HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992 PEC 0810 thru 1012
Applicantw ECM Enferprises represen#ed by Eustaquio Cortfna and
Co mercfaf Federal Savwngs.
~ Piannere Shelly eIlo
l° L. T 12
The m%nutes #or the PEC meeting of Sep#ember 28, 1992 were discussed an with three
( changes, the minutes were approved.
~ As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned a# 6°02 Pm ,pulle back
~ somewha#m
~
PLANNtNG AND EravIRc~~~~NTAL cOMMISSsON MEETttsG
Sepiember 28, 1992
~
,
~
~ - - - _ - _ - _
~
I~
PL 1NG AND E Vf EN"fAL C 1SSION
OCTOBER 12,1992
AGENDA
11:00 A, 4 Site Visits
2:00 . m Public Hearin
Site Visits4 11:00 A,
Sonnenalp
Waterford/Co rnerstone
Lionshead Center
Town of Vail Poisce additson
Public Heari[!ga 2;00 P. a
1, request for a joint ork session ith the Planning and Environ eratal Commission
and the Dess n Revsew Board ts~ ~~~cuss a request for an exterior alteratkon for the
VaiI/Lionshead Center uiBding, Iocated at Lot 5, Iock 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/
520 ast Lionshead Circiea
' pplicant: scar L. T"ang
Planner; Andy €~nudtsen
2, A request for a aoirat ork session ith the Planning and Environmenta9 Corr?mission
and the Design Rev~ew oard to discuss a request for a condf#s"onal use permNt for an
ad ition to the Municipal uildirrg to house the Vail PoRice Departrr~ent, iocated at 75
South Frontage Road est (a# the east end of the exisYing unici aI ui! ing), and as
legally described eIo a
A part of the Southe t 1/4 of Section 6, T'owraship 5 South, Range 80 West of ihe SAxth Principal Meradian,
Cocsnfiy wf Eagle, State cs# CoSorado, rnore part6cas9ariy describesB foHows: Cornrnencing at the Southeast
corner of said Sect'son 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 minutes 16 se nds West and along the East lirse of
saed SouNieast 114 of sa6d ct°son 6 72.75 the Easi 9ine of said Sou#heast 914 oP saad Section 6 72.75 feet to
a poant, sa6d point being 110.00 Seet raortheasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. F9ighway tVo. 6
as rraeasured at r°sght ang1es thereto, thence P8or8h 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 se nds VVest and a4ong a 8ane
paral8el to said southerly rmght-ofi-way line 145.50 feet to The True Posnt of Beginnong; thence North 16
ciegsees 08 minutes 47 se rads Eas4 7$.00 feeY; thence North 68 degress 08 minutes 35 se nds West
428.70 feety fihence fVorth 66 degrees 01 minutes 29 secwnds West 152.57 feef; thence SouBh 27 siegr s 42
rnsratates 40 seconcis WesY 132.66 Peet; thence uth 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 se rads E d 36.32 f t to a
poent, said poini being 110.00 f t northe t frorro said iouth r'sght-of-vvay line of U.S. Fi6ghway No. 6
me ured at righ# angles thereto; thenee South 73 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds East and aiong a lane
parallel to said South r9ght of way ifne 585.56 €eet to °The `frue Point of Beginrsing.
Except that porfion ndeyed to ihe Board of County Cornmdssioners of Eagie Couraly, and the Departrrrent of
Highways, State of CoIorado by rule and order re rded January 5, 1971 an ok 219 ai Page 441.
Ap licant. To n of Valf
~~~nnera Ske Mollica
( ~
i
2n A request for a joinf work session ws#h Planning and Environmental ~omrraission and
the Design Review Board to discuss a request for a minor subddvisaon and a major
arrten rrsent fi~ ~D K Cascade Vil#age, to amend the deveBopmenfi plan for the
Waterford and Cornerstone parce1s in area , described as foilows;
l"hat part of the SW 1l4 NE 1/4, S fion 12, 1'awnshap 5 uth, FBange 81 1Nes# of the Sixtta Principal
Mer6diars, T n of Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, described fo16ows:
gfnning at a paaent ora the southerly right-of-way line ofi lnt tate Fiighway hlo. 70 whence ara irorr pin wwth a
plastic p rrsarkirag the nter o€ said Sectiore 12 bears a 33010'19" W 1447.03 feet; thence a9ong said
southerly r9ght-of-way Iitae twro cours 1) N 52150'29" E 229e66 # t 2} N 74°38'17°' E 160.70 fee#;
thence departing sald southerly right-of-way !ine fV 88°45'57' E 138.93 #eet; chen S 40°4>°14" W 94.32 feet;
4hence S i8g 18'96" W 54.08 feet; Ehence S 41121'36" W 205.02 feet; ehence S 12°07°36" W 110.25 feei;
thesa S 28°28°36W W164.4& feet; thence R1 40 117'44" W 211 .16 $eet; then hl 49°42°b6" E 97.80 # t;
#h€;nce N 37109'31" W95.59 fieeto 8hen S 52°50"29°' W 55.14 #eei; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a nsrr-
tangent curve to the 1eft having a radSus oi 65.00 feet, a n8rai angie of 61°14'42" and a chord that bears N
581 5 5°59" YV 66.22 feeia thsn Ef 97°09'31" W 118.50 $eei To The 1°rue Poinf of Beginning, County of Eag1ey
State o# CoIorado; and the Corners4one par E descrabed as fcsllovrs:
Building C Sote
That parY of the SW 114 (VE 1/4, sectiosa 12, Towrsship 5Sotrth, Range 61 West of the Sixth Praneipal
Meridfarr> T"owrs wf Vai6, Cocanty o9 Eag6e, State of Coforado, described as foliows:
Beginning at a poirat on the eas4erly lene o# a non-exclusive eesnent fos °sngress arsd egr s known as
Westhaven Drave r arded ira Book 421 at Page 651 in the offi ofi the Eag6e County, CoIorado, Clerk artd
Recoreier wherace the cen8er of said 5ectoon 12 bears S 38134°43°°W 1,168.27 #eet; thence aIong said 1°one eaf ,
Westhaven Drive N 52143'41 "E 143.92 feet; thence departsrag sa'sd iine of Westhaven t3rive, 132.24 feet a{ong '
the arc of a non-tangent csarve to the 6eft havarog a radiaas of 55.00 feei, a cen8ra6 ang6e wf 137145'30°° and a i
ehord that bears N 42°1 1'46"E 302.61 f t; thers~e N 52°50'29°'E 65.24 feet; then S 37009'31°°E 95.59 f f; I
thence S 49°42'56"4V 97.80 feet; iherace S 40°17'04°'E 24.12 $eet; therace S 52°50'29"4V 213.66 feet; Yhen N
37109'31°°W 105.76 feeY to 8he poont of beginnong nPainieag 0.6848 acres more or iess. j
Applicant: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Gortina and ~I
Co mercial Federal Savings, '
PIannero Shelly eilo ~
I
4. A request fior variances to a1l0w encroachrnents into setbacks and to aIlow an increase ,
in common area #or the onnenafp Hote1, avaria Haus, Bocated at 20 Va`s! oad1 Lots
Jan s 4ock 5 9Va°sl Vs1lage First Filin w
A plican#w Johannes F'aessier
Piannere Andy Knud#sen
5s re ues# for an arrnend ent to Cha ter 18.57 mpioyee Housin fior the Town of VaiI
onin odee
A plicanto Town of 1/ail
Planner; Andy Knudtsen
TABL iL OCTOBER , 26,1992
2
6. A request for a variance from Section 17,28n330 to a11ow a residential driveway to
excee the maximum siope per ittedm Lot 149 Iock A, Vai9 das Schone Fi)ing No.
1 369 Chamonix Lane.
Applicants; Pau4 M. ands
PIanrter- ike MoIlica
i
~ T L,E tJ °fIL OCT° E 26,1992
7. A request for a varaance fram Section 17.28.330 to a{Iow a resident6al driveway to
exceed the maximum siope perrrtitte o Lot 16, Vail Potato Pa#ch\782 Potato Patch ra
Appl'scant: ndrew Daly
Plannere hel6y eIlo
TABLED T!L OCTOBER 26,1992
, A request fior setback variances to aliow for an additlon at 2963 ellf1ower1Lot 7, lock
6, VaiI Inter ountain,
Applican#o Hans and ia Vlaar
Plannero ske MoIiicafJim Curnu#te
TABLED TlL OCTOBER 26,1992
9. A provai of rrainutes of the PEC meeting ofi September 28, 1992a
I~ 3
I
I
i
MEMORANDUM
°C p Plartning artd Environmerttal Corrtmission 4
FROM- . Communoty Development Department
DA°TE: ctober 12y 1992
StJBJECT: A request for a work session for an exterior aSteration for the
Vai1r'Lionshead Center Building, iocated at Lot 5, lock 1s Va3! Lionshead
First FiGng/520 East Lionshead Circie.
Applicant: Oscar L. T'ang
Planner: Andy ~nudtsen
1, cope f the PEC Revi
The applicant has re ues#ed a work session with the PEC to d1scuss the proposed setback
encroach ent. °fhe archotec#s9 ili Ps'erce and Ray Nielsens are currentiy revising the
architectural details in response to comments made at the last work session9 September 28,
1992. l°he app9icants wo!l return to the PEC for a full analysis and discussion of those issues
at a later ate. However, if the PIannlng and Environrraental Corrimission couId not supporf a
proposa1 which ertcroaches in#o a setback, the applicant would )ike to know that at this ta e.
! I m n i is of t V ri nce Request
Staff spent several hours w?th the applicant and Jeff inston on s'+te. °the applicant had
staked the pro osed additior? with uprcght 2" x 4'a boards so that staff could better understand
what the three dimensional building wi91 look like. Staff believes that the PEC has expressed
o prirnary concerns about the setback proposale
1, That the encroachmen# rnay not a!low sufficient pedestrian access through the
area.
2s l"hat the proposed encroachttlent may not be appropriate far this area of the
mall.
Staff be1ieves that i# is irrtportant €or #he PEC to see the three dimensional staking in order to
evaVuate these issues. Staff wou1d lake to provide addit?onaV anafys?s of the project to the PEC
(verbally) in the fiield durin the site visit where the PEG can see tne stakinge
lll, ific ti r? rr ntty nder ay n #h ros t
~tafif underst~nds frorrt the applicant that the foiRowing changes are being made, or wiIf be
made to the praposale
1 s The addition has been reduced in height by one foot #or the entire length aIong
the Lionshead aIlo This results in a heaght ofi 11 feetm
2. The north elevation encroachment into the setback will be reduce by breaking
up the lon es# exparase with an addAtional offset areae
3. The window groupings will be redesigned to be more vertical and to show rr,ore
detai6in through the use of rriullions,
4. The circular form at the northeast corner will be completely eliminated an the
addition will be brought back away frorn this corner9 o changes to #he skaer
scuIpture will be rraade,
5. Ad i#ionaI trees will be incorporated into the planter design by the condorniniu
entrance.
6e Uplightin will be provided #or aII treeso
7, The Alfie Packer fascia band extension will be eliminatedo
8. The scaliop paver design at the base of #he buildang will be redesigned so that
1t is focused a# activity areas. The area of the sandstone will be reducede
9. The awnings will be redesigned.
10. The applicant has eiirninated 220 square feet of floor area.
1V, Conclusion
Stafif ouI like to focus the vvork session on Monday on the setback issue, e
believe at ms impcartant to point out that many of the concerns brought up on Septe ber
28th are being addressedo !t is also irnportant to point out tha# staff has e phasized to
the appiicants that all of these issues are enterrelated. The setback issue cannot e
isolated withou# understanding the design de#ails ofi the addition, l`here are many
ways to provide a hi h quality edestrian space ofi this park of Lionshea ail.
No ithstanding the need #o see how elernents such as rriaterials, the indow
grou ings, the mullions, the awnings, etca will be designed, the applicanfis elieve that
in order to roceed wi#h the project, resoiution of the setback issue is needed in order
to understand what aount of encroachment is acceptableq
ec\ emos\lh o
2
~
PLANNING i L COMMISSION
ctober 12, 1992
Present Staff Present
iana Donovan ristan Pritz
Jeff BoVJefI Ike MoIlIca
DaIton iliiatrts Andy Knudtsen
reg Amsden Shelly elio
Katny Langenwawter
1. tarting at approxi ately 2010 Po a, a joint work se don with DRB as hel to
iscuss a reques# #or an exterior aIteration for the VaillLionshead Center
uiIding, Iocated at Lot 5, lock 1, Vail Lionshead FArst F'iiingl520 ast
L.wonshead Circiee
A plicant: Oscar L. T'an
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen pointed out age two of the staf# merrno, reviewing the 10
chan es that are to be incorporate into the revised plans. °fhe Iannin and
nviron ental Commission mern ers a reed that they liked what they sa on
the site visita Teo ner of Kenny's Double Diamond ki Shop said that he
Iiked wha# is currently proposede
iana onovan asked ifi the se#back issues were acceptable with the revisions,
and ali of the Boar rne er un nimously agree that the setback as sho n
was acceptable, athy Langenwalter stated that she is corr'fiortable ith the
set acks no nd #hat the praportions are working better. The eneral
consensus of the Board was tha# they Biked the revisions artd what as
ropose on site.
2m request for joint work session with the Planning an nviron ental
Co ission and the Desi n Review oard, for aConditianal 11se Per it for an
addition to the unicipa# uilding to house the Vail F'o10ce Depart ent9 locate
at 75 S. Frontage oad est (at the east ettd of the existing unici a1
tailding)o
Applicant: T'own of Va°sl
Plannere ike MoIlica
Mike Moliica presented the ite to the oard, pointing out that the parkin , per
the Zoning Code standar s mandates 97 parking spaces while the caIculations
per the nu ber of e ployees rnandates 107 parking spacesm
1
a1ton wl6iams expresse ho i ortant it is for the parking requirements to
be met initialiy since parking garages cannot be eniarged or oved at a 6ater
date to ac mmodate additional parking for future needsa DaIton fiurther
ex ressed how the Tovan'~ ~taf# wi11 grow necessatating a need for rrtore parkin
in the future,
en Hu hey expB ined to Dalton illiams that ifi the need arises for additional
parking at the unicipai uildirsg complex, it has been discussed that a parking
stfllctLSre co18ld be l11I~ ~ ~en the eXistiPtg lltllclpa1 uildICig atl the
Mun1c'1pal AClftex.
iana onovan questioned the count o# the saIly ort in the provision of parkin s
ike ailica explained he derived the figure of 75 structured parkin spaces y
fi uring 71 spaces in the parking structure, 2 for the saIlyport, and 2 for the
i poun . ike further ex Iained the surface parking, per ages 7and of the
staff emom
ike addressed the change in building height as bemng reduce per the
revious comments of the PEC and DRB at the work session and site visit. As
well as the reduction of hei h#g the square footage has been reduced, an the
D requirements have been incorpora#ed into the revised proposaim
Je owen ex resse his concerrr for trash anagement, and th # the surface
parkin rreede to be reworked but not reduceds
iC thy Langenw Iter state her concerns for landscaping and aIso sta#e that
parking shoul not be reduced,
a!#on illiams commen e the architect on re ucin the uilding mass an
bulk of uildin a Dalton ex ressed his concerns on the proposed crosswaiks,
an stated that he did not llke the orte crosswalk ead endin into #he concrete
all ai the i/ail ationa1 ank. He su gested the crosswaiks be put here
people really aIk.
re Asden suggested that trash be located e een the buiidings in a s ac
esi nated for construction purposesn
iana Donovan thought that a11 the parking shou{ e snside and none rovided
on the exterior of the buildin v She aiso felt that the crosswaIks should e
reloc te to here peo Ie walk instead of being so cIose to ether.
eor e La b, re resenting #he esign eview Board, liked the revise 1ans
ho ever, he oul Iike to see red introduced into the roof rnaterial such as th
Potato Patch CIu o
ed Gwathmey, representin #he Design Review Board, explaEned th t
PLANtJiPiG AND ENVIROhI ENTAL COMN78SSION October 12, 19=32 2
esthetically, roofs should be pitched and not necessarily built u , and that a
4012 itch or 5e12 pifch is more attractive, e fiu her explaine that he likes
the stuccoa and that the use of rock should be kept to a minimu .
Kathy nenwaIter a reed with ed Gwath ey that the rock shoul be
mins ize .
Sher orward9 roject Landscape Architects resented a conceptual
landscape conce tual pIan and pointed out the areas where trees would remain
or be remove o
e wathmey sta#e that he would Iike to see the Iar e ever reen remain that
exists in front of the current unicipal build?ng, and that any evergreens shou1d
e trans Ianted and not estroyed,
3m ~~em #4 of the agenda was di~cussed nexte rearran ing the agenda or er.
request fior variances to aIlow encroachments in#o setbacks and to a1lo an
increase in co on area for the Sonnenalp Fiotel, avaria Haus, Iocated t 20
V il oa ILots J and K, lock 5E, Vail Vallage First Fwlinga
p lican#w Johannes Faessfer
lanner; Andy Knudtsen
ndy Knudtsen resented this atem to the Planning and Envaronmental
Commissiorr, pointing out the graphics in back of the staff memo. e rea the
recommende con itions of approval, and emphasize #hat the stai ay needs
to be r duced in i tho
aIton illiams asked where the finished grade woul be at the point here the
steps go down on the rear of the buildin A Fie also asked if the smali addition
for the "col Iun e0e on the east end cou9d be rerrroveda
Kathy Lan enwalter suggested that the Iandscapira an radin be one as
sho n on the 1991 approvala
iana Doraov rt stated tha# she did not feel it was right not to make the ne
buil ing confor however9 ue to the special circumstances, she felt th t it as
not productave to deny te re ueste he wanted to emphasize that this shoul
not ecorrte a standard rocedure for demo/rebuilds.
thy Lan enwalter motioned to approve the request per #he staff me o iih
the conditions listed in the staff memo as well as a condition requirin ra in
around the deck to be one as approved on the ori inai plans, dated July ,
1991. Jeff owen secortded the mo#ion, The Board voted urtani ausly 5-0 to
a rove the requestm
4. request for a joint work session with Planning and nvironmental Co ission
PLANNiNG AND ENvIRONMEN°rAL cOMMIssfcsN actoner 12, ,ss2 3
and the esi n Review Boar to d°sscuss a request for a minor su ivisson and
a major amend ent to SDD 49 Cascade ViIIage, to amend the deve1opment
Ian for the aterford and Cornerstone parcels in re A.
p Iicanta C nterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina an
Commercial Federal avingse
Planner: he11y e11o
Shelly elio reviewe the rraerrto.
rista Pri#z and Sheiiy eIlo ointed out the su ary on #he last page of the
staff memo fior #he Planning and Environmental Com issioners to use as a
uide for co rnentsm
a1ton illiams stated he #iked the idea o# an arcade alon the front of the
buil in to make #he pedes#rian area rr»re friendly, alton further stated that
he like the commercial area °sn the back and ould like to see the arcade tie
into the stai ay to di inish the Iength of the stai aye e thou ht that the
Waterford and the Cornerstone projects shouid have independent parking
solutionse aIton liked the breezeway and stated that it opens up the buildin &
aIton aIso like the T units, and stated that the employee units design te t
5 as reasonablem
reg Amsden would 1?ke the original concep# an intent of the pedestrian maII
#o rernain as part ofi the ro osal, e felt tha# the pedestrian mail should have
retail and co mercial to keep the pedestrian activity, an should defirtite6y
include Iandscapea reg does not like the deck off of the parking area and
feels that restaurant, office an re#ail space are i portant
Jeff Bowen quo#ed the Zonin rdinance and felt that there is too much
development on too iittle Iand and felt that the proposed commercial addstion is
not a propriates
athy nenwalter felt the proposaI is a departure from #he ori inal conc to
owevere s e elieve `f units ere good and a reed oth the staff memo on
the remaining points. he felt that commercial was raot appro riate on
esth ven rs9 ut better on the pedestrian all area. he felt th t an arca e
should also be built on the north sidee
iana Donovan read throu hthe memo topics and did not have a pro le ith
the two scenarios, bu# oul like the buiiding to stay in the approve foot rintm
he i feei that all of the dwellin units shouid be restricted per the condo
conversion ordinance.
ed Gwathmey state that employee housing and the restricted dweIlin units
were the hardest issues for the developer to deal vvith.
The general nsensus of the Planning and nvironrrien#al Co issioners was
that l1°s were accepta Ie as Ion as they ere restricted.
PLANNIPlG AtJD ENVIROP1 EtJ'TAL COMMiSSION C3ctober 12, 1992' 4
°The minutes of the Pfannmng an nvironrrtenta1 Commiss°r~n meeting on Se te r 28, 1992
were corrected and approved y Diana Donovanm
It as th~n approved by iana Donovan to table items #5, 6, ? and 8 until the next meeting o#
the PEG on October 26, 19 20
The meeting as adjourned at 6:30 P, ,
PLANN1NG AND EfJViRONMENTAL COMRAISSION C3ctober 12, 1992 5
MEMORANDUM
T : Planngn and Environmenta1 Co rr,ission
F . Community ~~~~~pmen# ~~~~~ent
DAl"Em ctober 129 1992
SU JEC°Tn A reques# for a joint work session with the Planning and nviron en#a1
Comrnissio and the Design Review oard, for a Condational se per it for an
addition to fhe unicipaI uilding to house the Vail Police Departrrtenf, Iocate
at 75 South Frantage Road est (at the east end of the exesting unicipal
uildin and as Iegalfy described eIowo
ar# of the Southeast 1/4 of ection 6, Townshap 5 South, ange 0
est of the ixth rincipal eridian, Coun of Eagle, State of Colorado,
ore pa iculariy escribed as fiollowss Corn encing at the outheas#
corner of said Section 6, thence orth 0egrees 2 minutes 1
seconds West and alon the ast line of said Sou#heast 1/4 of sai
Section 6 72A75 the East Iine of said Southeas# 1/4 of sai ectiort 6
72a75 feet to a point, said point befng 110.00 feet northeas#erly frorn te
southeriy right-of-way line of U.S. Highway No, 6 as measured at right
angles there#oe thence North 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 seconds est
and along a iine paralleI to said southerly raghtmof-way IAne 14 050 feet to
The True oint of eginning% thence North 16 degrees 0 minutes 47
seconds ast 7$.00 feet; thence North 68 degrees 08 minutes 35
seconds West 42 070 feet9 thence North 66 degrees 01 minutes 29
seconds West 152.57 feety thence South 27 degrees 42 minutes 40
seco ds West 192.66 fiee#; thence South 52 degrees 4$ minutes 50
seconds East 36.32 feet to a pointe said poInt being 110.00 fieet
northeast from said South right-o#-way 10ne of U.S. Fiighway om 6 as
measured at ri ht angles theretoa thence South 79 de rees 46 minutes
11 seconds East and along a Iine parailel to said South right of way line
585056 feet to T°he True Poant of eginning4
xcep# that portion conveyed to the Board of County Corrimisssoners of
Ea !e County9 and the Depa ment of Fiighways, State of CoIorado by
ru1e and order recorded January 5, 1971 in ook 219 at Pa e 441.
plicanto Town of Vai[
Ianner; ?ke MoIlica
1
lo DESCRIPTION
The Town of Vail is requesting aConditional Use permit ta allow for the expansion of
the Vail Poiice Department, located at 75 South Frontage Road. The prope yon
which the unicc ai ui1 Ang is iocated, (vvhich includes the existing `Jaii Police
Departmenf) is zoned Pubi~c Use istr6ct. ubl~c buiidangs and public service facilities
are consi ered Conditiona! lJses within the istrict9 ursuant to Chapter 18,36.030 of
the Town's Municipai Code9 ecause the proposed expansion to the Vail Police
Depart ent is a modification to an existing use, a Conditiorr~l Use per it is requared.
The Public lJse istrict is fairly unique in ihat the developrr,erat standards for the district
re specifically prescribed by the Planning Commission urin the review of a
development roposal. °fhis revievv is not unl?ke #he pecial evelop ent District
process hereby setbacksa building hei ht, density controls site coverage9 Iandscaping
an the general site deveIopment are specifically tied to a deuelopment pian. The off-
street arkang requirernen#s are aIso established by the Planang and Environmenta6
Corramission,
Ils PRELIMINARY 1 L !
The proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department wouId be Iocated immediately
to the eas# of th~ exis#fng police facilitye o-story uildira ofi ap roxamately 20,511
s uare feet of ofifice space woui be construcfed on top of o Ievels of structured
parkwng (under roun )m Archi#ecturally, the roposed building has been redesigned as
o structures connected by pedestriarr walkwaysa °This design soIution, as
recommended by the PEC and the esign ev'sew oard at previous work sessions9 is
inten ed to break u the overall rnass and bulk, and reduce the building height, of the
structureo PIease see the aached elevation drawings for further detail on the desi ne
The ross rea of the o Ieve1s of structured parking woul consist of approxirnately
34,677 square feet. This includes areas edicated to the sally ort and aII vehicular
csrculation corridorso Common areas, which inciude stair corridors, the eIevator core,
stora e rooms and echanical areas9 to#al approxi ately 2,881 square feet. T
gross r f t tir rje t( ice spac, c n areas n tr ct r
r i ) ul 58,069 ta r f t. P1ease see the attached site plan an floor
Ians for ore specific inforrr,ation regarding the Iayou# of the proposalo To assist in
the review of this project, a scaie mode6 wiil be presen#ed at the PEC hearwn a
a. r i
The proposed o-ievel parkang garage will acco odate 75 vehicles,
(including two spaces in the sailyport and o spaces in the vehicle i ourt
area).
2
The exis#in parkin fior the Municipal si#e is as follows:
47 spaces - east of unicipal uilding
49 spaces - between the Munici al uildin and the unicipal Annex
13 soaces - west of th~ !ujn~x
109 ces W T
The existing surface parking between the unicipal uildang an #he Munici al
Annex (49 spaces)9 and the parking spaces west of the unic]pal Annex (13
spaces) ill e retained `st the police expansion. The r s tructure
parking (7 ce t r sed new surfac r i and
# Xi #if] r i i 1l1 retaiPl ff r t 11c
addition Is con tr ct (62 spac t t i 141 spaces.
It is propose that the new parking garage be used exclusively as secured
olice arkin and munici aI staffi parking. The generaE public will e directe
to the surfa parking spaces Iocated eeen the Municipal uil in and the
Mun?cipal Annexa it ss anticipated that at a rnin?mum9 there wou8d be 32 parking
spaces availa ie for use by the general public (this is d`sscusse in more detail
below)a
The staff has reviewed the parking requirements for #he Municipal Compiex
usrng two methodse
0 F'arking deter ination based upon the Zoning Code standards
(area caIculations)H
- Parkin deter ination based upon number of employees.
oth methods incfu e parkin for a!I To n vehicles (six) which are stored on-
sife at the Municipal Corn lexm
1) Z~r~~~ ~o~~ st~~d~rd~ t~r~~ cal~ulationslm
This metho utilizes the standard To n of Vail arkin
requirements lrsted in the Zoning Code, which are based on
square footage measurementse However, due to the uni ue
nature ofi the Police Department's staffin needs, and the shift
over[aps, the parking requiremen# for this depart ent is ased
6d o9 8 S9 Be oBworaJb case9g sce6 6a6 168 0!Y 8 68.8 be5 s oB empCoye46saIease see the attached analysis of the Police De art ent's
staffirtg needso
verall, the Ianning staff's analysis using this method indicates
that a total of `T parking spaces will be required to meet the
roject's needs. ince the proposed nurnber of parkin spaces
for the Poli~e ad ition is 141, ther~ ould e 44 spaces available
3
for aase by the general public under this calculatione
2) urr, er of grn Iqyees;
This method determines the parking requirement based upon the
number ofi current e ployees working on-si#e at the existing
Municipal Complex (includin the proposed Police a dition), This
caIcuiation assumes a Heworst casee` situation where there is a full
°Town staff and ~il empioyees have reported to carke
The s#aff's analysis using thss rrtetho indocates that a total of
17 r ing spaces will be re uired to mee# the project`s needso
Since te proposed number of parking spaces for the oiice
addi#ion is 141, there would be 34 spaces available #or use by
#he general public.
b. It re o
T'he Municipal si#e consisfs of 89,132 square feet, on two parceis. The
Municipal Anraex is on a separa#e parce6 from the ma?n Municipal uilding,
however for zonin purposes9 and per the PEC`s suggestion9 the entire site has
been arta1yze as a who1e.
C. it v2r
°The existing site covera e for the Municipal Cornplex is approximately 16,265
square fee#y or 18.2%.
The r it cov r , it the new Poli iti n, is
approximately 35,1 u re f t, r 39.5%. This inciudes the #ootprint of
the under round par 'ng garageH which is proposed to be rtially beneath the
surface of the roun . The parking garage, wi#hout any buildirag above it,
contributes ap roxErrrately 6,362 square feet, or 1801 % of the total site
coverages
dm taal in_ i_ ht
The m iu height ofi the existing Municipal uilding is approximately 34 feet.
The m 3mu hee ht of the proposed addition to the PoIice uildin is
approximately 28°0 feet. 3n general, the rid es and dormers ran e in hei ht
fro 19,6 feet to 28a0 feet,
0 4
em Setbacks:
?°he fol(o in table indicates the minsmum setbac€css (exmsfing and proposed).
Existin PLqposed
oB $,@ Pe 0a09 0.01
Sau$h. 7.6' 3.0'
East. 352m0' 168m0' - to bu3ldln
123.0' - to below grade parking
structure
Westo 116.0° 116.Os
fm BuildingLAreas,
The follo in fiable outlines the different areas of #he proposed Police addition:
ffice {aross arqasl Common-stora e, P~rkin~l~irc~iati~?~
stgirs, eievator echanical
Gara e
Lowero 0 541 s o ft, 12,222 sq. ftm
arage
U pere 0 1,269 s m . 16,71 sqe ft.
ffice
Lowera 10,157 s. ftm 274 sq. ft. 5,739 sqa .
Off ce
Uera 10,354 s. fte 797 sqw fte 0
20,511 sq. ft, 2,8 1sq. . 34,677 sqo fte
T t I gross r f new iti n = 58,069 u r feet
5
I11IT I FINDINGS
ecause this is a work sessions the staff wil1 not address each of the review
criteria for the Conditional lJse permit at this timem However, the following
criteria wil~ ~e used a# the final hearing to determine whether or not the project
should be proved or denied:
1 . Re1ationshi and impact of the use on the deveiopment ob;ectives ofi the
1°ownm
2. T°he effect of #he use on li ht and air, distribution ofi popuiatione
transportation facilities, tatilities, schooIH parks an recreation facilities,
and other ublic needsm
3. The effect upon traffic with particular reference to congestions
automotive and pedestrian safety and convenience9 traffic flow and
controly access, aneuverability9 and removal of snow from street and
arking arease
4. ffect upon the character of the area in uvhich the proposed use is to be
Iocated, inciuding the scale and bulk of the proposed use in relation to
the surrounding usesa
1 . REDEVELOPMENT ISSUES
1 . ite Ianning
a} - The staff beIgeves tha# the
ouerali site planning for the PoIice addition works weil wven the
narrovvness of the project site. Although the propose buildang
comes very close to the south roperty line (3`_0A') an has a
zero setback aIon the north property line9 we #eeI that the
reduce scale of the redesigned buildin ,coupled ith a very
stron Iandscape plan, can itigate the building's close proximi
to the no hand south property 9ineso It should be noted that the
edge of asphalt (South Frontage Road) is Iocated approxirnately
20 feet soutfi, of the southern most property lines for the
unicipal Complex.
) Vehicular access/CD l° acce~i~~~~~
iprovernents - Since the previous P~C work sessions the
vehicular entrance to the parking garage has been relocate
approximately 60 feet further to the westa taff believes this
should generaily improve the ingress/egress to the sites as this
access point wou1 now be fiurther away fro the #our-vvay stopa
The roject iandsca e architect9 Sherry Do ard, has been
6
comrnunicating with the Colorado Departrr,ent of Transporkation
regarding the access permito T'his in#ormation should be
availabBe at onday's work sessiona
C} Pe estrian access (sidewai , crosswalks2, buildi
tg-.2~ A
it is sntended #hat the rriain pedestrian access to #he ne Police
addition will e via the existin tanicipal taaldin ePublic
parkin is proposed to be Iocated be een the unicipa! Aranex
and the existing Municipal Buiidin , and it is wntended that #he
general publac will enter on the west entrance to the Municipal
uildin to access the Police additions
To aid cn pedestrian safiety and access #o the Municipal Comp1ex9
o pedesfirian crosswalks are proposed as a part of the Police
addation. ne cr~~swalk is proposed to be locate adjacent to
the corpio Condominiums and #he second crosswalk is
proposed #o be Iocated just to the east of the Vail Nationa1
ank's eastern entry. These lo tions are consistent with #he
recommendations outlined in the Recreation °Tracls Plano
) The project iandscape architect fll
be at the onday Planning Comrraission work session to discuss
the general concepts regardin the planting design for the
roJect.
2. rc it t rl nsider #i n
a) ass and uIk//scale
uildinci and with the surroundip ~ar~~ - The staff believes that
the current design of the Polrce addition, which vvas redesi ne
to reduce the mass and bulk of the roject, achieves a s !e that
is very compatible with the existing unicipal uilding9 an vvith
adjacent structures in the area. e believe that the project
architect's responsiveness to the comrr,ents and concerns
expressed y the PC and the D is very positivea 1"his
redesi n has Iocated both Ievels of the parkin arage
co Ietely below rade, vvhich has a#1owed the addftion to be
reduced in height by one full storye
} uildin. - As curren#8y proposed9 the buildin materials
for the Police addition are now com atsble ith the existing
unicipal uiIding and with the aIpine character of Vai1a
3m v i t # r
a} Pgrkinq - The staff is recom end°sn that #he PEC uti1?ze the
rrraost conseruative approach when de#er inin the parkin
requirement for the proposed Polace additionm e would
7
recommen that the PEC reuiew the parking analy~~s utilizin the
„nurraber of employees" approach, which wouId require a total of
107 parking spaces for aIl the municipal fiunctions on-site. taff
believes the curren# proposai9 which cal1s for 141 saces is
reasonab1e in that there wouid be 32 additional parkin spaces
over what is currently existin on-siteo Additoonaliy, the tatal
number of Town e ployees is not roposed to be increase over
the existing level, as a result o# the Polcce addition.
The Planni gand Pubiic orks staff cannot sup ort the r~quest
for four surface parking spacess which are proposed to be
located along the west s9de of the erttrance into the parking
arage. e #eei that vehicles backing out of these spaces ay
conflic# with vehicles exitin the parking garage artd that this rrrtay
not be the best location for additional surface parking fro a
safety point of vaew. Sta#f is also concerned about the aesfhetics
of surface parkang and the ability to adequa#e!y screen the
parking frorn the South Frontage Roada °The proposed parking
would be Iocated approximately 15' fro the south property line.
houid the PEC decide to approue the proposed surface parking
spaces for the project9 the staff would recomrnend #hat the
number of spaces be kept to a rni~~mum and perhaps be
reduced to two, and that any surface parking spaces be Iocated
on the easf smde of the garage entrance so that those using the
spaces wili not have to cross the vehicfe entrance to gain access
to the PoIsce ui6din ,
b} OK
C) etbacks - ta#f's concerns regardirag the building setbacks are
irectly related to the proposed Iandscapfng and radin i na t
this time9 a iandscape and gradin pian has not been sub itted
and #he staff would iike to reserve judgement urttil this
inforrnation is receivedm ssentially, we beiieve that fhe
ro osed setbacks are reasona Ie, weth the understanding that a
very strong landscape plan will be submitted which wiii buffer
and soften the project.
d) ite cov2ra e - OK
e) Landscapin - To be discussed at the PEC work sessaona
f) l°rash Facilities - The current proposal ca1ls for the trash facili#y
(compactor) to be Iocated immediately to the west of the parking
garage entrances (inside the structure)e This will be dlscussed
further at the work session,
8
4, i r 1 s
a) Corr3patibili!y with the exAsti~g lvlunicipql ~ - The staff
believes that the roposed floor layout of the Police addition wi91
be compatible with the existmn urtacipa! uildin as ti~e main
hal#way tttrou h the existan unics al Building w61i e at the
sarne elevation as the second floor ofi the PoIice Building, 7'he
ain lobby for the PoIice Building has been relocated to the
second floor to facilitate this publfc access.
b} CompIiar~~e with the Americans with Disabllities AptLADA) W The
eIeva#or core for the Poiice addition has been relocated and a
pedestrian access has been modified on the first 1evel of the
Pollce addition so that both Ieve1s of the existing unicipal
uilding, as well as the olice addition, wili be accessib3e to
disabied personsm °The °fown's Building Department as currently
conducting a code review #o deterrnine if the project fuNy
cOBIfoCCTIs wlth the AmefiCanS With Disablli#IeS ct.
5. IC&ornprehensive M ti
) Land Use Plan - The l°owrt of Vai!'s Land llse Ian has identifie
the Municipal Complex site as being in the land use tegory
entitled Public/Semi-Public. This category iracltades schools, post
o ices, water and ~ewer storage faciiities, cemeteries, municipa9
facilitfes, and other publsc institutions.
The staff believes that the foilowin goais and policies of the
Land Use PIan are applicable to the Municipal Corrtplex and the
ro osed Police additiona
6.1 -ervsces should keep ace with increased ro thm
602 mThe Town of Vail shou1d play a role in future
developrrtent through balancin grou?th vvith
serv?cesa
6.3 -Services shou! be adjuste #o keep pace ith
the needs of eak periods.
) ecreation °Trails lan - The Recreation Traiis Master Ian
indicates fhat o pedestrlan crosswalks should be provided
immed?ately a jacent to the unicipal Complex. Additionally9 the
Traiis Plan in icates that asidewalk shouid be iocated aIon the
south side of the South Frontage Road9 fro the Vail ational
ank east to #he Alpine Standar Service Station,
9
6s vir nmen# 1
a) osse1Exhaust fians froM_2qrki~~ - Further architectural
etails of the exhaust fans wi61 be provided at the onday work
session. It is intended that the architecttaral treatment to the
exhaus# #ans wili be very similar to #hat of the propose Police
additione Staff feeIs that significanf a ounts of landscaprng wiil
be necessa to screen the exhaust fans. Any noise enerate
by the exhaust fans wil1 need to meet the Town of Vaii9s noise
standardsa
p \mem~~~pofi
10
7OW~ ~ ~~IL UNICIPAz COMPLEX
MAsTER r~~AN
POLICE DEPARTME t IREMENTS
mid ay
C71~'ISIOt~ atch l 'Iap atch 2 'Iap at~ 3 `lap
A martistration 2ZW-03co
hief csi Folice
St~ S~z ~
Lieutenant
5taff Sergeant
fZecords 2~
~ommunications S'..~
CcAM,
erations
f'airof Ltg
Lnv~st9~~il~t1
Pacrol
Investigations
Community Ser.
Tc~-rALs
°
~ -axiMlI vcc13 12.
Parkirrg Required at axi um overia
eserveJ Volunteers
arked Police ars
tJnmarke o1ice Cars -
fmpound1 thers ~
TOTAL P LiCE PA K1
VISlT iGl G -
T T L; PARKING ° r
~ t/aiJPo)ice Depar8rrrent Febraaary 25, 1992
SCHEME C
Scherne C represents a r~ew two-stcsry, 17,958 s.fa Poiice Faci4ity lacated over two IeveIs of
enclosed parkirsg garage. The 1,450 s.f, HoIdin~ and Bczokirag area and 550 s.fq SaIlypesri are
lgcated ir~ the upper park4r~g IeveI with additir~r~ai area for A circc~lation core, serrv6ce ar~d stcrrage
spaces. The existing Po3ice area in the Municipai Building wi1l te vacated and availab3e for
expansson by other departments.
Area Summasy
Remcadel A,rea 0 SF
Nerv Area
Main Level 11,571 SF ~
1)p r LeveB -t- 6 387 SF ?5
Sa.sbtcstal 1 ~17,958 S
Lower Level / Garage Level i
sallyporr A B king r Holajng 2,000 sF~~ -3 11f 0S3 ~
Service Areas / Stairs /Stora 1,080 SF
Garage L1se 14,142 SF
Subtotal Lowes' Levei 17,222 5F
Garage L.evel 2 16,788 SF ~ w
Tofa! New Construction 51;965 5F l9~
Cost Esti?r,ate
AREA COST TO1"AL
RemodQ$ Area t3 . $(1 $0
New PD CJffice Construction , 17,95£3 = S120 $2,154,960
Pyew Parking Gara;e Q---
New B klHoid & Basemt. areas 3,080_ ~ $150 $492,800
Entry Level Mirtus Book1Ho1d 14,142
lower Level 16,788
Tota! Garage Construction 30,930 $50 51,855,800
Building Construction Totat , 4,503,560
FIIC[ldtilfe / FtlfPti$Rlii1g5 $43,884
siae work 15,000 $8 S120,000
Construction Total 4,717,444
Ccantingency 15% $707,617
5ub4oial $5,"$25glP69
DES'tg?'e Fee5 $235,000
7°TAL F' OJECT C ST 5,66 ,061
4
a
~
DECELERA7`tOPd GAN~` FOR 70
. ~
-1-
o q1 ~ l ~
~~!a a~ ~Yl SS~pS~ qLpn y\~6 ~ s 1 , ` ~b 7
J 9
~ s sc~~~,s N i '0 ~ a~ ' ~ ~
npy
~05
51~55
~ PJ
~~Y 6g9 £91~ , re •a, 69' ~1 t°' 4~ ~'~7
c~ SS GR req 44' 16" LµP~ 65 ~ .~,dYp ~
~~~~/~•/~~j
00,
~1 '~je9 ~ - Ey., i~Yh.`LV.,~ ~~~?v~ J; y~~'-~ J 8,5~.
w. S p r v"a 6, e'~ c ,~uaFr 5~
o wj. . ~o- 6a.~ ~ 5
S 9'<a• , C0.9.Y. 6g, (n '
~ ~ptsi ' a peE
C> ,o"' ~a$' y
. 0 SCW~aQ~a 0~1
a 5~4 ' b~b~• 6
t 6• 0~` A9~. ,
~odc 5 ,,,,t f Ba'~~
5s~ ° $~~8•
1 ~
: ~ `---~°G ~ • ° j
, : .
• ; . " . . _ ~ , ~ ,1;11, ~ ~ ,i1ai ¢
' 9 ~ P ~ e1 ~ t ; ~ ~y~.1'~l ~ ~ 9 srf • ~ ~ ~a; q ~ ~
ii~l~ ~.u ~.i ~A~~ j~4t. ~j,l 7 I•-__.^--~- d, a1. + r i ~ ~°..;i ~ iY~4 - r ~.a .
~ . . ~ + . , f~}, i.' ~ '0. ~ ~I ~ ~ 6, ~ ~ 1;" yU~ ~ . . r2 pi;aCi ~ ii.. •vi 6 a s:.,~:~.? . ~ g i ; ~ -
i1.~ I i ' ~ \ '~'~'''-~~~~~_~_~a~ { ~ + _~,}L..... ;~il I r• :y;~j . s,7~j i -8~? , l ~i ~ ~
_0~ 1',, \ ~ • ....t I• A~rt' a~,.f ~a~•~ ~ -,~.:,i ~ rf .
~
~ . ~ ~ ' ~A.. ~t: ~ 'S' ° . , ~ . . . . . ' ~ ~ ~ ~ • . .
(f. 'zITT176 . ' . . . . . ' , . . .
. . • . ' . .
. ; .p
,
I {f;ll.l ~ ~ J.~ ~•j~t ~isi ~ti ~'llt~ I ~I i~i r~~~:ii~.i ~il, I~i i (~I~~Iii ~ i 'i, ~i~...~~li~~i f ~ ~~~~,~I~ _ .
~ .
~
1
. . ~.L..,._ _
~ .
~
. ) . . . , , . ~
77
,
.
,
,
. . ~
„
,
~ , .
~
.
. . . .
;
:
,
a . ~
t
.
.
. ;
,
„
,
~
~
. . ~
,
' ~ . . . . . z F 4 . t . .
;
. . . . , .
„
. . . , . . ' . " ' .
~ ' ' , .
. . . . t , . . ~ . _ _ . ,
. . ~ . . . . .
. . y . . - y . . . _ ; , . : . . . . ' . . . . . ,
_ ~ ' . . : _ - . • , , ' , , ~ ' ~ . ' .
$ .
~
~ ~
-77
1~ a .~a6 ~4~ t .r ~i ,•f ,~~t~~, ~~d~{~
~i;I~
_ ' ~ ' f ~ 1d# i`, ~ :J D'JYW ' ~ 74 j8 t ! }Fk P f j ,s" y
_ . ' . ~ ~ '"~nr ~ / ~ .t t • j t° ~ ~ m~~ ~ £ ~ _ . . . . .
~
iv,
, . : . . .
,
c
~te
r ~ b
, . .
_ . ~
i ^ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I•~?`~~1~._ ' , ~
i,K : u .
~
;
.
j ,
010
, .
, .
,
_ . < • M,„,,,.:...
,~a~• , . ,
. . . . . ' ~•r~
. . . ~ . . ,
' v
4
. .
z
q t
~
.
. .
. . . ,
-
r '
. . ~ ,
a
,
Y ~
. ~ ~ - - . ~ . ~ . . . ..T . _
"i
1. . . , . , _ ' .
„ . ~ , . : ~ , . . , .
~ e
. . : . ; . . . . ' ' , , .
~ ~En ~
, . . .
. ,
. ~
~
77~
r
~ ~r t ~ 1»~GHIYES_ P E IN
C4F!#~lf~"•5
~ _ 1 ~ 360 ~i
>.p
i U ' ~ Y r ~ 1 8 ; , ~~I
~ _..B -
~
d!? ~
` • 4-.i.n_ ~{_.i~ ~9~ ~ ~ L
7-0 Irtt~av;rW r-
~ ~ • , . ' . • _ 1 . ~ 1,~ . ' 0 i 0
~{''~~°p/Y~1/,~ ~ ; ! . Eq ¢ ~ ~ fi , - 4 ,i ~ ~I~~T~ ~ ~)j
! ll ~ ~
~
- i~~l^~'-~ i2pJy^ . ..V'~`1/ ' .J'.7~"` ~ j ~r' ~ ~
i '
tL: _~VU-
~
, 'f~d f-', ~i.~ ~ i ~ b~4~ ~ L~i7 ~ -1 ~ J-1 o q b
v` u~a
~H'+CxfJ ~ d'ak17+1 ~ o^a.'r;~'7":171F~~ ~ .
_ . . _ ~
7
. .
' I : ' °+j-•----e.m ~'"-"---^°-r~~ ' A . { ~ ~"i ~
~~I;~r>. _ `d' ;,nTft r.~ i~.? . Js~ ' _'I ~ , uP ~ e~
'a ~ _ ~ h ' ~ P. ° ~a R ~YE P Y >R SC F''. ~74 ~ 11~~"'."6
o~ § z
s,~.'
~ ~ { 1
~ a 6a t va ..r *
:
- a
~ J~?.v
,
.
~ . . : . ~ ~ , ~ , b - ~ , ~ yi i
. . . ~ d '!f~'f~ - "
--------'V
i
_
_
°',°'b ~ . .....m.~ ,
. 'f{ ~ y
. ~ J 7
~
~ _t'fa~ 'J y _1~ . ~ ,8.~~~_.~. 1' ~ ~ ~---i.
~«t: m.bcrr~
~
. ~ ~ a I I
~ ; • , .
~ pool
~
F
.,t
. ~
~
. _ ~ ~ ~ • ;A , ~ a~` ~ . .
sr
.
S
I ~ ~ , '?~ii%a~ ~+"~i I' ~4 ~ IGp ~0 _~r~di J~ 'p-i° __1_`.?'!°/ i~~N~x ~'tr~,~i i~~ ~i
; i ~ ' ~ _ ~•I1' i - ~ , . _ ; _ - - , ~
~4p.
~ ~ -
F2
I ~ j ~ Y ~ ` ~ ~ • -
~ i
~
5~ li ~1a . U.;,•:~) p:y;Y> a ~
~ - . 3 ~ _ ~ - - • ~ - ~
"i:
ar~ y
i + i
UQ777~
~ • _ s ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . '
fJey'9y ~ ?,,t4
~
.
.n
1~~yyf.'{~
N i ~ /~e 1 A {dia~ uS 1^^1'0 ~^`~,^J ~i~ ~1\°4'YJ ~ ,e'~• ° 9 rp~~ ~ i
~ ~ ~ t.. • . . .~.~..m.~ ¢.T..m ?:o f
7
1
, . ,
y1
tAy ~t
a ~ t
i , 3 ' ~ # ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~
~ • ' ~ - ~ i` • ~ . . ~ . ~ . . ~ . ~ ~ • • o-
~
i
. . .
17, q0
, a
• ~
a
,
. , .
. , _
_ .
. `:~9~~~~ •
, AN I1
TOa P1 ning and Envgron eratai Co rnission
F 4 Co munity I7evelop ent ep ent
DA e October 12, 1992
SiT C°T: Arequest for a~ork session for a rriajsar aendment to SI)D #4 Cascade
Village tc~ ~end the d.evelopment pl for the Comerstone pcel in ea A.
Applicant: EC Ent~ rises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Comrnercial Federal Savings
Piannez°: Shelly e11o
1. INT O LTCTION
In Tu13r of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed amendr~ent to the Cascade Village
S #4, Area A Development Pl . T°he proposal specifically addressed the
Waterford site located at the co er of Westhaven Dzive and the South Frontage oads
It has been decided that, in order to rnove fo ard with the aend ent to the
Waterford site, that the Comerstone szte to the tivest of aterford would also need to
be a enclecl. e changes to the Comerstone site are necess y becaus~ ~urrently
there is an interdependence betv~~en the two sites as it a°elates to the provisican of
p kinga Each site is owned by inciepencient entities and it is their desire to elimirzate
yinterdependence between the two sites. 'I'he goal of this effort is tvvo developrnent
pl s which can be cons cted irad~dent of th~ ~th~~°a
For the pu oses of this woric session, the staff rnemo will focus on the proposed
develop erzt for Co erstone. ere will be no comments on the issues relating to e
aterford site as the applicant is ira the process of responding to staf~ and PEC
commerzts ade at the September 14, 1992 work sessiono
IIo ESC IP ON F RIILQUEST
The applicant is requesting awork session to review a proposed majoz° amendrrient to
Special I?evelop ent Distt°ict (S )Nom 4, Cascade Village Area A and more
specifically, the C~ erstone site, The Corrcerstorze pcel is bound by the prcaposed
aterfozd project to the east, ore Creek ancl the Westin "Te~~~e Buiiding to the
south and esthaven °ve to the north. e Waterforc3 p cel is on th~ ~ornez° of the
South Frontage I2oad and esthaven rive, The par°cel was zoned SDD fra the
time it was nexed into the °Town of Vail in 1974.
1
IIIa ACK I2{JITND
The Cascade Village T?eveIoprnerzt was previously ownecl by a single developrnent
entity. As proposed by the past cleveloper, the project was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an integ-r°ated co plex which provided corr~ ercial areas, shoz°tv
te d long-terrn residential units and consoliciated paarking facilities. Since the
b uptcy of this origina1 cieveloper, ownership of the sites has been dispersed ong
°fferent owners. is pl is nc~~ ore ciifficult to execute, as each owner has
ciifferent ideas on horv to develop their respective sites. e cha~~e in cawnership
effects the Cc~ ersTone project becaazse, as approved, all of the p king for the
Cc~ erstone project was to be 1 ated on the Waterford site. These projects are novv
heId by 2 urzz°elated entities who wish to provide their own p kfng on each sitem A
tota1 of 166 p king spaces vaere to be provided in the Waterford project for the
Comerstone development.
An additiona1 outst ding issue in the Cascade Village deveIop ent is the o nership
status of esthaven rave, fro the South Frontage Road to the Gore Creek ridge.
Tlxe roacl is owzaect by the ownez° of the Waterfoz°d site, C Entezpzises, d is
privateiy maintainedo is road has not been conveyed to the Town because it cl s
not rneet the °Town's minimum roacl stand ds, howevez°, there appe s to be a public
access easement across the pa.rce1. Negotiation is proceedrng orz this issue, but the
issue has not been z°esolvedA
'I'he Comerstone proposa~ ~uffently being reviewed does propose to Iocate p king
belov? a portaon of esttaaven Drive. An easemerzt vaill need to be obtained fro the
owner of the road p cel in ortler to build this p king.
IV, Z NI CONSI EI2A ()NS
A. lans for
Cor ersto e
A rove ropose ropose
Scenario Scenario 1 Scenario 2
1) ensrty
of rtits) 50 TR* 52 TIZ + 2 ernp. 34 T
6 U's***
w>3
lockoffs""
3 AIT's
{u es °cted}
2 e pa unit"
4D 2
2) GRFA 28,110 sqa ft. 28,110 + 1200 sq. fta 28,110 + 1200
for emp. units sq, ft. for
emp. units
3) C<ommon Area as pez° To be °To be
appraved dete inect determined
p1
4} Ca erciai ace 26,040 or 14,415 sqe ftm 14,415 sqa ft.
29,065 sqm ft,
) Cre i ive None per uit;-fa ily per multf-
zoning f ily
zoning
) ei t
North 71' rnax on
South south elevatian 699 69'
Ea.st with v iations
est on othez°s
7) Set ac s As per approved 0 0
develop ent 0 0
plan 0 0
0 0
) ite Covera e as per as per as per
approved plan plan
plan
) r in 155.9 or 93 reqa spaces w175% 96 req.
165 spaces enclosed; w175%
96 proposed w/ enclosedg
100% enclosecl 96 proposed
W/100%
enclosed
3
~ TR =`°°I'ra.ns~~~t residetztial dwelling unit or restricted dwelling unit" shall be defined
as a clweI1ing unit located in a multi-family dwelling that is anaged a,s ashort terrn
rental irz whach a11 such units e operated under a single management providing the
occupants thereof customary hotel services and facilides. A short te rental shall be
deerned to be a rent foz° a peri of tirrae raot €o exceed 31 days. Each unit shall not
exceed 645 squ e feet of G A which stza11 include a kitchen having a maximum of
35 square feet. The kxtchen sha11 be designed so that iz may be 1ocked d sep ated
fro the rest of the unit in acIosete A transient dwelling unit shall be accessible fi°om
common ca °doz°s, wa s, or ba1conies without passing through another accom-
ation unit, dwelling unit9 or a transient residential ciwelling unit. Should such
units be developed as condominiums, they sha11 be restricted as set forth in Section
17m25.075--17.26,120 gove ing condomzniu conversiona e unit shall not be used
as a pe anent residencem Fractional f~~ ownership sha11 not be allowed to be applied
to transient dwelling unitse Foz° the purposes of dete ining allowable density per
acre, tr sient residentiall dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling
unito The tr sient r°esidential dwelling unit pking requirement shall be 0o4 space per
unit plus 0.1 space per each 100 squ e feet of C3 A with a maximum of 1.0 space
per aanit.
E ployee units do not count tow ds density or GRFA per the cu ent
S D#4 dinance.
The proposeel .I1.'s e not prcsposed to be restricted per the IJse Res °ctions in
Section 17.26 Conclo Conver°sion of the Subciivision I2egulations per the cieveloper's
requesta
I, k-off LTnit: A cl ellir~g unit in aultiple-faily buiiding ay inclucie one
attached accom odati~n unit no 1ger that one-third of the total floor
area of the dwelling.
V. SFECIAL EVEI, P NT DIS°TRI CI 12I.A:
°T~~ criteria to be used to evaluate this proposai are the nine Special Development I7istrict
(S ) develop ent st d ds set forth in the special development district chapter of the
Zoning Code. T'h~ criteria e as followsa
A. esign co ati ility an sensitivity to te i ediate environ e t,
neighborhood an adjacent roperties re1ative to architectural esign,
scaie, ui , uil ing heig t, u er zones, ientity, ~aracter, visual
integrit,y an orie tationv
4
The proposed building is sirnilar in ass and forin to the approved building
pl s d to the adjacent Westin Co plex: The propcased buil€iing is 2 feet
lower than the approved building. The building shell wi11 rernain the s e for
ea.ch proposeel scenario. There are three dep ures in reg dto bualding ass,
fro the original plan, The first of these is that th~ oraginal plan's at-gS°a~~
ercia1 level facing the "Tefface Wing has beert changed to p lcing with a
c~~e-story corn c;rcial addition in front of the p king, The totaI comrnercia1
ea with this addition as 14,415 square feet. A second change, which xs also
due to the introduction of p king on this site, is vehicular access on each end
of the buziding dtwo 1oa °ng berths on the west end of the project adjacent
to Westhav~~ rive. ~~hircl change dea1s ath the stairway fro esthaven
Drive clown to the ski lift levelm
Thexe is a severe grade ch ge on this site frorn esthaven Dsive to the ski
lxf6public space level. This9 a.long with the configuratiora of the site, present
any px°actical clifficultiesm I)ue to the grade change, the visual impacts of
each building elevaz~~~ e very different and because each side of the buiicling
is exposeci to publzc ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to be
very import t. L,andscape materia.l and be s should be incc~~orated irzto the
plan i~ order to screen the lowest levels of each eievation, especially on the
east elevation to decrease the visual g pacts of the p king scturea
ith the approved developrnent plan, there was agS°eat deal of consideration
given to the public spaces on the sitea Specifica11y, the passageway and
outdoor stair connecting esthaven Daive to the ski lift and pzzblic space in
front of the Terrace ing, as vvell as the relationshap of the Comerstane public
areas to the rest of the Westin Co p1exe 'I'his was accompl°zshed with a series
of connected plazas and othez° site a eraities, e staff feels that further study
should be given to the relationship of the proposed project to the existing
facilities in the area.
In reg d to this criteria, the sta.ff has the following overa11 conee s;
lo The visual i pact of e1evation ass on pedestrian easa The
corrirnercia1 additicsn on the south elevation will break up e
elevaticsn as well as screen the first and ~~~~nd leve1 of p° lcinge
The subsequent distance between the buildings and landscaping
of the area should be stud~ed in detail in oz°der to maintain e
pedes °an area,
2. The relationshi of building to pectestrian areas at both the ski
lift ea and the commercial ea adiacent to the tegacS wingo
A 1 ge plaza area was approved with the previous plana is
was l ated to the south of th~ ~outhwes~ er of the builciingm
The staff would like to see this completed with this project,
5
3m `Th~ pz°c~vision c~f architectura1 details sa~ch as balconies d
cades as seen in the adiacent buzldiira~s: cacies should be
inco oz°ated into a11 of th~ commercial eas9 especially along
Westhaven Dzave and if possible at the Terrace ing level.
4. I~~~~oration c~f lar~dsca iz~a ar~d~ ds~~berrnsm e ing
a1ong the east end of the building should be added ir~ order to
screen as much of the p king as possibleo
Se The stee~ness of the ,~ai~°~ra~ sh~~a~d be d~~~-~as~d sr~ that it
not a-ppear tcs be so clo i~~~
ilzty of furtheir decreasizz th~ ~ount of sctu in
6m T'he Possib~
the pedestrian passa~eway ea shou1d be studieda
B. ses, activity an ensity w ic rovi e a co ati le, efficient an
worka Ie relations i wit surrounding uses and activitya
The applicant is propcasing two scen °os for this site, eviously, there was a
single develop ent plan which included accom odation urzit, and retail uses4
Scen 'o Iprovicles foz- 52 transient units, 2 e ployee units9 14,4l5 squ e feet
of ~~~~ercial area, 2 Ioading berths, and 96 enclosed pking spaces. This
ouId allo 2 additional transient unit~ ~~er the existirag approval.
Scenario 2 provides 34 transxenfi units, 6 ciwelling units with 3 lockoffs, 3
accommodation unflts9 2e ployee units, 14,415 square feet of co rnerci
ea, 2loadizzg berths, and 96 enclased parkzng spaces, °The resulting
residential density is under the approveti density by .5 I)I.T's.
The requested change to allow unrestricted dwelling units in Scen 'o 2(versus
~~co ation units) zs a substantial departure fro the original pl for
Cascade Villagea e initia1 intent for Comerstone was to provide short-terrn
renxals which, it was beiieved, would subsequentiy increase the use of the
entire Cascade facilitya e staff has rese ched this issue and found that there
is a demand foz° short-term renta1s of this type in the Valleym Currentiy, the
bed base is split 50150 between condos and acco moclation type units
according to the Vail Resort Associationm Demand for each type of unit seems
to differ between season. There uaould appear to be a eater de and for
accommodation type units during the su mer and for short 2-3 day stays,
hile d eng the winter, stays tend to be ic~~~er and condomaniums e ore
desirable. For this reason, we feel that short-te rentals should be included in
the proposal arad if Scenazio 2 is apprcsved that a11 of the dwelling units should
be pe anently res °cteci per the Condo Conversiorz requirezrients. e a1so
feel that 6 i koffs, which could be z°ented independently of the 6 dwelling
units, should be incorporated into all of the proposed I)aUm's, instead of just 3.
A second change in the proposed program is the deletzon of a po °on of the
6
apprtaved ercia1 spa.ce. In the Waterford project, the staff supported the
deletion of the commerci space becaus~ ~e project as rernoveci from the
corri ercr areas in Cascade Village and because it is acondo inium pxoaecta
Given this site's proxi ity to the existing Tefface Wir~~ co mercial eae staff
feels it is importa~~ maintain aconsiderable portion of the commercial
sqcz e f tage as we11 as l ating a portion of it at the Tefface ing level. Irz
order to accom ate p king demarads9 it will be necessary for this additional
comrries°cial to be 1ated ir~ front of the p king in the °I"errace Wing 1eve1,
which will also screen the sctured p king from the pedestrian areaa e
details of this ael °tion need to be studied f her, Specificaily, the subsequent
distance between the existir~g Tezrace Wing arad this pz°oposed structcare9 and the
ass of the cor~ ercia1 addition, should a1so be considereci in regard to the
i pact on the pedestrian area. "The applic t should consider connecting the
commercial ea to the stairway that connects esthaven Iarive to the ski lift.
In adclition, staff suggests making the second level of th~ structure a~efface in
order to minimize the bizllc of the commercial additicsn. "I'he co rriercial at is
proposed along Westhaven Drive is pasitive as it will add activity and interest
to the project.
°The applicant is proposing 2employee unitsa In revieuring the application, the
staff izsed the sazggested e ployee housing criteria, is stucly suggested that
the following fo ula be ust;d to dete ine errnployee housing requirements for
projects that do not exceed tlensity,
5cen °0 1
50 units
x 1.25 errrployees required per unit
62.5
x ,15 housing multiplier
= 9,4 e ployees or 10 empioyees
Assurning 2employees will sh e each unit, 5 units would be required for
Scenario la Five units would also be z°equared for Scen °o 2using the sarrie
fo ulam e staff wouid require that aini um of five e plcayee units be
included for both Scen °os. e would suggest that the 3 additional empioyee
units be ten out of the proposed urcit nu ber and allowed GI2FA for the
pxoject. If 5e ployee unzts ~ere provzded, 2 in addition to the allowed
density anct 3 fro the approved ciensity, thez°e wauld be a subsequent decrease
in units and GRFA dedicated to TR's, AIJ9s, and DIJ"so The employee units
will need to meet the requirerrrezzts of the Z`ouvn's ne Housing dinance.
The rnost applicable type of unit wouid be a'I'ype IIi,
7
The staff also feels that the provision of short-~erm units is iperative. 1n
40 speaking with the operators caf the Westin, the staff found that there is a
demand for T type units. We vuouid suggest that AtT lockoffs be attached to
a11 of the px°oposed clwellzng urtitsa This would not increase the p °g
demand d~oultl make additiona1 short-terrn units availableo T°he staff would
aalso suggest the deletion of 1 T)LT and the substitcation of additioraal °T 's,
however, this wouId increase the p lcing demand, "I°he staff would suggest the
following ciensitya
Akroved Scenario 1 Scenario 2
# of units 50 TIZ 47 T'R -r 31 °I'I2
5employ~e units 6U with 6 1 koffs
3 AI7
5 errnployee units*
GRFA 28,110 sqa ft. 26,310 + 3000 269310 sq-0 ft, + 3000
sq. ft. sq. ft.
for ernp. units for emp, units
~ Another option is to redazce 1 DIJ and to acc~ ~odate the additional
employee units requested.
Staff conce sm
1m ~h~n9~ ir~ ~°es~d~rstial dwellin~ use f~°c~ traz~siez~t units to
dellang ianitsm Staff feels that the provision of transzent units on
this site is import t and that if Scen `0 2, with DZ.T's is approved, they
should all be res °cted by the Condo Conversaon requirementsm
Lockoffs should also be provided with each dwelling unit.
2. The nurnbez° of e plc~~ec- units being provideci,
Ce o liance wit the par ing a Ioa i requireme ts as tlf e f
a ter 18.52.
S~en `o 1, with the proposed accommcrdation units and cornrnez°cial square
foot~~~, requires 93 pking spaces d 2loading berthsm Scen °o 2requires
96 p king spacesm The introduction of parking on-site has subsequently
increased the size of the building and decreased the amount of commez°cia1
sqzz e footage provided on the sitem It would appe that the ovez°all square
f tage of the building has ir~creasedo is can be attzibuted to two thingse
One is that there will be more building locateci below gracie than in the
approved project, eapp1icant is proposing to locate p lcing below
8
esthaven z°ive. ( is was not part of th~ ~ppz°oved projecte) Second, the
fl r to ceiling hezghts of the approved project a.re greater than what is
currently proposecla is z°esults in an add°ztiona1 floor being added to the
buildingo
ITnder Section 18m52 of the unicipal Code, each dwelling unit with less than
2,000 squ e feet of GRFA would have a p king requzrement of 2 spaces anci
those wi over 2,000 squ e feet of G1ZFA ould r~quire 2e5 spaces per unitm
"Those with less aza 500 squ e f~~t requare ieS spaces. The par `g
requiremerzts for accommodatiora units d tz°ansient units e as followso ,4
space per acco rr3 ation unit, plus ,1 space per each 100 squ e f t of
G FA with aaximum of 1 space per unata Each e ployee unit will require 1
p king space assuming the units aar°e one bedroom units,
D. Canfor ity wit t e a pIicabie e1ements of t e Vai~ ~omprehensive lara,
Town cziicies an Urban Design Iansa
For this area, the Town's Lansi I.Tse Plan statesa
1.1 VaiI should coratinue to grow in aconta°alled environ ent, aantaining a
ba1ance between resid.ential, erczal and r~creational uses to serve
bath the visitor and the perinanent resident. .
1,12 Vai1 should acco rraodate rnost of the additional growth in exzsting
developed eas (infill eas)e
1013 Vail r~~~gnizes its st~~~ tract as being a clesirable 1 d feature as well
as its potential for public use,
301 °The hotel bed base should be prese ed a.nd used ore efficientlya
3.3 HoteIs e important to the continued success of the "Town of Vail,
therefore cor?version to condominiums shouid be dis~ouraged.
3,4 Commercial growth should be concentrated in existing commercial eas
to accom odate both 1oca1 and visrtor needs.
3.5 Entertainment oriented busiraesses and cultura1 activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversitya ore night time
businesses, on going events and sanctioned "street happenings" should
be en~ouraged.
5a1 Additional residentia.l gt°owth shoultl contincze to occur prirn °ly in
9
existing, ~latted eas d as appropziate in new areas where high
hazaz°cis do nczt existe
5a3 Affor ble employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by li ited incentives, provided by the Town of ti'ail,
with appropriate restiictxans.
5,4 Residential gr°owth shouid keep pace with th~ ~arket p1ace derriands foz°
a full range of housing types,
5.5 "I9he existing employee housing base should be preserved dupgadedo
Ad 'ti~nal empioyee housing needs should be accommodated at vied
sites tlaroughout the co munity.
hen the Cascade Vallage develop ent was proposed, there was a
co prehensive plan developed which providecl a balance of longa and short-
terrn housznge The cura°ent Scen °o 2proposal requests achange to a11ow
some dwel1ing units ~ersus al1 short-te accorrirriadation unitse The staff feels
that it is irnportant to aintair? units which e available for short-term use,
however, we recognize the importance of provicling a full range of housing
t eso 5cen 'o 2 provides ciwelling, acco rnodation, transierzt, and e ployee
units. If 1of the units were resuiczed and available for short-te rental, then
thas scen °o could be a positive change for this pce1.
This ea is aIso considered to be a mixed use commerczal center fczr the Town,
si il to Lionshead and Vail Village, e reduction of ca ez°cial square
f tage should be carefully considered. I-Iowever, staff a ees that some
reduction in ccarn ercial s}aace is necess y in c~rder to accommodate pkflng
on the site.
E. Ientiricatio a itigation of naturaI an Ior° geo1o ic azar t at affect
the pro t°ty ota whi the special development distr°ict is proposed.
There are no natiaraI d/or geologic haz ds on thzs site which would restrict
its clevelopmentm
F. ite 1a , il ing desi an location and ope s ace rovisions esfgne
to produce a functional evelopment res onsive an se sitive to at ra1
features, vegetation a over ll aest etic uality of te co nity.
The at-grade building footprint csf the proposed plan and the approved plan are
sf il a hen co p`ng the curs°ent proposal, incluclin the p king fac~l~~~
10
to the approved plan, th~ ~~era1I setbacks are simi1 e An additional fl rhas
been proposed in this project as a result of z°educing the flr to ceiling heights
at each level, owever, the actual height of the building has decreased by o
feeta I, dscaping should be iz~~orporateci to screen p lcing areas d building
mass, p°cul ly on the east end of the building. Staff would also like to
understand if the pedestrian mai1 between the Terrace Wing and Cornerstone
irtg is at the same gz°ade or if there will be elevataon cha.nges in e aIl due
to the proposed buzidinga
G. A circul tion system designe for bot ve icles and pedestrians a re ing
c~ an off-site tt°aff c circ lation.
The Towrz is interested irz resolving ~n off-site circulation conce . 'T'his
involves the dedication of esthaven Drive to the °Tovvne Currently,
esthaven Drive fro the South Fa°ontage IZoad to the Gore Creek Bridge is
ovaned by the applicant. The road does not meet the Town's stancl° cis d.
~ertain i provements relateti to the grade9 construction and buil °ng cle ce
beneath the pedestrian bridge will need to be addressed by the applicant pz~or
to the convey ce of the aight-of-way. yT'he T°own wou1d require, as acondition
of yapproval of this application, that the roadway be upgraded and ciedicated
to the Townm An easement would also be required prior to the release of a
building pennit for the pking to be located below the z°oad.
H. unctional an aest etic Iandscaping an ope s ace in or er to o ti ize
a reserve atura1 featur°es, r~cr~eation, views an fu ctions.
Because is site has been subst tially clisturbed, there are f~w remaining
natural ch acteristicsm ith the proposed density of the project, there woulcl
be limited remaining open space on the site, ecause of this, the remaining
1 dscaped eas become criticala L~ndscaping is especially i port t along
Westhaven aive, and the pedesttz°ian mall eae Lazadscape be s ealso
import t ir~ order to screen the lowest levels of parkin,g on the east and south
e1evations where commercial is not proposeda
1. hasin lan or s ivision lan t at wi11 aintain a wor a Ie, functional
and efficient relationship throughout the cleveloprrient of the special
evelopme t ist?°ict.
As initi ly pz°oposed, C~ erstone and at~~orc1 were to be cons cted
si ult eously. T°his phasing plan was necessztated by the provision of pking
on the Watez°ford site for the Comerstone pz°ojecz, Due to the subsequent
change in awnership of the two sites, this becomes a difficult proposition.
owever9 the staff finds that it ~s abs~lut~lv ~~t~~~l tc~ th~ ~~°~a~l ~f a~~r
11
amendrrient for either the Waterford or C~ erstone lDroiect9 to resoive the
In the pr ess of reviewing each of these requests, ft has becorrie app ent to
the staff that hen parking is ac1dec1 to the approved develop ent plan for
Cc~ erstone, it becomes clifficult to rriaintain the approved cievelop ent rights
(ieo G A, numbez° of units, comrriercia.l spa.ce)e Both Scen °o 1 d 2
propose a decrease in corrimercial spacea
VIm S'°I"A CONCE N5
There is no forrnal staff reco rriendatgon at this timeo intent of this woz°k session
is to give the applicant znitial direction and feedback ora the Co erstone Pz°oject.
In su , the staff conce s°ee
1. Cornpatibility of builcling mass with surrounding uses.
2. Increase of landscaping and fuzther develop ent of public spaces.
3. Archztectural details, (ie, balconies, cades,} which would m e this building
sy pathetic to surrounding developrrzent.
4. I provements to Westhaven Drive in order to meet TC7V stand ds and
subs~quent ciedication of roadway to the "Towra of Vail;
Sa esolution of interdependent p king plan for the Comerstone and Waterford
projects, while considez°ing the impact on the mass artd bttlk of the {~ornerstone
project,
6, °The inti°uction of a seconcl Scen 'o to the Cornerstone project with
unrestracted dwelling units versus transient residential units foz° the entire
project9
7. "The numbez° of employee units provided;
$a A11 con 'tions set forth by the Public Works ep ent d Fzre Dep ent9
which reIate to proper ainage and fire access, vvill neecl to be ad essed prior
to the final revievv of the S.D.D.
:aPE t~~CAScADE, 1iz
12
,
i
I
< e
~ir-?~.~E... c i u ~ ~ ~ a~.: ~ _ J S~Te 6$- Po
~
I i
c~ i w ~ 55
oi4
~r," ab ~ bm va ~~PNt*~'T' veiw~wY~Y I o0
~
` _ _ ' ofy f- I
`
K'E:.lr
_ m
a oa •
oav-~m-
_
_
PV ZA ~ r ~ : -/•yT~~~~~~- -~`"v~ _ a^ ~ _ _ ' ~ •qa.c ~
~
~
P~t.eT 6 0.
• ~azPa.rn! ~ ~un,o~~e ~Bm1Pa~~a-r'` ' ~ j~~ ~%}>aar ,lI^
~ w ~ as s~ti aowx.d ai I i I dz.o H tl~~ ( y' ~ a a.s,,s~rr.
; wp
~rfveiYSn~E? .48
0
A~&~cw ' r'P~TTRF-6.BCk11~(s ~Zw'.G ?LF"~O'° ` N644\ /
C . a .
~ s
.
!r ~ ~ dn
d.ggered (Ovancities are esfvnatetl)
E Existing 7rees a; Canada Red Cherry
3' Gal chasgs (aia. MasusNaroEnorn) ~
• Patmore Ash Shrubs
a- 3` CabPat 200 9d9- ~
Coiorado Blue Spruce Perennials and Ground Covar
8-6'. 4-101. H-1B' Ptigh 500 8- ga&on `
Quaking AsPen Lawn !
~ y
. •
30, 2S" Ga4per.5D%clxrqs 5D00 Sq.~t lNaBarioed
lnieriocking Pavers r {s~@ :neQa L-sq
a,_J I
Ca .esd. Ctanb ~
i
_m -
E
W.aflhavxn Driv.
9t Iflrill- ~ ' -
~ SC@ iP9TC'
t ~ . -~~ti•t .
I (
~ • o p ~ ~
{ ~ .e C9rneTs$989e ~ r
r'.ss Wtwg ! ~ -
-34 ~ ~ /
,r • r--~~- y__~ ~ _ / I I'a°e!im 'iiiia°v
,
~ . ,
. , ;
~w~.
61YF't-tt)t/E&ORfVEEdSI-C)?VE DEglELCaF'MEdllT
PER AOA4A ARCH7TECTS TC AppqDVAt 913l89
rt I.~.I~j a
i.iiri.il..i.~°~y_._-
- ~
^
_--T
- - -
EAST
WEST
sc~r w -
mr«.
III I~~.I~~II i ~ ~ ~~Illl~fii ~~~i~~~~I~~~I ~ ~ ~ ~ : ! Ininl I
II_ II_1 ! ~ I a
a - -
TPTFI
~
~ _ I ~I~. ~~m 1'r-lip -1
~ _ - . ~ -
tVORTH
~
°7°'iT
~ .
~
ODD Qooooo
. ,
c~ ~ ~ ~ n n
a
I 8
wSis'M.aTr.r~c.i+w .ac wm
SV 1.! 8 1 3
€ ~ ~W . .
pP
PROPOSEI7 CORNERS°TOhIE DEVEL0PMENT
' " _ . _ " _ ~ C:puE • 1l5~
1
I ° , y 00 ,rl, o aaQ o00
--~5~.,-~~~~. -
a..__.
S:~Aa,79 GLE0T9&8&99~ ~g.ESd E&~EYACI491~ .
-
'"^y.Aa.~Ta1L+°U"'"'-_.
aFfL',
t Trra , , i
~ ~
~ so ~ M-~:;
- - - - - -
e
~ ; -
- _ . _ _ - _ ~
-a ~
,
:
- - - - - .
~
NiJf4 A 9? E6mEV 8A 9 B9JEi! ff
7 9
, .
,
~ _
,
~ I - -
~ -
,
:
I
-f--
k, 1-4
, , I
}y-
T4L..
~
I
: ~ r~ ~t { $ y
. . ~ ~ ~ . ~ t,..
_ . i ~ ; i,. , -_~g..,j ! _.~,...L.. ~ i._ _ l : r ~ _ _a.. ;1
,
, . . , ~
I 7 3 „d.~
' t
t e r
i
.1!
~ _ _ .
. .
. , ' . ~ . L . . . { ~ I ~ . 1
L-r-V L -10 ~~..~s?°`^+t~^C'~;-" : 91i N; 7,r'9m1~.~.~°'dr
~
G90 "
i~
S
~
,
; -
, , •
?
am'
•
~ ~ .
~ _ . .
t
~ 000: BOB 000' i
~-l
i
'
-
i - t ~1~ -
!
l~i- --7T
II N'' ~ H_J ~1-iIIll
_111__LL~ - '
_
~
. '
LEVEL 38
~
,
o V ~
' .~r... 7 J
I~1
t
LkA
k:?.;41M ~Fi ~ ~
E%3STlNG PLAZA ~
L,EVEL 48 (-T_~_
. . . J
ja
.
~
,
^
j,f
~ ~ ~ M . . _
C
r*r~~ i
~
~
i •
'~Tr o~%~~ -3
R;,~
7~ ~
~ LEvEL so_
I IN W:Sil+n.vE :•r~v6 -.u-.¢ ~
I '
I e_
~ Y
~
7 . I P.... y. r~. r
r
i ~ i. - ' ~'r r L«
- - _ -
_
,
I{~i
,
i i,1 aii i11i~i{~f~~ I~
I~dl~aj i+777 ! 1irl
I:
yU;
T=-c.
i i
LEVEL 102
~iril' ~~;i:l!iili::l.i:~l {~illli;i'lii,liifi '1!~I?'~ ir'r~~• '1'!!~{~~! I'.+I I }i~1l~ , .
1 ~
# - -
;.ii ~ {J 91~! ili
d
t . , .
~
F
e T~--C. °"z-~
i
! ~Y: i1;. :~tl,'•Ia1 ~ ~i°•i, i~iili :!i i;tilt:i~71?!l9;i+i
' _ _ . _ ,c
LEVEt, 9.2
. . . . , t,
! T -B -r9-:A r ; F-°A. T~--A
t ef iai - - - -
{ ;
.
- ' +I ~
TfL-A 1r7-Pe i`r--A
7~-~ ?Z~ ~i.~a i ?%a
oazo~~
~
- ~e~ a~~ - , ~ ~ 7'~~lili~
~ .
.:~-5 ~.u-v T111 ~ ~
f .
;
Ell
i ~ i ~7{ `i ~ ~ 's ' i • . ~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ +Ii i ~
L V L 102
y-yp•_O,~
PU-Z
i
-L T~-
, -
a~
? LE1/Et_ 92
° ~ ,~~~a~~•~
~`F~. -f?-~ T~.-P: ?~.-A Z-~, ;,~.-f• '"g: - '
. 1H~{ii3. . • Ililili . ~ ~
ptJ- 4 ,
`r°-`?. `r-s.
j~. . . . .
. . . . . . ,
10. ~ 92 g,~Pg *SLIFE~. .~ND GO P 0.2
B IDS"ffi C• L LWM DEN T NO0 303 1 3591 #519 P02
R
T
t Tovn of Vail camunity Development orrice
An Ross# e
ne istonLng 4 lan from C=Merci&2 rEderal.
Savings Bank.
comerelal Federal sank toaX Possession of the Cornerstone
parcel due to default by the original dwvalopor of the Cascade
Village. Commercial Federal is a ral
parcel.
Cormrstonsi ~l-lago propertiong were
Offered an security for a developmant loan in the mAount of
$8.9m. All of the other properties have been sold off except
for the Cornerstone parcel. tvan vith a sale of this parcel,
Comercial ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
comercial ~ ~ lr., tinanci concern of
the Town of Vail and I z i. 1~~ ~ ~ but iLt J> important
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ral as the o r of the Cor ratone parcel ~
~ ~ amount ~ Therefore, ~
~ ~ Federal ~
for ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ today ~
Commercial ral Bank ill not ba t v oper of the
Cornerstone site; it will be sold off to a doveloper who will
hav i i~~ f bui1. i ~ zoni
~ for valoper to purchase the prolparty
and build. we need solme form of zoning ~
condominiums to ba bui1~ . We have
proposed as par . ur Scenario 11, 1
l dwelling ~ ~ transiont ~
odati i ~ Part ~ include
~ ~ ~ ~
~ The ~ ~ ~
simple; the plan all ix condominiunx which could be sold
orr and would help defer the cost o building the entire
structur . itEi coul ~ leaged through ~
private an ement cempany or throucjh the Westin Hotel next
door.
