob LeVine moved to approve the minutes as presented, with a second
�'.coming from Lynn Fritzlen . A vote was taken and the vote passed unanimously 5 -0.
At this point in the meeting Mery Lapin was absent.
•
i
Item number two was Citizen Participation. There being no Citizen Participation,
the council moved to item number three.
Item number three was an appeal of the Planning and Environmental Commission
decisions regarding the redevelopment of the Red Lion building (Conditional use
permit, Stream setback variance, Site coverage variance, and an Exterior
alteration). Kristan Pritz initiated the discussion by calling the Council's
attention to an April 27, 1990, memo from Community Development in regard to the
appeal of the Red Lion redevelopment approvals and Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990.
She stated five separate motions eventually would be made to deal with various
considerations before the council. To be considered prior to the reading of
Ordinance 16, 1990, were the following:
1. A site coverage variance to permit a .25 percent increase in this
property's site coverage. This request was approved by a Planning
Commission 6 -1 vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would be
necessary.
2. A stream setback variance to allow a two foot encroachment into the
required thirty foot stream setback. This request was approved by a 6 -1
Planning Commission vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request
would be necessary.
3. A conditional use permit for an outdoor dining deck on the east side of the
Red Lion building. This request was approved by a 7 -0 Planning Commission
vote. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would be necessary.
4. An exterior alteration to add enclosed floor area to the Red Lion
building. This request was approved by a 5 -2 Planning Commission vote,
with 11 conditions as outlined in the April 17, 1990, memorandum to the
Town Council. The council asked the applicant to agree to a 12th condition
at the May 1st meeting. The 12th condition to be added to this approval
would require the owner to pay an incremental increase in parking fees that
may be established within two years from the time a building permit is
issued for this project. A motion to uphold or overturn this request would
be necessary.
Mery Lapin arrived at 7:55 P.M.
Kristan further specified that if the Planning Commission's approval of these four
requests were to be upheld by the Town Council, the Council should condition their
approval upon the passage of Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, a modification of a
View Corridor #1. Kristan stated that the PEC recommended approval of the View
U
.......... .
• Corridor amendment by a vote of 6 -1 in favor, with two conditions. She further
stated the Ordinance was approved by a 4 -2 Council vote at the first reading in
April, and a motion to approve or deny Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990, with two
recommended conditions as outlined in the April 17, 1990, memorandum, would be
requested. Kristan advised Council to focus on the appeal of the entire project in
consideration of each of the variances and the conditional use permit that were
being requested in order to complete the project.
The first area to be discussed was the exterior alteration review criteria.
Included in this was the discussion of the urban design guide plan and urban design
considerations which included the following: a: pedestriazation b: vehicular
penetration c: streetscape framework d: street enclosure e: street edge f:
building height g: views and focal point h: service and delivery is sun /shade j:
architectural and landscape consideration. All details were presented as described
in the March 19th, 1990, memorandum from Community Development to the Planning and
Environmental Commission. Information in regard to the Stream setback variance to
allow a two foot encroachment into the required thirty foot stream setback was
discussed next, with reference to the March 19, 1990, memorandum. Review criteria
for each variance and the conditional use permit were presented for Council
consideration.
The third item to be considered was a conditional use permit for an outdoor dining
deck on the east side of the Red Lion building. The fourth item was a site coverage
variance to allow for an entry on the east side of the Red Lion. Kristan explained
that at the PEC's regular meeting, April 9, 1990, approvals were given on those
items. PEC conditions of approval per the April 17th staff memo for the project
• included: 1. As a part of this redevelopment, the applicants agree to point and
repair the brick wall along Bridge Street and in the area of the small Plaza to the
northwest corner of the site. Improvements to this Plaza may also include upgrading
existing benches, planters, newspaper box and trash receptacle locations and
landscaping. 2. The Streetscape improvements shown along Hanson Ranch Road are
considered conceptual and the applicants shall agree to work with the Staff and
Winston & Associates in refining this design relative to the Vail Village
Streetscape Plan. This condition shall also apply to the Plaza area referenced in
condition #1 and the landscape improvements proposed adjacent to Mill Creek. 3.
All windows located on stucco wall plains shall be recessed a minimum of three
inches. 4. State -of- the -art venting shall be used to reduce negative impact
(smell, smoke, etc.) emanating from the site. 5. The owners /developers of the
residential development on this site shall agree to permanently restrict gross
residential floor area (GRFA), building height and density on this site to what is
permitted by this approval. The Town of Vail shall be a party to this restriction
and the restriction shall be recorded with the Clerk and Recorder's Office in Eagle
County. These restrictions on GRFA density and height must be acceptable to the
Town Attorney as submitted by the owner and approved before recording. 6. Any
trees damaged or killed within two years of the completion of this project shall be
replaced with similar size and type tree. 7. The Red Lion logo shall be retained
as a part of this redevelopment in approximately the same size and location. 8.
The developers /owners will be encouraged to participate in developing solutions to
traffic, loading, and delivery problems in Vail Village. 9. The Rekord (or other
type of window system installed) to the Red Lion Restaurant along Bridge Street,
shall remain totally opened during business hours between June 15 and September 15
•of each year. These windows may be opened at any other time during the year at the
discretion of the restaurant management. 10. The applicant shall complete
stream -bank stabilization work on both sides of Mill Creek over the entire length of
the Red Lion property. The final design and implementation of these improvements
shall be subject to review by the Staff and the Design Review Board. 11. The
owners shall agree to participate in, and not remonstrate against, a Special
Improvement District, if and when one is formed in the Village. 12. The
owners /developers agree to pay any incremental increase in parking fees that may be
established within two years from the time a building permit is issued for this
project. (This condition was accepted by the applicant's representative, Jay
Peterson, at the previous Town Council evening meeting on April 17, 1990.) 13.
Approval of this exterior alteration, variances, and conditional use are contingent
upon the Council giving final approval to Ordinance No. 16, Series of 1990.
Kristan explained that the PEC also recommended approval of the View Corridor
• Ordinance with the following conditions:
1. That the photo depicting View Corridor No. 1 be modified to reflect the new
Red Lion Building at a time when the expansion is completed. The
Commission preferred this alternative as opposed to modifying the line that
delineates the View Corridor.
-2-
C
•
�r
2. That the specific reasons justifying this request be included in the
preamble of the ordinance authorizing this amendment.
At this point in the meeting discussion turned to Item five which was Ordinance No.
16, Series of 1990, second reading, an Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 13, Series
of 1983, in order to modify View Corridor No. 1; and setting forth details in
regard thereto. Mayor Rose read the title in full. Kristan stated the current
remodel falls within the height allowed in the zoning code and that Jeff Winston had
stated that in coming up with the original View Corridors, the consideration was to
preserve the visual connection between the parking structure and the mountain and to
maintain the views of the mountain, the Clocktower, and the Rucksack Tower. It was
Jeff Winston's feeling that the line could have been drawn at the Golden Peak House
Ridge and the objective of this corridor would have been met. The proposed Red Lion
Ridge would not diminish any view of Vail Mountain. In regard to the height of the
building, the applicants had provided a cross section of the Village from the
Parking Structure to the Golden Peak House. This was done to demonstrate whether
any other properties would encroach into the View Corridor, if they were redeveloped
within the forty -three foot height limit. Larry Eskwith discussed whether the
nonconforming height of the Golden Peak House was legal and referenced 18.64.090
under the zoning code, restorations. Also, Larry pointed out a section on
structures and site improvements and stated that a nonconforming use cannot become
more nonconforming through a remodel. However, the Golden Peak House could be built
back to its existing height so long as the area of the roof that was nonconforming
was not increased in area or height through a remodel. He stated that this decision
regarding the Red Lion would not create a problem.
Kent Rose stated he believed the amendment to the view corridor did not go against
the intent of the ordinance or the purpose of this specific view corridor. Rob
Levine questioned Item No. 4 and the state -of- the -art venting on the roof and
received an explanation about the stacked chimney arrangement. Jay Peterson,
representing the applicants, Frankie and Oscar Tang, presented additional
information from individuals within the community. Jim Morter, acting as architect
for the project and Dan Corcoran, field engineer, spoke on behalf of the project,
with Dan Corcoran stating that as a PEC member at the time view corridors were first
discussed in the Town of Vail, he had discussed the process used in designations,
their history, and their intent. His opinion was that the intent of the view
corridor was being met. Further discussion from the audience included Ella Knox and
Gordon Brittan, who spoke out against the granting of these variances, the
conditional use permit and the change or the modification in the view corridor
ordinance. Speaking for the project were Oscar Tang, Diana Donovan and Jack Curtin,
representing Mrs. Cortlandt Hill.
At this time, Mery Lapin moved to uphold the Planning Commission decision to allow
the exterior alteration based on the staff memorandum dated April 17, 1990, and
incorporating conditions 1 through 13 as previously stated, in his motion, with
amended conditions as follows:
1. Amend condition 5 to say this agreement shall be submitted by the owner and
approved by the Town Attorney before a building permit is released.
2. Amend condition # 8 to state if a central trash area is built in the
Village, the owners would agree to use the trash facility and "will be
encouraged" changed to "will participate in."
3. Conditions # 12 and 13,as previously stated on page 2 of these minutes, are
included.
4. Condition 14 was added to state, "The proposed addition of the enclosed
deck along Bridge Street will have a glass roof and be as transparent as
possible.
This motion was seconded by Peg Osterfoss, a vote was taken, and the motion passed
unanimously, 6 -0 in favor.
• In regard to the stream setback variance to allow a 2 foot encroachment into the
required 30 foot stream setback, Peggy Osterfoss moved to grant this variance to
uphold the Planning Commission recommendation to approve, based on the fact this was
not granting special privilege, was not detrimental to the health, safety and
welfare of the community, and there were extraordinary circumstances in that the Red
Lion building is already located within the stream tract setback. Jim Gibson
seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously, 6 -0.
I•
I0 w0 a f uai S /
c
75 south Irontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 479 -2138
(303) 479 -2139
Permit No. 4454
Red Lion Residential Exterior Alteration, July 3, 1990
Parking Fee Analysis for Residential Expansion Only
Existing:
GRFA Required Parking
Whitehead Unit 4,665 s.f. 2.5 spaces
Caretaker Unit 566 s.f. Z spaces
Total 5,237 s.f, 4.5 spaces
Proposed:
. Unit 1 2,954 2.5
Unit 2 2,945 2.5
Unit 3 2,842 2.5
Total 8,741 7.5 spaces
Total Proposed Required Parking
Total Existing Parking
7.5
4.5
3.0
oflico of commurnily d{tvri(vl)r;rr,(
3.0 spaces x $5,000 - $15,000 total residential parking fee
304 Bridge Stredt
Lot E,F,G,H, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st
Property: RED LION RESTAURANT PROJECT RED LION RESTAURANT EXp. PERMIT N0. 4454
• $ 3,360 Vail, Colorado, July 3 , 1990.