2 t
u 9
le a" DOMW. l
F : ) 3314MI
10a 0~ , ~ 01 0 2 6 P I~tI ~k S~. I F` ER T~ ~ ~ ~ P0'~
t~t~ t i 1 4:05 t a COMMMCI L TEt~ ~ 303 3561 rg1q p03
Pario 2
TWA ot Vilkil
Scenar i iffOrOnt twea the current soningy in
tActo it Changres it very ILttle, UndOr the Plans we hava
Mbmitt*d, with the TR units ld, f
dwelling , thOrO wou bO a Potential for 43 units
eqQiV&l*Ut to AU units. Under cuXrgnt Soningv We haVe 50# Wf&
are still aiLking that ths AUF "
1 , j3ut i i
ion urtits 9AY bO attr&cttv& to 80MO of tho oMers
and woUld bo rent i .
i
greatly ~ ce the
amount of requi erci 1, ispace. ~ curixi~
~ ~ ~
coxwerci t nti ~ ~ rea and fi ~
~ ry little ts r any additi 1 commer 1.
io whi oul ~ need iltic
w Both lans contai , i l
space,, a~ ~ ~ ~ t sp&Oe to
Wmet the naods of the vil]. i tur . If nore commerci
space Is added to the bu l , i lly forcing
the vdeveloper o i ty space. By a i ~ l = the
current 1, , there are onl
1 c x~t i rking at ~ the cost of
valuable par i ces. Another i In the open area
betwoe'n Cornerst 3 iTing, greatly r i
t ic i i ant. i r i
i It t 1. il in ° i
i 3, i el ore squeezed.
commercial rederal r l i
feel i i v ent evor the current zcining for the
Cornerstone il ~ ~ ~ ~
Scenario nd 11, be approved as they have bee f .
MEMORANDUM
T e Plannin and nvironmentaB Commission
F . Community eveIopment Department
&J T 0 400.o'B.Je6 12, 1992
Sl1 J CT; request for variances to allow encroachments in#o setbacks and to allow an
increase in common area for the Sonnenalp Hotel9 auaria Haus9 Iocated at 20
Vail oad/Lots Jand K, lock 5 9 Vail Viilage First Filinge
Applicartte Johannes Faessler
lannern Andy Knudtsert
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
n June 24, 1991, the Sannenalp Ho#ei was granted variances for hei ht9 parking9 an
co on areae 1°hese requests were approved and the project is currently under
constructiort.
At #his time, Johannes Faessler, the owner of the Sonnenalp Hotel9 is requestin #hree
dwfferent variances. °fhese include,
1 . 17-foot and an 8sfoo# se#back encroachment into the s6de an rear setbacks
for #he eastern 6n of the hotel;
2. A 12-foot setback encroachment into the rear setback; an
3, 5,3% co mon area variance, above the common area variance approved in
1991 (52%)e
T°he ap licant has state that the reason he 'ss reques#sn these variances ws because
the roject construction rocess is dififeren# than originally anticipa#ed. If these
vari nces requests are a proveds the applicant is planning to build the ientical
uiI ing which was proved in 1991 e The difference between the two approvals is in
the method of constructionm ith the 1991 approval, the ap licant intended to leave
the ing aIon eadow rive standin 4 For reasons ex IaIned in detail below, the
a plicant now #inds it necessary to de olish the Meadow r've win ,
A. i n ret c ri nc f r Meadow rive i
rl inally; the applicant planned to Ieave the Meadow rive wing s#anding, but
urin the de oli#iorr of the Vail Road vving, #he project managers discouered
that the s#ructural inte rrty of the entire Sonnenaip buildin was not soundp As
1
a results they have determined that bot wings rrausf e entirely e olishe m A
setback variance is neede to alio the Meadow rive wing to be rebuilt in the
is setbacks. urrently, #his win encroaches into both the si e an rear set ack.
17-foot variance is needed for the east side setback and an -foot variance is
needed for the rear se#back #o allow the building #o be rebuilt as it ks today4 A
3-foot setback would be maintained for the side (east) and a 12-foot setback
ouId be provided for the rear (south).
B. Rear fick ri r?ce Des ri ti n f r Conference Space and t i y
The Town requires an i provement 1ocation ce ificafe to be completed for
eve project approxirr'ateiy rraidway through the construction rocesso ith #he
Sonnerralp i provement Iocation certifiicate, Town staff verif?ed that the
development is being constructed according to the zonin standards, with the
exception of a portion of the baserr,ent Ievel conference roorrals which encroach
into fihe rear setbacka At the tirne of the PEC reviews staffi interpreted the site
pian as co plying with the setback regulatioras. ecause basement Ievel uses
were not shown on the site plan, staff did not recognize the pplicant's intention
to extend conference area into the rear setback. l°he basemen# level pians
have At this time, the applacant
is requestang to encroach 9 feet into the 20-foot rear setback to allow the
conference rooms to remain in this locationa 1°he conference roo s are Iocated
eneath the Kin Ludwig deck. n 11 -#oot setback would be aintained.
Please note that these a provements, both the King Ludwi deck and the
conference area belovv it, allow for a 77-foot setback to the center Iine of Gore
Creekm Af the ti e of PEC review, staff determined that the 9-foot deck
encroachment was acceptable, as the zoning code aIlows decks such as these
to encroach half the distance ofi the 20-foot setback.
In addition to the conference areas the appficant has desagned a staircase to
descend fro the Kin Ludwig deck to the grade beIo it. The deck is
a roximately 1500 sqs ft, an has an occupancy iaad of about 104 eop1es
infng areas which exceed an occupancy Ioad of 50 people require two exits.
°fhe other sfiaircase fs loca#ed on the north side of the decke hen reviewed a$
P 9 the grade aroun the deck had been bermed up around it so that it was
flush with the ground and exit ways were no# an issuee The landscape
architects hired after PEC designed an #errace system around #he deck that
included a fountaQn, ith these terraces, the deck was no ionger at grade and
exit ways ha to be designed.
The s#aircase on the ~outh side is presentiy designed with a four foot setbacko
ith a slight o ifwcation it couId be increased to an eight foot setbacka The
former staircase in this area which escended firom the Kin Lu i deck was
eigh# feet from the property Iinee
2
C. Common r escri ti n
The ap licant intends to co p1etely demolish the Meadc? Drive wing, gf the
variance requests are approved, and will have an opportunity to add common
(storage) area in the basement. ecause the pii nt wili need to excavate a
Iar e ar a, as el1 as pour new footers and a #oundation, the applicant can
include a baserrrent in the reconstruction of the wing w3th little additional time or
oneyo s a result9 the applicant is requestfng a variance af 57.3% (co pared
to 20% ai1owed) to aI#ow a baserr'ent under the new w1ngn in 1991, a 3200%
increase in common ar~a above the allowable of 20% was approve m
taff is comparin this request to a code st nard of 20% aIlowed cornmon
area, °fhough the current code aIIows up to 35% o# cornrnon area, staff is
usin the previous standard ecause the appiication for the Sonnenal was
originally submitted at a time when the previous code standard was in effect.
Until the project has a final Cer#ificate of Occupancy, s#afif wall continue to use
the same standards that appiie when Yhe original request was made.
il. ni n i r ti n
Lot Area: 2.024 acres or $8,16504 square feet
Zonirt : Public Accommodation
The ffoor area calculations shown below are based on building per it plans issued sn arch
ofi 1992, and the numbers shovvn below refiect the most recent floor plan confgura#ions.
Ilowe Proposed 1992 Variances
All°s 100 90 90
F 70,532.4 50dy7a,/4f=3 a8 g75&d3
($0%) (66a6%) {66.6%}
*COMMON 14,106.5 (24%) 45, 17a1 (52,0%) 50,523m1 (57e3%)
SITC VE A E 48,490.9 (55%) 36,033 (40.9%) 36,033 (44e9%)
PA KI 138 spaces 108 spaces 108 spaces
HEIGHT 489 5 9 56¢
°The flgures show the request for 4,106 square feet of additional common area,
3
1 1 FINDINGS
Upon r vi f t rit ri n i ings, ec#i n 18.62.060 f#h VaiI Municipal
Code, t unit ev I ent e rt n# rc n r v i fi#
r t variances sed on # foilowin fc# r:
A. nsi er #i f ac# r :
1. The r I ti n i f the r uest v ri nc t t r xistin r
t ti I use nd structure in t vi I itye
1. i n e r et ck V ri nc f r Meadow Creek riv
in a
Staffi be3ieves that the proposed request #o encroach into the east side
se ack will not be detramenta[ to the T'alisman. S#afif worked cIosely
wi#h the Talisman during the 1991 revievv and the prirr,ary concerns
voiced at that time dealt +rvQth autornobile access and parking. l°hese
issues vaere resolve durin the 1991 review and the °Talisman entere
into an a reemen# wath the Sonnena6p Flotel documentin the resoSution
to these issues. Stafif has spoken wi#h Crao Sr~owdon, the
represen#ative of the Talisrnan, on October 2, 1992. Staff understands
tha# there are no units in the Taiisman which face west (which overlook
the Sonnenaip) and as a result, these encroachments were never an
sssue to the Talisman. Craig Snowdon9 told staff that the Tai~sman
would not object to the current proposals
. Re r Setback V ri nc ruest fi r nf r race Space and
Stai y
As rnost of the conference space area that is in the setback is
underground, s#aff believes that it wili have li#tle impact on the
rela#ionshi e een the Sonnenalp property and the adjacent stream
tract, zshop ark, the proper across the strearn tract fro the
Sonnenalp, is no# iikely to be negatively arnpacted by this under round
conference area. l`he King Ludwi dinin deck is located on the roof ofi
the conference areaa A staircase descends firom the inEn deck to the
rade adjacent to the conference roo sa eIow the deck, there are
proposed win ows hich will dayli ht the conference areae Thou h this
elevatiora is expose ,it will be covered y the FCin Ludwi deck on top
and screened by the Iandscapin pro ased to surround the eck, The
lart scape desrgrt caIls for one eight foot9 one ten foot, one tweive fioots
and one 25 foot sprrace adjacent to the stairway, this landscaping
should provide a good buffer fior the stai ay, in s#aff's opinione There is
aap in the landsc ing between the spruce wh°sch ~ould benefii# if
asp~~s were planted there. Staf# recommends that three aspens be
located heree Ta reduce the potential impact of the rnass of this artion
4
of the buil in ,statf recomrr,ends that the sfaircase be re uced in width
ta four feet from the proposed 7 feete lJnifor uilding Code requires a
minimum of 44 inches for stai ay idth4 Stafifi believes given the
design and iandscape plan, and with the staircase reduce ?n width, #hat
the conferen area will not negatively impact #he strearn tract. iven
staff's recorrsmendation9 the encroachment wili be 12 feet hic results
in an foot sefiback from the property linee
. Common r
taff believes that there ili be no impact from the request for addi#ional
co mon area on surrounding areas. As this portion of the request is
comple#ely beIow rade, there will e no afifect on the mass and buIk of
the developrrtent. Sirtce it wsll not be noticeable, staff beiieves that it
meets this criterlaa
2. T re t ic r lief #r #h strict n liter l inter r t ta n
and raf rce rtt # ecifie re tal ti n i necessary t c rev
c ti i#it r? nif r i# f#re tent among site i t vici i#
r# t# in f jec#ive f# i title it ut ra # f eci 1
rivil o
1. ie nd Rear tc ariances f r Meadow riv ing.
°The project managers for the develop erat have provided infor ation
stating "that the existing precast co ponents (of the original SonnenaIP)
were deficient in several respects.e." (Gary eggison, 9/18/92s eitz
Cohen)o Furthermore thatg 09the existin precast construction exhibite
very littie #ou hness durin demolition, whic may be an indicatlon of
oor concrete qualitym insufficsent reinforcements inadequate connectaons,
ors rnost likely, some combination of these. mf`he poor s#rength and Ioad
ductiiity (flexibility) of the existin precast corra onents was nat
anticipated durin the originai structural design of the renovated east
in ,eB (Paui D. Fiofilands 10/6/92, Nicol artd Hofilartd ssociates, Inc.)
ra Hofilan `s Ietter is attached at the end of this memo. After an
analysis of the s#ructura9 design of the origir?al onnena1 co ponents9
the project anagers realized that the original plan to re odel and
refurbish the existin eadow r°sve wing could ntat be donem This
inforrnafiion could not have been acquired by the applicant until a#ter the
ernolition of the Vaii oa vvin . ith the new inforrriation the
a plicant understoo that the eadow rive win was unsound
structurally and would need to e demolisheda Due to these unforseen
circumstances, staff believes that it is appropriate to grant relief from a
strict inter retation of the setback regulationa ue to the fact that this
iscovery was ade after construction had started, sta#f believes that
a proval of the variarace furthers the objectives of the Town without a
rant of specfal privilege,
5
. Rear t c #or Conference Space an # ! y
°fhe a plicant has constrtac#ed a portion of the conference area into the
setbacke It encroaches 9 fee#, Ieaving an 11 foot setback between the
buii in corner an the proper line. If the staircase is reduced to a 4
inch rninimu s ct ill have an 8 foot setback. This is the same general
area here a sta°sr se was located on the previous buildin a The
for er staircase encroache 12 feet, leaving an 8 fioot setbacke The
rea of the encroachment is 185 square feete 7'he total conference
room area is 4,328 square feeto Sta elieves this is a reasonable
ad ition #o the conference area because this is the area where the
revious conference area was iocated, as well as the for er staircasea
ecause the buildin ss situated on an angle to the property line9 the
a plicant needed to encroach with a "Bfriangle" of conference area,
Since the conference area has been designed so that 1t could be divided
up into srnailer portians, staff believes that the applicant ha Iess
flexibils in the shape of the overagl spacea ~~~~ndly, the encroachment
is the same as the original encroachrrient of the staircasee It ?s in a
sli htBy different location, shifted to the east approximately 12 fee#m ue
to these c1rcurnstances, staff believes that the request is reasonable and
that so e relief is warranted frorr' the setback standarda
. o n r
In the recent pasty staff revised the zaning code regu6ataons to 6ncrease
the amount of common area aIlovved for rojects such as these, l°he
new standard allows 35% of the aIlowable €3F to be used for
commora area. The zoning code standar for cornrnon area applies to
aII rrtulti-family housingm T'hrs applies to townho es with virtuaily no
common area at al19 as weII as to 6odges that will typically have the most
comrrion area of any rriulti-farrrii8y project. Some Io ges require rnore
common area than others. l'hose that are full service lo es, offering
the hi hest ua6ity services, o#ten nee the most.
hen staff proposed the recornmendation to odi the zoning code to
increase the amount of a1lowable cornrr,on area, staff understood that
there would be some circurns#ances uvhen full ~ervice 1odges would
need to exceed the 35% capA S#aff feeBs #hat this is one of the cases
and that a variance should be granted.
6
3. h f#ect fthe r ested v rianc li t n ir, istri ti n f
ulat1 r1, tC nspof"k tl CI at1 tr 1c fcilitfes, u 1ic fcIllti s and
#iliti s, and public s fetyo
Staff believes that there will be no impact from the three requested
variances ~n any of the criteria shown abovea
B. T'he Plannina and nvironmental ComrnSssion sha91 make the fol3owmnq findiM
befior,1 rantwng a variance:
1 a That the granting of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
privilege inconsistertt wwth the limitations ort other propertles classified irt
the same districto
2. 1°ha# the ranting of the variance wail not be detrimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to properties or
irrtprovements in the vicin6ty.
, T'hat the variance is warranted for one or more of the followin reasons:
a. 1°he strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifed
reguiation would result in pracfiical difficu9ty or unnecessary
physicai hardship inconsisten# wsth the objectives of this #itle.
bs l°here are exceptions or extraordonary circumstances or
conditsons plicable to the sarr,e site o# the variance that do not
appiy eneral1y to other properties in the same zonem
C. T'he strict interpretation or enforcement of the s ecifie re ulation
wo i deprive the appiicant of prlvileges enjoye by the owners
of other properties in the same dlstrrct.
e Conclusion
Staff recomrnends approval o# the three variance requests. e make this
recommen ation based on the analysis of the criteria shown above as weil as sta 's
belief that the re uest meets the variance findin se Specifcally, Fin on 1 is met in
staff9s opinion because none of these requests constetute a grant o# special privile e,
e beIieve the circumstances surroundin the integr°sty of the concrete of the existing
edo Drive wing could not have been foreseen by the project anagersa
eardin the rear setback encroachrnent, s#aff believes that there is no rant of
special rivilege as the encroachment is the same as the original buildingo egar ing
the common area, staff elieves fhat there is not a grant of specia9 rivilege as other
#uII service lod es have also requested variances fo the limitation on co on area
sizem
7
Fin in 29 regar in the irr'pact to public hea1#h, safety and weEfare, wi11 not be
affected by #hese requesfis in staff's opinion.
taff be1ieves thafi the requests aIso compCy wi#h Finding Number 3. Speci#ically, ~~aff
believes that there would be a pracfical diffculty if the applicarst wouId not be able to
reconstruct the Meadow Drive wing and had to rely on the stabili of the existirr
precast concrete. Staff aIso beiieves there would also be a practacal difficulty
concernin the rear setback i# the appiican# would not be able to expand the
conference area or rr,ee# lJnifor uilding Code exit requirements. Lastiy, staff
believes that the commora area requests camplies vvith Fsnd6ng 3C as owners of a#her
si ilar Iodges have aIso needed additioraal common aream
ased on the criteria and findings, staff recorrr3mends approval with the condition that
the applicant
1) reduce the width of the staircase to #he minimum 44 inches required by
l1 Ce e believe that this 1s a reasonable rnodification which rnay hel
reduce fhe impact to the stream tract area9 and
2) plant an additional three aspens adjacent to the southeast corner of the
s#ai ayo
peclmernos\sonnfaes, 12
8
; 4fl
N°scoi + Hofiand Associates 8nc.
c;ONSULL9NG S7RUCrURrai r°NGiNTr.aIS
~
: October 6, 1992
i ~ ~ ~~h Archi tects, Pq C., A.I.Aw
1000 ~outh Frontage Road West
VailB co 81657
ttentionz Mr. Ken O` ryan
Re: Propose 5onnena1~ ede~~~~pm nt - rhaue 11
Dear X r~ ~
~ would 1.ike to take this oggortuna~~~ to expre5x some
thou h~s about the originaI pldx~~ ~o ren~~~~e t e ba1ance o
. th.e eaBt w3.r~ th onrtenai ot 1 in Vail under tY~e
p~~~~~ed Phase II redeve1opment.
As you knc~~, the initia1 Phase IX red~~elopment plans called
fc~~ ~~e r~~ovati~n of ~alance of the ea€3.sti.ng oas°~ ing
s'tr1acture. Thes 1.ans inclue~~ ~~~stant3.a1 mo 3ficati~~
~xi~~~~~ ~~~erio~ ~~ca~~ ~~~ring wal1s to accomodate new
1.arger roc~~ plans. i~~~ et~on of stabstar~tia1 portioris of t1~e
bearing waIls Introduced structural cotrtplami°tlas, in
~xisti.ng precast ks~ar.i~g wa1Z buiY ing was to bo 1arge1.y
, ~rt ~ ~st and beac~ uirin ~~e
intro cxcta.ox~ ~f new beam an€i ~~~~~n lin~~ and foundations
x~~~~~~ary su~ th~~~ ~hi~ ~~~~~~ar3.1,y asks
more of the portiozts o~ ~~~~~st k~~~ring walla al~~
~~th i~ ~~ti~ ~int Ioads intrc~~~~ d by r~ew beams and
co1~~~~~ ~nd tn resisting wind a c~ ~~~am3.~
~ ~ad o~~~~ion to be on site during the demoXiticsn of -~~at
~~tion of the east wa.~ ~trczctt~ ~ ~tween gri~s F and I
. wh~~~ ~om riaes tYs~ ~~~~~rnmo~~ ~~tion of the current Ptaso
I deve1~ ~~~~~tural~ ~~ste wag identical
to tk~~t whic}t wi1.l be ex^i~~~~~~~~d ixi the balazsce of t3~e oas°~
~ ~~~g u~~~r Ph~~~ 11. ~ ~ ~~~~ti~ ~ ~~~~~~~~tion
" exhib.~~ed very ,1ittle tou nees during demo3.ition, wh.~ch ma
i; e axY i~di~~tican ~oor coaxcrete quality,, i.~ou~fieaient
rei~~orcemerat, inade uate connect3ons or, most likely, some
~ombinati#n of tixese* he poor strength and low ductility
of ti~~ ~xisti g precast compon nt was no°t z~~~ci ted
durin t e ori inal st~~~~~~al d.esi n of th~ ~en~~at~ east
wing.
. ;
$%;413 Wa6nse8 A29'e~h-q, 're1c$i* P1Ct (:$4);i) 4465' IH/T
fioUueT, C41qrldS #O:iID 1 Ff1}i; (i9U3)44•1•2'722
if Fhase XI redeve3opment p1ans are to include the
structural renovation of zhe balanco Qf Llie east win., it is
believed that substantial redesign effort will bo needed to
addreas the observed deficiencies of the existing structur a
It lo possib2e that a majvr otructural renovation Ruch as
that pToposed may prove Infeasibley iven thQ agparent
cond1tion of the exist3ng structure. At boat, tho reBults
of thio effort will li3cely poee additiQnal difficult
constructibility and construction scheduling problems, and
may not be in the best interests of the owner or of the Town
of Vail, .
It 3~ ~e(;ommendat3on that serious considerat,on ba given
to the possibility of emolishing the balance of the east
wing Btructure aud erecting a new structure in its p1aceQ
~~~lud7ng greater
des1 n f1exibility both architecturally and in the choice of
structural oystems to be emp1oyed, an apparent shorter
construction schedule, and elimination of a substantial
portion of the risk and uncerta3nty involvGd in attempting
major structura1 odifications w icri may be incompatible
with the condition of the existing structurem
If you have any questions or would like to discuss this
matter further, please do not hesitate to ca1~.
ver°~ tru1~ ~~urs,
.R-COL °I° Sl~FLA SaAOCIATES INCw"`'°
~'•~"~~~4 ~ r ~.",~,as ,~a , i a
Consultir~~ ~~~~~tu~al Engineers
' A ~ ~ ~
~aul B. C.$fland, e .
~
WAL
~h'li~
1
~AL1SAN CONi
/ i ~B i d Sm9 le-Lr.
\ \
~
t ~
? ° \
~ ~
~',..:y- ~ ~
it
GOFtg
:J
: SC~~1NENr1LP BqVr1R1A HOY1SE
L_r-'m ~ ~ ..1
`1-
~
g _ ~ C
.
t-~,.~-~
R
.
i~ .
f
~
"k f:a ,
4~ ~w~,-~., .
~ ~~x
. 4v~~.7wnJ~c34z~3-;= «7 '9 rVss~rJ v°• ' ~
' Ecu ~~IPy 9ga~~ .
LTBFtAItY HEAI.TH CLUB LOBBY E:{EFtCdSE AREA ~ EXERCISE
l:e~+QV1Y ppqqy~;~+~~ld"1B1is1Y 1 vp 6~41V~y~L
IK~ RE4_ 4'25 ' ~ Mi5 5IN ~ °F ~ i I~
tmrcv ~ tasaNO<eJe ~ f I
I • / ~~I G eNys-vz ~ _c=ouNm-J~z#a ~socv~
13
~dh c.,a_q ~ a i ~ 'i,i ? i 4P ~ i ~ . \ •
y£K.
tw eer - "t G"r
_ ~m_r '~iI.r~ _ ~ • ' , . ,X-' / ~ p,reo ~
I 7{~t.xSA er1~J S~ceL ~'y ~ 5~'r ~ SWIM ! N_G POOl, ~..d-~ Isv~ P\
-l se> s
LJp d6 ~t' 'I~~ Gao~wcY u~R fkS l?5c.~. P4RE
%o~Ca6-
J ~ ~I
.
~ R L.w~-. 3~5 ~ K EN `-•PP~c ~ , I m-.
. . 4 ~ ~ • ~=9a'Tn~L. °O"
~ ~ - II ~ ~ '~s ~ I'er ~reE ~t. Y ~ I ~ coaNcraJEV_# a Cio av:~ r 1.' . _ ~1 '"'ry
i;i~~ tJ~reo ~ ~ ~ G~~ c<k c.c-4o E i.~--~' _ / a e
t~~
• ~ ~ 3-ei Cn6 a5-'YO Ys~-~. SS'N C'.'~ 5 I~ 6~'(- ~4~ / _~te4Jrkr_ro~loRv T,
~'+gg~118'it~d ~gg~Ilq~'+ g~ PL ppy~+/'~ dliilid2T~ P-
~ \ ~ ErN 3 e R•rP° ' { NiSSA ~ 3 U YY~4t.% C /~~1`~K-N
LtN
2 ~avYxa s _ .~NCreu~'--~ ! ) e
--KyI~l~.{.i LUDWI~'rc+J ~ .
~1~IN~.ETFn~RAv~r ( I ~ ~ . llete~ ' y ~N
~ tBiURa~.~ ~ .s.a tu
it
\ ~,z~aao<c~ee{ac ~ : r~? r: L' nis v+~ c i~~
NaRP P ~
. ~ ~ ~ GeN lTc.- 5i5 I ~ Z I LbE.rIH~Po A4 Erv ~d ~°Gl 9b ~ od( { /
P U R-57
c.~a~a-Y , P.S /'wcer_~s / ~~~t ~~'i'e : `Q.= i?
' Ice~ aEV_ ra.m L
A4ATCM.INE A' SEE O`/EiiFlEAO DECk PLAN --LLZ b•-+ ~-k2ocF ~ L l. 2~' ~-'•.r 1 B ~'C m~ ~4~ •:P'~ J..
\
_ zs=~'s<.~'70^` ~ ~ ,z~ <1 ~tipc vra_?t- z l~•sP7
a
w' ~ ttc vuJ ~i Ile rt s~~ P ~ ~ ca~
s
w,seo
..e.d i t ~ ~ _ i IP = "'6f y\ s/v ° / • ° ~ r~' ~ y?
m
~ ~ .
.
: ~ . ~,a . : . , " a.
Nrl\
a1k
z?w°
~ ~ ~ •
' w
24 k c a a
> 4P?'' R , ~ , t p, _
. 1
~LB
~
+w:;
> z i 6a # t • , - cm - ~
. a s .
MR 'wwr a 1 0-, 12Lv ~ ~IA°3
N ..e~.~,qq~ {86bj.
B J r ~
2 z". '
g
\ J
E].
oS
q
~A
f ~$i}- ~ ° (A~?°r----- ?
~
~ • -s-- av cob
=T7
' rr~I~~ ~ Z~-, 49 V~
_ c
P°'~"~b ~ GAF° 5 BEaB)rpn43 ~ •
Jco. g e~lo:g a ~
eitica~ 0 A6TG$
. ~
~aiet~L~lem•°~ .
S9 ~
PPOjtC6 i10e8~PJ
DfaW[8 by:
Chcsk,d
Y
BBY a.oEVEL DEMOLITTON Ps~~ bY: }G1
~seac~ Shset, p(~
ar~°m o•.~•
PLANNING VIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
Septerr3ber 289 1992
Present Staff Present
iana Donovan Kristan Pritz
alton Wil1iams ike ollica
Jeff owen Andy Knudtsen
Gena hitten T°im Dev1in
athy Langenwalter Shelly Meilo
re msden Jim Curr~uffe
Susan ScanIon
Russell Forrest
1. tart6ng at approxi ateiy 2010, a joint work session vvith DRB was held to discuss a
request for an exterior alteration and setback varmance for #he Vail Lionshead Center
usldin located at Lo# 5, lock 1, 11ao1 Lionshead First HSng/520 East Lionshead
Circle,
p iicanta scar Tang
Iannere Andy Knudtsen
An ynud#sen surnrnarized the issues of the request per the merr,ow improvements
#o the proposaI since the previous work session included:
1 n chan es in rnateria1s9
2. changes in Iandscapeng areas, and the
3e ad ition of scalloped paver edgingo
Andy iscussed further thafi, per the staff memo, there are five areas of concern;
1 e lternative fascia band materialsa
2. The wandow roupings.
3. The avvnings.
4e The northeast corner of the building by the skier sculpture,
5. `fhe fascia extension by the Al#ie Packer entraracee
ill Pierce explained the proposal as a crisp addition with the muliion elernent ad in
rightness9 an roviding a system for ski racks, p8ant hangers9 opaque panels,
cIothin racksa table tops, etc, °The proposal aIso included the addition o# rrtapie woo ,
9 1/2eg deep on windovv muliions, flower boxes, and awnings for signs.
PLAFiN1NG APID ENVlROPdMEN°fAL CO ISSION EETING
September 28, 1992
40
ena hifterr believed that too rntsch square footage was being proposed in the
pedestrian area and that the addition should be pulled back. She aIso though# that
the materials were 'urban' as opposed to mountain. Gena vvent on to say she liked the
awnira sa
Je#f owen liked the idea that improvements were proposed at the Lionshead Center.
He said that the walkway is heavily travelled, and that encroachment in#o the mail area
wouI hinder pedestrian flow by closing the area in too rnuch. Fie suggested that the
coIors shouid be toned down to make the appearance Iess urbany and that th~ awnings
be redessgnedm Jeff further explained that the area is dark at naght and that the
existin li hts should remamno Lastly, Jef# described how store fronts in the New
England area are quaint with indivlduality and that the store fronts should be gfverr
individual treat ent in thas additiorae
Kathy Langenwalter stated #hat she felt the facade should be pulled 3' back to follow
the Lionshead Design Guidelsnes. °fhe northeast corner of the building needed to be
pu34ed back or the skier sculpture completely redonea She #urther explained that she is
not comfor#a Ie wi#h the proposal for Alfie's end of the buildingo f{a#hy #e!t the entire
pro osal ws oriental in nature and not approprmate for L,ionshead4 l'he wir~~ow rnullions
nee to be vertical, not horizontal. She I°sked the proposai for the scalloped edge at the
base of the bualding, however, did not feel the awn6ng design was appropriatee l°he
zinc fascia and appeared to be too cris and slicke
Diana Donovan stated that she iikes the base aterial and scallop proposalm Fiowever,
she believed that the proposed grid o# vvindow mullwons shoul be improved. She
believed the extension ofi the fascia band of the Ai#ie Packer area was not appropriate
and if ossible, Alfise Packer should have a rr,all entrancea She said that both ends of
#he buiiding were tight and that what Kathy Langenwa1ter said about the skier scul ture
was her position alsoe She believed that the ortheas# corner #orm was a nice shape,
but that it needed to be made smaller. She thought that the Iandscaping in the Alfie
Packer area should be brought out as stated in s#aff merr»a She also believed that
there as too much bein Ieft open to the tenants concerning the organizatfon of #he
mullions. he believed that the architects should create the individuality for the
di#ferent stores. She also said that the building should be pulled back so ewhate
a1tort illiams iscussed his concerns about tourists not liking high tech aestheti in
Vail an that he does not care for the metal-zinc-~~od materials, but would prefer
09timeiess'° design that did not depic# an era. The awnings needed #o be improved but
the color variety was goode The Northeast corner of the building was nicely done with
the curve howevers it needed to be pulled back and used only for a dispiay windovvm If
the applicant wanted to leave the curve where it was, a complete redesign of the skier
scuIpture would be rtecessarye The fascia band exfiension by Aifie Packers was a
roblem to DaItona He further expiained he 1ikes the concept of the planters vvith 6ads
in the inter for seats9 that the park concept is good with additiortal tap lightirtgw Fie
PLANNING APlD ENVlRONMEI37°AL CO ISS1ON EET'!NG
5eptembee 2$, 1992
0
sai that i# is crsticai #or Aifie Packers to have a ma31 en#rance, but did not care for the
40 oriental concept as proposede
reg Amsden feit that the facade as too hard, too corramercial, and a reed that the
store fronts should be rr»re quairats Greg fiel# that the northeast corner of the bui9dEng
shouid be curveda Fie felt that the north smde needs to set back 2' not 4-6' as
discussed. He feels that attractive signage is needed for Alfie's arad that a center ma11
entrance needs to be added for AIfie Packers Greg fur#her expla°sned hovv he felt that
the store fronts need to be more individualize #o do away with the proposed
asscvenesso The s#one materiaf was acceptable to hirn if the window roupings were
changed9 however, the zinc was no# a good choice a of materials,
eorge Lamb stated that #enants should not be relied on to be compatibie in wsndow
concepts and dis 1ays. F°ie also stated that the developer should create a smgn
pr~ ram enstead of aliowsng the tenants decade on des;gns and to set firm pararr'e#erso
The stone was acceptable, but the design was too cold in general.
ed wathmey, representing the Design eview Board, suggested that the proposaI
needs rnore residential materia6s ins#ead of industrial grade ma#erialse ed agreed that
it is a positive rerraodel idea to improve the building. The facf that the building edges
were rou ht out to the same setback was a problem to Nede
Sherry oard, representing DR 9sta#ed that the rnaterials could be used in arough
hewn fiashion to represen# a mountain stylem She vvent on to explain she had no
roblem with the setback encroachrnent but vvas concerned with the windows and
awnings. She would like to see the fascia raised and the windovvs framed to
`sstinguish stores from each other. Guide6ines should be set #or merchandise displays
and li h#ing techniques. Sherry aIso explained how #he window rnuliaons shou1d not be
at eye Ieve1 and that she does not like the paving as prcaposed9 but rather the pavers
should e used to accent activify areas. She believes that Alfie's needs a cerernonia6
ateway a# the end and that it cou1d be a scuIptural elernente
iil ierce explained that the process started in 1986 with a Iot of parties involved and
that they talked to s#ore owners to see what they wan#ed, ill explained fiur#her that
they did not want a 0° ov?e se#gg appearance eithero
alton expressed that design continu€ty was neededo He fiurther exp[alned that the
win ows need groupsngs for displayse Bi!l sta#ed that the s`system" proposed aIlows for
win ow dispiays. DaIton disagreed, that a"system'° is not what is needed and that
win ow treatments needed individual charactera
Sher Do ard adde that the project needs warmth, vvhich couid be achieve
throu h proper use ofi lighting, displays9 and landscaping.
PLANNIIJG APlD ENVlROPIMENTAL COMMI5SlON EE°fltdG
September 28p 1992
Kristan Pritz state that the projec# needs better vvindow freatments, and that the
detai3ing issues couId be determined by the architect, to crea#e a pedes#rian sca1e,
iana Donovan summarized that people need to be able to Iook into individual
windows and shops and thaf a 19sys#em" is rrot appropriate,
2. request for awork session on the proposed 199211 993 Environmental ork
Programm
tafifo us~~~l Forrest and 5usan Scanion
Russell Forrest presented the Eravironrriental ork PCan for #he 1992/1993 fiiscal year.
uss resented the goaIs and objectives ofi the p6an describing the need for a balance
between deveioprnent and environmen#al pro#ectione Since Vai1Hs tourist industry is
irectly 1inke with the areas natural resources, achieving sustainable deveIopment in
Vaii will help ensure Iong-ferrn growth thaf is compatib9e with the areas envgronment.
The initiatives proposed in the FY 93 Environmenta! ork PIan vvill provide a frarr,e
work for sustainable development by:
1. helping to ensure corr,patibiBity between developmen# and the natural
environment,
2. taking steps locadly to address envitonmental problerrts of global irrtportance,
3. reducing costs for environrr,ental compliance through proactive management9
and
4. providin a better iiving environrnent for citizens and guests.
The work plan anc3udes both ongoing projects and new initiatives proposed for 1993.
noin projects that include a woodburning educational program, nonpoint source
water quality managernent prograrn arad the ira-house recyciing prograrn. Susan
canlon presented the resul#s of a recent survey of Va61 Iodges and said that rnost
lodges wouId welcorr,e educa#6orsal rnaterials for guests on cIean vvoodburning
ractoces.
alton iilsarras suggested that Public Service should become rr»re interested and
play an active role in the conversion proposed for the vaIley by iower°sng rates or
ivin mass conversion di~~ounts to whole developments, when applicablea
Kathy Langen aiter suggested ta include in the Work PIan an exarnple of the process
and oss°sble related costs to help educate the ubl°cc ora cortverting to gas.
DaHton iIliams expressed has concerns for the indavidual not recycling as much as the
PLANNItVG APdD EtJVIRON EN'3°AL CO 1SSiOFJ EE7°ING
Sep#ember 28, 1392
business participan#se ussell suggested that the To n may want to do a
is camprehensive study of work anagement in Vai1.
iana onovan expressed the need for water conservation tcr be added to the Work
p1an.
Jeff owen explained his concerns fior the need for noise rnanagement of 1-70, w9th
aiton iNiams adding that the actsaritaes a# the Ford Amphitheater, and other concerts
and activities such as those preformed at L€onshead needed naise management.
Russ ertde the presentation delaneating the three new in6taatives as:
1 e crea#ior~ environrr3ental data base;
2m development of a prelimsnary environmental reuiew processH
3. deveiopment of an envoronrnental strategic plan.
3. A request for aside setback variance to aIlow an addition to the residence Iocated afi
716 Forest Road1Lot 10p BIock 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing,
Applicants Charles Ackerman
PIanner: Tirn Devlin
Ti Devlin showed new plans to the Comrnissioners delineat0ng areas o#
encroachments showing where applicant decreased the side se ack encroachrraent
fro the previous work session, and the request #or the applican# to provide additional
Iandscaping for screenin .
Jeffi owen motione to ap rove the request per the revised plans and the sta#f's
merr», including the Iandscaping as presented on the drawing at the meetinga The
proposed landscaping was accepta Ie, Dalton Wi11iams seconded the motion, ith the
PEC voting unanirnously 6-0 to approve the requesta
4m A request for variances form Section 18o58e320 to allow two satelli#e dishes to be
Iocated at the Westin Fiotel/1300 esthaven riveldescribed as follovvse
That part of the SVV 1/4 NE 1J4, Sec#ion 92, `fownship 5 South, F3ange 81 West of the SixtFs
Prancipal Meradian, Town of Vail, Eagle County, CoIorado, described as fiollows:
Beg(nning at a pasint on the souiherly boundary of ihe parcel of land shown on the Condominiurn
Map for the Colorado Mourrtain Condominiums recorded in Book 387 afi Page 620 in the offace of
the Eagle County, Colwrado, Clerk and Recorder, whence the most southerly ccsrner of safd parcel
bears S 52 50'29" W 14.15 feet distanY; thence the fo!lowing nine courses alorsg the southerly
boundary of said parcel: (1) N 52 50°29" E 49,16 feeY; N 37 9 2'45°° W 12,34 FeeF; (3) N 52
47@15°° E 1.00 teet; (4) N 37 12°45°° W 1.30 fiee8 (5) N 52 47°~5" E 42.60 feet; (s) N 37 12°45°° w
8o70 feet; (7) N 52 4!'15°a E 15.00 feet; (8) S 37 92'45°° E 22.40 feei; (9) N 52 5029'° E 35.28 Feet>
thence departong saod southerly boundary tV 52 50°29'° E 56,96 feety tlaence S 37 09'31" E 45,34
PLANNING AND ENYIROP! EN1'AL CO 1SSIQN MEE°TING
Septernber 28, 1992
feet then~e N 52 60'29" E 48,70 feetg thence S 3°7 09'31`° E 9,60 #eety thence 1V 52 50'29°° E 80°04
feet; #hence S 37 09'31°' E 36,40 feets thence N 52 50'29°' E 21,30 feei; thence S 37 09'31" E
220,02 feet to Gore Creeky thence the fo61ow€ng four courses along Gore Creelc; (1) S 49 26'36°' UV
76.45 feet9 (2) S 22 31'36" W 124.47 fieeta (3) S 53 37'36°° VU 119.34 feet; (4) i 65 31'36" VV 14.58
feei; ihence dgpartong Gore Creek N 32 69°30°` W 141.47 feeY; thence N 57 25'30'° W 124.02 feeP;
ihence N 37 09'39'°'JV 116.45 feet ica the point of beginning, containing 110,200 sqtaare feef or 2.49
acres, more or Iess.
Applicant: estin Resort\Tri County Cable Vision
Pianner: Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudtsen presen#ed the request with a summary of the staf# memo pointing out
the condations of the staff memo ase
1 a That the applicant remove all pl ood screening tha# encloses the underside of
the deck on the west side ofi the building and remove the miscellaneous atems
stored under the deck at this #ime;
2m That the applicant revege#ate the slope around the satelli#e ishes and deck
area with native grasses9
3m °fhat the applicant provide a iandscape plan #o the D which provides a
rr,inimum of 12 shrubs #o be located around the sa#ellite dishes and 3spruces
artd 5asperts to be Iocated aIong the deck area in locations that vaili not block
satellite transmission signal to the dishes, °This Iandsc ing should be
coordinated with the Iandscaping proposed ior the Cascadese
The color was discussed as accep#ab1e as black or white {to match the building} an it
was decaded that the coior choice could be left to DR o Lyran Johnson explained that
the angle of the dish~s would not protrude firorn beneath the decks, with the farst dish
bein fltssh with the opening and the second dish beAng angled 5degrees in a
southwesterly directionm He sald that he preferred a 12' dishes but that he could et
y with one 8' an one other dish at 109 in diameter,
iana onovan stated that shrubs should not be junipers and that #hey shoul be 4-5'
in hei ht when planted (5 a1lon). Spruces to be planted would have to be ` in. in
hei ht ith the aspen being acceptable as 2" calopere
aIton illiarns rrtoved to approve the request, vvith Greg Arnsden secandin the
mo#ion. 1"he F'EC voted unanimously 6-0 #o approve the request,
5. A request for a front, si e, an rear setback variances and a variance to aIlovv parkin
in the front setback for the constructoon of a trip{ex, Iocated at 44 ilIow Place/Lot 9,
Eock 6, !/asl vil6age First Filinga
PLANIdiNG AND ENVIROPI ENi"AL COMMiSSIOPJ NlEE"TIIJG
Septeanber 28, 1992
Applicant: Towermac Corporation
Ianner: hel3y ello
Shelly eIlo presented the requests summarizing the staff memo clari ang the area of
deck encroachment which was drlving the need for one of the requested varianceso
The varian~~s were expiained as necessary to allowm
1 . A 9-foot 6-inch maximurr' building encroachment into the 20' norkh (firont)
setback an 10-foot building encroachment in the east (s3de) setbackH
2. Deck and roof overhang encroachrnents into #he north 4frontj arr eas# (side)
setbacks;*
3. A 5-foot 3-inch m imum encroachment into the south {rear} setback for the
underground parking structure;
4. T'he underground parking struc#ure enfrance will encroach a rn imum ofi 12-
feet 3-anches inta the north (front) setback;
5. Parkin to be Iocated in the 20' front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staff wa11 consoder the north ssde of the property, adjacent to iliow Place, as
the front setback b~~ause access os being taken frorrn this side of the Iot,
~ oof over angs vvill encroach a maxirnurr' of 3 feet further snto the setback than
the specified building encroachmentse aof overhangs are ailowed to encroach
4 fieet into setbacks by zonin e
helly further expiained that staff does not support the deck encroachment in to the
east setback, the NW corner, or into the north setback.
T'he general consensus of the Board was that the decks were the only issue. The
iliow owners ( enry Ca3dwell) agreed vvith the buoldin positioning and asked ti°aat a
substan#ial arrjoun# of trees be planted for screening between the tvvo propertiese
Kathy Langenwalter state that she felt cornfortabie with the proposed deck in front,
an that no walkway shouid be in front of the proposed buiid0rag9 and that no rnore
encroachments should be permitted in the front setback (rnore than the building)e
altort iIliams stated tha# the back deck should be chopped off and that the aourtt
of the encroachment of the front decks on Unit 1should match the other sidea re
Amsden agreed with DaIton on the deck i~suesw
Jeff Bowen Iikes the proposed project as is, but will agree vvith Da1ton about the deck
encroach ent issues.
vote was taken regardin the decksa 2-4 in fn%g~r r%f Da!6^Ws -1-nesde~n r%f ~~^r%r%onrv
the one in back off flush with the building and the deck in firont to be brought out t~
PLANraItaG AND ENvIRONr~EN°rAL COMMISSION MEETING
September 28y 1992
match the deck on the opposite sideo
rainage was isctassed and it was brough# out that it would be addressed by Publoc
orks§ the applicants and The iilows. DaIton further suggested that the area be
curbed and guttered, l°he representat?ve form Bishop Park did not feel #hat the bufifer
in front was propriatem
DaI#on Wi1liams rnotioned for approvai per the staff memo;
1 a To irrclude lar er evergreens between the build?ngs,
2. To shostert the back deck to be even with the buiidirtg9
3. To make bo#h decks 3'-6" and to make the righf side balcony extend in fronf to
be even with the opposite deck9 and
4. To ensure the drainage ms addressed by easement,
Jeff Bowen seconded the motion with a 6-0 vote to approve the request per the
Iscl1ssi4n.
64 A re uest for asite coverage varmance to aIlow an addition to the residence iocated at
Lot 1, Vail Village Thirteenth Filing/3025 Booth Falls Roade
A iicantm illoam and Julie Esrey
Plannera ike MoIlica
ike Hi hland represented the owners (Esrey's) and asked that he request be table
Indefinitely due to the fact that the owner vvould like to attend, `fhe genera6 consensus
of the oar was that a time limit be placed on the tabling or else the request
withdravvn due ta the Public Notice filing procedures and the added expense as
ex lained yike oilica. Ka#hy Langenwalter rnotloned #o tab8e the request unti1 the
first eeting in January of 1993, with DaIton illiams secondin the motiona vote of
6-0 unanimously approved the tabling,
7. A request for a variance from Section 17.28e330 #o allow a residential driveway to
excee the rnaximum sIope permit#ed. Lot 14, Biock A, Vail das Schone Fiiirt o.
1\2369 Chamonix Lane.
A Iscarttsa PauI M. Sands
Plannera ike ollica
TABLED OCTOBER 1
PLANtaING AND ENv~~~~~~~~~~ ~ET'NG
Septeersber 28, 1992
A re uest for a wali height variance from Section 18e58.020 to allaw for the
construction of o retaining waIls Ic~cated in the front setback which ex ed 3 feet in
hei ht, Iocated ott Lot 10, 1ock , Vaii Vi91age Ridge12692 Cortona Lanea
Applicante Hanns eimann and The Town of Vail
P1anner: T°im C7eviin
l°im Devlin presented the request, explaining ihe safety concerns of the Town
regarding the stabili#y of the h°s91side beneath Corteraa Lar~~ ~s we81 as for the eirrrann
residence.
iana Donovan s#ated that the landscaping should not be junipers9 but should include
plants such as salisberry and choke cherry uvi#h adequate root systemse
ai#on Wi11?ams rnotione to approve the request per #he staff memo and Diana
onovan's suggestlon of the iandscape change, with Jeff owen seconding the motion.
A vote was taken and it was unanimous 6-0 to approve the request with the afiore-
entioned condition of native plants being used on the terraced arease
9. A request to modify the Iand~caping pfan associated wlth the previousiy approved
exterior alteration roposal for the Slifer ulldang, 230 Bridge Streef/Part of Lots B and
9 Lot 5, Vaii Villa e First Filin .
Applicant: od and eth SIifer
Plannerm T°im Devlin
T6 evlin revievved the stafif memo with the oard. Ned Gwathrrjey, representing the
appiicant, asked #hat the request be consideredm Kathy Langenwalter rraotioned to
deny #he request b~~ause #he plan#er was an ornportant part of the exteriar altera#ion
an site coverage variance granted by the PEC. The planter should be built as
ori inally proposed or modified to decrease the height and allow stucco to be used; to
be com Iete by Thanks iving 1992e Jeff owen seconded the rnotion, wrth an
unanimous vote 6-0 to deny the request as submitted.
10o request for an amen ent to Chapter 18057 rnp9oyee Housin for the Town of
Vail orting Codeo
Ap licartt: Town of Vaii
Planner; An y Knudtsen
TABLED TO OCTOBER 1
11 a iscussion o# recomrr»ndations regarding PEC rneetings made at the recen# eak Up
Meeting.
PLANNING APlD ENVIRONMEN7°AL CC3 ISSIOt3 MEE7'ING
Sep#esnber 28, 1992
Kristan Pritz reviewed the Speak Up meetsng with the PEC members pointwng out that
it was brought up that #he PEC meetings are taking too much tfme, and that the
meetings need to be Iimited to sumrnaries of the rr,errro and briefer discussions so that
the members of the public did not have to sit through Iong discusswons fihat did not
concern them.
12o request for a variance #rom Section 17,28.330 to allow a residential driveway to
exceed the maximum sIope permatted. Lot 16, Va?1 Potato Patch\782 Potato F'atch Dr.
Applicant: Andrew Daly
Ianner; Shelly elio
TABLED T OCTOBER 1
13. A request for a major arnendrnent to SDD #4, Cascade Vi91age9 to amend the
development plan for #he Waterford arad Cornerstcane parcels in area A, described as
fiol Iows:
7hat part ofi the SVV 114 NE 9I4, S iron 12, "fownship 5 South, Range 89 WesY ofi ihe Sixth
Prencipal Meridian, Town of Vai1, Eagle County, GoIcarado, described as followsa
Begaraning at a poant on the southerly right-o#-way line of @nters4ate Flighvvay No. 70 whence an Iron
pin wiYh a plastic cap marking the cenYer of said Sec1ion 12 bears S 33110°19" VV 1447.03 Seet9
thence along said southerly right-o#-way Ilrae o courses
1) N 52°50°29" E 229.66 feet
2) N 74°38'17" E 160.70 #ee89
ihence departing said sotatherly right-csf-way line tV 88°45`57" E 13&93 feei; thence S40°45°14" W
94,32 feeY; thertce S 180 18'36" W a4v08 feety ihence S 01 121'36' V1f 205.02 feet; thence S
12°07'36" W 110.25 feei; Yher2ce S 28°28°36'° W 16404$ feet; Yhence IV 40 117`04'° W 211.16 feet;
thence N49°42'56°° E 97.80 feet; thence tU 37009°31" VV 95.59 fieet; thence S 52150'29`° W 55.10
feet; thence 69.48 feet aiortg the arc af a non-tangent curve to ihe Ieft having a raditas ofi 65.00
feet, a cenirai angle of 61°i4'42" and a chord ttaaT bears N 5$0 55'53'° VV 66.22 feet; ihence hl
37°09°31'° 118,50 feet'fo The Traae Point of Beganning, County ofi Eag1e, State of Coloradcsy and
the Cornerstone parcel described a.s follovvs:
Buildang C S°sYe
7hat part of the SW 1/4 fVE 1/4, Section 12, Township 5Souih, Range 81 VVest of Yhe Sixih
Principal Meridiana T"csvvn of 4/ail, Caura#y of Eagle, Staie of Colorado, described as follows:
Beganning at a point on ihe easterly Iine o# a non-exciusive easerrient for ingress and egress krrown
as Westhavera Drive recorded in Boolc 421 at Page 651 in the off4ce of ihe Eag9e County, Colorado9
C6erk and Fi order whence the cerster o# sa°sd Section 12 bears S 38034°43'° 1,168.27 feet;
thence aIong said Iine of Westhaven Drive N 52°43'41'°E 143,92 feetg thence depar8irsg said IOne of
Westhaven Drwve, 132,24 feet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to ihe left having a radius of
55.00 fieet, aceniral angle of 137046'30" and a chord that bears N 42011'46°°E 102.61 feet; thence
PJ 52150'23"E 65.24 fee4; Yhenee S 37109°31°'E 95.59 feet9 ihence S 49°42°56°'VU 97,80 $eef; thence
S 40017'04"E 24.12 fieet; thence S 52°50'29"419 213.66 feety thence fV 37009'31 "W 105076 feet to
the poini of begenning containing 0.6848 acres more or Iessa
PLANN3NG APJD ENV1RONMEtd1'AL C43 NtlSSlON EEi°iPJG
September 28H i992
~~EC m2~~/,..~,
~
Plannera Shelly eIIo
Kathy Langenwa!#er presen#ed this issue to the Commission statin that the housu is
under contract and that the request is really made by the Connoilys. General
discussion o# garage sizes was he1d and the mmpac# on the surrounding aream 1t was a
general con~~~sus that the garag~ ~~~e was not o# concern, however, #hat existing
iandscaping and trees be preserved by fencing, and if any existing aspens are Iost as
a resuit of the construc#ion, that they vvoll be replaced with o 3" - 4" caliper aspense
As weIIs ifi the Iarge aspen to the south of the parking area is 8ost, then the parking
space wilI be enBarged to meet the 1°own's staradards and new vegetation as indicated
in condition 1wil1 be adde a Jeff Bowen motioned to approve the request exce # for
#3 restricting the size of the garage. Dalton illiams seconded the motiono The F'EC
voted uraanirrtously to approve the request 3-0-1 wifh the ab~~~ ~onditions9 with Kathy
Langenwalter abstaining.
11. Diana Donovan stated that with the corrections to the minu#es that #he msnufes to the
August 24, 1992 PEC meetin were approvedm A motion was rnade by Jeff Bowen #o
ap rove the minca#es as ccarrected. DaIton illiams seconded. A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanirnouslys
As fihere was r~~ further business, the rr,ee#ing was adjourned at 7016 Pa a
P~cVninUtes\091492
~
~
L, I ENVIRONMENTAL 1 1
September 28, 1992
Present 5taff Present
Diana Donovan Kristan Pritz
Daito(1 lIIiams !ke oflica
aeff Bowen Anay Knua~~en
ena hitten °Tim Dev1in
Kathy Langenwalter Shelly elIo
Gre Amsden Jim Curnut#~
Susan Scanlon
Russel1 Forrest
1. tarting a# approximately 2;10, a joint vuork session vv6th [7 was he8 to discuss a
request for an exterior alteration and setback variance for the Vail Lionshead Center
uiiding located at Lot 59 Iock 1, v~~l L,onsheaa First FiAingr520 East Lionsneaa
C'rcle.
Ap Iicantm Oscar Tan
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
is Andy Knudtsen surr,rnarized the issues of the request per the rnemo. !rr'provements
to the proposal since the previous vvork session includedm
10 changes in rrrateria1s,
2. changes in 1andscapin areas, and the
3e addition of sca8loped paver edgin .
ndy discusse further that, per the staff memo, #here are five areas of concernm
1. Alternative fasc6a band materialss
2. The wendow groupings,
3, 1°he awrt°sngs,
4, °fhe northeast corner of the buiiding by the skier scuiptureo
5, °fhe fascia extension by the Alfie Packer entrance,
i91 Pierce explained the proposal as a crisp additiora with the muilion eIemen# addin
bri htness, and providing a systern fior ski racks, plant hangers, o aque panels;
clothsng racksH #abie tops, etc. The proposal aIso included the addition of maple woo ,
1 1/2A" deep oCl wlndoW mtllllpi7ss #1ower boxes9 artd awnings for si ns.
PLAraNING AND EtaVIROtv ENTAt COMMASSION MEET'ruG
Septernber 28, 1992
~
~
ena hitten believed that too much square footage was being proposed in the
pedestrian area and that the addi#ion should be pu1led back. She aIso thotaght that
the materials vrere 'u an' as opposed to rnountaina Gena went on t~ say she Iike $he
awningsv
Jeff Bowen iiked the idea that improvemer?ts were proposed at the Lsonshead Center.
He sawd that the waIkway is heav6ly fravelled, and that encroachrrtent into the mall area
wouId hinder pedestrian flow by closing the area in too much. He suggested that the
coiors should be toned down to make the appearance less urban, and that the awnings
be redesigned. Jeff further expla'sned #hat the area is dark at night and that the
exis#ing lights should rernain. Lastly, Jeff described how store fron#s in the Nevv
England area are quaint with individuality and that the store fronts should be given
individuai treatment in this additionm
Kathy Langenwalter stated that she felt the facade should be pulled 3° back #o follow
the L.ionshead Design Guidelsnes, The rrortheast corner of the building needed to be
pul9ed back or the skier scu9pture completely redone. She further explained that she is
not comfor#able vvith the proposal for AB#ie's end of the building. Kathy felt the erttire
proposal is oriental in nature and not appropriate for Lionshead. l°he window mullions
need #o be vertical, no# horizontal. She Iiked the prop~sai for the scalioped edge at the
base of the buiiding, however9 dsd not feel the awning design was appropriateo l°he
zinc fascia band appeared to be too crlsp and siicko
Diana Donovan stated that she likes the base material and scaI&op proposal. owever,
she believed that the proposed grid o# window rnullions shoul be irnprove ,She
believed the extension of the fascia band of the Alfie Packer area was nof appropriate
and if possible, A9fie Packer should have a mall entrance. She said that bath ends of
the building were tigh# and that what Kathy Langenwalter said abou# the skier sculpture
was her position alsom She believed that the Northeast corner form was anice shape,
but that it needed to be made srnaller. She thought that the landscaping in the 1fQe
Packer area should be brough# out as stated fn staff rnerno. She also beiieved #hat
there was too much being Ieft open to the tenants concernang the organization of the
muIlions. She befieved that the architects shotald create the individuality for the
ifferent stores. She aIso said that #he building should be pulled back sornewhat.
aiton Williarns dascussed his concerns about tourists not liking hi h tech aestheti in
Vall and that he does not care for the metal-zinc-wood rnaterSals, but would prefer
"timelessg9 esign thafi did not depict an erao 1°he awnings needed to be improved but
the coltar variety was good. The Northeast corner of the buildin was raicely done vvith
the curve however, it needed to be puiled back and used only for a disp{ay windowm Ef
the applicant wanted to Ieave the curve where At vvas, a corrip9ete redesign of the skier
scul ture would be necessary. The #ascia band extension by A3fie Packers was a
ro Iem to DaItone He further explai~ed he iikes the concept ofi the planters with 1ids
in the winter for seatss that the park concepf is good with additionai up lightin a He
PLAraNtNG AND ENviRONMENTAt ~~MMiSS'ON MEETING
Sep4ember 28, 1992
d
t
said that it as critical for Ai#ie Packers to have a ma11 entrance, but did not care for the
orientai concept as proposed,
Greg Amsden feIt that the facade vvas too hard, too corrtmercial, arad agreed that the
store fronts shouid be more quaint. Greg feIt that the raortheast corner of the building
should be ctarved. He felt that the north side needs to set back 2' not 4-6' as
&s'fiA&+9a,YJeffidm tl 3e lelsls $i A$A8 GSit$ bdtnCH 4 id a58g/ dCdg'6.e #s7 d 66Pede6d f8d2 Ali6q,9a3 S$D &Ld B9 @a6 a ld8fn66sr maB4
entrance needs to be added for Alfie F'ackers Greg further explained hovu he #elt that
the store frpn#s need to be more individtaalized to d~ away wath the proposed
massaveness. The s#one material was acceptable to him sf the window groupings were
changed~ hovuever? the zlr~c was r~ot a good choice a of rr~aterialsa
eorge Lamb statesi that tenants should not be reEEed on to be compat€bie in window
concepts and displaysa He also stated that the developer should create a sign
program instead of aIlowin the tenants decide on desRgns and to set firm parameters.
The stone was accepfiable, bu# #he dessgn was too coId sn general.
ed wathmey, representing the Design Review Boards suggested that the proposal
needs more residential materiais instead of industrial grade ma#eria1s. Ned agreed that
it is a positive remodel idea to irrtprove the building. °The fact that the building edges
uvere brought out to the same se#back was a problerr, to Ned.
Staerry Dorward, representing D , Stated that the materia1s coul be use in a rough
hewn #ashion to represent a motantain stylea She went on to explain she had no
problem with the setback encroachrr,ent but was coracerned with the windows and
awnings. She would ifke to see the fascia raosed and the windovvs framed to
dfstin uish stores from each other. Guidelines should be set for merchandise dgspiays
and iightirag techniqtaes. Sherry afso explairted how the window multions should not be
at eye level and that she does not like the paving as proposed, but ra#her the pavers
shouid be used to accent activity areasa She believes that A6fie's needs a ceremonial
gafeway at the end and that ft could be a sculptural eIemento
til Pierce expiained that the process started ?n 1986 with a lot of parties involved and
that they taiked to store owners to see what they wanted. ill explained further that
they dmd not want a 0ernovie seta° aPPearance either.
aiton expressed that design continuity vvas needed. He fiurther explained that the
wsndows need groupings for dssplays. Bill stated that the °°system89 proposed aIlows for
vvindow displays. Daitorr disagreed, that a °'system" is no# what fs needed and that
window treatments needed fnd°avidual character.
5herry Dorward added that the project needs warmth, whQch cou6d be achieved
throu h pro er use of laghting, dispiays, and taradscaping.
PLANNiNG AAtD ETilVBRONMEN°fAL CO MlSSiO?J M1EE7'ING
September 28, 1392
i
Kristan Pritz stated that #he project needs better window treatments9 and that the
detaiiing issues coul be determined by the architect, to create a pedestrian scalew
iana [3onovan summarized thaf peopie need to be able to iook into individual
windows and shops and that a "system" is not appropriate.
2e A request for a work session on the proposed 199211993 Environmental ork
Pro ramm
Staff: ussell Forrest and Scasan Scanlon
ussell Forres# presenfed the Environrnental Work Plan fior the 199211993 fiscal year,
uss presented the goals and objectives of the plan describing the need for a batance
between development and environmen#a1 protection. Si~~e Va61's tourist industry is
irectly linked with the areas natura1 resources, achieving sustainable development in
Vail will help ensure iong-terrra grow#h that is compatlble with the areas environrnenta
The initiatives proposed in the FY 93 Environrnenfal ork F'lan will provide a frame
work fior sustairaable development bya
1 m helpsng to ensure compatibrlity between development and the natural
en9I1 6dn1 9@e1 Btq
2m taksng steps locally to address environmental problems of global irrr ortance,
3. redtacing costs for environmental compliance #hrough proactive managerr,ent,
and
4. providing a better living environrr,ent for citszens and guestso
The work plan includes both ongoing proJec#s and new initiatives propose for 1993m
ngoin projec#s that include a woodburning edcacational program, nonpoint source
ater qualaty management program and the An-house recycling progr rr', Susan
5canion presented the results of a recent survey of 1lail lodges and said tha# ost
Iod es would weicorne educationai materiais #or guests on clean woodburnin
practiceso
alton IIIia s suggested that Public Service should become more interested and
play an active role in the conversion proposed for the vaIley by Iowering ra#es or
iving mass convers'son discounts to whole developments, when applicable-0
Kathy Lang~~wa1#er suggested to include in the ork PIan an exarnple of the process
an possabie reiated costs to help educate the pub1ic on converting to gasm
a1ton iliiams expressed his concerns for the indavidual not recycling as much as the
PLANNING ANf3 EPJViRONMENi°AL CO MllSSlON MEETING
Sep#ecnber 2$, 1992
* business partacipants. usseII suggested that the T°own may want to do a
comprehensive study of work management sn Vailo
Diana Donovan expressed the need for water conservation to be added to the Work
Iart.
Jeff Bowen expBained his concerns #or the need for noise managemen# of 1070, with
DaItan illiams adding that the activsties at the Ford Arnphitheater, and other concerfs
and activities such as those preformed at Lionshead needed noise management.
uss ended the presentatlon delineating the three new initiatives as:
1 e creation bf an environmenfal data base;
2. development ofi a preliminary environmentai review process9
3. development of an environmental strategic plan,
3. A request for aside setback variance to allovv an add6tion to the residence Iocated at
716 Forest oaddLot 10, Iock 1, Vail Viilage Sixth Filing.
Applacant: Charles Ackerman
Planner: °fim Devlin
Tim Devlin sh~~~~ ~ew plans #o the Corr,rnissioners delineating areas of
encroachrr,ent, showing where applicant decreased the side setback encroachrnent
fro the previous vvork sessiony and the request for the applicant to provQde additional
iandscaping for screening.
Jeff owen motioned to approve the reques# per the revised plans and the staffi's
memog inciuding the iandscaping as presented on the drawing a# the meeting. The
proposed landscaping was acceptablee DaIton illiams seconded the motion, with the
PEC voting unanirnously 6-0 to approve the request,
4. A request for variances form Section 18.58,320 to allow o satellmte dishes to be
Iocated at the Westin FioteII1300 esthaven Drive/described as follows:
That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1t4, Section 12, "fownship 5Souih, Rarsge 81 West of the Sixth
Pr°snclpal Merodian, Town of Vai9, Eagle County+, Colorado, described as foi4ows:
Beginning at a point on the southerly boundary ofi the parcel of land showra on the Condorniniurn
Map for the Colorado Mountain Condominiurns recorded in Book 387 at Page 620 en the taffdce ofi
the Eagle County, CoIorado, Clerk and Recorder, whence the mosi souiherly corner of said parcel
bears S 52 50°29" VV 14.16 feet distant; thence the Yo31owing nine courses aJong the southerly
boundary of said parcel; (1) N 52 50'29°° E 49,16 feet: (2) N 37 12°45" W 12,34 Feety {3} N 52
47°15°' E 1.00 feet9 (4) N 37 12'45" W 1,30 feet (5) N 52 4715°° F 42.60 feet; (6) N 37 12'45" W
$.70 feet; (7) N 52 47°1 5°° E 15.00 feet; (8) S 37 12'45" E 22,40 feet; (9) N 52 50'29'° E 35,28 Feet9
2honce depariing said southerly boundary N 52 50'29°' E 56,96 feet; ihence S 37 03'31°' E 45.34
PL.APlNlNG AND Eh1ViROR! ENTAL CO BSSION MEE?'ING
Sep2ember 2$, 1992
&
R
feet thence N 52 50`29°' E 48.70 fee#; thence S 37 09'31 °a E 9.60 feet; thence N 52 50'29°' E 80.00
feef; thertce S 37 09'31 a° E 36,40 feet; thence N 52 5029°° E 21.30 fee#; 2hersce S 37 09'31" E
220a02 fieet to Gore Creek; ihence the #cs1lowing foaar courses aiong Gore Creeko (1) S 49 26°36'° W
76,45 feet; (2) S 22 31'36" VV 124.47 feet; (3) S 53 37'36'° W 119,34 feet; (4) S 65 31 °36°° LV 14a5$
#eet; thence depart6ng Gore Cr~ek N 32 59'30" W 141,47 feet; then~e N 57 25°30°a W124002 feet;
thence N 37 03°31°° W116.45 ieei io the point of begfnning, containmrsg 110,200 square feet or 2e49
acres, rnore or 9esse
Applicant: estin Resort\Tri County Cable Vision
Plannero Andy Knud#sen
Andy F{nudtsen presented the request with a summary of the staff memo poont+ng out
the conditions o# the staff rnemo as:
1. That the applican# remove aII plywoad screening that enc6oses the underside of
the deck on the vvest side o# the building and remove the miscellaneous iterrts
stored under the deck a# this time9
2. l°hat the applicant revegetate the slope around the satellite dishes and deck
area with native grasses;
3. That the appl0cant provide a 1andscape plan to the D which provides a
rninfrr3um taf 12 shrubs to be located around the satelii#e dishes and 3spruces
and 5spens to be Iocated aIong the deck area in Iocations that will not block
sateIlite #ransmassion signal to the dishes, °This Iandscaping should be
coordinated with the Iandscaping proposed fior the Cascadese
The color vaas discussed as acceptable as black or white (to rnatch the building) and it
was deci ed that the coIor choice couId be ieft to DR a Lynn Johnson explained that
the an Ie of the dishes wou1d not protrude from beneath the decks, with the first dish
being flush with the openlng and the second dish being ang9ed 5 degrees in a
southvvesterly directionm hie saad that he preferred two 12' dishes but that he could et
by with one 8' and one other d°ash at 10' sn diarneter.
iana Donovan stated that shrubs shouid not be junipers and that they should be 4-5'
in heaght when planted (5 gallon), Spruces to be planted wouId have to be 6' rriin, in
height vvith the aspen being acceptable as 20e caliper.
alton illiams oved to approve the requesty with reg Amsden seconding the
motiona The PEC voted unanimously 6-0 to approve the request.
5. A request for a firont, side, and rear setback varia~~~s and a varlance to allow parkin
in the #ront setback for the construction of a triplex, located at 44 ilIow PIace/Lot ,
Iock 69 Vail village Firs# Fi1in9-
PLAI31dlNG AtJ~ ENV33iQtdMEN"fAL CO iSSION MEETING
Sepiember 289 1992
pPlicanta T°owermac Corporation
Planner; Shelly eIIo
Sheliy Melio presented the requests summarizing the staff rnerr,o ciarifying the area of
deck encroachmen# which was driving the need for one of the requested var6ancesa
The variances were explained as necessary #o allowa
1 a A 9-foot 6-inch rn smum building encroachrraent into the 20' north (front)
setback and a 10-foot bulldlng encroachment in the east (side) setback;
2. Deck and roof overhang encroachments into the north (front) and east (sade)
setbacks;*
3. A 5-fioot 3-inch m imum ecicroachmenf into the south (rear) setback for the
underground parking structure;
4. The underground parking structure entrance will encroach a m lmum of 12-
feet 3-inches irato the north (#ront) setback;
5. Parking to be Iocated in the 20' fron# setback. For the ptarposes of zoning, the
stafif woil consider the north side of the proper#y, adjacent to illow PIaces as
the firont setback because access is being taken frorn th3s side of the Iota
~ oof overhangs will encroach amaximum of 3 feet further into the setback than
the specified building encroachmentse Roof overhangs are alAowed to encroach
4 feet irtto setbacks by zonang.
Shelly further explained that staff does not support the deck encroachment in to the
east setback, the N corner, or into the north setbackP
The general conserasus of the Board was that the decks were the only issuee The
illow owners {Fienry Caldwell} agreed with the building positioning and asked that a
substantial arriount of trees be planted fior screening between the two proper#iesm
Kathy Lang~nwalter stated that she feit comfor#able with the proposed deck in front,
and that no walkway should be in front of the proposed buildeng, and that no rracsre
encroachments should be perrnitted in the front setback (more #han the buiidin )o
Dalton illaams stated that the back deck should be chopped off and that the amount
of the encroachment of the front decks on l1nit 1 shouid match the other si e. re
msden agreed wfth Dalton on the deck issues.
Jeff owen likes #he proposed project as is, bu# will agree with Dalton about the deck
encroachment issues.
A vo#e was taken regarding the deckso 2-4 in fiavor of Dalton9s su gestron of choppin
the one in back off flush with the building and #he deck in front to be brou ht out to
PLANNING AND ENvwRONMENTAL CO rnisSi~N MEETING
Septerrabee 28, 1992
mafch the deck on the opposite sfdea
Drai~~ e was d;scussed and it was brought ou# that it would be addressed by Public
. orks, the applfcant, and T"he Wi11ows, Da1ton further suggested fhat the area b~
cu ed and guttered. °The representative farm Bishop Park dici not feei that the buffier
in front was appropriate.
aItorr filiams motfoned for approvaI per the staff memo:
1 a °To incltade larger evergreens between the buildingsg
2. To shor#en the back deck to be even with the buildirtg,
3. To make both decks 3°-6" and to make the right side balcony extend in front to
be even with the opposi#e deck, and
4. To ensure the drainage is addressed by easemen#m
Jeffi owen seconded the motion with a 6-0 uote to approve the request per the
discus~~on.
6m A request for a site coverage variance to a81ow an addItion to the residence Ioca#ed at
Lot 1, Va?1 Vi#iage Thrrieenth FilsngJ3025 ooth Falls Roade
Applicante llliam and Julie Esrey
Plannera Mike Moilaca
ike HiIand represented the owners (Esrey's) and asked that the request be #abled
indefnitely due to the #ac# that th~ owner rrvould like to attend the PEC hearing. fhe
eneral consensus of the Board was that a time iimit be p6aced on the tabling or else
the request be withdrawn ue to the pubGc notice filing procedures and the added
ublAshing expenses as explained by Mike o6Jfca, Kathy Lartgenwal#er mo#ioned to
#able the request unti( the first meeting in Jarauary of 1993s with the understandan that
if the request is not reschedured by Janua of 1993, the application wouId be
considere withdrawn. DaIton iBltams seconde the mot°sono vote of -0
unani ously approved the tabiing.
7. request for a variance from Section 17,28s330 fo aIlow residentiai drivevvay to
exceed the maxzmum slope permitted. Lot 14, lock A, Vael das Schone Fi9irt o.
1\2369 hamonix Lane.
Applicantsa aul M. ands
Planner: ike Mo11ica
P PIIVING AND Ef3VlROtJMENTAL COMPAISS~ON ME {NG
Sepierraber 28, 1992
T L T 12
A request for a wall height variance frorr, Section 18.58.020 ta aIlow for the
construction o# o retaining walls located in the #ront setback which exceed 3feet in
height, Iocated on Lot 10, Iock 9 Vaal Vi{Iage idge12692 Cortina Lane.
Ap licant: Fianns Weimann and °The Town of Vail
PIanner: Tirri Devlin
Tirn evlin presented the request9 explaining the safiety concerns of the Town
regarding the stabsiity of the hiilsade beneath Cortina Lane as well as for the Weamann
residencem
Diana Donovan stated that the Iandscapirtg should not be junipers, bu# should anclude
plants such as saIisberry and choke cherry with adequate root sys#ems,
aIton iIIiams rr'otioned to approve the request per the staff memo and Diana
Donovan`s suggestion of the landscape chang~, with Jeff ovven seconding the motiorta
vote was taken and it was unanimous 6-0 to approve the request with the afore-
entioned condition of native plants being used on the terraced areas.
9e A request to modify the landscaping pian assoctated with the previousiy approved
exteraor alteration proposal for the Slifer Build°ang, 230 Bridge StreetlPart of Lots B and
C, Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing.
Applicanta Rod and Beth Slifer
Planner: °fim DevBin
Tim Devlin reviewed the staff rnerno wifh the Board, Ned Gwathmeyy, representin the
PPIicants asked #ha# the r~quest be considered, Kathy Langerrwalter motwoned to
deny the request because the pianter was an important part of #he exterior a!#eration
nd site coverage variance granted by the PEC. The planter should be built as
ori inally proposed or rr»difiied to decrease the height ar~d alIow stucco to be used; to
be cornpleted by Thanksgivirrg 1992. Jeff Bovaen seconded the rnotion, vvith an
unanimous vote 6-0 to deny the request as subrrrjitted.
i Oo A request #or an amendment to Chapter 18,57 Employee Housing for the Town of
Vail Zoning Codea
Applicanfo Tovvn of Vail
Iannera Andy Knudtsen
TABLED °T OCTOBER 1
PI.APlRJ6tdG AAJD ENV1RON ERl°fAL Ct) AAlSSIOfJ EE°fiNG
Septernber 28, 1992
1 1. Discussion of recommenda#ions regarding PEC meetings made at the recent Speak Up
eetin m
Krmstan Pritz revaewed the Speak Up meeting vvith the PEC rnembers posnting out that
it was brought up that the PEC rneetings are taksng too much time, an that the
meetings need to be #6mited to summaroes of the memo and briefer discussions sa that
the rr,embers ofi the public did not have to sit through Iong discussions that did not
concern thern,
12. A request #or a variance from Sect6ori 17,28n330 to aIlow a residential dr~~eway to
exceed the maximum sIope perm'stted. Lo# 16, Vail Potato Patch\782 Po#ato Patch DrA
Appl~cant: Andrew Daly
Plannere Shelly e16o
T L °T OCTOBER 12
13. A request for a rr'ajor amendment to SDD #4, Gascade ViIlage, to amend the
development plan for the Waterfiord and Cornerstone parce8s in area As described as
follovvse
That part o9 the SW 1/4 fVE 1/4, Section 12, 7ownship 5South, Range 81 West of the Siath
Principal Merid°€an, Town of iiaa3, Eag3e Count}+, CoIorado, described as #oAowso
Beginndng at a point on the sautherly right-of-way line o# lnterstaYe Highway No. 70 whence an iron
p°sn wiih a paasiic cap markang the cenier of said Section 92 bears S 33°10'19°A W 1447.03 feeis
thence along said soaatherlg+ roght4of-way line two courses
1) N 52°50`29" E 229,66 feet
2) N 74°3$'17" E 160a70 feet;
thence departing said sotaYherly right-of-way 8ne tV 88°45°5°7" E 138,93 feet9 thence S 40°45°14" W
94.32 feet; thence S 18° 13°36'° W 54.08 feet; thertce S 01 °29 °36" W 205.02 feety thertce S
12°07'36°' W 1 ifle25 fieet9 thence S 28028'36" W 164e48 feet; thence tV 40 017'04°° W 211.16 feet;
Yhence N 49°42°56" E 97.80 feetg thence N 37°09'31°` VV 95e59 feet; ihence S 52°50°29" VN 55.90
feet; ihence 69.48 feet aIong the arc of a ncsn-tangent curve to the !e#i having a radius of 65.00
feet, acentral angle o$ 61014'42" and achord ihat bears N 580 55`53" 1/V 66.22 feet; then~e N
37°09°31°' W 118.50 feet To The True Point of Beginning, Coun2y of Eagie, State of Colorado, and
the Cornerstone parcel described as followse
Buildittg C ii#e
That part of the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Section 12, l`ownship 5South, Range 81 West of the Soxth
Principal Meridian, Town of Vail, County of Eagle, Staie caf CoBorado, described as fwilowsa
Beginning at a poirat on the easterly I°sne of a nwn-exclusive easernent fior ingress and egress known
as Wesihaven Dr'sve reccsrded dn Bocak 423 at Page 651 irt the o#fice of the Eagle Couniy, CoIorado,
Clerk and Recorder whersce the center of said Sectian 12 bears S 38034'43°°W 1,168.27 ffeety
thence along said lirse caf WesYhaven C3rive IV 52°43°41°'E 143a92 fieet; thence departing said line of
Wesihaven Drive, 132.24 #eet along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left havong a raditas af
55.00 feet, a cerrtraf angle of 137145'30" and a chord ihat bears IV 4201 1'46°°E 102.61 feei; thence
PLANtJIP1G AlVD EtJVIROtd ENTAL COAAMISSIOFJ EETI(VG
Sep~ember 28, 1992
N 52°50'29"E 65.24 feet; thence S 37009'31 °°E 95,59 feet; thence S 49°42'56°'irt1 97.80 fee8; ihence
S 40017"04"E 24a12 feefy ihertce S 52050'29°°W 293,66 feety thence tU 37009'31'°W 905,76 feet to
the polnt caf beginning ccarataining 0e6848 acres more car 1ess.
Applicant: ECM Enterprases represented by Eustaquio Gor#ina and
Commercial Federal Savings.
Planner; Shelly e18o
TABLED T OCTOBER 1
The minutes form the PEC meeting of September 28, 1992 were discussed and with three
changes, the minutes were approveds
As there was no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 6a02 Po .pulled back
so ewhate
PLANNING AND EIVVIRON EtJ1"AL COMMISSiON EEi°ING
September 2E, 1992
L I 1 T! 1
SEPTEMBER 2 28,1992
AGENDA
11 a00 A. . Site Vis?ts
2:00 P, 4 Public Hearing
Site Visitsm 11:00
Sands
Weimann
Westirt
Lionshead Center
illows
Esrey
Public Heqrjnge 2;00
1 w A request for a joint work session with the DR and PEC for an exterior a9teration and
setback variance for the Vail Lionshead Center BuiIding located at Lot 5, lock 1, Vail
Lionshead First Fiiin \520 ast Lionshead Circles
PPlicanto scar T'ang
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
2, A request for a work session on the proposed 1992\1 993 Environmental ork
rograma
Staff: usseI! Forrest and Susan Scanlan
3. A re uest fior a sgde se# ack variance to allow an addition #o the residence 4ocated at
716 Forest oad1Lot 1, Iock 1, Vail Village Sixth Filing,
pPlicant; Charles Ackerrrrrrran
Plannere Tim Devlin
4. A request for variances from ection 18.58.320 to aIlow osa#ellite dishes to be
loca#ed at the Westan Hoteli1300 esthaven Driveldescribed as foliowse
That part of the SW 1/4 [VE 114, Sectaon 12, Township 5 South, Ftange 81 West of the Soxth Principal
Meridian, Town of Vail, Eagie County, Colorado, described as fiolloovso
Beg9nning at a point on the southerly boundary of ihe parcel of land shown on the Condomanium
ap for the Colorado Mauntain Condominiums recorded in Book 387 at Page 620 in the office of
the Eag1e County, Colorado, CIerk and Recorder, whence #he most southerly carner of said parcei
~
bears i 52 50'29" W 14.16 feet distant; thence the following nine ccsurses aiong the southerly
boundarg of said parcel; (i) N 52 50'29°' E 49e16 feei: (2) IV 37 12e45°° W 12,34 Feety (3) h! 52
47`15" E i M feet; (4) N 37 12'45'° W i e30 feet (5) N 52 47"15`° E 42.60 feeY; (6) N 37 12'45°' W
$.70 $eet; (7) hl 52 47'15'° E 15.00 feet; (8) S 37 12'45°° E 22,40 feetn (9) fV 52 50'29'° E 35o28FeeT;
ihence departing said souiherly boundary N 52 5029'° E 56.96 9eei; thence S 37 03°31" E 45.34
feet thersce N 52 5029°° E 48.70 feet; thence S 3°7 09'31°' E 9.60 feef, thertce fV 52 50'23" E80,04
feet; #hersce S 37 09'31°' E 36.40 feety therrce N 52 5&3'29°` E 21.30 4eety ihence S 37 09'31°° E
220.02 feet to Gore Creek; thence the fa16ow6ng four courses along Gore Creek; (1) S 49 26°36" W
76a45 feet; (2) S 22 31°3C" UV 124.47 feet; (3) S 53 37'36" W 119.34 fee2y (4) S 65 31 °36°° V1/ 14058
fee#s ihertce depariing Gore Creek N 32 59'30°' W 941,47 fee#y thence N 57 25°30" VY 124,02 feeY;
ther~~e N 37 09'31" W 916.45 feet fcs The poini of begirsning, containing 110,200 square feet or 2a49
acres, rrsare or less.