Total Parking Fee
In installments after date, for value received, I promise to pay to the
order of the Town of Vail at the Office of the Finance Director, Municipal
Building at Vail, Colorado,
Three thousand three hundred sixty -------------------------------------- Dollars,
Total Parking Fee
Down Payment
$672.00
with interest of ten percent per annum on the unpaid balance, payable in
yearly installments as follows:
The
first installment of
$
847.99
due
and
payable
on 07/15/91
the
second installment of
$
847.99
due
and
payable
on 07/15/92
the
third installment of
$
847.99
due
and
payable
on 07/15/93
the
fourth installment of
$
847.99
due
and
payable
on 07/15/94
• It is agreed that if this note is not paid when due or declared due
hereunder, the principal and accrued interest thereon shall draw interest
at the rate of 18 percent per annum, and that failure to make any payment
of principal or interest when due or any default under any incumbrance or
agreement securing this note shall cause the whole note to become due at
once, or the interest to be counted as principal, at the option of the
holder of the note. The makers and endorsers hereof severally waive
presentment for payment, protest, notice on nonpayment and of protest,. and
agree to any extension of time of payment and partial payments before, at,
or after maturity, and if this note or interest thereon is not paid when
due, or suit is brought, agree to pay all reasonable costs of collection,
including reasonable attorney's fees.
z - Jc
by:
Date
The owners agree to pay any increase in the Commercial Core I parking fee ;if said
increase is made within two years from the issuance of a building permit foi this
project (July 90).
:2i
• by: Ow�iers
-------------------
BE,GK 'AND -ASSOC.
tows
TEL;" .303- 476 -7763
75 south frontage road
vall, colorado 81657
(303) 479 -2138
(303) 479 -2139
Jul,.—.6,90 10:40 No.004 P.03
Permit No. 4434
.Red Lion Restaurant Exterior Alteration,'July 3, 1990
Parking Fee Analysis for Restaurant Expansion Only
Sq. Ft.
New Deck Enclosed (seating area only) 135
1.12 parking required x $3,000 - $3,360 total fee.
office of community development
Parking Spaces
1.12
• * The staff checked the finance records and found the existing enclosed
dining area has been covered by previous parking fees. These fees
have all been paid.
•
r
i
304 Bridge Street,
Lot E,F,G,11, Block 5A, Vail Village 1st
0 Prod; :i °ty: RLD LION PROJECT RLD 1,1.ON HSlll. GY,t1, I'RRtjrr tio.
$ '5,000 Vail, Colorado, July 3 99(�
Total Parking Fee -- -
In installments after date, for value received, I promisq, to pay to t-l!-.
order of the Town of Vail at the Office of the Finance Director,
Building at Vail, Colorado,
Fiftechthousand----------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Tote: Parking Fee . ......
_ -"
Down Payment $3,000.00
with interest of ten percent per annum on the unpaid balance-
yearly installments as follows:
The first installment of $ 3,'785.65
the :second installment of $ 3,785-65
tl-le ta<ird installment of $ 3,785.65
due and payable on
due and payable on 07 / 1.5 x'
due and payable oo
the ::-aurth installment of $ 3,785,65 due and payable on 07/15/96
• It is agreed that if this note is not paid when due or
hereunder, the principal and accrued .interest thereon sh7 ill clr -.It i n`
at the rate of 18 percent per annum, and that failure t-.c, make
of principal or interest when due or any default under aziy ti nc: ��whr, 11,
agreement securing this note shall cause the whole note to l)�'�.:cJlll�, ,11?,
once, or the interest to be counted as principal, at the opt:zoii of
holder of the note. The makers and endorsers hereof sever.a:11., tr�ivr
presentment for payment, protest, notice on nonpayment .ind of
agree , -o any extension of time of payment and partial pan,�nt::
or a::t (:�r maturity, and if this note or interest; thereon 'is not:
due, or.suit is brought, agree to pay all reasonable rU`;l:> of c-d.Ink
including reason4le attorney's fees,
Y', Oscar and /Frankii/ Tang
Dat
The wni-ters agree to pay any increase in the Commercial Core I par)dnt; fee If r:n),I
inczer,se is made within two years from the issuance of a buildinp, pernllt� fv:- 0II''
pro' (Ju y ).
y:� -G;;ar and Franki Tang
i
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a work session for an exterior alteration for the
Vail /Lionshead Center Building, located at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
First Filing/ 520 East Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: Oscar L. Tang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Oscar Tang, the applicant, is proposing to expand the commercial area of the Lionshead
Center Building by approximately 4,000 square feet. GRFA will be increased by
approximately 330 square feet. The proposed one -story addition would be located adjacent to
the existing shops fronting on the Lionshead mall. It is designed at this time with white metal
mullions incorporated into an exterior glass wall. This proposal requires an exterior alteration
and a setback variance. The proposed setback would be zero feet, where 10 feet is required
• by the CCII zone district. The variance criteria will be analyzed in a later memo. Staff wants
to point out that the zoning code allows the Lionshead Urban Design Guide Plan to be used to
justify setback variance requests.