Applican#: estin Resort\T'ri County Cable Visiort
Plannerr Andy Knudtsen
5e A request fior a firont, si e, and rear setback variances and a variance to aIIow parking
in the front setback for the construction of a triplexs Iocated at 44 illow PIace\Lot 9,
Iock 6, Vail ViIIage First Filinge
Appiicant: T'owermarc Corporation
Planner: Shelly eIIo
6. A request for a site coverage variance to aIlovv an addition fo the residence focated at
Lot 1, VaiI Village T'hirteenth Fiiin \3025 Booth Fails Road.
PPlocanta illaam an Julie Esrey
Plannera ike ollica
7m A re uest #or a varaance frorn Section 17,28.330 #o aIlow a residen#ial driveway to
exceed the maxirnun°t sIope perm'sttedm Lot 14, 9ock A, Vail das Schone Filing No.
1 369 Chamonix Laneo
AppBicants; Paul M. Sands
lanner: ike ollica
1
$a A request for a variance frorn Section 18.58.020 to aliow the construction of o
retainin wails Iocate in the front setback vvhic h exceed 3 feet in height9 Bocated on
Lot 10, BIock ,Vail sdgei2692 Cortina Lane'.
Applicants: Hanns eirnann and °The Town af 11ai1
Piannerm 1"i Devlin
9. request ta odify the Iandscaping plan associated with the previously approved
exterior aIfera#ion proposal for the Ia#er uelding, 230 Bridge Stree#JPar# of Lots and
C, Lot 59 Vail Viliage First Ffling.
2
Applican#: od arad eth Slifer
&annere Ti~ ~evlin
10. A request for an amendment to Chapter 18e57 Emp6oyee Flousing for the T'own of
Vaml Zoning Code,
Applrcant: `fown of VaiI
Plannern Andy Knudtsen
°T 1. T OCTOBER 1
11 e iscussson of recommendataons regarding PEC meetings made at the recent Speak Up
eeting.
i 2a A request for a variance from Section 17m28m330 to allow a resl ential riveway to
exceed the maximum slope perrr,itted. Lot 16, Vaii f'otato Patch\782 Potato Patch Dro
PPlicant: Andrew Daly
Piannera She91y e11o
TABLED T 1
13. A request far aa1or amendment to S[3D #4, Cascade Villages to amend the
develo rnent plan #or the aterford and Cornerstone parcefs in area A, described as
foilows4
Thax part o# the SW 1/4 NE 1/4, Seciion 12y Township 5 SouYh, Range 81 West of the S6xfh
Principa1 Merid°san, `fown of Vaile Eagl~ ~ounty, Coiorado, described as followsa
Beginning aY a poinf on the sotatherly right-of-way lene og Interstate Highway No. 70 whence an iron
pin wEth a plasi4c cap marking the center of said Section 12 bears S 33010°19'° VV 1447.03 feei;
Yhence along said southerly r6ght-of-way line two cocarses
1) fV 52°5029" E 229066 feet
2) N 74°3817'° E 160o70 feet;
ihence deparYing said southeriy right-o#-way dine N 88146°57°° E 138,93 feeYy thence S 40°45'14'° W
94.32 feeiy thence 5 180 18'36'° W 54.08 $eet; thence S 01 °21 °36" YV 205.02 feet; ihence S
12047°36°° W 110.25 fee8s thence S 28°28'36" W 164.48 feet; ihence fV 40 °17'04'° VV 211.16 feet;
ihertce N 49°42°56" E 97.80 feet; thence tV 37009'31'° Vd 95e59 feet; thence S 52°50°29" W 55,10
feet; ihence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-tangent cusve to the Ieft having a radius of 65,00
fieety a central angle of 61°14'42" and achord ihat bears N 580 55'53°° W 66.22 feety thence fV
37°09'31°' 1N 118.50 feeY l"o The True Point of Beginning, County of Eagle, State o# Co6orado; and
the Cornerstone parcel described as foi6ovvse
Building C Sate
That part of the SW 114 IVE 1J4, Section 12, T'ownship 5~outh, Range 83 VVesi of the Swh
Pranclpal Meridiara, Town o# ldaiie County of EagIeP StaYe of Coltsrado, described as fo1lowse
3
Beginning at a polnt on the easterly line of a non-exciusive easernen4 for ingress and egress known
as VVesthaven C3rive recarded irs B k421 at Page 661 in the office of the Eagle County, CoIorado,
Clerk and Recorder whence the cerater of said Section 12 bears S 38°34'43"W 1,168.27 fee#;
iheroce aIong said lane of Westhavers [7rive N52°43`41"E 143,92 feety thence departing said iine of
UVesthaven Drive, 132.24 feet a9ong 2he arc ofi anon-tangeni curve to Yhe Ieft having a radius of
56.00 feet, a central angle of 137°45'30°' and a chord that bears N 42011'46°°E 102,61 feei; thersce
N 52°50'29°'E 65.24 feety ihence S 37°09'31 °°E 95,59 feet; thence S 49°42'56'°W 97080 9eety thence
S 40°17'04T 24,12 fee2y thertce S 52050°29°°!lU 213,66 feei9 Yhertce fJ 37°09'31"W 105.76 feet to
the point of beginn'sng cantainirrg 0.6848 acres more ar iess.
Applicanf: MECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Cornmercial Federai Savings,
Planner; Shelly eIIo
T L T OCTOBER 12
The ap location and information about the proposals are ava3lable for public review in the
Co munity evelopment epartment officee
Towro of Vail
o munity CteveBoprnent Department
Published in the Vai1 Trail on September 22, 1992
4
MEMORANDUM
T ; Planning and Environmenta1 Commissaon
F O e Co muni#y Development Depark ent
DA°TEs eptember 28, 1992
Sl1 JEC'Ts A request for a work session for an exteriar aIteration for the
Vail/Lionshead Center Building, Iocated at Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead
First FiIin / 520 East Lionshead Circle.
Applicant: scar L. °Can
Planner; An y Knudtsen
- - -
le DSC IP1°ION OF TFiE REQUES°f
scar Tang, the applicant, is proposing to expand the corr'rnerciaf area of the
Lionshead Center uilding by approxirnately 4,000 square feet. The proposed onetl
s#ory retail addition woll be Iocated adjacent to the existing shops fironting on the
Lionshead ail. The condominiurr, associa#ion ~ould like to add 400 sq. ft. of
common area on the south side of the buflding by the pool and by the condominium
entrance on the north sidem They wouid aIso like to add approximateiy 330 square feet
of RFA4 This is to be ccsnverted from existing comrnon area and incorporated into
the rrtanager's unit.
The proposai requires an exterior aIteration and asetback variance, The roposed
setback alon the north property 13ne would be 0 feet, where 10 fee# is required by the
CCII Zone Distric#e The variance criteria will be analyzed in a later rr,emorandum4 The
exterior a6tera#ian review ss required as the addition #o fihe building is larger than 100
s uare feetm
Since the previous work session on Juiy 279 1992, the applicant has made the
foIlowirtg changes;
1, aterwais. Instead of white metal mullions and a whi#e me#al fascia band, the
applicant is roposing to use maple rnullions with a ciear finish, li ht coIored
sandstone for the base of the buildira , and azinc fascia banda
2. Landscapin o
am The appiicant has provided a cluster ofi three trees gn grates, located
approxi ateiy in the center of the nor#h eIevation,
m The applicant has re esigned the Alfie Packer Iandscaping area9 in a
1
manner that is si ilar to the design concept ofi the recent8y completed
Sundial P9aza Iandsc ing projec#.
C. The applicant has aIso reworked the crescent shaped plan#er in front of
#he condorninium entrance adjacent to CIeaver's Deli.
3. New paver area. The applicant is proposing to use large sandstorae pavers in
front of the building. l'here wouH be ascaBloped edge of pavers caseng the
same sandstone ma#erlal that would be used on the base of the buildango
The key areas which staf# believes n~~~ addational attention includee
10 AIternative #ascia band rnaterialse
2. The window groupings.
3. The awnings.
4. The northeast corner ofi #he bui6ding by the skier scuBpture.
5. The fascia extension by the Alfie Packer entrance,
taff wifl provfde details of these issues in the criteria below,
Ilo LI HEAD CO T XT
A. ist ry
In iscussions wi#h Jeff inston, the 1"own's urban dessgn consuItant, staff has reviewed some
of the background to the desi n of the Lionshead aii, For exarnple, prior to the developrnent
and construction of the mall as it is today, large planters had been located adjacerrt to the
buildin s. T°hese planters were curvalinear in desi nand fIowed through the plazas and
caurty rdsa Concrete curbs were used as a border and a wide asphalt walking area was
rovi ed between the p6anters. ne of #he goals of the redesi nof Lionshead aN was to
relocate te plantings adjacent #o the buAldings and put thern in the center of the mall to
irnprove retail visibility. T'his redessgn aiiowed pedestrians to waik closer to the shop display
windows and entrances, whi6e still providing large iandscaped areasa
B. Goals
In 1980, the Design Guide0ines and Considerations were devefoped for the Lionshead area.
The goals underiy?ng the uidelines mnclude developirtg vitali at a "°pedestrian scale wathen a
contemporary architecturaE ex ression," streng#hening the °'ground floor visibiiity and
attractiveness such #hat it re-estabiishes a sense of pedestrian scale throu hout the maIl
area;01 and reinforcing the "pedestrian nature of the Lionshead alla" Staff believes that
expansions such as this one9 or the recently completed anner Sports addition to #he
2
Lifthouse Lod e buildin 9 meet the goals stated above. Though sta#f be8ieves #h~ current
applica#ion needs some refinin , the concept of bringing out a one-story addition fior
comrnercial use is excelIent.
1ll. ZO I A ALYSIS
Zorae Dwstrict: cc91
Lot S6ze0 0,923 acres or 40,205 e9 square feet
Proposed Addition: approximately 3,964.3 square #eet
Allovved Ex~ ELoposed
Buil ing Fiei hte 48 ftm 46 ft. 22.5 feet
Setbackso
orth 10 ff. 20 fite 0 ft.
East 1 ftm 43 ft. 16 fto
est 10 fte 5ft. 5 fif,
South 10 ftm 12 fta 12 ft.
Site Coverage; 28,135.7 sqm fit. 19,32905 sq. #t. 23,421 .6 sq, fte
or 70% or 48n 1% or 58,3 %
Lartdsca ing. 8,038,8 sqe ft. 7,845 s oft. soft 7,845 s. ftm soft
or 20% onimum 1,607 sq. ft. hard 1 n227 sq. ft, hard
(m , hard 9,452 sqe fto total 9,072 sq, ft. total
9andscapefs or 23m5 % or 22.6 %
1,607)
F e 32,155 29,509 29,$44n9
or 80% or 73.4% or 74,3%
Required Parkan m 13.2 additi~nal spaces
or 105,600,
1V, EXTE i ALTE TIO C ITE IA
A. ei t n Massing.
At one story, the height and rrrassing is consis#ent wAth the architecturak
guidelines for Lionshead.
3
B. Roof s
°The Lit3nshead Desigrt uide6irtes state that the "cortnections of roofs of
exis#ing buildin sshould be respective of any exmstin strong architectural
lines.'s The PEC pointed out at the work session on Jcaly 27, that the
architectural eIements of the addition provide a strong enough connection to the
existing buildin 9 and that the roof shape was acceptable. The c1erestory roof
elernents which provsde ii ht into the corrarrlercial space reflect the rest of the
buiiding desi n, in staff's opanion,
C. Facadem Il/ tructur~~.
The Lionshead fles€gn Guidelines caIl #or a range of mater'sals incIuding
OOco004o$etC.o B&l68ifk9 glS.aSa7a7y Btl@e1Skl' st5.a9dU69 %A074d ffiqbdo8.0.9a S$.atlE 9de''ebiss tlSat Li6e
changes to the rrreateriais that have been made since the previous work sess?on
i prove the facade of the addit€on signAfican#!y. The staff believes that brin ing
in natural materia1s such as the sandstone and maplem soften the appearance of
the building. The maple is proposed ta be treated with a cIear fiinish and the
sandstone wili be very light. Though the cornmercial facade will not be as
right as if vaould have b~~n with white rnetal muilions, the addition will stili
have a ve light appearance. Staff beiieves th~s will be a positive contribu#ion
to the allm
Though staff is very pleased eth the rnodifica#ions rnade #o the rnaterials for
the facade, we beiieve that rnore study is needed for the fascsa band. e are
concerned that the zinc rnay still not be #he best material to be used for the
fascia bande eare concerned about the exposed balts and that it rrright [ook
too BgindustrialAe° ore importan#ly, vve believe thaf the use of wood here may
cantinue to make this bullding softer. The facade of the commercial expansion
could be im roved by making it more vertical and Iess horizontals ne of the
Town°s oals is to have the elements of the facade contr?bute #oward providin
more of a pedestrian scalea Staff believes that charaging #he rr,aterial fio woo
and introducing sorne vertical lines withirr #he fascia band wouBd irnprove ite
Staff also has aconcern with the fascia band extending past the buildirt to the
Ifie Packer en#rancem °fhe rnodel of the pro}ect shows th t it extends west
beyond the Younger eneration shop and then turns the corner at the property
line and ext~nds to the south fior ashort distancea Sta#fi belseves that this
eIerr»nt is not integrated vvell vuith the rest ofi the buildi~~, and separa#es #he
lan scapin ora the west end of the building from #he publice Staff believes that
the Alfie acker estaurant could get just as much exposure with a nicely
designed menu box located at #he corner of the property which is integrated
with landscap?ng and Is h#inga
4
D. FacadewTr ns rency.
The Lionshead Design Guidelines caII for transparent store fronts as they are
A,people attractors and ive a pedestrian, open, publ6c charac#er to the street,9e
The Guidelines a1so cail fcar gBass to b~ ~~ouped 'anto banks o# windows
compli en#ed by common trim and muBlions. Staffi believes that there can be
rnore detasl added #o the windo groupings (i,em srnaller panes, more varie#y of
window size, more vertical mullions) so that each store fronfi has its own
individual character9 Staff beiieves that the current arrangerr,ent ofi mulE€ons
akes the facade too horizontai. ore vertical mullions should be incorporated
into #he windows to improve the pedestrian exper€ence and break tap the
facade. Variety can be adde #o this basic pattern with Iarger panes of g6ass
for d°ssplay and smaller panes around entriesm T'hough the applicant has made
sorne 3mprovemen#s immediately around entrances, the staff feels that the
overall facade nee s to become more vertlcai to provide a s#ronger pedestrian
scale. At this time, staff understands tha# there witl be no port#ons of the
facade which wi14 be blocked off on the interior by comrriercial tenants.
E. Decks an #i
Not applicabfeo
F. ccent eIe ts
The applicant has rovided drawings for accent eIements such as awnings,
signs, an flower boxes. The flovuer boxes are intended to be Iocated at the
ase of fhe buiIding at various oints aiong the elevation. They are to be
constructed out of sandstone, to match the base of the building and are
intentied to be approximately eight inches deepw 1n the winter9 these are
intended to b~ capped so that they will not becorrie coIlection areas for #rash.
°fh°ss ss a possible a dition to the designa
The applicant has subrraitted a model showing atypical awning and sign fior a
sho entrancea The color and varieties that #h~ awnin s offer is positive, e
believe that there rrray be a solution that rnay be fess complscated. The staff
ouId like to see the applicant explore a range o# aIternatsves for signs and
awnings. Though staf# likes the idea of using a variety o# awnin shapes for
the additions we be8ieve they should appear to be more integrated with the
uildin e
oncernin si ns, the applicant has proposed that the signs be attached to the
avvnings. The applicant ss proposing that alI signs be parallei (instead of
er endicular) with the building. The s1gns are lntended to ex#end
approximately six inches out frorn the outer face of the buildingm This results in
#he si ns being Iocated at the property lineo Staff recommends that prior to final
approval, the applfcan# propose a sfgn prograrn #or the buiidin to ensure
adequate sign area can be provided for each tenanta This becomes i portan#
due to the proximity ofi the buildin to the property line.
5
Another i por#ant accent elerrnent which has been added to the plan since the
work session is crescent shaped paver border made out o# the same
sandstone which is to be used at the base of the buildinge Staff elieves that
this sca1Boped edge of sands#one paving is an attractive eIerryent which uvouid
be an Improve ent to the Lionshead alla In addition, it provides a boarder for
the mail which curves and br~aks up the 1?near appearance of the Lionshead
Center uildirtg, The ed e which wilE be used between the sandstone and the
rest of the ma16 pavers will be a series of small sandstone pavers. A
suggestion is tha# the edging be used only at shop entrances #o break up the
facade. l`he standard mall pavers should extend up #o the base of the building
to reinforce the presence of the rr,all and ensure #hat the sandstone pavers
appear as an accent.
The exsstin iight poles that are Iocate in the mall nar#h of the Lionshead
Center Buiiding will be remoued as part of the addifionm Staff has discussed
this with the plican#, and the applicant believes that there ws81 be adequate
iighting in the maII without repiacing the light poles. The shop vvindows are #o
be expanded arrd the thought is that light frorr, the display wi~~~~s wiii
iliuminate the rnail. After stores close, and lights are turned of#, the four free-
standing li hts Iocated in the planter ?n the center ofi the rnall wi1l provide some
light Staff believes that these will provide the rrsinimurn IeveI ofi light needed in
the mall after shop hours. There fs poten#ial for up lighting the trees by AIfie
Packers as weII as the ciuster in front o# the additaon. If done as successfully
as the tree lightlng at the Wesians rt could be a very nice accent e1erriento
G. L n cape !ements
Staff has identified four areas of the developrnent which involve landscapin .
These include the Alfiie Packer area, the planter y the entrance to the
condominiurras9 the skier scuIptures and the potentia9 for trees to be planted in
rates in front of the aciditione
Coracerning the Alfie Packer entrance areas staff believes that the applicant has
re-worked the design nicely. The applicant has incorporated the concepts fro
the recently completed Sundial Plaza projectm This area is now proposed to
have boul er groupings, afSagstone walkway, ground covers and bushes
(instead of so All of the trees in the area wall remain, with the exception of
the blue sprucee Staff eIieves that the spruce does not #it as well as the other
#rees in the area and that remov?n it is not a problem. Staf# sees the po#errtial
#o ring some Iandscaping out in front of the addition. Currently> pedestrians
can see this area frorr' the east end of the mall. After the addition is built, if
may biock thas viewe lf the applicant were to extend the planting just beyond
the line of the additionH sorrae of this view could be preserved. Sta#f re uests
the a plicant to submit 1J4°' scale drawin s of the area so that it is easier to
understand the detaais of the design. It appears that a portion of the desegn is
on Vail Associates lande Permission from VaiI Assocfates must be provided
before these pians can be appraved.
6
Another lands ping area is the planter in front of the condomineum enfrance.
It is to be constructed out of the sandstone rock, which will match the
sartdstorte irt the scaIlop edgirtg and the base of the buildirtg. The cortcept is to
have the sandstone seating area terracEng up from the paversn It wvill be
arranged in acrescent shape and will be buiit fior peop8e to si# on. A# thes time,
the appiicant has shown proximately o trees as part of this plantera Staff
believes that several trees cou&d e planted behind this crescent shape to bring
ore Iandscap`sng into the rnali. A 114g` drawing w°sl9 be needed to fully
understan the detaiBs of this area.
The third area of Iandsc in involeres the skier scuIpture. At this timey the
applicant is showing the semi-circie of flag poles and vegetafion shlfted aroun
#he sculpture. As stated during the previous work sessaon, #he Town believes
that any alteratiorr to the skier ~culpture must involve a comprehensive re-
esignm At this tirrtes the fire lane between the skier ~culpture and the proposed
edge of the building on the northeast corner is 20 feet, ith the redesegn of the
area, #he fire lane requirement vvouid preclude any Iandscaping on the south
side of the scuipture. Staff belaeves that the building may need to be pulled
back to aIlow some landscaping around the sculpturem
The Iast landscaping concern lnvolaaes the potential for trees in grates along the
fron# of the building. Staff be1ieves that the appiocant has suggested an
excellent idea for creatin a pocket within the building for a cluster o# trees.
The space for #he trees should be sized so that it can accomrriodate three or
four trees and that they shouid be set back #rorr, the property line enough so
tha# the branches do no# encroach too #ar in#o the public right-of-wayo Staff
belAeves that the trees #o be used here should have Iarge canopies,
H. ervic an Iiv r o
The applacant has descri ed the delivery system for the Lionshead Center
uildsnga They have indicated that there is aservice eievator wlthin the building
and that deliveries can be rnade through the garage o# #he building.
V. S -A EA CONC Pl°
Three sub-area conce ts, nurnbers 10, 11 and 12, pertain #o this area of the Lionshead aIL
1Ado eef_Iantfn fsl~~~s relocaCed to improve siore accessibAI' anl.d t~ ~~pand dual ma1H assage
for eak skier crowdse`°
The addition ofi 1antin yslands, or the rerr,oval of suchs should be based on the need to
accommodate pedestrians walking from the Lionshead parking strtacture to the gon ola. In
eneral, staff believes that the addition does not impact skier passages. The 20' fire lane
should accommodate pedestrians adequateiy.
7
11. "Commeresal expansEon (one° story) to incre~se pedestr'an empB Iasisy scale o0 maI$ and
improve shade-zone facades and accessibility,,,
The proposai complies with this sub-area concept,
12a pportuni exisfis #or expansion of buildingsg arcades, awrrings9 etc, to improve scale,
shelter and appearance of commercial facades.,,
Sta## continues to be concerned about #he awning details,
vi, SETBACK VA IANCE
The applicant has not shifted #he location of the bumlding from the previous work session. €n
the CCI1 zone district, there is a 10 foot setback requireti on aII sades ofi the property. The
concerns of the Fire Department and #he Public orks Department need to be addressed to
their satisfaction regardin this setback variance. However, it appears that, an general, their
standards can be met ith the building Iocated where it isa At this time, the applicartt is
proposin to extend the sarrdstorae crescent boarder onto T"own property, T'his was a concern
to Pub1ic Works regarding ain#enarace and liabilsty. Staff°s position on the setback request is
that e woul iike to have aII of the issues resolved with the Fare Department an wath te
Public orks Depark ent before final review of the project.
Vlle RELATED 9SStJES
In addition #o the CCII ex#erior aIteration criteria, staff has other issues which shouid be
addressed:
A) The Fire Depart ent has reviewed the applicant's drawings shovving the fire lane an
has the following co ments;
1. A iicant needs to show right hand turn for a fire truck at the northwes# corner
of the sitee
2m Fire Iane idth o# 20 feet is acceptable, rty dimertsion Iess than 20 feet ss not
acce table.
3. Ap Iicant should show banner poles.
4. Uniforrrr Fire Code issues rnust be addressede re two exits necessary for
certain shops? ow much of the buiiding wiII need to be sprinkiered?
} The ubfic Works eparf en# has the following concerns.
1, Appiicant shall reinstall conduit to ensure that the public lfghting system in
Lionshead cantinues to work after the free standing lights are removedo
2. Applicant shall show a fire lane which meets the inirr,um turning radius
required for fire trucks an possibly future buses ef the Gondola uildin is
8
redevef oped,
3e Public Works requests #hat the applicant provade heated roof drasns frorr, the
roof directly in#o the storrn sewer,
4e Public Works requests that the applicant haul off any snow tha# is shoveled off
the flat roo# of #his addi#ionn
5. Pu lic Works would 6ike #o understand how the construc#ion staging for this
project wili occur and how a fiire Iane wi11 be preserved through Lionshead ai1
during construction.
6. !f the proposed sands#one scaIlop edge is installed, Public Works w°sli require
the applAcant to provide alI #uture rnain#enance of fhe sandstone paving,
VIIIm CONCLlJSI
Staff believes that the overall pian to provide aone-story addition of commercial space in this
area ms goo . e would like to continue to work wiih the applicant to improve some of the
details so that it conforms with the Lionshead Design Guidelines more fullyo e wou3d like to
ernphasize that the changes made since the prevlous work session have signifcantly
improved the appearance of the project and that the materials proposed at this tirne haere
ad ressed many of the concerns raised by the PEC a# the work session. Prior to schedul`sn
this item a ain for C, staff ouId request that the applicant address the issues outlined in
the memo.
G:1PEC\MEAA 1LF91/1LLCT.828
9
!
~;~o
y ~ ~
% ~ ~ 1
~ ~ ~
~y i ~ . i !
t
~ r--'~ ~~t a ~ ~ ~ ~
~ f~----''` I /,T ~ ~
1
~ ~ ~ ~ ' y~~~~~'
t `~J t r ' 1
,
) ~ ~ ~ ~
i,`"":~~'._--= ~ c ~ ; ~ ~4 _ t ~
l~ ~ ~ ` ~ f ; t-# ~ ~
T~ ~ ~
~ ~ " ~ " ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
- ~ ~
~ ~ ~
1. i ~ ~
~
~
1
~ m
~ ~
~ O i
~
~
- ~ ~
y-- ~;d~+
1 ~
` ~
- ~ ~ „
~ ~ ~
~ma~' ~.a5 ` 5 i ~ ~
-~.p~Cs~ ~ „sv
~,at-t';~~
LL-
,
- r--~ ~ ~
c~.
~ I
S~
W~
1
mc~ . . . i I Lh
I ,
~ ,
; Y
~
02 w
~
/ I
ym~,,w hm
~t. r~3~r:fiE~~'(^?Jhi:
~ ~
r
~ 'i ~l ? k, ~ { ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
. . . . . . _ 1 'I
. . . . "
FunmTllV UU
Pfe° e,ga
~
,
r _
~ ; ~
, . .
,
_ . , , . . ,
. .
. _ . ,
. _ . . . . _ :
. • .
; j ~
~ ~ f . . ~ ~
i
~
,
~
~
{ f
1 I`~ ; I I 1 I~ r--- { ~
~
_ . ~ .
e ,
~ oe , ;
;
~
~ ~
. ~ . , , -
CD *
~S ~J j Cl~i ~ rrL7? ~ - ~ 3 _ ~ I
~
~ ~ ~ ?t~ - - _ ---1;, r
~
ROCK WALL
Si(iER SCUI.PNRE IIdrO 800'N RCCK
t ; 35.94~`5°
~4°35°58" E. 8,00'
Iy S5°202"32 ,02F-32-$8.50' ~~-:oce ct a
~ N 85°2 e,so' ~
8130 t
I4.7 5iAIP.S
28 /
00 y q ~uz
N Y 0.7° j: " t
PI.aNTER ~z F:AG PO~• 813i.9'*i5.4' ~ 2.3' ~ ~ . CdNT. I'
j 322' I STaiRwELL . ~ ~
10.0 "26
TRAcT c
i 20.6p ~ 32 S 1034'18° E' , Za
; 7'RASH & 42.11' ~ ^
BENCH PLANiER 2.3' U TII;iY ARfA
\ m I
i 00
~ y a ' 'n o I SE'NER 8' MH 2C 3'
,
*8130.3' BENCH J ag ~ '9132.2' R!M E =
*at50 ~
.a'
. / I 81244' A", 25 22
Q I ~~J 0• i r~ ~/y~ v
CANTIIE`/ER ~Qj~ Lfl ~ 2
PAVERs 189.858
CH
85-24'o2" ~ ^ 9EN ~
I~ P
33 2' I_~ HNCH p ~ CnNT.~ ~ 4 B' ~AWNING 3j
9730.7' --7/ 0.8' ° G.4' t as~ 9'.2
8130 s.' A EuFNr ~
Z~~\' - S.5 ~ 8'~y~. - ay
, tig_9 , v ,a.~• p ~
2e7' 1
0.9° 2~ 2.. .9' - °8731.'' S 6 u ~ i ~°7
1 22 ~ I N w^CR HEGH7 ~9' ~SP~A_._ vft:~ ' ~ \
\
1 '.3 C ;,T.i ~2~,.i't' 32' Cs,ntiGES Ccnic. " ',5 ~ tVV
'~A` u•_ Si6h & teEC PAVL ?
E.R. rie.__
~ 28 coric. wn!K VAIL LIONSHEAD
~ ['-p~ p
{GQ'FcREJ) ~GiV~llE ~ r
26 0.923 ArRES lb.2'
o g 520 E ~.OMSNEAD CIR 4 $
\ Z Fi`:E 5'.GAY W000 & SnJCCO ' - Hn'~~'`~
- FOUNS3 1/2 AL-~M. Cda SID'D BUIiJI~tiG „Ati ,Lc/FP
"MT COFc.t 1j4 COR. ,
- SE075. 7
STA,.R'AE'1 , ' / •
O
336' a
ca .I nsv
I `
~ e 0.6' ~ s
DEGY. POOI DECK ~ ; g i~ ' P4T'a
m ~I = 8;18.7'e 5.0
l- b8i58.5' +4.6'
-1'8.9'
- 3.4'
':e' t ara.e•' 71.3' 275.75
6.2'
~I ,.o• S ~5'24'02~' W" ' , r f ~ ?
,zz_
"NnoE
. _ - _ , rvoF
'cU''J'
MEMORANDUM
'T'Oe Town Cocarzcil
FR o usse11 Fo st
DA m 25 September 1992
m nvironmenta1 ork Ian
Attached is the draft 1993 Enviz°onrrlental cark Pl for your xeview cl approval. e
pu ose of this vvcsrk pl zs to describe proposed environmeratal inida€ives for the Town of
Vail th~t wx11 help er~sure envzronmenta1 quality and sustainable gowths This wor 1an wili
provide 'ection for envzi°on ental initiatives for the r~~~t fiscal ye m
The staff will be presenting this plan to you on 29 September 1992 and will be prep ed to
swer any questions you ay have. e Environmental ork Plan was subzriitted to PEC
on 11 Septernber 1992 di2l be presented to e Commissicsn orz onday Septe ber 2$,
1992s
Thank you for yo ti e d c perationm
,
raft
25 t er 1992
TA I.e TS
lo Purpose 1
20 Ongoa.ng Frojects 1
2.1 A'iz° uality Study 1
2.2 VaiI Nonpoint Source 3
2„3 In-house Recycling 5
3e Neva Environmental Projects S
3.1 Environ enta1 Database 5
3.2 ~~vironmentai Revzevv Process 6
3.3 Environmental Strategic PI 7
4. I,zst of Potential F~ture Projects 9
VI "X"AI.a WORK I~~~
raft
lo LT S
The pazrpose of this worlc pl is to desczibe potential environmenta1 initiatives for the
Town of Va.il that wi11 help erasu enviz°onmental quality dsustainable gz°owtha The pu ose,
status (if ongoing)9 rnajor tasks, and aiestones vvill be discussed foz° both ongoirag and pz°opcased
initaativesm This wor 1 will provide °ection fc>r environrnental initiatives into the next fiscal
ye a
2. ON I P EC S
°T°hese projects include those initiatives ihat were begun in FY 92 and will contanu=.° into
the next FI'a ese project descsiptions discuss the current status of each project and hzghlight
new taslcs for the coming ye ,
2. A.ir ua1ity t dy
Pur°poseo
The air quality pz°oJect has been ongoing woz°k area for the past ye oWhen the Vail
°I'owr~ ~ouncil passed the vised fiz°eplace ordinarace last Septe ber, their approval was baseci
1 gely on the con ° tion that a public education progam be developed and °zmplemented,
°The pz°ogr as outlined by the staff is to ctsnsist of two rnajor easo
(1) An inventory of existzng fireplaces to begin dete izaang the success of a voluntary
con~ersion pro .
A
(2) A public education progr °ected a.t both I als dguests to make the aw e of the
exastang problems d"Town policy z°elated to woodbu ang.
Stat v
To monitor the effectiveness of this policy the staff is developing ' ventory of
existing fireplaces using a d r-to-d r survey conducted last surn er d alysis of records
fro the Assessor's officem St f is also keeping track of all voluntary fireplace conversions
tough the pe atting pr esse As of 24 Au st 1992, 240 dwelling units have ctanvez°ted xo
gaso
1
The educational progr for w b ing consists of two phases. The gnitiai phase of
this progr wa.s to develap inforrnational br hure for the chitects, developers d
cc~ntractors in the area to summ °ze the orciinanee that is now in glacee This step has been
c I ampleted ci the br hure was mai1ed to 1a1 chitects d contractors in late Julyo
'1°he next step af the ucation gro a is the developrnent of liffez°ature both for 1at
residents d for grzests to let them know how they may heIg in the efforts to zmprove '
quality d`g the upcoming heatirtg season. Staff has been worlcing with e bers of other
co unities in the valley to develop a comprehensive program that c be used tha°oughout the
vallleys since the problems which Vazl experiences e not uniquem Staff has ade this project a
priority d will begin implementation af an educationaI program for this heating seasona
7"a.rks a tlestonesm
la The staff has campleted a sezrvey of 2 al lodges anci hoteIs to dete ine current bu ing
praetices d to gamer sugbestic~r~s fc~r hov~ to best approacl~ an iz~fonnationaII pro~ for the~°
guestso Staff is also evaIazating new CoIorado woodbu i~g reguIations to dete ine thear impact
on the Trswn caf Vail,
ilestonea September 1992 (Completed)
2m DeveIop erat of an irsfo ational br hure for the lodging communitya
i1estone: C3ctober 1992
3. issemination of efo ation to the Iodgang co rr1unitye
ilestonee Nove ber 1992
4. evelopment of info ational br hure for 1 aI resicient pcspuiatican,
ilestane: November 1992
5. Dissemination of ° forrraatian to Iocal resadents,
ilestonea November 1992
b. orkshops on wo bu ing aIte atives and Town policy for residents, lodging comrnunity,
d developerse
ilestonem ay & August 1993
2
7m eview, update if necess ,and clisseminate inforrnational br hures for 1 a1 residents d
the lcdging co iznitym
' ilestoneo August 1993
Cost:
Esti ated cost for an ongoing public education program is $5,000 to design and publish
flnfca ational br hua°es, h dout, d provide for 1-2 vaoz°kshopsm
2.2 Vai1 onpoint Source r°ogra
Purposes
This study was znitiated in response tcs new EFA Clean Water A,ct regulations hich have
been pg~inulgated to address nc>npoint s€aurce pollution. eobjectives of thgs study e to
assess sources of nonpoint source pollution and develop mitigation measures to adciress the ,
Added obj~ctives for FY 93 will be to evaluate the impact csf I dscape applications (emg.
fertiiizer, fungicides, herbic3des) ~n water quality and deiineate wetlancls.
Stczt m
In 7 uary of 1992, the Corrn unity Develop ent Dep ent put together a task force to
initiate a nonpoint source water quality studye Vai3 spent $10,000 on this project and z°eceived
other $7,500 d technicai assista.nce fro CCCaGe "i'he task force has corrlpleted apping
xhe sto drain systems in the Town of Vail and dry weather sarnpl;rzg. Town staff aiong with
CC ecur-rently conciucting wet weather s plzno, of 4 drainage areasa Testlsa pling
areas have been identified that e representative of commea°cial, a°e-sidential, open space, and
p lcing areas ta dete ine which poilut ts anci land uses e impaczing water quality.
A request for atching funds has aga.in been subrriitted to NTWCCOG foz° FY 93m
Community Development has stzbmitted a btadget request for $10,000 to complete the nonpoint
source wa.ter manage ent pro m e following tasks econtingent upon this budget request
d the ability to receive match°g funds frarn CC Cao
7'asks a ilestorces>
la elirteate wetl ds in the T'own of Vailm etlands ecriticai in maintaining water quality in
a watershed d prese ing na al habitat. Section 404 of the Ciean ater Act sets forth
requirements for protection of wetl dease To ensure regazla~ory co pliance d to pxotect
water quality it is necessary to delineate the boursd `es of egl ds in Vaila Specific steps to
achieve this task includev
3
aa Establish approgriate criteraa for wetl ds delineation,
b. ork ith CC to obtain the necessary technical expertise to delineate wetl dsa
ce Identify wet1 ci eas by alyzing soilse vegetation, and hyc3roIogyo
' ci, Develop itagation meas s for grotecting Vail wetl dsa
ilestonem June 1993
2. Analy the i pact o£ l dscape applicataon: Application of ferti1i~ers$ pesticicies, algzcides„
d herbicides ca.n be signific tcontributors to water palIutiorao Specific steps to achieve thzs
task ° cludea
ao Identrfy the types da aurats of Iandscape apphcations used by the 'I'own of Vails
~ail Recreation istaict, d Vail Ass iatesm
b. Evaluate the ipact of these potentia1 conta in ts on ~~~er quaIitye Also icientify
y toxic effects on hu sor wiIdIife.
c. Develop mitigatiart measus°es for inimizing the i pacts of i ciscape applications.
Milestone: August 1993
3. Develop a nonpaint source water quality m agement pian based on the anaIysis compieted in
FY 92 dthe proposed work to be ccs pleted in F`Y" 93. T"his plan wiil discuss itigation
reco mendations xhat ~oulci include new policy, changes to zonzng orciin cesg or the buildirig
pe it process. Specific steps ta achieve th`rs taslc gncIude:
a. Analyze nonpoint sources identified in th~ FY 92 $z 93 sttzdy and dete ine
appr~priate mitigataon measuz°es,
ba Prep e a Da-aft Norapoint Water QuaIity Management Pl baseci on the 92 & 93
alysis d submzt to F'EC for reviewe
c. Complete a Final Nonpoint ater uality Management
P1 ,
ile stoneoOctober 1993
Projected C'ost for° Next FY.-
$10,000 FY93 Cammizraity I3evelapment budget request
$10,000 gr tapplied for throtzgh NWCC ta IJSEPA
$20,000 °Total
4
2o3In- ouse Recycling Progra
The Env%z°°on eratal Health I7ivision has ps°omoteci an in-house recycl°g Program for x~e
Town officeso ~urrenkly papez°, glass, a1u inazrn, and plastics e coilectede °There is a high level
of p icipation among Town staff, Further efforts will be made to encourage staff to bring
recyclables to collection points and to use recycled ateriaIso Aciditicanal office re.ceptacles for
recyclable materials will be purchased in FY 93.
Beyond e ira-house effoz-t, staff vvili woz-k with We I2ecyc1e arad tla~ ~ounty to begin
identafying oppoz°tunaties for iproving waste ani ization d recyclzng pa°oga swith° the
ctzmmunity.
3. E VI N °I"AL PROJEC'I"S
T°hese projects include initiatives that are proposed for the next iscal year.
3,1 E vit°on entaI atabase
Pttrpose;
Ch acterizing the natuz°al resouz°ces and dete inin~ environmental sensitivity within and
at°ound the Z"own of Vail as esserztial in perfo ing environmental reviews and developing
effective environmental policies. Developing an environmental database iricludes both collection
and synthesis of baseline data (e.ga soil su eys, topography, vegetation, water quality) d
regulatory irafo ation that speczfy requiz°errzents foa° envii°onmental protectione
As environ ental data is collected for zhe Vail ea, c irag capacities for ajor
environmental resources can begzn €o be est°ated, Iri the next truo to thz°ee ye s it would be
possible, if z°esources axe available, to dete ine the c ing capa.city for the eas natur°al and
man-made z°esources. is would enable the town to dete ine the level and type of owth
that c be sustained without significantly d~~eriorating zaatural or man- ade resourcese
T°he folltswing is a list of data layers needed for environmental planning d reviewo
IJS S aps
AeriPhotos
Available satellite images of the. valley
Soil Su ey
Vegetatian S eys
Fauna Su eys
P -10 data
ater quality ongtoring data fi°°om up d down-strearn stataons
Colorado ° d water regs
Climatic I?ata
5
I, d ttse map 40
Noise zone map
F1 p1ain rnap
Fiy oiogy daanage basin data
Avalanche and r kslide map
aste atea° °T"reatment Data
Petr herrtical Sites (including I3ST)
Silver pr ucing sztes (hospita.is and VA)
T°ask,r anei ilestonesa
lm Identify sources and costs for the above stated environmental baseline inforination.
iiestonem January 1993
Ze Engage cantract support, if re~uired, to collect baseIine inforrnation that zs raot avazlabPe.
ilestorte: ay 1993
3. ep e environmental sensitivity map for the Town tsf Vail that iderttifies special
environmental considerations for 1~~d use, 'I'his coulci then be integrateci into a GIS mapping
system if the Sie a syste is purchaseci for the `I°ownm
Milestonem July 1933
Pr°o1ected Cost:
ojecteci cost for FY 93 is $4, m
3.2 nvironmental eview Pr°ocess
Pur°pose:
The objective of environmental impact repart IR) process is to ensure that y
si~nificant environmental issues e identified e ly in the planning process of a groject. This
heIps ens e that sensit~~e natural resources are protected d heips to pr~~ent Iitigation from the
ever growing number of envii°onmenta.l requiremerats prornulga.ted at the f~~eral and state levelm
'I"he Town of tlaii d s have an environmental impact report requirement within the "Fown Code
(18,56)0 "rhis groject will involve develtaping a preliminary environmental review (PER) pr ess
to dete ine if a ftzll sca1~ environmental irnpact report zs necess , 7°his knitiative will also
anvoIve reviewing section l8aS6 of e Town of Vail's Zoning Code d recommen °ng
amendments to provide a more effective E process.
6
In 94 or 95 a PER process could be computerized or incorporateci into the proposed
GIS system ta facilitate rapid preliminary eraviz°onmental z°eview of proposed pa°ojects. Once an
envia°onmenta3 database is completey an automated environ ental review system could utilzze this
database to dete ine the curraulative impacts of aproject d help ensure environmentally
sustaanab1e gowth in the Vaal eam
7"ask,s arcd ilestorzesm
1, Inv€;stigate environrnental review pz°esses used by other rriunflcipalities d ciiscusseci in the
literature to dete ine there feasibility fcsr use in the Town of Vail4
Milestone: December 1992
2. Fteview section 18.56 of Vail's Zoning Gode tca dete ine if revaszons are needed in the E
pr essa 12eco znend revisions to sectaon 1$056 and present to FEC anci the Councilo
Milestonem March 1993
2. Develop a preliminary environrs~enta1 revzew prcscesse
Milestonee April 1993
3m Test and evaluate the pr ess in five or rr~ore projectsm
Milestone. ,August 1993
4. ep e a fmal environmental review process and preserzt to the PEC for review d approval,
ilestone: ctober 1993
Projected Co,st for Next FI'a
No eontractor cost is expected in the initial development of the environmental review pr ess in
FY93o
03 nvirott ental trate ic la
Fu osea
"The p ose of a strategic pl is to establish avisio~ for the T'own of Vail d the Vail
vaI~ey for ei17V11°'oT1IT1eTltal pI't9tect1t)Tl aIld SLIS21lt1~~~e goiB? . iS 3211iflaT1ve would be valuable for
establishing a long-r ge environrnental agenda for Vail d the valleye The strategic pl will
consist of major environrnental t st eas (eeg, corrapliance, pollution prevention, natural
resource protection) that the Z°own feels e import t for ad essing it's future environ ent
7
challengesm ithin each er~vironmenta1 "thrust4e area specific obJectives would be establishedm
For each objective, reca end.ations could be develaped d awork plara establisheci to
irnplement these reco mendatxorrs. ecommendations may result in new policy, changes to
dxisting policy, ehanges to the building pe it processy or envir~nmental aw eness progams.
Tczsks a ilestonesa
1> Investigate other unicipal environmental strategic plans and evaluate the process used anci
the content of the pI se
Milestone: February 1993
2. Identify igidividuals in the Vai1 ea to p icipate fn aertvironrnenta.l strategie planning
workshope
a. T3ete ine the apprapriate mix of individuals so that government9 deveiopers,
commercial interests, conce ed citizens, d environ ental goups e represented,
b. Dete ine whether ¢4down vafley44 issues shouid be considerecl and whether a different
fo m shouId be usedm
Milestone: March 1993 , m
3s Identify a f~cilitator for envzi°anmental strategic plannrng worlcshop.
ilestone:April 1993
4. orlc wfth the facilitator to pI the Iogistics of a worlcshog. This will iraciucie iation, date,
final list of participanes, and agenda,
Milestone: Jurae 1993
5m Conduct workshop(s) and record pr eeciings,
Milestone: Augtzst 1993
6. Ana.lyze workshop pz°eedings d deveIop a cii°aft pl .
Milestone: I~~~ember 1993
7. Intemal view of aft p1 by p1 ning staff d PECo
Milestone: Dece ber 1393
8
$s ep e 2nd aft envaronmenta1 strategic plan and submgt it for public z°eview,
Mi1estone: Februa-ry 1994
9, ~~~orporate comments tl subrnit the final environmental stY°ategic plan fssr approval by the
PEC d the °T°own Councalm
ilestone; M ch 1994
l0e (1994 FY) Be~in irnplementation of strategic pl~n recommendations,
ilesxonem Marcfi 1994
Projected Cost:
Est3mated cost in FY 93 is $2,000 for a faczlitatorm
4m IS"I` FT T L FU LJ JECTS FY 9- 97
The fol1owing is a list of potential projects that couid be inatiated in the coming ye se T'he
Environmental Sti°ategrc Plan would help dete ine the raeed for these or other types of
environrnental projects and define a long-terrn worlc plan,
Envi-ronanental Aw eness ogams
Coznpletion of a Co prehensive Nonpoint Water QuaIity Pl
ellhead otection Plan
Energy Effcien nvironmentally Fraendly Building Design uidance
Aiz° uality Pl
Toxic and az dcaus Materials Plan
Na al eas Pl
I,Tnder ound Storage Tk Perrnit Process
Waste anagement Plan
Noise Manage ent Plan with fus on I-70
Alte ative fueis far local gave rnental vehzcles
Coznprehensive Ezavironrszental Management Plan ( gs coulcl incoz°porate the media specific
pl s to provide guid ce for sustainable owth into the 21 st cent )
9
MEMORANDUM
T: Planning d Environrnental Commission
F ~'3 m Community I}evelop ent Deparkment
DA . 5epte ber 28, 1992
SIJBJ~CT: A request for a side setback v`ance to a111ow addition to the residence
1ocated at 715 West Forest Roadqot 10, 1ock 1, Vail Vi11age 6th Filing
Applicantg Ch 1es Ackerman
F'1 ner9 'I'im Devlin
Ia DESC IP`T`I(J F TBE V.A AN~E IJES D
The applic tis requesting a side setback v eance in order to cons ct an addition to
existing house 1 ated on t 10, Block 1, Vail Village 6th Filing, 716 West Forest
oad, eapplica.nt's expansion is proposed to be in the area of existing exterior
decks on the south and west side of the building9 a substantial portion of this ea is
ready undez° r fm The add.ztion is two stories and wi1i allo for a new entry location
on the lower level, expansion to the kitchen on the rnain ievel and a be oo on
the upper 1eve1. e existing d~~~ ~urrently extends 6 feet into the 15 foot sicle
setbacko The v`an~e request is approxi ately p allel to the west prop€;rty line and
would enclose portions of the deck to the lirrlit that it presently encroaches into the
setback. Given the request, the setback er?croach ent ould be 6 feet, creating a 9
faot setback.
T~~urrent zoning on the property is /Seconciary esidential, cl the site as°ea
for the lot is 51,193 square feet. Please note that the applicant's residence is the
secondary unit which cannot exceed 40% csf the zotal allowable G FA. In this case,
the axi um GRFA the secondary unit is 2,864 square feet, and the proposed
GRFA is 2,951 squ e feet. Since the proposed G A exceeds the allowable by 87
square feet, the applic t has filed a sep ate application for an additional 250 square
feet of CiRFAa
II. AC GR LT
The Planning and Envzronmental Com ission he d a work session on this v eance
request at the last PEC eeting (9/14J92)e Since then, the applicarat has responded to
comments and suggestisans by both the PEC and staff to decrease th~ ourat c~~
~~croach ent into the side setback as much as passible. By altering the original pl ,
the applicant has substantaally €i reased the amount of GRFA that encz°oaches into the
setback; please see the enclosed €1 r plans and e1evatians.
A s° i1 request for a side setback v°ance was granted by the PEC on Maz°ch 27,
1989 by a vote of 4-3. e proposed v'ance included addition that enclosed the
existing covered deck on the west side of the unit. The FEC members in favor of the
v`ce cited extraordinary circumst ces and physical h dships due to the
topcsgraphy and the 1 ation of the existing scture, e PEC members dissenting
cited that the bulk of the scture would be xncreased and thhat if property owners on
the street asked for si i1 v 'ances, the buil ° gs would be too close togethera e
dissenting PEC members a1so expressed that the granting of this v°ar~~e would make
it ve2y diffzcaalt to deny other owners on the street si il v ~~quests,
III, Z()NI G ANALYSIS
A11owed Existin ~c~s~d
G FA
Primary: 4,296 sqa fta 2,305 sq. ft, 4,245 sq. ft.
Secondarya 2,864 sqm fta 2,130 sq, ft. 2,951 sqo ft.*
Setbacks;
Primary:
Fronta 20' required 19' 19,
Sidea 15' required 15' 15'
e a 15' z°equired 250' + 250' +
Secondary:
Fronto 20' required 27' 27'
ide: 15' re ire 15'
Re s 15' required 250' + 250' +
Site Covera.gem 20% 6% 8.8%
P king;
'rnary: 2.5 required 4 spaces 4 spaces
Secondarye 2.5 required 4spaces 4 spaces
Heighto
°marya 33' < 33' < 33'
Secorzd ; 33' < 33' < 33'
L dscapinga 60% required $5% + 85% +
Includes "250" adclition: 2,864 +87 = 2,951 squ e feet
APplicant's v° ce request for 6 f tencroach ent into setback
2
zVo vA 1ANCE CRITERIA AND FINDIN s
A. Consideration of Factoz°s9
1. e t°eIationship of t e re ueste variance to other existing or
cttentiai uses a stt°ctures i t e vicinity.
Development on est Forest I)rive is close together because the lots
tend to be now and Tong, e primary/secondary s°esadences on ts
10 d 1 I are zz°t°oz images of ot~e another, with only mzno~ ~~erial
ci coior tiifferertces4 Staff recognizes that the streetscape will be
impz°oved by the breaking up of the architectural assing of t`vo ne 1y
identical buildingso Staff reques~ed that the applicant look at trying to
locate some of the building rnass out of the sicie setback and into the
fz°ont and/~r re areas of the property before the last PEC ork session,
'ihiS approaci1 Silll aiaf3wS ft"3i the expansion bui i°i1-infl~"'e~izes isie s3de
setback encroachment. Since then, the applicant has reduced the degree
of setback encrcaach ent as weIl as the mass and bulk of the builcl;ng
substantially since the plans were first submatted, dhas ma° tained a
,°reasonab1e99 a ount of space between the expansion and the adjacent
Lot 11 to the vvesta AIso, staff feels that additional 1 clscaping ne the
est property line ea vvould ciecrease the impact of the setback
encroachment on the neighbor to the westm
2. e degree to w ic relief fro the strict a literal interpretation
and enforce ent of a s ecified re u1ation is nece ary to ac ieve
compati ility a unifor ity of tr°eat e ta o sites in the
vicinity or to attai the objectives of t is title witho t rant of
s cial rivilege.
The staff recognizes that topogr°aphic constraints have severely li ited
the developable areas of this lot. T'he appiicant Fzas woz°ked closely with
the staff to decrease the amount of the encxoachmerat in the side setback
and has reached a so1utzon that we fee1 achieves this gaal. n this
property, the steep hillsxcle d aspen grove to the south az°e not being
°s bed by the expansione e betieve sorne relfef is w ted from
the setback requirements given the lot configuration and topogr°aphya
3. Te effect of t e re ueste variance o lig tand ait°, istri ution of
o latio , tra s ortation a traff c facilities, public facilities ~nd
utilities, an Iic saFetyW
3
St f d s not fee1 that the pz°oposed v°ance would have y impa~t on
the a.btave a~entioned %zems.
B. The P1annina and Er~vironmental Co ission sha11 ake the foll2 iLng
findinZs before antin a v `ance:
l, °That the gz°tir~g of the v ' ce will not constitut~ a gr t of specia1
privil~ge inconsistent with the limitations on other pr~~erties classifier1
in the s e districtm
24 That the gr ting of the v °ance wi11 rzot he detrimental to the public
heal , safety or we1fare, or materia.ily i~~urious to properties or
i provements in the vicinity,
3. That the v °azace is w anted for one or ~ore of the follovving reasonsa
a. 'I'he s"ct literal anterpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation wouid result in practica1 difficulty or unnecessary
physical h dship inconsgstent vvith the objectives of this titlea
b, There are exceptions or extraordirz cixcu stances ox°
conditions applicable tta the same site of the v°ance that do not
app1Y generally to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict inzerpretation or enforcement of the specifiecl
regulation wcauld d.~prive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the o ners of other propez°ties in the same dis °ct,
V. STAFF C ENI)A°I`I NS:
The staff recorrimendarion is for a rova1 of the proposed side setback v'arace, e
feel t at the requeste v°ance is a positive trade-off to develop ent south of the
existing s ce (steep hillside and aspen forest)9 and that a physical h dship has
been shown through to ographic constraints. Also, the degree of the setback
encroach ent has been reduced substantially since first submitted by the applicant.
e a1so fee1 that the anting of this request would not be a grant of special privilege
d that prese ation of the hillside and vegetation behind the s cture would have a
positive benefit to the neighborhood as a wholeo °The proposa1 eets findings 1, 2,
d 3ba
4
Staff recotrimends one candrtzon of appravalo
at the applic t te required to provade additiona1 i dscap3ng along the west side of
th~ pro rly tween the house d the west property linee It is recommended that the
additional 1 dscaping consist of four 6- 8 foot Coloz-ades Sp ce d ree 2-3nch
cat3per as n treesa
S
,
,
,
Eoce , of` ASPttAt T
z~r~
_d, -
06 i2 ° c uz vER 09
R
L 0 908 Vc,
J VAKriN're r-
RErAtNt~,~C s~,at ~
. .
` 4 8°
~
~,!n;~;~=.~~ , - ,z _ ' ~ , ~s-~'°r
f
t~-
-
fA\ /s
Wo,
Y6t.V
~ Looa et~-v. ~ al.~0.4s
ca ~n FL 00 ~-i Ev. ~ 8139.2
Rr~n~~ ~ eV ~ r~as~ss
\ { , ~ j s• -
~ - ~ - ~ ~ ~
~ - - 3rd FLCSOf? E'~~`~.
20.0' r-Y8~'a'S. s ~
'
Fi'i7CE ELEV. = 169.75
A9h ~°:00~ EV.
~ _ .
.s`
~pARCP L ~ N
1/G 4.Y4 9 . ~
\
' - -
20.4
56a'.52.24E- I ~
tg„J °
i tzrnc~' ~c€~s~ ~ r6~.7.~
ai DECK (
MuCA~r~ I } ~ .
~~~.a~° r
4.3 P ~ ~
=40ilrv4tr~~"
r
~081Q WALL -
8140 c
~
.
`r ~ f
~ 5
~ ~
0o
~
~ LOT 10 .
$ ' R/ nrv
~ ~
f;~ s
.A
I
~
I
. . ~
W* ~'F~ - ~ ~ ~ ~
. ~
. ~
~ y ,
~ k
\1
, . ry .
.
.
~
. , . • _ L. ~
~ ~ ~
~.04 ~
~
„ . . .r _
WE"
.
e
0 0
~ i
t'
a
~
~
,
~
{1 ~
f4
; _ • ,
F4
a'A.-,~:-"'--'^'" ~ -,.~v~wy.. - ~ t
. _ <~..m....;~e~w.. ~ -
, .
P6,t.li'r-`q'
, .
,
j
. . . . . . . , ~ ~
~a up j ;
11 `
~ LNrNl,~
~ ~ t
0
,•'t , ~ i . 1
} ( ~ e.
~
i
,
. ~ •a ' ° ' .
t ~ >
b M LEV
NORTH
,
,
I
t
------~1-- ~ _ -
! , d 3
1
t F
B g f~ ~ i{ I
;
,
, . _ ~ ; ~ i . } i
,
_ - ,
i y
~
„ . . , . w . . -r.. . , _ ~a i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~1 ~ , ~ ~ 1~ 4 1
_
, •s ' i I ` ~ ~ 1:~ j
~I . F . . . _ ' ~
a.._..- ` .y.._ _ , _ ~ i .
~
~
- . . . I i .
i
~
s
. , ~ . r.~... . ~ ~ , , ~
~
• I
_ . ~ . . ' . i
~
.
;
'
r
~
f i t
~
r ~
_ ~ _ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
j~~ i.
E j t i~ I { i
( ( 1 ~
~ i
~ .
_
y . . . _ . . ,
1 I ~y q
~
~
,
~ i
;
~k J
# d . ~
~ _ ` . . ._._~,..i . . ' 1 p ~ ~ _ _ r.__ _
. '
. ,
I
. FIZ ~
~ .
t~
L-~-r-,~--~ ~ T-f-i; , i ,
,
II~ • ~
.
,
~ r
Y r • j . d..._ _ _ _ _ a . . . . ~ ~ ~
, + a
.
.
. . . _ . .
'
. ~ ' ~
1 '
i f
~
i
~ , , , t. ' L; ' ,~T.[: ' . .
~
~r . , .
.
- ~ . ~ • - :
.
y
" .
.
- , f
'
a ~
~ ~ . . - . • ` . E:r , ~ ( ~ ~ G ~ ; ~.G
; . . . . ~ }
i i ~ • • ~ ~ ~ - - ' ° ~ _
_ ~ _____1 . , ~ " ~ ~ . ~ • . . . ' . . . ~
. ' ' , 4~ I ~ • . . " . , m1
-A
1 . : .
4!
~ . . . ' . . . F. ~ . ,
~ • ~
f .
i~...,..:.~""..v,__ ...__._.s~ _~,_,.._'_-v_. ...~_.._.._e_._,..n__~._._._....~_ ' ....~m.~ . .
~
.
`m
MEMORANDUM
TOm Planning d Envzron ental Commissiorz
F Ol n Community Develop ent Depart ent
DA m September 28, 1992
SUI3JEC°T9 A request for v° ces fi°om Section 18.58.320 to aiiow two satellite dishes to
be l ated at the Weszin Hotel\13 esthaven I7ziveNdescribed as follows.
°That part of the SW 1/4 1J4, Sectiora 12, To tiip 5 South, Range $1 West of the SixtFs
Ps°° cipal Meridi 9To of Vazlg Eag1e Cw ty, Coloradw, described as followsa
Beg° ing at a point csn the southerly boaznd y tsf the parcel of 1 dsho on the Condomini
Map for the Colorado Ma tatn Condomini s recordeci in Booic 387 at Page 620 in the office of
the Eagle County, Colorado, Clerlc d Recorder, whcnce [tae most southerly comer of saad parcel
bears S52 50929" W 14,16 feet dis ty thence the followang nine c;ourses along the southerly
boundary of said parcelo (1) N 52 50'29'° E 49e15 feeto (2) N 37 12'45" W 12,34 Feet; (3) N 52
47'15" E 1.00 feet`, (4) N 37 12'45" W 1.30 feet (5) N 52 47'15`° E 42,60 feet; (6) N 37 32'45" W
$.70 feet; (7) N 52 47'15'° E 15,00 feet> (8) S 37 12945" E 22040 feet; (9) iV 52 50'29°' E 35.28
Feet, thence dep ing said soaaLherly boun y N 52 50'29'° E 56.96 feet; thence S 37 09'31" E
45,34 feet tYience N 52 50'29'° E 48.70 feety thence S 37 09'31" E 9.60 feet; thence N 52 50'29°° E
80o00 feet; thens,e S 37 09931°' E 36.40 feet; dhence N 52 50'29'° E 21.30 f t9 thence S 37 09'31"
E 220.02 f t to Gmre Creek9 thence the following four co ses along Cgore Creek: (1) S49 26'36,°
W 76,45 feet9 (2) S 22 31'36" W 124.47 feet; (3) S 53 37'36°' W 119.34 feets (4) S 65 31'36'° W
14.58 feet, thence tlep ing C3ore Cr~ek N 32 59'30°' W 141,47 f t> thence N 57 25'30" W 124,02
f t> thence N 37 09'31" W 116,45 feet to the pc,int of begi ing, conttairiing 110,200 square feet or
2.49 acres, rrsore or iess.
Applicarzt: estin 17esort\Tri County Cable Vision
Pl nera Andy Knudtsen
I, PROJECT C I I
The estin Hotel is proposing to 1ocate two satellite dishes on the weste szcle of
their facilitye These would be located under existing deck which i~ currently
approxi ately 10-15 feet above gade, °I'he proposal co plies with all of the zoning
ce stand cls for satellite dishes except for item 18.5$,320 , 1}e °I"his secrion of
the code states that "no ore than one satellite clash anterana shall be aIlowed on any
lot as delineated on the official °Town of Vail zoning map.'$ The applicanx is
requesting av 'ance fro the stand cl so that they c locate two dishes on the property,
1
In the past, the Westin Hotel has used plywood tr~ enclose tY~e unclerside of the deck
for storage p osesm T'hey have painted the plywo to rriatch the color of the
building. ey ar~ ~urrently using the area below the deck as s~orage.
II. ZONING C S A I NS
Zaning: SDD #4, Cascade Villagem
Setbacksm Per SDD Development PIan, with the buiiding 1 ation and the resulting
setb~ck being the sa e distance fi°o the pr~~erty Iine.
The satellzte dishes wou1d be setback 45 feet fro the Westin's westem property 1inem
III. VA I NCE C IA
IJp~n review of Criteria d Find`zngs, 5ection 18.62,060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Comrriunity l)eveiop ent ep ent recommends aroval of the z°equestecl
v ' ce based on the foIlowing factors:
A. elatiorashin to snrrour~d.n~ -a
1o Te rel tions ip of t e requested variance to ot er existing or
ote tial ses a struct res in the vicinity.
The properties which have the potential to see these two sate1iite dishes
inc1ude i1lrace Phas€; I, iilrace Phase II cl the Cascades on Caore
Creek, uzing the staff review of this proposal, we discussed the issue
of screening with the applic tm °ginally, the applicant vvarzted to
z°eplace the existing plywo with a chain link fence with w den slats
woven into the fencea Staff notified the applicanz that the Design
eview t3uidelines do not a11ow chaan 1°znk fencing to be usedo After
discussing this, the applic tageed to landscape the area as long as no
landscaping would be planted that would block the signa1 to the satellite
clisheso Sta.fff believes that planting the slope around the two satellite
dishes with s ubs will improve the appeararace of this side of the
facility9 however, we do ac~~owledge that the dzshes will be visible.
Since the °shes wi11 be 1 ated under a deck, staff believes that the
visibility is relatively low.
2
Staff believes that the relationship to the surrounding ea can be
i prcaved by z°emoving the plywood that has been installed in the past to
enclose the uz-idersisie of the deck. Staff woulci like to see a31 of the
plywood re oved, the items storeci in this ea removecl, ci the area
irri ediately in frorat of the deck revegetateci and landscapecz. We
believe that this would i pz°ove the appe ance of this side of the
Westin to the residentaal properties to the west of the hotel,
2. ~ egree to which relief fro t e strict a literal inter t°etation
and erafarcement of a specif~ed regulation is necessary to achieve
compatibility and uniformity of treat e t a on sites in the
vicinity or to attain te o jectives of t is title wit out rartt of
special rivilege.
Ciften, in cases where co mercial propertties request the installation of
satellite dishes, the applications usually invoive two dishese is is
because of technical 1i itations of the Vai1 ea, a~~ordfng to the
applicant. In a state ent the applicant sub itted, he has saicl that "orze
(dish) as neecied to bring zn cable TV channels and the seconcl is needed
because there is no over the air reception net~ork channels in Vail4
(NBC, ABC, C S9 and PBS)e The second dish is required to supplY
these channels.°" In order to make t1ae satellite dish syste vaorlc for the
hotel, a minimu of two ciishes e neecledm Staff belaeves zhat the
litera.l enfoz°cement of the zoning st° dd wouid result in a practica1
difficulty for the applicant, as a fu11 range af television reception can
only be provicted with two clishese
3. e effect of te requeste variance o li # an air, astri ution of
o latio , trans ortation a traffic facilities, public faciiities an
tilities, a lic safety.
Staff be1ieves that there vvill be no impact on health, safety, or vaeifare
with this requesze
B. Z"he Planning d Environmental Co ission shall ace the follo ing
findin s befor~ ~°an~in a v °anc~:
lm °That the granting of the v°ance vvill not constitute agrant of special
privilege inconsistent with the li itations on other propezties classifed
in the s e clis °ctm
3
2. That the gZ°ting of the v `ance wi1l not be detrimental to the public
heal , safety oz° welf e, or rriaterially inju~ous tcr properties or
improvements in the vicinzty,
3m That the v° ce is wanted for one or of the following reasonsm
am The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficulty or unnt,cess
physzcal h dship anconsistent with the objectaves of thas title,
bm T1~ere are exceptfons ~xtracardinary czz°cumstances or
conditions app1icabie to the same site of the v"ance that do not
aPP1Y generally to other prope `es in the sa e zortee
C. T'he strict interpretation or enforce ent of the specifiecl
regulation would d~prive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owr~ers of othez° properties in the same districto
IV. S°TA COMMENDATI N
Staff recommends approval of the request as we believe it meets zhe v°~~~~ criteria,
as discussc,d above. Concez°ning findangs, staff believes that it cornpl°zes with B, 1that
appz°oval of this request is rzot agrant of special privalege as pz°operties lilce the
Mariott/Radisson have also been allowed two dishes. Finding B, 2 has been met in
staff's opinaon as there will be no irripact in pubiic health, safety, or we1fare. Staff
believes that finding B, 3(a) is also met as a strict interpretation of the zoning ce
would prevent the applicant fro providing a full range of television channels to the
guests at the Wesdn.
Staff z°ecorn ends approval with the following conditionso
la Thax the a plicant re ove all plywrsocl screening that encloses the undez°side of
the deck on the west sid~ of the buil °ng anci re ove the iscellaneous items
stored under the deck at this time;
2, °That tfie applicant revegetate the slope around the satellite dishes and deck ea
with native assesy
4
3. "That the applicant provicle a landscape plan to the DRB which provides a
minimurn of 12 shrubs to be 1ateci ound the satellite dishes and 3 sp ces
d 5 as ens ta be 1ated along the declc area an locations that wi11 not bl~ck
satellate tx°ansmission signal to the dishes. is landscaping shouIti b~
coordinated with the lanclsca.ping proposed for the Cascadesa
Please note that, utacler Section 18.62a080 of t~e Town of Vail ning Code, the approval
shall lapse if cons ction is not co menced within two ye sof the date of issuance and
ciiligently pursued to ccampletion.
5
z Pi; :S€ ~I l ~ ~wo~ _ ~ r v i390 ,
~'/j~ 7r?ACT D 2 1
bfo+-'s ~
~ i~ SIMe3A RUN 0 1I03! ~
~ i~8~1 YO'y7TER
ilt~0 SEyi~'--
r ~~~~~F.SIDE 103~P
' \ , ~k.GiNN~~Np~~~N fl~
PNASE III ~SFEN 3475
2
C
~ 3 1535 54
S~ 5 1555 1000 '
5
16.55
16~75
TIMa R;a
UL.A' ~ 1280
~ ~ 39 ~UE-'s~ti ~~PN
)GE FILI . 3 1150
J1QtU OF F'.4RCELS B,C,E, L
1-1
Da LIQN ~'J RIDGE FILING 2 ~SFi\OGE, N i
L~~ K
' G~ ~ f ie r~
p m~t1C ~
40
~
0 1200
4
3 V~,Ii_ h~~S~~ CFFICE 1475 1401 ~'fiRKIt~G
1300 STRUCTURr
LA ec~ 1295 (Nor coNs~ucrEo) 1210
~ O 8
M!l~1SFlELD A
c~Fsr
1400 ~ coNDoMINtUMs
15 12 T~
16 166e ~ ~ ~ ! ~ ~
r 42
' 1676 ~s14 46 o~ i ~
325
~ 6LOG~ . ` ~ i2~~ ; 220
` 17 / 13
,~.'6&6 ~.lF= i627 0°~~ b ] 98
`
1320 C. m"'. 44
G ~ a3
1647 i3W
E t~~9NT `
/ M
~ p~ ;~il s 2~!
~s5r ~ ~HLLRA
H
{ aa~ 13~o wEsT;N 45
~~e7 1335 FsOTEL ~ i2w5
~ 1360
C~ ( G-T
38
9
68; h~~CE ~i~i 2.~5
~
f'h , 1275
CQL~~TfiEAi~ ~ PL,A 47 ~ 239 ~
1476 - 1285 32
LAf'LAl-TED G& 5 ~
295 ?~,g t2~0
49
1415 50 1325 35 ~
52 51 1249
/ ~1385 1345 1240 ~a
~ ,_7 ~ ~ ~ PARK 34. ~
J 2
EAGLE POINTE M. C}'W. ~ 33 25 30
I f I 1'f2QC7 8 1259 29 1250
1~....__ ~
110~~~
WESTIN SATELLITE ANTENNA SITE PLAIN-,'
451 .
EHL-i
SBALCONYSATELLITE ArvrENNAS
WESTIN - MAIN BUILDING
MEMORANDUM
Ta Pl ning and Enviz°onmental Co iss1on
FRC3 a Community Development epaz°t ent
I)A . September 28y 1992
SIJ C`I'a A request for front, side, and rear setback v'ances and a v 9ance to allaw
p king in the front setback for zhe cons ction of a triplex, iocated at 44
i1low Place/Lot 94 B1ock b, Vail Village first Filinge
Applicantw T'ow~ ~ Corporation
P1 ner: Shelly Mello
Ia I7ESC IPT'ION OF THE VA IANCES REOITES D
The applic t is requesting a series af v°ances necessary to cons ct a 3-fa ily
dwellir~g unit, ith p°ally below gade sctured p king, on the property lxs~ed
aboves e v 'ances e necessary to a11o the followings
l. A 9-foot 6-inch maximum buildang encraachment into the 209 north (front)
setback and a 10-foot building encroach ent in the east (side) setback9
2. Deck and roof overhang encroach ents into the r~orth (front) and east (side)
setbacks;*
3e A S-foot 3-inch aximu encroachment into the south (re ) setback for xhe
uncler ound parking s cture;
4. The undergound p king scture entr~~~e will encroach a aximu of 12-
feet 3-' ches into the north (front) setback;
5. Par°king to be located in the 20' front setback. For the purposes of zoning, the
staff v?ill consicler the north side of the pz°opez°ty, adjacer?t to illow Piace, as
the front setback b~~ause access is being t en frorrri this side of the lot.
* Roof will encroach a maximum of 3 feet further into the setback
than the speczfied builciing encroachrrients, oof overhangs e allovved t~
encroach 4 feet into setbaclcs by zoning.
Cently, a non-confo ing residence as located on the site, e exxsting building
encroaches 12 feet into the 20-foot front setback on the north and $ feet-6 inches into
the 20-foot side setback on the east. ,A total of $51 square feet of the exzsting
building footprirat encroaches into the setback. Approxi ately 1,138 squ e feet of the
proposed building footprint would encroach into the setbacks. The existxng building
wi11 be co pleteIy demolished and replaced by the proposed multi-fa ily project,
1
II. ZONINCi CONS ERA t7NS
Lot size 0a29 acres or 12,589 square feet
Zoning `gh ensity Multi-Fa ily
Existin Allowed'Reg.
EL_
o}aosed
Site Cc~~erage 3,029 sqo ft. 6,923.9 sq. ft. 59215 sq. ft.
or 24°Io or 55% or 41.4%
Density
C3 FA unavailable 7,553 sqmftm 7,553 sq, ft.
Z7welling IJnits 1 7 3
Building Setbacks r~orth 20 feet on all sides 10' 6„ north
20' south 149 9" south
1V-6'° east 10' east
Deck Setbacks 4' north IS feet for decks 49 nozth
5' above gade 139 south
65 VL&s98.
IJnder our~d None No p king enclosed
Paz°kzng allowed in 20 foot
front setback
P king 2 surface 8 spaces; 8 spaces;
?S% encloseci 100% enclosed
Height be1o 48' 48' 4$'
I. dscaping 8,889 sq. ft. 3,776 sqe ft. 69059 sq. fta or
or 70% or 30% or 48~'~
~ I,aradscaping d s not include at-grade decks or °vevvay.
EI,A D Ca AIaS .A CTI SF TBE VAII., V L,AGE MASTER
PLAN
This site is specifically adciz°essed in Vaii Village Master Planm The PEC should
consider the Master Plan's goals d cabjectives when reviewing this z°equest. Sta.ff
finds that portions of the quest eet the goa1s dobjectives specafied for this sub-
ea. The staff feels that the proposed deveiopment zs in line with the Vail Village
aster Plana e following excerpts specify the goals, and objectives and sub- ea
2
concepts foz° this site.
Willow Circle Sub Ar°ecz ##2
"In ost cases, the 1evels of development throughout this sub- ea greatly exceed what
is aflowed under existizag zoning (High ensity ultisF ily)e Gross residentia3 floor
ea ratios (G A) range fro .6 to 1.3, with average of 1.01e With the exception
of one pce1, a1l pz°operties ithin this sub- ea e developed at, or over, their
pe itted levels of deve1op ent. A.s such, there is little develop erzt potential left in
8-AdAs stl.Rb° 6s8Aa84
#2m3 Willr~w Cir°cle Iref"ill
W9 esently this is the only property within the sub~ ea that is not developed to, or
above, existing density a11owancesa Whi1e slight increases in residential density
may be considered in the red.evelop ent of this pce1, the shape of the lcat may
seriously hindez° the pozential for G Agreater than what is pe itted by
existing zoning. Adequate landscape buffers between this parceI and Town roads and
adjacent properties shouid be maintainecl through tlae redevelopment of this property.
Sctured p king would be necess y foz° yaciditional 1eve1 of cievelopment.
Special e phasrs on 1.2, 3.1, 5.1, 5s4.1t
3
GoaZ #1 Encourczge the high q lity redeveloprnenz whide pr°eserving the unique
archi~~~~ural s°cale of the village rn order to s tain at~ ~ense of
corrnnmunity a t~entit}p.
Objective 1,2 Encoiarage the upgading and rec3eve1op ent of z°esadential and
commercial facilities,
Goal #3 To recognize ca.s a top pr°ior°ity the enharccemertt of the walking
exper°ience throughout the vallczgc.
Objectzve 3.1 Physica11y ampz°ove the existing pedestn ways by landscaping and
other improvements.
Folicy 3.1.1 °vate development projects shall incorpora.te streetscape
iprovetraents, (such as paver treat ents, lanclscaping, lighting9 and seat
eas) along adjacent pedestrian waysm
Goal #5 Incr°ease and irnprove the caprzcity9 efficiency and czesthetac°s of the
transpor°tatior~ and crrc°ulcttiorz syste throughout the towra.
Objective 5,1 Meet p k° g de ands with public and private parking facilitiesm
Objective 5.4 I prove the str°eetscape of circulation co `clors throughout the Villageo
IVo CRI A ANI7 F'INDINGS
LTpon review of the Crizeria and Findings, Section 18,62n060 of the Vail Municgpa1
Code, the Corrz unity evelopment Department recommends a roval of a ortion
of the requeste variance an enial caf t e remaira er af t e request based on the
following fa~~orsm
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. Te relations iof te requeste variance to ot er existin or
oterrtial ses a structures in te vici ity.
The sur°rounding area is comprased of high density multi-fa ily projects with
the exception of ttle single family residence to the south of Vail Road, is
project will be co patable with the surrounding development. Setback
er~croach ents exist on anumber of pa°operties adjacent to the proposal. These
projects include The illows, Riva IZidge South, iva Ridge ~orth, and.
ivez°hcazzsem ishop P k, to the north of the proposal, is an S and has
4
ini u setbacks csf S feet in certain areas of the projecte d
und~rground parking for che Bishop Pk project aiso encroach into the front
si side setbacks. eridge heights of the Bishop F' k s ctures directly to
the north of this project are 4$ ft, higha x~ project is not proposed to exceed
the ailowed m imum height of 48 feeto
Staff believes that some relief from the setback reqaaiz°ements is w ted, e
staff believes that the builcling ~~croachrrients have been mini izeci. The staff
suppoa°ts a1l of e variance requests except those wh~ch would allow decks to
encroach irzto the setbacks ore than that which is a11owed by Section
1$.58,060 of the Municipal Code. "This secticsn staxese
„BaIconges, decks, tezraces, dother sirriilar unroofed f~~~ures
projecting from astructure at a height of ore than five feet above
ground 1evel ay project not ore than five feet nor ore th° one-half
the zni um required dimension anto a required setback area, or ay
project not mtsre than five feet nor ore than one-forth the inimurri
requirecl di ension into a reqaaired distance betvaeen buzldingsa A
balcony or deck projecting fro a higher elevation ay extend over a
lower balcony or deck but irz such case shall not be cieerned aroof for
the lawer balcony or deck. ( d, 8 (1973) 17.203m)„
e believe at r~o reIief is wanted for the decic e,ncroachments proposed on
either the illow Place (north) and illows (east) sides csf the proaect because
the decks could be r~con~°igured so that no varzances are needecl,
C)n July 24, 1992, the PEC reviewed this ite in a work sessiorz. °The staff
razsed anazrnber of conce s9 one of which dealt with the landscape buffer
along Vail oad, In response to the staff and FEC conce s, the applicant has
removed the three pathvvays from Vai1 oad to each unite A single access
point, to be shared by the illows cl this pa°oject, has been proposed. In
reg dto the Vail Road 1 dscapzng, the staff would suggest that the applicant
consi€~er additional everg-reens ta incz°ease the denszty of the landscaping. is
lanclscaping wa11 also need to be a minimu of 7 feet fro the edge of the
pave ent in or~er to accomm ate snow re oval.
2. e degree to w ich relief fro te strict an litera1 irrter retatio
and e forceme t of a secif e regulatio is ecessary to ac ieve
co ati ility an unifor ity of treat ent amo sites in te
vicinity ar to attain te objectives of t is title wit out grant of
s cial rivilegew
As discussed above, the surrounding properties have been granted w°ces for
ite s si ilar to those bei~g requested in this prop~sal. The deveiop ent of
5
this site is 1i ited due to the lot size and configuration. 'I'here e 20' setbaclcs
on each side of the propertya Vai1 oad also er~croaches onto the lot on the
south side of th~ propertya GoaI #l and Objectiue 1,2 of the Vail Village
aster Pl states, `PEnct~urage the upgraclrng and redevelopment of residential
and commercial facilities.`° eredeveloprraent of this site is positive for the
ill~~ Circle areaa The staff recognizes that s~~e relie,f from the setback
st daxd is necessary to achieve this goala
3. "I" eeffect of te requeste variance tsn lig#at an air°, istrz ution of
o 1ation, transpor°tation an traffic facilities, u lic facilities att
utilities, and public safetya
T"here vviR be no impact on any of the above cz°iteriam The shadow and shading
of this bui1ding on adjacerzt pz°operties and paabiic roadways will be li ited.
veca~ase the bua~ of the buildi~g will b- 1 vat~~ ~~wards ghe cender of the
propertym No surface p° king is proposeda The Public orks I7ep tment has
requested at easements for ainage, snow storage, and roaclway
encroachments be obtazned for this propex°ty as part of the planning process foz°
thfs pz°ojectm The applic t has agreed to vvork vvith the F'ublic Wos°ks
I)ep ent to addt9ess these conce sa
B. The Plar~~i~~ ar~~ Er~~iron ~a~tal Cc~ assis~~ shall the follawirzg
findzngs before ~~nqng_A v °arLcL
1. That the granting of the v°ance wi11 not constitute agrant of special
privflege inconsistent with the li itations on other properties classified
in the s e clistrict.
2e That the anting of the v`ance will not be deta°lmental to the public
hea.lth9 safety oz° welf e, ar aterially inj~~ous to properties ox
improvements in the vicinity.
3m That the variance is w z°anted for one or mcsre of tlie following reasonss
a. The s`ct titerai interpretation csr enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical difficuity or unnecessary
physical h clship inconsistent with the objectives of thfls title,
ba T'here are exceptions or extraarclin circumstances or
conditions applicable to the sarrie site af the v° °ance that do not
aPPIY generally to other propez°ties an the sa e zone4
C. The s°ct interpretatit~~ or ~~~orcement of the specf~'~ed
regulation would depaive the applicant caf privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same dis °ct,
6
V. STAFF CC) E ATIC)NS
°The staff supports the applicants request for the follouring v°ances;
1. A9 f t 6 inch building encroachment into the front (north) setback;
2. A 10-f t bui1ding encroachment into the side (east) setbacky
39 A 5 f t 3 inch encroach ent into the rear (south) setback for
under~ound parking;
4. Encroachment of the parking structure entrance 12 foot 3 inches into the
front north setback.
5. Pking in the front setback.
We believe at the anting of the above v°'ances will not be a gant of special
pzivilege, d that the size of the lot presents a physical h ciship, e believe that the
request meets the Findirzgs 1, 2, and 3a dc in S~ctic~~ IV (B) of this memo.
The staEf d: snot support the applicant's request to allo Znci story decks on the
north and east elevations to encz°oach more than that what as allowed by Section
1$a58m060 of the unicipal Codee We feel that there are othet° locations for decks
which woulci not require the apprt~val of a v 'ancee 'I'he decks on illow Place to
the north ancl on the existing Willows project to the east woulct not provide a saaitable
buffer as described in the Section 2-3 Wallow Circle Infill of the Vai1 Village Master
Plan.
Genera11y, the staff feels that this project will be a positive adciition to the Willovv
Circ1~ ~nd that it is 3n confo ance with the Vail Vill~~e Master Plane e feel
tha,t the proposed building design and atetials e compatible with the surrcauncling
areaa We also believe it to be positive that the existing evergreens vvill not be
disturbed and that the p king is cornpletely enclosed. We would ask the applicant to
consider additionaI ever eens along Vail Road in order to provide a more dense
1 dscape buffera
Please note at, under Section 18062..080 of the To n of Vail ning Code, the approval
shall lapse if cons czion is noz commenced wi€hxn two years of the clate of issuarace and
diligently pursued to co pletion.
7
~fY ~P
a y,
3151.5 9!5].4' '
v.
WILLOW ROA'J (40' R.O.W.)
9~~- E~GE ~ Onvf.utN~ \ y ~ + i Fk~a[. 5
et5e H . e- ° I` , ~
r,~._..~~ " w,.Ea ~a~•,a - o~ ~ 1
l ~
~ Z} s ac nroaarer a.J' '1
R - 20'
i
8= 13532' (101'09'07` CALC.)
l - (35.3'' GALC.) A '
CH 18°45'00" E, 30.90' CALC.)
I(NON-TANGEPdT)
' O
N
LO? 9
LOT 8
i
THE W!LL0Wa
i.,o ' - e - - - - ~ j n.- ~
li R = 381.72'
Y L _ ,5'42'42°
l = 904.67'
CH = N 56'48J N. 104.34'
~
~
?J \ ~ ~
DAi~~AFSI![.V€I° 6i15Jg2~ 'q!~ ~\N \ v
. \xo. ~ \ . .
91sY.~ ° ~ nn~.letll
\53
~ g6(o~
, . ~
. . : , a
F
,4
_ 8 9?
T21e
Vk a~py
{4l{7ws
t I~ ~ J , J r 4~
a:(~•- , ~ ~ ,
~',.,e~\,b ~ q 9 ` J \ C. r^a ` , ~ j ~ ~ ~i ~._y.;-~} •
, E/ °9 1 A i
s ~ C"' ~ p# ^y~ }
~ N ~ 8 Ji
CO) ~ 0 P
!
~e ~ 1
' ~ • ~qoft
!i Exis4in9 vee5 ~
c
C'iC1I0i2.C~P3 EtiIiDB ~PPliCB
x6, g.8'.•']ffi.342,2.9i' .
F.SP ~ so%
ec~ .~.Cnero~'• 1
z.s'
Caaaada Red Cn~rrY $ ~
favm f{///j~ L~}~~
S19YUb5 . ~ie?~-.' 7 d~ ~ •
g5 ~&9.75-5 Gawo~
Peaecaniats ~~~~f ~,.-~:7 eS
~ '
- -
-
, .
.
;
.
~
_ ~
,
.
LA
ti
_
~
~,...v
.
, : . V fl I'~+F~M ~ • g,0 )
~cLKA 0' ~ O /
~ i P .,k".'~, ? i 1 r- - 1 i.~,~,~°d h s.'4
~ ~
~
i,3'e~°
• \ i ~ ~ ~ ; ~ s - ~ ~b ~ r ~
, ,g a ~ ~ ~ ,f'Y ~ - - 60 , ~'s?o
t t~"~ . ~ _ ~ I ' 's• .
<°,,p 1 afl>
6
S
nu
e`'
\ \
qY ~ ~ L ~ 51 6~~ 1 I~ ~
J/ ; \ ~ ` ~ ~ REY0+141614 WRL6
uuIr-z
h 4" ~ ::zs- T~ ~.4~ a• ~ - ~ - 5i-
~ 6-•. l_--:.e.E o ~ b"WE \i;
. ~
C>~e ~ oI >ei i 55 ; \ \
~
r
i' 1 ~ 5 y
AZ\ "o
~ ~;A ~ -:,w~ ~;_-~-~;~r:/. ~ ~ `
4,.
vu~
w~ . .
. i
~ ~
~ ~
-
~ ' . .,v_,w_...,.»,.... ~ . . y .
- - _"-1
m- _m !
' ~ A~~~1~~,-~~~~ : V"~~ 1 •
_
, - ~
~
-~fi-- .
8c
_1 I
„
,
I
.o ~
` ( 5
~
i
_ _ ~
~a
~
r
w' . .r.t' r4,3 ` ~S•-'~ ~ i ~-""-9-, r '~'~y,.r.'~~ d ~ & `a~, x
; . n .
~ y .
f~ y~' ~ /
~ . e::~""~ s = e r• ~ ~ F~ ~ u;.` ~ ~~3~ ! ~ ~ i .
: ,
$
' < - ~ .
/
r
2 f
. / _
'I I• _ _ / /
~ ~ ~\;f'~Y ~~~l~' T r# . c • , i
;
~
,
~ g tlg , m$y ~ .
2 , F
` _ _ 1 & Y ~~g~„i~ ~ £o-,r'a~~~+'~ ~pd'~"~r
f
~1---a
.
.
~
. y
~
.
,
E
~ ~
~
. , ,.,.'~"w: ra , ~ i~ , t , ~ ~ ~ ~ , s":.' ° ~ ~ ~ o.~ ~
~ & ~ & ~ d d ~,,,,,~"".3a~.,~r ~ a_.9• _ ,@..~^ .
, . ~ x ~ ~ ~ j ~ ``-~'s ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~fl ~ ~ ~
~V
~ o ~
~ ; .
, ~
~ ~ . ~~~1/ ~ 1 ~
y , _
_ - -
: , ~ _
~ :
, i~~
~ ~
. ~
~ xi a
;
. . i..._.. _ , .
::e ` _ ! ~ ~ ~ ~ A
__1 4
i i
-
~
„ ,
; _ _ _
--t- - ~ ~
t j / i~ ~ ~ - ~
~a / ~ ~
^ , ' ~
; ~ ; ~
~ ~
i ' ~ i. , ~ G~ ~
\ i, l,
~ ~ I "I , i~~~. ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~i
i
~ ~ ~ ~~c± i r~ ~
~
' ~ ~ ~ ~{1 11 ' i
' ~ p t; ~
' '
,~f ~i ~ °'3 - - 1
~
~y ~
~ - / t
~ i -
~ II I ~
. 1 d!° 1 ~
~ _ i -
. . ~ ~ ~ ^ - - ~ ~
s
~ ~ ~ I ~ ~
. ~~r~~',,~li' ~i ~ ..~.Y-„~" s~_ ~ ar,s~°9t # ~ ? ~`0°~,S'`~'..,.,~
~ ~ I ~ ,,a ; ~ ~ ~r' 8 #
r - - ~ i ,.y
'~t
~j ~ ~f~ t~~"~ ~ ~e~ } &~~'"e"°s
"`i m -
„ . _ g r,~a:.. _ _
- _ ~ . a. : ~
: ,~.,~~-.m°"`^"'"' 3
. ~ - - - ~ g ~ „m~~,.r'~""°,~'^
- / i .;,.`-a 3 7'1 ~.t ,
p~ . ' ,~,j a ~ ~ ~ ~.~~~N<= ~'~',.r''
•~y~ ~°'~~t
1 ! -6 ` a ~ ~'d e~._ i
u.~. ~ ^
~ ~
~ s ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~
a ~ ~ ~
~ s
Y
o~ i ~ - i
~ ; ~
` ~ ~
~ ~ ,
. ~ ~ , ,Lr- _ . { j.~ ~orr
. Y .-L ~ - - ' i5ro~~
,
v ~ --T- -1
r ~ `
4 t= - x l~
r. .y ~ ~ . $ z~.-~7~p'~ -
i u
c 7 ~ . F ~ ~ ~ 1( -,-T _ _ f- u. -o L
. Y ~i' L ~ T
~g s~
i +
y~ ~ _,_-~,+-k IL..^-? ~ , n` . p ! ~ ~ A
~ 4 . ~ i G ~
d ~Sraa`'~ t~~-` P ~ ~r I!~~ _S
~ ~:.--'b' ~ "'-r-A~': ~ ~,i~ ~i~r.FL.
~~_1 1~- ~-S • f ' i ~ J`:. ` . . . - _ G,.~_ o~i .
UI~I'(~ 3 IJi.I~?'2. L74Jit-I .a-~,~
N~°~fN ELE..;d~71/J~d ;e,,,r.-r_,a-r~oy ='a~-^~
~ ~ 47:-0,: - - ~
i.
" . . ~'Y cF ~:~G,s.
, EL. _~`72iGx
_ I ~-{T' \
~rr
~,o -
. _ ~ ~ iJli-9 24D. ~t_
" s ' R - , = f „~_c~ _ _
~ a e.
- ,_y ; ~
~ ~ e
_ ` ~ . EL. ~ r _ z~
~ ~ .
~ ~r _ ~ ~L, G~ c
r z i<_r
, . ~ _ . _
~ Fl.
, - l~ ~ ~ ..9-0
~
L1619t-i ~4.t1"f-Z U.:11T-3
L,?I7'~L3 ~1 C~ //~'fl/111
_ ~
f~p' ~ aIVGE
E6. a
/~__'.eJ~~~/~~ _ "v `•z o
~d... ~~L
~ ~ % _
~
~ ~ . I^
~ ~ v ~ _ ~
- _ ~ i,
' . ` _ ! 1~.1-~ ,uo.r~.
~ ~ ~ ,
~ . , x ~ ~i. I i--__
1
~.,y,.,~\ . ~ I - : - .
: . ~ - ~ - ~ ~ .
, . ~ I ~ "
Yz Y a l~ .r_ _~TS ,
t
~ ) q . _ ~ ~ i
, Y j
~ ?-a r. v~.
~ 1
1 s~ }r - - ~
_ _ _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ o
~1~
_ _ uNir9 _
WCSt ~,Es v__.,_^ATIo~ -
~
\
~
- .
~ \ _
~
I n ~q~ I
~ i Usli7- f Ln~Y
_ , I i~.~ .
. LL 'IS n
. ~ ~ _ ,-1.IIT 2 2Lb Fl.
~ ~ l ~t. re5o -
. ' q ~ ~ ~ vµ~r-e su~.s~.
~,r _ _ - v4.c~s~-o
. r ~ _
?i '''`y sd, , -'-7~ ~mt . uu~T g„ isr. ~L.
~ , . f't- - . E~.~=g _qa~-
~ ~ , ~ s~~"~'Qt`~
. a .,n'....1 - . . _ uN~Y i, ~t.Y. FL-
p~~- - gs~_o~e...
d
September 17, 1992
Flannin$ and Envir,onmental Commission
Cornmuraity ~ eii-opment Degaz°tment
Town of `Uail
~ai1, Colorado
Our° comments 1isted beIow are a z°esu1t of an on site meeting
with Ned Gwathme p, Henrg Pratt, D. Scott Ross and ~7ay Pete~°-
sox~ or~ the ~no~°r~3.ng of September 14; a review of the memo-°
randum prepared by the Coffimurtity Development Department ;
and a meetin$ with the Plannin$ epartment osa September 14
at 5.15 PM wz,th the following pez°sons presents
Planning and Envix°onmental Commiss3,on
D3ane Donovan
~~thy Langenwalter
Jeff Bowen
Da1ton William
Commuraity Developmezrt Department
Sheily e13o
° Kxisten Pritz
Architects
Ned wathmey
Henry Pratt
,Developer D. Scott Ross
from Tower c
Our concez°ns are :
1) Del~tiorcs of any b lconies ad~ ~~ent to ous° propem ty
(east f~cin )
2) ew structure to be no c1~~er to our propertp
than the present
3) Snow r~tainers and gutters on ro of to grevent snow
dumpin and water run off onto the 47i11ows pioperty
4) We have considerab-1p... zeservations wit x°espect to the
dx°aina e ro 1ems of snow an watex° z°o Vail Road down
into the u11y between the roa nd oasr parlcin arage o
We believe this water° must be collected and dx°ained
thx°ou ha 1arge pipe x°un across the z°eaz of the 44 Glillow
property and 3,nto the stox° sewex° of the west end of that
74 1LL A• e a X 759 • VqlLo COLORADO 1 -0759
PN N a(309) 476-2233 •(E00) 2 w127 + FA e(3Q3) 47 e5794
~ Page two -
propertq.
5) In canjunction with #4 above the Iandscaping at 44
Wil1ow Road should not stop at the property 1ine
but continue onto the Willows property to conceal the
new drainage system and mitigate the encxoachment of
the proposed new building.
As a:separ'ate assu'e'we suggest a pathway to Vail Road between
the two properties accessable to both the Willows and 44 Wi11ow
Roade This path to blend into the landscaping and drainage as
per #4 and #5 aboveo
Providing these amendments are met we believe that the project
is a welcome addition to the Willows circle area.
We congratulate all parties involveda
We understand there will be other meetings of all parties
anvo1ved to review changess Please let us know of time and
placea
Sincerely,
~L
~
Herary A. Caldwe1.3. Norman J. Holbrow Marijke $x°ofos
Board Member flwner Gen. Ndaraager
HC/rcib
74 UVILLOW ROAD • P.O. BOX 759 - VA1i., COLORADO 81658a0759
PHONE: (303) 476-2233 - t800> 826-1274 • FAx: (303) 476m5714
MEMORANDUM
Tf3o Planning and Envzronmental Ccs mission
FR . Co munity Deve1op ent Departent
I3A"TE: Septe ber 2$, 1392
SI7BJEC'T, A request for a szte coverage v'ance to allow an adclition to the residence
located at Iaot 14, B1ock 1, Vail Village 13th Fil°zng\3025 Booth Fal1s Road
Applzcante Willia T. and Ju1ie C. Esrey
Planr~er; ike oll~ca
1. SC I'TI `I" EVA IANCE E I1 S'T
"The applicants, Walliam and JuIie Esrey, are requesting a variance fro the axzmu
allovvable site coverage to allow foa° the cons ction of an addition to an existing
ditplex, 1 ated at 3025 Booth Falls oad, e property is zoneci °I'wo-Fa ily
Residential (duplex) and has an existing two-f ily dwelling loca~ed upon it.
The maxi u allowable site coverage for thc, Two-Fa ily Residential zone districz is
20% .For this p icul lot, 20% of the lot area would consist of 39720 sc~uare feet.
'I'he existing property currently has 3,$91 square feet9 or 20.9%, of building located
upon the site. e a licant's request is to a an a itional 29 suare feet of
site coveragei for a total of 4,181 s are feet of site coverage or 22oS%o
T'he prcsposed addition ould be an expansion to two existing bedroo s located
at the west end of the structuz°e9 d would consist of approxirriately 279 squ e feet
of additional CiRFAa is would be aone-story addixion wath a new cl~ck locatecl
irn ediately to the south of the a.dditian. Additiorzally9 the proposal calls for a deck to
be located on the roof of the proposed bedroorn aclditione
IIm ZONING C S AT S
The following su arizes the zoning statistics for this requestm
A. Zane Dis °ct: Two-Fa ily Residential
B. L,ot areae 0.427 acres\18,600 square feet
1
C. ensityo No ch ge propased
D. GRFA:
A~~owabie GRFA = 4,960 square feet
Existing G A = 4,560 square feet
Total G A = 4,839 squ e feet
Additiona1 G A proposed: = 279 square feet
emainang GRFA after this addition = 121 squ e feet
E. Site cc~~erage
Allowable sate coverage = 3,720 squ e feet (20%)
Exzsting site ct~~erage = 3,891 squ e feet (20.9%)
Adclitional site coverage proposed = 290 square feet
"Total si~~ ~~~erage after ghis addztion: = 4,181 square feet (22,5%)
F. Parking: o ad.ditional pking as required for this
proposed expansaone
TII. CRI IA AND FINIaI GS
TJpon review of Criteria and Findings9 Section 18.62a060 of the Vail unicipal Code,
the Comrriunity Develop ent Dep rrier~t reco ends enial of the requested
v"ance basecl on the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1, T e relations iof te requeste variance ta ot er existing or
otential s~~ an struct res i te vicinity.
°The adjacent prope 'es to the noreh, south9 deast of t14 e a11
zoned "Two-Farnily esidential. Imrrfleciiately to the west of t 14 is
Tract B, ivhich is zoneci A`cultura1 and en 5pace and includes
ooth Creelco Further to the west of Tz°act are additional residential
lots which e also zoned Two-F xly Residential. Because of the
dense vegetation on the west encl of I,ot 14 and a11 along Tract B, the
staff is of the be1ief that the applicant's proposed addition iil not have
any negative impacts on any of the adjacent properties9 nor upon the
strea tractm Two existing trees would have to be removeci to allovv for
this acldition to be cons cted.
2
It is the staff's position that vaith regard to this criteria9 this v°ance,
if ~pproved, would not aclverseiy affect the use and enjoy ent of
adjacent propez°ties and would not bloclc oz° impede views from any
surrounding properties.
2e Tt?e degree to w ic relief fro te strict an literal inter retation
and enforcement of a s ecirie re u1at~on is necessary to ac ieve
compati ility an unifor ity of treat ent a ong sites in t e
vicinity or to attai te objectives of t is title wit out grant of
specia1 pr°ivilegea
Although the staff does not believe that there wou1d be any significant
ipacts to adjacent propertaes as a result of the proposed addition, the
staff is unable to identify a physical h dship which exists on this 1ot
which woulcl w ant the suppoz°t of a site coverage v'ancem e~ould
firzcl nothing unusual about the shape, size, or topog~~phy of I,ot 14 to
justify the v°ance9 and vve believe that it wouid b~ a gr tof specia1
privilege to approve a site coverage v°ance for this property.
3. e effect of te requeste variance o 1ig tan afr, istri ution of
o lation, trans ortation an traffic facilities, public facilities n
utilities, antl pctblic safety.
It is the staff's opinian that the applicant's request for a site coverage
v ° ce wili have no significant impacts uporz any of the above criteria,
B. The Plann~n~ a~td E~vir~n ~ntal C°~rri~~s~i~~ shall ~~e the followin~
fiadinIs before antin~ a v °ance:
1. That the gi°anting of the v`ance will not corastitute a gant of special
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on otl~er properties classi~°ied
in the sarne tlistrict,
2. That the granting of the v'ance will nox be detcimental to the public
health, safety or welfare, or rnaterially i~jurious to properties oz°
irriprcavements in the vicinity,
3. That the variance as warranted for one or ore of the followi~g reasons;
a. The s°ct lateral interpretataon or enforcement of the specified
regulation vaouici result in practical difficulty or unrzecess
physzcal hardship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
3
b. Thez°e e exceptions or extraordinary circaz stances or
conditions applicab1e to the same sate of the v°ance that do not
aPPIY general2y to other properties in the sa e zone.
C. °The strict interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulazion euotald deprive the applicant esf privileges enjoyed by
the owz~ers of other properties in the sa e districte
IV4 S A COMMEN ATI N
The staff as r~commending denial csf the applicant's request for a site ce~~erage
v ° ce, It is our belief that a v "ance would b~ a grant of special pziv31ege,
inconsistent with the limatations on the other properties in the °T"wo-Family esidential
zone dis °ct, anei that thez°e e no exceptions oz° extraordin y circu st ces that clo
not apPly generally to other properties in the °T°wo-Faanily 12esidential zone districta
A.dditionally, the staff has been unable to identify a physic;al h dship to support a.
site coverage v °ance reqazesta
S~ould the P1annin~ and Environrraental Commission decide to approve of the
applicant's reqazest for a site coverage v°ance, the staff would point out that the new
additiora oiald need to meet the 15-foot side-yard setbaclc. It should be noted that the
existing sctzre is approxa ately 149-6" fro the north propez°ty line. We woulcl
aiso recomrr~end the following conditionso
1m °That the property be a°eplatted to reflect the change in the builciirzg footprint.
T'he °ea where the proposecl a.ddition would be Iocated is cu ent3y "common
ea" for both cluplex o ners.
2m That three 2-3" caliper aspens be pl ted along the north property 1ine to
itigate the aciditionm
Please note that, under Section 18,62,0$0 of the Town of Vail Zoning Cocie, the
a~prova1 shall lapse if cons ction is not com enced wBthin two years of the date of
issuance and diligently p sued to cornpletion.
mikc'4nemos~ossey.909
4
, !hd% YOY
dQsCf'Ced IsQWB: 4 .
g~g~nnirsq of apoln4 wh~ee the Sou4henst cnrne° pf said la$ 44 peors ~
S.~d°~9°~t°E. 106.71 teat dtstant; @h~+~ce FI.OQ"57'3S`E. 32.50
tee@> @P+easce 5.69°02'24'E. 5120 Eea@; thence 5.00°37'3S°W. 32.50
4oet; @heree ld.89'02°24°Yd. 53.20 fee8 ta BPsn potnf ot bagenning.
YogetPVer with aai undtvtdmd one-hclt NrteeeNQ in end 4a mll af Got 14.
8(ack f, Y¢id Vidtaqe T3air@oere49a f'78Fng, a 5eabdtv6ylart perarded ln
the o6fiee af the Eng6e Caun4y. CoPorado Cigrk ond P3ecarder, arlth the
9MPRO~ARENT LOG~TifSN
mxc~ti~t of Parcei ,4 described obovs ond Parcel 6 dsaCripad below. T9FrCATE
PARGEL g(As Deeded) 1 ireeeby cert9¢p tha@ this tmpravemerv4 Lacatlot
preporgd fer 1Mtit(qeve Y. aesd Julle C. E~°@ ~~tftc¢!~ wa~
TisaB paet o! 4.at 44, Yn16 YIBiag~ T}a'vrtoen8h FilBeag, aceordtng Ro SURVEY PL.47 iMPROVEMEA9T StJR y TH,~7 IT 8S ~8T ~ I~AiO 5utve~r'y ~~t~~,
the reeorded plat ther°eaf, Cocanty of Eagie. S4o4a Of Co3oea6o. bE'! PLA7. ~+d @ta~f 6t 6, not @n b,
9escc~ed aa folBesws: ralfed upor~ far the esCeblis4serseart at farsce. bundkrg. o' oiha° q) 5treet Xddr~vs-, 3025
ienpro"rvsent Ilnes. 9 turtPVae cer214y tho$ tho knprovemeee$a aas the 2} The recCrd l0gat dascrfi
Bq a4 o poiart wherce the soutPoenst comer o( saltl 9.a@ 14 b. v's above deaerlbed parcel an thfa tla[e, Feb+vprY 6. 199z eseept uiti4y 6earean, 6tavo beers cbt~
5.84`41°41°~. i~6.73 l~et ~a@ont~ thane~ Pt.00°57°36'36'. 53.50 coerr,ecttons, ¢are gntl¢°e!y wSthlro the baundarlns oP the parcd. exoep# A~.YA Poi1cy No. AZ&4,',
fget thenae N.69'42°24'E. 63.60 feet; tPoenee 5.00°57'36"E. 61.90 0s shaan. @hqf tlrera aee no eneeovcNmen@s up., the descrtbad prevrvises 7Pslrfeenth K'°rling,
faet: BPsenee 5.89"02°24"Ee 6156 leeP: tPrenca R1.00°37°36"E. 90.40 by 3mprovamearis on orey adJoiesing peernlse% except as 1avd3ceaCed> and 3} Duw #o a erso49remattc ~
feet t~ the poPes@ ot b~gtnninq, Gauaatp of EagBe. Stat~ ~f Coiorodo, tha$ 4here P~ no ,~PP~~EN~ e.Adence or siqn aP or+y easernxtf erasafnq does eroi precPse6v e»aS
or Durdenirsq any par4 of 3nid Parcal, exeapt qs noted. ThirtawYh FtPtwg.
4} As oreavlt of the rota
PARCEL 9(As Su yee!) \~p1e~"~~°#ound 4Psnt the iegei d,
m.'the ocatl4no ot that pm
Thot pmr4 at l04 i4, Yaii Vqlage, TA+1rteenQ4a Ftltesq, aceordYe~g 49 D~~ efifort ta ias4 rt the
thg recorded piat theegafi, Gountg o6 Eogie, Staie of Coloradaa, Sto+w ~6. 5) Bcxian Croep C~nt~stta~e
desertbed ns foliaws: Senior ~c r , 206 e 4 plotn are PaAon iroree
John . KA 06'p4 .8
Begtrresies9 at a point wheaeee the "u@heosf comer af sa3d Lat t& bears
1 Ca3 q~ -::s
S,90"41°4tOE. 105.71 fne2 dtstaert; theesce Pd.00°57°3S°E. 51.50 .,zv
4ffie@o thence Fd.89°02°2+0W. 6150 feot; 8hence S,0037°36°tN. 61.96 ~,.ma00.a.
Omet: thence ~.89°82'24°E. &.3.60 feet; @henca Ad.aQ°57'36°E. 90.40
~~u LA~~~
feai @o the peint of beginning. Ca+es~ty of Emgtee St+~4e mi Coforndo.
~ LOT 13
TE woNe 0
{ PEoesrAL c~
5t8° REasR
{ °~r
ELECi729C BOX
= 100 v€aR 6 d°
.
UN •Q• g ,1 ~ . FLbODPIABPb ~,4°0 btl ~ szss , • ~ • • - • • iY1
6 ~ [ L}hiPY 27.90° ~.39q
q,97 &J~ 0
i • I~Rtl~SP~ R4~~'8teptl g, p ._.a. ~
°ai
~
a``I ~ 5ECOND 41.O0R DECK ASPNaLT Db~lvEW,~Y
S 89°02'28° E 53. , ~ ~ C7
LOT 14 PaRCEL B °o L
0.427 AC. 3937 sa n.
ara ~xomrd ~eeK n'n PARCEI. .4 ~°'~j
R
0.59'
sri Live S~rR~AM T ~
~ SEY6ACK L f ~ . ~ ~ ~ v
- - - vx . DE 1 i C B =
{ - _ oecK P.o.e. --~N~roz°zeID aa r.20 ! CND =
~ ~p- - - - - - - y._ - - v
10' UTIIlTY EASEMEIV7 ~
/ 5J6- REBAR~ ~ 60QK 229, PACE 951 S b9°922a E 63.60~ N ~0°SJ°36" E a' W
,0.40° W ~ '
P~ 89°24°13°° W .~s
S 20°77`3J° w WOMEN FENCE 24,133'.r
94.09° ~
5J8' ~~BAR & Pi.AST1C
CAP lS 15413
. ~ LQ T 1rJ . ~ .
~
~
\
s
~
~
_ ~
, ~ ~
I
,
- ~ - ~e
i F7j
I,
. f! - 1
~
F'-1 F'iL : !t ~17 F 7i F 7j I F- -7-
'VE-°5T E-l_,., ~-°VATI ON ~
~
.
~
f
\j
Q-
~
~ --1~
Y7(Y~
OL
~ LU ~ i i ~ . L
L
I
~ - - - _ i ' ~ ~
,
' ~
, -
_ . ~
' i
~
j ~EU~e. F~GM ~~M 1 i~lA'TCFkALL Nr-r--\v
VJINC>OW3 \VI
~
' '
; . . . . . . . . . . . ~ - i------_-.~~. _ . ~
} . . . .3». 'w-' 1..._ A.a,.. g.1+x A.~.. a..~... w~.._ ` ~ ~ . . . .
~
~
i
faepase~Q
r~ev t)' Sut~F-..-,
DECV-
~ - - - -
~
1 - -
-N
= , , I
! ~ 5 U.IE 6GAUV AMD ?lh5"P5R..
~
~ ,
f - - w :l
) ~
~
0
~
~ ; - -
, ~
>
m z , e , , , - -
a i
~F ~ ~
a~'
~
~ 4 (
p,r_(.l.Sf~ Fe('M EirM z
~V t
, ~ _ . ~ > . .
i~
LOWr~ _ 2 LE.\,0 ~-p L
u st 18, 1992 '
Statement in Connection Hth Variance t~4Lfication of illiJu1ie srey
We are the original owners of our du lex t 3025 oo Is oa , a ° purch ed
e property about 1 ye s oo e ha 1 ed to d to our house as our children
ecame o1 er, to le 9ate the obvious e cien i te ouse two af te bedroo se
uneo fo ly s l,
Our f m y's a action and iden '~ation ° eis e11 ca on our Ben s,
ee trWy great boosters for the town. It is town that h e t uch to oux f ily,
de 9s to conti ue to be a part of ito
`s sing we a plie for a uil° e it ut ere tol at, 9e i~ ~oul e
pe issi le to a s u e feet, uz site. coverage alrea y s1i htly exceeded e 1o able,
and e sion of e foo i t was not e i e . ecause e e ot esirin t
ad ition roo s, ut want t enlarge the two s 1edroo s and ad a bath so the
occupants of e bedro s ould not ve to s e a a , expanding elsewhere et °
e confines of e use does not or e have a o arc °tects 1ook at e
ro le , and ue to the desi of our house, no other solution than the o e ropose
is feasi lem
e have been sensitzve to y conce s f our ei o ave ke t e i orme
of our t° ° o In fact, o nearest nei or and e enY resi ent first enco rage
12s to see Yiance Q e to . 2t oiiT a 11cat1on, e have s11 ltted letteTs
o 1 ur nei h ors indica m at ey su ort our ropos . Ac ly, no one cou1
re ly eve see the proposed dition or oul ave y i e it is tere, it ou1 e
e en o iew.
I'age 2
Stateffien rey
>
res onse to other ite s ° the v ' c ropos e
1) e a ition is so1ely on o exis ° 1 oes ot ° ede yone eIse's land
y manner whatsoevera
2) The re ans for t ere uest e covered in the above co entse
3} ere are no en ° an ent ° acts of y na e_ at e can think ofa
4) ere is no apparent i act on i1's long-run I sor ° terestse I fact, making
~ ouse more livab1e, 0t out a d° roa s and eth no a verse impact an aur
ei ors or yone else, o d see to be in everyone's i terest.
We wou1d be de1i te to rovide additional a ` o ation desired.
es ec u11y sub itted$
~i11i f rulie srey ,
4/
SEP- 2 F I 14:35 P.02
€
•
, ~ ~T ` •
3
; ' .
,
. , P
, s
, 1992
$
.
. ~
~
. Mike Hollic F
m
i r Colorado 81607
~
Dear Mr. Xollica-,
rcel A of t u 1 ~
o + n
i i 1 °
ri c , specifically, I have reviewed and ondorts the plane
for a 12 toot extension of the bu .
uplex. '
ii .
sincerelyy
, ~
~
~
~ a F
~
~
#
s
s
. A
~ • ~ ~ • . . . i . . , m _ ow s . _ _ ~
4
P a x1131S
Sprint ,z City; MO 64812
Dtephone (913) 624-3738
° R (913) 624 &387
~
. rrt T° Evey
Chair n Jt11. 30, 1992
° Chs~f ° F"cutive Of'~cer
rm and Mrs. Gene Use,1.ton j
C/0 Department f F~.r~ance t~Ul~
~
College of Busi.n ss Ad inistration
exas A&M rzi~ersity colLecE aF BusINESs
Colleg tatio21, TX 77843-4218 DEP1 4FF6NANCE ~..e
ear Peg and Gene:
er our conv rsation in icati,ng our desi,re to as °t e town of
Vaiel far a si~~ ~~~erage variance, I a er~closin wit this
lett~~ ~ sketch ~ e ad ition that is ~eirag ropose f~~ our
house at 3025 caot F'a1ls Roa .
A you are our i ediate neighbor, and have indi.cated during
otzr a.scussi,on that you understood what ~ere doi.n and di
rrot have any objection, I won~er, a.f ~~u woul.d ki.n ly sign °the
enclosed copy of tYsis I.etter and return it °to me, so that J~lie
an I can resent it to the town of Vail indicati~g that our
ei h~ors do r~ot obj~ct to our proposed lans for an ad itione
Thanks for yaur consideration, an ive me a call t
1-800-366-3779 (office), or 1-800~829-1998 (home) i ou ave
any further estions.
. ~ ~~t regards,
t
i1.lia T. Esrey
enclosure
ave no o jection to the roposed addi ion to te west 3. e
of y nei or's duplex at 3025 Boot Fa11s Road. i n t re Dat
U
1131~
lm 64112
13) 524-3738
I3J 62 38 7
Chab=
July 31y 2992
r . S MrsW otli.
3021 ooth Falle RoaLd
V il, CO 8155~
Dear ~
~ur ~~nversat3on indicating our desire to nak the town of
vail or a site coverage vari ce, I am ezacl sin i~ ~hi
lette I~~~ch of the additi n that is being proposed r our
house t 302 ~~~h Fal1, Road.
As you are our immediate i or to the 3out , and have
i i~~~ ~ ~~ri~ siox~ th t you urz rstood what w
r oing an i have ~ ~ ~~ctio r I woxa er, i you
woul i 1 i n the exzclosed copy of this 7. tter n r turn
it t . so that a7u i sx I can pxesent it to t °town of
V i1. ind.fcat g t t r neighbors xtot object ~ ~~r
proposed p1 r~~ ~or an itiors.
Tha ~ ~our conaideration, rc 3ve me a ca3.l at
1- 00-366-377 (off ce), r 1-900-829-1998 i, u h~~~
~ny ftarther questioxt .
Best regards,
•
William T. rey
enclo ures
Z ve no o j ct3~~ ~ additiora to the west side
of my i hbor' 1 x t 3025 Booth Falla Road.
ur ~
~
13c05 5rRINT WORLD NERIIOURRTEK5 53OZ4751'595 NO,~~0 August 12, 1992
r~ ~lli T. rey
Sprint
< , . . , r..._.o . , k . . .a_ , . ...,d_ a~.. o.._......~..,~..~.,,. o.
Kansas it ' O 6411
Dear . Esrey:
g Pursuant to your r u , riti r~otify yoc~ t, t,
su A ~ t to the t s~ @itio ~t ort loc~, v r~c~
o 7 ~tion to your proposed addi ion to the west ide of your u 1 x
at 3025 oot 11 o .
The c n iti.on in u tiort r t
. That the addition invoZve onl irst fleao nd that the
fir t fl~or l t rather th n peaked roo ; nd
B. Th °t you 1 rst evergreen (year-rotxn ) oliage on the
. orth side of t riitio rt runninc~ east perhaps
15 feet, of the existing stru~~~~ . T?ai foli ~ must be
suff iciently ta11 n c~ ~on~~al th fi.r t .floor of
yr~~r resi c from us.
Very truly yours,
rtin__J. t
r r E. ~
MEMORANDUM
'I'O: F'1 ning and Envxron ental Com ission
FI2C3 m Corr? unity I)evelop ent Department
DA , Septe ber 28, 1992
STJ C'I`m A request for awal1 height v°ce in order to cons ct retai~~~g walls
ga°eater than three feet in height an the front setback at the residence 1 ated at
2692 Cortina Lane t 10, l kB, Vail zdgeo
Applicants: ans eimann d the Town of Vail
Plannera °I'i Devlin
Is ESCIZIP'TI{JN F E VARIANCE REOUESTED
A v °ce application has beeri filed jointly by ans ei ann and the Town of Vail
in arder to cons ct two 6-foot high boulder retainia~g walls in the front setback of the
existing z°esidence at 2692 ~ortina Lane, Lot 10, BIc~ck B9 Vail idgea The walls e
proposed to terrace up xhe hillsidea e two proposed walls are to be builx entirely on
the ei aran property, and e to be 120 feet (lower) anci 100 feet (upper) in length,
with athree foot terrace '°stepa, between them. All existing tr°ees e to rerriain, and
additional 1dscaping is being proposed as part of this request, °This additzonal
landscaping xncludes ten juniper bushes anct natzve wildflowers to be pianted on the
step between the allso 'I'op soil and ground cover is proposed i~ e roclc cavities.
Flease see the attached awings for the sp~~ific locations of the vvalls, proposed
eIevations and landscape plan,
The existing hillside to the r~orth of the residence has eroded considerably, and the
retainang walls e necessary to stabilize both the slope and Cortina Leo The Public
orks epartment has stateci that stabilization of the slope is critical to ensure that the
roadway xs not undermined, which would cause it to collapse.
II. C I A A FIN I GS
TJpon review of Cz°zteria d Findings, Section 18a62mQ60 of the Vail unicipal Code,
the Co unity I7evelopment ep ment reco rnends a rovai of the requested
v ` ce based on the foilowing factors;
1
A. Consideration of Factorso
l. Te relations iof te requeste varfance to other existing or
otential ses an structures i te vicinity.
The proposed 1 ation of the z°etaining walls e such that they vvill have
a minimu visual i pacz, zf any, on adjacent property ownerse The
r~taining wa11s will aid in the supportt of the roaclway and wiil protect
the sa.~ety of the ho eo nera Also, the three foot terrace step between
the two retaining walls is proposed to be landscaped as indicated on the
a.ttached plan, cl the existing trees e to remain and be reinforced by
back-filling scsil beneath the exposed root systems,
2m Te de ree t~ ~~ch reIief fro the strict an literal i t~rpretation
and enfoa°cement of a s eciied regulation is raecessary to ac ieve
co atibi1ity n unifor ity of treat ent amorag sites i the
vicinity or to attain the o jectives of thfs title wit caut grant of
special rivile e.
Three feet is the maximum height allowed for walls 1atecl in the front
setbackm However, the staff feels that zhe proposed 6-foot high boulder
retaaning walls e w anted and necessary to achieve the objectives of
the applic ts. In addition, due to the current locazion of the 've ay
and the steepness af the hillside above, it woulci be clifficult (if not
ipossible) to use three foot vvalls to stabilize the slope given the idth
of space avai1ab1e for ccarastruction of the walls. Therefore, anging of
this v°ance would not be a gz°ant of special privilege.
3m e e ect of te z°equeste v riance on li tand air, istri ution of
o latio , trans ortation a traffc facilitfes, u 1ic facilities nd
utilities, an u lic safety.
The walls e necessary to ad ess the public safety °d tr sportation
issues directly related to the unde ining of Cortina I,ane. e other
factors will not be affected in a negative vvaym
B. The Plann~n~ a.nd Er~v~r~~m~~tal ~~rrirriissit~r~ shall rri ~ the followipg
fin °nRs before antina a v 'ance:
l. That the granting of the v°ar~~e will not constitute a grant special
2
pzivilege inconsistent with the 1i itatians on c~~~er properties classifed
in the same d`as 'cts
2. That the granting of the variance ill not be detrimental to the public
hea1 , s ety or welfare, or rriateraally inj °ous to propertti~~ or
improvements in the vicinitym
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the followfng reasonso
a. The stz°ict literal i~~erpretation oz° enfor~emerzt of the sp~~ified
regulation would resu1t an practical difficulty oz° unnecessary
physical h dship inconsistent with the objectives of this titteo
bo "There are exceptions or extraordin y circu stances or
conditions applicable to the sarale site of the variance that do not
applY ger~erally to other properries irz the same zone.
C. The s °ct inte retation or enforcement of the speci~~d
regulation wouid ~~prive the applicant of pr°cvileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same°s 'ct,
IIIm STA C NDA'TION
The staff recommends approval of the variance request to build two 6wfoot high
boulder retaining alis in the front setback as proposed by the applxcants, e feel
that the wa.lls are necessary to preserve both the hillside and Cor°tina Lane above the
existing residencea The slope appears to be eroding rapidly, and severa1 trees also
appe to be on the verge of falling if the hillside is not stabilized. A11 of the existzng
trees on the site are to remain, and the applic t's 1 dscape plan calls for ten juniper
bushes d native waldflowers to be plantecl on the step between the boulder walls.
Top soil and ound cover is also proposed in the roclc ca.viries.
In reference to the fndings stated above, the staff does rzot feel that approva1 of this
v° ce request woulci be granting of a specia1 privilege {Finding 1}. It has been
de onstr°ated by the applicants that the walls are necessary and wil1 be an asset to the
hea1 , safety dwelf e of the pub1ic (Finding 2), Given the steepness and width of
the hillside between the °veway and Cortina Lane, three foot high walls e not
feasible (Fin °ng 3a). Z'he topography of the site gs unique ancl extraordinary
circu stances do exist that do not genera11y apply to other properties in the same zone
(Find` g 3b)m
3
Please a~~~e that, under Sectian 1$.62n080 of t~e Towr~ of VaiI ning Code, the approval
sha11 lapse if cons ction is not co rrierrced within two ye s of the date of issuance d
dilzgently p ued to completion4
4
~ Cb \
C
d_Q'_LJV~VlI CR_BUSHC,5
-NAT~+'~=V7t1.aE-F i.VC)W~,C.5-SEEI~E~ _
/ N1AT~-'H 78 lSTlN6
6ETf3`I"ioN ~,rSI.ofaE. _
"1o g. 5LOCK E)
- -
\fA 1 t.~-F~~U6
~ -6KE.D-_R6ZK ~IAL.:
Cb
~
~
t btn C-_- _ _ -
~ -
~
~
col
~
- -
-
~ 0
ENG !NEE ~ igI~ DES IGWORKS
Y DArE: 9-24--92
JaB# m 922103
CL IENTm Steve ! scn
2692 Gort ina DWest Va i ICO Edge af
R~~c~a~
rc~ad~ray
~xing
_ ,
~ vegefa.#ion ~~moiin
i I stab'i I-ization E( ,=102'
mat in absence of
exi st i ng vegetat i on
1'of topso i I fac Ex i st i ng 1:1 s iope
vegetat ion Stabj Iity conf irmation
irifi fabric b~ otherss
P l c~ce ~a I I er rock to r~est
between 1arger boulders to .
retain ccx~~ac~ed p ~ ~ rur~ 22 ~
and topsoils . Exist;ng steep
Planfin ~re-a ~
~lu n i il~. f lewe~'~ c~~ 6 'max
' di~et~r ~i~er 3 ~°r~v jde proDer "~ear ing foc eoch
3-4 rack
rock bou 4 ders (1YP) ~
At 1:2 max sloPe ~ 9 f
~ Key co ,s 1IL„ min _in+. ~o cCMpacten gravels ~
_°TOp Sol ) , 6r,:,_,,und cover° in rock cavotles
Existin ~ Pro~~icie perfor~at?d 4" ~`rain systmP 6 'max
dr ive~~ra~ ~ Day I iuh tw lth sLreened cast i ron pipe e ~
~
E Unpacted approved 3/4'grave I
or ~~ell graued pi~ ~un
Pr~vide dr~inage ~t Key roc~ss 12" mir~. ir~tt~ firr~,
~dge dr iv~a~ unweGthered, nat ive so i~s
MEMORANDUM
°f a Planning anci Environmental Co mssion
F O a Cornmunity DeveIopment eparkment
DATa Se te ber 28s 1992
SlJ JECT: request to modify the Iandscaping p1an associated with the previously
approved exterior alteration proposal for the 1ifer uiIding9 230 ridge
Stf~et/Pa(t of Lot~ ~ and C, ~~ck 5, Va1l VIllage FIrst FEllng.
A plicant: od and eth SIifer
Plannerm Tam Devlin
L DE C IT1 N OF TH VA IA CE EQUES°TEC3
On February 24p 1992, the PEC approved an exterior aIteratcon and a site coverage
variance request for the Slifer uiidin .Construction on the project is now
subs#antialiy co pleted, and at this ts e the plicant is re uesting the PEC approve a
rno ification to the ap roved Iandscape plan, pecificallye the applican# is proposin to
delete ara 18-inch tall stone-faced planter, whlch was to be constructed imme iately
south of the addition's entrance doore l°he plantin area `sn this planter was to be
approxirnately square feete The appli nt pro oses instead to place 2t0 3 potted
piants in this aream
As a part of #he redeve8opment projec#, the applicant removed an existing o ay
aple fro their pro erty and insta!!ed the approved 7'own of Vai! Streetscape Master
lan p ving on portion of the proper whach they own adjacent to the bullding. In
a ition to installin te avers, the ap Iicants constriacted an 18anch tall, stone-faced
planter in the area be een the addition and #he Ore Flouse's exterior deck walla The
net planting area in this (anter is 39 square feet, flowering crabapple and Iow
rowin junipers have been instal1ed in this plantero
Ila ACkC lJ
The foliowing in a chronology of events perkainen to this planter:
February 24, 1992: The PEC approved an exterior alteration and si#e coverage
variance for the Slifer building. °fhe ian scape plan that was
approved provided for the 1-inch tall stone-faced planter that
the applicant now wishes to substitute the potted plants fora rt
evergreen tree was to be insta81ed in the planter.
~
July 13s 1992: A request ta modify the Iandscape plan vvas heard by the PEC to
re lace the planter in question with potted plantsm The general
consensus of the PEC was that the ori inal proposai shoul be
it7l~~~ ented aCtd the pIant~r built as designe a l°he appiicant
Yeqi1eSted t~ ~ thls 8tet71 lltltll AIJgUst so that a slBitable
solut3on couId be reached, n the request to table was ranted
y #he PEC.
August 24s 1992: t this meeting, the a plicant proposed to add pofte piants to
the area in question anstead of building the plan#ere l"he PEC
was in agreement #hat the applocant needed to comply with the
original landscape plan that had been approved, but would aliow
for a modification to be made to the proposed planter so that the
new window that is sIightly above grade vvould not have to be
moved. !n constructing the addition9 the applicant has instailed a
windovv which extencis nearly to the ground on the north
eIevation o# the bay indow addition. it was suggested by the
PEC that the battorr, ofi the planter coul be excava#ed deeper
and a tree planted wi#h~~t any exterior rrrodifications being made
to the building, lso, the PEC agreed that the planter couId be
aItered from the originally approved 1$-inch ta1i s#one-faced
planter to a iower hei h# (6-12 inches) and that stucco could be
used ?nstead of the stoneo
September 28, 1992 The a plicant now wishes the PEC to reconscder aIlowing for the
pots to remain in piace ofi #he planter. Tref r g the r ts st
i e r today it if th landscape ian
ssoci t ith t rvi sI r ve xteri r!t r ti n
f r t lifer il in t lI f r t t tted pl ts # e
su titute f r t I nterm
li0e ST°FF RECOMME T'I 5
he staff as recom ending deni t of this request. AIthough we do believe that the
a licant's addition t~ the Siifer uilding is a very positive improvernent which benefits
the Village9 the staff feels that the installa#ion of the origina11y ap roved pianter is the
referre desw nsofutione The staf# aiso fieeis that the modifications to the lanter
suggested y the P at the August 24th eetin oul e an accepta Ie solution
and wou9d not appear to require any odifocations to be rraade #o the windowo These
suggestions include a
1 , excavating deeper than ari inally intended to plant the evergreen, yet not
interfere ith the window that has been instalied close to grade;
2. reducing the planter waII height from 18 inches t0 6-12 inches above grade,
3m to aIlow stucco to be used (matching existing) instead of stone on the face of
the planter waIL eim\me,m$Wi,er
PLANNING 1 L COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER °I ,1 2
AGENDA
9:00 Am Si#e Visits
1900 Pe , ork Session
3000 Pm m Pubiic Hearirt
Site Visits: 9o00 , .
East VaiI Tower
Smail
Esrey
oId F'eak Base Area
Village Cen#er
44 i11ow da
Lionshea Lifts
Acker an
Wate or
unicipal uiiding
Work session: 1;44 Pe .
1, reques# for a joint work session with the Planning and Environmental Commission
and the Design eview Board for a condi#iona6 use permit for an addition to the
Municipal ui~ ing to house the Vai1 Police Depart ent, Iocated at 75 ~outh Frontage
Road West (at the east end of the existin unicipal uilding)9 and as 1ega11y
describe belowe
A part of the Souihe x 114 of S tion 6, Tovvnship 5Southo Range 80 West of the Sexih Principal Meradiara,
Couniy of Eagle, State af Colorado, more partQcularly descrabed as fiollows: Comrnerscing a4 the Southeast
corner a# id Section 6, thence North 00 degrees 28 rrrinu4es 16 seconds West and along the East line of
said Soastheast 114 of sa°sd Sectiora 6 72.75 the East 6ine of said Sautheast 1I4 of said Seci'son 672.7 s feet to
a point, saac9 point being 110.00 feet northeasterly from the southerly right-of-way line of U.S. Fleghway fVo. 6
as measured at raghk angles #hereto; thence North 79 degr s 46 minutes 11 se esds VJest arsd a1ong a B°sne
parallel ta saad souther8y right-af-way line 145.50 feet to The True Point ofi Beginning; thence North 16
degrees 08 mancates 47 se nds E t 78.00 feet; Bherace fVorth 68 degrees 08 mirrutes 35 seconds itVest
428.70 feet; thence North 66 degrees 01 rrs°sntstes 29 secands West 152.57 feet; then South 27 degrees 42
reo6rautes 49 seconds VVest 192.66 feet; thence South 52 degrees 48 rnfnutes 50 seconds E t36.32 feet to a
point, said posnt being 110.00 feet northeast firom said South raght-of-way Iine of U.S. Highway No. 6as
measaared at ragh$ angles thereto; Yhence South 79 degress 46 mirautes 11 seconds Eas4 artd a1ong a line
parallel to sasd South righB of way 6ene 585.56 #eet to The 7rue Poirat of Beganraing.
Except tha& portion nveyed 8o the Baard of Countq Comrnsssecsners of Eagle County, and the Depertmeni of
Highways, State of Colorado by ru9e and order recorded January 5, 1971 an Book 219 at Page 441.
p licant: Town of Vail
lannerm ike MoIlica
Public Hearing 3000
1 o A request for aork session to iscuss a prop~sal to construct a rro~dular teAephone
ceII site in the ast Vail area,
Applicant9 9S. est1Cellular ne/t/nwted States Forest Serrvice
Plannero Andy Knudtsen
2e A request for a wtark ~~~~~on for a major arr,endment #o SDD#4y Cascade Village, to
amend the developrnent 1an for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A,
described as fiollowsa
ThaB part of the SW 114 NE 1/4, S tion 12, l°ownshcp 5 uYh, Range 81 West of the Saxth Prwnc3pal
Meridian, Tovvra of Yail, Eagle Cwaara8y, Colorado, described as fssllows:
Beginnong at a point on the sosstherly raght-ofi-way line ofi lnterstate 33ighway No. 70 whence an ir4n pin wiih a
plasfic cap markeng the cen¢er of said Sectwon 12 bears S 33°10°19°' VN 1447.03 feet; thence aicarrg saad
sosathly right-of-way iine two urses
1) N 52°50'29" E 229.66 feet
2) N 74°38'17" E 160,70 feet;
thence departang said southerly rsght-of-way )ine N 88°45'57°' E 138.93 fee#; thence S 40145'14" W 94.32 fieei;
Yhence S 181 18'36" W 54.08 feet; thence S 01 °21°3&°° UN 205.02 feet; thence S 12°47'3&" Ud 110.25 feet;
therace S 28128'36" W 164.4II feet; Yhence hJ 40 117'04°° W 211.16 fee8; thercce N 49142'56'° E 97.80 fieef;
theroce RJ 37°439'31p W 95.59 feet; khera S 62150'29" W55.10 feet; thence 69.48 feet along the arc of a non-
tangeni curve tcs the ieft having a radius o# 65.00 feeT, acentral arag1e csf 61114'42°° and achord that bears N
58° 55°b3" W6&e22 feet; thera fJ 37109'31" W 918.50 feet To T°he True Pflint of Beginrsing, Coun#y af Eagle,
Stafe of Colorado; and the Corrrerstone parcel described as fioilouds:
Btaeldarsg C Srte
l°hat part of the SW 1/4 NE 1J4, S~cfion 12, Tovdnshop 5Sota#h, Range 81 Wesi of the Sixth f'rincipal
AAeridiars, Town oi Va°s!, Couniy erf Eagle, Siate of CoIoradoo described as follwwse
Beginrring at apoinfi an ihe easterly 16ne of a non-exclusive easement for ingrsss and egress known as
!/Vesthaven Drive recorded ira ok 421 at Page 651 in the office of the Eagle County, Ccalorado, Clerk and
Recorder whence the center o# said Secticzn 12 bears S 38°34°43°'W 1,168.27 feets thence along said Iine af
Westhaven Drive iV 52°43'41"E 143.92 feet; thence departing said lirae of Westhaven Drave, 932.24 feet aiong
the arc oF a noea-tarsgent curve tcs ihe leit havong a radius of 55.00 fieet, a eentral angle of 137°45°30" and a
chord that bears N 42111'46"E 102.61 €eet; thence N 52°50'29'°E 65.24 feetp then S 37109'31°°E 95.59 fieet;
thence S 49142'56"VV 97.84 feetp thence S 40017'04°°E 24.12 feet; therace S 52150'29"W 213.66 feet; thera N
37109'31 "W 105.76 f t to the poin2 of beginning rataining 0.6848 acres mcrre or iess.
Ap licanto CEnter rfses represented yEustaquio Cortina and
Commercial Federal savings
Plannero helly eIlo
3e A request for a work session for front and side setback variances and a variance to
allow parkin in the front setback for the construction of a triplex located at 44 illow
oadlLot 9, Iock , V il Viilage First Filing.
p licantm Towermarc Corporation
Plannere Shelly eIIo
49 2
4e A request for ainor exferior alteration to aIIo for the addition of bay windows at
otthelf's JeweIry located a# 122 East eadow Drive1 Ioek 5-E, Vail Village First Fai?ng
(Village Center Shops),
A licante Fred Fiibberd
Plannere ike MoIlica
5. A request for a variance #rom the parkwng standards for pavin to al~ow for a gravel
parkin Iot Iocated at the AC Schooi/149 N. Frontage Road9 an unplatted site
co monly referred to as the Mountaan BeEI si#e, north of 1-70 and west of the Main Va6i
1-70 interchange.
Applicant; The ABC School, Inc., represented by Holly ukacek
Planner: Shelfy eIlo
m A re uest for a setback variance to a1l0w an additfon to the residence located at 716
Forest oadlLot 10, Iock 19 Vail Villa e 6th Filinge
A Iicant4 Charles Acker an
PI nnera °Tim evlin
7. re uest for a site covera e variance fo allow an addition to the residence Iocated at
Lot 1, Vai9 1/gilage 13th FilingI3025 Booth Falls Road.
p licant: i11iam T. and Jufie C. Esrey
Planner: ike ollica
8. request to amend the development plan at the GoId eak ski base #o allow the
addition of o ski tows Ioca#ed adjacent to the Vail Associates Children's Center/49$
Vail Valiey rwvelas weil as the Golden Peak tennis courts/Tract Vail Vil1age, 7th
Fiii .
Applicanto Vail Associates, represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Andy FCnu tsen
9. A re uest for a conditionai use perrr,it an setback variances to aiiow the construction
of ski tow t the Lianshead base area Iocated on 7'racts D and , Vail/Lionshea
Fwrst F°slin 9 south of 20 Lionshead Circle (Lionshead Center uiidin )m
PPlicanta Vail ssociates, represented by Joe acy
Planner: n y Knudtsen
10. request for a setback variance to al~ow for a nevv garage and an expansion to an
existing res°sdence, Iocated at 4238 tsgge# Lane/Lot 5, ighorn Estates.
A piicant: W.C. and Carol R. Srna?1
Planner: Shelly eilo
3
11 m A reques# for a work session for an exterior aIteration and setback variance for the Vail
Lionshea enter uilding I~cated at Lot 5, Block 1, VaiI Lionshead First Filing/520 E.
Lionshead Circ[em
Ap lican#d scar Tang
Plannera Andy Knudtsen TABLED TO SEPTEMBER 28
12a A request for a worksession on the proposed 199211993 Environmental ork Program.
tafif; usse11 Forrest
Susan Scanlan
°The applications and infiormation about the proposa1s are available for public review in the
Co munity eveloprnent epartment office.
Town of 11 il
Communoty eveio ment epartment
Pubi°sshed in the Vail Trail on Se tember 8, 1992.
ca~~c\aganaas\91492 4
L i G AND vi 9 T L COMMI 1
Sep#ember 14, 1992
Present Stafif Present
Jeff owert Kristan Pritz
DIaCIa D4C1~~an ike Mollica
Kathy Langenwalter Andy FCrtudtsen
DaIton Illlams Tlm De16li91
Shelly e9lo
Jim Curntatte
1. Starting at approxirnately 2;20 P, a, a joint work session vvith DR was heid to dsscuss
a request for a conditmonal use perrnit fior an addition to the unicipal Building to house
the VaiI Police Depar#ment9 1ocated at 75 S. Frontage Road est (at the east end of
the existing unicipal Building).
A part of the Southeasx 1/4 0f Section 6, Tornrnship 5 South, F?anga 89 WssT of the Sixth Principa! fvleridiarr,
County of Eag1e, Sta2e of Colorado, more particularly described as folBows: Corramencing at the Southeas8
eorrser of said SecYsora 6, #hence Nor4h 00 degrees 28 rninutes 16 seconds Oh/est and aieng the Eas# 1ine of
said Southeast 5/4 of said Sec4ion f 72.75 the East line oE said Southeast 1l4 ofi said Section 6 72.75 fee8 to
a point, said point being 110,00 feet rrortheasterly frorn the souiherly right-of-way IinQ of U.S. Highway iVo. 6
as meassared at right aragies thsreto; then~e North 79 degrees 46 minutes 91 seconds VVest and along aldne
parallel to said sautherly right-of-way line 145.50 #eet io 1`he True Poirai of Beginning; thence North 16
degrees 08 minutes 47 ~econds East 78.00 feet; thence iVorth 68 degrees 08 minutes 35 seconds West
428.70 #eet; ihence North 66 dQgrees 01 minutes 29 seconds West 152.57 fieet; thence South 27 degrees 42
rnirauies 40 seconds Wesi 192.66 9eei; therrce South 52 degrees 48 minutes 50 seconds East 36.32 feet to a
poont, said point being 110.00 feet northeast frwm said Smuth right-of-way 6ine o# U.S. Highway No. 6 as
rneasured at right arsgles #hereto; thence Sou4h 79 degrees 46 minutes 11 second$ East and along a 1ine
para6lel to said South right of vray lane 585.56 fieet t0 1'he T'rue Point of Beginning.
Except that portion nveyed to the Board o# Csaunty Commissioners of Eagle Couniy, arad the Departrnent sf
Nighways, State of Colorado by rule and order re rded January 5, 1971 in Book 219 at Page 441.
Applacanto Town of Va11
PIannere ike Moilica
Asite viss# was rnade at vvhich tirne the building footprin# was staked ou# and a balBoon
was raised to the rid e heoght of the building in three arease
tthe vvork session it was generally discussed that the mass of the building was not in
keeping with the therne of the Village, that the retaining vva11s should be terraced and
~oftened more to break up the wall heights, that the number of parking spaces rnay not
be adequate, and that the buildirtg heighfi should be Iowered and that the buoBdin rnass
should be broken into different buildings9 or redesigneda It was aIso a concern of the
PEC #hat the Iandscapin plan be carefully thought out. It vvas the general cansensus
#hat the building should be modified to incorporate ail of the concerns mentioned.
The public meeting was ca13ed #o order at 3e33 P, e by Chairperson Diana Donovano
1 . A request for a work sessaon to discuss a proposal to construct a modular teIephone
ceIl site in the East Vaai area.
Applicante U.S. est\Ceilular Onetllnited States Forest Service
PIanner; Andy Knudsten
Andy Knudsten presented the item to the PIannirrg Com iss9on, introduc6ng persons in
the audience who were in attendance to discuss this i~suea epresentatives from
CelluIar One, and U.S. est were present, The Board d'oscussed their concerns and
listed #heir conditions as followsa
a. The access road tha# needs to be improved\cons#ructed to aIlow rraainterrance
vehic1es to reach the ce11 site should be e°faraishede9 so that it can accomrr'odate a
#our wheel drave type of vehic9e onlye Constructing the road so that it can
accommodate concrete trucks (for construction purposes) or the average two
wheel drove type of vehicle rnay require cutteng down trees and vvill result in an
unsightly, highly visible cut across the mountain sidea The PEC recomrnendedm
and the applicants agreed at the meetingy #hat all construction materials be air
lifted into the site.
b, T'he PEC recommended using four towers at this ceII sitew By increasing the
number of towers from o to four, the tower height could be reduced between
15 and 30 #eet and the arr,ount of an#enna structure on the #owers could aiso
be reducedA By using o towers, the PEC understood that a trianguIar
superstructure was required on each towere y providing four towers, #his
superstructure could be replaced vvith a cross bar. The PEC believed #hat this
change wouId reduce the visibili#y signifiicantly,
C. All cornponents of this cell slte shou1d be located outside all geologic hard
areas, such as avalanche runs.
d. Ali componen#s of the ce19 site should be located in areas that do not preclude
an expansion plan by the Upper Eagle lsalley ater and Sanitation istrict,
The °Town understands that the District is Iooking at re9ocating the water tank irt
this area. T'he new location is intended to be located outside hazardous areas
and be somewhat larger in capacityo
The Forest Service wili have the final approva[ or denial decision. Given that the site
is outside the Town boundary, the PEC did not approve or deny the request. They
directed staff to write the Fores# Serrvice and the County ard provide these cornmenfs
to the other agencies.
2. A request for a work session for a major arnendment to SDD #4, Cascade Vallage, #o
amend the develo ment plan for the Waterford and Cornerstone parcels in Area A, as
described as follows:
l"hat part o# the SVJ 1I4 NE 1/4o Section 92, Township 6South, Range 81 We$t afi the Sixth Principal
Meridian, l°owra of VaiE, Eag3e Ccrunty, Coiorada, described as fo3lows:
Beginning at a poarrt orr the southerly right-o#-way line af Interstate Fiighway 9Vo. 70 whence an ircrn pin vuith a
plastgc p rnarking the center of said ction 12 bears S 33°94°99'° 4VV 1447.03 feei; thence along saiti
southerEy right-oP-way iine two courses
1}N 52°5029°° E 229.66 feet
2} N 74°38'17" E 150.70 feef;
thence departing said serutherly right-of-way 1ine iV 88145'57" E 138.93 ieet; thence S 40°45'i4" W 34.32 feet;
Yherace S 3$° 18'36' W 54.08 #eet; therace S 03129'36" W 205.02 feet; thence S 12°07'36'° W 110.25 feeY;
thence S 28°28'36" W 164.48 feet; thence N 40 °17'04w W 231.16 feet; thence tV 49°42'56" E97.80 fieei;
thence N 37°09'31" Y4/ 95.59 feet; then S 52°50'29" 1'4° 55.10 feet; 5hen 69.48 feet alang the arc of a non-
tangent curve to #he 6eft hav3ng a radius of 65.00 f t, a cenira# arrgle of 63°14°42'° ansi a chord that bears N
581 55'53" W 66.22 #eet; thence N 37109'31" W 118.50 feet "fo 1"he True Point of Beginnang, Ccsunty of Eagle,
SYate oi Co4orado; and the Corners8one parcel described as fo61ows:
Builciing C Site
That part sf the SW 114 NE 9/4, Section 12, Township 6 South, Fiange 81 West of ihe s+xkh Principai
Meridiara, Tovrn of Vail, Courrty of Eag3e, State of Coloracia, described as follows:
Beginnirag a# a poinE orr the easteriy lins of a raon-exclcasoare easement fior ingress and egress known as
Westhaven [?rive recorded 3n Book 421 at f'age 651 in the offiice of ihe Eagle County, Coloradcr, Clerk and
Recorder whence the center o# said Sectiora 12 bears s 38134'43"VV 1,168.27 6eet; thence alcang said firre of
UVesthavers Drive N b2°43°41 a'E 143.32 fee#; therace departing said liroe o# W'esihaven Drive, 132.24 feet alorag
the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left hav+ng a radius of 55.00 fieet, a central angie of 137°45'30'° and a
chord that bears N 4211 1'46"E 102.61 feet; thence (V 52050'29°°E £5.24 feeT; thence S 37009'31"E 95.59 feeto
ihence a 4=3°42'56°'Vt! 97.80 feet; thence S 40117'04°°E 24.12 feet; #hence S 52150'29"VV 213.66 €eet; thQrsce (V
37°09'31°'YU 145.76 feet io the point of beginrasng ntaining 0.6848 acres mors or 1sss.
Applicant: ECM Enterprises represented by Eustaquio Cortina and
Cornmercial Federal Savwngs
Plannere Shelly ello
Shelly eIlo presented thls item to the Planning Commissione The original site plan
was presented shovving #he original approvals of locataons and styles of buildings,
roofs, waikways, parking, and setbackse Shelly explained the proposed Scenario 1
and Scenario 2 for the Cornerstone project. Shelly delineated the four departures from
the original approva9, and the three concerns of the staffe DlJ's vs. AU's; amount of
corr,rnercaal space and the relationshg of public areas of Cornerstone #o exisfiing public
spaces. Parkin requirements and Ioading facilities vvere discussed as a concern of
the PEC@ ixed use parkin credi#s were dascusseda It was the generai consensus
that no parking credrts shouid be granted to either projecto Ned vaathmey, architect
for #he project9 suggested that the parking requirements be considered separately for
the o projects9 since there will uItirna#ely be aseparate owners and that projects
should be considered on their own. Ka#hy Langer~walter recommended that the
applicant work with the sarrne heights as originally approved for a#erford and
Cornerstone. ther than a concern for densi#y, Kathy Langenwalter believed #hat the
archit~~ture of the proposed project is similar to original approval, however, the ends of
the buildings need atteration, and that the roof shoul possibly tie in with the
Convention cen#er, As weII, Kathy Langenwaiter feit ano#her employee unit should be
added to the proposal,
sana Donovan stated there as a need to examEne how the entire project works in
respec# to the ix of uses9 designs, parkings etco She explained that the oragina9
concept of the area vvas to have Iodge rooms fior the Conference Centero It was
further discussed that the bui6ding mass for aterford needed to be reducedn The
heeghts of #he buildoro s as stated by the applicant (65') differed firom the actual
drawings which have a height of 78 ft, Shelly eIIo pointed out that the Ordinance
s#ates #he buildings are to be 61 ftm Ned wathmey agreed that the buildings wouId be
lowered gn height.
Kathy LangenwaIter added that the bike path and the iandscaping for Water#ord raeeds
to be completed similar to the ex€sting estin Complex treatment. The qtaestion ofi
parking credits was raised. Ned wa#hmey stated that the N[7 Fcrm#eria are
acceptabie. Diana Donovan read Greg Amsden's concerns which included parkin
consitierations; architecture still needs refaraerrrent; and what is the foca1 point of the
entry?
Jeifi owen descussed concerns of too much development on too Iwttle Iand, Ne
expressed concern about the bulk and mass begng too large for the property size as it
relates to parking and accessa Jeff ~owen went on #o point otat that the Westin is no
Ionger a single project, hat would ren#, what wouBd selle and the economics of the
proposal shouid be consAdered so that the project would be successfui.
Kathy Langenwalter said she is not concerned wfth the economic issue, but the
Iandscapingg architecture, and parking, Fred Ot#o, representirtg EC 9said that 11
units have been soId and that they are optdrnistic that the project will be successful.
DaIton illiams said he likes the project in relation to the Frontage Road but that the
creek side is not as attractive. Fie said that he believed that residenfiial units are
appropriate at aterford. Kristan Pritz read Sherry Do ard's commen#s, representing
the D .She iiked the Waterford project and fe9t that Cornerstone should make a
connection with the creek at the southeast corner of the building with Iandscaping and
public spaces, and that the first floor should incorporate a resfaurant to add ac#ivity to
the pe estrian space between the T'errace ing an Cornerstone.
3. A re ues# for awork session for front and s9de setback variances and a variance to
aliow parking in the firont setback for the construction of a triplex Iocated at 44 illow
oad/Lot 9, Iock 6, Vail Village First Filinge
Appiicante Tovvermarc
PIanner: Sheliy ello
helly eIlo presented the request to the Commisslon, with Ned Gwathrney, the
architect, and proper representatives and owners of adjacent properties in
attendanceo It was the generai consensus of the Board that the proposed structure
was an improverrrent and architecturally acceptable. The setback issues were
unanimously agreed to be of concern, The PEC sta#ed that no encroachment into the
rear setback adjacent to Vail oad would be acceptablem Encroachrnents aIong illow
Circle aIso needed to be pulled back. Landscapang needed to be addressed along Vail
oa 9 illow Roady and the east scde of the busldQnge It was requested that the
pedestrian access from Vail oad to the project b~ consolidated and gates and
columns be minimizedm The adjacent property owners unanimousiy s#ated tha# their
concerns were that the drainage needed to be studied and rraanaged, the deck on the
i1low Road side tteeds to be reduced in sizes and that during constructiorts the site be
kept neat and construction materiaBs be contained properly. For fihe next PEC
eeting, the staff stated that the decks, fihe building, and setbacks vvotald need to be
staked.
4. A request for a manor exterior alteration fio aIlow for the addition of bay vvindows a#
Gotthelf'~ ~eweIry Iocated at 122 East eadow Drave\Block 5-E, VaiI i/illage First F`siing
(Village Cen#er Shops),
Applicanta Fred Flibberd
Plannera ike oIlica
ike MoIlica presented this item to the Corrtmwssion and it was discussed whether to
have flat or sloped tops to the bays. Sid Schuitzs the applicant's architect, stated he
would review the design fiurther an present it #o the DR for their approval. Jeff
owen motioned to approve the request9 wsth [3alton rliiarr,s seconding. It was
unanimously voted 4-0 to approve this request per the staff memo4
5. A request #or a variance from the parking standards for paving to a11ow for a gravel
parking Iot iocated a# the ABC School\149 N. Frontage Road, an unplafted site
comrnonly referred to as the Mountain eII site, north of 1-70 and west of the Main Vaif
1-70 interchange.
Applicant: The A CSchooB, lnc, represen#ed by Ho1By Bukacek
F'lanner: She11y eIIo
Kristan ritz presented this request to the Cornrnission. The future proposai fior the
possibility of an employee housing project on the site gives reason #o extend the
conditional use for three years9 however, not to approve a variance, Ka#hy
Lang~nwalter rnotioned to approve the request, vvlth a second by DaIton illiams. A
unanornous vote 4-0 denied the variance and asecond motion by Ka#hy Langenwa!#er
to extended the conditional aase9 with asecond by Jeff ~owen, was approved by a vote
of 4-0 based on the sfiaff rrjemo.
6e A re uest for a setback variance to allow an additaon to the residence loca#ed at 716
Forest oad/Lot 10, lock 1, 1/ail ViIIage Sixth Filong.
Applicant. Charles Ackerrnan
Plannera T"im Devlin
Tirra Deviin reviewed this work session iterrt vvith the Commissiono The applicant
explained revised plans from those that were reviewed irt the stafifi memo that would
encfose portions of the existing deck aIready under roof. The request is for a 6 foo#
side setback encroachment. It was discussed and the general consensus was that it
was an mmprovement over the original variance request. Staffi be6ieves that the
concerns in the memo had been addressed. °The applicarat was directed to arnend his
request per the raew drawsngs for the Sep#ember 28th PEC meeting.
7. A requesf for a site coverage variance to aliow an addition to the resedence located at
Lo# 1, Vail i/illage l°hirteenth Filing13025 Booth Fails Road.
Applicant: i9liarn and Julie Esrey
Planner. ike Moliica
°This item was #abled, at the applicant°s reques#, until the September 28, 1992,
mee#in e The vote was 4-0 for approva9 of the tabiing,
8e A request to amend the development plan at #he GoId Peak ski base to aIlow the
addition of oski tows Iocated adjacent to the Vail Associates Children's Center0498
Vail ValIey Drive\as weII as the GoIden Peak tennis courts\Tract Vail Village,
Seventh Filing.
Applicantm Vail Associates, represented by Joe acy
Plannere Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presented this request to the Corr,rrrission with the representative Joe
acy, Andy Knudtsen presented picfures of the poma and a magic carpet at
reckenridge. In attendarace were also re and rs. rown and Mre and rs. Hsgbie,
adjacent property owners. Discussion was held regarding the planting of trees to
screen #he lift from the rown"s and Higbie's residences and to add access for the
Fiigbie's #o ski to their residence. Joe acy agreed to plant two spr€ace for the rowns
at their designated iocation. Jeff owen made the motion and Kathy Langenwalter
provided the second, and the PIanning Cornrraission approved the request with a 4-0
votem The conditions of approval which were placed on #he proposa8 are as follows;
a. Prior to the operation of the poma laft for the 92-93 ski season, the applicant wfll
plant o 7 foo# tall spruce trees in Iocations specified by r. rown, the
adjacent property owner.
bm The previous approval for the Mighty ite shall become void upon approval of
this request.
C. The base terrninal of the porna laft shall be rnoved 76' south frorn the location
shown on the engineer's drawings, dated 7\28\92 drawn by Trarnway
Enganeering,
d, The appiicant shall plant several tall bushes and install a fence around the top
platform of the rnagic carpet so that it will prevent children frorn accidentiy
skiing down the berrn on the north siden The applicant sha9l provide approval
firor anor Vail regarding the bushes and fencing to be constructed at the top
o# the berrn, stating tha# anor Vail approves of the additional materialm
e. The applicant shall apply material to the side of the magic carpet other than
eBrndoor-outdoora" carpetingm °The rnaterial to be used on the side shall be
approved by DR . The PEC recommends a material such as cedar siding, if it
wouId allow proper maintenance and operation of the lift.
fa The applacant sha3l provide a Ietter t~ ~~aff firo #he manufacturer of the
conveyor beIt stating that any unin#ended use of the Iift, such as jurnping on it9
will not be darrtaging to the lift or potentially injuricrus to an individtaal4
g. The PEC recommends that the DRB consider the `°L.ong Island`° color of
carpet3ng (a tanlbrown color) for th~ surface of the plat#orrr?s and deck area on
either side of the conveyor belto
9e A request for a conditional use permit and setback variances to aIlow construction of a
ski tow at the Lianshead ase area locate on Tracks Dand B, VaRLionshead First
Filing, south of 520 E. Lionshead Circle (Lionshead Center ui1ding).
Applicant: Vail Associates, represented by Joe acy
Planner; Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knudsten presented this reques# to the Board, Joe acy represented Vail
Assaciates. A brochure of the rnagic carpet was presented by r. acy to show wha#
the rnagic carpet looks 16kem Genera8 discussion was held concerning covering the
sides for protect6on of the equiprrlent and to irnprove aesthetics. A rr'otaon by Kathy
Langenwaiter and a second by Jeffi Bowen, voted 4-0 to approve your request to
amend the Developrnent Piane The condi#ions of approval are as #oIlows:
a. The applicant shali provide a regrading plan of the area fior staff and D
review and ap roval. The grading plan should address the pedestrian skier
bridges ensuring that access to that bridge is not blocked by any of the
regrading plan4 Ali grades shall be Iess than 2a1 slope. The rading plan shall
be redesigned so that the round is flush with the conveyor belt on the north
side ofi the IOft,
bw The applicant shall provide wraften approval from ail utility companaes, s#ating
that the proposal is rtot in conf6oct wath any use of the easemen#.
C. The applicant shall a ply material to the si e o# the magic carpet other than
,°indoor-outdoorAe car etsngA The rnaterial to be used on the side shail be
approved by DRB, The PEC recomrnends a material such as cedar sidin , if it
would ilow proper maintenance and opera#ion of the IiffiA
d. The appl?cant shall revegetate the grotand, up #a the east side of the Chair 8
terminal, prior to the operation of the Iifto
10, A request for asetback varaance to al~ow for anew garage and an expansion to an
existing residence, Iocated at 4238 Nugget Lane\Lot 5, ighorn Estates,
Applfcartte W.C. and CaroI Smail
Planner; ShelEy elio
40 I{athy Langenwalter presented this issue #o the Gornmission s#atirrg #hat the house is
under contract and that the reguest is real1y made by the Connollys. ~eneral
discussion of garage sizes was held and the impact on the surrounding areaw I# was a
enerai consensus that the garage size was not of concern, howevers that existing
Iandscaping and trees be preserved by fencings and if any exisfing aspens are Iost as
a result of the construction, that they will be replaced wgth 3`° - 4°' caliper aspens. As
weBl, if the Iarge aspen to the south of the parking area is lost, thera the parklng space
will be enlarged to meet the T"own's standards arad new vegetatlon as indica#ed in
condition 1 will be added, Jeff Boanoen rr»tioned to approve the request except fior #3
restricting the size ofi the garage, aIton illiams seconded the motione The PEC
voted unansrr»us9y t~ approve the request 3-0-1 wa#h the above conditions, with Kathy
Langenwalter abstaining.
11 e Diaraa Donovan sfiated that vvith the correcfions to the mAnutes that the minutes to the
Au ust 24, 1992 PEC rneeting were approvedm A motion was made by Jeff owen to
approve the minutes as corrected. Dalton illiams secondedo A vote was taken and
the motion passed unanimouslya
As there was rao further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7e16 Po .
peolminuYes\091492
ROTN + SHEPPARD ARCNm TEL No.3032980?20 SePn11,92 15:44 P.02
e ~
~
~
a
t
'S
g
8
~
e;
` aoM we MiFFr=ARi> xa PASQUA VAiI. POI.IC£ C?EPARTMFNT
. A R C° rl I ? a r r s
' 2t85 t$HOi11)46:^.9. t3)Nt%$9, K'{aid)f2rS17t 5 Ht6'1BP> S\O@H SHEPPARB.J + PASQq8t'4 F'5R9,+a'l6Tl...CI'S
aas~.iaa:.~~,ca ~t's.i<aae,n~aaeiraxr SN0WC30N $e HOPK$NS AitC1-i11'EC1-S
5
g'e PmE,Cw' D,R.B.,, Des1gn Team Worfi Sesaion
s:
11 September 1992
"a
a~ nurn3er of issues h~~~ ~een 3denTtfied during preutous P.E.C. ~ Design Team
wssrk sessions. iternize+~ ~low is a synopsis of the ma °~a~ F~,f.C. ~:oncerns and
• the Desigr, 7'ear~s res~a se ( ira bc~ld type)m Back-~ap gra,r~ic: mater€ai is attacfied,
p• i, The park°srag so1ution for the str~~ture rrgust be °sdenfified in detail.
. efer tc~ eoiclosed I Break own Pa irr irements for Vaii P.D. g , 9 and 10, t I 5eptember 1 92. is written and r h,c
. no is to#ais t e requir an rouided parking sp~ces baged on Vail
, OMStandards ar~ act#a~ai or~ site user r~eedse ~r e pa ing 3uti~rr~
, as ir~ ~ ted on the enclosed o ents 1s as follo e
; Existing #o remain 45 Spaces
(We lot b ~en Exi s`n unici al
and Mun3cipa# nrrex)
ew Garage ( 2 leve3s) 72 Spaces
; *Tota1 Pwov; ed 117 Spac
5 To#a! equire 117 Spac
s on Vail P~ in Standar ~
* ditional parktng sp~ces are avaiia ie in the recycli lot est of
t e e+nici ! Annex but t ey are no# included in the tota1 provi .
2, Descrsbe iype and species of tanting, concept for b~rming on top of
parking gar~~~ ~nd feassbiiity oppIantia,g on top oF garage.
` The resent t~~ ~ conce t i ctudes # e foilowin design
st te ies:
: A. 5tone wa19 ttrKacing an rade leve1 changes along the entire
. south facade of t e lice buit iesg an k~~ ~~ra e to media#e
' t e e1 ation c ante between t e Frontage c~~ and the rnain
` fevel of the police i! in .
a
' . Aspen and Ever reen tree 1anting aIong #he i hvvay
' e rt ent ri t of ~ between t e ighway exit ramp and
; the nort fa
h e of t e acilitp. This stra#e ill 6~ resente
to the i way epa entF
~
ROTH + SNEPPARD ARCNn TEL Nom3032980720 SePa11A92 15a45 Pa03
.
C. 1°hree a1#ernatives are being exp1or ~~r'een or burq~ ~~ie
. east edge the pa ing garage4
lternate 7s Continue the ber tha1 ~~curs at the 4-way
siop to the weSt, irr#o the Fi~ghway
epa tnent a$.and rz and caver the
, aPki(ig ga1°age. The top of tite L7erMn is
pces tly approximately 11 lower tFman the top
• of the rage slab. The #re reg Iy Iocat.
. . between the ber and tKe garage are
V ~ roxi ately 13' 1ower than the garagem To
ctive1y bury the parking gar~ e tat e~o
wa11 fs ex s~sed al the ~ e, 2 of the
' r iit Pint / tvergreen t~~~s wout have to t~e
re oved or relocated. The constructior~ cost
i ad wou1 ave to be consi er .
Iternate 2: Si ilar to AIterna#e 1 above ut reduce the
hei t of # e berin at the arage to ~ave 1 Pine
J Eve reert tr~~ ~~ed a ove. This sotut'son
would expose ° of the garage wall on the
. east on south east. 7'he construclion cost
impact wou! have to be consider ,
Alternate 3: Locate a t sh ~ompador in the lcz er 1evel of
the rage. Incorporate irash chutes from each
1elfido n to the compactor. tiave the Tzswn
. of Vail utilize a ick-up truck to ick up the
trash.
>
D. All existin Aspen trees wili be removed fro #1~ei't pr . ent
Iocataon ~ 'on the soulh edge of the site at the Kro os~d
rage er~t rtvee e wi11 attea~pt to transpLant t e ~~°s~r
cali er pen t es u~ our recommendation 's lo tant new
large # er aspens aIon t e south. Refer #o 1" m 20° slte plan
for location of exi in trees to be removed or re9ocate .
• E. efer #o t e site s tsons, sheet A-5 and # e mass niodel for
a ional lan scape s#rat i ,
' 3. at wili the hewght oi the rm beat the parking garage? iiowhig8iwal!
. It frcim the grade at the Frontage Road?
A series of stone terrace wa11s, boulclers, an rade Ieve1 changes
. between wa91s fncor orate to me iate the sca1e between the
° F~ont e Road an t e garage an t e buI1 ing. The heig t ifferen#ial
tween t e Fror~ ~ aim the top of e prage is approximate1y
. 111. 1s di ere sai wii1 e d~ced by the terrac s#epping of the
retaining walIs as in icated on t e enc#osed section t~~aWissg sheei Affi5.