H. LIONSHEAD CONTEXT
A. History
In discussions with Jeff Winston, the Town's urban design consultant, staff has reviewed some
of the background to the design of the Lionshead Mall. For example, prior to the development
and construction of the mall as it is today, large planters had been located adjacent to the
buildings. These planters were curvilinear in design and flowed through the plazas and
courtyards. Concrete curbs were used as a border and a wide asphalt walking area was
provided between the planters. One of the goals of the redesign of Lionshead Mall was to
relocate the plantings adjacent to the buildings and put them in the center of the mall to
improve retail visibility. This redesign allowed pedestrians to walk closer to the shop display
windows and entrances, while still providing large landscaped areas.
B. Goals
In 1980, the Design Guidelines and Considerations were developed for the Lionshead area.
The goals underlying the guidelines include developing vitality at a "pedestrian scale within a
contemporary architectural expression;" strengthening the "ground floor visibility and
attractiveness such that it reestablishes a sense of pedestrian scale throughout the mall area ;"
• and reinforcing the "pedestrian nature of the Lionshead Mall." Staff believes that expansions
such as this one, or the recently completed Banner Sports addition to the Lifthouse Lodge
building, meet the goals stated above. Though staff believes the current application needs
some refining, the concept of bringing out a one -story addition for commercial use is excellent.
•
III. ZONING ANALYSIS
Zone:
Lot Size:
Proposed Addition:
Building Height:
Setbacks:
North
East
West
South
Site Coverage:
Landscaping:
GRFA:
Required Parking:
Allowed
48 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
10 ft.
CCII
40,193.8 square feet*
3,964.3 square feet
28,135.7 sq. ft.
or 70%
8,038.8 sq. ft.
or 20%
(max. hard
landscape is
1607)
32,155
or 80%
* Must be verified by a licensed surveyor.
Existinci
46 ft.
20 ft.
43 ft.
5 ft.
12 ft.
19,329.5 sq. ft.
or 48.1%
7,845 sq. ft. soft
1,607 sq. ft. hard
9,452 sq. ft. total
or 23.5 %
29,509
or 73.4%
Proposed
22.5 feet
0 ft.
16 ft.
5 ft.
12 ft.
23,421.6 sq. ft.
or 58.3 %
7,845 sq. ft. soft
1,227 sq. ft. hard
9,072 sq. ft. total
or 22.6 %
29,844.9
or 74.3%
13.2 spaces
or $105,600.
IV. EXTERIOR ALTERATION CRITERIA
A. Height and Massing
At one story, the height and massing of the proposed addition is consistent with the
architectural guidelines for Lionshead.
• 2
B. Roofing
• The Lionshead Design Guidelines state that the "connections of roofs to existing buildings
should be respective of any existing strong architectural lines." This guideline calls for "all
expansions (to) appear to have been part of the original design of each building." At this time
staff is concerned that the addition may not appear as integrated with the existing building as
perhaps it could be. Other solutions, to be discussed below, may solve this issue in such a
way that aligning the roofs to reflect the massing breaks of the rest of the building may not be
necessary.
C. Facades- Walls/Structures
The Lionshead Design Guidelines call for a range of materials including "concrete block,
glass, metal, stucco and wood." The proposal, utilizes glass and metal and complies with this
aspect of the guidelines. However, staff is concerned that the glass and metal combination is
not compatible with the existing building, given that the existing building is made up of large
expanses of wood. The color of the mullions must also be compatible. The current color
proposal of white may be too stark. In order to insure that the addition is integrated into the
existing structure, the use of wood mullions may be more appropriate than the proposed
materials.
One potential method of adding more visual interest to the existing building would be to paint
the different sections of it different shades of one color. This would not only include the
addition but also the existing portions of the building which are in need of a new stain or paint.
• Breaking up the sections of the building with color changes could reduce the overall
massiveness of the Lionshead Center building.
D. Facades - Transparency
The Lionshead Design Guidelines call for transparent store fronts as they are "people
attractors" and "give a pedestrian, open, public character to the street." Staff believes that
this proposal meets this criteria well. However, the guidelines also call for glass to be
grouped into banks of windows complemented by common trim and mullions. Staff believes
that there could be better window groupings achieved in the transparency so that each store
front has some individual character. A design theme among the store fronts is needed, but an
individual character for each store front should be created. Staff believes that a variety of
window sizes and shapes could work successfully in this addition in order to improve the
pedestrian experience and break up a very linear facade.
Staff believes that an elevation of the store fronts showing mullions, the glass area, the facia,
awning, signs, and lighting should be provided to better understand what improvements will be
made at the pedestrian level. Any potential for individual shop owners to block off some of
this transparency should be identified and explained.
The guidelines also call for entrances to be recessed. At this time the proposal provides for
recessed entries for some shops, but not all. Staff believes that this is not a problem and that
0 3
•
the randomness of the entries helps break up the predictability of the building.
E. Decks and Patios
Not applicable.
F. Accent Elements
Staff believes that accent elements such as awnings, signage, lighting and flower boxes,
should be addressed at this time to be sure that there is adequate room for the elements to
be incorporated into the project. This is particularly important, as awnings could play a key
role in the character of the addition. Staff's specific concern is that the current proposal is to
locate the building at the property line. This may preclude adding awnings and signage which
would liven up the facade and the mall area. It also precludes eaves on much of the addition.
The shadow line that is created by providing eaves is an important accent element on many
projects and should be considered for this one.