4. There is st+#I ~ome questlon about the programmed site of t}~e police
. ~
ROlH + SHEPPARD flRCHa TEL Noa3032980720 SePm11,92 15y46 P.04
: clepartment, P6ease respond,
efer tc? the written synopsis h~ch a dress~ chronolo caf ihe
project, ~ouncil irectives and general project data, lrhis i1l be
dis#ributed and presented on Monday 14 September.
5a How much floor area is taken by the pcplice lobby? 1s the area
r~ecessary? Can ot~~r Tcswn functions util°sz~ some of the area?
T° e most recent oor plans ~ein revised to create a common
lobby J waifing area ich serves the communwt space i vacated
police s ~,.the police bui{ding and councii c4ambers ~~erflca .
°ihis Iob 9 y ( aiti area is adJacen# lo the new eIeva#oe s#air care
that occurs at e connection between the etistirog mun1ci af ut'E ing
art the n li~e building4
6g Do you need aII the conference rooms ycsu sh~w on the floor p1arss?
The main Ievet of the faciii#y s 2 conference rooms #hat ili atso
function as ect tive inte i rooms, an A intervlew roo .
The u er 1evel h a Chiefs conference room and a generat use
conference room utif ized y tri'me preveotion and the bui1 ar~~ ~sm<
7$ Can a crosswalk constructed in a tunneJ uroclef the frontage Road?
Ap roximate cod of a tunnel ws $300~000.00
I'he #ur~~~l woui ave to be approxi a1e1y 70a lor~~ an ~ould raoi
rece f~~ ~r~y n tura' day#~ ts a pi~ ~ t0 the stree1 ievel arrd
buil ir~ 1 ~i ~t ~ t e #or~ne! r~u ~1 be ext ety i icsslt .~s
_ eil as ex er~sive ~ T1~~ ~~st for a t s~nef i~ t~ incl~rded ira the bc~i#~~~~
~~n a°~ Sor~ cost esti ate.
. e are confi' # that rate i Ity Iocated cr swal ill ses ice>
: efer to she W9 for site i orFnationw
~3a !-#ave arsy plans en deveCopetl to uti!'sze the existing po1ice dc:pirtrnent
° spa that iIl be vacated orsce the police move ir~to their new f~~ifity?
. The l" has ee i ned around a co on Iob y 1 waiting area
adjacent to the lice s ace thac i11 e vacated. °This t~acated space
car~ e utilsze r communi rams, ivi a te conference r sd
on toilet rooms and additional unicipa1 office space as
requere 6
tfacat S ace in Leve1 ~ 3,054 S.F.
Vacat S ace Lower Leve1 ~ 2,366 S.F.
Approx`s a#ely Boo $,Fa of the vacated inain tevet sp~~e wiiE be
occupi by new #oi1et r ra~~~ ~ common aiting area ar~ common
Iobbya efer to 11811 oor plans for ad itionat information,
. 3
ROTH + SNEPPARD flRCHa TEL Now3032980720 SePm11,92 15446 Pm05
9~ Car~ ~~~ommodate the needs of #he po1rce departrnent by addir~g
onto the top of tfi~~ existing buildinga
. written synopsis of scheme , encfios , ( es 11, 12, and 13 ) as
• ell as °Town of Vait, P iect Summa ' dat 224 February 1992 and
17 a h 1992 as pre&ente #o the Vai! Town Counci1, Scheme D
" wou1d add S.F. on t~? of the existi~ m~art~cipa1 b~seldir~~e I°ollc~~-~ir~g
the presenta#ior~ o# t is sch e, as w~ l as schemes A, B & C the 7°O s~
Coundl ap rov further develo # scheme C. Sctaerr~~ C i's the
scheme resently beir~g deveioped@ Dia ra s of sch~ e C are
enc1osed for your revlew t sheets Al - AS ~m ,7t3e The front / south wai9 of the garage seems rather long, caii it 6u
. ar°kfculated to reduce its im cC?
efer to r p se Vs 2 3s Th~ ~~t recent revisaons to the site plan
, and mass model incorporate n utations an rec ses #o break uT the
Ien hof the arage stone wa1iR A majority the wafl is terrace ans3
bermed to r luce its 12s ei t_ sfi i pact w!#f be a fyzed. efer
' to the = 20` ass ode1.
31 e How wi11 the pick-up and export of tragh ~ccorr3piished3
~ are presently expioring 2 aiterrsafaves,
Iternate 1s Encl e a watk ay on the no h si e of t e existing
municipal ui1 ing ic Ieads from an exit at the
north ter inus of a new corri or Iocate be#ween #he
ex#stitt aanici ai uil snp and the new pol~~e
buil Ing and go to # e existing surface parking Iota
The tras #ruck ou1 # en circuIate eihan the
surface te#9 equirec ez~croach ent on i b ay
' o . ost as not been included in our most
recent const ion costt estimatew
Iternafe 2s lnsfall a trash compactor and smail recycle ins withan
the oii u`s9 ir~ ~ ~art the ir~~ an the compac1ed
trash t ru the existing surface Iot and aeoun the
nort si e of The munici a1 annex to #he existing
. recycle 1 .
12a Has the police bualding fa rs designed to aIIow for futur~ addititsils if
sqsaare f tage needs i~~~~ase yond present ay needs?
Y . See iagram Aw4, e11c1 , for 1oca#io11S ~ i'tionS.
1 3a Since the ~~erican Disab°slities Act is now in e1't°ect, will your dc.sign
, address tjandicap accessibility between all Ievels of tl~e police busiclir3g
and the exist°sng munic' al buildir~gx Are any oti7er upgrades piiinr~e~3
. fc~r the existing rrauc~ic;ipabuiiding?
4
i
~
ROTN + SHEPPARD ARCN4 TEL Noo3032980720 SeP.11,92 15:47 Pa06
7'he eIevator core for the police buildi~ as een revised and
reloca#e~1 to provf e vertical cir 1atic~r~ fc~r ~ e 1ice dupartr?reni, # e
pa ing garage an # e exis#ing a,nscipal uil "snga ~ are resc.nily
e no# con#racted to u rade any rtion of t e existing municapat
boildinga 7' e construction cost esti ate previous1y sub it~ed to
To r~ ~ounc1l for a prova! did not include any modificataoa~s or
revisio #o t e existir~g munici al buSlalirrg_
i
Based on oue currenl revl'ew of the exis1in trtunicipat building we
. have itemiz su esfed improverr~ents as iollowsa
COS°~
entry doors on w t facade $5,000m00
- z_
New ent f unsf oii west facade $15,000.00
and over 9Cm ra p
Revisio io t e existing inter°sor $4, 00800
ain stair
U~5 fo the mair~ er~t It~bby $32,ti (l.t1D
, an~3rcutation s ine to the we
A. >Ae ~eVisions !o #he mais, Ieve1 $20,000.00*
ant1 1ower 1evel * equir ari
extensave survey
Demo a?yd alter ions to t e vacat $T 5p000_0tI
lice s ace. Remodel s ce #o
. designed as 1arge expans of en space
i#h no interior pa ations
New roof to cover exsstin 1em areas $801000s00*
an !in to a itiom* ODues not
° c1ude upgrade
expsfiiig t~ ~ew
code snow ioa
E erior aentirtg and general touch9up 75,000m
Contingency 15% 27,900m00
q Total $213,900n 0
14o rsc:e the new p~~~cc- building i& ccsmpieTed how i!I public: arac3 sti3f6
enter the ex°ssting mun°scipaf building as weIi as thte lice building3
~ e main public ent for unici al and oli~e Wil1 e from #he
exi ing we 1obby x e municw uildingw Refer to ,a ram sheet
s3,
. 5
ROrH + SNEPPARD ARcH. TEL Nom3a3298o720 SePe11,92 15:48 Pm07
°f e parkin Isst between #he unici a1 annex and the municipai
' 6uiir~ing w°s 1 func#ion as a visitoo° ars siaff fe ~ cross aIks are
provided acr s #he rrontage Road for p ieiar~ traf#ic,
unlcipal sfaff can pa in the surface 1 or in the Ita~er leve1 of tFse
garagee
Police vehicles requirin s~curi#y park in the a,pper 1evel of the rage.
. Po1ice staff park in the 1o er garage Ievel. Pralice stafF and munici~~~
~~aff cart biAh utilize the cxr on elevatcar core to circu#ate between
: 1eve1s.
15a What is the est3rraat~d corrstrtackion cost of this project?
° n 25 Fe ruary$ 1992, sc eme C consistirs of a 17,953 S.F. polsce
building and a 34,000 S.F. r e was r ente to To r~ ~ounciis
'fhe present~ap1ic~n incl~,ded ar~ estG a#ed const~°uctiorr cost of
$5`66Qd06`~c0S~. The esti ale a1i 9~~~ e C et'e appro'Yed for fIl~~er
evetopmente The 25 February cost ki ate is included in t .
. ackage.
T ~ out t e deveIopment the roject e have continued to
refine #he desi n based on poti~e iepartmerat inpue, P.E.C. work
sesslosis and sta concerns.
°fhe updaied cost es#i ates date 11 September, 1992 includes
a ditional costs associat i#h # e cormcerrss derived feo previ~~s
wo s wons, etca described above as we11 as the followingc
li`E iNCREASEC)
. COST
~ tt increase in s uare f~ ~ e of ~60,000.00
Approximate1y 500 S.F. due
to new eIevator core re ire is,
Increase H.V.A.C. needs, and building
refinementw
. ~ itemade1 and al#eratsons to the $213,900.00
existite unici l buildia~~
eei in item 12 abcave.
~ 1Jnder pinnin lbe exisfior 1001000~0t8*
munici a1 uii iar uri const cti~n 0: Has not
ue to the desire to have a common been ver,fied
core eIevator li in the exastin
uII itzg an po1ice buildin floor IeveIsR
~ increase in the 1andscape budget $150,000a00
ue the a itsonal terrace tain3n
• a11s, pla ing and ber g require #o
. 6
ROTH + SNEPPARD ARCNa TEL Nom3032980?20 SeP.11~92 1;5:49 Pa08
reduce ~ sca1e and hl e the permmeter
of t e parkira ace. ther landscape
' c t increas rt e attsibu# to thp-
, additiona1 #ree Iantang Bu ~s# by
. oEm~, and the ~i n tea ~r the no fi,
' so in d east er~meter t e s##e.
inereasft wr~ ~onsul#ant fe clue to
Inrrease scope of work wit in existing
mucsicipal building.
1'~t~l EEstimaWed l~~~~~~ ~ F56'J'83,0961 0~~~
F~ n ~st ~s~i ~#a~ ~~i.~0
Totai Esti at Co~ts~~t~~t~~r~ ~ t a90
7
ROTH + SHEPPARD ARCH. TEL Nom3032980720 SePs11P92 15:49 P.09
~
~
BREAKDO f' PARKlNG RE lJ1REMENTS FOR 11A1L P.D.
°rhe number of parking spaces reqLlired is based can the c~~cW1ab1e space of the buildsng. I`~~erearc
basically three types of occupiable space in this projecza
(1) ~~CU iat~~~ ~~ac~ such as offices, r eption, etce
. (2) ConFerence rooms
% (3) Assembly areas
E~ch type of space is c:alculated differently to arrive atthe number of parkingspaces requwred for tFiat
area.
(1) The net square feet of the occupiable space such as offices, r~~eption, etca is divi~~~ 2-50
sq~~are feetm The resUltant is the number of parkir~~ ~~quired for these areas.
(2) For conference roor~s countthe r~urnber ofseats :n the room. Divide the tota1 number seats
by fi6 7"his wiI( give yoc.s the rsu ber of parking spaces required for Che confecenee roonis.
(3) For ass~i-nkaly ar~~s ca1cu Bate r~~~ ~~aure feet of the areas ivide by Lwhich is Xhe oc:cupant
load factor according to the t,lniform Building Codea This `s1E ive you the number of oc:cupants
for that area ferefore the nurnber of scats.
Agair?, svide ttie. total nLimberofseatsby_Sa Thgs tll giveyouthe nuniberofparkir~~~~~~~~reqs.,ired
• for the as5embly areas,
`A1l tiiree areas should be ad~~~ ~ogether for the tcatal nu ber of arking spaces required for ~~~c
bLiilding.
. Belo l~ ~~e breakdown for the E.xistir~g Mur~icipal, unicipal Annex and the New Police Statiori.
E EXIS'flN tJNICIP L
POLiCE ST"AT1 N NIClPAt_ ANNEX
i
5596 NSF 3648 NSF 3487 SF
750 SF' 2 2.3 8 250 SF 3 e6 250 SF ~ 14
68 S T'~ 2~i2 SEA1~5 328 SEATS 1
. ~ ~EA°i~S = ~o~ 8 SEA°fS = H~5 SEA°TS ~
5PACES SPACES SF'ACES
RF:' L1lRED = 31 E IRED ~ 71 REQUiRED =15 117 l`OTAL
' . . . . . . . . ~
. f. ~
~ - i
_ - - ~
v
~
e... ~ .
. ~
1 - ' - •'7' .
, - a°-~~ ~°s~
, - - - ~ - 3 ~
° .~-4°
. I J~. ;'y. `r,..: - M` 4~ - ~ ~ : ; _ . - - ti: °~r , ~ ? , ; - „~~t o
g . -49 ' ~~P~ ra
I,'
g-'64 !r -r~f~f
- + I
i
e
~ ~ .
IZ
yr
. . ~
~ ~ a•~ ~ ~r :i'` % > ; s
. ,
. ~ 8
:
a~
, e. . . _
.
'
, i
9
~ I
ti
1~ 14
~ ~aj : ~ •
B
~ wml,
w-mg
~ ~ • ~ ~ ' ~ ..,.o~e....ve...~r.«. , 8 ~ ~ ~
v-kh*,
- ° - - ~
r
~ r
g -
~
. ~ ~ c
~
. ~
. ~
~
rT
~
~
ere: z
. t-,a" s°r ~s~ 8 gp:.~ ' a;. • xJ'-m'~ ~.-e"_~° 1
e~ 7 ~ ~ ~ $ ~ ~
{r' f gg~, s~p~ ~ ' J a~ i f ,f r 1 p er ! p r f ~ ~ 1 Y q ~ J~ {i~T-=
~PF~ef~~' y~pa~ .}r, ' ; • l~~ ; ~~sf~fF' #~~:d" 1 a + ' a ~ g L 3 ~ : 1
i ~ ' f/ f~ /.~~'~f j J~a ~.f J • ~ ~ ~F A,,rl' ~j" }`Jf~~/' ' ~ ~ ~f ~ ~ ' ~ ~ v i : ' ~ y~
v,~~~.,~'s~n >`a~` ;."`.P°„t'Y`,',/`,'`~m%a I o-~<'`T~8°~~~` • ,a``~/.r~.~'1~ f d:.,.t' ~ . ~ . . + ~ . Ca,
~
3•; °
LC
CK'
° . C
o ~ ~ ; d'~,. ~ y r r : ' $ r f . ?`f ~ ~ > f ~ 9 ~i.w.~ - ~ e I i ' ~ a d 4 ~
d x`e s•~'.F F . . ° ~ ~ i ° el ma
/ f r 1
. 1 ~
_ y
. ~
t-C
_ ¢a
~
. ~
. ~
ROTH + SNEPPRRD ARCNm TEL No.3032980720 Sepa11,92 15=51 Pa12
TOWN OF VAIL , .
. • OI-0~~ ~~ART ENT
. ~ ~~~hitects
Snc~~ on and Hopkit~~ ~~~hitects
Febrt~~~ ~
ar~ 17, 1992
. PROJXCT '
~~~er ~~elo rnent of the Pol.ice and MuniciPal fa~ili~~ ~n
Lionshead Garage tv~~ ~~~~~~ed to tYze PEC Oa~ ~~~e 10, 1991# it
, was suggested tI~at the municipal si~ e r -eva1ua°~ed the
¢ol3.~~ ~ artmoot expansion..
. Severa1. lans were developed to ad r~~~ the progr r~ ~or
' rovrt W The first was 4 two-1evel 22r 000 am f. faci1i~~ ~~ov~
levels of ark3~ , l~~~~~~ to tY~~ ~~st of tne exisitng P. o and
v~~~~~~ all spaoo Vtit i~ the Munici a1 uildi ~
T1~~~ ~ ~~~~nt~~ ou~oil, but rejected. It wao requested
#m at the bu.~ldi be do nsizvd and redesi r~~ ~~ommodate
current needs r~ The resultir~ ~cheme c{ a 170000 a f,
facfl#.t~ arkin v 1~~
The ~~~ci~ ~~~~~~ed t i aheme and ~'equepted that a ne~t e i
..A,..~ be explwo~°e ~.t~at co~al utili~.~~ ~ ~ space that would
be vaoated, Irne r u1~ Schem , ~ ~~~ilit~ ~~~r
t ~ ar in 1.~vel an ~ emo 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ s In the
. uni.oip 1 uil ing.
9
Againf °t~~ ~an ~ ~ ~~viewed anc~ ~ all r uersion w~~ ~equeoted,
;uYiich produced Scheme A. Thi 1an oo€~ai~~~ ~ ~ al1 dditi~n
tc) °t. ~ ~~st to house tt~~ moot needed fun~tions; Bookin { o1d3.n
' ata ooc~~d storage areas. i#: al~o inc udoo a fu1l remode1 of the
. exi tiiig P.D. r~~~ ~ axi i~~ ~~aila le,
sinc t i~ plan does not mee°~ ~ ~ ~~rr nt a " ka ~ed"
' sche-me was ir~~~~du~~ ~ ~ ~om it~~~ the 'now two-l uel
arking garage wit €~oking and Hol in funotion , and remode3.s
ttze existi ~ . area in the Mu fci al Buii ing,
. g Th i itial analysis at the star`~ of projoet corrcl~~ed that
. ' ~ ~ ~xi~~~ng buil in i verel.y inadequote in 3.t ize and
, g layou~ for ~urrer~t staff. it cou1 a t~o ir~~~~ liabili,ty
¢ for the Town of Vai~ to the ~~curfty nd apace
require .or ensi ~~e pr~~~ ~res suoh as bookin , oldin ~
: evi ence processi nd r~~oras torac3e. It ~ ~~~~~d ?h~~ the
. ~ uti] ~ ~~artment today a staff of 60 is onl
s3.i k~tly 1.ar er th~~ th~ ~~ea ~ri inally c~~upl i~ ~ staff
. ~ember~ to 1971, a
± . h-a need for a~n ex ai7sion to ~ ex~~ting PoIi~~ ~ artm~~t i~
cl~ar~ ~his presea~~ation ill show ~~eines Af f ,
,
. reviewing the o orttinities, 3tfa1l ~ an ao5ta for each.
.
ROTH + SHEPPARD ARCH. TEL Noa3032980720 SePa11492 15:52 Fa13
P~~~ ~arrrtaent Febr ty.25, 1992
SCHEMF 5cheme D Is a phased version of Scheme 8 os Scheme C. !e consists of a remodeI Po1ice
. [~epartmenC anc# Counc°s1 r wi#hin khe extsting Municipal Building, tota1fn 7,270 s.f. of
remodeled area. Storase area wii{ be added 1n a new att(c space ahove the Counc Chamber for
1,650 %is of sforage capac~ty> Two ievels o# parkirr $arage wili t~uiit, ~rith tt~e saIly ~t,
booki~r and he~ldio~g area5 io the top parklr~o leve1 t ta sar~se as the exIstir~g i~swer Ievel c~
P. D. ?
Area Sumn'~ ~~mode9 Area
. Main Level
t'olice Area 3,054 SF
Coasncit cl~aniber 1,850 SF ,
Subtotal Matn Level 4,904 Sf
° 2,366 SF
#.owec Level
Totai ~ 7,27 SF
New hrea
tower Level l Garage Level t
Sally rt f Booking J f-iolding 2,000 SF
Se sce Ateas / Stairs lStota 18080 5F ~
Gara$e Use 14,142 Sf
~ubtot~l Lower tevei 17,222 5F
Gata tP Level 2 ' . 16,788 SF
Totaf Now Construc#ion 34,010 5F
cost Es#imait .
AREA C sT T ~~L
Rem el PP Main Leve{ 3,054 S() .i 52,7~0
Beii3 e! PD Wvvor Level 2p366 50 118,300
~ #~em el Council C:~amker 18700 $50 $85,000
; Add 1-11C xoilets in CC ISO $100 15,000 ,
New ezx:, Stora e 1,050 $50 $92,500
: Subtat-1 - -Construction $4fa3e500
; t~ew Parking Garage
; #dew B 6c/Fiold & Basemto areas 3,080 $160 492,800 .
. j 1.ntry Level Minus Rook/#-1o1d 1 4,1 42
+ 1_tawer t.€:,,ei 1 68768
, .rota1 Ciarage Constr'uCtior3 30,930 $60 $1e855,800 .
. . Saibiotal Parking Siructt,fe $2,34 ,600
. uslding Construction To1al e $2,012,100
furn3itire / Furnishirt s $62a30tl
' Siie ork l5tl~~ 120,000 '
Const lott °fi"otat 2,9948400
Cocs#~~~~ncy 15% 449,160
Subiotal $3,443~560
Deslgn Pees ' $150,000
e T 7AL R JEC°i' C ST $3,5 3,560
.
. ~
RU1H + SHEPPARD RRCNo TEL No03032980720 SePm11,92 15a53 Pm14
~
.r i`°r~Fi~~ ja~Pda~'ac rat February 25, 1992
SCHEMEC ° .
Scheme C represents a nevv twoFstory$ 17,958 sefa Poii~~ ~aellsty Iocated over two levels
~nc1osed parking garage, The 1,450 ssf. Fiolding and Booking area and 550 sofa Sally ort are
lz~cateci i~s the ~'plwr parkir~g 1ev~;l w1t1' additsc~nal area for A circa~t~t+or~ cc~~`e, secvice arsstczra Hc~
spaces. Tiic existing Police afea in thi- ureic:ipai Build~~g wiii vacated ond av-13~6i~ r
expansion by (ather departrr~ents, ' rea Sumnia
' Remode1 Ar~a 0 SF
h3~w Area
. Ma4n Level ` 1 185?3 Sr
Up~r tevec 6,387 SF
Stibtatal 1 x f 178956 SF ~
, Lower tevel J ~~riage Level i
Sai1y rt / B king I Flolding 2P~~~ Sf
$€;rvi ° Areas J SYaits ~ Storm 1,080 SF
, Garage tJse 14,142 SF S4ibtofal i.ower Level 17,232 5F
'~ara e Level 2 16,788 SF
7" ~ ~ons#ru ion 51,96 5F
Cost ti ate
AREA COS°T TOTAL
Realode! Area 0 $0 $0
New PD Oifice Con.struckion 1 17q958 $120 $2@i 54g96ik
. N~w Parkin Garage
hdow B klHotd & Basernt, areas 3d080 160 $492,800
En#ry Level M°sniis ok/11oid 14,142
l.ower Level 15,788
Toia1 Gara~~ Construct°son 30,930 $60 1,855~800
. ui{ding Cons#ruc1ion Total ° 4,503,56
Furnlture / Furrsishirtgs $93,fi84
. Sit~~Wos'k 75,0()D $8 $120Y()00
Construcii~n Totat 4,717,444
~ontingency 15% $707e617
. Sutatoka1 $5,425,061 e
Oesi n Fees o $235,000
i° T P j~CT COST 5,66 ,06°i
~
~
~
° ° p ~ e ~ " ~ • ~ ~ ` ~~a o." -s
~Atl~
R
lot fl
°~.l ~ ° r ~g ~ ZE
a Yi~rt?"DR,~
ZE
r°r
~~aot5~Dea,sa00b~anqoaaao" cc
0
e
fl o f.k
a
q o LC
r~
Q~
C
~~~esaoma ~ . 1`~
C
~apr.e0 a ~aa p
~
Tr mmsT14,t+4 WA"w~d
CD
~
r
- - ~
m
. i~t 1~ U
~ - ~ ~ C.~
a~67 ~
cJ
7
.
1.1 . • C3
. .
' _....r.....:.....~..... w.... . ..............._..e.....,..:: .
.._......._..._...._w...._ ...,.._......._.._.__...~.._.e. ~...,.a..
s
~ -
~
~
~
A ~
~
~ TM
~
.qw.. ~
~ g .
-
~
1
t
~
~
or-OIRMIr ~ ~ $ .
nayfs.,~ °°m~^p°~~~ •
.L~
. . . , . . . .
c
~r
+
~
~
-c
~
~
4 9 ~nH A ~fWW-W~
. ~
~
rr
0
~ ~
~ ~
oc
~ ~ ffi t ' 0 ~ ~ ~ ~3'3 • ~
~ ~ ~*~y;;.~ •~~s~~~~~~•w~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~w~~~w~~~~ ~
~ ~ ~ °~e~ ~H-,~'• '•~p' "
~ '(2 ! e
cr
CD
~
~
~
e ~
. . ~
t-~
.a....... , . , . . . . .A_ ~
c
~
~
~r
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
~
I
r~
. ~
c
c~.
~
~
~
€
~
~
cr
~
~
~ k^
4"C
~
A= 4
Q~'~~az La
.
. ~ti
, . ~
- -
~r
~
_ rr
-c
. ~
x
~
, ' • -
AMA
foarp,
~
! e , ~ am ~
f
m ~
y f
S - a
~
NJ
s m 6 w 3ffi _
~o
5,
EMORAN I7
TC}s Planning d Envir~nmental Com ission
FRC)Ma Community I3evelopment I)epartment
TaATE. Septe bex 14, 1992
SLJBJECT; Arequest for a v °ance fro the parking st d ds for pavfng to allcsw a
gravei p king lot 1ateci at the AC Schoo10149 N. Frontage Road, an
unplatted site commonly referred to as the ountain Be1l site north of 1-70 and
est of the ain Vaii 1-70 intexchanges
Applzcant: "I°he ABC School, Inc., represented by Hollg Bukacek
Pl r~ers Shelly ello
Im DESC IP'TION OF EVATtIANCE Q S D
The applicant is requesting av `ance from the reqiairement to pave and stripe the
ABC school driveway\parking loto In June of 1990, an aendrrlent to the existing
Conclitional Use Pe it £or the ABC School was approved for a building expansian,
.A require ent of this Conditional C7se Pe it at~endment was that the
°veauay\parking lot be paved and striped prior to the issuance of a. final ~ertxficate of
C3ccupancy for the a°tion. Currently, the project has a ternporary Certificate of
Occup cy,
"The applicant feels that it is ~nreasonable to require the paving of the area because
there is a possibility of th~ area beir~g redeveloped by the Town for employee housing
in the future d isg ffid1e8eY09HAi9 seeking relief frorn this r~quiremerat. If this site is usecl
foz° employee hausing, the paving may be removed or damaged during the
redeveloprnent and cons ction process,
II, BACKGROUNI)
The A C Sch 1 is a private, nonprofit child-care center located on the Town of Vail
pcel known as th~ ountain Bell site. e p ce1 is a 25-aca°e site k~~~~ ~urrent1y
contains the ountain Be11 mica°owave facility, the Learning Tree and zhe Ak3C
Sclaoal. The Parcel is zoned A°cul~ural and Open Space. In this zone dzstrict,
schooIs e allowed as a conditional use. ~ original lease for the school, (initaated
zn 197$ and renewed thz°otagh 2002), stipulates that any builclings or other
i provernents will become the property of the Tc?vvn of Vail upon expiratio~ or
ter ination of the Ieasee
1
A Conditiona1 IIse Pe it foz a building exp s2on of approxi ately $68 sqe ft. on
both the north and south sides of the building was approved in 1990 and p ially
cons cted in 1991e °I'he addition prouided an adrninistrative area, a reception
room9 an additiona1 classroo and increased storage area, The expansion allowed the
schoal to add 7-$ stutients to the pz°oga a No staff 1rscreases vvere anticipateci as a
result of the expansione °I'he proposal also included the -pavinR of the Parking area
and t1~~ provision of 5 designated short terin loacl°anglparking spaces which would have
brought the faeility into confortnance with the Town's stand dse It is this portion of
the project that the applicant daes not wish to complete9
CRI _ RI.A A FINIaINGS
ITpon revfew of Criteria and Findings, Section 1$.62a060 of the Vail Municipal Code,
the Community I~eve1op ent Iaepartment recommends deniat a~ ~~e requested
v °ance based on the following factors;
A. Considezation of Factors:
la e reIations i of t e requeste variance to ot er existing or
otential ses an struct res in the vicinity.
Currently, there are two schools on this sitee Paving and striping of the pking and
°veway ea ould i prove the ea by creating a more effXcient parlcing areao
Paving and s°ping of the pa kXng lat would not prohibit any future uses for the sitee
The staff believes that the paving and striping are i portant, however9 we also fee1
that so e relief fi°o this requirement is reasonable. We suggest that the paving work
be postponed zn order to allo time to determine if and when an e ployee housing
project wi11 be built orr the site. e believe zt vaould be a wasted effort to require that
the school pave the °veway if in the ne future this area, ay have zo be z°edesigned
to a11ow for access to the employee housing project. For thrs reason, a three year
extension on the delay of the paving seems resonable:
2s e de ree to jc relief fro te strfct an literal interpretatian
and enforcement of a seci ie regulatio is necessary to achieve
compati ility an unifor ity of treat e t a og sites in the
vicinity or to attain te o jectives of t is title wit out grant of
s ecial r°ivilege.
Accordang to Section 18a52e080 (E) - P king - Stand ds - Surfacing9 csf the Town's
unicipal Code, all p king eas e to be paved. The staff requires that this
stand d be met on all prajects if y type of irriprovement is approved, and sa e
a°elref fro this requirement ould not be agrant of special privilege, as uae have
allowed for a paving dela.y for two other property owners, the Town and the Josey
2
residence on Rock1edge Roada Staff fnds it is reasonable to not req€zire the area to be
pavecl until such time that it is dete ined if employee housia?g ill go on the site. If
the proposal for employee housing on this site is abancloned, then the paving and
striping should be completed in a timely mannea°a
3. T e effec# of t e requested variance ota lig t ancl air, istri tion of
opu1atic?n, transportation an traf~ic facilities, pub1ic facalities and
utilities, anci pttblic safetye
The staff feels that it is irnportant that the area be paved if it is dete ined that this
site is not to be used fcar employee housing. Paving and s'ping th~~ ea wou1d
i~crease the effzciency of the 1ot and imprcave the safety level by c1ear3y delirzeating
p king d drop-off eas.
B. 'I'he P1annina and Environ ental Co rnission shall make the foilowiczg
findings before anting a v °ance;
1m That the granting of the v ° ce will not constitute a grant of special
privzlege irzconsxstent with the li itations on other properties classified
in the sa e district,
2. Z'hat the gx°ting of the v'ce uaill not be detri ental to the public
health, safety or welfare, ar aterially ir~~urious to properties or
i prove ents in the vicinpty,
3. 'I'hat the v" ce is w anted for one or ore of the follcavaing reasons:
aa The strict lzteral interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulation would result in practical diffgculty or unnecessary
physical h dship inconsistent ith the objectives of this titlea
b: There are exceptions or extraordin y circumstances or
conditions applicable tca the sa e site of the v° °ance that do not
apPlY ~~~erally to other prope °es in the same zone,
C. The si-rict interpretation or eraforcement of the specified
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the owners of other properties in the same dis 'ct.
3
IVa STA CC7 NDA'I'IC)N
The staff recommends denial of the v`ar~~e requeste We find no physical h dship on
which to base the gr tir~~ of a v 'ancea We find that the pavang and striping of this
lot wouId increase its efficiency and improve the safety 1eve1 of the ea. How~~er,
we do find that the appl'zcant should not be required to pave the °ea until such ti e as
it is dete gned that an ernployee hcausing project will be located on the site. We
would recommc;nd that the PEC amend the existing Gondztiona1 TJse Pe it for this
site to extend the requir~ ent to complete the paving by Septe ber 15, 1995.
We believe tlze extension meets the crite€ia listecl below for a conditional use
amen enz using the same rationale as identif'°ied in the v°ance me cs.
1m elazioraship and impact of the use can development objectives of the
Town.
2. 'I'he effect of the use on light and air, distribution of populaticz~,
tr sportation facilities, utiiities, schools, paz°ks and recreation faciiities,
and other public facilities needs,
3. Effect -
apon tz°affic with particul r~ference to congestion, automotive
d pedestrian safety and convenfence, traffiL flow and contr°ol9 eA6sc6iSS9
aneuverability, and re oval of snow frorn the street and parking eas.
4. Effect upon the ch acter of the area iri which the proposed use is to be
located, including the scale and bulk of zhe proposed use in relation to
s ouncling useso
e support th~ extension of the pavi~g require ent to Septe ber 15, 1995a The
requesx eets develop ent objectives of the Town and will not be de °mental to the
surroun °ng area or uses for the reasons sta~~d under the v ° ~~~eria. The request
meets the findings for a conditional use as it is co patible with the zone district, fls
not i~~urioazs to the public, and co plies with the csanditional use criteria described
above,
$1Z11y'VMmM\abc.904
4
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning and Environrnental Com ission
F C} e Community Developrrient epartment
DA . Septe ber 14, 1992
SIJBJECT": Arequest for a work session for frorat and side setback v °ances and a
v°ance to allow parkzng in the fi-ont sezback for the cons ction of atriplex
1 ated at 44 i11ow iZoad\Lot 9, B1 k 6, Vail Village First Filing,
Applicanta °Towerrnarc Co oration
Pl ner: Shelly Mello
1. ESCRIP C)N F TBE VARIANCES REQUESTED
"I'he applic tis requesting a orksession to revi~~ a request for a series of vaziances
necessary to cons ct a proposed 3-fa ily d elling unit ith p ially belr~w gade
sctured p king on the property lasted abovee e v °ances e necess y to allow
the following.
1, uilding encroachrrients into the 24' north (front) and east (side) sezbacks;
2. eck and z°oof overhang encroachrnents into the north (fronz) and east (side)
setbacks and;
3. P king to be locateci in the 20' front setback. ~or the purposes of zoning, the
staff will consider e north sicle of the property, adjacent to illow d., as the
front setback because access is being taken fz°o this sicie of the lotm
Currently, a non-confo ing residence is located on the site. e~urrent building
encz°oaches 12 feet into the 20 foot setback on the north d $ feet-6 inches into the
20 feet setback on the easto zs building will bc; completely demolished cl replaced
by the proposed multi-fa ily projects
Z"he eo is organized in the following manner:
1. Surrflm of ning Ccsnsideratians;
2. elatecl oals of the Vail Village aster Plan;
3: eliminary comments relating to the varia~~~ criteria d;
4. Staff Issue and Conce s.
1
ZC3NING CONS E~ATIONS
I.dot size: 0.29 acres or 12,589 square feet
Zoning: High Density Mu1tiWf zly
Allowgd\Regm EMposed
Site Coverage 6923a9 squ e feet 5215e0 square feet
(55{%a) 41 w4%
Density
G FA 60% or 7,553 sqaft. 7553 square feet
T.Tnits 7 3
uilding Setbacks 20 feet on all sides 12'-6" north
20' south
10' east
eck Setbacks 15 feet for decks 4' rzorth
5 ' above grade 13 ' south
6' east
ITnder ound No p king a11oweci 8' b" north
P king in 20 f t front setback
Pking 8 spaces, 75% enclosed $ spaces, 100% enclosed
Height 48' 48'
IJ dscaping 3776 6059 sqa ft. or
or 30% 4$%*
~ Landscaping d s not include at gz°ade decks or `vewaye
II~m EL,A D GOALS A.ND OBJEC'T ES OF THE VAIId VIIdi<AGE MASTER
PI.AN
"This site is specifically ad essed in the Vail Vi11age Master Plan. The PEC should
consider these goals and objectives when reviewing this a°equest, e staff feels that
in general, the proposed development is in line with the Vail Village aster Planm
The following exce ts specify the goals, and objectives and sub- ea concepts for this
site.
2
illow frcle S r°ea #2
ost cases, the levels of development throughout this sub-a.rea greatly exceed what
xs allowed under existing zonfng °gh enszty ulti-Fami1y). Gross residential fl a°
ea ratios (GRFA) range fZ°om e6 to 1.3, withh a~erage of 1.01. ith the exception
caf one p el, 1 properties wi zn is subm ea. e develop at, ox° over, ezr
perrnitted levels of velopment. As such, ere is li e deveiopment tentia.l left in
is sub-area,"
% ,
ves,a.r
~ wOv~R HoaJag ~ .
~
?p% , 9
a.~DaE ~ U a
1~~ pf_ P ~ ~ ~
a~~~~e
mo:e:aW,a;s.:.oa;aa A9VA
a.a:o: ~,~GE
,.e.vo At", :
~ m o '
~
~ #1lY~ ~S4a~E
sOId4}4
LOC
{ .
.
#2-3 iliow Circic Infill
"Presently this is the oniy propez°ty within the sub-area that is not developed to, or
a.bove, existin ensi 1ow cesm hile sl°aght increases in sidenti density
ay be conside d ira the revetoprnent of th~s p cel, the shape of the lot ay
serzously °der the tentia1 for GRFA greater than what is pe itte by
existing zon' gm Adequate 1 dscape bu ers between this pcel d'I'own roads d
adjacent prope ees should be °n 'ned. tough e redeveltsp ent of this property<
Sct d p en would necessary for y ad `tional level of evelopmentm
peciai e phasis on 1.2, 3.1, Sml, 5440"
Goal #1 rccourage the `gh q lity redevelopmertt while prese ing the unique
arc itectzcr°a1 sca1e of the village in order° to s tain its se e of
co tsrzit,y a zdentitya
bjective 1.2 e up °ng and r evelopment of residentiai anci
3
cornrrrercial facilitiesa
Goal #3 To recr~gnize as cz top praority the enhcznceanent c,f the walking
experience throughout the vilXagew
bjective 3e 1PhysicaIly i pz°ove the existing pedestfian ways by landscaping and
other i pz°overraents9
Goal #5 Incr°eczse and zmprove the cczpaczty, efficzency arad aesthetics of the
transportation and cir°culatzon syste throughout the townm
bjective 5.1 eet p king demands with public and pr`tvate p king facilitiese
Objective 5.4 Irnprove the streetscape of circulation co `dors throughout the Villagem
IVm C I IA A FIN INGS
In reviewing variance requests, the FEC must consider the Criteria and Findzrzgs, zzz
Section 1$o62efl60 of the Vail unicipal Code and base all approvals or denials upon
the follovving factors:
A. Consideration caf Factorsm
14 "T e relations f of t e requeste variance to ot er existf g or
otential ses art StI°llCtlll"eS 111 te vici itym
am uildina and P kin Setback Issues
The surrounding area is cornprised of high density multiwfa ily projects ith
the exception of the single fa ily residence to the south of Vai1 oad. is
project ill be compatible wzth the surrounding development, Setback
encroach ents exist on a nu ber of properties adjacent to the proposal. These
projects include The illows, iva idge Scauth, Riva Ridge North, d
iverhouses ishop F k to the north of the proposal is an SDD d has
inirriu setbacks of 5 feet zn certain eas of the pzojecta Decks and
under ound parlczng for ishop Pk project a1so encroach into e front ancl
side setbacksa
Staff believes that so e relief fro the setback requir°eznents is w anted,
however, we be1ieve that these encroach ents shou1d be ini ized as maach as
possible. e wou1d ask that the applic t consider pivoting the building to the
south slightly and/or possibly reconfiguring the ass of the building to
decrease the amount of encroach ent along Willow Drive. e
undergrounding of the p king is posative and encroach ents for this type of
st ct e have been allowed on the adjacent propertyo
4
b. eck Setback Issues
The staff would like to see the decks eet the setback stand ds cus°rently
a11owed by Secticsn 2805$0050 of the Municipa1 Code. This section states:
" alconies, decks, tertaces, and other sirrlilar u oofed ~~~tures
projecting fy°o a structure at a height of ore than five feet above
ground 1eve1 may project noi znoa°e than five feet nor moxe than onePhalf
the rrianimu z°equired cii ensioz~ a required setback area, or may
project not more than five feet nor mcare th orze-forth the mini um
z°equired di ension into arequired clistance 6et een builciingse A
b~cony or deck rojecting frcarra a higher elevation rnay extend over a
Iower balcony or deck but in such case shall not be deemed a roof for
the lovver baicony or cleckm ( de 8 (1973) 17m2Q3a)„
e believe the decks can be recozafxgured so that no setback v'ances e
needed,
2. e de ree ta ich relief fz°o the strict an Iiteral iter retation
and e forceme t of a s eciie regulation is necessary to ac ieve
compati ility an unifor ity of treat ent amo sites irt the
vicinity or ta attai the o jectives of tis title without gr nt of
s ecia1 rivilege.
A.s discussed above, the surroun °ng properties have been granted v'ances for
ite s si il to those being requestecl in thzs proposale Z'he develop ent of
this site is limited due to the lot size ancl configuration, ere are 20' setbacks
on each side of the propertye Vail oac1 also encz°oaches onto the ~~t on the
south side af the propertya
3. e e ect of the re este varia ce on lig t a air, istri utio of
o ttlati n, trans ortatio arn traffic facilities, u lic facilities ara
tilities, and public safety.
There il1 be no i pact on any of the above caiteriao The shado and shading
of this building on adjacent properties and public z°oad ays will be li ited
because the bu1k of the builcling will be located tow ds the center of the
propertym No at grade p king is proposed. "I"he Public Works epartment has
requested at easeznents for ainage and road ay erzcraa.chmengs be obtained
for this property as part of the planning process for this projects
B. °The P1annirsa and Envfa°onmental Com xssion shall make the followin~
findan s befo~e zrantin a v °ance:
5
l. °That the gr ting af the v " ce will not constitut~ a gr t of special
privflege inconsistent with the limitations on other prc~~erties classified
in the s e dis °ct4
2. °That the gt°anting of the v°ance wi11 not be dett°x enta1 to the pubiic
hea1thP sa.fety csr ~elfare, or aterially injurious to pZ°~~erties or
improvements in the viciniiy,
3, °I'hat the v°ance is warranted for one csr ore of the follcawing reasonsa
am The strict lxteral interpretatiota or enfoxcement of the specifaecl
regulation wouid result in practica1 difficulty or unnecessary
physical hdship inconsistent with the objectfves of this title.
bm ere e exceptions or extra.ordinary circu stances or
conditions a,pplzcable to the same site of the v°ance that do not
apply generally ta other properties in the same zonea
C. The s°ct inte retation or enforce ent af the specifiecl
regulation would deprive the applicant of privileges erajoyed by
the owners of other praperties in the sa e dis 'ct.
V. STA C NCE NS AN ISStTES
The staff is concemed with the following elernents of thzs request:
l. The extent of the proposed building encroachmeng on north side of property
adjacent to illow Roads "I'he staff belxeves that by pivoting the building and
rel ating po °ons of the buzl °ng ass, th~ ~~croachrnent of the building into
the side and re setbacks coulcl be ini azedo e also feel that the
encroachment of the p`aily undez°gt°ound sctured parking into the front
setback is acceptable.
2. The declc encroachrnents along Willow Road and Vai1 Rd. should be eli inated
in order to maintain a buffer between the publ~c roadway and the buildinga
3m The provision of adequate landscaping a.long the east property line adja.cent to
The zllows is impoi°tant in order to itigate the encroachment of the
pz°oposed building. L dscap° g along the north and south sides of the project
is als~ criticalo It would be helpful to staff to have a better idea of the speci~'ic
pl ting materz s xhat e proposed for ese eas.
4. The site development, ie. walkways9 steps, fences and pillars, alang Vail oad
should be minimized,
6
5. y increasing the "clipped gab1es°°, the appearance of the ass of the building
could be d~creased. Although this d snot i pact the degree of
encrczach ent, the staff feels that this effort should be made to minimize the
40 ass of the overa11 building.
The staff feels that in general, this project will be a positive addition to the Willow
Cis°c1e area and that it is in conformance with the Vai1 Vallage as~er Plan. We fee1
that the proposed bual °ng clesign and ateiials are compatible with the surrounding
area given staff's suggestionsm We alscs believe it to be posztive that the existing
everg-reens wiil not be disturbed d that the p king is corripletely encloseds
sMly,.=mOSitaw s.909
7
l.egend _
Exisling Tr~es
r lJ2 S'~fUCe
'f" ' f ~',O~{7T2~Q 'C~ ~ 3-~"Z-tA' fiigri
4-6' 4"10.
~`.n ' ••n':.~ ! ~1,' 1 i ' p,SSJk3T1 01,5fl%Clusnp i
t i ` r ~~'1£;
V~/itl0ws Canada F~edCtiu PfForm
` -
0
Shrubs s5~atton
- y 25 aag, 7
perennials
Ganon
1-?WT't
CD 1700 Sq.Ft.
f \ ~D
l-
r'=
.
S " rCt_
j - ~a € 5~~ ~
i
= =
_ _ - -
J------__
_ _ _ t
._fl t
J
- e r ~
CJ CJ ~
- ~ ~
(D Q)
,
^ f 9
O ~ -
~
o~ t~a'i,l~ar
/ eee .mr'u-~,m~6.
%
PLAN A7 iJPPE62 LEVEL
. o
~
QoAa ro~~,a,Qee, ~ ,
;
- - - - - - -
TY. ~
~ : -
,
,---t . ; • ' ' _ ~ _ _ , ~1'~4
~
r- - - _ 1
t~
i~
~
~
.
,
~ --j - - -
-
' . ~
~ - i
\ I
\
~ -
_
. ~r x
'
R--
.
. ,
, - e
;
PAr~pr
. , ,
~ . ,
.
,
.
-
---B--Qv,
PLAN A7 EN i RY LE'JEL
\
~
~
U(_,vi
_ 4 - ~ " ~
-
_ _ - - - - ,
, - -
~
L
,
,
a-
~
~
~
, I
3 E ---r
~ ~ f
5
.
6L L_EVE L _
Tov oF Ricu~ /
-
i
UNIY-'tc,~a~
/
~ ~ . -
-
IIrUI II f L i~ r I ~ c . •~C 1" 'a~ y ,
ui a f
T.c-- T
uFttt~3
E4. e qr~.'~r~"
I
I. .
Fl-_.
7
~
L4hii`f'2. L4411T-3
50111H ~LCVATI0I4
~
m~ I I I I I I I II I~ I I I I I I " III i'. Et. o ~L
t ~ - uulT i 2~J FL.
Y. - •`~.;J ~L. G~~o~
" g
I i
I
. FL [
I 7I r I~II III I ~ ~ 1`. UuIT I 15T rL_ '
Ll i~117°.3
EFa'>"T CLE~/f>Tioi~
7aP o~ Rt~E _
E6. _ 95'-a"
~NIT-I WFf 1
' JU77~ _ 2~10 . FL.
. -..l. -L
~ "I ~ ' y. LIIJi7 2 24D. F_
i
i.
EL L4 O'
- L1urT 2 I$T FL. ~
T I IS7 FL.
u11iT- 4 uuil-a u{~IT -3
SoUTH t__I-5VATIQu
MEMORANDUM
Tm F'l ning d Enviz°onmental Commissaon
FR. M: Co rnunity I3evelopment ep ment
ATE: September 14, 1992
SITB7ECTm A. request for a~ork session for a majcaa° amendment to ST)D #4 Cascade
Vi11age to arnend the developrrrlent plan for the Waterford dCo erstone
p cels i~ ~a A.
,Appiicant-0 CM Enterprises represented by Eustaquica ~ortana and
Commercial Federal Savzngs
Planner: Shelly e1lo
1. INTfJ IJCT'I N
In Juiy of 1992, the PEC reviewed a proposed arnendment to the Cascade Village
SD #4, Area Aevelopment lana The proposal specifically addressed the
Waterford site 1 ated at the co ger of esthaven Drive d the South Frontage oacia
[Tpon co pletion of this work session, it was decided that in orcier to move fo d
with the endment to the Waterford site, that the Comez°stone site to the west of
Waterford would so need to be amended. The changes to the Co erstone site are
necessary because currer?tly ere is an interdependence between the two sites as it
rela.tes to the proviszon of p king, Each site is ownecl by independent entities d rt
is tY~eir desir°es to eli inate any interdependence between the two sites. The aoal of
this effort is two developrnent plans which can be conszructed ipdependent of the
other4
For the uoses of ihis work session, the staff memo will fcacus on the proposed
develop ent for Comerstone and lirnrt comments on the Waterford site to issues of
ongoing conce a
II, L)ESC ON F R~ UES'T
The applic t is requesting a work session to review a praposed major amendment to
Special Develop ent istrict (S D) o, 4, Cascade Viilage Area A and more
speczfically, xhe Comerstone anci Waterford sitesm The Co ea°stone pce1 is bound by
the proposed Waterford project to zhe east, Gore Creek d the Westin Terrace
1
uil `ng to the south d Westhaven Drive to the northo The aterforcl pcel is on
the comez° of the S~udi Frontage Road and Westhaven I~rivee oth p cels ere
zoned S frorn the ti e they were annexed into the Z`own of Vail in 1974m
o properties have changed owrzership and the current owners do not wish to
continue the previously appz°oved develop ent coraceptsa adciition, as discussed in
Section I of this emo, the owners vvish to elxminate y dependence between the
Waterford and Comerstone sitesa
111, BACKG OUND
The Cascade Vi1lage Taeveloprnent was previously owned by a single d.evelopment
entity. As proposed by the past developer, the project was a system of interdependent
phases to be built into an irrtegated complex vvhich provided commercial eas, short-
terrn d long-te residenti units dconsolidated p king facilities. Since the
bankruptcy of this original developer, ow~ership of the sites has been dispersed arnong
different owners. is pl is nocv rriore difficult to execute, as each owner has
different id.eas on how to develop their respective sites, e change ° o nership
effects the Comerstone project because9 as approved, all of the p king for the
Ct~ erstone project was to be 1 ated on the aterforct site. These projects e no
held by 2 u elated entities who wish to provide t1~eir o n p king on each siteo A
tota1 of 166 park.ing spaces were to be provided in the atez°ford project for the
Co erstone clevelop ente
An additional outstanding issue in the Cascade Villa.ge develop ent is the ownership
status of Westhaver~ rive, from the South Frontage Road to the Gare Creek Bridge.
PT'he roaci is owned by the app1Xc t, C Ent~ rises, and is privately aintained.
°This road has not been conveyed to the To n because it does not rneet the T"own's
inirriu road stand ds, however, ere appe s to be a public access easernerrt.
Attached, please find a ccapy of a letter sent to Frank Freyer, a representative of the
previous owner of the r~adway, which specifxes the deficiencies of the roaclwaya
IVa Z NING C S E A NS
A. Comarison of Aimroved an ~°c~ osed DeveIo e t la s fc~~
ornersto e
Approved Pro osed Propose
Seenario Scenario 1 5cetaario 2
l) De sity
( of I1 its) 50 °I'R* 52 ATJ + 1 e p. 24 AIJ's +
t&n1& 12 DU9Sy
I e511p> 11I13t
2
2) F 28,110 sq. ft. 28,110 + 600 sq. ft. 28,110 a- 600 sq4 ft,
for e ps unit for empa unit
3} CommoArea as per To be To be
approved dete ined detea .ined
pl
)Commercial S ace 26,040 or 12,000 sqe ft. 12,000 sqa ft.
29,(}65 sqo ft.
5~ Cre its iven None To be To be
detennined detennineci
6) ei t
North 71 fte m.with 52 feet 52 feet
South v°ations on 71 feet 71 feet
East other elevations 60 feet 60 feet
est 65 feet 65 feet
7) Set ac s As per approve€i 0 0
clevelopment 0 Q
plan 0
a a
} ite Coverage as per as per as per
approved approved approvecl
Pl plan pl
)ar i 155a9 or 94 reqm spa.ces w/75% $2 req. w/75%,
166 spaces enclosed enclosed
94 proposed w1 82 proposed
lOQ% enclosed 1 %enc1osed
°T ="°I'ransient residentia1 dwelling unit or s'ctetl dwel1ing iznft`° shall be defined
as a dwelling unit located in a ulti-f ily dwelling that is managed as a short te
renta1 in hich a11 such units e aperated uncler a single management provi 'ng the
occup ts thereof customary hotel se ices d facilities. A short terrn rent shall be
dee ed to be arental for a period of ti e not to excee 31 days. Each unit sha11 not
exceed 645 squ e feet of GRFA which shall include a°tchen having am imum of
35 square feeto The kitchen shall be ciesigned so that it ay be 1 ked ancl separated
3
fro the rest of the unit in aclosete A transient selling unit sha11 be accessible from
common co 9dors, walks, or balconies without passing through other
accomm a.tion unit, dwelling unit, or 2 transient residential dwelling unito Shou1d
such units be developed as condo iniu s, they shall be res °cted as set fordi in
Section 17.26a075--17.26.120 govc; ing condo inium conversione The unit shall not
be used as a pe anent residence. Fractional fee ownership shall not be a.l~~~ed to be
applied to transient dwelling units. For the p oses of deze ° ir~g allowable density
per acre, transient residential dwelling units shall be counted as one half of a dwelling
unxt. The tr sient residential dwe1ling unit paa°king requirement shall be 0.4 space per
unit p1us 0m1 space per each 100 sqcz e f~~~ of GRFA with a a.xi u of 1e0 space
per unitm
~ Ernployee units do not count towards density or G FA per the current
S din cem
B. Compat°ison of A roved ara ro ased Develo e t lans for aterfor
A rove A roved
Scen rio 1 cenario 2 ro ose
1) ensity
trf its) 75 ALTs 30 Us 27 LTs+
1 restricted emp4
unit
2) GRFA 47,500 3qa ft. 47,500 3qe fta 47,500 Sqaft•
+ 900 Sqa ft,
reSlrlcted eTTIp.
LiT11X *
) o o rea as per as per To be dete ined
approved approved
plan pl
)etai ace 3,800 sqe fte 3,800 sqa fta 0
S) Cre i iven None None °To be
deterinined
4
6) Hei t
North 4$ ft 48 feet 51 feet
South bl feet 61 feet 67-78 feet
East 61 feet 61 feet 70 feet
West 48 feet 4$ feet 54 feet
7) Setbacks as per as per Noz°th 5 ft, to paxkang
a.pproved approved South 40 ft,
pl pl East 12 ftm
West 12 ft.
) Sit~ ~~~erage as per as per as per
approved approved proposed
plan pl cieve pl
9) ar° an 72.7 spaces 87s7 spaces 57 spaces
(75% enclosecl) (75% enclosed) require.d.
60 propased
43 enclosed or 75%
of reqm, 19 s ace
~ Employee units do not count tow ds density or t3 A per the current
S #4 dinancee
V. SPECIAL EVEL P IVT I7ISZ'IZI C IA
"Th~ ~~~eria to be used zo evaluate thzs proposall e the rzine Specia1 evelop ent I)is °ct
(S ) develop ent stand ds set forth in the special development clistrict chapter of the
Zoning Codeo Th~ criteria are as follows:
A. esi compati ility and se sitivity to te i e iate e viro e t,
neighborhood and a jace t t°o rties reiative to arc itect ral esi n,
scale, 1 , uil ing hei t, uffer zanes, i e tity, character, visual
i te rity and orie tatfort.
Cor erstone
T'he proposed buiIding is sirrailar in rriass and forrn to the approved buil °ng
p1 s d to the a,djacent estin Complexo °I`he building she11 will re ain the
5
s e for each proposed scen °o. ere e fa dep ures in reg dto
building mass, fz°o th~ original pl m°The first of these is one adclitional fl r
in the builc3inga This is necessitateci by the 1atioaa of parking in this building
which was prev~ously approved to be located in the aterford Building. A
secozad ch ge, which is also due to the intr uction of p king on this site, is
the vehicuI access way on zhe west end of the bizilding. The third ch ge
rela tes to the roof fo m ith the approved pl , the r f fo incorporateel
~wo building 1evels and therefore, decrea.sed the vzsual ipact of the e1evationss
Z'his z°f fo is not incorporated into the current proposal. The fo hchange
deals with the pedes 'an passage from Westhaven Drive to the ski lift 1eve14
°The ass of this elemerzt shoulc1 be studied to pz°ovide a stronger pecies °an
entry elerraent.
There gs a sevez°e ade ch ge on thzs si~e fz°om Westhaven °ve to the ski
lift\public space levei. This, alorag with the configuratian of the site, present
many practical tiifficulties. I)ue to the grade change, the vzsual i pacts of
each buxlding e1evation are very different and because each side of the buil °ng
is exposed to the public ways, staff believes each elevation of the building to
e very irnporkantm
In regard tca this criteria, the staff has the following overall conce so
1e The increase in height d visual i pact of elevation ass on
pedes e areas,
2. Impact of building mass due to the vehicul access9 as it relates
to the pubiic areas at the ski lift/public ea leve1 in fz°ont of the
"I'erz°ace ing'
3. Architectural details of elevations.
atez°forcl
The staff fee1s that fazrther study shou1d be giverz to the ass and elevatians of
each "tt~~er°" of the building in orcler to bre up the ass of e buildinge
Variation of the roof fo , the use of different colors, stucco details and the
use of balconaes si il to the estin co plex shoul be considered to further
bre up the mass. e would like to see the applic t bring the height into
closer compliance gth th~ original approva1. It is cle that some increas~ in
height is necessary because of the relocation of the building assa ow~~er,
we believe some height ~ould be lost.
B. I3ses, activity an ensity vv ic rovide a compatible, efficie t a
6
ot° a 1e relations i wit surroun ing ses nd activity.
Comerstone
The applicant is proposing tvvo scen °os for this site. evicausly, there was asing1e
deve1opment pl which included accommodation units, dixed corrl ez°cial izses.
Scen `o I provides for 52 accommodation units, 12,000 squ e feet of co mercial
area d 34 enclos p kgng spaces9 Scen °o 2 pr€avides 12 c1weIling unxts d 24
acco rri ation units, 12,000 square feet of cc~ ~ercia1 and 82 p kang spaces. °I'he
residential density ds not ds°a atically °ffer, however, the req€zesteci change to allow
dwe1ling zznits (versus a~co rra ation units) as a sizbst tial dep ure frta the
origina.l plan for Cascade Vgllage. 'I'he ir?itia1 intent for Comerstone was to provide
short terrn rentals whicha it as believed, would subsequently increase the use of the
entire Gascade fa.crlitya
A second ch ge in the proposed prragz° is the cieletion of a portion of the approved
co ercaal space. In the azerford project, the staff supported the deletion of the
commercial space. n this site, due to its proxi ity to the existing Terrace Wiz~~
ercia1 ea, staff feels it is irnportant to ainta3n a considerable po 'on of
~om ercial square footage. With the approveci develop ent plan, there was a great
deal of consider°ation given to the public spaces on the siteo Specifically, the
passageway doutdaor stair connecting esthaven I)rive to the slci lift and public
space in front of the Tefface Wing, as well as the relationship of the Comerstor~~
public areas to the rest of the Westin Co plex. zs was accomplished with a series
of connected plazas and other site amenizies. W"ith this proposal, the pedes 'an appeal
of so eof these elernents wou1d be decreased because of the p king rampm The staff
feels that f her stucly should be given to the relationship of the proposed project xo
the existing facilities zn the area.
Staff cance s:
lm Chatlge in residential dwelling use frorn accomm ation units to
delIing units. Staff feels that the provision of acco ation units on
this site is i portant,
2. The ount of ercf a1 square footage which should be provided.
3m elationship of public ar°eas of the proposed ~omerstone develop ent
to the existing pubiic spaces,
C. Co lia ce it te ar ing a loa in re uirements as outli e i
C a ter 18.52.
7
Co erstone
Scen 'o l, with the proposed accomm ation units dcomrr~ercfall squ e f tage,
requires 94 p krng spaceso Scen `o 2 with dwelling units, ~ ercial square
f tage requires 82 parking spaces. Because thas site as not originally to have on-
site pking, the approvecl clevelopment did not attempt to acco m ate thgs te of
use. e intr uction of parking on site has subsequent1y increased te size of the
buil °ngm
I7nder Sectzon 1$a52 of the unicipal Code, each dwelling unit with less th 2,000
squ e feet of G Awoulcl have a p lcirzg reqaairement of 2 spaces and those ith
over 2,000 square feet of C~~~A would require 2.5 sgaces per unit. Those with less
th 500 square feet requia°e 1,5 spa.ces4 e parking requirements for accommodation
units is as followso 04 space per accommczdation unit, plus .1 space per each 100
squ e f t czf C312FA with amaxi uof 1 spa~~ ~er unite
The loading facilities for this project should a1so be stud°aed furthera e applicant is
proposing tcs use the existing loading facilities for the Conference Wing to the westa
Conceptua1ly9 the staff believes that this ould be inadequate and additaonal loading
eas should be pz°ovzded,
As stated, the staff is concemed about the irnpact of the p king scture access ra p
on the peclestri pla.za be een the Terrace ing and the proposed Comez°stone
building.
aterford
The applzc t has revised the pz°oposal which was previously reviewed at the vvork
sessi€sn for this prajectn
into the project. The 75% enclosed 12arking reguirernent has been et as wello 'I'here
was no mixed-use p king credit given for this sitea
owevez°, ecause this is a rzaixed-use develop ent, a parking credit c be givenm
Thzs ount of credflt should be dete ined through this amend ent processo e
approved roject was given a 1705% credit, This would appe,ar ta have been based on
the total nu ber of p king spaces in all of Cascade Villagem ith th~ ~urrent
proposal, if you consider the Co erstone facility independently, the project woulcl
reeeive be een 0-2a5% parking creditm If both the exgst°g Cascade p king struct e
ci the Co erstane faciiity are considered together, a 12a5% credit could be given.
D. Confor ity it te a lic le eIeme ts of the Vail Co re ensive 1an,
ow olicies ~nd Ur an esign la s.
For this area, the Town's I,and iTse Pl states:
8
1.1 Vail should continue to grow in acontrollecl environrrientp aantaining a
balance between residential, co e~~ial anci recreationa1 uses to serve
both the visitor d the pe anent resident.
1.12 Vail should accommodate most of the addizionai growth in existing
cieveloped areas (infzll eas).
1.13 Vail recognzzes its str~ tract as being adesirable 1d f~~~ure a.s we11
as its potential for public usee
3.1 'I"he hotel bed base should be preserved and us~d more efficientlym
33 otels e important to the continued success of the Town of Vai1,
therefore conversion to condominiu sshou1d be discouragedm
3.4 Cor~~erciaI growth should be concentrated in existing corn erciaI eas
to a.cco ate both local and visitor need.s.
3.5 Entertainment oriented businesses and cultural activities should be
encouraged in the core areas to create diversitym ore night time
businesses, on going events arad sanctioned °`street happenings" should
be encouraged4
5.1 Addztional residentiall owth should continue to occur pr%m °iy in
existing, platted eas and as appx~priate in new eas here high
haz ds do not exist.
5e3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private
efforts, assisted by li ited incerztives, provided by the To nof Vailq
with appropriate restrictians4
504 esidential growth should keep pace with the arket place de ancls for
a full range of housing types.
5e5 °The existing erriployee housing base should be preserved d upgradedm
Addztional e ployee housing needs should be accommodatecl at v°eci
sites throughout the cornrrtunity,
Comerstone
When the Cascade Village develop ent was proposed, there was a
co prehensive pl developed which provided a balance of long- anci short-
te housingm The current 5cen °cs 2 propos~l requests a change to low
dwelling units a~ersus short-terin acco oclation unitso e staff feels that it is
0 9
importt t to maintain units which e available for shortmte use.
T'his area is also considered to be a ixed co rr~ercial center for the 'T'ownp
simil to Iaionsheact and Vail Vil3agc;m e reciuction of commercial squaz°e
f tage shou2d be 1 ked at carefully, owever, staff agees that some
reduction in cornmez°cial is necessary because of p lcinge
E. I e tificatio an itigaticr of natural and/or geolo ic hazar t at af ect
te property on w ic te special cievelap ent istrict is ro case e
Comerstone
'I`here are n,o raatural ddor geologic haz ds on this site whgch would restiict
its deveIopmenta
Wa.~erford
This proposal complies with the T'own's flood pla° requirements and the 50'
Gore Creek setbacko "The applxcant is ccsnsidezing rel atirag the existing bike
path 5 to 10 feet to the south in order to furt~er ir~crease the buffez° between the
bake path d the buildinge If this is proposed, then zhe rel ation would need
to consider the #1oodplain and creek setback. Location of existing veget~~~n
would a1so need to be considered.
F. ite 1a , uil ing desi an Iation an oen sace rovis;ons esi ne
to roduce a nctional evelopment res onsive an sensitive to atural
features, vegetati~~ an overall aest etic ality of t e co unity.
Co erstone
°The basxc layout of the proposed p1 and the appr°oved pl e si il .
en co p'ng the cuffent proposal, includin~ the ) kinj facility, tca the
approved plars, the over 1 setbacks e simil , e biggest diffez°ence is the
ad °tion csf the rriass at 'butable to the intr uction caf parkzng on the site9
aterforci
The st f fee1s that the massing of the proposed buiIding should be studied
fiz er to achieve a teffacing of the building mass.
G. fl circutatio system desi ne for ot ve ic1es an edestrians a ressi
on a off sfte tr ffic circulatio m
Co erstone
The ontlsite circulation plan should be studied ore closely to dete ine if
there is aore efficient approach to the ramping d p king syste , to
10
d~crease the visual irripact of these elementso e staff is ccsncemed with the
pxoposed vehicular access on the west end of the building. As proposed, it
would eady impact the pecles °an mall. e would ask the a.pplic t to
consider other access points and circulation syste sa °T'he pedestrian area
which passes through the building and do n to the ski lXft leve1 should a1so be
studied f her in order t~ create a better pedes ° experiencea
In ad °tion to the on-si~~ ~~~~ems, the 'I'own is interested in resolving off-
site circu1ation conce , This involves the d'cation of Westhaven Iarive to
the To n. Curz°ently, Westhaven I7rive fro the South Frontage Road to the
Gore Creek ridge is owned by the applic tm T~e road does not meet the
Town's st d ds and ~ertain i p~~~ements re1ated to the grade, cons ctican
d buildirag clearance wou1d rzeed to be addressed by the applicant psior to th€;
convey ce of the right-of-wayo e Town ou1d require, as a conditxon of
any approval of this applacatyon, that the roadway be upgraded ddedicated to
the Town. (Please see atta.ched ietter)a
H. nctional and aest etic la sca i a oen space in or er to o ti ize
a c°eset°ve natural features, rect°eation, views an fu ctionsa
Co erstone
ecause is site has been substantially disturbed, there are few remaining
natura,l ch acteristicso With the proposed density of the pz°oject, there would
be lirrzited remaining open space on the site. Because of this, the remaining
1 dscaped eas become craticale Increasing the lanclscaping is especially
z port t along Westhaven rive, d the pedestrian ma11 ea. Staff would
recommen that the applicarat consider usin~ a natural planting s~~eme on the
east side of the buil 'ng, adjacent to Gore Creek.
aterford
°I'he current atexford proposal allows for a 5 to 6 f t buffer a1ong the South
Frontage oado e believe that it is cratical that there be adequate buffez°
between the proposed s ace p king cl the property line to ensure that there
will be substanti landscaping between the project d the South Frontage
Road. .A strong landscape buffer is also ° port t along the east and creek
sides of the buil ing because of the height and building mass proposed in this
ea.
Im asin ia or s ivisio I n t at °ll ai tai a worka 1e, f nctional
and e icie t re1atio s i t ro out te develo ent of te secial
evel e t istrictd
Co erstone atez°ford
As initially proposed, erstone and Waterford were to be cons ctecl
11
simult eous1y. This phasing p1 was necessitated by the provision of p king
on the aterford site for the Comerstone pz°oject, ue to the subsequent
change iza owr~ership of the o sites, this beco es a difficult propositionm
Howev~~, th~ s~~f£ fiz~ds that i~ xs ~bs~l~~~l~ ~~ti~~l tc~ th~ ~~p~~v~l ~f ar~~
ainendment for either the Waterfoz°d oz° S~~~~~olve the
varkina issue in a worlcable solutiono
In the pr ess ~f reviewing each of these requests, it has become app ent to
the staff that when parking is added to the approved develop erat plan for
Comez°stone, it beco es difficult to rrtaintain the approved cievelopment rights
(iee G A, nuznber of units, commercial space). Both Scen °o I and 2
propose a~~crease in commercial spacea It may be necessary to also consider
decreasing the number of units d C3 A for this sitem °This woulcl
subsequen y decrease the par°king require entsm
V. STA C NCERNS
There is no formal staff reco mendation at this ti ea e intent of this worksession is to
give the applic t initza1 direction and feedback on the Comerstone Project and furthex° input
can th~ ~~erford projecta
In sum , the staff conce s es
1. Co patsbality of buildirag rnass with surrounding uses for both Comerstone d:
atei°ford,
2. Increase of l dscaping and further develop ent of public spaces for both projects;
3. I prove ents to Westhaven rive in order to eet TV stand cis dsubsequent
de °cation of roadway to the Town of Vaal9
4, esolution of interdependent p 1cing plan for the Co erstone and ate1°ford projects,
whzle considering the impact on the mass d bulk of the Co erstone project. It ay
be necessary to consider decreasing the number of allowed units as vvell as GRFA for
Co erstone in order to acco aze the p kfng now being proposed on the site.
F her decrease of both ercia1 floor area anci reszdential density would
subsequently decrease the p king requixement,
5e The intr uction of a second 5cen °o to the Comerstone project with dwvellzng units
versus accommodation units for the entire project,
6. A11 conditions set forth by the F'ubli~ orks Dep ent dFire Dep menk, which
relate to proper ainage and fire access, will need to be addressed prior to the firzal
review of the Se .I7.
40 12
- :v#, ' . .
n. y~..,_m.' - , . u.
i I)
i L~~ I~L'~
E I ~ ~ I I ~ I i I ~ I ~II °.'.,_-'C3. ~ ~ ~ 7i~ ~ ~ _
~ i
IL. A1
I CDRPdER$70tdE - ' , . PLAZA 9UELDItdG i~
. . . _ . ~ w lVORTH ELEVATlOfJ
I
~L
El
,;cp
_ ~
~
~
~.i`v\~ , `J~~'"r•~
'
, - - -
.
, _ .
.
~
. . ; _r.<,,..~ ` _ _ ~ _ _ ~~a.. WOO
t
, " . .
_
, e~ ' ~11 C - -
i
'~;u,
i
~
~ I~~ i~9i ~ i~~~l~,i , I~~ ~ I ,n'lil~i iil~i~_ i i _ - ~ I'„',~,~ ~ - ,,,,I~'I j I ,..i~ -~h~.,....
'I I
15
- 3- ~ A~ •r r
~ ~~z•-~ a I ~ ~I~ ~ ~ ~o-.~ _ ~ ~ ~ P~
- - - - - e-- - ~ g-
N1_STNA
£Ai DR1VE -
~t V
: ~ - - ' - - -
~ : i; _ ` f~ . ~ . =.-4s
/ "Ti~;.:
~ : - - - - ~
- - - - ..S - ',1-?~~..~.. 4~~.,~c~' v`.'~~ .:,~A _ c=;':~.•
! ~i'~,, I~~i~i',i li i;ii~ _ ~ ,.~`V~, ~i ~ ~ „1.',i, _ ~„s/ `~lt~
~~'I ' - -
--`l ~ • ~ W
,
"r: - ~ ~ .I~ ~ I ~ ~ ~li ~ _ I ~ f - ~ ? •~~.;~,.m: ` y r:. ~~~,„ea'. " ,t~ ~ • s
~..°M,~ . ~
6 ^
~3-;-`.= d ~rP~`•
} ~ ~ ~ - - ~ & ir' F
u ~ ~
i I I ~ 4'"•:~ , ~ , . ~
/ W f
~ /~s ~ ~`S- 9~ J ~ ~ '.~-o.:. ! b - z ~j' . , ,
L~ ~ ( i ~ ; I I c i ' , ~ , E = ~ / _L C_ ' .
CASCADE V3LLAGE
ASTER PLAN _
is; si '~~i,,t! i,,'5..~`~ ~'~1.- ~ .7 • y a ''r" , . . , . _ ~ , _ , . .
i
-
o'
wm ~
f
k~"
Ig£~~
N
,
_ , . 3' n. ,}r _
d '
~ ....._..,-......,7 °e-.°-++md.~... ~
s~
..rrTAla
„
,
3 o , „ .
j . 3 • ~ ' ~ ~Y~~ ~II:.... ~9 .J~;~"°~. ~ -;Y _
~
/ ; i ~ : ~ ~ _ J_ • _
. . . ~
3 i .r
.
~s
~
' 101411101 _ ~ . . v ~
~ .'4.
10 ~2;~~ ' ~
~ F .
~
L
e _ ' . _ ~ _ . , . . , a . "k..
- ' . - . . • ~ ' . . . . . . . ~,s ~ ~ 8 gf s*,?' : ta^.,.,'a . ~
. . . _ ' . ? - . . ' _ . . ~a ~ . '
Sz
's • y +~,p(~- , ' ~."-~°~,~1 " . -
~a ~ . d ~ . r • . ~~~t,x . . ' .
t~~
4 a~ , r
i
' ~ ~ ' ~ i' • ' ~
$$,,9g • ~ .
. 7 2 . 1 3 14 w . ; . . r a~7 • ~ 6 4 . ' 9 ~•'a~ ~ ~ ~
~ ] ; ' ~~i . ' . ~e 1 ~ ~.a ' ' ' ' ~ N . q1 1 ~ ' /,f ~ .
~ pg
17
~ i ; , ~ ; , . - L.. • ~ .
;~i"i c;` ,i ~ ~ ~ a °~~1~* , ° i ~ s'•
IL
~ . - ° - . - C r
' q • . / ~ '
7
~ yd t,F~: r• i . SI~ . ' _:.~ow*~ ' ~0 ° ~ s ~ . e . ' / .O~
~ • : a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~
,e ~ . . . . ' • - t'_• . ~ ~j. o
e6 +
~
~ • . ~ : .
. • . o ~ ~ e . o.. . . _ . . .
~s ~ . • . . ~ ' . ~ : - . . , ` .
- . _ ~ . . - . ~ . . _
m
-
vVAD P~O ~~°r . ~ - , • .
.
. 9LAVE_ 60
~ v . . .
. ~ ~ . . . -
. . i- • _ o. , . . . . . , .
~ B .,~.w ' •
~~~y v B
•
V " 3° t?"-~"~ ~ W
e • , "~'a*A
~ ~ 960 ..,,.•.~~w~.w.z e ~ ~ w~ w~ K .
e,J~r°y~/ o { l _ '
~ 'o • i .
<10
~..~_~v _e . . ~WESm'. ELEVA3°1C~I~! g9, m2~.~'m s--.~.--~
x-a w
. . O 9 . ~ •
~r
° . AS7` EI_EVAT1
~
. . , .a ~ s . .
NORTH.ELEVATION
.
.
, -
o ;
. ~ _
~
' iu ; "
~
f'%•{'~~ i ' - ' .'l~i~.
s b y _ 14.. ° ~a ~
u1ji
~~p ~ ~ • ,°~a~.. ,
`
. . . ~ SOt,l d H L EV ! A
^cs~s
. - t tJ y ~S~a,"
„{u
va,~~ry`'~y~
~ ~ - ' - x s t"S
' ' • ?I:~: ~ ~ ~u `w. s ~
~
m .
u.~
~
~ . ,y.a ~
i ~ ~s'Cw~ ~G"'L• 1 { .....,~„y~
ay:.'s s
, ° ° • - -
,P,__ , ~a;.. a. ' ,v ' ~ ` : t qa3`", '~fe~'-~~'^ ~ ~
i$° . d",, ,d~ .y°-,.e~ e , n ~'f 18:~& ' •
• _ ~p-mu~~~ ~ ,.~L. ~ . . ~ ~ .c.a,^~ ~a ; e SJy ~
-1
tr o.
.
j ~ ~ urtf
- f
4 ' rv ~ y ~'t~ M~~' ~ ~ ,
. . ~ ' y~' , ap' y r~X' ST •'y[.Pr~ ~ Ab ~ . , 1. ~t, / ~ -
.,M°° 9 ? ' na;•'~"~`~ x e"~ ~r a~$` w~~~ . tie • r ~ -
~~{r
~ -it a . ,
~.~t~i ~ ~5s ~ .dR,a~.~~~y.~ • ~ t~. _ . . ^.e.a'~~a.. .a'~a~fr$`°_'"~.,~..x ~ 5-
.
~ ! 4~ ~ ~ J-P~~r.#~ +Zih , ~r,~,• 1 { i . a .
- . " .
J
y.. . _ ' • m nn a *t h, . ~ 1 ~
~ Y
~ ~a x
,
fit -Or
~
. " . . i . ~ ~ R•'F ~ ~~la_ip$ . (W: 6P~. Ph ~ 4 ~ Td.
~ e
a r' ~
. . . . - . - " _ ,,,~r.~.? ~~,`~~>~y,~„q. i ~`r~ ~y~~~'ro5' ~~~1.3P
. . . , ~ ~i .:i~~.,, . 3~ ~a . ~ - , ..s e . d+? ; . a,. . , f;~# , b_ ~°:`x~:.. rrp~ r ~ : p ,~5..
~ o
o,
[ID om ~1
0~~ ~ool 01113 - EpoQ ~nm ~001 0
, .
~
~acas1-1 rtca
~ ,W~. ~...w
.
0
9-3 "PIZ-
~
g~~ ~ I~
i I j i ii II ~OZ
I~i i I~~
nu ~ ~ ~ I,! t lI I~~' l ~ 1,'
illll~ I ~II
j.-.--
~y~ ~ ~ p.~,~ 4,~+ ~ g .v~w:, r •r ."r Y
m ~
,
-
_ iT
1'~ 0
kar~.
e _
~ .
, _ _Q„
ao$_~2
,
l--
~ ,oy,r`os
r uP I
i
- - F F';--~ETY 1-1NfF-
5 1 =T~ -
~ S
tim y u g
~
s~
i , o r s
~ , I~ ~ -
~ ~
F'
,
1 rr ' Pn r" ! ~ im. •t- ` - t . = _ - - - -
~
_
~ 77~
Pt--°~, t a `~'Y" _ ~ (
~
i: - -
,
- ,
L-,F-
i ~
I `
R
~ m
m~
IN OLir u ^
iT
;
r~
o~ ~ ~ ~ I I
I ~
B
~ i ur uP vp
Ii
l
i
i 5K 6°r°I
WiNG
I WF-u;rT
~NAPO 1 bJeso ~0°i EL I
7
L.P-VEL bQ
l
~
~
~ ~
~
( F
: ,
' -
;
~
L
~
I . . _ . ..a . ~ . _ _ .
i -
ci? _
~
~ - ---gp-_ - - ~ ~
rM
1
I~ lu , - LOuS"{ 3'~%0
I
o11i j .
~
_ i .
~ ai~~~
~
,
,
~ i
rT,
L~F ~T
4
rt°S TA.I_.
i
t
j
! P~K I f°-~G ~Ll,`1! ~-~Y
~ L-C-.vF-t-
i
F- t..; F:7
JL. ~ ~;~c p
' i
~ -
77-2
;
;
~
' k~
.
o,
~g.
~
f
§
. m
TJIAlc A 1 ~
~
LOuracSf L-01~ E5y
~
1--- _ _
i tl_
~
a
APIO 1
"Abn ` p > . .
~
a~
~
w ~ ~ .
~ . .
A A
;
~a
~
~
IF~~
A E ~e
8
a
9~i i 1 #8 6 Ji
L ~ 92-
~
~
x . ~ ~
~ ~
~ m
o~
a~
~ I # I L
~ ~
1
-.---1'
~ ~
a
I
o~
j I I I ill iii I ! 1
_ ,
,
_ I
~
- i , , ;
-
I '
~
~
i i
i
I 1 i
i ~
i
~i
t
MEMORANDUM
TC}m Planning and Environmental Cornmission
F OM: Community Developrrient epa~~ent
D.A a Septe ber 14, 1992
SLTBJECT: A z°eques~ for a woz°k sesszon for a side setback variance to allow ad€iitaon to
the residence located at 716 est Forest oa ot 10, B1ock 1, Vail Village
6th Filxng
Applicantm Ch les Acke an
Planner: Ti I7ev1in
1. ESC PON OF THE VAFZIA gE C?iJES ~
'I`he applicant is requesting a side setback variance in order to constr°uct an addition to
existing house located on t 10, B1 k 1, Vail Viilage bth Filing, 716 est Forest
oade e applicant's exp szon is proposed to be in the ea of existing exterior
decks on the south d west side of the building; a substantial portion of this ea is
already under r fa The existing deck currently ~~~~nds 6 feet into the 15 foot sid.e
setback. The variance request is approximately pa11e1 to the west property line and
ould enclose portions of the cleck to the limit that it present1y encroaches into the
setback. Grven the request, the setback encroach ent ou1d be 6 feet, creating a 9
foot setback.
'I'~~ ~uffent zoning on the propezty is Primary/Secondary esidential~ and the site ea
for the lot is 51,193 square feeto Please note at the applicant's residence is the
second y unit which cannot exceed 40% of the total allowable G12FA4 In this case,
the axi um Ci A for the secondary unit is 2,$64 square feet9 and the pz°oposed
G A is 3,114 squ e feet. 'I'he applic t has filed a sep ate applicatian for a~
ad °tion 250 square feet of G Ao
II, AC G C}IJ
A simii request foz° a side setback variance was grarzted by the Planning and
Environ entai Co rraisszon on March 27, 1989 by a vate of 4-3n The proposed
v eance in~luded an ad 'tion that enclosed the existing covered deck on the west side
of the unit, e PEC me bers in favor tsf the v °a,nce cited extraordinary
40
circu stances and physical hardships due to the topogaphy d the location of the
c.xisting s cture, "The PEC me bers dissenting cited that the bu1k of the structure
would be incz°eased and that if property owners on the street askecl for si il
v'ces, the b?ailclings would be too close togethera edissenting PEC me bes°s
a.lso expressed that the gz°artting of this v °ance would make it very difficult to deny
other ow~ers on the street simil v ` ~e requestso Please see the attached PEC
inutes from March 27, 19$90
III. ZONING ANAI,YSIS
Allowed Exist3~ Pr2gased
G A
'marye 4,296 sq, ft. 29305 sqo fta 4,296 sqm fta
Secondarya 2,864 sqa ftm 2,130 sq. ft. 3,114 sqa ft.*
Setbacks:
Primary:
Fronta 20' requxred 13' 19,
Side: 15' required 15 ' 15'
e a 15prequired 250' + 250' +
Secondary:
Front; 20' z°equired 27' 27 g
Sidem 15' r~quireci 15$ 9'
IZe a 15' required 250' + 250' +
Site Coveragem 20% 6°l0 8.8%
P king:
Primary: 2.5 ~~~~irec1 4 spaces 4 spaces
Secondary; 2.5 required 4 spaces 4spaces
F-Ieight;
°m : 33' <33' <33'
Second 9 33' <33' <33'
I, dscapxngm 60% required $S% + 85% +
Includes 250 squa feet G A addition: 2,$64 + 250 = 3,114 squ e feet
2
IV@ VA NCE C I2IA A FINDINGS
A. Consideration of Factorse
3. e relations i of te requeste variance to ot er° existing or
pote tial ses and structures in te vici ity.
"The primary/secondary resiciences on I,ots 10 and 11 e irror i ages
of one other, with on1y m~~or a~erial d color differences. Staff
recognizes that the streetscape wi1l be ipz°ovecl by the bre °ng of the
architectural assing of two ne ly iclentical buildings. Staff is
requesting that the applicant look at trying to 1ate some of the
bui1 °ng mass out of the side setback and into the fi°ont and/or re
eas of the propertya 'I'his approach would a.llow for the exp si~n
while minirnizing the side setback encroachmenta evelop ent on
West Forest Drive alreaciy appears to be clcase together b~~ause the lots
tend to be n ova and longo We would like to see the applicant
maintain as uch space as possxble between the expansion and the
adjacent Lot 11 to the west.
20 e de ree to w ich relief fro te strict an Iiteral inter a°etatio
rt enforceme t of a specifed regulation fs ece ry to ac ieve
compati ility a niformity of treat e t a o sites in the
vici ity or to attai te o jectives af t is title wft out rant of
s ecial t°ivilege.
Staff recognizes that topa aphic constr°aints have severely 1imited
the developable areas of this lot. However, since there appears to be
roo to expand in both the front and re° of the property to
accornm ate some expansion, staff feels that the degee of the
proposed v °a~~~ ~ould be substantially clecreased.
3e e e ect af te re ueste variance on 1i t an air, istt°i tio of
o latio , tra s ortatio an xraffic facilities, public facilities a
tilities, an Iic safety.
Staff d s not feel that the proposed v°ance vaould have a substantial adverse
impact on any af the above entioned ite s~ except in the area of light and air
hich has been discussed abovea
3
B. T'he Pla~~a~~ ar~d Er~v~~°~n e~~~l ~s~rr~missi~n shal~ e the followin
£~ndinas before_ganting a varaancea
lm That the ganting of the v°aance wi11 rzot constitute a gant of specAal
privilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties classified
in th€; same d~~trict.
2m That the ganting of the variance wi11 not be detrirnental to the public
health, safety or vaelf e, or ateria1ly injurious to properties or
impt°ovements in the vicinitym
3. That the variance is warranted for one or ore of the following reasons;
ao °The s °ct literal interpretation or enforcement of the specified
regulatiorz would z-esult in practical d°zfficulty or unnecessary
physical h dship inconsistent with the objectives of this title,
bm There e exceptions or extraordinary circumst ces or
condations applicable to the sarne site of the variance that do not
aPplY generally to ot13er properties in the s ~~one,
C. The s 'ct interpretation or enforcement of the specafed
regu1ation ~ould deprive the applicant of privileges enjoyed by
the ow~ers of other properties in the s e dis °ct,
V. ISSITES AND Ct)NCE NSm
. Staff requests t~t the applic texa ine the possxbil;ty of locating some
of the proposecl ad °tzon (G A) out of the sicfe yard setback din the
front an or rear of the pr°~~ertym
. Staff would recommend that the applicant screen tl~~ ~~croach ent by
landscaping a1ong the vvestern edge of the property.
4
t t t
CE~COE or A,sPHALT
~
12 „ CUL E/ER
06 5~4109
0` V~ ~W-,;°c, ~
~ , M4&V~° a~~
CJC~' - ~ --i °
f0l-W ~
Co.
~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~3~°r. ~tEr,~l~r,~~ IWAeL
24 8' ,s
ad
~ v._
4~
.
.
~Xy .
Hr-Li tAwr o;w..
.m ~
~ J6 3°
~tEre v 161.07
1,3~
~
.5
{ p~ 81359.2f
EB:EN. d . ~ .j* •..~~,..5, ' ,.~.a ~ ~ ,
gsEYc y~
~ ~ {g) . ~ e ~ , 4 ~ 1 ~ .J~ d~~tspryiR~ ~b
46-
~ -
2C3.f)` , ~ JPP.~ F8,.OOR E&V, -~14,~.4~f'
,~lr~G~ fLE6? ~ 169.75 t€~4.
FI-OOR CLEt! ~ 2.~6
N
, PAI'G'
L T 11
~V
2d 'P
1 m, 1~..3° a`Sm 1.~~ ,te ` ~ y..,..,•,
R1DG'£ E'LE`V
FbA
/
1
. ,
. , .
.
L,.
~
~
il~II,~
f _
,
~
„
S: . _ . . `a~ . ~ . .
ii 1 ! { '
,
~
0 !
-
~ •
NOKTP CLEVATI 0 N . , ~
~ cia 1-0
0
i
d
i
i
~
I
i
~
.
;
, . _ .
~ -s--__------°--~~
~ -
:
i~ ~ ~ E . .
___._~~!-~~t
- -~C-
- ~ ~ ~ . - , _ : ~ ~ ~ , , . , ~ - ; ~ _ ;6-~_ ~..•-t~ '
j;
. - ;
. ~ . , '
.
. , , . - 7f f } . 7 q
. ~ ~ ~ ' . , • i ' ' ~ . ~ ~ ` ~ ~ . ~ ' .
P
.
- -s
, - _ n
.
.
"
.
~
~ ~ -
. , ;
- ~
, EaVArION
~
;
i
/ ,1414,T5.$ FAp Ar_kcp_Aj4IV VAgi
IqE (9/1 9L/04)
4. A ~st ~or ~ side setbac3~ ~ara~ance ir~ order to cor~~~ruct
an addition on L~~ F~.linr~a
Mike Mo1lica explained the r~ ~tressed the steepness of
the l0tg The staff supported the expansior~ ~f the deck, feeling
t1~~t there was a physical hardship, and the variance would be a
Positave trade-off to any° developan~~~ ~outh of the existing
structure.
, John ~erki.ns, archa.tect, stated that he fe1t tha.s woul.d be an
- iz~provement t~ ~~~ades and streetscapes. I~~~cussion fo1J.owed
cox~~erning notificatian of the adj acent property owr~er. Kathy
was concer~~~ ~~out the fact th~t if everyone on the street
asked for a vari.ance , the bazi3dings ~ould be c1ose together.
John repli.ed that since there a.s a1.read~ a roof over the deck,
t1~~ builda.~g woxald not ~~~~erently °than a°t p~~~ent. Kathy
fe1t that a precedent was being set ~or the pr~~erty to the
westa Chuck asked if the fi~~~ erson to ask for additional
GRFA in a duplex was given the s are footage and was told that
that t~~~ ~orrect,.
Diaraa fe1~ the appla.cation did not alify for a variance. She
fe1t that too often the board look~~ at on1.y the parce3 i~
~stion, wathssut consic~ering the neighbor.
John felt that the buildirag as it was was very unattractive, and
the proposal wouid break up the massing. He fe1.t that the
steepness of the lot di.d preserat a 1~~~~~hip. Diana felt that
the appearance of bulk wou.ld be ir~creased. Pam felt an a11.ey
way was being created and wou1d have 1iked to know the distance
of the adja~~nt deck to the property linem ike replied that
thi.s distan~e was 8 feet, wa.th 20 feet between decks. John
pointe~ out that the prop~~al was not extending the existing
decko
Peggy felt it was hard to believe that the e~closure c~ou1d nat
contribute to a more dense appearance and fel°t it would be
impossa.ble to te11 others on the street tha°t th~~ ~oul ncat have
a variance. Chuck was in favor of the re est because the home
was a1~~ady massive and the proposal improved the appearance.
Jim supported the request, feeling that the:~e was a physi~~~
~ardship.
Sid moved an~ Chuck seconded to approve the requ~sted vara.ar~~~
~er the staff mer~~ citi-ng extraordanary ca~~~umstances due to the
topo and existi~~ structur~. The vote was 4 - 3 in favor, with
Pam, ~eggy and Da.aa~a voting agai.nst the proposalm
MEMORANDUM
T; Planning and nvironmental Com ission
F . om unity eve1o ment Depart ent
ATE: e ie ber 14, 1992
S1J J CT; request for a minor aIteration to allo for the a dition of ay 6ndows at
otthelf°s JeweI Iocated at 122 ast e o rive! lock - e VaiI Village
F6Cst Fil1t1 (Vail Vi~la e Shops)
Applicanto Fre Nibber \Village Center Commercia!
Plannera ike ollica
...........,-,-,-e :•,...,.,..r,.:::,..::
~._.r ....r:.:.rp:.
:.'•.`F iS:{.:~:.'•:%'ri:~':=::•s'::::~.'^:•':'::3.:'.::}ai:.:: °r°p,p{^r
...l ................J.........r. ..lsd.P..::.t•::::;:s:.s.:,C•;r ..::.v:..:r:.
. . .............:'v:=°F.~:•i:::=:•$:'C! rii:v^i:v::$~:
. .r n;%:{i'r°.e...r.........»..,. . . .
. . ..a .a r......e........i:ifFiiiii °i::w.r r . r
1. DESCRIPTION 1°
The applicants are re resente y ydney chul g a loca1 rchatects and are re ues#in
inor exterior aIteration in the CII zone sstrict in ord r#o add two bay indows to the
Village Center uilding. ?°he bay windows wouid e ad e #o the retail space currently
occupied y o helf's Ga11ery, which is Iocated etween the La Tour restaurant to the eas#
and the Finishin 7'ouch retail space to the vvesta In ad stion to the bay wirr ows, the ain
ent to the retail space wiil e moved out approxi ately 2°. In total, 0 s , o o# retaii ~ ~~e
wiH e a ed as a result of this proposaL
For the urposes of reviewin the request with regar to the Town's development standards,
the 40 sq. f#, commercial a ition wouId sli ht9y increase the overaU site covera e #or the
Village Center uil in s. There r v ri c 1 t it # i r t.
Ilo ZONING CONSIDERATIONS
The following su marizes the zoning statistics for this inor exterior alteration re uest #or the
Va6iage Center uildin ;
A. one istricte Co erciai Core !I
B. Lot Aream 0.7564 acresi32,94 m s, .
C. Density: o ch nge ro ose
D. FAa o change ropose
E. wte Coverage.
11owabie Site Coverage = 23,064 s m ft. (70%)
Existing Sate Covera e = 15a486 m ft. (47%)
Additional Site Coverage Propose = 40 s a a
°TotaI Site Coverage = 15,526 sq. fte {47ai%}
F. Co on ream = no change propose
G. uiIding Hei htm = rto change pr~ ~~ed
H. P rkin a = 4.1333 spaces re uired X $8,000.00 per
ai kIC Bg s ffi'A04e ° B g 6Rl.kd 6Il be
re uire to be pai in#o the arkin fun a
l i le COMPLIANCE 1T TI 1 II
1 0240010 Purposea
1'he Commercia1 ore istrict II is intende to provide sites for ixture of
uItiple d eliings, Iodges and co erci I esta Iish en#s in a cIustered, unifie
deve1opmento Com ercial Core istrict I1 in accor an with the Vail
Lionshead ur n desi nusde pl n an desi n considerations is inten e to
ensure a equate li ht9 air, o en space and o#her amenities a ro riate to #he
per atfe pes of buil ing and uses and #0 6ntamn the desir Ie qu Iities of
the district by esta lishin appropri te site develo en# standar s. { rd. 21
(1980) 2 (part)4}
The a plican#'s roposai to add n a itionai 40 sq. sofi retail co erci Ispa in the for
of o additional ay indows to the Vmllage Center uiI ing wouI e in co Iiance ith the
CCI1 Zone istrict as stated abovem
IV, COMPLIANCE I 1 I 1 I VILLAGE
A. Pedestrianization:
s ropose , the ne bay indows an the ne retail entry woul e 1oc ted
ap roximately o #eet out fro #he face o# the existin tail in e l°his
encroach ent woui occur in the courtyar rea that is currently being use for
outdoor dinin y the La Tour restaurantm !t is #he staff's position that this minor
encroachment ould not have any negative i acts u on pedestrian flo
through the areao
B. Vehicular Penetration:
o i pact.
C. Streetscape r r:
°The staff believes that the roposed bay indows will i rove the streetscape
framework in the areaa In 1991, a similar ay 3ndow was constructed at t e
retail space i ediately to the east af the La Tour es#auran#m The bay
indo s propose for ofthelf's alle ill be the same architectur Is Iand
character as the bay window on the eas# si e of the courtyard. e believe that
the new bay indows will atch the exisitng windows in the r~ an w4ll e
compatible ith the overali desi n theme of the Vi6lage Center shopsa
D. tr t EncI ur a
o i pactm
E. tr t Edge:
o i acta
F. tail i ei tm
o impacts
G. Views and Focl itsm
o impacta
H. ervic n iiv eym
o impacto
L urt/ .
ecause the roposed ay windows wou! e Iocated under an existin roof
overhang, there will e no i pact in regar #o sun h de as a result of #his
rojectm
V. RELATED I 1 1 I IL
STREETSCAPE T PLAN.
Ithough there are no specific sub-area concep ich specifically a ress the Vill e
Center uiI ing, the st ff belieues the follo in oals an o jectives as state in the
Vail Vfi1age Master Plan re relavent to this r~ ~saiA
102 bjectivem ncoura e the u radin an redevelo ent o#
residential and commerciai facilitiesm
2.4.1 olicyo o ercial infill deve1opment consisfent ith estabiishe
horizontal zonin re ulations shall be encourage to rovide activity
ener tors.
The treetscape Master PIan does not calI for any specific i rovements immediately
adjacent to the prop~~~~ ~ndows. The existing pedestrian waIk ay and #he sma!I pI a
located immediately adjacent to the `four restaurant currentiy consists of rick avers n
a fairly large landscaped area separating the pedestrian I ay an East e do rive.
Due to the li ited scope of the appli~ant9s developmen# roposaI, the staf# is not
recom ending any street~cape improvements,
VL STAFF I
The sta 's reco mendation for the inor exterior Iteration is for a roval. The staff believes
#hat the inor exterior aiteration re uesx complies ith the design considerations for Vail
Vill~ as weii as the Vail Villa e Master Plana The s#aff ouId recommend the follo ing
conditional of approval:
i a That the parkin ay in lieu fee of 19 66966 be pai rior to the To n's
issuance of a buildin per it for the roject,
moke mWgmxWses'4
4
MEMORANDUM
T . Planning and Envaronment Com issicrn
F O m Co rriunity Develop ent eparttnent
A @ Sep~ember 14, 1992
SIT JEC°Ta A request for a site coverage v °ance to anow an a 'tion to the resadence
located at Lot 14, 1k l, Vail Village 13th Filing\3025 Booth FalTs oaci
Ap licanta illi T. and Julie C. Esz°ey
lannera ° e Mollica
I. S I VARIANCK_REQUESTED
The ap lic Ts, illiam and Julie Esrey, are requestzng avarian~e fro the maxi u
lowable site coverage to allow for the cons ction of addition to an existiz~g
duplex, located at 3025 Booth F ls oadm e property is zone TwovF ily
esidentia1 (duplex) d has an existing two-family dwelling located upon it.
The maximum a1lowab1e site coverage for the °Tvvo-Family esidential zone `s °ct is
20% o For this p icul lot, 20% of the lot area would cortsist of 3,720 square feet.
T"he existing property cuffently has 3,891 square feet, or 2 a3%,, of buil °ng l ated
izpon the sate4 e a 1ica t's re t is t an a itiona1 290 s re f t f
site coverage, for a total of 4,181 s are feet of site c ver e or 22. %m
The proposed addition woul be an exp sion to two exisdng be rns 1at
at the west end of the scture, dwould consisz of approximately 279 square feet
of ad °tional G FAa is wou1d be a one-stozy ad 'tion with a new deck 1 ated
immeeliateiy to the south of the ad °tionm Ad etion ly, the propos ca1ls for a deck to
be located on the roaf of the proposed be m a'tiono
IIa ZONING I
The follo ing su m°zes the zoning statistics for this requesta
A. ne is "cta Tw~-Fa ily esidential
B. Lat ea: 0.427 acz°es\18, squ e feet
1
C. ensity4 No change proposed
D. G FAo
Aliovaable GRFA = 4,960 squ e feet
Existzng GRFA = 4,5s u e feet
Tot A = 4,$39 squ e feet
.Additional GRFA praposed; = 279 square feet
Remaining GRFA after this ad `tion = 121 square feet
E. Sit~ covera.ge
Allowable site coverage = 3,720 square feet (20%)
xisting site cc~~erage = 3,891 square feet (20m9%)
Add°ztional site coverage proposed = 290 squ e feet
Total site cover~~~ ~er this ad °tiono = 4,181 square feet (2205%)
F. Parking: o additional parking is required ior this
proposed expansionm
III. C ,A A INGS
IJpon review of Criteria d F° mngs, Section 18m62,0 of e Vaii unicip Code,
the Community eveItapment ep rnent recommends e ial of the requestecl
v°ce based on the fallcswirrg factorse
A. Consi~eration of Factorss
1. Te relations i f te requeste variance tot er existing or
te tial ses and struct r i te vici ity.
Th~ adjacent prope °es to the north, sou , and east of t 14 are 1
~oned °Two-Fa fly esidentz m Im °ately to the west of t 14 is
Z' ct , which is zoned Agricultural and pera pace and includes
Boodi eka F her to the west of Tract e ad °tional residenti
lots which e aiso zoned Two-Family esidenti a ecause of the
dense vegetadon on the west end of Lot 14 d 1on Tract ,e
st f is of zhe beiief tha.t the applic t's propos addition will not have
y negative itripacts on any of the adjacent prape °es, nor upon the
strea tracts °Two existzng tr s woul have to be removed to low for
this ad mtion to be cons ct o
2
It is the s f's position that wi regard to this cziteria, this v`ance,
zf a.pproved, woulci not adversely affect e use and enjoy ent of
adjacent properties and would not bl 1~ or impede views from any
s oun °ng prope 'es.
29 ~egree to ic relief fr te strict a literal i terpre tion
and e for~~ ~~t of seciie t°e latio is necessary tac ieve
compati ility a ifor ity of treat ent among sites i t e
vici fty r t attain te objectiv of t is title it o t ra to
s ecial rivi1~
Although the staff d s ncat believe at ere ould be any significant
impacts tcz adjacerat properties as asult of the proposed ad `tion, the
staff is unab1e to identify a physical h dship which exists on this lot
which would w t the support of a site coverage v °ancea e could
find no ing unusual about the shape, size, or topo aphy of t 14 to
austzfy the v°ance, d we believe that it would be a gant of speci
privi1ege to approve a site coverage v° ce for this prtapertyw
3. e effect of te re ueste v r°iance o li t a ir, istri tio of
o lation, tra sort tion and traff c facilities, public faciliti
tilities, and lic safety.
It is the szaff's opinion that the applic t's request for a site coverage
v ace will have no significant impacts upon y of the above cz%tezias
B. The Plannine d Envircan ental Co issian shal1 make the follgwinA
fzn ° gs before antine a v °ancem
l. That the granting of e v ` ce wili not constitute a grant of special
privilege iz~~onsistent wi the li itations on othez° properties classifed
in the s e dis °ct.
2. That the ganting of the v°ce will not be de°ment to the public
heal , s ety or welf e, or ateri 1y injuriaus to properties or
itnprovements in the vicinity.
3< at e v 'ce is w ted for one or more of the following asonse
aa The s 'ct literal int~ retation or enforcement of the s ecified
regulation wou1 resu1t in practic 'fficuity or unnecessary
physical harclship °consistent with the objectives of this titlem
3
bo ez°e are exceptions or ~xtraordira circumst ces or
con °titans applicable to the s e site af the v ° ce that do not
aPPly generally to odier pro °es in the s e zonem
C. Z'he s"ct ir~~erpretation or enfor~~ ent of the specified
r~gulation would deprive the applic t of privileges enjoyed by
the owners czf other properties in the same `s °ctm
V. STAFF C I
e staff is r~~ommend7rsg denial of the appHc t's request for a sixe coverage
v° ceW It is o belief thaz av °ance wouid be a. grant sczal privilege,
inconsistent wi e limitations on the other properties in the 'T`wo-Farrziiy esidenti
zone disti°ict, d that there are no exceptions or extraordinary ~~cumstances at do
not aPPlY ~~~er ly to other properties in the Z'wo-F ily Residential zone °s °ct,
Addition ly, e staff ha.s bn urzable to identify a physic h dship ta support a
site coverage v °ar~~e request.
Shoul the F'1 ning and nvii°onment Commission ciecide to approve of the
applicant's request for a site coverage v°ce, the st fwould point out that the new
ad °tion vvould need to meet the 15-f t side-yard setback. It should be noted that the
exasting scture is approximately 14'-6Q° from the north property line; e would
also recommend the following conditionss
lm That the property be repIatted to reflect echange ° the buil °ng f rint.
The area where the proposed ad 'tion would be 1ated is currently "c~mmon
area'@ for bo duplex ownersa
2. That t e 2-39` caliper aspens be planted along the north property line to
itfgate the addition.
Please note at, under Section 18e52a08 of e°Town of Vail ning Code, the
approv shall lapse if cons ction is not commenced within two ye s of the date of
issu ce and °ligently pursued to co pletion.
gMY.v09
4
a, fotiows: u A d ~
da~cri 0L_ U i LJ I'V U C_ / UM L
gegtnning at a poln4 whsnce the 5fluLtseasF comar of soiG Lo4 14 bears
5.80°47°49°E. 906.71 feet disfant; thence N.00°57°36"E. 32.50
fast: 4hence 5.89°92'24'E. 5120 fes2; 4henca 5.00'S7°38°ad. 32.50
faet; 4hence Pd.89°02°24mW. 53.20 Peet to the patn4 af beginning.
Toqathw wifh ors undPvided ono-half interes@ in ond to aii af Lat 74,
9iqck 3. VafB V'iIlage Thir4eenYh Fling, a SubdPvision eecorded In
the oFfcs at the Eagle Coun4y, Colosado Clark ond Recorder, wlYh the
BAdPRObEMENT ICCATtpPd
exception ot Aarcel A described abovc and Parcel 6 described below. CERTIF~~ATE
PARGEL 9(AS 4eeded) I hereby ccrtffy {hap }hts lmprovemenC Loco#ion Cert(fca@e was SurvoyQr's No@ee:
7Pia8 pnrR of Lo4 14, Vaii Vtlage, ThisteeflRh Filing, ascord7ng 40 prepared for WIllom T. and JvIPe C. Esrert
SURyEy pq~T qR IfiAPRO~P~ENT gURyEy Pl,~TAT IT B~ NOT A LAND
the recorded pla4 thereo4, County o$ Eagle, Sta4e o# Colorado, and that it is noC to be 9) SGegt Address° 3025
relied upon for the estob8lshraren$ af fence, beapding,
or 9~~ 2) The record ie aI dm9cridescribad ws 4oilows: improvement Iings. t fierther certify ;hat the improvemenYs 9n the
hsr~on. h4v~ besn ~b4c
abo+re describad parcel ears this dote. febnaevy a . i992. excep?. uti?ity ALTA f'odle Na. AZ4+3
8eginn(ng 9t a point whencs the southoost comer ot swld Cot 14 bears connactions, qre eerRtrely withPn the Daundaries of %he p~PCg~. ~~~$P$ y
Sa84°~39'49°E. 105.79 faet dSstan4: thenca Pd.00°57°36°W. 57.50 as shown. that thera see no encroaehmen±m ugpr; the daser'bed premises Thir4eenth Fiifng.
fee4; 4hersse ?4:84°02°24 'E. ~3.&0 ffe~te $h~nne 5.00°57'36'E. 61.90 by imprQVear.en@s orr any adptning prtmises, axc t a~ lndica4~6, and 3) DUa to o ma#hemstic c
feet; thente 5.89°02°24°e. 63.50 4ee?; tnenee H.00°5?'36°e. 30.46 °Q does naf precPse3y rsrae
faet t~ the oinE of be Innin Count of fa !e. SYat~ of Coloredo. 4hat there is no APPAREM7 evidance w3ign at ony e4lemenf erosstngThirte~nth FSI(etig.
P 9 9, Y 9 or burdening any par8 of said parcei, mxcepR as notod. 4) As a resui4 of the rose
found 4ha2 the 1ega8 dc
4~y Th~ ~uttine of that par
PARC£L B(AS Surveyed)
~ve= < °9 . a£tor4 ko intarpret the
Yhat psrR o4 Lot 14, Vail YElage, Thlrteenth Fiiirrg, r~ccordPng £o paq~ 5~~~ $ 2~S 5) Booth Cveak csntarlin•
the recarded piat theresf. Coun4y o# Eogle, Stots of Coiorado, 5~~~~ ~e~-~p ~ t ~e . piatn are 4oksn iroree
descrbed as fol9ows: 00'04 B
Jahnaan. K4,34 dz ~s
Beg;nning a# 4 poPnt whence the southeast comer of saPd loY 53 bears ~q 9
5.80'41'45'E. 706.71 feeR t9lston4; thence Pl.00°57'38"E. 59.50
ieet; thence N.89'42°24'W. 63.60 Peet; 4h>ncn 5.00'S7'36°W. 59.90 ~feet: thenee 5.89°02°2+°E. 53.66 feet: #nencv AI.00°57'36°c. 80.40 ~i/ry~~ueLAV~ ,4a
tee4 Yo the point af begtnniesg, County of Eagic, Sta4e o4 ColQrabo. .
~ LOZ 13 ~
~ TELEPH~~E__,-n I Q
t PEDESTAL 0
~
5/5- REaAR 82:42_` W
l ELECiRiC~° ~
~ox ~ cD f
t11
9oq rEaR $~°o2;,2a° W s. 0° c~o ~
FL004PLAIPd •o aau
i ! LIPo61T 27.19' ~4 CP + O
' ~
SEGOND F'LflflR DECK ~ ASPHALT DRIVEVdA°t
O
5 99°02°24° E 53.20~ ?
I.OT 14 P,aRCE~ B
41, . L J
~ ~ ti 0.427 AC. 3937 SQ. Fr. ° o
~ I
I ~
a ~ o a~o° l•~oPeied -b«K oiN PARCEL R
~.o• o I Z T =
0 Po ~ 0.94I p.. ~
o / o~V/J
3 ~
30 uvE STaEAM b~ PARCEL B As L n
17 sErescA •a.a- b L - - v, t- DE aBED ~ CB =
oEcK P.o.S . -N-~ 2' z4° CHD =
, J 70° UT1lITY EASEAaENT ' -.s° ~ - N Q6°57°3fi E 8~49° ~4
~ 5/~° REB~R I 1 B C O~ t 229, P AC E 951 S 9' 0 2 24 E fi 3. 8 0
90.4,0' 906.79
J va e° ~ m..
~ ~ ~ ~j ~9°24'13° W - r _ - - - - - - 24-3.33°~ m
S 2G°27°33' W WOOGEN FENCE ~
14.08'
5f8' R£BAR & PCASTiC ~
CAP L$ 99493
y LOT 15
.
t
~
~
--'r~ ~
~
~
/ ~--_7~
~
;
, , -
, I i~-
~
- - ~
_ - - ~ I ~ ~
~
,
~ - - _
61
,
F-',, F
.tp . P•-~- . = -
oxisbm
~J >
,
~
4 < f
a
Fr 7
L' ;
/
I~tl
1_1
, ,
~ °
~-n-T---
1 i 7
, -w- ~n ~
~
~r ~ f~-- ~ ~
I i
,
~ ~ I T
,
~1-- -
61
;
f~ . I
. ~ -
L
~
i I I I \ i i f I I I ~l- - _ _ _ p~n .
~
.
` ~"U5~ ~~cM a~rl i Md.7c,-+ALL
F
C~ \V INDO\uS W/ I - i r ~ - -
IF
~
I
~ i .
_ ~`~1~--~T
~
~
~
f Ro~oscoQ
~ ~ ~.~c~~? DHqI 5;~2 Coveaa~e _ 290 ~
I = i
I ,
_ ~'F~ - - - - -
1
DC-CV-
. ,
,
.
' I o- -
~ .
, , f ; , i - - -
~
, - - -
~ - -
O~ ~ - - -
~
_
i : i nssa-_:-s ~ ~ - - - i -
~
~ - - '
-
- - - - - ~ I:
i ~
- L~ - - ~ - - ,li
- ~ 1"' D'
, N . 1 r~EW x
- ' 1-.- ~
7~:7i IY~
_
i
~
s x ~ _ r V, F5_
~
44? I~iaB
FCOM 3C!-1 Z
!
1 i o - ~ I
u st 18, 1992
Statement in Connection ith Vari ce plication of i11iam and Julie Esrgy
We e the ori °nal owners of our dup1ex at 3025 ooth Falls oad, ha e g purchased
the property about 10 ye s agom e had pl ed to add xo our house as our children
became o1 er, to leviate the obvious deicien ' the house -W o of the bedroo s e
unco forta ly s 1.
Our f ily's aaction d identification ith ° is we11 own c~~~ ~ur friencis, as
we are t yeat oosters for the town9 It is a town thax h e tuch to our f ily,
de ish to conti ue to be a part of it4
This spring we ap lied for a building er it but ere told that, while it wouId be
per iss3 le to add squ e feet, our site, cover~ e already slightiy exceeded the a1lowable,
d e sion of the footprint was not pe atted. ecause we are not desiring to add
addition roo s, ut w t to enlarge the two s 1 bedroo s and add a bath so th~
~~cupants of e bedroa s would not have to sh e a bath, e din elsewhere 't in
the ca es of the house does not orkm e have had o architects look at the
proble , d due to the desi of our house, no other solution than the one pro ose
is feasi 1e4
e have been sensitive to yconcems of our nei hbors d have ke t them infor ed
of our t ° ° g. In fact, our nearest neigh or and permanent resident first encouraged
us to seek a v iance from the towna ith our application, we have sub itted letters
o 1 oux zzei hbors i icat° that they sup ort our propos e ctu ly, no one could
re ly even see the proposed addition or would ave y iea it is fihere, it would e
hi d~~ ~ viewm
age 2
Statement/.17szey
In res onse to otl~er ite s" the variance pro os g
1} e addition is solely on our existin 1 d d dcaes not ° pede yone else's 1 d
y manner whatsoevera
2) e reasons fcar the request e covered i the above comments4
3) ere are zao environment i pacts of y na re.that we can think ofm
4) ere is no apparent i pct on °Ps 1ong-run pl s or i terestsm In fact, aking
our house more 1iva le, wit out addin roo s d eth no averse °pact on our
nei bors or yone else, oul see to be i eve one's ' teresto
e woul be delighte to provide yaddition 'ormation desiredm
~
Respectfu11y submitted,
illi d Jtzlie srey
~1;
P a Bo$ 11315
~ Z ICanssrs Cit,y, MO 64112
?'eleptaone (913) 624-3738
F°ax (913) 624 E3E7
Willrarat T E°,rre,y
Chairrncrrt Ju1 y 30, 1992
' Chse, f Execsative f~fJ°icer
r. a~2 ~`s. Gene iTse1,to~s
Cf0 Depar-tmeri`~ of ~°iz~a1~ce KOG _
Co1.3.ege of B~zsiness Adminis°~rat~.on ~
°`exa5 A~.M TTz1i°~7'ersity tLEGE OF QUSiflESS
College S°tatior2, TX °7°7843-4218 DEP3.Of FlNANCE rv..;f
Dear Peggy and GeTleg
Per our conversation indi.cati.ng our desire °to ask te town of
Vail, ~or site coverage variance, ~ am enc1osin with this
le°t~er a sketch of the add3,tion that a.s bein ro osed for our
house at 3025 Booth Fa11s Road.
As you are our i eda.ate nei hbor, and have indicate uri~
our discaz~sion that you understood what we were doing and id
not have any obj ection, I wonder, if you would kindly sign the
enclosed copy of this letter and r~turn i.t to me, so °that Jula.e
an I can p~~~~nt i,°t to °the town of Vai.l indicati.ng that otzr
rneighbors do not obj ect to our proposed 1.ans for an a dition a
Thanks for your consideration, and ive me a ca1l at
1-800-366-3779 ~~~fice,, or 1-800-$29-1998 (home) if you have
any further ques°tionsm
. ~ Best regards,
¢
41i11,iam T. Esrey
enc1ostxres
I have na obj ection to the proposed addition to the west side
of my nei hbor's dupl.ex at 3025 Booth alls Road~
~ ) h4~9
,4 na°~ure Date
t~ ~ w I S. : 2 1 1 : B 4.AM afic S 2~ r i n t p 0 ~
2 Ct Box 113JS
AIW Sprint Kan= C8ty, MO 64112
2kphow (913) 624-3738
.F° (9I3)624-838T
W-dflmn ~ &rgv
~
aLf ~ Ive~~ Ju1.y 31, 1992
Dr, & Mrss John Gc~~ ~
3021 ~~th Fa1,I.e Road
Vail, CO 81657
Dear Lynr~ an~ ~~nv~~sation indicati~~ ~o aak the tow~~
Va~~ ~ Si~~ ~ov~rage vari ce, I a-m enc1osing with tha,s
1~~~~r a sI~~~ch of t e addi-Gion t1~~t is beis~~
~~~~e at 3025 Booth ra1.1.~ ~oad.
As you are t~ur ~ ~ iate zteighbor to ~~ut~~ hav
in i~~~ed durirr~ ~~~~~~sion that yot~ un~~~~~~~~ ~
~~~ng and di ~ot have any objection, I wonder, ~~u
would kin ly sign the eacIosed copy of °~~~s letter azx return
i°~ to m , th~~ Julie and I can pxesent it to the to of
Vai„l ind.icating ~ ~ei o~~ ~ ~~~~ct ~o o~~
~~~~~~ed plans for ar~ ~dditior~ ~
~haz~~~ ~~~ai eration, and ive me a cal1 at
1-800-3 6-3779 ioffic ? ~ or 3-900 29-1 9~ ~ ~ou have
any furtYzer questions.
Best regards,
William T. Esrey
eIYCl~sures
I have no objection to °th~ ~~~~sed ~ ~~~~~n t~ ~ e w st si~~
of my neighborts u 1ex at 3425 Booth Pal1,s Roadm
8 t~tr D t~
~
z~5,015 5ffKzrar WaKLza HEHD«uHRrEff5 'f3eaZQ7b15'fb raoo pol
~gu t 1~, 1992
~ . Wi11ia T. srey
Sprint
. , , . : .e , . , , u.~,_
~ -00s . - . , ; , , .....w.m ...........e.. _..,,...<r .,,,,...a . .
I~annao City, MO 64112
Dear Mr. r y:
Pu n to your r u we ar writirs to r~~tify you that,
u j ct to the t r nd condition t ort law, hav nc~
~ j'ection to your proposed ition to the west ~our du 1 x
t 3025 Booth 11 oa &
The co i.~~on in questfon ar s
~ That add"Ltion irzvolve only a first floor axa that the
irst f 7,~or ~as a 1. t rather than peaked roof , and
B. hat you 1 t evergreen (yearg~ound) ~oliage on the
. r~orth ~ of t iti~~ ~ runna.ng east f~~ er aps
15 the exi~tin trt~~ture. This foli~~e mu~~ ~e
suf f icientl t 11 nd dense to coz~~~al the ir t floor o
yes
our r id rzce from us.
Very truly yours,
6~-
rtix~
ar-garet E. atz
MEMORANDUM
T'O: PIanning and Environmental Commission
F O : Community Deve1oprrtent Departmen#
A3"E: September 14, 1992
SlJ JEC°fo A request ta amend the Deveio ment Pian at the Gold Peak Ski ase to a11ow
the addition of o ski tows Iocated adjacent to the 1/ai! Associa#es Ski Center
~s well as the GoId Peak tennis courtsl498 Vail VaIley Dr.\Track B, VaiI ViIlage,
7th Filin a
Applicanto Vai! Associates, represented by Joe Macy
Planner: Andy FCnudtsen
i. BACKGROl1fJD
n Decernber 79 1983, rdinance Noe 45, eries of 1983 irnposed the Ski aselRecreation
Zone District on this sitea Vail Associatesy IiOlo.y has submitted an application to arrnend the
Development Plan of the Ski Base0 ecreation Zone Distract, in order to allow the constructiort
of o nevv ski tows in this area,
II. DESC 1F'TIO F l"Fi EQ11EST
l"he two Iifts to be enstalled in thfs area include a ABmagic carpet" and a poma, The °`rnagic
carpet'° is a conveyor belt systerrt, extending 7 ' in length and gairting 9' ~n verkical heighta Ort
each side of the conveyor belt will be a four-foot wide deckm n either end, there will be
plat#orrr's. It is intended to be used for be inner skiers in the childrera's ski schoolo 1t is
designed so that it will be approxirnately #iush with the snow. Vail Assocaa#es estimates #hat
the snow pack in this area is approximately 3'. T°herefore, during the summer manths it will
appear to be 3' off the groundo The decks and platforrr,s that surround the conveyor belt will
be covered with °°indoor-outdoor" carpeting. Vai! Associates is open to suggestions as to the
best coior to be used #or the carpeting. The "rna ic carpet°" will be 6ocated in the general area
between the Children's Center and Ski Club Vaila
The poma lift is proposed to be locate on the western edge of the GoId Peak base area.
{Please see attached site plan,} It will be approximately 530' long with an elevation ain ofi
60'. This Iift is in the same general location as the ighty- ite Iif# that was approved last fa9l
ut never built. VA decided that a laft that was more user firiendly than the ighty ite would
e better in this area. T°he oma will have two terminals and three towers vvi#h the rrraximum
tower height eing 22'm The towers will be painted gray to match the other VA liftso
1
'll. ZONI cONSIDERATi NS
Ski lifts are a permitt~d use outsAde the main building, according tra the approved Developrr,ent
PIan in the Ski Base\Recreation Zone District. An amend ent os required on order to aIlovv a
ne 11#t. The Ski Base\Recreation Zone Distric# is rnore closely assocoated w3th the Speciai
Developmenf D6strict than any o# the other zone districts in the Town of Vailm °fhe approved
~evelt3pment Plan for the Ski Base\Recreation District, in conjunction with the design
standards\criteria for evaluationH establishes the requirernents for development and uses #or
the propertye
IV. DESlC~ STAN DA DS\CRITE IA FOR EVALUATION
The devefopment plan for the Ski Base\Recreation Zone District shall meet each ofi #he
follovvirrg standards9 or demons#rate that either one or more is not app3icable, or that a
practsca1 soIution consistent with pub1ic interest has been achleved:
A. e dev Ier ill r vi e u## r zone in reas where #he i Base\Recreation
i tri t boundary is j t t re ienti I u i trict un ry. The bu r
z ne mu te kept free fi eai! in rstr ct re , nd must i scape,
screene# r# ct it y natur 1 f t res s# t v r ffect n t
urr nin areas r ini iz a'T i requir u rz ne f f#ici nf
siz t u t ly se r t th r sed use fir t urr un in roperti in
t r s f visual riv cy, is , equ t li t, air, ir Iluti n, si e, an
ther c ra I # nti lly inc #i 1 fct r.
The proposed poma iifit will be located adjacent to the ill Creek residential area which 6s
zoned Prirnary\Secondary esidential. There are two residential lots in particular which are in
close proxlrnity to the pro osed lift locationm These include the rown residence and #he
Fiig y residencea T'he rown residence is approximately eighty feet from the proposed lift, at
the cIosest pointo Joe acy, with Vail ssociates, has been work6ng direcfity wi#h the property
owners to ensure tha# the Irft wAIl not negatively affect these arcels. As a result of their
effarts, Vaii Associates a reed to shift the lift 35' to the south and to plant o spruce treesg
seven feet in height, to screen the base of the lifte The revise location allows for a distance
of forty feet frorn the lift #o the property line at the cIosest point. The Fiigby residence is
located at a greater distance frorri the property line. In addition9 the lift is angled in such a
way that there is more separation from it and the Fiigby resi ence than the rown residence,
ith these changes, fhe proposed use es adequately buffereda
The adjacent uses to the "magic carpet", the Children's Center and Ski CIub Vail are
compa#ible with the propose #ow, in staffys opinion, and do not need to be bufferede
B. °T ir I tion stem desi ne f r t te f tr ic ge r t , t irt i t
c ier ti n, s# ty, s r ti fr livin ra, c nve ience, cc ss, i,
and x ust c ratr ! g riv t int rn I tr t ye per it# if t yc n
2
used by polic n fire department ve icl f r rera yur sesm i ycl
tr ic shall c n i r n rvi ed when the site is t e used # r
resi enti 1 ur .
Staff belaeves that the two Eifts will have no irr2pact on the criteria lasted abcaveo
C. n ti 1 open space in t r fw ti u rerv ti n f tur I fe t rs
{i clta in trees and drainage reas}, recr ati n, vi s, conve i nc , n
functi a
Under the proposed alignment of the two lifts, no trees or shrubs will be rernoved. The
proposed poma lift will span i1! Creeka l`his does not appear to be a problerxa to staff since
the applicant currently covers sll Creek during the winter months to provide a srnooth surface
fior skiersm m1°his is done by #akin sections of culvert which have been cut in half and laying
them over the stream be , 1°hese sections of cuIvert are removed each spring prior fo spring
runo#f. Asiigh# arnount of fiil rnay be required to smooth out the surface underneath the lift. 1#
may be possible that snow can be used to smooth out this coverangA Some gradsng and
excavaf~~n will occur in installong each of the towers and both of the terrr,inais.
Approxirnately one year ago, the Town reviewed a proposal from Vail Associates to arnend
the Deve6opment P1art to aIIow for the agh mte lift. This was proposed to be located in the
sarne ali nment as the poma lift proposal. At that firne, staff vvas recommending that Vail
Associates shift the lift south and uphill9 in order to reduce the irnpact on the views frorr' the
hornes adJacent to the lifite ecause Vail Associates has aIready agree to do this for the
porria, stafif believes that the criteria ofi view preserrvation has been adequately addressedo
T"he Bernagic carpetBBg in staff's opiniony will not affect natural features such as trees or
drainages and will not negativeiy i pact open space use or function.
D. T v ri t in # r fi usi t ,ensities, fcilities, and open space.
The ap licant's reguest ill have no irn ac# on the criteria listed above4
E. riv c in # r f the needs f: i ivi ca ! s fi ilies, n i rs.
iven the Iocation of the ho es in the i!I Creek Circie area to the Gold Peak ase area, it is
irrapossible to entirely miti ate the irripact of the ski area operation and cornpletely preserve
the privacy of the nei hbors, However, we believe that VAps effiort to work with the rnost
effiected arties rovides as much privacy as can be reasonably expected9 given the fact that
the !o#s are adjacent to a public ski areae
The '°rnagic carpet'e is not loca#ed ln a pl~~e which will impact the rivacy of Iodges or
residencesa
3
F. Pedestrian tr ffic i# r f f t, separ ti n, nv ice, access t int fi
destination ttr tiv nes .
!t has been pointed out that thas poma will be sited in such a vvay that skiers who want #o use
this lift will be required #o walk across the Iower ortion of #he Chair 12 rune where many
beginning skaers will be skiin down to the Isft Iine for Chair 12, Staf# be3ieves that the
applicant shou1d direc# access to the porna around to the north ofi Chair 12 so that there is not
a conflict between poma users and Chair 12 usersa
The agic carpet" Iocation does not confis°ct with any pedestrian traffic and is set convenien#ly
next to the Children9s Center.
G. uii in type irt t r s of appropriateness to nsity, it r 1 ti nshi n 1.
This proposaI will not have an impact on these criteria as no buildings are proposed.
H. L c in f t #t I it irt t r s f: pur ses, ty ,ai t rt rtce,
i# i1ity, n ffect n t ei r .
Staff believes that the two seven foot tali spruce that the applican# has agreed to plan# to
buffier the impact of the porna from the rown residence will adequately buffer the usea Staff
believes that Iandscaping is not needed around the "magic carpete,e
V. STAFF EC~ EN TION
Staff recornmends approval of the request to amend the Developmen# Plan at fihe old Peak
Ski ase to aIIow the proposed porrra iift and °'rnagic carpet" subject to the following condition:
1. Prior to the operation of the poma laft fior the 92-93 ski season9 the applican# will
plant ~~even #ocat tall spruce #rees in a location specified by re rovvn.
2, l"he revious approvai for the " i hty steag shall beco e voad upon approvai of
this requesto
c:p9C\mamo$\vagpeapk.914
c:+akmemol~ldagaldpk.91 4
4
oAD ~
\ I
1 I
\ J9 - l:'.UNSE. ~
l
` ` ~ - _~c~ i ?
t~ \ 1 ~'f~` J~ ~ / ~
/ \ ~ o y
if , • ~ _ - -
' 0.
. , /
~
i~,: . . i . ~ . `
1 . ~ ez 9, .
~,'~j--~ • _ez,o
,
~ ~ ~ - -
, ,
~
r
' - - -
.
~ ^ - BJLo
. ~ ~ * - i~ . _
/
U
RQ
A D }
- ~ 1
f (~r{ ~.;kHrK ~
~ t=-u+N.'-~&
~ (
;
,
r
„
,
t..~ ~
o • ~ ,
l,' j
~t`~--__
u ~
\ .M, ` 0 ~ r t ,q ~ „ ~
\ \ ~ ~ / ~ V~{,~~:. /
,
MEMORANDUM
T : Pl ning d Environmental Commission
FR , Community Development ep ment
DA o September 14, 1992
SU e .A r uest for a Conditional I7se Pe it ci Setback V°ces to low
a ski tow at the Lionshead base area 1 ated on T cts ,
Va° ionshead First Fiting, South of 520 East Lionshead Circle, ( e
Lianshead Center Building)o
Applicant: Vaal .Ass iates, represented by J acy
Pl nego Andy udtsen
I. DE5CRUMON OF VA IA~TCE A, C IZ'I NAZ~ I1SE ST°
Vail Ass iates is proposirag to install a new ski tow at the base of the I.aionshead S°Area<
It as cali a B/ agzc carpet" because of the way it is design s°The proposeci 1ation is tts
the east of the Bom Fr Express d to the south of the Lionshead Center uil °ng. It
consists of a 36°e wide conveyor belt that is approximately 76' long d as a vertica,1 rise of
appx°oxzmate1y 9's It gs intended ior chzl en in Slci Sch 1 to usem ere will be a 4' wide
deck on ei er side of the belt d 1 dings at the tog d botto a It is intend at e
conveyor belt d the d ks will be flush with the snow, ecause Vail ss iates ticipa s
snow depth at e Lionshead base to be approximately 3 feet, the s cture will be cons cted
so th~t the s ace of e conveyoz° beit wiil be approximately 3' above grade. e d ks d
platfonn that sound the conveyor be1C will be c eted with "ind r-outcl r" style
c etzng, e c et cornes in a range of colors d Vail Ass iates has sai ey are
a ab1e to severa3 of them, Staff will have these color selections available for the P to
z°eview sca that °ection c be gaven to the DRB as to the most appropria.te onem
is request is for a conditional use apgrov as well as a setback v`ance approv o A
con etion use review is required since the "magie carpet" wili be 1ated irz e CCII ne
Dis °ctm Section 1$a26. 0(A) states at ski lifts d s' tows are aon `tion Use ° is
is °ct, T h e request so involves setb~ck v°ces. This is because the lift wi11 cross the
property line sep ating Tracks fro , ci wi cross through the ten f t setbac ks on
either side of the property lineo
1
IIo ZONINCer C NS E A C)NS
ract
' ninge ccII
y° d Lo os
Setbaclcs Front; 10' 0'
T'ract
ninga A 1C1pen Space
ReqE° d gRos
Setbacks e : 15' 0'
IIIa C A A INGS C3F THE VAIZ HC E ~
IJpon review of Criteria d Findings, Section 18m62o06Q csf the Vaii unicipal Code,
the Comrriunity evelopment Dep ent zecommends approv of the r tzested
setbaclc v°ces based on the following factcarso
A. onsideration of Factorsa
10 e relatiorts iof the re este vat-iance to other existi or
atential san structur i t e vicinitym
St f be1ieves at e reIatiorrship of e proposal to the soun °ng uses is
acceptable. As this is one of the rnajor s° ase areas for ail Ass ia s, e
aci °tion of e "magic c et" for be `nner s'ers is com atible wi e
general use of the aream e property i°zne which e lift crosses, d e tvvo
setbacks 1ated on either side of the property Hne, e not easily ientif ed by
users of the area. In oth~r word.s, an the fiel , it is not app nt that e lift
wi11 encroach into the setbacks. As a result, the ch cter of e area wi1I not
be negaiively affect hy this v°ance requestm
20 e de ree to w ic reiie fro the strict an literal inter re t~on
and enforceme tof seciie re cilation is ece ry t ac ieve
compati ility a unifor ity of treat e t amo sites i t e
vici ity or to attain the o j tiv f t is title °t o f r tof
special rivilegem
2
S f believes that relief frorrt the s`ct inte retatiort ssf the setback st ds is
w z in this case since the "rr~agic carpet99 requires that it be orient in a
m ner that creates appropriate grade ch ge for beginner skierso 'I°he most
' acceptable 1atzon crosses a property 1°zne d setbaclcs in order to provide the
best aiignment for teaching beginner siciers. Staff believes that there is not a
grant speci privilege given the unique nature of the pz°capos facility.
3m he effect of te t°equested vat°iance on Iig tart air, istri ution of
opulation, transpoz°tation an traf~ic facilities, ub13c faciiities and
utilities, an public safety.
5taf°f be1ieves that there wzll be laTtle impact on the above ference cziterzao
B. The Plar~~~a~~ ~r~d Er~virc~r~rne~~~l ~~zr~rrz~ssa~r~ sh~Il r~~ke the follo
findin s before antin a v °ance:
lo That the granting of the v° ce will not constatute a grant special
privi3e,e inconsistea~t vaith the lir~itatior~s or~ other pz°operties classifed
zn the s e dis °ct<
20 That the granting of the v°ce will not be de 'mental to e pazblic
heal , s ety or welfa.re, or rnateri ly injurious ttr properties or
improvernents in the vicznitym
3m That the v °ce is w ted for one or ore of the following asonsm
aa The s'ct literal inte z°etation or enforcernent of the specified
regialation ould resuit in practical °fficulty or unnecessary
physical hardship ' consistent with the objectives of this titlem
bm ere are exceptions ~xtraordira cir°cumstances or
con °tions applicable to the s e site of the v° ce that do not
aPAlY generally to o er prespe °es in the se zonee
C. The s°ct inte retation or enforcerrient of the secifi
regulation ouid depzive the applic tof privileges enjoy by
e owners of other properties in the s e es mcto
3
Ii1a C A A. FI INCS OF TBE C N I NAL> E5B S'I"
IJpon review of Sectzon 18a60, the Comrnunity eveIopment ep ment r o rnends
approva3 of the conclitiona1 use pe it bas upon the followirtg factorso
A. Consideration of Factors;
1. Relations i an i pact of t e use on develop ent obj tzv of t e
Town.
The developrnent objectives of this zone distzict c be fourad in Section
18@26m010, th~ pu ose section for CC m It states that the CCII zone district is
"mmoiratended to ensure adequate Iight, air, open space and other amenities
appropriate to the pe itted types of building d uses cl to maintain the
desirabie qazalitaes of the distz°icte.." Staff be1ieves that the proposed lift is
consisterat wzth these objectives d not on1y mainta.ins the quality of the area
but wzll enh ce it since additiona1 skier services will be provicled.
20 The effect of the use on 1?ght an air, istrib tigin of o ulatio ,
€ra sportatio€a facii?ties, utilities, sc oois, par s a r reatio
facztfties, an other public facilities nee s.
Staff be1ieves there zs no irnpact on zhe above referenced criteriae
30 Effect on traffic °t articutar reference to congestio 4
aut otive and pedestri fety and conve ience, traf ic flow and
control, acce , aneuvera ility, and removal of sno fro t e
sta°eet an ar itt areas.
Staff believes that, again, there is no irrapact on the ciitezia refe nced
abovem
4. Effect on the c at°acter of the area i whic t e propose se is
tcr e Io te , inclu fn te scale an ul o te pro osed use i
relation to surz°oun ing uses.
SimiTarly to what has been stated under the v'ce criteria, sta.ff believes that
e ch acter of the area ili not be negadvely affect by the prrsposed use.
As this is the Z,ionshead base az°ea, the ad 'n'on of is lift is compatible wi
the exist° use of this eao he 1$ft wiIl e most ap nt d°ng e su er
onths when it wi11 appe to be approximately 3' tall. Staff believes that wi
e appropriate choice of carpeting to be us on e dec1cs surroun mng e
4
conveyor belts, that the lift will be cornpatible with e base area d will not
negatively aff t its ch actez°.
' B. Fznd°zns
e Plannir~~ d En~iz°c~~rr~ental C~sr~~issi~an s~~.ll ~ak~ th~ f~11t~w~r~~ ~ir~di~~s b~fc~re
~ aLn~~~~~
1. at the proposed 1 a2isan of the use in accord with the p oses of the
conciitional use pe it sectzon of the zoning code and the paarposes of
the disti°ict in which the site is locat m
2. That the proposed 1atic~n of the use d the conciitions under which it
would be operated or maira °ned would not be de `ment to the public
health, safety, or elf eor rnaterially iraj °ous to properties or
improvements in the vicirtzty,
3. T°hat the propos use wouid camply vvith each of the applicable
provisions of the conditfonal use pe it section af the zoning c em
V. STAFF CC) NDATIC3N
The staff recommends approval of the pz°oposed "magic carpet°'A e believe it zn ts
the v°ce fin °ngs as zt will not ccrnstitute a grant speci privilege due to the
unique nature d shage of the ski lift, s falso believes it will not be detrz~ental t~
public heaIth, safety or welfare; d finally, staff bel~eves that the v° ce is
w ted because xhe s°ct interpretation of the setb~ck gulation wouid zesult in a
practicai °ffculty of the ownez° because the property bound °es, and ass iated
seibacks in the base area do not easily accomm te ski liftsm
Regardzng the Cond°ational tJse fn °ngs, staff recomznends approval since we believe
the proposeci use is in accord ce with e p ose section of the ning Code, that
the proposal will not be de gmental to the public health, safety, dwelfa.re; d at
the proposed use will comply with a11 the applicable provisions (w°ith the exception
with the setback v ° ce) of e ning C es ased on th~ criteria d fin ' gs,
st f recommends approval of the request without y ~on °tionsa
Please note at, under Section 18a62s0$ of the Town of Vai1 ning Code, the
approval shall 1apse if cons ction is not commenced within two years of the d.ate of
issu ce and 'ligent1y p ued to completion.
5
~I
a~n . .
i
~a
, P
>.5 i~~. 1A~y; 4 it~.~, p r°~~. ~9 . i~ ~ rtY T4 ~E' hrp H~sp
' : ~ ~ „a ~ :r ~ . , ,1~11!(1t1lli~ll~li4~11'll~~~fl~~{'ikl~3ll{Ill~ ~II~ 1?{f1111~~1~11~„~~~~,«;,,~~,~~~~~erm~~;~j~l~~
~ > r a.,s l OI °IF A
>e ~ d i .
t~d•° ~ t r
s~
• - ~ ~ra~ ~ ~s . ti w 7x~At. Y
1 3 nh~n
b 1 . " ` a .a. bad a 1 i,, 5ss ~ jti .i: . °'r a~ ~ ,g,xs ~f'r- `'n"Y~.v ~k~ s ~W}C^A's~~a w'.~eY`
'~tl '~p ~s~{+' ~~'"a.'~;~: °",tir e ~°3~~ aB~ + 't~ A":~`T~` ,a ~dt 'a . .ri ,~~'r' .pm d'Ty~~,..is.`a~ Y°~~y~~:~t;e~-~t'&.~q~~TS`~'r
~ ` 9/ $t v~d~ ~ t`c~° x~ `P'~ t~,«#~_~' x:s}„, `-~jY, , o{x.s~o~1 ~"~r~y~, 3 ~,x , t y• ';.a sa~
~ Z~.s,jc,~ ~ tr~ri~e~y~~r~ °k ~ss`i5 .r~.- a ~~r~v,`~'~y ..^~i~-1.~'4wAb~ma,.Ars.~r,•,".
w
...~o.: .
£aSEUENT ~
TRAC7 C
P8a6'34e02'E ~
. . }44.29
nsrr,aa.x warw l ~
APpiq%iMBPC
LdXAYipu OT j
DMSEEW~S~UMNBO
~ 5e<OWN UN tiE
'T'RQCT d REG~D PIAT
tft1BPon ~f~?4 1.&a9 a~5 v r°
Ckao~a~ ~ /10 S€wEp MwboRrB t
oVb
. tIF7 /
~a ~'°m'seM r Soaeclt
y¢yqpaq 1Adg!
i (lo0b 6
~ A"~T DaY ~e.
~ ~ BRIDGE
E
aro+oN'
Sbk
' o \
~ g,~ / s UTILITY Tf2ACT B
E45EMENT
s
~
~f b¢M MAMuq @ , ~
~ NQPE° WxE Aafu GOES
uryQ€R BRIWE.
>
MOn: EA5 5 SAOWFB AH@ YC% IAceD TYriE ALYR
' 670. B15562 . 8-13-90
CONKITHEM
,
~
~ ~ _ ° . " , . d ° - :°b• ;Y , ~ ~ -•w
41
~
~h . ^ .p ~ ~q e . ' , s `.~..^"..+J ~ 1 ~ ~A y ~e . i e ~ 7..A
s.~ ' sar . ~ ~-,..,^°,-,..,~e ~ ,°',w"~ ; H' j ~1',"°.cy ~ ~ e .r ~ < , ~ ~t id-0~.. d ~ R ~
~ ~v}c"~fa. rg J r g 4~.~tl~~ ' " . • MA
. _ ~F ~ r f'' ' °'1 ~S'~;~~ . f ' e r^~--. ~ ~ °s ~ - s.. ° ° ~ ~ ~ ~
. ia
.%ti v . da ..,r s -
A h, a~°•['. A s ^s„ ~ ~~,.r ^ . ~ ,.~s.
F p b1-P;
° ,
t :
- I
~A f 'A r
d:q
~ I ~ •~~.a:d~ r °x $ N ~
~~o " j
a : t. .r-~' ' . r~~ "3 ~ ~ ~ c ` z ,3 ~•.'v.. •`s; ~v - <q :
t'*,,b „
~ .s
^a T, ~tr~ ' ~ b ~ ~ „ m9-,,y- '
• -t 5 - ~ ' ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ r a ' ~ ro: _ = 9 "von Cn
' r ~ ~ ,.~e;l ~8 . .'J ~ ~ i y.~ 'c ~g~g' ~s . - , ° ~ • ~ ~•a~` ' Q
rr' 1 ~..e~ ~ ~ e . ° M •'o~ a "
,J.y~, 'g,
j a ~'o Y-+ 9 m,~ti~ A
-.,..a q ~ ' ° ° ~<r{.'~ R4~~ . ~ ~a?Y = g •y y.. p,~ !
'~~t :g~-.3 a°~ s ' '~'~Y: a r • ? w sv ~i es. ~ q~ w.,~y +{2v ,
~
~S J
~ ~ * ~ °a~ " ,s._ ° ~ ? m. ~ j . g, •v~ . °,m- y~y, ~ . s , 4r ~q,R 0 y r . Y M ° , ~
sjl
u y 1,e i
. ~ H +s^ -3 L .
f °rd s ~ ` S r e• a
m+~:" 6~~Jsss b'6'•~~~.i- f ~a~ 2 ; . ~ S`~~~ .
° rr. ~ •"-^pf.w°,~ ~ ~4 QW ' fz~ aa~ $ ~ ,~~p ^~,o, •P~~,°°.`, ~ ' ' .
,~d5 ~~.«a ~j. ° ' t 'e _ ~ "S~~'.,<:_~.=;°~~K°.''. , • .
°H°.~
; 5x'g,~!„~ d. y - s o.•e+ S._:~,'_. A ~
e: 8yx g. 9 " tip ,
MEMORANDUM
TO; Pianning and Enuironmenta1 Gommission
FRO e Col°Ttt'T11IC11~~ ~evelopC3'1ent Depat'tITtent
ATE: Septe ber 1 49 1992
SlJ JEC7"o A request for setback variances to allow for a r~ew garage and an addition to an
existing residence Iocated at Lot 5, ighorn Es#ates/423$ ug et Lane.
Ap licant; W. C. and Carol Smail
PIanner4 helly ello
1. DESCRIPTlON OF THE RE UEST
l°he appiicant is requesting si e and front yard setback variances to aIlow for an
additiona1 arage space and a ditional F a The reques# is for a 19-foot
encroachment into the 20-foot front yard setback, as vvell as a six-inch encroachment
into the 15-foot side yard setback requirement. °fhe roofi eaves wi9i encroach an
addEtioraal 6 inchesa A one-car garage exists. A total o# 348 sq, fte of garage (1st
floor), as weII as 377 sq. f#e of FA (2nd floor) are proposed to be 6ocated vvithin the
front and side setbacka The interior garage dimension is 22 feet- inches by 22 feet-3
inches, with a stora e area to the rear of the garage of 17 feet by 11 feet-6 inches. A
portion of the existing garage an FA are aIready located in the setbacko One
additional surface parking space is aIso being added to the west of the addition. A
portion of the proposed airlocklentry will also encroach 2' ento the 20 foo# #ront setback,
(PBease see the attached ra ingsa)
IIe ZO IN CON IE ATI N
Zoning; Duplex; Single fa ily with restricted secondary urrAt due to dot size less
than 15,000 sqa ft,
Lo# Sizea .322 acres or 14,426 sq. fta
Allowed6 eg. Eroposed Exasting
GRFA
1 Unit 3506.5 + 425 = 2587 sqa fita
3931 m5 sqa ft.
2 llnits 3006,5 + 850 = fVo secondary unit
is proposed
4781.5 sq. ft,
51te Coverage 28p5m2 sq. f#. 18$6 sq, f#.
or 20%
Parking 2.5 spaces 3 spaces 1 enclosed
(2 spaces or
600 sq, ft, ertc6osed;
1 surface)
Setbacks 20 foo# front 1 foot ffeet
15 foot si e 14 feet 6-inches 15 feet
lile VARIANC C I°T IA AD FINDINGS
lJpon review of Criteria and Findings, Section 18.62n06f3 of the Va11 unicipal Code,
the Cornrnunity Development epartment recomrr,ends approval of the requested
variar°ice based on the followin factors:
A. Consideration of Factors:
1. T r 1 ti i # t re u ted v ri nc t ter existin r tentia1
us tr ct r In t vi i it .
The existin arage is approxfrraa#e9y 5 feet from the fron# property 11ne and 20
feet from the exis#sng edge of pavernent. The proposed two-story structure
would be one-foot fro the property line and 18-feet from the edge of
pavemente There is currently a ro osal by the T'own to expan the bulb of the
cu9-de-sac in this ar~a which wouId ecrease the distance from the road to the
proposed addition. ature vegetation {1-4 aspens} could be 1ost as resu1t of
thss ad itaon an the roposed surface parking to the west ofi the gara e. The
arage size should e ini ize to limit the encroachmerat into the side and
front set ack. The staff oul recommend that #he garage have a ?murrrr
interior dimension of 20-, AA wide versus 22-,8BB as proposed, as a condition of
the ap roval of this roJect, The surface parking has been rninirnized to 15° X
9'a The ap IIcant fl°iaIntaIC1S tFlat aII effoft5 wlll be taken to save the existing
vegetationo If arty vegetation is lost due to construction, it will need to be
re Iaced i#h comparable rnateria1, such as 2-3'°4" caliper aspens
As dascusse urin the vvork sessio held on this ite ,#he staffi is concerne
with the 2nd floor FA encroachrnent, Ithough the PEC did not feel that the
irnpact warranted the modification of the rrarmance request9 the staff believes
tha# by uliing back the 2n floor FA approxirnateiy 5 ta 8 feet, more rellef in
the facade ould be achievedg which is important because of the proximity of
the buil ing to the roperty line. This is not a condition of the staff's approval
due to the PC's corrt ents at the vvorksession held on this item, however, it
remains as a recom endation from the stafif.
-2-
2. T e degree t ic rli f fr t trict and 1iteral inter r t#i nan
f r t# e ifi r ul ti n is neces ry t c ive
c ti ilit u if r ity f tr te t among i#es it vicinity r t
#t in t jc#ives f# i ti#1e it ut r nt fspeci I rivilegem
The st ff recognizes that the siting of the existing building does constitute a
hysical hardshi . ~~ause of #he existing locatson of the house, in the fron# of
the lot, the a Iican# wouId need asetback variance for any garage #hat is
Iocate on the north side of the propertye `fhe staff fnds that the granting of
this variance woui not be a grant of special privllegee
3e e fif t f t ru t v ri c li ht and ir, istri tati n f
o C1l ti n, trans #i n tr ic fcilitIes, pu Iic fcilities and
utiliti , and li s f tys
The staff finds that the requested variance wi1i have a positive effec# upon
public safetye transportation an traf#ic facilities by providing additional enclosed
parkin tha# is out of the public right-of-waye The proposal will have no
significant effect upon any of #he other above issues.
B. °The Pianninq an Environmental Gorn ission shal1 rnake the following fjn~~
1. That the rantin of the variance will not constitute a grant of special
priuilege inconsistent with the limitations on other properties cIassifie in
the same district.
2e That the granting of the variance wiil not be detrimental #o the public
health, safety or vaeifaren or materially injurious #o properties or
improvements in the vicirtitye
3. That the variance is vv rrante for one or more of the foliowing reasons:
a4 The strict literal interpretation or enforcement of the specifie
regulation oul result in practical difficulty or unnecessary
hysacal hardshi inconssst~~t with the objectives of this titlem
bo There are exceptions or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions a plicable to fhe sarr'e site of the vari race that do not
aPPlY 9enerally to other properties in the same zone.
C. °The strict interpretation ar enforcement of the specified re ulation
ould de rive the appl~cant of privileges enjoye by the owners
of ofher ro erties in the same district,
-3-
IV. ST'AFF RECOMMENDATIONS
°The staff finds that the additional enclosed park6r~g will improve the general
appearance o# the neighborhood. ith the garage and side parking area additaon,
there wsli be a maximum of 3 parking spaces rovided on-sitee Currently, there is only
one on-site s acee The additional parking is necessary in order to meet the existing
parkin requirement for the site and al~ow the building expansion. Staff finds that the
entry addition has been located so that the encroachment to the front setback has
beetl t`CilCll 6ze a The staff flCt~~ th~~ the feq9Jes# meetS i~ems Bl, 2 and 3 (a) (C) of $he
ifaClaf1ce flnd611gs0
1`he stafifi reco rrrends approval of the reques# with three conditionsn
1. That if any existing aspens are lost as a result o# #he construction, that they wsll
e replaced ith 3i8-4" caliper aspene
2. If the Iarge aspen to the south ofi the parking area is lost, then the parking
sp~~e will e enlar ed to rr,eet the Town's standards and roew vegetation as
6n icated in condition 1will be addedo
3. The interior wi th of the garage be changed to 20-'6°a to Iimit the proposed
encroach ent into the front set ack and eliminate the need for aside set ack
variancea This will a1s0 decrease the irr, act of the exis#ing vegetation to the
west (ap roxirnately 4 Iarge aspens)o
c:epectmamoslsmail. a2a
-4-
MEMORANDUM
TOo 1 ning and Environment Commissatsn
F 4 ussell Forrest
A , 11 Septe ber 1992
Eo ~iron e tal or Ia
{tF ~{;i:~e<^:::
i'~%::i'r'~:':i::.'i:^:•:^:^:•iii:i:ii:.~{S:Y}:%;^:•:^::•'i^:%::>.^:tit::?:;:;}°;;;::;::::,•:";a!;:;ii:%::i:i:%:i?:::%::.'%!~ :`.°r:}':^'$>'i:+%Yii: iii:%
Attached is e draft 93 Envir~~ ent ork FI for your review and approv . The
pu ose of this work plan is to desciibe potential envis°on ental initiatives for e Town of
Vail that wi11 he1p ensure envircanment quality and sczstainabie growtha This workplan wi11
prov;de 'rection for environment initiatives into the next fiscal yearo
°The st fwi11 be p senting this pl to you on 2 September 1992 d will be grep ed to
swez° y questions you rnay have, owever, please f 1 fi° to contact e before e
Septe ber 28 meeting if you have y questions or would 1° e to ceive cl °ficaxion on y
of the proposed initiativess
Thank you fox yo ti e dc perationa
raft
11 e tember 1992
A I, F° C N°I`E
l, P ose 1
2. Or~~oing ojects 1
201 A.ir ua.lity Study 1
2s2 Vail Nonpoint Source 3
2o3In-house Recycling 4
3. New Envas°onmentai ojects 5
3.1 Environmental Database 5
3.2 Envzronmental Review Process 6
3.3 Envir°onmenta1 Strategic PIan 7
4. I.,ist of Potentia1 F~tu ojects 9
' raft
lm I7
The pu ose of this work pl is to describe potenti envircanmental initiatives fox e
Town c~~ Vai1 that vvill help ~~vircsnmenta1 quality d sustainabl~ owth. The pu ose,
status (if ongoing)9 SRfl84jLr LeA.aYkSy dmilestones (shown a1ong a t°e line) wi11 be dascuss for
each initiativea oth ongoing dne proj ts iil be discuss e is workpl will provide
° ecdon for environmental inidatives irrto the next fiscal yea.t°o
29 ONGOING
These projects i~~lude those initiadves that we begun in FY 92 and will coratanue into
the next FYa ese proj t descriptions discuss the ~urrent status of each pject and highlight
new tasks for ~ coming yearm
2.1 ir uality Sttz y
Pu osea
"The ° quality project has b n an ongoing work area for the past ye e hen the Vail
°Town Council pass the revised fireplace or °n ce last epte ber, eir approv was based
1argeIy on the condition that a publ;c education progr aeveloped d i plement o
'I°he progr as outlin by the staff is to consist of two major az°ease
(l) An inventory of existir~g fireplaces to begin dete ining the success of a voluntary
conversion pro ,
AND
(2) Pzzbiic education program dir te at both Tais and uests to make the aware of the
exzsting problerris d Town policy relate to vvoodbu 3rz o
Stat a
To monitor the effectiveness of is poIicy e sta is evelopin ° ventory of
existing ~°ireplaces usin a d rsto r s ey ccanduct last su er si analysis of records
fro the Assessor's officeo t fis so keeping track of voluntary ire lace conversions
through e pe itting ressm As of 24 ugust 1992, 24 dwellin tanits have convert to
gasm
1
°I"he education program for w b ing consises of two phases. The fniti phase of
this progam vvas to develo ° forrnational br hux°e for the chft ts, developers and
contractors in the a to summ ' e or °nance that is now in p1ace. his step has been
cornpleted dthe br he was aiI to Ial chitects dcon actors in 1ate Julya
The next step of the education progra is e development of literature both for 1 al
residents d€or ests to let them know ho they may help in the efforts t~ improve °
quality d°g the upco ing heating season. Sta.ff has worlcing wi e bers of rsther
communities in the valIey to deveIop a comp hensive program at c be used ougt~out the
valley, since the probiems which Va.il experiences are not aznique. S f has made this project a
priority ci wil1 begin irnplementation of an education program for is heating seasonm
Tasks a iiestortesa
Im The staff is in the pr ess of conducting a survey of local 1ges d hoteis to dete fne
current b °rng practices anci to garner suggestions for how to best approach an info ational
progr for their guestsm Staff is also evaI€zating new Caia do w burnir~~ ~gulations to
d.ete ir~~ ~eir impact on the Town of Vai10
Milestone: FY 92d-8 om_g- m10 __-11____126---FY93-v-m2 ooom3
20 evelopment of info a:rional br hu for I al resident poguIatiorz.
Milestone: FY 92---8 ---9---10-- Ilaam12om- 93w~- 2 3
3> issemir~ation of a forrnation to i al residerats>
Milestone: FY 92_-_8 -__g_sd1p__o1I -mI2--- 93---2--- 3
4. eveIopment of inforrnationat br hu for the Iging commur~ity.
Milestone: FY 92--- 8 m-ogtl_m1pamoz1X--12 -m- FY93 o_o2 voo3
5m issezrtination of ° formation to the 1ging community>
Milestone: FY 92wov8 -m_gam_10-11mo 12 -oo g3--- Z--- 3
6> orlcshaps on woodbuming altematives ansi BI'own po1icy for sidents, Iging co unity,
d deveiopers.
Milestone: FY 93--- 1dd-2-oov3---4 0m5_mo6vao7mms8X--9 -mv1 -l 1
2
70 eview, update if necess ,and °sseminate inforrnational br hures for 1a3 residezats d
the 1 gir~~ ~~~muni .
fllestone: FY 93--_1_oo2os_m3-o- 4 m-s5-6a-_7-__8X--9--m10vomll-sol2
Cos°to
Estzmated cost for an ongoirtg public education proga is $5,000 to design d publish
info at~onal br htarese h dout, d provide foz° 1-2 workshopsa
202 Vail Nonpoi t s~urce ogram
Purpose:
This study was initiatei ~n response to n~~ EPA C1ean Water A.cz regulations which have
been prorziulgat to ad ss raonpoint source pollution, e obj tives of this study ~.~e to
assess sources of nonpoint socarce pollution and develop mit;gation meas s to ad ess themm
Added objectives for FY 93 will be to evaluate the i pact of lan scape applicatfons (emg.
fertilizer, gicides, herbicides) on watex° quality and delineate wet1 ciso
.Stat e
In January of 1392, the Commurzity evelop ent ep ment put together a task force io
znitaate a nonpcaint source water quality study. Vail spent $10,000 on this project d r eiv
other $7,500 d technica1 assist ce fro CCO o e task fozce has essentiatly
cornpleted mapping the sto ain systerras in the "Town of Vai1 as weIl as identafying the
basins that drain into sp~~ific areas. "I"h e testlsa pling areas have been idez~tifi in Vail to
dete ine which pollut ts e impacting wager quality.
A r uest for matching funds has again been subrnitt to NWCC for 93.
Co unity DeveIopment has sub itt a budget request for $10,000 to complete the nonpoint
source water m a~~ ent p o e following tasks are contin~ent upon this budget request
anti the ability to receive matching funds from NWCC m
7°asks a ilestoraesa
~ l. elineate wet1 ds in the Tovan of Vaiio etland~ ~critic in ain ° in water quaiity in
a watershed d prese ing natzr habitata Secrion 404 of e Clean ater Act sets forth
requirements for protection of vvetl deaso To ensure re zalatory com liance and to protect
water quality it is necessary to delineate the bound °es of wetl ds in Vailo p ifc steps to
achieve is task inciudeo
aa stablish appropriat~ criteria for wetlands deliraeationa
bm ork with NWCC to obtain the necessary t hnical expert2se to deIineate wetl dsa
3
cm Idendfy wetland areas by analyzing soi1s, vegetation, and hy ologym
dm evelop mitigation eas s for protectin Vai1 wetl cis.
i1estone: FY93--l amo_2 d-o3m-- 4-_m50wo6a oa7-m_8 __mgs-- 1 -_ell--_12
2. Analy eimpact of landscape applicatiorrs Application of fertili rs, esticides, algicides,
d herbiczdes c be signific t con `btztors to wa.ter pallutzona Specific steps to achieve is
taslc ' cludeo-
am Identify e rypes d ~unts of 1andscape applications us by the Towrt of Vai1,
Vail Recreation I)istrict, d Vail Ass iates in landscapirag and on golf co eso
b> Evaluate the irnpact of these patential contaminants on water quality. Also xdentify
y toxic effects on hum sor wzldiifem
ca eveIop itigation rrleas es for minimizing the impacts of 1 dscape applzcationsm
aiestones 43_4za_~- 2 0.mo3_-_4m-- 5 mwo6 m-m7 -a_8m- _9 --e10mam11 m0v12
3. eveiop a nonpo°rnt source water quality managernent pT bas on the anaIysfs complet in
FY 92 ci the proposed wor°lc to be completed in FY 93m is plan wiII dFScuss mitigation
recomrr~~ndations that could incItzde new policy, ch ges to zorting ordsnancese or the buil ing
pe xt pr essa Speeific steps to achieve this task includes
aa Analyze nortgoint saurces identif'ieci in the FY 92 93 sttzdy d dete ine
appropriate mitigation meas s,
bo ep ea Draft Nonpoint Water uality Management P1 bas on the 92 93
aIysis arad stabmit to PEC for review.
c. Corriplet~ a Fina1 Nortpoint Water Qcaality Management
PI .
Mi1estoneaFY93--1---- 2 mmm3e_e4moa5 6 ---7___8 ___g-10-- m11-12
Projectecf Co,st for Next FYs
$10,000 FY93 Community Development budget request
$10,000 tapgli for ttrough CCOG to L7SEPA
$20,000 Tot
263 In- o se Recycling Progra
T@he Environmental Health ivisian has promoted irr-house recyc1ing pro m
C ently gaper, glass, aIuminum, and piastics e co11ect o ere is a high leveI of
p icigation among Town staff. F her efforts will be made to encourage s f ta brirtg
4
recyclables to collection points in the °T~wn buildi~g and in the Annexw ddftaonal office
z°eceptacles for recyclable rnaterials will be pus°chased in F'Y 93a
eyond e in-house effort, staff wzli work wi e Recyc1e d the ounty to begia
identifying op~orttunities for improving waste inamization dr ycling pro s withi.n the
coanmunityw
3. NEW AL PROJECTS
These ps°ojects include initiatives that are propos for the next fsc ye w
.1 rtvironmental a base
Purposeo
Ch cterizing the natura1 resouz°ces and dete ining environmental sensitivity with° d
arounti the Town of Vail is essential in perfa ing enviror~ ~nta1 revievvs d developing
effective environmental policiesa eveloping an enviz°onmental database inclucies hoth coliection
d syntheszs of baseline data (e,g. soil s eys, topo aphy, vegetation, water quality) and
regulatory irtfo ation that sgecify r uire ents for environmental protectionm
As enviz°onmenzai data is collected for the Vai1 ea, c ing capacities for ajor
environrrient so ces c begin to be est° atedo the next two to three ye sit wou1d be
possible, if sources e available, to dete ine the c ing capacity fc~r the areas nat
m-made resourcesa is ~ould enable the town to dete irre the level and type of gowth
that c be sustairzed wi out szgnificantly deteraorating natural or man-made res~urcese
The fo11owing is a list of data layers needed fox° environrnent planning ci review4
IJ S aps
Aerial Photos
Avaalable satellite images of the valley
5oil Survey
Vegetataon S eys
Fauna Su eys
P -10 c3ata
ater qua22ity onitoring ta o up and dowrz-s a stations
Coloradsa ° water re s
limatic a
Land use ap
oise zone map
Fl plain ap ~
y ology d drainage basin d-ata
Avalanche d rockslide map
5
etr hemicai Sites (incluciing ST)
Silver producing sites (hospitals) 40
~a ks ca ilestortes°;
l. Identify so ces ci costs for the above stated environmental baselin~ informatione
ilestoneo FY93m-1 v-- o2-_m3-4---5--- 6_md7___8 mm-9--- 10---11---12
2m ngage contract support, if requar , to coIiect baseline anformation that is not ~vailablem
i1estone: FY93ao1 m-m~2-36od4__ -5--_6m_-7-m_8 9-d- 10-me11 eoml2
3m ep e an environ ental sensitivity ag for the Town of Vail that identi es specia.l
environmental conside tions for Iand usem This cou1d then be inte at irato a IS mapping
system if the Sierra system is pchased for the °I°own,
ilestonem FY93amlom-m2 3-po4otl- 5s_a6 -a- 7-X--8 -sag-dalOm-tl11---12
Pt°cajec~~d Cost:
oj t cost for FY 93 is $4, m
3.2 virott etttal eview Proce
Pttrposeo°
The objective of environmental i pact report I) gr ess is to ens e that y
si~nific t environmental °rssues e identifed early zn the pl ning process of a project. This
heigs erts e that sensitive nat al resources e prcstected d helps to prevent litigation from the
ever growing nu ber of environmental requirements gromuigat at the federal anci state levele
The "I°ovvn af ail d s have an environmental irnpact report r tz%~emer~t withirz the Towrt Code
(I8e56)m T'his project will invoive develoging a preliminary envi nmental review (PER) p ess
to dete ine if a full scat~ environmental imgact report is necessary. is initFative will so
invoIve reviewzng s tion 18.5E af the T'own of Vail's ning Code dco rrten `ng
amendments to provide a mare effective E process.