The Town's Fire Department and Public Works Department have requested a minimum
driveable access -way past this addition of 22 feet. The applicant has been requested to draw
the fire lane according to the Fire Department's standards on the site plan. Once this has
been drawn, the resulting area that is left for awnings and signage can be determined. If,
after the Public Works and Fire Department needs have been addressed, there is no buffer
between the edge of the building and the fire lane, staff recommends that the addition be
pulled back from the property line to provide a buffer area for accent elements. Another area
which may constrain pedestrian access is the northeast corner of the building. We believe
that this section of the building will have to be decreased in order to accommodate adequate
pedestrian access.
The existing light poles will be removed as part of the project. Staff requests that the
applicant show how and where these will be replaced.
G. Landscape Elements
Staff believes that in keeping with the current design concept of Lionshead Mall, that the
plantings should be kept in the center of the mall, away from the buildings. However, we
believe that vertical landscaping, such as Aspen or Mountain Ash, could dramatically improve
the character of this part of the mall as well as soften the existing building and addition. One
solution that would be consistent with the design goals would be to locate trees along the front
of the building in tree grates. This would not block access to shop entrances nor would it
block visual access to shop display areas. Staff believes that the Lionshead Center Building
has some expanses of blank walls which would benefit from a landscaping buffer like this.
In addition to trees, there is potential for another landscape island within the mall near the
entrance to the condominiums of the building. In a manner which is consistent with the rest of
the mall, this added planter /seating area could benefit the mall and development site by
9 4
lu
KI
I*
_
/
^
/ |
In
Fl,
`
•
0
_41
li 'O
I
i
i
I
I �
�! di
�I
II I
I
i 1
NEw PcutivrarloN -_,___ J I I �
I ,
I >
— 141 �}
•
0-1
E
•
I
0
o 0
OZ
•
•
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a work session for an amendment to an approved
development plan to allow the shifting of the building envelopes at The
Valley, Phase IV/1700 Block of Buffehr Creek Road.
Applicant: Ed Zneimer
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
BACKGROUND
On November 12, 1990, the Planning and Environmental Commission approved the
development plan for Phase VI of the Valley. This was a modification from an Eagle County
approval which allowed 42 units and 77,150 sq. ft. of GRFA. The Town of Vail approval
allowed 13 primary/secondary homes (26 units) and 65,900 sq. ft. of GRFA. If built, each
• secondary unit will be required to be a deed restricted caretaker unit. Six of the building
envelopes were located north of Buffehr Creek Road and 7 were located on the south side.
Three single family residences have been developed at this time on the south side.
DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
Ed Zneimer, the developer and applicant, would like to adjust the location of the remaining
four envelopes south of Buffehr Creek Road. He believes that by shifting the envelopes, the
homes that would be constructed will be less visible and be located in a more environmentally
sensitive manner. The current application is to shift building envelopes 4, 5, 6 and 7 to the
west. In addition, the applicant would shift the envelopes to the south, out of the meadow and
into the trees, and locate the front of each envelope at the toe of the slope.
Other aspects of this request include shifting the proposed access road closer to the revised
building envelope locations towards the forested hillside. The revised road would be
approximately 30 to 45 feet in front of the new building envelopes. Currently, the road is
approved to be located 20 to 35 feet in front of these building envelopes. Lastly, the applicant
is requesting to increase the size of the envelopes from 50 ft. x 90 ft. to 60 ft. x 90 ft.
III. STAFF ANALYSIS
Staff believes that the effort to shift the proposed development out of the meadow and into the
trees will reduce the impact of the mass and bulk of these homes. However, staff believes
•
r
that the new locations of the envelopes could be adjusted to minimize the loss of trees. For
• example, near envelopes 4 and 5, there are "pockets" in the tree line which could
accommodate development. By locating the proposed homes within these pockets, and
maintaining the existing mature vegetation on either side, staff believes the amount of
screening around the homes would be increased. Also, staff believes that bringing the homes
out in front of the toe of the slope would be beneficial. There is a tradeoff between preserving
the meadow and preserving the hillside. Staff believes that a balance between these two
could be struck by locating the homes at least 10 feet in front of the toe of the slope.
Staff is also concerned about the location of the road. We believe that bringing the road
closer to the homes will preserve more of the existing meadow. We believe that a 20 -foot
separation between the front of the building envelope and the road is the best possible
location. In the development immediately to the east, developed by Bradley Tjosem, the road
is actually closer to the building envelopes than 20 feet. Staff believes that 20 feet of
separation is reasonable as it would allow a car to be parked between the structure and the
road.
Lastly, staff is concerned about building envelope #7 as it wraps around the hillside at a
relatively high elevation. We would like to see this envelope brought down off the hillside so
that the lower part of the valley can be preserved in as natural a state as possible.
The applicant is willing to work with staff's suggestions for building envelopes 5, 6 and 7. He
prefers to not shift envelope #4 into the near -by "pocket" as he believes it would create a
building site immediately adjacent to the intersection of the lower and upper roads for the
subdivision and Buffehr Creek Road. He is also concerned about the separation between
• structures. The table below shows the separation between envelopes under the different
scenarios. Staff believes that the separations that result from locating the envelopes within
the "pockets" are not substantially less than what was originally approved. Additionally, we
believe that the gap between the 3 existing homes and the remaining 4 will help break up the
regularity and mass of the development along Buffehr Creek Road.