In 94 or 95 a E pr ess couid be computerized or incorporat into the ropase
GIS sysCem ta faciiitate pid preliminary envirocimenta1 r~~~ew of propos projects. nce art
environmental database is complete, an automated environment review system coui utili is
tabase to dete ine the cu ulative impacts of a pro}ect d hel ens eer~vironmentaily
susta.inable owth in the Va.il area.
6
Trzsk.r cz ileszones:
1a Investigate environmental review processes used by other zriuraicipalities d discuss in the
literature to dete ine there feasibility for use in the Town of Vail,
ilestonea FY92 m-12-wmg3aml-e_2s__3__m4osmS--- 6 -__7_-_8 -m-9-10
Zs eview section l8a5b of Vai1's n' g Code to dete ine if revisions are nd in the E
pr ess. Recorrgamend revisions to sec€ion 18.55 a.nd preserzt to PEC and the Council.
MiIestonee FY93om_1 o_o2wow3 -m_4-_v5 m-o6 --s7 $sw- 9 --d10
2, evelop a prelzrziira environmental xeview processo
~
iIestone: FY93mo1 -ms-2-_- 3a__4-Xe-5---6-7m__$tl0_9 __W10 11 o-ml2
3. Test and evaluate the pr ess in fve or more prajectso
ilestonem FY93--lod_m2pa_3o-_4moa5no_6_-- 7m-_8-_X-9--- 10--- 11--_12
4. epare a final environrrient review process and present to the PEC for review d approva1<
ilestones FY93o-I o--m2 _oo3e-o4as- 5 ms- 6 7m-m8 om- 9 -_m10-o -11 sm- 12
Projected Cost for IVcxt FY;
No contractor cost is expected in the initiai developmenz of the environmental review pr ess in
FY934
3.3 v2ronme tai Str te ic la
Purposeo
The p ose of a strategfc pl is to establish a vision for the Town of t,ail and ~Vail
v ley for environment protection and sustainable grovv a is ° itiative would be v uable for
establishin a long-r ge environment agenda for Vail de v ley> ~strategic pl will
consist of ajor environmen 1 thrust eas (e.go compli ce, olludon prevention, natur
xesource prot tion) that the Town feels are irnportant for ad essin it's fu e environ ent
challengesa i in each envii°onmen "thrust`° area sp~~ific objectives woulci establishe m
For each objective, recommen tioras ~ould be developed and a work pl established to
implement ese recommendationsa Recommendations ay su1t ' new policy, ch ges to
existing poiicy, changes to the buil 'ng perinit process, or environmental ~wareness pro sa
7
~
Z` ks a ile.stonese
lo Investigate o er municagal er~vironmental strategic pl s and ev uate the gr ess us d
i e content of the pi sm
Milestone: FY93--l---2-X-3 --m40Wm5---6 7---8 9e-- 10-m- 11--- 12
2e Identify irr °viduais in the Vaal ea to g icipate in aenvironmental strategic pI rtirtg
workshopo
a, etermine the appropriate ix of individuals so that gave ment, developers,
comrnercial interests, concemed cBtizens, and enva ognment oups are representeda
bo Detennine hether @°down valley°e issues shauid be conside d d whether a°fferent
forum should he useda
Milestone: FY93--1-m-20-- 3m_X-4---5_-_6o_-7smo8 s_sg_-_1Q--- 11---12
3m Identify a facaiitator for an environmental strategic pl ning orkshopa
i1estone:FY93--1a_- 2--- 3_wR4_ _s5 -mm6--- 7---8 __dg_-- 10d--11-12
40 ork with the facilitator to gl the logrstrcs of ~~orkshopo Thzs wiIl include 1ation, date,
fin list of p°cip ts, and agen o
Milestone: FY93--1_m- 2 oms3s_m4---5___6_0X_°7___$---9 _mo10 ___11 _0- 12
5. onduct workShop(s) and r~cord pr eedingsm
Milestone: FY93--1__-2.--- 3-_a4--_5tl__Em-o7---8--X-9---10_m_11o-m12
6. Analy worksha~ pr °ngs d deveiop a draft p1ans
Milestone: FY93--1m-- 2-3--_4_-- 5-6-so7 ___8 g-1p--- llgy -m12
7. Intemat review of aft p1 by pI nirtg staff and PECa
Milestone: FY93-1emd2 3sm_4 -e- 5 ma_6 -mm7-__8 g--- 10-11--- 12e -FY94
8. ep e 2nd aft environrrtental strategic plan and subn- it it for public reviewe
Milestone: FY94 Im-- 2 -d- 3-wm4mdo5 6 _m- 7-oo8 omvg_-_10-mmll---IZ
8
9. Inco orate comments d submit e fin~ ~nvironmenta1 strategac pl for approv by the
PEC d the BTown ~ouncilo
ilestonev 9414A- 2 _vs3 _ow4 mmm5X--6 -am7w-_8 ___9a-o10 w__i1---12
l0o (1994 )egin implementation of str~~~~~c p1an recommen tionsa
alestone: 941-2-g_3mus4a-o5-a- 6-X-_7--_8 --_9-_- 10---11m-- 12
Projected Costm
stamat cost in FY 93 is $2,000 for a facflitatorm
. LI F TT° L FII I1 E P C}JECTS FY 9 m 97
The following is a Iist of potenrial prajects that could be inatiated in the corning years> he
nvironmental Strategic Plan would help dete ine the need for ese or o er t es of
ez~vironment p jects d define a iong-tenn work pl a
nvai'onmerttal Awareness og7°a.rrgs
Comp1etion of a Comprehensive Nonpoint atez° uality Plan
Wellhead otection Pl
nergy fficien nv° rz entally Frientily Builciing esigtt ui nce
Air uality Pl
T°oxic d azardous aterials Plan
Natural eas P1
aste Management Plan
Noise agemezat Pl wi focus on I-70
Alte arive fuels for I al governmeiital vehicies
Comprehensive Envi~~nmental araagement P1 ( is could incorporate ihe m ma sp ifc
pi s to provide guid ce for sustazzzable owth into the 21st cerat )
9
MEMORANDUM
Y lannill vi2°oZl eIlt I3S1o1I
FROM: LtSSelI Forrest
A m 11 eptember 1992
a Environmental r
r~.•x•,w~ frs~wxr.:•r~•r.:~~=:w • rrar-:c r ,rg.vsn-r r ffs.~ v r.r rr?rr.<+rr.
:~.V'r'r.•ti~i.:C,w,.tair:r:;;:;C>i:4xe•.Y'Y,.'r°'r,;'rY•rr"vFF //.~'3i?... rx....s.'v`:d::'+.%;PrV:;v.;f•;r,'.4e~';°°i:.Y;i:•YrG;:gi;rx;%`~;'?s'Y,.:'C+i:?'r_..r.°T~.`.~'+"'i..... ...<.$:.F.!...~..T".f'~'. ...FY.%e/+`N?`.:+vl`?~:'+`J'!>"
.........,:>.:&.::~:.•;:.:r.::::...n:~.F...r.....,...P..r..,....~.:,5.......r........~.f...r;Trr.'"''~r:'.r...r..~r .+~P,.'+~.~fi'.r::~,:::~:~.=~i.
....•:::..::..,:.:.•::>:::>::<~:.:<e-:.~:::;a•;;.:~x':':y;:e:n:•r::::e•::c.:•...,..~::r..:rn.:.::.:.•.:.:::r......e...i... ........................r,.r.. ..r..........a......~~...,....F.,...........d.,,.,............,','~. '~~.r.. .:.:..~r.~..~.....
r r.......,...
.:.R.~::,
v:::~.:::.:~::r .:::::::::::::::::.:::x:x:::n~:::::::m:::::::m.~.::v::n.......:v.:~iii:i{i~iiiii::::Li :w::::i::::^Y::L:4iii.i:i:Y.~f.:S:~.S:X•i4~:;.iiii}Y},•FV~.n:v.•:::::~».rf:•'i.•:"fr::i.i..3:.:ni~'r.N6Yi:}:i:•:: :•:f:?i'r::y~: .x::~r: .....r...r......e
::.::::.:v::::::::: :.:.:::::::::::n•:::::: :-:::::s:::::.:. I....y;.:•:}: :::::..•..r: ::v:.; t:.d:~i:'.'s.h:^:-:i:s.P::::::rv.•: :..v::.:•::: •
..i :ii'~i~:^ii:•i:=:v:::.
:.~:.~::::::.e :.e.~.^n.::,:^.::.^::::::::::..::.•s.....:::r:.:~::: ::.:::::.~:•::::::::::::::::.a:.~:;.•:::.~:: •:a::.~ :~:r::v::,~ P. ..r.. . ...........r.:.r:::i:•::x:::::.,::::::: a.: ..:.a•::::::x : •vP•.r:.a:: :.r:::::r:::~
n.....re. r..r
..::4^. ~ .r:?•; xdv:.:: r:::::r: r..
v:f.•.:4::.::x•:: v.
•.:::::r:::::::e::: v:: :•.^:::::::::.e:r:::::.~r :::::::::..:....n::: :y:::.~x::::: ~"..~::.:~:::r:::::.~:.~.v:::::.~........,.J.•: :v:~r'.~ .n.. . ..r... . n...;
..+°r.v:n.....asr.w:v.vr..v... r .:i'F+7+'Nr'i}}i.t~:•'<Y'v:4i~.:~•:n•.
r.: °::.-.:.e.~::::::r:.v~:::::::,-::.v.^r.a.~:::r:x:m::::.e.e.~:.a:..::n..~};.:..»ary.•::::::::.:; ::..w::::.vr:. ..n. : ~
.......r.x~ r.....::•~ x.:r..;.;..e ;;•,:-.;a_.;.:?:~::~v::.;y..;..r:;e+',..,-,..y,..r4...,..s r
~...........,.~..s;:..~.v;,:f.;:rr:s;rr:,;r:,::~a,.:.c~>:°.-.r:r:;a:°,;;ss.vaw:•r:;.s>.8r:t~,.d:,c~:&::d;',•s.~:°a'%n:;'•:sa,~:;;;irr:;>:Y!~.xrf~,:,.s.s~::,v°Y.w?'m x,d:vac.,A?Fr.w,a~.,%,U';~;,-,r.,°.•:r,rf.8a.'~sweru,a»a.rvo.~ '~-°a"f~i.°u'i~%J'nr.l'`a~l;.fi:~:~~
.A.t ch is e draft 3 Environmental ork Pi for yo 'ew and ap v a e
p ose of °s wcark pI is zo descri tential environmental i °tiatives for e Town of
Vail at will hel ensure en °onmezt u iand sus °na le o m is r 1an °
provide ° ~on for environment initiatives into the next fi a.l year.
The s fwill be preseniin is i to you on 28 Sep r 1992 and will to
swer y questions you ay haveg owever, please f 1 con te fore the
Septe r 2 eetin if you have yuestions or woizl °e to ceive cl ° cation on y
of e pro s inida°ves.
Thank you for yo ee and c perationa
-pLAN
L
i°~
~ er 19
S'Il
~
1. Purpose 1
2e ngo° oj ts 1
2.1 Air uali Study 1
2,2 VaiI Nonpoint Source 3
263Inmhouse Recycling 4
3m New nvironrrtent oj ts 5
3.1 rtviz°on ental Database 5
3.2 nvirort en eview Process
3e3 nviron ent Strategic PI 7
4. Z,ist of oter~tiaI Future o1ects 9
. raft
I.PURPOSE
The pu ose taf is work pl is ta des ° tenti environmental znitiatives foz° e
Town of Vail at 'll help ensure environmental qu ity and sus °nable owth. The p se,
s tus (e ongoing), ajor tasks, and milestoraes (shown along a ' e line) ° Wscuss for
eac ° itiativem o on oing dnew proj ts wiil discussecL is wor 1 will rovide
direction for environmental initiatives i to the next sc ye a
. ONGOING
3hese projects incIude thcase initiatives that ~ere begun iri 92 and `continue into
the next . These proj t descriptions 'scuss e c nt s sof each project and hi hli t
new tas s for e comin ye o
2. ir Quality tu y
Pu ose:
ei qu i project has b n an orzgoin work ea for e past ye a her~ e Vail
Town Council pass e revis p1ace or °nance 1 t Se r, eir approv was bas
1 gely on the con etion at a pubiic ucation program be develo i 1ement s
e program as outlin by e s f is to consist of two major areas:
(1) An inventory of exisdng fimplaces to be °n dete ° ing the success of a voluntary
conversion pro m
AND
(2) ubiic ucation program t at bot' 1 s and ests to make them aware of e
e°sting proble s and own poHcy relat zo vv b in .
Stat o
o monitor e effecdveness of is olicy e staff is eveIopin ° ventory of
e esti~ ireplaces using a door-to-door s ey con uct i t s er and ysis f records
o e ssessor's o xce. Staff is so keeping track of all v voluntaxy lace convt ions
through e pe ittin r ess. sof 24 u sz 1992, 24 we11i units ave converted to
gas.
3
e educa.tion program for w b ing consis of o h es. The initihase of ~
is rogram was to devclo e fo ation br h c for e archit ts, veIopers and
contractors in e area ta summarize e or °n ce a.t is rtow in lace. °s step h
~ompieted de hroch e was °l to local hitects. dcon actors irt Iatc JuTys
e next step of e education program is e eveIop ent of li e both for local
residents and for guests to let em kno how they ay heIp in the efforts to i rove °
u i d ' e upco in heating season. Staff has en wo mn embers of other
co mrznities in the v iey to deve2o acomg hensive program that can be us ou hout c
v Iey, since the grob1ems which V °1 ex rien s are not urtfque, Staff as made is roj t a
prioxi ci will e`n i Iernen tion fan e ucatian for is heatin seasarta
T ks a ilestones:
la The staff zs in e pr ess of conduc °g a su ey of local Iges d hote1s to dete a.ne
current b in ractices and to garner suggestions f~r how to best approach inforrnational
program fcsr eir uestso Staff is so evaluating new alorado w b ing regulations to
clete ine their impact on the Town of Vai1,
Milestone: 92-d mo- 9- m10-am11p__- 12---- FY93 o-d- 2-oom3
2. eveiopment of infonnataon br hu for 1 al resident popuIa.tioram
Milestone: FY 92-m_8 9 wma10mm g2d-d12 --s 93mo_2 --m3
3. isserrair~ation of ° formation to local residentsa
Milestone: }zd-v m-_gm-ml0m_-21 a-12-em 93_m_2ood3
4. Deve1opment of inforrnation br hu for e 1 g° communi a
Milestone: 92 -_s _-wgvdv1p0mm11 - 12--- g3-o2--03
5e issemination of ' ormatron to the 1 mng cornmuni e
Milestone: 92- __egm__1 oao11-- 12-m g3-om2 d_- 3
60 orkshops on w b °r~ atives an Town pohcy for si ents, 1 ang community,
d deveiope e
Milestone: 3---1_-m2_m_- 3-ma4 mr5 -_w 7 0mm vmg-mel o-m11
2
w 78 e°ew, u te ° necess ,an @s inate infc~ ational br hu s far local si en d
the 1 ing com uni e
ilestozaev 3-1 2 4-m- 3a_m4 _-_Ss_m -_7-wa8X-sgd-1 m_- 11-12
Costm
stzmat cost for an ongoing pubhc education program is $5,000 to si d publish
informational br hes, h doutp d z°ovide for 1-2 worksho s.
2.2 il onpoint ource Program
Purposee
is s dy was inztiat in sponse to new P.A lean Water Aci gulations which have
b n promizlgat t~ ad ss nonpoznt source llutaon. The o j tives of is stu yare to
assess sources of nonpczint source pollution an c1eveiop mit~ ation meas s address e A
Added objeciives for 93 wi11 to ev uate the e pact of I ca ap 1icati ns (eo a
fe °lizer, algicides, herbicicies) on wa r u ity d de °neate wetl s
.Stat m
In January of 1992, e Co tani evelopment ep ent put together a task force to
initiate a nonpoint so ewater quality s dy~ Vail spent $10,000 on this proj t dr eiv
other 7,5 t hic assis ce fiom CC . e sk force has es ntiaily
completed mapping the storin en systems in the Town of V °i weIl as i en 'fying the
basirzs that drain sp ific are a Three test/samplizrg eas have been iden°fied in V°I to
dete ine whzch poliut ts are impacting water qualitys
A r uest for matchin funds has again been submitt to CC for 93.
Ccs munity evelopment has sub itt a budget r uest for $10,000 to co plete the nonpoint
source water zn agement p m e followin tasks are contingent upon is u get request
and e abiiaty to r eive mat~hin funds fi-om C .
T ks a ilestones:
1. DeIineate wetl ds in the Town of VaiIa edands e °tic in main i irt water qu ity in
a watersh p se in natural habi t. Secdon 404 of e le ater ct sets forth
r uire ents for prot tion of wetland e m o ensure re atory co iian to rot t
wa r qu ity it is necessary zo delineate the bound ees of we s,i °l. Specific ste s to
ac meve `s task include:
ae s blish a pro 'ate criteria fcar wetlands elineation.
b. Work wi to o °n the necessary °ca1 xpertise to deetaea we s.
3
ca Iden efy wetland e by analyzing soils, vege tion, and hy ola o -
gevelo it~ ation cas s for protecting Vail we d
ilestonem FY93--l 2 md- 3-4-_e5m-_ _ mm7 mo- 8 9 m-m1 _m_Il_-- 12
m n y e i act of 1 cape a Iicatione App1ication of fe m i rs, sticz s, algicides,
and erbici es can be si ° c tcon 'butors tss waeer poIlutionm Specific stegs to achieve is
s ° cIu ea
am I entify e rypes d oun of landscape applications us y e Town of `l,
Vaii ecreation is 0ct, and V ' ss iates in landsca in art on olf courses.
a vuate the i paci of ese tential cont in ts on water qu ityo AIso i en ° Y
ytoxic effects on hum s or wil ifea
ca evelop mitigation measures for inimizing the i acts of 1 ci~ca a Iica °onsn
ilestonea 93_-1mm_s2P_m3_-wq,-5 6 --m7--a _a _ a_m10-_m11-m-1
3. eveiop a nonpoint scs e water qtaality management I bas on the anaIysis comgiet in
FY 92 d e propos work to be comglet in FY 93d is Tan will 'scuss mitigation
recornmendations at could include new poIicy, ch ges ta ning o °nances, or the buil '
permit process. p ific steps to achieve is taslc inc1ude:
a. An yze nort oint sources identi~°zed in the FY 92 93 study d d.ete ine
° aPPropriate mitigation meas s,
bs ep e a Draft ater uality Management 1 bas on e 92 3
a,lysis d submit to PEG for reviewo
cm om lete a Final Nonpoirat ater uality Management
I o
iiestonee g30-l _m_- 2-3ss_4mmd5 om- 6 7-8 moo9eo_1pe- w11-m-12
Pr°ojectect ast for° ext FYo
$10,000 93 Communi evelopment budget qrzest
$10,000 tappli for through CC G to USEPA
$20,000 otal
2.3 In- o se Recycling o t°a
T'he nv° an ental Hea1 ivision has pramot in-house recycling ra m
ently apers Iass, umznum, and 1 tics e cali t o ere is a i 1eve1 o
p°cipation amon Town s aFurther efforts will be ae to encourage s f to 6
4
rt recyclables to coll tion ints in the Town building and in the Annex. Additional office
receptacles for recyclable materi swiil p chased in 3m
' eyond e in-house effort, s f wali ork wi e Recycle and the un to be e
identifyin op rtunities for i proving wasxe inimization and r yclin pro swi i e
co muni m
. NEW ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
These proj ts incIude irsi °adves at ~propos for the next fisc year.
3.1 rtvironme tal atabase
u osea
h ctezizing the natural sources an dete ining envgy nmentaI sensitivi wi ° d
around e T'own of ti' " is essenti in perfo ing enu° nen 1 reviews and eveloping
eff tive enviroramen liciesm evelopiz~ ~~vironment base includes both co11 tion
d synthesis of baseline ta (eID e soil s eys, topo phy, vege tion, water qu i ) and
regulato inf~ ation that speci r ui~ements for envirora~en prot tione
As env° nment is coIi t for the Vail ea, c ing capacities for ajor
environment sources c begin to be es eated. In the next o to t e ye s it woul
possible, if sources axe available, to dete ine the c ° capacz f~~ ~ areas ~~tural and
m -made sources. is wou2 enable the town to dete ine the 1eve1 and e of owth
that can be sus 'ned wi out significantly deteiioz°atir~g natural or ana a e resourr-ese
°The followin is a list of ta layers needed for environmental lannin d review;
USGS aps
en Photos
v°able satellite i a es of e valley
Soil Survey
Vegetation Surveys
auna Surveys
-1 ta
ater u ity oni m fro up and down-stream s tions
o1orado ' ater regs
liatic a
Land use a
oise ne ma
Floodplain ma m
y olo °raage basin data
v anche and kslide ma
5
etroche ic ites (inclu °n ) .
ilver roducin sites os i s)
Ti~ ks a ilestoneso
1. Identify sources and costs for e above stated enviromnental Iine informaticsna
ilestoneo 93s-1--- _ awm3-4 _-w5a-e m7 _em a-_g--al m-oll-_- 12
2. ngage contract sup rt, 'requir , to collect b line °o ation that is not av °Iable.
ilestonen 3-m1---- 2 a_m3_m- _5--- m7o_w8 --s9vm- l -Il-12
30 ~ are an er~viromnental sensitivi ap for the Town of V '1 at i endfies s i
environmental considerations far land useo is couI en ° te t into a I a pin
syste if e Sierra syste is purchased for e°Town.
ilestonc: 93v-1 oao- 2 -a- 30_-4s--5 -m- 6--e7- _-8 g--- 10 --m11 mo- 12
rajected Co.sta
oj ted cost for 3 is , .
3. nvironmerttai evi~
Pu osee
e abj tive af environmental impact report I ) pr ess is to ensure at y
si~nific ten environmental issues e identified e ly in the 1 ning ress of a proj t. is
helps ens e at sensitive natural resources are protect d hel s to prevent Iitigation from e
ever owing nu ber of environmental reqczrrements promulgated at e f er s te levelm
e own ctf °1 d s ave an env~onment impaet re rt r um erzt within e Town Code
(18.56). is project ilI involve deve1oping a preliminary env° rt ental review (PE ) process
to dete ine m a full sc eenvgy environmental ° pact repo is necessary. is initiative wiIl so
invoIve re 'ew° s tion 1$a56 of e eTown of Vail's Zoning e d recommending
arnendments to provide a more effective EIR pr essgy
In 4or 95 a E ess couId be computerized or incorporat 8 to the pro se
IS syste to facilitate pi preliminary environment view of ro s rojects. ncc an
environmental atabase is complete, ar~ automated environmental me system coul u °lize this
tab e to ete ine e c uladve ° pacts of a project and elp cns e envm n en Ily
sus °nable ow ° e V ' ea.
6
Tasks a ilestonesa
1, 'Investigate en gn en I review resses used by other municip ities and °uss in the
literat e to dete ine the feasibiiity for use in the Town of V°I.
ilestoneo 92 --12_-- 93--1--- 2--- 3os.,4 d-- 5 -_m6o--°7--s8 oam -1
2m eview section 1$a56 of Va%1's ning Code tca dete iaie if visions are n d e EIR
pr essa ommend. revisions to s tion 18m56 d pz°esent tca PEC ars ~ouncila
ilestone: FY93 I ---2 -m- 3 a-- 4-5 dm_ -s7--- 8 om- mmm1
2. Develop a p li inary environmental view processa
~
ilcstone: FY93__l---- 2 swo3_o- 4- mm5v_a6 ma- 7wwm$am- 9--m10 ma_110-- 12
3m Test and evaluate e ress in five or rnoz°e proj tsm
ilestonem 93--1---- 2 P-93-4o-_5 m-- m-- 7_-0$--X-9 --_10 --all--- 12
40 ep e a inal en °onment review process and present to e F for review dapprov .
ilestoraem FY93--1 5 --m m_ry--m$--W9-a_Ipm-X-11A_- IZ
rrajected Cost for ext FY-.
No contractor cost is exp d in e initia1 develop ent of e environmental review pr ess '
FY934
3.3 vironme t 1 trate ic 1
tc osee
e purpose of a s te ec 1 is to establish a v° ion for the aw of a° e V°I
v 1ey for environmental tection an sustainabl~ ow . is ' etiative woul valuable for
es blishin a long-range en ° omnental agenda for V ' e v leyo e s ate ec 1 i
consist of ajor environmental st areas (em . compli ce, oilu °on prevention, natural
resource prot tion) at e To n f Is e important for ad esse it's fu eenv° onmental
ch Ienges. i ieach environmental "thruste" area sp ifc objec °ves wou1 es b°sh a
or ea.ch obj dve, o en tiozas could be developed and a wor 1es lis to
i plement ese recommen tions. Recommendations ay sult i aaevv licy, ch es t~
existin licy, ch ges to the buzl Bn pe it process, or environmental awareness ro sW
7'
~
flestaneso
1. Investigate other municipal env° on ental strate °c pl s and ev uate the gr ess us d
i e content of e pl so
Milestone: 93-m Zm-_ -X-3__ -5 dm- ao7e-m --_g-m- 1-11 -12
2. Identify in °vidu s ° e °1 ea to p icipate in a envi~~~ e-ntal strate 'c 1 in
wor hop.
a, ete ine the aPF Priate ix of individuals so that ovemment, eveIopers,
commerci interests, concemed citizens, d enviTpmmental ups are rrepresentecL
o ete ine whe ~r " ~wn ~aH~y" issues shoul considere whether a ` ferent
fo m shoulci e us s
Milestone: 93mdla_-2-ow3-_ m4 ooo5- e-mry--m8 w-ego-o1Q-1l_-- 12
3. Identify a f ilitator f~~ env° nmenta1 s tegic pl nrn workshopa
ilestoneo 93a_Iom- 2 3--- 4o a-5 mmm6 a_m7 -dm8 mo- 3-I0 -m-11-12
4< ork with the faciH tar to pi e logistics of aworkshop. is °lI inclu e I ation, teq
in list of p °cip ts, and agenda.
Milestone: FY"93_o1 m-o2 -mo3-m- 4s-_5d-_6_-X-7---8 --m9_mm1p-smll_-- 12
Sm onduct workshog(s) and r ord p eedingsm
Milestone: 93--lom-2-so3-4d_v5-m_ o-m7mm- $--X-9---I0 -s- 11 _@_12
6m n y worksho g °ngs d develop a ciraft pI .
Milestone: 93-01 2mm_3mm- 4-5 -md tlv- 7aps8wmm9 __m10 --vllm _-12
7s Intemal review caf draft 1 y 1 ning staff and P Co
Milestone: 93_1 d-m2 mm- 3-4 me_5-_m w_7 ww- 8 o-o9eAe~0-11--- 12-
, epare 2nd draft environmental s te °c plan and sub _ it it for public view.
Milestone: FY94 1-am _d- 3_-- 4 --m -_m am_7--_ 0dmg_~~10-11___12
8
~
4.
~
9. Incorporate comments d sub it e fn environmental s ate °c pl for approv by e
PEC and the Town Councila
°lestonem 941w-m2 3-4 0-- 5 ma6 --_°7A_e8 qsp- 10 ma- 11-_-12
1. (1994 )egin g plezner~ tion of stegic plan recommendations.
`lestonem 941pb- 2-3ma ama5 -s- 6-X--7-_-8 9 maml0 ---11--- 12
rojected Costm
sdmat cost ° 93 is 2, 0 for a facilitatox°a
4. LIST OF POTENTIAL FUTURE PROJEC°TS F 4 - 7
e following is alist of potenti projects that could be initiate in the co in ye s, e
Environmental Strate ac Plan would help detennine the ne for ese or other t s of
environmental p jects d deine a longate work pl o
nvironmental Aw nes$ ograms
ornpletion of a Co p ensive Nonpoint ater rz ity i
e1 ead otection Pl
nergy Efficient/Env° nmen lIy Friendly Buil `ng Design Gui nce
ir u zty 1
oxi~ ~ Hazardous aterials Plan
Natural eas I
aste anagement 1
oise Management Pl wi focus on I-70
lt~ ative fuels for local governmeiatail vehicles
o prehensive Enviromnental anagement PI is caui inco rate ihe media s ific
1 s to ravide id ce for sustainable grow into the 21st cen )
; 9
PLANNING I L COMMISSION
'24,1992
AUGUST OF AGENDA
1 1e00 a.m. Site Visits
9 030 o a xecutive Session (Lar s ith)
2:00 p, o u Icc Hearing
Si#e Visitsa
epier
Vaal Village Inn
ai1
l1mSe est1CeIlu! r ne
Public Hearing ;00 p, -
9 o request #or a ork session to discuss a ro osal to erect o 60-fioof towers in ast
Vail t the base of the runmaway truck ramp adjacent to 8-70.
Aplican#e l1m . est/Cellular One1lJnite tates Forest ervice
Planner: ndy Knudtsen
2s request for a s°sde setback variance to a1iow a ne res€dence Iocated ai Lot 15, Vail
Village Second Fiiin f1793 has# Placeo
pPlicant: Joseph & Peg y Hepler
Planner: Tim Devian
3. request to mo i the landscapin 1an associate wit the reviously approved
exterior aIteration proposal for the lifer ufl ing, 230 rid e treetlPa of Lots B and
, Lot 5, VaiI Vi11age First iiin a
Applicanta od and eth !i#er
Planner: Tim Devlin
APPLICANT -
1 1 1
4m A request for a major amendrr'ent to SDD No0 6, to remove a previous condition of
approval for t1nit om 30, hase Vai1 Vi3la e Inn/1 0 st eado riveNail Viliage
PI a Condominiums.
PPlicant: SC of Vaii, Colora a, Lm alFrank icero
Planner: rk ollic
5. request far a work session for setb ck variance to Ilow for a new gara e an h
addition to an existin residence Iocate t Lot 5, i harn Est tes/ 23 ugget L ne.
p licanto W. C. and C rol asl
Planner: heliy eIla .
ublishe in The Vail Trai3, August 1, 1992
P NNlN AND E VIRONMENTAL CO ISS! N
August 24, 1992
F'resen# Staff
reg Arnsden Kristan Pritz
Jeff Bowen ike ollica
Chuck Crist Andy Knudtsen
Diana Donovan l`am Devl9rr
Kathy Langenwaiter Shelly elio
Dalton illiams Larry skwith
ena hiften
1 e tarting at approximateiy 2:00 p. a awork session was hel #o discuss a request for a
setback variance to allow for a new garage and an addition to an existin res6dence
Iocated at Lot 5, aghorn Es#ates/4238 Nugge# Lanee
Applican#m W. C. and CaroB Smail
Plannere Shelly elio
General discussion was held in regard to this requesta The staff ident9#ied two issues
reiated to thss request. The first was the possible Ioss of mature reegetation and the
second concern was #he rnass of the building as it relates to the proximi of the
proper line. The PEC felt that the rr7ass was not an issues Diana Donovan felt that
all ve eiation shoul be rnaintained. The remainder of the P C felt that eve attempt.
should e takera to keep the vegetation, however, the parking space size couI not e
decreased slightly,
The publsc meeting was called to order at 2:25 p.mm by Chairperson iana Donovan.
2. A request for a work sess>on #o discuss a proposal to erect o 60-foot towers in ast
Vail at the base of the run-away truck ramp adjacent to 1-70a
Appiicant; 11,Se est/Celluiar ne/llraited tates Forest ervice
lannerm Andy Knudtsen
Andy Knu tsen presented the ite to the Pianning Commission, introducing persons °sn
the audience who were in attendance to discuss this issuem A presentation was ae
regard3n the new iocatian bein proposed to ins#aIl the towersm The new Iocation was
irt ast Vafi above the water tower, which is out of the Town of Vaii'S JCI(Isd1Ct@Onm !t
was state that the U. S. Forest Service wou1 be tnakin the ultimate decision as to
the approval or denial of this requests epresentatives frorn the l!e . Forest ervicee
CeIluIar ne, lJa . West and agle County Land Use s oke #o the Com ission, After
some discussion, it was the general concensus amon the neigh ors, sta e an orest
ervice taffm that the new Iocation ouI e much {ess visible than the one reviously
consideredm The CeIlufar ne representative sai that he ould stak the site ith
balloons io cfearly indicate the Iocation of the tower for the next PEC eetin e 1t as
a reed that the ite would be continued #o the September 14, 1992 Planning and
Environrnental Commission meeting and that the staking would be com Ieted by the
morning of the 14th.
3e A request for a side setback variance to allow a new residence Iocated at Lot 159 Vaii
Village Second Ffling/1793 Shasta PIace.
Applican#o Joseph & F'e99Y F-Eepler
PIannero Tirrr Devlin
1"i Devlin reviewed the request with the Planning CommissAon, stating ihat the
applicant was fn attendanceo The applicant is requesting a setback varAance on the
south side of his property to construct a nevv prim ary/s ecandary unito Staff generally
supported the proposal but recomrriended that the applicant shi#t the Iocat1on of the
house four feet to the West to minimize the setback encroachmente The addition of a
restricted secondary unit is seen as a pos4tive aspect of the projecta There was
d€~cussion following, wt°aereby several Corrim?ssson members felt #hat this varsance may
be a gran# of special priviiege, as the owner krtew when he bough# the !ot what the
limltataons wouid be. However, the addftion of an empBoyee housing unit was seen as
a trade-off to the setback variance. After more discussion, Chuck Crsst made a moffon
to prove the request per the staff merr~o wfth the addition of a sexth conditione that
an employee housin unat must be built sf th?s house is constructed as propose per
the staffi recommendations Greg Amsden seconded the rriotiona A~~~e was taken and
the motion passed 6-1 g Gena hitten opposing. Gena stated her reason for voting
agaanst the motion was that she fe9# when a person bought a la# they should have #o
work within the zoning guidelines for that proper#ya
4, request to rnodify the 1andscaping plan assoccated woth the prev?ously approved
ex#erior alterat1on proposal for the Slifer uildin , 230 Bradge Street/Part ofi Lots B and
Ce Lot 5, Vail Village First Filing,
p licante Rod and Beth Slifer
PIanner: Tim Devlan
l"'s evlin revIewed the item with the Commission, stating #hat the appiicant was
re resented by ed vvathmey, who was in a#tendance, ed staied that o Slifer
had sent his apologies for not being present at this meet9ng, l'he ne p3an presented
was to add additional otte Iants to the area irt uesttort. The Commfssion was ira
agreement that a plan had originally b~~n approved and that the p9icant needed to
co piy wi#h the decision. After some iscussion ft as a ree y the Co msssion that
the applicant neede to co piy wifh the origrna1 p1an as approveda ed agree to
submit revised plans to staff for thesr review.
5. request for a major amendrnent to SDD No0 6, to remove a previous condition of
ap roval for lJnlt Nom 30, Phase 19 Vael Village innl100 ast eadovr rive/Vaii Villa e
PI a andominiu s.
A 13cant; BSC af Vail, Coforado, LaP./Frank icero
PIartner; ike Moltica
ike o11ica reviewed the request with the Commassaon. The applicanty Frank Cicero9
art h°ss representative, Ken ilson, were in attendance and addresse the
Commissiona They ave an overview of the past histo of the unit in uestione stating
~
that they fel# they were being treated unfa6rly in regard to the ren#al restrictsons on the
unit and the use of the prape . uch discussion was held relating to the applicant's
request to elirnsnate a previous condition ofi provaL After much dascussion a motion
. was made by Kathy ngenwalter to deny the request per the sta#f memom DaIton
i6lsams secortded #he rrtotion. A vote was taken and the motion passe tartani ous8y,
7-0. The applicant asked what his next step would beIn the process. ike ollica
stated #he request wouId be put on the next T°own CounciI's regular meeting agen a9
and stafed he wou1d iscuss thss procedure vvith him after #he conclusion of this
meetang,
6. The minutes of the August 10g 1992 Planning and nviranmental Comm«sion were
reade A correction vvas rr,ade by Diana Donovan. A motion was made by Kathy
Langenwalter to approve the mlnutes as correcteda The motion was seconded by Je#f
Bovaen. Avote was taken an the motion passed unanir~ouslye
Krlstan Pritz reminded the Cornmiss»n of the upcoming Speak l1p meetings scheduled by the
°Town ofi Vail, stating it was most important for the Corrtmlssion to attend these meetingse
Kristan also asked any Commission members who were interested in attendlng the Santa Fe
Coraference to !et her kr~ow as soon as poss?b3e.
As there was no #urther busiraesss #he rneeting was adjourned at 4e45 p.rn.
~
MEMORANDUM
°fOa Planning and Envirorrmental Commission
F O 4 o rnunity eveJopmenfi epartrnent '
DATE: August 24y 1992
Sl1 JECTW A request for a work session for setback varfances to allow for anew garage
and an addition #o arr existing residence Iocated at Lot 5, ighorn Estatesl4238
Nugget Lane.
PPlicant; W. C. and Caroi Smal
Plannero Sheliy eIlo
L DESC IPT'IO(V OF °THE REQllEi`I`
The applicant is requesisng a work session to review a request for side and front yard
setback variances to a1low for an additiona{ garage space and additional FA, The
request is for a 19-foot encroachment into the 20-foot front yard setback, as well as a
six-inch encroachment into the 15-foot side yard setback requirerrient. Aonemcar
garage existsa Atotai of 34 sq. fta of garage (1st floor)e as well as 377 sqe fte of
F(2nd filoor) are proposed to be iocated within #he setbackm The interior garage
dwmension is 22 feet $ inches by 22 feet 3 inchesP with a stora e area to the rear of
the garage of 17 feet y 11 feety 6 inchesm A porkion of the exisfiing garage and FA
are aIready iocated in the setbacka An add6#ionai surface parking area is a1so bein
aded to the west of the addition. A portion of the proposed airlocklen#ry ill aIso
encroach in#o the setback9 PIease see the attached drawingss
ii. VARlANCE CRITERIA AND Flh1DlNGS
In reviewing a variancey #he PEC should base the approval or denial of the request on
the following fac#orsa
A. Consideration of Factorss
1 a Th relationshi of #he re ueste variance t ter existin r
. tential uses nd structures in the vicinitya
The staf# is concerned wi#h the proposed mass of the garage as i# relates to the
property line and the proxirriity of the roadwaym The existing arage is
appraximately 5#eet firorn the proper line and 20 fee# from the existera edge
of pavementa The proposed o-story structure would be one foot frorn the
roperty Isne and 18 fee# from the edge o# pavemente 1°here is currerrtly a
proposal by the T'own to expand the buib of the cu1-detlsac in this area whoch
would decrease the distance from the road #o the proposed additiona a#ure
vegetation {1-4 aspens} could possibly be 1ost as a restalt of this additiort and
the proposed surface parking to the west of the garage.
2. h e ree t h3ch rel3ef fro the strict and Iiter l inter retation
and en#orceme t f specifie regu1 tl is necessary t 1eve
compatl ilJty rt uni#or ity ftreat ertt among site Itt the vicittity
r t attaln the jectlves ##hts tltle ithout rnt o# s ect 1
rivi3 e.
The staff recogrtizes that the siting of the existartg bcailding does cortstitute a
physEcai hardshipo Because of the existirag iocatiean of ~ouseq in the front of
the Iotg the applicant would need asetback variance for any arage tha# is
located on the fron# (north) side of the proper#ym e request that the appficanf
cansider adjusting the Iocation and size of the proposed garage and GFA to
minirr3aze the encroachmen# necessary into the front and side yard setbacks on
the secortd Ievel.
3m 7° e e#fect f the requeste variance on li tnd alr, istri uti f
o ulatf n, tr n riail n an tra ic facllities, u lic factli#I n
tilitie , nd pu lic s fetym
The staff finds tha# the reques#ed varsance will have a positive effect tapon
publlc safety9 transportation and traffic faciiities by providirag ad itional enclosed
parking that is out of the public right-of-wayo °The proposal will have no
significant effect upon any o# the o#her above 1ssues.
B. T'he Pla~r~in~ the following findiM
10 °That the grantin of the variance wili not consfitute a rant of special
privilege inconsistent with the li itataons on other properties classefied in
the same districte
2, °That the ranting of the variance wll not be detrirnental to the pub{ic
health, safety or welfare, or ateriafly injurious to properties or
improvernents in the vicinltyo
3. That the variance is warranted for one or more of the foilowang reasonsv
a. The strict literal interpretatfon or enforcement of the specifie
regulation would result in practical difficu! or unnecessary
physical hardship inconsistent with the obJectives of this title,
ba There are exceptiohs or extraordinary circu stances or
condltions appiica !e to the sarne site of the varsartce that do not
aPplY 9eneraliy to o#her properties in the same zone,
-2-
C. The strict interpretation or enforcement af the specified regulation
would deprive the applicant of privileges enjoye by the owners
of other properties in the same dastrict,
M. S°TAFF COhlCERNS
T°he staff feels that the addationai enclosed parking wil! Improve the general
appearance of the neighborhood, ifih the garage and side parking area addi#ion,
there wi81 be a rr, imurra of 3 parking spaces provided on-sitem Currently,'there is only
one onpsite space. The additionai parking is necessary in or er #o meet the existin
parking requirement for #he site and aliow the building expans6ona
Staff finds that the.entry addition has been located so that the encroachment to the
front setback has been rnln?mizedm Howeverp the sta#f is specifica!!y concerned w6th
the Ioss of mature vegetation and the degree of encroachment of the garage/ F
additiono l°hese could be minfrrrized by 1) decreasin the width of the garage by
approxirr,ately 2 feets 2} pulling the second story addition back ap roxi ateiy 4 to 5
feet away from the road to create some relief on the facad~; and 3) providin
landscaping on the west side of the surface parking spacee 1"he staff oui consider a
side setback variance to allow for the secorad floor cantilever snto the sideyard setback
to compensate for the loss of RFA as a result of puiling the second sto back a ay
from #he roada There would be no Ioss ofi vegetation as this would cantiBever over the
proposed at-grade parkings
Ce Vnernoslsrtaai1,924
-3-
P P S SITE PL
~
R~BAR- # ~
r~~ ~ Y E R
, ~°~C1~1~ r Drive ~ .
~ ~ ~,r'~'°~ ~ ~ ~ff,44~
da. ~ o
~ 91 ' /fFk / : .>:~i~i:~:: eck "'ad
.
'~A~'.,`_~: ~
i r
:;>,;,;,)i~:
. i. ::•i• •::.~.•>>i-~:>~.:~.;_'::>:~-:
g ~:rA'.'~r4~~:`~:~
..-t.~ , ....'w.:.:t.•,,.w...~;: t'o-<.~ ~
..:::.~•;:;~i;i;i.:;:;,
:::•iY.:: iii:::i~
`jL%i~`vi;::j:;:}Ytii .~y\•::,/,..~.wl,,•,~I., a:•::g~:::f::^v.t~:i~.:~:
5,~: v i%'i°i''v`:~l:y}'ti.;: :w:.:':-. ....;,~:~••i>:~:~:ti n iiF' \\.i'tl:
~ " •:^ti~.!:iet~: i~l~}.~:l:~o\•:"i:•$'\''.~`r:~i:i:;'.`:::.~::;'•,.i.i:~i
~ . ::°~.~:::~:'•:_:^"'•::•'"F.y\:i::::..~:::::f.^'.ti::r:/ ~l'. ~C;i v:::.;!
_:.%~.~1 v:%:: • i~"f,/.:}v:~~i:%:v.: =a:F°- ::°'`~h.i::: d':l ::F/•}•\•}:i.;.;..~.:
~.:'i•:..1 ':':_f.'J.i...f.~
KJ
~ k~ ! / ~l \ ~ ~ \ : l.. 4 •k\
b ..',"Y,::'.::•:'•i:•i t / \ / k~` f: ~ l' \\t I 't~! S ry5
';'O:C;ij•i; ~:j;d'%i::•'L?~\:J':j.:::e+t°'iS?::rt'~?:~i:%Sti.~::: rj;\:<iil,:p'~vS" a
~ - .a..::s;,••b~: ~'.r,1o-: .,:.~;:-.'•-•::~,.~:••r•::r.:. .,~.:::.....i~ `'iri;'.y~
S
•e.!~i..i~:i:;:~~l:i'.~/%':\`:.%%1;:~:~'~,::+'.'i:'v'-''
° ° 3 ;s;\•:: F!~~.:C r'.; • _ f•:,ti'+'
~ z e
~
~
~
i
~
r~
~ ~Add1tion ~
•00 ~t og~ 0 ~ ..t+'• ~
L T
4b
• ~ ~ ~r~..~'={ d~~~`~,.:~,,~ ~ .
~
~ . ~
9
~
Go
4
J G 12 r, 6
f17°/L t 1°Y E,45,'MehJr
Iv. e 4a 3,6
96./g
g f 8/Q lm.e m't B°~,
` ' • 9i.o! < ! a o.,.
MEMORANDUM
TOe Piannir~~ and Environmental Comrr3ission
FRO : Community Deveiopment Department
DATE: August 24, 1992
StJ JEC°f. request far a work session to discuss a proposal to construct a moduiar
te1ephone ceI!-site in the East VaiI area.
App!°scant: U.S. est1Ce11ular ne/Unmted States Forest Se ice
Planner: Andy Knudtsen
IW BACKGROUND
In June of this sumrners the Forest ervice conducted a scoping process for a pro osaI
to cons#ruct celIular teiephone ceIl-sites ranging from the Eisenhovuer Tunne1 to ast
Vail. There are a to#ai of four si#es currently under considerationa °They are Iocated at
Shrine Pass, Copper ountain, the west portal of the isenhower °Tunnel, and one in
the East Vail area. The scoping process oncluded o public hearlngs at the Town of
°Jai6, including a PEC hearing on June 89 1992g and a T"own Council hearing on June 9,
1992. At the tarrae of the scopin 9 the East 1/a+I ceII-si#e was proposed to be Iocate
adjacent to the run-away truck rarnp at #he base of Vail Passo It consisted of o
buiidin s approxamately 10 feet by 20 feet and o monopoIes approxsmately 60 feet
tal I e
1l0 PROJECT 1 ION
Since #he #ime of scopin s the applicants have revised the roposal an are no
requesting to construct the ceII s°ste near #he water tank bove Snowshoe Lane. In the
process of deveIoping the nvironmerrtal Assessment, the applicants studied a #otal ofi
five potential si~~s which coul~ ~erve the East Vaal areaA Of these five, the one that the
applicant refers is the one near the water tank {See option below}m The cell-site
°on this location woul include one mechanical building for ~omputer equipment, o
towers for antennas, and a road #o access the sitem The towers ould be
approxi ately 60 - 100 feet talls approximately 24 inches in diameter at the asee and
approximately 12 inches in d?ameter at the to mAt the top there would be a trian ular-
shaped superstructure which would support six an#ennaW There wou1 e two antenna
at each corrrer of the triangley one mounted upwards and one downwar so The
antenna are approximately 10 to 12 feet in length4 From conversatlons vvith the
appiicant and the Fores# Service, the l°own has the understan an that the proposed
site is outside the Town of Vail boundarye Verifacatson wili need to be provided ythe
applicant r~garding this atter. T'he °fown of Vai1 woll need survey informatian showing
Sectiong Township, and ange information, as weil s a Iegal description correlating
the site to the Town of Vail boundary,
All five of the proposed aIterna#fves fior providing ceIlular telephone coverage to the East Vail
area are 1?sted be1owe Sfaff has provided excerpts from the Environmental Assessment for the
information abots# each adternative below:
am ~~ucr! amp Berm. "I his siLe would not require an ac1ua8 lower9 as t19e
antenna would be mounted on pape attached to the equipment
shelter, o The fower would no# be needed as #his site sits out on the
bl~~~ overlookin I-70 and East Vaal.'e However, "this site is withfn the
c hway Depart ent's " e" easemen# for 3-70v°°
bo idqe to the South and ests `°l°hss si#e would require that o
monopoies be built of approximately 0to 100 fee# so that the signal is
not blocked by the ridge directly to fhe southm °fhe site would be visibie
from the bike path and several locations in East Vailm F3ovvever, the
existing fo9iage an placement o# the monopoles againsf the mass of the
ridge will reatly mitigate the visual impac#s,,`
C. Adjacent to Runawav Trg2k Rarnpo This is the origEnal proposal hich
was presented to the PEC in June.
de Ridge on the East Side of 1-70 Above the Water Tank. "This site is the
best site when cortsidering oniy engineering issues, it iIluminates I-70,
and does the bes# job ofi coverin East Vaile The problem with this site
is that st is not hoddert by the mass of the existin terrain as is the case
for the sites on the west side of the freewaya In addition, the existing
water tank is proposed to be relocated further up the hilf on Forest
ervice property in the future (personal comrnunication ith Ti
rantha ,Holy Gross Ranger District). roa wou! have #o be built to
the site in a ditiort to power and telephorteae"
e, ed ountafna " ed Mountaan is situated approximately 1 ile to the
west and south of Alternate D. This site was Iooked at yCeIlular ne
in the °snitlal esign hase of the project an elaminated ecause it ill
not i1luminate both the fr~eway towards Shrine Pass and cover the area
of East Vaila 6n addi#9on, it is not clear how power and telephone
services could be brought to the site. Since this site does not cover
EiAst Y a8k8 It mtl4/&.ilRA 9 eq6A16 e ti 9at b,B'S EST New Ve9Jt107 9 In9de a1 0 eI8$R0a1
ne build one and possibly o addition sites in the Vail Valley, 1t is no#
cIear that this wouI be ecanomically feasib1e to efther co pany or
desirab6e from acumulative irr,pacts standpointeB`
The applicants proposing these cell-sites are U.S. est ew Vector rou s
represented y tar Storrns, and Independence Day 1988 CeIlular Partnershi 9
-2-
represente y Dave Ruftera Each company wouId like to construc# ceII-site
at the selected location in the next one to #ive yearsa
ill. REVI
The steps the Forest ervice is taksng in the review of this project are as follows:
1, eceive propasal frorrt appl6canta
2. Determine review procedure.
3. Conduct scopsng process.
4. F'repare Environmental Assessment to address concerns rawsed in
scoping,
5. EvaItaa#e Environmental Assessment.
a Issue Decision Notice and Finding ofi o Si nificant I pact.
The Forest Service conducted the scoping rocess in June of this yeara The
Environmental Assessment has recently een completed and now the Forest ervice is
evaluatin ito ny proposed si~e which is situated vvithin the Town o# Va11 munic6pa1
boun a must comply with alI the l°own of Va?l regulationsg includin Iand use and
zoninga It appears at this time that the site i#seif is ou#side the T"own boun aries9 ut
that the access road to the site will cross Iand within the towno The i provemen#s to
be done to this road ust be reviewed and approve by #he Design Revie oards
rior to construction,
IV. REVIEW TVl T L ASSESSMENT
The Environmental Assessrraent used the followlng criteria #o evaluate the sitesa air
q6AalOtyy, s$86isp sC.9 aS9LS wat6ol8 9ouI6d Ytlatidrp lCo@9eg YLOgld6a4i@Any ffiYild ''fGg aq6ia&ia.d bB6eg
threa#ene and endangered species, cultural resources, soceoeconomic issues,
transportatione Iand use, visual resources, and recreationp In genera19 it is the To n of
Vail staffss understanding that the evaluation of the three eastern sites ( isenhower
Tunnel est Portals Copper oun#aen and Shrine Pss) di not raise any significant
ossues4 However, the ast Vail s°ste analysis identEfie points of cortflict ith previously
adopte Forest Service descgna#ionsa In other wor s, the Forest ervice h~s "zone et
varaous areas a1on the I-70 corridor for different intensities of developmenfa The East
Vail site is Iocated in three relatively restrictive "zon~s" when co pared to the other
three sitesa Page 21 of the Environmental Assess ent sta#es:
°0The fourth s'ste, ast Vail, is Iocated alon 1-70 wh6ch as
constructed in the 1970'sm esign and construction ractices
went to extrerne Iengths to preserve the character of this area
because of its unique beauty. The Visual uaIwty bjective for
-3-
~
s.
this area is . . . Retentaon, Under this cIassification9 activities
may only repeat form, 1ine, coIors and texture which are
frequently found in the characteristic landscape. This site is aIso
Iocated in a high Sensotivity Level of 1. °fhis includes a8l areas
seen fro prirnary and secondary travel routes, use areas ~nd
water bodi~s where visators have a major concern #or scenic
va1ueso In addition, the area is cIassified Varoety Ciass A, which
includes distlnct areas in the Iandscape, with features of
outstanding or unusual visual quaEftyo FEnally, the ar~~
immediately adJacent to #he highway has a Iow Visual Absorpt3on
Capacity due to its high visibili#ys Portions of the East Va61 sit~
are withlfl V6e1Ai of the East Va1l (eside81tial c0 i'T1iJnB a11~ the
Gore Creek Campground."
These categories compare to the other s#andards of the Forest Service yeneraliy
becn the mos# restrictive possiblev For examples of #he four visuaI quality objectlves,
includin retentlon, partial reten#ion, odifiication, and maxirnu rrtodification, the
reten#ion ca#egory as the most conservative. Thas is a1so th~ ~~~e with ensitivity L.evel
1 and Varie Class A.
The Environmental Assessment continues on page 28 in the evaluation af the visual
?mpacts of the Eas# Vail si#e, It sta#es thato
"°The visual impacts of the East Vail site are of reater concern
due to the sAte's vosibility from 1-70, recreationalists in the East
Vail area and East Vasl. As previously stated, the si#e as a V
ofi etention, is considered #o have a Sensitivi#y Level of 1, an
in is in a Variety CIass Aarea, and as a low Visual Absorption
Capacity, °Therefiore, comp8iance with the V of retention wmll
be diffcult to mee# at this site vvathou# adequate eti ationo`g
Due to this finding9 #he nviron ental Assessment reco ends a review of a nu ber
of aIternative sites in East Vai9a These are the five aIternatives (-E) outlined earlier in
this memom °fhe Environmental ssessmen# s#ates that an ins ep#h review of these
alternative sites is not needed, except for vlsual im acts, efore a final ecasion is
made, staff elieves the uisual analysis should be complete a ther concerns which
should e analyzed are the potentiai avalanche hard and co plianc ith the Ea Ie
County Land 13se Regulations, e would ask that this research be made availabie for
public review.
The sfiaff is particularly irtterested in AI#ernative Si#e A. 1°his aIterrtative ap ears to
provide a solution that does not require the 60-foot monopo3es. °This is ue to the facf
that the site is relativeiy hi h in eIevation and provides adequate teiephone coverage
to the interstate without the need for the monopo3esm
-4-
V. T
As stated during the scoping process hearings, the Town af VaiI continues to hold the
position that any developmerat #o be done vvathin the Town of Vaii boun aries must
comply with aII Town of VaiE ordinances, including those controllin zoning and
build?ng, before commencang corastructstane The ossible con#lict with the Town of Vail
Land Use eguiations or Eagle County Land Use Regulat"sons has not been noted
under any caf the secfions of the Environmental Assessrnent, though !an use is
specifically one of the criteria that has been addressed in the document, e belaeve
that #h1s asstae should be added to the evaluatiora of the proposed siteo The Town
unders#ands that a road w€II be constructed to access the site. T°his road is likely to
cross propertoes which are located within the Town of Vawl boundaries. The Town
believes that the improvements made to these properfies #or #he vehicular access
require Design Review Board approval. This will have #o be submitted to the Town
Board for review and approval and the appropriate owners of the property on which the
road is [ocated wi16 need to sign the applicatiorte
V1. RECOMMENDATION
The Town of Vail staff understands that a Decssion Nofiice will be issued fro the
Forest ervice approving or denying the request by the ceilular teleph~~~ ~ompanies
#o construct these ceii sitesa Stafifi befieves that prior to any decision, the Forest
Servsce shouid requ°sre a thorough evalua#fon of the visual impacts, avalanche h ard,
and co pliance with Ioca3 (Ea !e Counfy and Town of Vail) !an use regu1ations of the
roposed sitem The Town woul request that #he Forest Service include ast Vail
residents in this decision makQng process and present the visual ana1ysis at another
public hearing once it has been completed,
-5-
~
v CELLULAR
ION
CONINIUNICsT FXCIL"ry SITFS
IN UNrF
SU,^I,jT AND ENGLE Co ~
I
~
'
a
CTION I P e~ NTE a s e w e m a a.c a...e.o.m a. A
A. Zi1tI' ucI1ot1 w.. o 0 0. o m. o o m..o a. s. s g. m1
B. Need forthe Proposal ommv..o..om,so..omso.oa 1
. C. vironrzZen Issues ,am.4,aswo..Wwo..ssomoo5
19 blic Notifi tion 0 0 0...m.a...a.e a.o.s. 5
2s Issues .<a..oo.e,o..tim.s,so..a.o..o. 6
S TI ALT ATIVES ......w.....a.v....,$..a.. 7
A. T,ntroduction vaa, ...s.oes.m....aeom.ea.ea.'7
B. AItematives Consider Analyzed in Deta,a1 .s a.v. m 7
C. A>Itematives Considered but Eliminated De '1 Anaiysis e 9
S CTI M NTAIeCONS `CES ..ae..... 13
A m Af f i Envi ronment 0 a a a o m. m.... a.... s. g s e 13
1. Gener-al Settirsg . , a m.$ a a m g..o m g p e o~. a m 14
2. -A i r uai i t y m a m> m m m e e.m.9,.o m o a...m m w 14
3. rSoils .o.m,ss.sm.mvo.„.meaao9.m..m 14
4m - Surface Water .,.em,.m.a.ae.e.4..ama. 15
5, Ground ater -0. o o a.m e. o. o e W.s o a m o 0 o e 16
6, - r3oi mm,em,..mm4gs.0a,..mom.oamam 16
7. rVegetation ome.,...ea>..m..aeesom>.m 15
° ijJ i3 d] i fe a o.. s o m m m, m e m s e e....m e m m e, e 17
q, -Aqa.atic Lof fe a.,. m a o....~ a a~ a..a.m 17
. l0e _Threateneci and Endangered Species e.e..a e a.s 18
11 Cultural Resour s m o.o.....a a e s o s a a.m. 18
32m, S i nomic se4a.o0a...oao.,.,aa.ea 19
13,C1 Tzansportation m,omeom4m..m..m.aam...m 19
14.,' dU ,ama..m...a.eo..esoma..oo. 19
I5o4;~'Vis e ur s a.v.moo.ooomm.ea..oa9 20
16a,.,Recreafian ,moma,..me.a.mmaa.m,m.,.m 21
B. nvironmental Con uen so .a.e ..m o.a, a.o e, e 22
1. Alt~ afive 1- N0 Action e o o a, e o a.0 4 a o. s o22
2m AItemadve 2- Proposed Action m a a.o o a m o a 9 m 22
a. Air uality .o...oso.a.,9.@aoaoa 22
bm Soi3s a o o m m.a.m.9 e.o a m.. ...o o, 23
• c s S ur f a a ter e s.4 4 a v... a m. o. 0 23
d. round ater .4 ..9.. m o a m e a a, .s 23
ee Vege tion oaee.oasm.4.semo.o,.. 23
fa ildlife s..mo.s.es.s...m.aosea 24
Aquat3c Life .......mmom...a,.... 24
,
' T ENTS
B. EnvironmenW Consequen s (Con't)
, 2. Altemative 2 - Proposed Action (Con't)
h. r tened or End ger S ies e.. a a. 24
i. Cultural Resour s . oa. . emmam. ..~mm 25
j. S i nomic a. aem.m. aegmoae.e. 25
ks T s tion o. g m a. o m o, e s w o m s g. 26
la Land oea.o. oom. omoo0og. em,. 26
M. Visual e ur s e. . nma0amo.mw4om9 27
na Recreati on . m a a a, m> e, e. m. e e m. . m m 2$
0. Curraulative Impacts , , o . . . e . . m m . . e q 29
3. AItemafive 3-Atte ative E. Va-il Sites . . m g m g a m 29
S CTION IV C ATION A CONS T'ATI s . 4 . . . . 31
A. blic i~otifi tion a.e,eem.p.o9g.ao.aoo..av 31
B. em rs of the Public o Comrr~ent on the
Pr oposal . . ~ m 4 . 31
C. Interdisciplinary T m .o.,a,m,om..voosam.oa. 31
D. A~encies dOrg i tions Cor~sul o s m.a a o s.a.s 32
SECTION V REFERENCES ..a a ..e..a ..s..,.......e . 33
NIAPS
Ala 1 Proposed CeIlul Communi tion Sites q o.e p g a e a a. 2A
2 Siies dExisting Coverage . m<m e.a..o...o m o g. 2
Tap 3 West Portal Eisenhower °TunneI Site m q m o, o.s a o... 2
N Tunnel estCellSite PI .emoam.eg.o.Oe.q.eO2
Nla Cop r oun OnSite e a g oo .s.a., a m g, m a m m o.e 2
ap 6 Cop r oun °n Site Pl mo,msmo.me.sooamammoe
Map7 Shrine PassSite .aoe,m.,.movam..amaaes.ma3A
Nlap8 Shrine Pass Site Plan e. m, a, e e e a a e m m a a m a, m s. 3B
p9 EastVailSite om.sAmamm,ammm.,.m.aa,aa..m3C
Map 10 East VaiI Site Plan 4 9 9., a o e.a 4 A a a.m a a a.a< e. 3I3
Map 11 East Vaal Alternatave Siie Locafions . e e s..m m>., s, 9A
~
Section
A. 1rr1rq.d2ctSM
e pu se af this EnvironmenW Assessrnent (EA) is to describe the environmenTal eff ts of
1 ting four llul telephorre communi ~tions facilgties on l ds with3ra the ite River
Nationa1 Forest in Summit d gIe uraties. As described below, the sites lie betw n the
West Portal of the Eisp-nhower Tunnel d die Town of VaiI, a1ong the Interstate 70 corridor.
e sites would tae desagnat for llul teIephone use onlym If approved, the llul
comrntanf 6ons sites in conjunctaon with existing laul mmuni tior sztes in Summit a d
gI~ Counties would provide contirruous 11u1 teIephone rnmuni tions frorrl the
Eisenhower Turanel in Summit County to wards zn g1e Cour~tya
An Envaronmental Assessrnent is not a d ision dumenta It zs a r rd disclosing the
envirortrnental con uers sof zrnplerraeniirag a, proposed action daIte atives to that actiono
It is an im t d urnent for fe, state d local gave rnents to u in rching their
individual d iSlof1S Ie~aYd1n~ the proposed actionm
This Eravironmental Assessment f uses on the environmental eff is ass iat wiih the
proposed aciion on the I7illon d F3ealy Cross Rger Disiricts of the White River National
Forestm Irr3pacts on other federal, siate and local jurisdictions resulting from the proposed acdon
d alternatives e disclosed in this Environmental Assessrnent, as we13. °I°hr~u ' ch nsuItation, .
other fe, state d local juriictaons have a.ssist the Forest Se i in di los~~g the
con uen sof the proposed acdon d other r nable d pnzdent alte afives (see S don
IV "Agencies d Org i tions Consult °`)s .
e Forest Se ice°s action with reg' ards to the approva.i of the four I1uI rnrnuni taons
sites relates only to those I ds adrnirrister by hiie ever IJational Forest, owever,
d isions by other juriiciions to issue or deny approva.Is relat to is prol>osal rnay based
on e disclosure of impacts set forth in this docurnent.
B. & ~r ~ ~sa1
e Federal Communication Commission has licensed two servzce providers, IJ S WEST
NewV tor roup, Incm ("NewV tor") d the Independen I7ay 198$ Celiul Partnership
("Cellul ne") to offer cellular telephone servir-e in Colorado Rur Service Ar Noo 3
("RSAm3")s This servir-e ar encompasses ,vest-central Colorado, including ali of the Wh;te
°ver ational Fcsreste To fu1fiI1 licensirag ruirements, the two corrrp ies have cons ct
several communication faciliiies in SA-3, dcurrenily provide se ice to rnuch of the ar t
p°cul ly e pulation cenierse th ewV tor dCeIlu] ne e rnmitt to provide
r-ellular verage to 75 lof e RSA wi in an allott tzme to in compliance wi eir FG
li n sm
1
,
Nev~Vectar and CeIlular One have proposed that the Forest Service designa.te five new electronic
rrtrr,uni tiort sztes on National Forest Se i i d. 7°he sites lie betw nthe ve3 d Ski
Ar d the °Imown of Vail, alorag the Interstate 70 co 'dor d would designat for 3Iu1
telephone use onlym 'I"hese I tions nstitut.e a11 the llul mmuni tion sites necessary on
adonal Forest 1 ds betw n I o Springs d GIenwood C yon for the fore ble future
(3-5 y s). . ' , . . -
The Pc°o d Actiort
Fotar of the proposed siies, frorn the West Portal of the Ei nhower °Tunnel io the East Vail
Tck mp, are l ted in the ite °ver National Foresz, dwill nsider zn this
vironmental Assessrnent. e fifth proposed site, ai th ' ~j Portal of the Eisenhower "T°unnel
is located in the AZZa o Nationall Forest. °I°his site wi?1 c nsider in 'a pte
Environmental Assessment. •
ap 1 is agerae vicinity map of the proj t ar showing the four sztes being analyzed in this
Environmental As ssmente hiap 2 illus tes the relationship tw nch of the proposed sites
dexisting Ilul rnrnuni fion sites in Summit d gle r-ounties. ap 3-6 show the
I tions of ch of the proposed llular ccsrrimuni tion sixesm
ch llul site will consist of one or iwo srrali buildin~s done or two tor~ers or mano~les
sup rting tennaso F-ach site wiIl have vehicul ac ss (snow t in the winter), electrical d
telephone se i. 'I°he general ch cteristics d 1 tiora of ch site are surr°,m °e lows
West o 1 owez° 'fiunnel (West Fo I} SSte (see Ma 3 and 4)
Location: ue north of exisdng parking ar on north side of West Portal of the
°senhower Tunnela
acilatiesm Site buildin~(s) in tr s d cl °ngo Two 60-$0 f t les (one r
mP Y).
Access: Short Iink frorn existing a ss r d providin y -round a sso
ower an ele hone: AvailabIe at est Portal of Ei nhower "Tunnel.
Cop r oun in ite ('Nla S an
T-ocation: ithin Cop rountaan Re rt ski a.r rrrait boundary west of the
tiom of e Bi Chairlif€.
acI1iti : One two-story building wsth a 15'x 65' f rinto ualdzng would
house NewVector, Cellul ne e1 tronic uipmert d provide addition on-
moun `n storage for Cop rMountafln Re rt. Adja nt go the building would
two araono les approximately 50' in height equipped wi tennasv
Access: Exasiing rnoun °n access Road B rnain an by Cop roun °n Re rtm
5now tac ss canly in the vainter.
Power and elephonem Electrical wer is available from existing wer facilities
adja nt to the site in c radon wi Cop r oun °n e oA ss to
telephone lines would be accornplish hy microwave to facility on pzivate
pro rty at base of Cog roun °ng
2
, . .r,.-~ „ e4qprcP/1~--••,,~. , ~ ~ 'Ou~pg
w."°
~-0 0q o ~'B~` $e ~6w,~...~.a` ' ~qu 4~ • \ g M1} P, j ~
.1 ~ _ •
C"m
Xe '~w:~ r"~r ~ ~ 6~ - ' s ~'g~ ° __~ta ' y~. t`~ ^°V.,i , 4's~r Pas4.~9rdd 'g~ ,a~, ~t ~ 92~ p.+N
~ ° { & ' :a~~ j r ~w ' r,• 9 ~aa ~ ~gw
~*st
...n ~
e
a ' . ga ..q~, :•.p° .cSd.._---- ld 9 ` t - ~
.a ° 0 T--- 50
oq~s ~
~e~)
,_...,..~'~t,, C0 ~r~ y ~ .~~s r a o ; , ' ^,zs r ix9 ' 4 ,
';j e....~a.. as ~ .a~'S .a''m°. •1 . ' de, ~ 'a . _
~J r 'mt ~ , z~..n.9'<'~ ~Ns% ° y-^`':`..° ~ s, a~~zJh:~`~a atto~P °aQ ~5..._e~ ~ J / i / <
r `6 el p plrvsocs ~ t'~ ,-yg... ~~p a 0'•..-..»-°" ~ ar~c m S i a s ~
° • 'j p~~,.,~. _ ~ a t 1n . ° { ~ $ t+'adee,~e ' a ' ~ ~ ,~~,4 4...!
~ ~'l ~ ~ 'q$T°- °"vap ,V ~ei~A~ ~1 >°da5s0~ y~ e~ r),.~~s°? a g Ciia~a~r983bi'n .r~yq ?Ats~o. . ~
~ o > ~~jc+!s'~ °a g ~a_ asae~9, 1 J ~
~ { 4? s . - ° ~ y i / . ~ ~ o 0 4 aa /"~J 1 2 f) ~ }
f f
~ ~,~fi° ~~J~~~„r1 t' ~j,~naa~a°#.~kr+a ~ ~i_~a7s aa's7t~o~,+ ~^~..Y~°'q6 "d ~~~r'- ~p e,s "8~r ~1,1~5: M "A^; o/b;,,'•`~~.' S, 'ot``'~-:a, ° (~6 ~
^(^g i.a •y b
e 0. , D~
. n4 ) ~ m e ~ ~1q S~c ap,~,. ° t-1Y . , / `y~~_' • _ _ ti
ttt;;; ea ' ~e a^-
y ' ~
e . j @ ~ ~ . 1 i ° ~ ~ j„s~ka 1 . d-=°:°"""°_ `r~ Sitd 3°eak ° ~ ° it"~. ~ :r C~ e ~ a.. ~ ~ ~H r Syl ~.t y.~.aa t?_ e '"ia
N~p:~~
C . - , ~ 8 ~ 0a~ cP.~o ~ ~ u;7~, /~j' ~.,sa~ po~¢xty - . ,
tsta..,
~at,n
. ,
)'srtta^ sa .a ° p) . t { ' ' tt~SP {~~-+,y„°q'.°-?- r~~..'e4~ d31l,.R-~ .So~_°w,c' ~ _ t+ .,a,.i. " ~ ee
T 1:
f~t3
. l_ ' ~ j M1 4 ~ 9
r-~
. L
a----• ~ a3 ~ r°".Q ~ fS ya 4l.sr~. 1 `Cyvg y~{4° ° - . r Ra~~ . ~~8m
F$EStorac
Bi 4Cc
y ~~`;~ec9 'tF°s 1~E~aa., p?;.«.~~.`'A- ~ ~\•y}~1.
d ~ ;p
? W~T ~ tQ. Eh
; ~ r a~a ,a:R ~ n c+es~ ~ wn # 4. ~ v
. ~ ~ a' p q~~ af e e
~Sl'1.f\.
j°,~, , ~ ~ g.a :g •~°.~'e-_. sr~„~ ~ G~ ~ 'f~!$t9it+g~ ~ ,ltpd'td ra p;~'~ : ~~'fi8o 1
~ .-r . d. _ w?,,~~.a,~q ..1 ~ >8~b`° Ec ~<h[
a% t~Yicb -;ne sR,~ ~ . 1 CPa~aeJ 3Aoc,rretaira, n
~asta~,e ~ ~ d l i Hr~ ~
~
~{jLI3
_sr°°°.~..~°~^ 1llac~' 8i ; ~ v ~ps' 1
F81.Pm~ ? ~i : P ea . _ ~l~.:zLrvcnrsC .r.r. ~ ~ ~.~qr ~q~.r 1 sb~ ~ 4 a 9~y't g 1
^ s^.~ ~E.k4c ~
Pass sa.~' ; >i ~ r,~„ 1,,.____' ,~,m' $a~- ~as'~e ~ . ~ '~,t~o$s . `.`!r - ~ ~y a ;ti'~,
a& ~tdre~vi?~~ q;e~.,0°
atrYal ' y ^i ~1^~f\ zAr p ~ ~ g=~B~°
i-- ~ . ' flB p+ Rq_yi'1 g e ~ 47.1fi ~ l'•° _ ~ s o 3 ~ L ~ ° e • `0.u`~`
r ~{8 )4a ~~EfadaBf g'v ~1 4. a90`~+Y• fQ ° 1 Ja ~m oa 'J e y~U':
1 ya Di f a„A!~! P`~ i d ~ u~"~ a• ' s r--;'~r , -..-a°^"`~-..' f~ 3 0 1D _
35 i F'IRST , `a> ~ to) ' $
2 a ~ •sa S 6°eak~
,'•e~ t r` ~ F J`~ =;.R~ y~ ~ °e " °t1512_ : ' t~ s J. ~e ~a°'^ ~ ~j ~ 8 ° Gu4 5 _ 5 ."c~
0
rj \ ~s ° ~ y ° ° • . ` -
e azakajv r"`b • . ~ -.'_t~---_;°"°'-°.-"°'_ 9j , Frab i -'si 1 ~Qit~ ~ 9 r"~
~ 7 ~ 5~{f$6NE
« f/ ! ; Ph ;z-?3 ~ $3I,G ~ j e 5;c% 9 T ~ e ,~t J cer~S ? o j~ "_~~,r< °`l.~--- „ 0 , ,a ~ ~ ~0
~f3faek1.~ a ~ gSncva 0 ia ~ gy'j°6geC /
`4a ( ~°s j;° .o"~?.h°o~ec3P~va~e..~~ o? •~g l~,~ a~ 1s~P~ss ~(daters (:uic c a ra A. -
~~,q ~ L~ d §+~red= Peaka tflnxr ~~a --.8,~f f w~'~ 31 rr me ~
12933
f ~ O 9si . Stctant PA45
fac&°\ ~
a . ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ I,ra
&e 't ea~ t~
7J3 ~ i , 1v .1~rii~ . o• I
Im~a,.?
C b • 9
{'tah
~h~Jb ypar+e.r~ °°i\°`~s .s°. ~.f-ao ~9aP,va °r Gui cn'
Pt,trs ae 'v...`~o~~ ~ _~7~, n> j.akes :sw9 ° -'qstsn
~ ~
~ a~ B ~ 4- '6 '}~t ° . ° ~ ~ < • ~ iA~@.:
~i~5d" RREf1 peAh
~ ~ . , ~ c o~ ! l ar se ds' 9 855 ~ P ~
b o. - ' ae. • a o1 y 5 ' 8a~ e'~ ~ ~ .
q ax ' ~ ~ > e , ~ . . +c. ~ ~d
l s ° ~dP~ ti ~ , ` e \ fl e a ~ i f,._"'t',«•.~--' @t: -"`,~g'.~.%a.-. ` ~ r m g n~ * , ~ ~Lir%c n
s
a~Cxsbs~ritiildpeo
8 ro i r'eai'a ~ 7p1 ~~°g 6 j a~i ~ •~,,r~ ~Jj~ s'~~~£~~' ~r~ ~ st~t4~~a99 r~y~~~~ ~ ~ a
r
~ ~ ~ ° bs ~ ~ '^-°ra= _ o + p~ . ~ z ~ a$ e ~s~`t~.~' 11 ~ ' '`k~ ~'h ~ ; "~A~r~~r,
gq•terp/vnan J 9 t~~--~..-~, m P ~rsx°k P- "e _1
e3 9 z~, ~J °0 =*~cce~;`l %'•ss Q ~...:r. ~:,,v~~ ' ~ ~ pe4i J1~ ~~1° ~b^? a eeca
b r o ~
,S .m : p 9 m8 ~ Agi , i& S~.ea ~ g e D- e i g
SSYbt~#74 t 81 ~ 5 f~°'^° °~a`. S] e+a P
MAP) '
P P S E S I l'° E S X!S 1° l C V A G E
° ' e . . . _ ° ~ a»>e2na•asroee,g , 'e~ g ° e° e~ e '°9 et9m~ w~. . o ~ ~ , . e 9m-...
~ ~ . . ~ • . ' e ~ e , ~ e ' ° ~ ' ~aBare..;:e .o oea.. er ' a ; , el e• e ~,n.~ a.~
' . tm0.4'qD.aLl819:B•:.l • ~ • `..°~eG+ar.R • S o , , e . • ~ e p " q ~6. ~ e~..~ . a ~"0~
~a ° ~°~~w e . a vl e. yS'~~~G` • .e: o ~ ` ' ~ea~. a•°~°°
g ~ t~,'°1 , ~o ~ J a~ ~~i°
6i°}~Q' L
~ ~ e ~ ~ ~ de.e .e ,m ..§-°'e , .~e`yv°~o^p , O~RHe4aPaa9' 090•8 . .e e~°~o aqv.mB~~4?I°..~Q ~ 4'~Al
, a m ~a • , i.~ ' , ° . 8., a . o ~ ~ 9 ~s . . ~ ° . . ~ \ ` ~ " , e ; s ~ a •
q • R- . ~ , m ° 1O °a ~r e . °a~.. / 'vem , . ,*~e i'o m o ~`a.~a a o.,~...am~ ,
,e ' `to .ge ~a. a, P ~ ` > a! ~ . ~4 ~a° `a.~ 4~0 ° 81 . ; , - , ,~,~.°~0° o m, a..
~ e a °a,a ~ 4~•~.ae~{ . e.w. e , 9 ~ • . a •a-°4°' o ~ ' ° e> °e . ~ 4~ ~'°'"°'r ~ e- i °
° ' ~°>~.~0~ ° 10~ W~- 9~e ol~- A~y~ a a~e° ~ ' e °~„°°``"e'~~o•a• ,Ie: aa a ~
e ~b~fl.ig a .,m-;•PS 4 ~ ~o~e •'g g° `..q, , S. e'i'.~ ° ' ''el . ' pe'P~e~°^ a~^ D .r ~y e08~ q a'~ ~ A' ~ -
~$9 7 .~g~w ~~e~ ° ~ a"° .a. • °~~e.s 9 ,~y. °~.~q 'o:~••.a° •.o..e>. e} ~m.~.-~ ~~,,.gr~~~~~'-'
p~ $ . } ~ ~m ~~~d~ a' , ',,~e . ~g • 4~ ~ Cq o o a : ve~ ~e e=° ~e• S~ ,.n 5 '"°S. ^c<a.~ e e4a ,
e.P a ; : ~•p~, , . . p,~. . e, . 8
° ' e ~ .~~~~,.~''•qjlo a •-~a. ~ .e e~~° ~'•~~gS ,'~'~•+°y '`r~ e °8 ( ~70^ °T9' va ~'.°e~ ~ ,~q 'P
vq~~~,., •,geo .m e~w~~~"~.,.~,~''''\ °,•s-!~R°._ v e°%`.°~-•° aa a-•...1v.°e=aYe b ~6,,..9: -e.+.a~si'-°.~ro'aC~ _ a.~e .,e,._o o ~~q
'~~a a `y' 't?°-s.../ e ~ ~~.q" , v .-oo;v ~ . ~:.~'~,.s ••~~'Oe ` ' ='"8. s 9¢s..9° °:.~.~..~~o
'qa~.~.,sm°~'' ~ ve^_ eo<.~ e ' < ° 9 ee..•~.:~~ . e~ro.~.f"~, •j:.~' °Z° R: t.v°'
, 78y~'~se"~~ igj'~ ~ ~'e~a.na~ ~ce.i ^'a ~f°a a;~ Qt.. :~yt„\ m~.~, ~e i b ,;e~°ae•, eoY. ~p~,~~~°. 0~°";.:e~o e° ~i'1~' ~''yy
~,o~~~, m~` ~~,-°~a.`ti'°'° J mB:at~ o , •~•.8.'~°~'a..~~'&r Z~>c ,,~~e : ~l •3dJ'
a• "P ~'q . ,gi~'°y°~,.,j~ a am <<:~~s ~+'b a a°1~:~,a.~a'~' Se.sp
^s ;b;,~:~ 'q rq. • ~1 a°a e1 "e e • ')'l,i ~ ~m ~ °a m' e~ ~ ,,~,p'~ e%~ t'~y l0~, J~,e` 0
~e: , •^P a ~d ~ ~ m , v ~ y a.
. eJi~. ~,,~a~'das- 'e °`°°`~i `Q l:•° ea''.~~ sO ?°y~ . '4e° ~~qa° l ~ a.~t q\ r.°~~ °*~6 °8I%~ ^~e e ..°~..n~~ . s-1.. ~ r°-ae~~:~ ~4
~m 3 ~ ?,a° ei~~ ~y -°i ,vJ d.'~m ~i ~~~,•„gp~~,°~ 1 J~ ° . m,.~. 9e•°, ~ t*~~~~c~ ;q•~ •9°°
.Al'g..~ ~0ea s;.:'~ ~:~?•rv` " ~ =~dm~~~•o a ,°~'~°`.~e. ~ ~m. b r1~~ °'°°*Lo
^epd°~,:°°"°~• ~°"'~;~asns~~=
.y] ~ ~'e ~:.~ye ~ poq e a,• q°°'~ - °
;"~1 L' ~ ~a~~°~~°'.'•{.e'SR~t
m°":89~ J,•1s°'~ ~ ~'~9 `~~a ~ ~~0 1'~jq 0°.~.~• • 0~ ~ ~5;.6~".° ~ ~9~ °„~A.O`° o a7
~a~°~+~°; •d~- ~-ro°A. o m g o.t~'~ q l,4 , q, / ' . as. ~:(-0,1. <'~°.!~!'9 ~9,~ am- ~ pa ae~°'°j ~p °~e a 9°0~ °~l...o, e' , o ~ .~,~~-.~.rea
9..