Distances Between Building Envelopes
Space Between 11 -12 -90
Building Approved Applicant's Staff's
Envelopes Plan Proposal Recommendation
3/4 60' 75' 145'
4/5 70' 90' 60'
5/6 95' 75' 80'
6/7 100' 65' 80'
• 2
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
• Staff believes that there is benefit to shifting the envelopes in an effort to reduce the visibility
of the proposed homes. We believe that the new locations should be adjusted to be more
sensitive to existing stands of trees. We believe that this would help the appearance of the
valley, both to the neighborhood as well as to the overall site planning for the development.
Although the distances between structures would be reduced somewhat, staff believes that
the benefits of preserving the stands of trees around these homes will create a stronger
separation among the units. We also recommend that the building envelopes not be
increased in size so that the development is as compact as possible. Staff would recommend
that the applicant continue to work with these issues and present a refined plan to PEC at the
next hearing.
•
CAPEOMEMOWNEIMER.713
0 3
0
U
s
Ar
CL
CL
OKR
�� 11\1 �� � \; 1' � • ; \ ��� \�\ \\ � \ \ ��
,� \ \\ \ \• viii
1
N
�
H
..
OIN
,--�
o
a
CIA
o
s
Ar
CL
CL
OKR
�� 11\1 �� � \; 1' � • ; \ ��� \�\ \\ � \ \ ��
,� \ \\ \ \• viii
1
*I
�
•
MFA
00"0
Ai
v vv
v"Ap,\,
X N�
0
dye
ck
V
7
°
0
N
C,3
MFA
00"0
Ai
v vv
v"Ap,\,
X N�
0
dye
ck
V
s
0
I*
4) 4j
W�
� I
t
r c�
n r
MEMORANDUM
• TO: Planning and Environmental Commission
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: July 27, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a work session for a major amendment to SDD #4 Cascade
Village to amend the development plan for the Waterford parcel located at
1275 Westhaven Drive.
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina
Planner: Shelly Mello
. M..:..v ::::::.:...... r. r. r..:...::.rr...r.r.....r. x......: ...............: :.rr ?.r::•..:......:...:... ff :.............................................. f ............................:.. H..: ?:.::::: /..:........{?>'?{h.ppr .:::. r............. ?: ? ?•: ?{:
....r ............... .....:................ :........ ;•• :w:: :•.v:::::::nv;; h + ?::: n:::........ ............ r. .......................:.. ...................... ............:. :.......•v..••f•: r:::::: •::: r�.•.�fvf hxr. +lr•'•'v.:..::::: :•:::::::::::::::r
: : �'!.•:f ff�ri:� ii'r'::ifijii }:�i:
:...:iil'ii iii }:�ii�ii:•i': ii'i'i:4i�...:. .. .
.:.:. :� iii iiii::•: iiiiii i < }iiii'ri:L:i iri::i::•::ii }:�:iiii i }:iii }:L�i� >: }i:.v.. r.. x. n....... rr...:. x:....x.•...:.n...:....: .
I. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a worksession to review a proposed major amendment to Special
Development District (SDD) No. 4, Cascade Village Area A. This proposal would allow 27
dwelling units with a maximum of 47,500 sq. ft. of GRFA and 1 restricted employee dwelling
unit with 900 square feet of GRFA. The parcel is bound by the Colorado Department of
• Transportation right -of -way and Glen Lyon Office Building to the east, the proposed
Cornerstone project to the west, the South Frontage Road to the north and Gore Creek to the
south. The parcel was zoned as an SDD from the time it was annexed into the Town of Vail
in 1974.
The property has changed ownership and the current owner does not wish to continue the
approved development concept. The applicant is not requesting any additional residential
development over what was previously approved for this parcel, except for 900 square feet of
additional GRFA for the restricted employee unit. The applicant also wishes to delete the
required 3,800 sq. ft. of retail space.
II. BACKGROUND
The Cascade Village Development was previously owned by a single development entity. As
proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent phases to be built
into an integrated complex which provided commercial areas, short-term and long -term
residential units and consolidated parking facilities. Since the bankruptcy of this original
developer, ownership of the sites has been dispersed among different owners. This plan is
now more difficult to execute, as each owner has different ideas on how to develop their
respective sites. The change in ownership effects this project because, as approved, the
project is required to provide parking for the Waterford project, but also for the proposed and
•
unbuilt project to the west, Cornerstone. These projects are now held by 2 unrelated entities.
• As approved, the Cornerstone project is a mixed use development containing commercial
space, conference space and accommodation units, but no on site parking. A maximum of
166 parking spaces were to be provided in the Waterford project for Cornerstone. For the
purposes of this worksession, it is assumed that the Cornerstone Development plan will be
amended to provide parking on site or the proposed plan will include the required spaces for
Cornerstone. At this time, the applicant and the Cornerstone owner have not resolved this
issue.
An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Village development is the ownership status of
Westhaven Drive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek Bridge. The road is
owned by the applicant and is privately maintained. This road has not been conveyed to the
Town because it does not meet the Town's minimum road standards.
III. ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The approved development plan for this parcel allows for either 75 accommodation units with
47,500 sq. ft. of GRFA, or 30 dwelling units with 47,500 sq. ft. of GRFA. The applicant's
proposal includes 27 dwelling units and 1 restricted employee unit. The request also includes
the deletion of 3,800 square feet of retail space, which was previously required, with the
following.
• Comparison of Approved and Proposed Development Plans
Approved Approved
Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Proposed
1) Density
(# of Units) 30 AUs 75 DUs 27 DUs+
1 restricted emp.
unit
2) GRFA 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq. ft. 47,500 sq.ft. DU
+ 900 sq. ft.
restricted emp.
unit *
3) Common Area as per as per to be
approved approved determined
plan plan
4) Retail Space 3,800 sq. ft. 3,800 sq. ft. 0
• 2
5) Credits Given
None
None
to be
•
determined
6) Height **
North
48 feet
48 feet
57 feet
South
61 feet
61 feet
69 feet
East
61 feet
61 feet
68 feet
West
48 feet
48 feet
57 feet
7) Setbacks
as per
as per
North 20 ft. to bldg.
approved
approved
South 30 ft.
plan
plan
East 47 ft.
West 11 ft.
8) Site Coverage
as per
as per
as per
approved
approved
proposed
plan
plan
dev. plan
9) Parking
72.7 spaces
87.7 spaces
* * *57 spaces
(75% enclosed)
(75% enclosed)
required
51 proposed
(27 enclosed or 53 %,
25 surface)
•
* Employee units do not count towards density or GRFA per the current
SDD#4 Ordinance.
** See Section IV(F) for detailed description of height allowances for approved plan.
* ** Does not include Cornerstone parking.
IV. SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT CRITERIA
The criteria to be used to evaluate this proposal are the nine Special Development District
(SDD) development standards set forth in the special development district chapter of the
Zoning Code. The criteria are as follows:
A. 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.
The site of the proposed project is disturbed due to the dumping of excess fill
from the other projects in Cascade Village. For this reason there are very
0 3
limited natural characteristics remaining on the property.
• There is a severe change in grade from the South Frontage Road to the bike
path (adjacent to the creek). Due to the grade change and building design, the
visual impacts of each building elevation are very different. On the north side,
adjacent to the South Frontage road, the building is 2 -1/2 to 4 stories high,
while on the south elevation, adjacent to the bike path and creek, it is 3 -1/2 to
5 -1/2 stories. The building's height impacts the bike path and the properties
across the creek to the south much more than those properties to the north and
west.
The mass and bulk of the building is similar to that of the Westin complex and
the proposed building on the adjacent Cornerstone project to the west.
However, in contrast to the Westin complex, the proposal incorporates smaller
roof masses. The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers with
smaller roof forms versus a single roof form as used in the Westin complex.
The applicant has proposed to use stucco finish and metal roofs similar to those
used in the other Cascade Village buildings.
The staff finds that further study should be given to the elevation of each tower
of the building in order to break up the mass of the building. In addition, the
use of different colors, stucco details and the use of balconies similar to the
Westin complex should be considered to further break up the mass.
B. Uses, activity and density which provide a compatible, efficient and
workable relationship with surrounding uses and activity.
As proposed, the project includes 27 free market condominiums (with 47,500
square feet of GRFA) and 1 restricted employee housing unit (with 900 square
feet of GRFA) for a total of 48,400 square feet of GRFA. The request
decreases the number of approved units from 30 to 28. There would be a net
increase in GRFA of 900 square feet due to the employee housing unit.
Historically, in Cascade Village, GRFA attributed to employee units has not
been counted toward density or GRFA for the project. The density proposed is
in keeping with the original development scenario and is compatible with the
surrounding area.
C. Compliance with the parking and loading requirements as outlined in
Chapter 18.52.
The total parking requirement for this proposal is 57 spaces. The SDD requires
that 75% or 43 spaces be enclosed. The proposal includes a total of 51
proposed spaces with 27 (or 53% of the required spaces) being enclosed and 25
0 4
surface spaces. Under Section 18.52, each dwelling unit with less than 2,000
• square feet of GRFA would have a parking requirement of 2 spaces and those
with over 2,000 square feet of GRFA would require 2.5 spaces. There are 2
units over 2000 square feet which require 2.5 parking spaces.
As proposed, the project is 6 spaces short of meeting its parking requirement.
Because this is an SDD, the development standards such as parking are
flexible. The staff would recommend that the project meet its parking
requirement. Parking in Cascade Village appears to already be limited at
certain times of the day, and particularly during the ski season. Consideration
should also be given to the provision of guest parking. The staff finds that the
surface parking should be limited to 25% of the required parking versus the
proposed 47 %. This position is based on the visibility of the parking and the
proximity of it to the main entry to Cascade Village. In general, surface
parking is very limited in Area A, and when it is used it is incorporated into
the site plan rather than appearing as a parking lot. Design elements should be
added to the surface parking to diminish the impact and improve the visual
quality of the areas through the use of pavers, tree grates, planters, or possibly
a water feature.
D. Conformity with applicable elements of the Vail Comprehensive Plan,
Town policies and Urban Design Plans.
• For this area, the Land Use Plan states:
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in a controlled environment, maintaining a
balance between residential, commercial and recreational uses to serve
both the visitor and the permanent resident.
1.13 Vail recognizes its stream tract as being a desirable land feature as well
as its potential for public use.
5.1 Additional residential growth should continue to occur primarily in
existing, platted areas and as appropriate in new areas where high
hazards do not exist.
5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail,
with appropriate restrictions.
5.4 Residential growth should keep pace with the market place demands for
a full range of housing types.
• 5
5.5 The existing employee housing base should be preserved and upgraded.
• Additional employee housing needs should be accommodated at varied
sites throughout the community.
When the Cascade Village development was proposed, there was a
comprehensive plan developed which provided a balance of long- and short-
term housing. The proposal of 28 dwelling units is in keeping with this
development plan. In addition, one restricted employee housing unit is
proposed, which the Town supports.
There are no other specific criteria in the Comprehensive Plan which pertain to
this area.
E. Identification and mitigation of natural and/or geologic hazards that affect
the property on which the special development district is proposed.
The proposal will need to comply with the Town's floodplain and 50' Gore
Creek setback.
F. 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.
• The proposed building uses a series of staggered towers with broken roof forms
with the parking facilities located to the north of the building. The approved
building for this project was a series of lower structures and more unified roof
structures. The parking facilities were located below the facility. The building
mass was similar to that of the other Cascade Buildings. This proposed plan
concentrates the mass and bulk such that the result is a more vertical building
which is setback farther from the South Frontage Road than the original
approval, excluding the parking structure. The parking structure is generally in
the location which was previously proposed for the building under the
approved plan. This approach differs from the built structures in Cascade
Village. In Section III (6) the heights for the approved project and proposed
project are given. The following is an excerpt from the approved SDD #
which details how the building heights were calculated:
"Waterford Building: Maximum height of 48 feet as measured from
finished grade to any portion of the roof along the north elevation
(South Frontage Road) and west elevation (Westhaven Drive). A
maximum height of 40 feet as measured from the lowest floor of the
parking structure to the roof eave is approved for the south and east
building elevations. A maximum height of 61 feet as measured from
the lowest floor of the parking structure to the roof ridge is approved
0 6
for the south and east building elevations."
• For the purposes of reviewing this application, we have given building heights
in Section III from ridge to proposed grade.
The layout of the proposed plan and the approved plan also differ. The
approved plan incorporated building over the parking facilities and spread out
the development. The proposed plan does not overlay the building and the
parking facility. Instead, they are separate entities. When comparing the
current proposal, including the parking facility, to the approved plan, the
overall setbacks are similar. The biggest difference is the location of the
massing. This relocation of mass is especially apparent in the area along the
South Frontage Road and the bike path. The staff finds that the massing of the
proposed building should be studied further to achieve a terracing of building
mass.
G. A circulation system designed for both vehicles and pedestrians addressing
on and off -site traffic circulation.
The on -site circulation plan should be studied more closely to determine if
there is a more efficient approach to the ramping and parking system to allow
more room for landscaping. Additional pedestrian access should be
incorporated along Westhaven Drive to connect this project and the Town of
• Vail bus stop to the existing ski lift. This will also provide a pedestrian link
from the bus stop to the remainder of the project when the Cornerstone project
is completed.
In addition to the on -site concerns, the Town is interested in resolving an off-
site circulation concern. This involves the dedication of Westhaven Drive to
the Town. Currently, Westhaven Drive from the South Frontage Road to the
Gore Creek Bridge is owned by the applicant. The road does not meet the
Town's standards and certain improvements related to the grade, construction
and building clearance would need to be addressed by the applicant prior to the
conveyance of the right -of -way. The Town would require, as a condition of
any approval of this application, that the roadway be upgraded and dedicated to
the Town.
H. Functional and aesthetic landscaping and open space in order to optimize
and preserve natural features, recreation, views and functions.
Because this site has been substantially disturbed, there are few remaining
natural characteristics. With the proposed density of the project, there would
be limited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining
landscaped areas become critical. Additional landscaping should be obtained
• 7
by decreasing the amount of surface parking and increasing the landscaping for
this area. Increasing the landscaping is especially important along the entry
• and Frontage Road as well as along the bike path. The applicant should also
consider using a natural planting scheme where possible versus a formal
landscape plan along the bike path and Frontage Road.
I. Phasing plan or subdivision plan that will maintain a workable, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the development of the special
development district.
As initially proposed, Cornerstone, to the west of the proposed project, and
Waterford were to be constructed simultaneously. This phasing plan was
necessitated by the provision of parking on the Waterford site for the
Cornerstone project. Due to the bankruptcy of the original developer and the
subsequent severed ownership of the 2 sites, this becomes a difficult
proposition. However, the staff finds that it is absolutely critical to the
approval of any amendment for either the Waterford or Cornerstone project, to
address the parking issue. It could be resolved in two different ways. First,
the required parking for the existing approved Cornerstone development plan
could be amended with this request to provide parking on the Cornerstone site
and, therefore, each project would provide its own parking or all of the parking
for both projects could be provided on the Waterford site. The staff has
recommended that the Cornerstone development plan be amended and each
project's parking will be handled on the respective sites. Should it be
• necessary for the Waterford project to provide parking for both the Cornerstone
project and its own parking, the applicant would need to add two additional
underground parking levels as well as additional at -grade circulation.
V. STAFF CONCERNS
There is no formal staff recommendation at this time. The intent of this worksession is to
give the applicant initial direction and feedback on the request. Staff feels that, in general,
this request to decrease numbers of units and add a permanently restricted employee unit, is
an appropriate plan for the parcel.
In summary, the staff concerns are:
1. Compatibility of mass with surrounding uses;
2. Increase of landscaping, especially at the Cascade Village entrance, by decreasing at
grade parking and circulation;
3. Improvements to Westhaven Drive in order to meet TOV standards and subsequent
dedication of roadway to the Town of Vail;
8
•
4. Resolution of interdependent parking plan for the Cornerstone and Waterford projects.
• 5. All conditions set forth by the Public Works Department and Fire Department, which
relate to proper drainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior to the
approval of the S.D.D.
c-\PEOMEMOSCASCADE.727
•
0 9
f. BIC
mom
wi-P i
-IT
Is
I