8qi"@, :~ja" 1~° ae° .r~. °=.8_ y,~- °~j~r~'~ , a'&'.~~~ 1!•.jW',o~, i ~ '6 °i `B :°'ei'ma e l ° ° ~i~.~ei^~°
e,.R~`0'~@81.,,~ v -~ha.
t oa•~~<_ ~ ba~ gp~-~f~, ; xt^~.~~/ ~~fo•7,"<~`~`?'`~ yltda:~ `4 7,~. ~ .'~e~~ e`., ,;~,~e ~J:°t. q2 B~~^jB~-~~'`~~~.-~'~a
'pe;;a~~,'q~y~. ;9 R`~'~~ ^ a°q~,::~~ee~~,i~~'y ~•t~er9 ~1~e~~J4 ~"a, d,`e• . ~j,0~~~tf~.~~°,P~t.~ n +'w ~ g:L
'°~Y, m jd ~e. • a ~t.._f`~l 7 q%° ~.o~~'e , °f ~~$a~`e. . e_.~.a • '(K~1~,~~'.'~~.^° a .rs j `6'ja _ e e ' • ~ ~ 9 t ,1 °.f('~ t
~ f . . ° g ` ~ o ~ a J.° o ~m . ~gd B s,1~`~. ~e``
\
,a~ °1°°~,~m° •.,°Y° t ~ • , °1' a 1 - ~ ,v .^si ao.•4 z ,rd ° .f. ~ ° a, p~
~1~ 1O4~Y.. 0°.ie ~~Ia~ l..4k
e~~ Ko .;9',$~~e .r,„ ° d~ e~e;e"• ~~p ~:~~m > " ° 'i~>, r:o• ~t e°a+~~!. ' ~ ( S ~ ' ~'2~'. a
.~t+`- f a ~ 0~ :s,gy d~ ~o~ --6?6<'._:a..:m.-~> 3^~'•P- m.~~~ b' P' ~~e.~a ."b~,7'.~.,..o a S=~5 g~.,a° e-.^.°°~ ae ~e~d~° ~~'Lo. a;m~~.°~`~`gve...`~
`
I.e.e."a'l~ ~ °••2}~~ a°r~ °~e'L~' ~ ~'°e a~ a yP a' ~ E~ ~I
~y ~ ~ g~ e t ` t . e'^<.~. . .~eJa'< +r m 1e~ qeo ,;6 ~~fa °~dams° :~•.~-yve f
J~.~ef PROPOSED SBTC' a _esa.•r~° o~%;~~ ~R~~. 1°9~i .~9~~ ~ s•s. s~ ~ o~m°°~° .",'d:..~+,°o' 1 d1y 9 4.K.~ ea Lo o~ ~q°'4~ `v e^?3'~daw~
. e , e ;~ja Y. 8 e.~ ~ ~ ' °~.~e e g a~. ~ 'a~:° ~~,b,a.,m ~,~m.(~"°~ d $ , e~•<~` e Pl. ' ° .
a y6 y ° ~ ,q 8 ~ y~~0 • . . ° a m ,~o 4~~:~'~ A ~ ° t
,,y.dQ,o a°B fl: p .~°~'d~ l .le',.°.t ~ ~''J~ w~e
aa8:er y q ~ e•./e~•
g^yeg*pvp,~+466a?d98Yd$ CAdtlGof9l0 g'~t~g~pqAGL~
5o ~mi•~~ 9• °~o e p° 9a~>1Bo0~~~v~~~o~• ~r n,~a~e' ~o ~A~g~weq q6agee q9~~$~B~•e, 6y•°~0t'DBb'a~ ' 8~~aQlmm ~a 8-,b ~y9~v
y 1a.L • ' • . .aa i O 1, Qa ° a ~ p , , e P 9
. ..~g'', ~q~''9,A~.°yP °-'~,~,~ia °e-- ~ 7s de°'9..".`~°~ oL°-x oe""'! °v,4e~ ~'a.~ iI ~"~a~ ~ ~~'•,.s~° ~ ~!A-.~°~°~
}a. ;~,A ~ ~ e ~ om° ~
a.. ~i 3~' ,~`.;~:~>4g< 3.°~:de a .o~-~.~ ~}a , . 'e ~ ,~~°~g• a 9 , •
PROPOSEOC ~
o~-- t~ Et~AG ~..o~:p``° m ~:;:m a o r`j~,_ ~.:.Pma,.. ~,a ,9~° ~(.•l~ .,•.;.a .~,,.s . , m - a ,
a y:'•~se ~g:~''•°°~~e,J < ° 5.1. ,.e-m 9 B pg ^°t., p ~9~y~
5
~...~sorr,; ~-:e~ ~f~~o~°- , eo,P`a,-~°.o..._~-~e 7.,a °a °i'• °.''~e 08 ¢q °9 a
• e. o .;aa• ei ~ . . . ,.a~.<.,m :dZ~,,. r ~i,4 ~ e , oi ~~e
"'9 ~y p g $ v°;s 4 np A . 1'T4 { a 0
.-k p.a~,°-~°~~'~~q^ .~d~'-p{~ , e9e 980e°~~e n\na~~ a° ~ e~,.~,e°oe" w' ae ~ v,• ey-e4 a. ~ •a
, ~~?~1~.a ~ :~_':a r:'.:o aa~ 9 .4;•,8 • vem,e . •,-a=iw g ea9 B'°'~ ,e 0 8.9 . ~~d . . 4°~ .
. ,,~,~.o , y,.,,~~P a,.e ~ °l° .to.3 :~.;•e a~~
- 9~' ~°mP.: . 'aY° •,'1~ •ro ~ e. `m°+^°`°°~ 6.'";*'0° ; Qo a~;i i .i ` ~ . . e ' ~ a J'~~• r~:a~s~ ° a ° . ~'°e.e~ e P ~a •
\ m~~ • ° ~ a~e< 0 e~ eoe e e 'e \ : o,~ °et ~~Ba ~ a ~,9~p..~' • 9
~ 'e. 'a e•~ q' °~~•4.• ,01 a ~,P; m } i~ 'w~'o4M1n 8daBaLB p . 8a. ? ^0 6~9CS9 b; o,~ . 'v ve: a m~, • ! e . ~ae o
,!:$a -sY°.; 8 °.t e.,~.2 0g =e~ amaem;+g .d~~ e
~y.e ~ry ~°~q;~ ~p °t ,~6 ei~° e~~ 9 eJ.oe'° ~t,,,~ °~,0 ` eo $ °y'. / ~t°swC~~48ai1seAe O$aleg< al~ ~v , • , ~'9
t _ ~ 7` o° aecr + eg D ~''Y~dPa•u.. ,q p ;y; ^:.°S11 9.
°t4.do i~W Al~I.sl.~~~ 9d im'S°T~~,oa ;~."^n'^~~,~e°,~...do~q.seee8.. weee.n.~e ~ 1`~o q a 00'"°° ~ 9{ e~° 9. , a a of.
»g . ~.l . ~ . So•a a'• . , p.r.~cw~~•'. ~.'~'.9 , . °A°?~ .°/f_°r a°°~. . 6~.. B.,w~' oo .
MAP 3
NEW DIRT °
ACCESS RDo EXISTING SERMCE
ROAD
PROPOSE CELL S1
o NNEL f'0 1°Al.
EXISTIN AS€'HAGT°
PARKING
s7° O11N 1--70
TUNNEL WEST CELL SITE-
VICINITY MAP
~~RTH
~
MAib 4
PROPANE TANKS
( ICAL)
GENERAT'OR ( m)
AN NNA T0 R . .
/GRAVEL AREA •
PREFAB CQhAMtJAdICA-
TiO~~ SHEL R.
TUNNEL WEST CELL SI .
I
OR
MAP 5
Q ~ ~ < . ? ~ . B ~g a o.m.~m a
• ^ , ° ~ ~ ° ~W °ro r ° ° , " ~ . d e ° • . ' e
/ s' 8 g
" g ~ • ° ~ tl ~ e~°~ o ~ . ° ~ °1 i
° 1 a• , . s°° ~ ~ a 4~.` o m , , o ~ ~ °t I
° Sqo4i°.e ~ , ° ~ ' • ~ ° °•m ° ~ I
~ ~ ' . e . • ~ ,
SsTE: COPPER MoUNxAaN
~e a
ACCESS: ACCESS F3D {SUt,AER' m,° `q
S}<1 LIFT
SiVOW ClRI`
a
/ '1~COw 'ff2EteBC~-{ OF2
POWER
t~`J ~ m m9 ` e ~1 t 0
ERHEAD
. ~ ~ n • e ~ < e ~ . ~ , . B° ~s°`~ ' I > . f ` . a
o,e Bi ~ a ~ ",9 A B • ~ d o.'~ ` ~ ~ + e .m ~8 d0 ° ~ ~ e~ 1/,~ ~ e
~ A~%? e. o~~v~ g~ m~f~,op~r°~~a o$, j /j t ~C"
• ~ ~ 1X
. y
A~
° . e a • ~ , ~~Qs~ ~ ~ e ° m • m ~ e ' , ~ , . a e e r , s
' ~ ` ~~.-e s' ~ ° aee . .~.r , p ~ ~ • e e ' a ~ ~ ~'m p'9 ° ~
a ~ o ~+s 8 / m , ~p• , . . i . a ar.e , e ee' ° i' ° ~
~ : e e . . 0 ~ • . . q-~^s" P °~e..P-~ W w' ~ B~ e„~^m . ,
. ~ a , e ~:o ~ ~ . • a ew~'° m . + 1
~ e ~m ~ ~ • m"~° ~~,,,.m.• • ° /~9~ am ~ee.. ° 1 s
' ~ `s6 ~ ,r ~ ~ ~ ~ ° a +ix° q a4 0° -a , e '0.B
m~ ~ e _ ~Q m ~ g • ~my°~s~' ~ 8 ~ 4 B~ , e 9 .
o ~°o~ >soas ~ I°an. . ~ma~,.~ . _ . . ~ • . ' 1 m~e , 0 m m.e..., e , ~ p p " A9 a,~ •
~ ~_'-0"~ 4wm~ e ~ ~a . ~ A m ~ 0~ e •~--m ° ~ D e e ' C '°i •
a • ~ m 4 , j ~ ~ a °°m ~e~ ,'e ~ ~ l ~
Shrine Pass Sxte ( 7 and 8)
Loc-ation: Site on Shrine P s shown on Map 7.
acil°zti : °Fwo buildings for el tronic uipment with two 60' high zowers.
Acc 4One le unirnprov a ss r doff Shrine Pass R da 5noweats on1y
in the wanterg
~~er an Telephones Buri in road ri~ht~f way frc~rt~ V~i Pass Visifors
Centera
East Vai1 Sife (see ap 9 an 10)
Location: Irr'mediately adjacenx to the truc3c runaway ra.rnp can I-70 in the vicinity
of East Vailv `T"°he site would l t outside of the easement for the naway
inp hei'd by the Colorado p ment of T spo donm
Facilifiesa Two buildzngs for e1 trsanic uipment. Two 60' mono les.
Acc : Old U.S. Highway 6 from East jJails
Power an Telephonem Extension of electrical dtelephone lines currently
se ing U.S. 6 d Gtsre Cr k Gampground.
Need for the Proposed CeI1u r if
Cellcalar communication is a part of daily Iife, serving ne,arly everyone in the community erther
dir t1y or indir fly. Cellular telephones a.re used in emergency situadons by citi ns a-nd
errraergency h th d fety se i providersa In the 1ast 12 months alone, thou ds of 911
emergency ls usfng Ilul telephones were placed alc~nc, Colorado's Front Range.
Additionally, in rne areas, fr way ernergency call xes are 11u1 telephones, d ch
ave ~es 360 ls y lya Any c~ne of ese ernergea~cy calls c~1d life-savir~g.
Ernergency h th d safety ice providers - fire d if dep ments, p rn ics, public
safety d ch d rescue agencies d ski patrols - have di ver that 11tz1
rnmuni fion helps i.hem to tzer serve the public. F°or example, lIui telephanes low s`
patroi demergency medical rnre1 to imm iately a ss s ialists, quickly transmit 1°rfe-
ving infor-madon, d othe i deal with emergency sztuations,
e proposed llutar sites are needed io ver with Ilular si~nal that rtion c~f the autho~
s-e i along Interstate 70 from Denver to the wa.rds mrnunity just east tsf Vailn e
" verage" must of sufficient streng to allow por-table o ration in vehicles a1ong this
routes °Iahis signal strength is de ndent on the r iv nsitivity of the rr,obi1e unit, e ou ut
in b m sur at e tennae of the broad sting station of " I1 site", the fr uency bean
broad st, d finally d most irn t, e nature or ti?erity of the physical te °n bein
ver . S€nce the Feral Commun3 tions Commissaon (FCC) has sdpulat that the llul
carriers can only broadcast up to 100 watts, one can think of Ilul workin on a portable in
car basis only if the tennae of the mobile can physi ly " " the tennae of ihe llm e
1ation of a 11 site deterrnines the coverage d signal strength within the proposed coverage
area. Coverage extends to a11 areas wfthan the line-of-sight of the 11 site, d slightly
yond e Iine-csf sight. e sign sireng determines other indi tors of per-formance such,
h d-off inis, sign to noise ruirements d intez-feren m
3
~ .
~~~CY, LAY
>
~
s 2.OO~'
112 00
. ,
y~
~
~
~ 14OR
A .
l- P'REA d
~RC)p
~~fj_,VER, (TVICAL)
~
,
t
~ P
/ I
t !
~Nss ~
j ~
~ '
EAST VAlL MAID 9 0
s
EXI T
1-74
FRONT
AGE
R~AD
SI
IL EAST _CELL SI
VICINITY ° 1° VAi L PAS~
~
OR
pR~,~`~~ COMVMt~~°1c
~
Loca6on of the proposed liul sites on National Forest System l ds ap s to necessary
to provide ntinuous llul coverage along the I-70 corridor from the West PorLil Siie in
Surrirr'it County to wards in Eag1e County wath a rnanimum number of sites whi1e rrl ting the
perf'ormance criteria. At present, rmanent I1u1 se iis available in the Keystone, Diilon,
Silve ome and Br kenridgem Temporary ice is availab3e ai Cop r Mountain, however
this service d snot provide suztable coverage in the a-rea d wzll te inat in 1 2unless a permanent site capable of a rnm tang th ewV tor dCeilul One as bufIte As
described under S 6on 2"A3te a8ives" of this ,a 1 ge nurn r esf ten6a1 sites were
tested as part of e I1 site I tion pr ssm
e proposed action is consistent with the overall management dir tion provided within The
nd and esource Management Plan (For° PIan) for the hite 3~er National
o .oresz PI e Forest Pl is being implemen ruir by the Forest d
Rangeland Renewable Resottr s Pl ning Act of 1974 (RPA, P.L. 93-378) d the Nat~~nal
Forest Management Act of 1976 (NT A, P.L. 94-5$8)e
e Forest Pl was approv hy the RegionaI Forester on September 20, 1984a "The ove 1
m agerneni dir tion within the Forest Pl ac owl ges that a la.rrger progrram in non-
r r tion s ial uses should be develts to rrr t the incr sing dem ds for roads,
werlines, Lj tr~ni~ sit~s, d water Iinese e Rocky Mauntairt egional GuIde dat April
1983 (Regional Guzde), al ac°owledges that there is zncr sing dem d from th public
d priti?ate users for the limi#ed, stsitabie, d available e1 tronic sites4 e Region uide
refl ts a mm ation licy tow ds e1 ironic sites d the Regional uide sets forth goals
d s ds dguidelines for the Forests to follow d implement4 ese sarne go s d
s ds are refl t in the Forest Plan.
Exisdng e1 tron icJcorrlm uni tion sites are identifi on ihe rn agement a-rea map for the Forest
Pl a e Forest PI refl ts that a11 rnicrowar'e paths d f x tel rnrnuni tion el tronic
sites e to designat utility co °dors. e riaaanagement prescription for utility corridors
is i a None of the sel t sites e designat in e Forest Pl as e1 tronic sites. In order
to establish new sites, the Forest Se i M ua1 r uires that the Regianal Forester must designate new sites. The Regiona1 Forester provides appropriate notifi tion prior to si4e
designation, Sites ar'e desagnat in a D ision Mert3o. In additicrn, the Forest PI provides that
r~ew el tron iclcom m uni tion site designations ruire amendment io the Forest PI a ese
ch ges to the Forest Pl are not consider signifi tm The Forest Su i r is r uir to
prepa.re the arnendment to the Forest Pl and provide appropriate notifition prior to
irnplementadon, e Forest Se ice cicipates that the nofifi tion of the amendment will rurt
ncurreni with e notifition of the cornmuni tion site designation by e Regionall Forester.
ne actual itting of ch ins lafion is performed rou h e establish s ial u
permitdng pr ures. m
'e Forest Pl is on file in the Forest Su i r`s ffiin Glenwood prings, Colo do,
e illon Ranger istricz ffi in Silve ome, Coio do and the oly Cross Ranger istrict
in intum, Colo doa
4
~
~
e proposed action is al nsistent with the appli ble prescrib m agement prescriptions
for ch s ific site. The Regional Fcsrester will ncst designate a sflte unless the use is
rrapatible with the management s d ds dguidelines of the rrl agement area in which the
site is situal with"rn car area adja nt there toa e Wesi Portal csf the Eisenhower °I°unnel site
is I t within rra agernerat prescription 2A, which emphasi s serraiprirnitive motcsrir r fion. S ial uses e perrraitted long as they e complernentary d rnpatible with
e Idnd d deveIopment level of the as iat facilSties wiihin the area. site zs certainly
m dble wi Colorado Department of T s tion tunnel buildings d faczlities located
adja nt to the site.
e Copper ountain site 2s l t within prescription arr I o S ial uses a-re ncat
p zicul ly addres , but facilides may dommate, 1ong they blend d h rnonize with
ihe natural seitango Ufility co °dor designations within wintp-r sports si#.es e io be avoid
unless the irnpact of the corridor mifigaieds e proposed action is for only one fix
sitte dnot a linear right af way. The l tion of the site h n Sdentifi in clo
coordinafion vvi Cop rountain Re rt d is ina design to blend with oiher buildings
] t w3thin the sk-i area.
The Shrine Pass d st Vail sites are 1 ted within m agemeni a.r 2B, which emph izes
rnoioriz d non-rriotori r r tional activities. The dir tion d s d ds dguidelines
for issuing s ial u rrt2its in ar 2B are the s-arrte as tho withirt managernent area 2A,
discussed a ved e cons ction d design of the facilities will h rnoni with the landscape
to manirni t}ae visu impacts de mpatible with associated facflities irt the area.
The Forest Pl is on file in the Forest Su i r's t~lffi in GIenwood Springs, Colorado, e
iIJon Ranger is °ct ffi in Silverihorne, Colorado d the Ho1y Cross Ranger is °ct zra
intu , Coloradoo
C. ttvironrnen l Issues
ere are some im environmental issues to consider in deteranining whether or not to
approve the four proposed llul mrnuni tion sitesa Forest Se i resour s i ists
identifi me of e issues, d mem rs of the general public identifi others or helped to
better define the issuesm
1. btic Notifi tion
ne of the first steps in the issue idencifitaon pr ss for is Environmental
Assessment was to identify traembers of the pcrblic who could be aff t by the
pro eexch ge, or who might hav?e an interest in the d rsions made for is
proposed action (A list of individuaIs, groups, org i tions dagencies notifi
, of e proposed actaon d invit to comrnent an it znay be found in Ap ndix
A)e Other fe, state d local gove rnen a.gencies were infarrrsally
nsutx during this pr ss.
5
. L-sues
~
Are the proposed llul rr'rnuni dons sites necessary to rn t pre nt d
anticipated public n s d dem ds? at e th~ ~ef-its to deriv from
llul d simil teIephone systems?
° I 1 TB
at e the op rtunides for sidng the proposed faciiides ora non-federal I ds?
Are suitable alteznatives available?
YM.daCi Q ct °
ill e proposed Ilulat° mmurai taons sites impact wetl ds or pl ts of
s ial n m (thr ten or end ger s ies)?
ff- il Ii f
iIl e propos-ed lIul rrrmuni dons sites impact bzg gazne, piors d
s i n rn s ies?
uttu I e§ou
ili ns ction of the proposed facilities irngact y cultural re ur s?
ati~n
Potenda] impacts of e proj ton public r r tion u at Shrine P s d
Cop roun °n have been identifi issue that should addressed in the
o Both summer d winter trail u urs on Shrine Fass, d downhi11
s °ing occurs at Cog r oura aaas
VL
u 21
Potential visual impacts resulcing from development of ihe proposed sites h n
identifi issue at should addressed in Lhe Aa Computer sirnulatiorts,
renderings d szte ins tions vviIl incorporated to eva1 te the visu impacts
of e ro o
6
Section
ALTERNATIVES
A. Ia~tr
crdULf_Qn
5everal action aIternatives done altemative of tak-ing No Action were developed d
consider in the eravSronmeniai alys3s pr esse e actiort a.lte atives incltad alte ative
1 tions fcar ch of the proposed r-ellula-r communi tions facilides (on doff the Nataonal
Forest) d the option of aIternative sate3lite communi cions d t hncslogiesa As explain
low a num rof these altematives were eliminat from detail nsideration dunng the
environmenW anaiysis pr ss. All of the altemadves e described in this iiono e centml
r ns frorrt eli inating ;he inf ible or Smprracdcal altematives e also explained.
B. Alte tive 1 - No Acfion
tlnder Yhis aIternative, the four proposed 11u1 communi tions sites wou3d not
designat as mmuni dons sites by ihe Regiona1 Forester d would not
approv for cons ction.
Nation Enti'ironrsren a Folicy Act pr ur-J regulatior,s ruire the Forest
Se i to study the No Acfion Alte ative in de °1, d to use it as a baseline for
rrap °ng e eff ts of the other alternatives (4 CF 1502.14(d), d Forest
e i d k 1909.15,23. 1), In this case, the ~To Actaon aIte ative is a
viable altemadve to the prca acdon.
A.Ife tive - e Proposed Action
nder this aItemative four ilular communi tion sites, West Fo , Cop r
ounttain, Shrine Pass d st Vai1 Track Ramp would be approv a e
Regional Forester would designate each of these sites as a llu3arr comrnuni dons
site, d the White River I1atsonal Forest Su isor wouId issue the necessary
rmits for const ction of such sitese Cellular service would establish at
ch site wiihin the next r io five y sm NewV tor and Cellul ne would
not nes °Iy nst ct eir res tiVe fac1I1deS dgin o radons at e same
fimem e four sites nsider a part of is atir?e e summarized
lows
West o 1L,,enhower unnei (West a I) ite { A7aps 3 an 4}
Location: Due north of existing p °ng area on norLh side of est Portal
of the Eisenhower Tunnel.
acillti a Site building(s) in tr s dc1 °n . °I°wo 60080 f t 1es (one
r comP y).
Acc t Short link from existin access road pr€avidzng y mround a ss;
7
ower and Telephone: Available at West F'ortal of Eisenhower Tunnelo
op r Nfountam Site (see Nlaps S and
Location: Within Copper ountaan Re rt sl:i a-rea rrrait boundary west
of Lhe bottorrt of the B1 Chairlift.
F'acalities: One two-story building with a 15°x 65' f tpzint, Bui1ding
would htause NewV for, CeI1uI Cane el tronic equiprnent d provide
° additional on-mauniain storage for Cop rMoun °rr Re rts Adja ni to
t.he buildi~g would a two mono les approximately 50' ira height
equipped with tennasso
Acc e Existing rnountain a ss Road B mainta.ineci by Cop rountain
Rmrtg 5nowcat a ss onIy irt the winterm
ower and Telephone: El crical power is ~vai1ab1e from existing power
facilides adja nt to the site in r°aticsn with Cop r Moun °n Re rtw
A ss to telephone lines would a mplish by rnicrowave to a
facilfty on pravate pro rty at base of Ccrp r ountainv
Shz°ane Pass Site (sft a 7 and 8)
tion: Sit~ on Shrine Pass shown on ap 7.
Faciiiti m Two buildings for el ironic equipment wiLh two 40-50' high
towers.
cc : One 1e unimprov a ss r doff Shrine Pass Road, Snow ts
only in the winterA
ower and Telephone: uri in road right-of way from Vail P s Visitors Center.
East i'ail ife (see Ma s an 10)
Location: Imrn iately adjacent to the cruck naway rarrap on Ig70 in the
vicin3ty of st'Jailo e site would l toutside of the easement
for the r-unaway mp held by the Colo do Dep ment of 7° s tion.
Facilrti : "I`wo buildzngs for e1 tronic uipment9 Two 60' mono 1ese
cc sOId U.S. ighway b frorn East Vaila
ower and Tetephonee xtension of electrical d telephone lines
currently serving U.S. 6 dore Gr kCarnpgrounda
iti ataon Measures - itigation m sures e actions taken to avoid,
minimi , r uce or elirninate adver eff ts as a result of implernenting
ternativev In order to minimi the tenti irnpacts as iat wi
the short-ierrrt cons ction acdvit3es associated with the sates d e
e longer-terrn irnpacts of ntirau site o ration, s ifc miti ation
m sures will be incIud in the s ial u rmits issu for ch of e
sites. Such m sures will m3tigation rn sures to prot t re ur s
IFlcludiTlg, but not limit to, ils, vegetatzon, visu re ur s and e
13keo
onitorin - The eff dveness of e r uf r mf tigation measures will
8
monatQred on a rcgular bassis by the Forest S~ ice, NewU tor and
Cel1ul Onem
is alie atave wa,s developed through the cooperative effcsrt,s of the Dillon
Ranger Disir3ct, the Holy Cross Ranger iscrict, th~ Colorado Dep rnent of
T s tion, NewV ior dCellul flneo Initaaliy, a.lte ative sites with the
tentaa1 to provide ntirauous verage betw nthe Eisenhower'Tunnel dVazt
• were idenfifi by NewV tor dCellul C3n~~ e potenda.i sites were t,hen
discussed dvisit duzing meetirags held in April, ay, d Jurre 1992m
P°cip ts in these m tings includ the Fcsrest Seryi, the Colorado
Department of 'I° spor tion, NewV tor dCeIlul One. As a result of thessue
mee6ngs, Lbe proposed alte dtive w ~eveloped.
AlternatIve 3 ° Alfernatii'e East Vai1 Slt
As a result of the public dagency scoping pr ss, a nurraber of n s were
raised regard°ang the proposed llul site at the East Vaal Truck rnp near t
Vail. Con s with the siie as original3y prta nter on tential visual
impacts9 In res nse, four addition tential sites which cou3d serve
alte ative to the East Vai1 site were adentif by e Forest Se i for alysfsa
ch af these "sub-altemati`yes" are analyzed under this altematives e other
thr sites est Portal, Cop r oun °n d Shrine P s) would rerarain
unch g a
e altemative East Vai1 11 site 1 z3ons e shown on Map 11 " t b'ai1 Cell
Site Sirnuladora, Vicinity ap - Alie ative Site Locations dVie irat
tiotts". The terna6ve sites includeo
,
Site A- East ail Tzuck arnp r ~
Site B - °dge South of °Truck rn
Site C W Top of East t%ai1 Tck mp
Site stside Im70 A ve aier T k
Site E 0 Red oun 'n
C.
AIte at?re 4: Use of afellife- d y e
a Several satellite-based systerns e currentty being developed by rn dn rnp ieso
If such systems were avai1able, they rnay provide aite ative to the 1 tion of
addition llul cornrnuni tion facilities ora Natacan Forest, however the mp ies
fa Iiti , mrnerci mbusiness d technical probIerns whach rnay prevent eir
providin i unfil ihe 21st ntury, is altemative was eliminated frozn de °1
study because:
9
g ~ AR'
N ~
af D ° ; ` o, l e ~ .
N
_ ' ° ~ • ' -
~ ~ f f °s .s ~r ~ ""-o a . -
^ , f ` ~°°'~.m . ~ , . 4'° ~ a`oti..~ ~~"'o' • _
. s 0. ctl~j ~ ~ •`e . • °a=~m.. 4 , r^
f B fw~ • m~~ ~ ~ ,g/
ato!
~ ~''0~Po • m ~ ~ ~p°d ° ~A °°~.,,V~ ,~~m~o-6 ^
! ~~o 'b• ~ _ ,...,,,.,o ~ ~a E ) ~ .o ~ w° ~'e,~ ~ o ~.s . ~O° ~ ' ~ ~ . ^
~q • ~ `'e~ ~ °e s `'°~a. ~ q ae ) p>.° ~ + ~L+ @ ° ' ~ ~..r
p~~YC -
~.~''~J a,~ ~ y • -J
~.,w ' _ _ - ~ ~ ~ .
<
~reek
~araep$rcsundf
C~caa~ .
~ ~~'ee
pI'8 fZ9
0 a ~
q~~a..as~m»,~-j ~9 ~
, . ~ ,~"""~°°^°"m'°"'?^ ~ ° ~ ' 1 . ~R~ a Q • - , ~ ~A..}.~a . a ~ fia~~y~ .
~ s~~~ tlA bd w
~ - • ' ~-~a ` _ . • ~
° ' ~ 0, ~`:,~~1 m • - ~ , \ l°° , ~ i' ° .
. . ~0 °•~°o....~ ~ • ~ ~ ?~p . . ~ ~ ' .
- ; 4oo SIM
ae ~ e.! , g I °°e. ° j • .
~i 44 ~ j ~ ^~°ti,~ , ~ ~ r ~ . v~ e. ~ . a . e °
147460
4` < Y: .d ~ 0 4'' ~y d ° °a, A ° • ~~~l7~~
..m ~ . 9 . ~ • iiular
~aS~t Vail ell it ~s & vi ~ point Locations
ici tiy 1tertlakat1ve Site Locatio
One's
le requir t hnology is currentIy unava%lable to the general public.
2. Implementation sts uld prohibztive.
AIte tive St A.Ife tive West Po 1 Sites: `I-he aIte ative of i ting ihe Ilul
rnrnunf fions facilitaes inside the Eisenhower Tunnel w nsider s is te ative
w noz studi fu er because:
° 1 e Foiendal interferen wiih design d o tion of the Ei nhower °T°unnela
2. A dupIi te tof facilzties would need io l t within each re of
the Tunnel to provide the desir veragep
Alte tive 6: Aife tive Cop riNfountain Sties: A number of sites, including the
proposed Cop rMountain si , were conszder ssibIe I fions to prov3de the
ruir servi g Site sel i3on criteria were based upon technical
rasideraaons dcustomer r uirezr,ents dex tadons. The altemative sites were
evaluat based u n their ability to provideo
1, r-overage throu-hout the Cop r oun °n viliage a-rea;
2. vera~e on Ia70 from Offirs Gulch to Vail Pass,
3e vezagle within ihe Copper ountain ski area rmit und ; d,
4m a reliable h d-off to the Lake ill Ii si near illon in Summit
County.
Extensive testing was nduci frorrt ch alie adve I tion to verify the r°esults
ob °n frorn rnputer rn eis design to pr ict verage d mea-sures of q ity. In addidort Yo the proposed site near the 1Chairlift, e folIowing sites were tested d
given rious conside tion as lona, ter-m tentaal 1 fionse
ao s' trol h dquarters at e top of e 1 Chairlift;
bm e private pro rty on top of Cop roun °n;
C. Cop roun °n Fire Stadon in the ba village;
dm e Cop roun °n T s tzon Center in the base village,
e. So13tude Station Restau t at the top of the American F1}3er
Chairlift, d,
fs Peak 10 MuItimtJ rCommuni dons Site.
e resul of e analysis af ealtemative I tions de r ns why e si s
were not analyzed in fu er deta.il are summarized beIowm
ki atc°al I-i dua e: is site d s not provide ad uate covera e vvi in
the base village. evillage is co pletely shadow by e rnoun °ng In other
words, the rnoun °n's topogz°aphy d s not 1ow a szght ndition into e village
necessary to provide a sign strength af -8 d throughout e villa e.
10
Nlouratain °Tc~~ ivate Pro r°fys 3S S3Ye d snofi provide ad ua ver°age
within the base viIlage, e rnountain's iopogr-aphy d s raot aIIow a sight
nditzon into the vi3lage necessary to provide a signal strength of -88 dBm
throughorat the village.
op r Mountain Fi S#atiorat This site d s not praavide verage on 1070 t~
Vail Pass d on Is70 cow ds Dillon. Pres-ently, the signal from NewV tor's
° -e Hi11 site is attera ted to an unac ptable level at {3ffi rs Gutch, m110 ta -
115 dBrrsm In order io prcrvide a reliable h d-off betw n this site dCop r
oun °n, rt is irn rafive that sufficaent signal pre nt from the Cop r
oun °n siiem us, additional sites would r uir to m t the area verage
requirements.
op rounta' Transportation Centers is site d snot provide adequate
verage a1ong I-70 tow ds Vail Passo Tlus, addaticanai sites vvould ruir
tw nCop r Mount,ain dVail Pass to provide the s° uir verage in the
futurem
olftude Station: is site d s not ver I-70 as weli as the West of 1 d
P sites because its g1e towards Offirs uIch d the way terrain
blocks e signal towards Vaii P sm Ira addiiion, this site d snot ver the base
viilage ad tely.
Peak 10: is site d s noi have the ruir izne-of sight down Tenmile C yon
to Officers Gulch, erefore, additional site wouJd rufr to provide is
irn t linke It is al presently served by sol energy which is not sufficient
for Ilul useso
lte tst°e 7- No h Shrine Pass Site
Two tenti sites were idendf on Shrine Pass durin the scopinc, pr ss, e
proposed Shrirae Pass site as shown on aps 7 d8, da site located approxi a ly
one-h f mile to eno , Both s3tes are t hni ly pable of providing the necessary
link between roun °n d East VaiI provading continuous ti?e ge ong I070s
oilowin o site visits ta Shrine ass, Forest Servi r r,nel eliminated e northem
most si fro de °I nsideradon b useo
1. e access road to the site would cr te una p bIe visu impactsm
2m e 1 tion and visibility of the site couId have an adver impact on
r r tion u rs of ihe ar o
3. e si wou1d r uire a longer a ss road and a mg yin Iephone
and electrical utili6es ih the preferr uem Shrine Pass si .
11
Alte axive s AIte ative Vai3 Pass Alter-nafiv f6 Shr°iz~~ Pass: Two sites were
analyzed on Vail Pass altematives to a single site on Shrir~e Passa One of e sites
analyzed w the Highway Maintenanr-e Shei on top of Vail P so e other si was,
located adja nt to the Poik Cr k T° ck mp on I-74 west of the Vail P s summit.
Ilese sites were e3iminat frorri fu er rasideration for the folIowing r nso
1. e proposed Shrine P s site is pable of providing the sarne coverage
- thm two sites. ereforep this altemative would promote the
proiiferation of sitese Addifional (more th four) llul mrrttarti tion
sites withSn the proj t area would have a negative cumuladve impact on
t.he area's visual d r r Uonal re ur so
2. LocaUon of a llul site at the Highway Maintenance Shei would limit
the Forest Se i's future 1 duse apfions at this sit~. At present, it is
uncl a how long the ighway Maintenance Shed wili at this 1 tionID
Alterr~ativ~ uses for e site include, but e noi lirnited to a visitors n r
d a picnie/day use az°m Locafion of a llula facility at this 1 don
would limit ese opfionsa
3. Ccans ction of a]lul site d ri ic maintenance activities at e
Polk Cr kTruc mp si would ruire usin I-70 to a ss e si ,
is is contrary to s t Colorado Dep ment of eT s don policy
far fety r ns.
4. The CoIo do Division of ildl3fe h stat at the Polk Cr k si
uld have detrimental impacts on el d raptoss.
5. Cons ction of two sites ther than one r~ouId involve twi e
ex nditure of funds which is onorni ly undesi blem
12
Section ~
ENNqRONrAIENTAL
is section descrihes the environmental ch cteristics of the proposed sites for e 11uI
mrrtuni Eion facilifies, d the envzranmentai eff ts of e xwo action tematives de
te ative of uaking no actiono
A. A ttd Ertvirtanmen.~
1. ne 1 ttin The pres proj t would not aff t the ar 's climate, physiogr-aphy, dg Iogys Thus,
the elements are ro8 dir tly part of che aff ted environmento However, they influen other
physical d biological elements that do consiitute part of the aff ted environrnents Because of
is gnfluence, climaie, physiography, dg Iogy e summarized here to provide addition
background for the impact alysis.
In gene , e area's climate is characterized by tow pr ipitation, 1ow avera-e relative
humidiTy, d Ia.rrge annual d diu al tern rature ranges. °I°he clirnatoIa-i r rd from
illon in Surnmit County (eIevation 9065 f t) is representative of the proposed site I tions.
Annual mean pr zpitadon for the are-a is 15 inches of 3iquid water uivaIent. The ave ge
nual snowfa.ll in I7illon is about 90 inchesa However, snowfall to s will approach 120 inches
r year at the higher sites a ve 11,000 f tm °This r rd indi tes ~~erage monthly terr' r-a-
tures range frorn 55° F in 3uly to 1b* F in J uary. Based c~~ average tem rature decrease
of 3* F wi a 1,000 f t increase in elevation, aver-age monLhly tem ratures would range frorri
49° F to 9° F at the higher sitesm
T'he four proposed sztes (including the East sub-altematives) e l t in the Sou em
Rocky Moun °ns Physiographic Provin o A series of high, nts m u trendira oun "rt
ranges do inates ffie regione e est Portal site is at the souih stem end of the illiams or
oun mns, e Cop r oun 'n, Shrine Pass, d st Vail sites e 1 tat e uem
end of the ore R geo
levafion v°es considerably a.mong the proposed sites4 The West Portal site d Shrine P s
si ,at 11,200 f t d 11,300 f t, res tively, e the highest sitesa e a ss r d to the
Shrine P s site ranges frorr' 11,150 to 11,300 f t in elevazionm The Gop roun °n si is at
10,800 f tm At 97f t, the st Vail truck m site is e lowest site.
T°he West Portal site is l t in the Si °ght Cr k fault zonem It is of PreRCambr?
gneiss wi tter PremCambri g ite dikes ( ryant ei atm 19$1)o The Cop roun in sate
is 1 ted in an area of PremCambrigneiss Tertiary int sive ign tas r k b iesm weto
et . 1978)o It is a1 a fault . Pennsylv i age sandstone, shale, d carbonate r k is
found at e Shrine P s sitem is site is in a fault zonem e East si is situated on
Quatemary 1 dslide de sits whjch overiay faulted Pennsylv i age sandstone, sh e, d
13
carbonate r k. FauIting in this a.r of t}ae R ky ~untains d s not appear to be aetivee
e sites lie within seissnic risk tae 1. Manor damage to sctures n expected ta resuit
froan dis t earthquakes. as corresponds to intensities V dVI of the ?vi ifi Mer 1i
Intensity Se of 1931 (Alge issen 1969 cited in Btarchett 1 e only signifi t
r rded earthquake in the vicinity of the sites was zntensity V event nter in the vicinity
of G rgetown in 1894 {S~over et a.lm 1988)s Intensity VI d VII earthquakes were r rd in
the nver Ar in the 1960s.
a.ss movement of snow, iI, d r ks as rrlmon in this ar of the FZ ky Mounc.ains. e
st Vail site is 1 t 3n a.r of active 1 dslide activity. `I`°he rnountasn slopes a ve the
West Portal site are subj t to fr uent r k.fOe a.ss movement is less rx2rrion on t}ie moderate
sIo sat t.h~ Copper ount.ain sites Because the Shrine F' s site lies nea-r the cr°est of a
rriountain, mass rnovernent h ds as°e minimala
2. Air taality _
T'he U.S. Environrraera Proi tion Agency establish Natfonal Ambient Air Quality S dards
(NAAQS) in Title 40, CF Part 50 for six air Ilu tsa These po11u ts eknown "cziteria
llu ts", Because the purpose of the TIAA S is to prot t the public h th, llu t
n n iions gr ter than the s d ds are consider potendally h mfulm e CoIorado Air
Quality Control Comrnission h adopt the sarrae s dards as the AA S.
For the proposed proj i, 13u ts of interest are rbon rr,onoxide ernitt from cons ctitsn
t,ehzcles, parficulate rnatier frorn cons ction activities, d nitrogen oxides emitt from 64m
horse wer generators to ins I backwup wer ur s. e'nation d state of
Colozado s d ds for p°culate matter (P ,o), carbon monoxide, dnitrogen oxides e
shown in Table 1.
T'he proposed srtes are a.ll in within Colora.do Air uality ConcroI Region 12o Regaon 12, en m-
ssing the coundes of Routt, Jack n, G d, g1e, Summit, d Pitkin, is in at °nment
( n n taons are below NAA S) for a11 criteria llu ts ex pt P,om Gene ly, rural
background levels e well within s dardss owever, cornpli problerns exist in me
populated valleys, rnost not.ably As n in Pitkin County. P,a is routinely m ur in Va.il, the
pollu t monitorin s3 c1o st to the proj t area. The highest r rd 24-hour la
nn taon in Vai1 for 1990 was SS pg1m', a value 37 r nt of e AA S maximum
allow P ,O con n taona
3. oi
County il su eys do not cover e moun `n areas where the sites e I t. us, ils
information describ below is based on general (fif order) ils mapping fcsr e Sta of
olorado present in Heil et . 1976a
e West Po 1 d Shrane Pass sites e 1 at above tirnberline in areas of F'ergelic
Cryumbrepts, a type of in ptz 1. The its e shallow to moderately d p d 1 rrayo Slo s
range frorn 2 to 5 rcenta ey e usu ly comprised more th 35 rnt r k fragments
1
Table EII Nafional Arnbient Air Qua3iiy S da.rds
Pollu t Averraging Time Con n tion'
C n Monoxide I hour-b 35 ppm (40 Mg/rn')
8 hou? 9 PPM (10 mg/M3)
P gculate (PM,O) Annual `thmetic mean 50 YglM3
2 hou? 15 kZg/M3
Nitrogen Dioxide Annual `thrr'etic mean 100 }Ag>M3
No short-te s c3ard .
Ncstes;
ao ppm = P sof llu z per mi113on parts of air; malrri3 = milligrams 11u t z
cubic rraeter of air at s dard ndxtio-ns (atrrrosphenc pressure of 29a92 inches g
d Yem r°ature of 25' C); jigBm 3 = microbrams l1u t r cubic meter of °
at s da.rd nditacsrtso
b. Conr-en don not io be exceeded rnore th one 6me r year in averagin dme
ri a
which are gene ly gula-r d gr ter Lh 3 inches 3n diameter. Dep io bedrock averages
2 to 3 f Perm bzlity is moderate to moderately r-apid, d the shrink-swell tenti is low
to rn eratea Frost action tentiai is rn era to high. Erosion h d;s high, d revegeta6on
is slow d difficult. R koutcrops are mrnon throughout this rraapping unit.
e Ccsp r oun en site is 1 i sn a high aItitude, timber ar of "Typic Cryo fs, a
type of fi la ese ils axe sha.llow to d p, clayey to s-andy loarns. Slo s r-ange from S to
b r nt. ey eoften comprised of more than 35 r nt r k f grnents. epth to r k
ave ges 2 to S f ta Pe bility is gene ty m erate, d e shrirrk-swell potential zs
merate to Icsw. Frost aciion tenti is moderates Rock are common roughout thBs
apgin unitm
e st Vail sites are I t in a m ium altitude, timber of °I°ypic Cryo rrais, a ty
of oIli L e ils are shallow to d p, cIayey toams d loams. S3o s range from 15 to
54 r nto ey n°n v ing r ntages of rk fragrnentse ep to b r kave ges 2
to 5 f tm Pe bil3ty ranges frorn slow to rapid, de shrink-swell tenLi is moderate to
highm Frost action tenfi is moderate.
4m urface ater
The proposed s7tes e all I t west of the Condnental ivide wi in the Colorado Bver
drainage b in. S ific sites e each 1 t wi in different sub-b ins of e Co1o do °ver
b in. Ile West Portal site is l north of S° ht Cr kon e north side of In rsta 7
1
irr'mediately low the Continental Divide@ e Cop r Mounulin site is ] t a ve the
nfluen of T°enmile dWest Tenmile cr a e Shrane P s site is situat ort the divide
tw nthe Black tiore d West T"enmile cr k sub-basinsa T'he East site is immeiiately
a ve Ciore Cr km
e U.S. G log,i Survey rraaint.ains gauging stations to monitor fltaw within ihe sub-b 3ns
but alI are several miles downstr rn of the proposed siies (ilgl det a3o 1992)a ere is a station
on S°ght Cr k low Laskey Gulch, near I3illon, CO with a d °nage ar of 1$m3 squ e
rriiles. It has r rd average disch ge of 12a8 cfs (cubic f t r s-econd) during five y s
of r rd with a minirrlum of 2.4 cfs d a m irnurn of 146 cfs9 A stadon is 1 ted on Tenrraile
Cr k 3ow North °I`enrniIe Cr k, at Fri ,CO d has a d °nage area of 93.3 square rnilesa
Ii h r rded a-n average da harce of 98,3 cfs during 34 y sof r rd with a m;nimum of
7.0 cfs d a m imum of 1410 cfs. ntre is a staizon on Gore Cr k at 1'ail, ~O with a
d`nage ar of 77,1 sq e miles. It r rd averrage disch ge of 87a5 cfs during 1990.
inirnum flow sin 1988 was 7.2 cfs d the rn imum was 1290 cfsm
In the Rocky Moun °ns, pr ipitation is the primary ur of str r:nflowo ost of this flow
origfnafes froan melting snowo Con ~~ndy, peak nual runoff iasually occurs in early to mid-
June. Str rrtflow irt late surnrner, fall, d winter originaies mainiy from groaand water
discharges.
Sm round Water .
In gene ,no well defined, extensive aquifers exist can or near the proposed llul sitese
Aquifers present 3n the area e ctassifi as crystailine tar sedimentary bedrock. 'I°he crystaIline
bedrock aquifers e 1 t in frracture zones in metarriorphic r k dg ite. S irnen
bedrock aquifers e found in more permeable sandstone, shale, d carbonate r k aquifersa
Yields frorn ground water wells completed in the t sof aquifers t i ly pr u Iow
ounts of watera
6. No'
e primary sourr-e of e ambient noi in the general proj t area is e noi produced by
vehicul ffic on I-70. No3 rn surernents k-en by the Colo do ighway ep rnent at
iIverthome indi te a m irraum hourly average noi level of 68 d at a distance of 200 f t
from I-70. yalogy, is 68 d}eve1 is repre ntative of the arrtbient noise leve1 at e West
Portal d the st Vail sites. The Copper oun en site is abouc 0.75 rraile fro the Inters te,
d would have an ambient background noi level of about 42 d. The Shrane P s site, well
dis t from I-70 noi sour s, would have ambient background noi level of a ut 3 d Q
is Ievel is t ical of e mid- ge for a designat p k ar s °
70 ege t4on
e si s occur w3 in one general vege tion t o at type is e sp f r niferous foresta
is vegetatian type is typical of high titude forests yn Colorado.
1
e spru /fir coniferous forest has several ch ~~eristicso It fs gene 1y found on cool, moist
sites. Enge1m n spru (Picea errgel nnaa) d subalpine fir (Abies 1 i arpa) dominatem
However, Ioigepole pine (Fira coratorza) d qu 'ng a.spen (Popul tr°emuloides°) were al
present at the East sitem e undersiory of the spa-u lfir veget.ation type is gene ly spa-rse
becausee of shading dconsiderable litter aumulation {Brown 19$5}. Althougtt the undersiory
is sp se, rne shrubs, forbs dgras sare mmono Shr-ubs include the mmon juni r
(Juniperus c°o tarz?s), buffalo--berry (S3aerptaerrlirz can4densis°), d k.inniki~~ik (ArcteastczphyIos
uva-ursr), Cornrnora g s d forbs include fri~ged brome (Brom ciliata), Yow (Achi1tea
Ianulosa), wintergr n (Pj9rolct spP•), d twinflower (Lin a borealis)m
etl ds occur at only one of the four sitesm at site w the West Portal site. Emergent
r~etl ds are as iat with springs d seeps along the cast side of the building site, e
proposed a ss road would cross these kett ds. Tle wetl ds e domina.ted by forbs d
g s-like s ies. Comraaon s zes include marsh rn °gold ( It leptoseptzla), g1o flower
(?°rollius 1 sedges (Car spp.), r°uushes (Juncus spga), d occasional willows (Salix sppo).
o iidlife
The wildlife re urces cu 'ng at the four proposed ilular sites are predorrain tly up1 d in
ch cter able 2)s egionally, ihe wildlife resour s csf gr tesc public interest d importarice
e elk, rnule d r, d raptors. The eik d d r provide subs tial hundng op rtunitiesv ey
e also im t to non nsumptive uses, such photography d wildlife observadon4
A1 ough none of the sites occur within critical habitats, s ial-interest habitats for elk occur
near the proposed rrimuni tion sites. Of primary importance a3°e the elk calving d f I
n n tion areas 1 t near the Shrine Pass szcem Elk occur in e. during the spring
d f l, res fivelya otagh e proposed mznuni tion site is near these ar , the site is
not wiihin ihe calving or ncen tion areas.
lk d d r probably occur at e proposed West Po ,Cop roun "n, d East Vail sites
wello owever, use of e sites wauld mp tively li i o Existin 1eaeIs of
disturbanr-e limit e at ctiveness d u of e siies by both eIk a d d ra
U of the proposed mmunication sites by raptors is probably simil to that of eIk and d r>
ighest u would occur at ihe Shrine Pass dCop r oun 'n sites b u e level of
existing disturbance is less at the sites mpa.r to the st Vail d est Portal srteso uring
reconnaissance su eys of e four sites during the spzin of 1992, no signs of te °toribirds
were no o us, no nes e 1iev to be clo by y of e four sites.
9. uatic Life
A uade resour s do not occur at yof the pro s Ilul sites nor along e Shrine Pass
si 's a ss r do Str ms do not cross yof e sites de ac ss road io the Shrine P s
si cros sno str ms. The clo st aquatic habi t cu 'ng near yof e siies is ore Cr k.
17
T Summary of WiBdlife Resource Cha ct ° tics
Cumion Cowr-on Vegetati
wiictife Grouo ReoreserstaLives Assoeiaticns C tS
large mammls Elk {C~e i~~u~) Aspe-n Hagh csse of mxntain
D r( orleus hesni s) l epote pi foe°est greas is g ra(ty
Sprice-fir far°cst lamited Lo tate
spr9rsQ thr h earty
' fat!
tt MaNm is D r e tftr sS~ss ~(atus) As e S ies cwpos $Yi
Kont vo1e (MicrotLm montarvus) L !t pi foeest diversc and ali vne-
Pi irret Spruce-fir° foreat tati i s occcpied
(T iDSG9L9(' h o'iiC ) We$I ands
Got titled gP °
squirrel (S ii lateraifs)
Furbearer°s C@yocc (Canqs ietraras) L epote pi fores M rs of chis grvip
Pi wrte-n (MarLes acrspricana) Spruee-fir forest terd to possess large
47eL t ands hon* ranges
t1plard g irds 6l grouse {Dendr~g~~as w~sscu~a~s) Aspen
Band•2aited page (CotuTba faseista) Sprucem#ir° forest
Raptors Golden eaQlc Q2ui(a chrysaetos) Aspen M rs of this flr
ricara kestreL ffatco s2ErvtLiM) Spr e°fir forest tend Lo h t larqe
Redmtaited hawk (6ut i ie~nsa~> territort
Sharp-shinr*d hawk
f~c~i iter striata~s>
Great-horroed ! t9u'2 v7rqirsiancrs)
S birdsJpasseriraes Robin (Tur • miarazorius) Aspen S ies c siti
Dark•eyed j o p Pav -rmtis) L epo,e pi foresi dyversm atl veta-
M Lairs b8 bird Spr e-fir foresi ti t s e ied,
(Sialia currueoides) WeLiards and s ies mixiure
611aiie°cr sparr changes seas tl/
(Z trichaa ! rys)
ReptiEes arsd ibi- Northerrs t rd fr°og (RAnj_pipi s) Aspen 4ieLlards aM rs rian
aras 3igtr° sat t° #Ahrst Li~rS ) Wetlards arras are es iatty
i rtarni
S rcesc N rs ard langlotis 1987, H rs 7482, sisscti ard Ditt 1982, Chase et ate 19a2a N ver
ard Wi l ts 19&4 m
is stream passes wi in 200 ya.rds of the proposed st V `1 sites
10. Threatened or n ngere S ci
o r ten ,end ger ,or proposed pl ts or wildiife s ies occur or tenti Iy occur at
yof e proposed llul sites o 1992)a erefore, no analysis of r n or
en ger s ies was conduct for the proposed pro}. tm
11. ultcz I Resources
files search d Class III field inventory was conduct for 1 four proposed llul
communica6ons sites ( conaid det f 1992)m Site s xfic Class IIi fiel inventories were
not conducted for e four East V°1 si s proposed by e Farest e i. uch invento
wi11 nduct if orae of ese sites is identifi as e preferr site. However, e ab n
1
of csther cultural resoaar s in ihe 2r d zhe sma11 size of the proposed sites indi tes ttaa.t
iential For l ting signafitcultural resour s is minima3. The C1 s III su ey for the
Copper Mountain site was conducted a.s during a su ey of Arapaho Forest I dsm e C1 sIII
surveys of the other thr sites, includang a ss roads, were conducted during June 1 2a e
r rds search dClass III inventories iderrtifino cultural resour sat yof the four
proposed sites cDonald d 2vietcalf 1992).
12. S i ono s
°I°he proposed s3tes are l ted in Summzt dEag1e countiesa °T°he unLies differ in pcspulation,
Iabor for , dernployment, but e sirrzil in primary economy components. Both er-onomics
fus on tourisrra (F°orest Se i 1984), ajid rely on winter r r taon for the m'ajor ur
of revenuese e other major mponents include gove merrt, mining, d ns ctiono A11 of
ese factors combirae xo define ih~ cur-rent socioeconomic situation in each r-ounty.
In genera1, employrr}ent in boLh unties has been r tsvering from dafficult times. A rding to
Colorado I7e ment of L,ahor d Err3ployment (CDLE) statistics, unernployrnent in the two
unties vvas much higher in the mid to Iate 1980°s (CDLE 1992)m In I9$6 d 1987,
unemployment °ec3 in Summit d g3e counties at 5,3 per nt d 7.2 per nt, res tively.
As shown on Table 3, r nt unemployment figures enati bIy Iower. The total 1a r for
for I>oth untzes uras a1 higher durinc, 1991 th the previous szx y s(CDLE 1992)
130 T po tion
r esf the four proposed sites would const ct next to or near public haghways or roads.
The West Portal site as on the north side of Interstate 70 (Im70)m Ac ss would be frorn the
pa.rking area. The si Vai1 site is betw n I-70 dold U.S. Highway 5(curr~ndy used as a
fr~ntage road d bicycle path)m Access io the siie would be by the frontage road frorn the East
Vail e ss. e Shrine F'ass sixe is approxamately 1,200 f t east the Shrane P s R d
.So Forest Road 2830), two road mi1es northwest of the Vail Pass Surrimit Rest Ar o
eCop r oun °n site is the only proposed site not l t next to or near a public highway
or r d. Mainter? d, ns ct by eCop r oun °n e rt to serve the s° area,
would provide vehicui a ss to this siteo
Two of ihe four proposed sites wouid noc have y-round vehicul a sse Vehicul a ss to
the Shrine Pass dCop rountain sites would be available only during the summera urin
e winter, ewV tor dCe13u1 ne would have to a ss e two sites using snow tsa
Y-round vehicul a ss is available to the West Portal d st Va.il s;tes via Im70 doI
U.S. ighway , res tively4 p
140 nd Use
The four proposed sites e in the Wh1te iver I3ation Forest an gle d Surnmit untiess
e Forest is m ag under rrr agerrlent prescriptions which provide dir tives for 1 d u ss
T'here e four princip 1 d uses whsch occur in the vicinity of the pro sites, zncludin
r rdon, developed downhill sk-Zing, t s don, wood fiber pr ucdon.
1
TRble y popu3ation dEmployment Stafisfics for Summit d gle Ccsunfies
r~~~~ ~abor
C ty D taLi g Force2 Effplo x= l1 lo tx Percerst 49 foyed~
Eagte 21,928 15,747 14a3b1 816 Sm4
S it 12,881 10e576 70,487 484 4mb
NoYess
3 " 1990 U.S. Census fsguresm
2 figures are fer 1999, a teverage.
Satarcesc U.S. 6ureass of the Cmsus 1 ,COLE 1992m
e areas mpassing the West Portal d East siies are r~ under m agement
prescripfion 2Ba Dir t3on for this rn agement prescription emphasi s rural d roaded-natural
r r tion op rtunifiese Additionally, a residential community is 1 t across the haghway
from the East Vaal site, da mpgraund is north st of the E-ast Vail sf te alonla Gore Cr ks
e Forest Se ice m ages the ar encompassang the Shr~e Pass site under two prescriptions.
e proposed site is in a 3A mana~e~aeni area d the access r~aad would ~ ira a 7E rra a~er~er~t
ar , Dir fion for the 3A ar empha.si s serrai-primitive non-motorized r#ion csp rtunities
(Fcsrest Servz 19$4)a a~erner~t dir tion for ihe 7E ar err~phasi s wood fi r pr uc~ior~~
e Copper Moun`n Site is 1 twest of the ttom af the "B1" ski lift within the Cop r
oun `n Resort's rmit und . The enfire ski ar is on Forest Se i lds d m ac
under 1 m agernent dir tions is dir tion emph i s downhiIl skiinIg.
15v 4'' ai Resources
The proposed sites cur within arr s that offer a wyide v°ety of visual resour sg Although ihe
I-70 corridor itself has bn m ifi by construct3on of the highway, its environs charac-
terized i by high elevation alpine 1 ds d lower elevation valley bottorsas with forest sin
tvv no us, the four sites are in areas that ove 1 sUll reWn much of the undeveloped visu
q itya e surroundin te 'n is open w3 only natural restrictzons on viewsa such as the
moun °ns d surroundin ie °n d provides a scenic backdrop to the highway de tunnel.
The Forest Servi has assessed the visu resources of the White River ~Tation Forest using
its Visual Management Systerno is system determines ihe visual quality obj tives (V O's) to
be used by the Forest Se i for m aging its visual resour s. The thr of the proposed sites
est Po ,Cop rountain d Shrine Pass) fall under the V 's of partial retendon and
imodification (Forest Se i 1984). Urader p i retention, activities ihat aIter e landscape
rnust visually su rdinate to xhat 1 d a e m ifi tion iegory lows actiuitaes at
alter landscape to do inate eorigin ch cteristic of e 1 d ~'Owever, ese
acfivides must rrow from natu ly es biish forrn, Iine, colcsr, or texturee
e Forest Se i prim °Iy m ag, es e proposed sites under the V of rn ifitiono e
West Portal dCop r oun `ra sites f Iunder e rn ifition V . e a ss road to the
Shrine Pass site is also m aged under the V of modification. However, e Shrine P s si
2
i If falls within rra ag under the VQO of p°aI reientionQ
`JiewSng points for these thr sites v 9°I°he prirn viewing point for the West Po site
would from westbourad vehicles on I-70 they exit the tunnel. Primary viewing ints for
the Copper ountairt szte would be from the re rt facilide$ at the bcsttom of the ski area. e
site itself is in a depression in c.he te °n d scr ned by tr s it wcauld nok be r dily visible
to s mersa Because a oll lies betw n the propos,,-d Shrine Pass site, n by rticsns of the
Shrine Pass Road, the primary viewing inLs are rnore dis t I tions, such as the Shrine P s
Inn d Igy70m
`The fourth site, st 'Jail, 3s 1 ted along I-70 which are constructed in the 197O'sa H;gh
desi~n a d construction pract; s went to extreme lenghts to preserve the ch cter of t.his area
u of its unique beautya e Visual Qua3ity Obj tive for dhs are-a 3s or Retendona tlnder
this classif don activities rnay only re tform, lire, r-olor d texture which are fr uently
found in t.he ch cteriscic I d m This site is also I tei in a high Sensitivity vet of 1.
as includes ali ar s seen from primary d secondary travel routes, use ar s d waier ies
where visitors have a rnajor concerr' for sr-enic vzluess In addition the a-rea is classifiV°ety
C3ass .A which includes distinct ar s in the landsupe with f tures of outs ding or unusuaI
visual q itye Finally the ar immediately adjacent to the hiahway has a low Visua1 Ab don
Ca city due to its high visibilitym Portions of che st i,aii siie are vvithin view of e st V°1
residentiai community d the Gore Cr k Campgrounda
16m Recreation
Recreadonal op rtunities are abund t in the areas surrounding the propossed IiuI sitesa
e op rtunities znclude skaing, driving, ba °ng, mping, d hikings R r tion
op rtunides d resour s more s ifi ly as iated with ch of the four sites e dmribed
Iow.
Ile West Po d st Vail sites az°e in ar s m ag by the Forest Servi for rural d
road natural r r tional op rtunitiesm ost of these motorized non-motorized
op rtunities consisE of dispersed activities, such as driving for I sure, viewing scenery,
picnic 'ngA fishing, snouymobiling, dcross unt skiingo Additionally, the ore r k
Campground is just no tof e st Vail siie d the ore Cr k T i1 ora~knates z~ e
pground.
'ne Cop roun en site is situai within a developed r r tional ar oThus, t.he r r iional
emph is an the imm iaie ar is downhill sldingm e proposed site is 1 t west of e
ttom of e' 1" s'lift within the Cop roun°n Re rt's rmit boundary.
e 5hrine Pass site daccess road are in an ar m ag by the Forest Sezvice for miA
primitive nonrnotoriz d motoriz r r tional op rtunities. Nonmotor-ized activities
occurring in the area. include hzking, horseback riding, hunting, d cross-country s`in .
Motorized acdvides inciude snowrrrobilin d drivin for pi suree Ira addition, e Shrane Pass
Inn, a facility h vzly used during the winter cross-country n skiers, is 1 taIon e Shrine
P s Road west of e proposed ceIlul sBteo
21
>
B. n`°iLr
i, itnt 1 CQn=menc
10 lternative 1 - No Action
Implementation of the No Action AItemafive would have no eff ts on the exisfing condition of
e proj t area's resour sa Current irends in re ur u, rra ~~ement, d ndition would
nt3nues However, Cellul Onees d NewV tcsr's purpose need for the proj twould not
ra'et d idenfifi benefits, such use in emergency sit ficsns, would not te ri . In
addition, current ternpo llul iat Cop r ountain would suspended due to the
absence of adequate permanent site.
No cumulative eff Ps on yof the proj t ar 's re ur swouId occur under ihe No Acfion
AltemaLive. Becau sel tion of ihe No Accion Ai#emati~e would resuIt an no imp~cts, the
proj t would not ntribute to ycumulative impacts in the general proj tar m
2. AItemative 2 - e Propased Action -
tTnder this alte ative four sites,West F'o I, Cop r Mount.ain, Shrine Pass d East L'ail Tck
mp would designated as r-ommuni fion sites for llul use only by the Regional Forester.
Implerrteraiation of $his alte ative would have the followirg impacts:
ao Air uaiity
Any deteraoration in air quality induced by the pro s proj tduring cons cfion would be mBnor d tem rym SoiI disturbance during const ctiora of the sites d Shrine Pass a ss
road would generaie fugifive dust (P?,414 emissions). However, the Ccslarado Air PoIlution
Conirol Division (CAPCD) deterrnin disturb sof this si have negIigSble ianpacts on local
°r q ityo Proj t pro nents that disturb surf~~e ar sof less th 25 ntzguous acres d do
not exceed b months in duration do not even have to apply for Air PoIlu t Emission Nota
(Co1o do Air uality Control Cornrnissaan 1991)0 evertheless, control m sures such
wa ring unpaved access roads during coras ction d revegetating after constructzon wzll ensure
at no 1ong-te fugitive dust eff ts remain. Furtherrnore, ernissions from ns cUon vehicles
wall insignif t compar io vehicul emissions produced by the traffic on n by I-74a
A die i fuel hor wer generator would be install at ch site For backmup emergency
wer d would test r tirnes r montha Emissions of carbon rnonoxide, hydr ns,
nitrogen oxides, sulfur oxides, d p iculate matter would cur in ve small amountsm tJnder
e worst se o ratior~ scen ao of r test hours r month done 24-hour emergency
wer epi e ronth, the rn imum ernissions would be 640 unds r year of nitrogen
oxideso e Co1o do Air PoI1ution Control ivision exempts a sour e itting less than 2
unds r year fro y regulato ruirements b u e Ilu t levels e deemed to
have a negligible eff i on azr qu ity. us, the proposed proj t woul not nt.ribute to y
Iong-te deierioratioTl iIl a12 qi2 ityo
2
bo Soi
ez°a11, impacts would short-terrrr d reIateci to ns ction activitieso Cons cfion of the
towers duiprneni buildings at the four sites d nst ctaon of the a ss reaad io the Shrane
F ssite would u minima1 al d3sturb oWind tI tivaier erosion d reve~etative fail~zre
would rninimal given the srnall areas aaffected d the short duradon of ns ction aciivitieso
Disturbed ils should stabili n a.fter teing restor to original ntours, rnpac , d
seeded. would occur only under wet nditioras dwould re °r during resto tion
of the sites.
Pro r erosion ntrol practi s, including water bars, gradang, mulching, a-nd re ing, would
mznirni the tentia.l for ercasion d pr ucfivity impacts. In gene , iis are expected to
become rev~~etated in two to five y s, de nding u nclimatic ndidons d site
management,
c. Su ~~e Water . .
No r ivable impacts to surfa water are ex t a Because the proj t would not dzr dy
disturb y str m, adverse eff ts would limit to those ass iat with r-unoff derosiong
such as temporary zncrses in turbidity within flawin- str ms during construction. If the project
caused miraor d rses 3n water quality, no violations of state or fe 1 water quality s dards
would curo Proj t design, proposed construction practi s, timing, d rnidgaiion rn ures
would ensure none of the creeks experienr-e adverse aff tsm us, the tenfia1 for ns ctiort
impacts, incltading accidental oi1 d fuel spills d Iang-ter water quality degra. tion due to
erosion, is eff dvely elirriinat .
do round Water
tvo adver eff ts to ground water e ex t p Ground waier is not ex t to occur near e
surfa at ihe proposed siteso 'T°herefore, ground water would not be dir tly impact by
ns ction activities. Aiso, cons ction pracdces would ensure th no toxic or h dous
chemi s would spill in ex vadons where they uld r 1ate to the water bIes Because
these ex vadons would mpletely backfill following ns cdon, the op rtunity for
st ns ction ground water ntarninadon would be rninimal.
em Vege tao
Corrs ction of e proposed cornmuni tion sites would aff t comp tfvely minor amounts af
`yegeYat~on at all four proposM sitesa T°he amount of vegeta,tion rerrjov at ch site would
about 0.1 acres Consi ction of the East dCop roun Bn sites would remove Iess than
0.1 acre eachv Cons ction of the West Portal site would remoti?e about Oo 1acre of vegetationp
If e enfire width of the proposed a ss road to the Shrine Pass site clewed of vege taon,
a ut 0.5 acre of vege 6on would be remov . owever, b use the roa would constructed
a low-maintenance road, ~~~tu remov of vege tion is 1°akely to much c3o r to 01
acre.
23
e proposed a ss road into the West Poftal Slte T71ay Fet7loVe Sot11e We$l ds, depending rapon
final l tionm Based on preliminary p1 s, ihe ac ss road may rernove about 0,05 acre of
wet] ds if vegeta6on is rernoved over the enfire 9-f i wad w Because no wetl ds occur at the
other thr sites, designataor2 of the sites as 11u1 coanmuni don sites would result irt no ioss
of wetl dsm
fg zldlife
Potential impacts to wiIdlife from des3gna6ng the four proposed sites as 11uI mmuni tiora
sites include habitat loss, habatat degradaticsn, d the dir t loss or daspla rraent of wildlifes
Permanerat habitat loss from ns cdon of Yhe comrrauni don facilities would be a ut qm 1acre
at ch sate. Addi#aonal disgurb swou3d r laim d revevetati-M after r-onsti-uction w
rrapletem •
Cons ctiort activi6es would us,-_ the shortgyterm dispIa ment of h3ghly mcsbile waldlife from
e cons cfion areas. Some less zryobile individuais could be 1ost. Habitat nea-r the disturbance
would less attractive to wildlife because of the construction actavity, dwouid therefore,
reduced in q ity for the duradon of ns cdon activity. However, following r lamation,
wildlife can be ex t to r upy the aff tel habitatsm
Ait}aough s iaI-interest elk habitais occur near the Shrine Pass site, sionifi tirnpacts would
not occur. is r-onclusion is based on thr prirnary considez-ationsm F3rst, const ctaon would
not remotiye yof these habitatsa Sond, ccsnsi ction could be tim io avoid any aff t elk
calving. Fznally, at rr'ost a small rtron of the fa.31 con ndon area would made
unat ctive during the fa11 of 1 2a uring sub uent y s, use of th~ ~ntire ar wouId retu
to e previtaus tte s.
In summ , proj t impacts to the wildlife resour would raot signifite Only
comparadvely minor losses of habatat would euro A1 ,after e facilities are ins 1,
disttc would Iirnit to infr uent maintenance ins tions d occasional tesfinc, of e
enezators.
g. quatic ife
The proposed proj t would not adversely aff t aquatic lifeo 2do aquatic re ur s occur at the
proposed sites dconstruction pl sdo not involve acdvaties that will mobili large q dties
of sediment. Althotagh ns ctiort activities would con `bute srnall qu tities of sediment to
surfa noff during storm events, this runoff wouid not rch y signifi t aquadc resour sa
or example, aILhough ore Cr k is a ut 200 f t frorn the East site, d'nage at e sz
is gene Iy off e other side of the moura away frorn ore Cr k.
h. Ilreatened or n angere S i
T'he gproposed proj t would not adversely aff t y thr tened or en ger s ieso is
nclusaon is based on the deterrninafion at no fe lyal3st thr ten or end ger s ies
occur or tentially occur at y of e proposed sitesa
2
~
ie uItu 1 Resources
e proposed designa6csn of the four sites for llu] corrs7muni tions u d ns cdon of
ihe facilides °wouId use no impacts ta cultural resour s. A files search d feld surveys
located no cultural re ur son y of ihe sites cDonald d et f 1992). us, no
re ur s are present io be impact ,
°
ja Socioecononucs
Implementation of the proposed action would provide continuous r-ellula-r teleghone r-overage
throughout Surrasnii Gounty d°an Eagle County from the top Va.ii Pa.ss to wa.rdso Such
verage would improve the exis6ng mmuni tions network reducing emer~~nc'y res nse
times, thereby rief fing public heaIth, safety d welfarea
Shork-terrn irnpacts would be reIatavely rniraoro Cons ciion at ch of the four sites would take
approximately 30 to 45 daysa e cons ction workfor ruirernent would a ut five to tert
workers. e crews rnay be composed of NewV Yor dJor CeIlular One employ s or local
ntr°aciors. An undeterrnin r ntage of ihe total vvorkfor wouId local 1a r(eogo
ntractors for Iaying concreie foundations)a Construction would ac rnplash zasing one or
rntsre crews r site an order to complete the cons ction de1 tronic equipment installation
prior to snowfallm Workers fro local cornmunit3es wouid return to their residen s daily d
workers from non-local communities would utilize mote3s or other local a mrn ations during
their relafively brief siay in each p icular aa° mConsequent1y, no adver impacts to housing
avaiiability or se i sarre ex t o
n-ter arnpacts would slighdy beneficialw Property taxes wou1d be paid by ewV tor d
Cellui ne for the communi don sztes to Summit d gIe undes, owever, because the
value of the llul sites d lines vvith age, this uraty revenue wili slowly d r ,
Additionally, ewV tor dCellul One wou1d pay nu f s to the Forest Se i part
of a S ialmiJ Pe it for ch site.
Operation of e mmuni tion sites would not directly cr te y new jobs. owever, a few
new jobs uld cr t indir tly d increase in sales tax revenues gerserat if ex t
incr s in dem d for llul phoraes e r li . An increase in dem d is andcipated for
one primary r ne
e addztion of the propossueed four llul ielephone comrnuni tion sites would provide better
syste verage along 1-70 in Suss,mat d gle countaeso is su rior verage would enable
more 11uI phone users to ac ss the system in the ar s. The proj t incr se in dem d
for the telephones wou1d be ex t to e the Ievel of sales d ren sof Ilul phones a,t
e two exisdng cel1u1 phone outlets in Sumrnit County, us ger~erating me sales tax
revenues, weIl as sszble exp sion of staff, erefore, the proj t uId have a small
sitive aff ton uneznployrnent in SumrriiE Countye
,
In su m , the pro s proj t would use no signifiY impacts on the i nornic
re ur sof Suanmit or gle untaes, Because the proj t is relatively srrriall, ruires no new
wor or , d gene tes only er-ate tax revenues and e potential for a few new jobs, no
25
>
~
incr s ira housing or public se i dem ds would occur dexisting d pl n facilides
would not I>e aff t .
k. tion
Impacts to transportadon would vary arr3ong the four siiesa Cons ction would not adversely
aff tor disrupt transportation at either the West Portal or Cop r MounLaan sitesm Cons ction
activifies at ese sites would not infringe zapan y ve1 ways or pldng areas.
Cons ction of ihe st Vail site would use csnty minor disr°updorrs of transportation near the
site. Trenchir~~ ~cdvides would if mit to one side of the road, perrnitting nfinuzng passage
by Lh vehicles d hicycles using ghe frontage r~ade e ns cdor~ area would prca riy
sign d work areas b° d to provide safety io r dusers. Finally, if trenching encr ches
u n the phaIt, the disturbed areas would restor by tching.
Cons ction of the Shrine P s site would u no adversee impacts to the vehicul d bicycle
traffic on Shrine Pass Raad betw n Red C1aff d the site's new ac ss road or at the Vail Pass
est Ar . No r-onstrucdon would cur wesi of the proposed access resado Thus, this segment
of the Shrine Pass Road would not aff t e Because the entrance road to the Va.il P sest
Ar would red, tzaffic entering d l vang the area a1 would not I>e physi ly
restrict .
ne t~ntial for dis pdng traff-ic lies mainly a.3ong a 103 mile segrraent of the Shrine Pass Road
west of the iraitial switchbacksm Altsng ihis segrraent, the road is prohably t now io ins 1
telephone electrical i bles in the shoulder d still provide for safe passage of vehicles
around the work area. us, Chis segrnent would most iikely have to be closed for aut thr
ys (assuming r wing, Iaying of bles, backfilling, cornpacdon, d road surfa
resto tion is aorrrplish at a rate of 2,500 f t r day)o e closure would avoid a w kend
e cIosure would aff t the minimurn nurnber of people ssiblea
1. n IJ
e proj t would have no signifit impacts on land use, pI s; or reguladonsa Proj t"
facilities would rernove only a srnall amount of land from existing uses at ch sitea ss than
0. 1acre would r uflr at the West Po , st Vail, d Cop r oun °n sitesm e Shrine
P s si would ruire rnewhat rnore land b u of the need for a new a ss road. The
wer d ielephone bles will be ins I Sn ditches alongside exisUn roads withzn public
ri hts-of way which a1iow utility placement.
,e sites would not rceptibly aff t the primary u s(r r tion and w fi r pr ucdon)
of Forest Se i I ds at ch proposed sites Aithough a minor amount of land would t>e
rernov fro r r t2onat use wood fi r pr uction, arnple areas for ese u swoul
ntinue to exist a-round the sites. Ai , the uipment ins l on e sites wou1 not interfere
wi e u of 1 d surraunding the sitese
2
v
d rnw Vi aI Resources
Cons ction impacts would vary arnong the sitese Construction activity at the Wesi Porial d
East sites would eviderat io motor°ists orr 1-70a Although nstz-uctitsn aetivity at the other
two sates may n by rne I970 motorists, it is unlikely to be very noti ble because the
irfleWlTlg dlS sm Construcfion at the Cop r Mountain site would not aff t sk.iers because the
site would mplet before the on tof ihe 1992-93 skz season. R r tzonists on the Shrane
Pass R dwouId likely see the ns ction of the a ss raad d towero Scasr3e vzsitors in ihe
Eagtes r7est iaJzldemess Ar may a1 raoti the d3s tconst ction ora the Shrine F'ass site, if
they hap n to 1 king in the genea°aa.i dir tion with binocu1 se In aI1 cases, cons cdora-
rela disturb swouId short-term9 R larr'ation d rearegetation of areas disturbed by
ns cticsn activity would occur u n mpIedon of the facilides d would ultim'ately retu
e sites to pre ns cdon ndifionse '
T'here would al be me long-term vasual impacis from the proposed comrnuni tion sites
because they include per-manent above ground st cfureso However, the design and 1or of a ve
round facilities would sel t to blend with natural surroundzngs where possibieo Tn
addition, existing to graphy dvegetatitsn would be used vrhere ssible tca redur-e t'iSIb1Ilty
of s cturese
T'he Cop rMounta.in scture is lge compar to the other sites d is near a ski lift d
0 nsa Althou~h the facility would be inherently r;sore visib3e because of its si a ~e 51Ce is
h vily scr n by tr sm us, ihe facility would not be visible to rr, y af the re rt's vis3torsn
In addition, the buiIding would not obirusive bec-ause it is de5ign to ref1 tthe moun °n
ze rt a.rchit ture of the Cop rountain Ski Resorta
e Shrine Pass site d access road ei lai by distance from the view of moxorists on I-70,
e r r dona1 facilities at lack kes, gles Nest Wilderness Ar , d the Shrine Pass Inna
Because the area is also tr , the sctures would be scr n fro€n viewo osc of the facilides
on the site would al scr n by tr s d topography frorr' the vzew of r r tionists using
the Shrine Pass Road de Shrine Pass Innm Although the minimal ac ss road would
visible to some extent to people using the Shrane Pass Road during the summer, it vzoul noi
y rnore visible th the physical disturb s now present at the siiea
Although the est Portal site would use existing topography d~~~etation to scr n the facility
from the view of motorists on I-70, it would visibie co motorists dpe pie us7ng the ar o
owe`'er, the addition of the two buildings d towers would not una ptable to ple in
the a,r u e ar aly dy inctudes a v °ety of huildin~s, roads, rnaanten facilities,
d parking a,r sass iat wi the 'Ieunnela
e new sctures at the F-ast Vail site would be viszble to I-70 users, me residents in st
Vail, d r r tionists on the bike path. Aithough scr ning by tr s d the a ss road would
hide most of the buildings d che lower part of the towers, the up r part of the towers wou1
visible above the ir s. Thus, e site's facilities would be visible from ali dir tionss
roj teff ts on vis 1 resour s at e West Po , Cop r ountain d Shnne ass sites e
not nsider to be signifita irst, e pro} t would not violate visual m agernent
27
~
obj tives of the Farest Servi m Because proj t com nents would ufi13 existing scr ning d
would design d pairated to blend w3th the l d , ihey would raot visually subordiraate
the ch cterisfic 1 d peo R IamatSon a-nd mitigation rrl sures would ensure that ns ction-
caused con st wzth the ch cterisLac 1 d would reduced within an a ptable ri 0
As a result, visual n t by the project to that of existing man-made f tures or m ifi tions
in the landsr-ape would not subs tiaIly ex @
e visual impacts of the East site are of gr ter conr-em due #ss this sifes v3sibility fzorri Im
70, r r donalists in the area d East Vai1o As previousty stat the site h a V of
etention, is nsider io have a Sensitivity vel of 1, is in a V °ety CIass A area d h
a iovr Visual Ab tiort Capacity. erefcare, compliance with the Vof Retentaon will
difficult to m t~t Lbis ~ite without ad t.e mitigation.
n, Recreation
Impacts to recr tion resour s would be limited to short-terrra, constz°uction-reiat eff tsa
Potenfial eff ts inciude inte ption of traffic on Shrine Pass Road d das ption of dispersed
activides near ch sitea IncreasM noise levels in r r tion areas near ch sate uld a1
r i . However, discussed sn the noi impact s-essment, ras cdcsn-reIai noi
incr ses v?ould short-terrrt dgene ly restz°ict to the immediate vicinity of the workm
°There would be no signifi t short-term, ccanstruction related impacts to the Cop r ountain
Ski Re rt frorn the proposed prcaj t, 'T'he Copper ountaan site wou3d be cornplei before the
s° season. erefore, skiers would ntst adversely aff t by nsiruction activzzye ng-term irn ct to the ski facilities would he beneficial because the site wouId not interfere wit}a ski lifts
d ns whi3e enhancing s° ar o rations, safety d resort se i s through the availability
of llular ielephone cornmuni tionse
Impacts to the Shrine Pass Road, d to the Shrine Pass Inn l t along the road wou1d
short-termo Ins Iadon of the ble ong the road would be accomplish over a relafively short
ri . Al , r lamation d mitigadon m sures would ensure that eviden csf ble
ins ladon is short-term. P1a ment of the site d natural scr nin would result in rnznirn
impacts to crossmStarine £'ass Inn visitcars d country skicrs d snowmobzlers using the area
dctring the wintero
e West Portal d st Vail sites would not dir tIy aff t r rationm The VJest Poftal site zs
not withira ar that is h vily used for r r tione A3though the st Vail site occurs near the
V°1 Pass bike pa dore Cr kCarnpground, it would not dir ily aff tu rs of ei er
facility other than the visual con s discussed abovee
ost of the 1 d in the vicinity of ch site is manag by the Farest Se iwigh emph is
on r r fions 'I°he rnajority of r r don activity in the viciraity of ch site is dispersed in
nature. Corts ction d cs z°afion of ch proposed site would not signifi tly impact y
r rtion u of Foresi Se i I ds, because chere are amp1e op rtunitaes availab1e in the
Forest for dispersed r r tiona.l activicieso
o sfgnifi t adver impacts to r r don re ur s would occur. Although r of e
2
~
~
proposed sites occur near or in developed r r tion sites, the eff ts of ns ction d
o ration of the proposed facilities on r r tionists would minirraalo In addifion, adver
im cts to dispersed r r tiona1 acfivities in the vacinity would nat signifa t, because ihe
actsvifies are r dily available Forest-wide.
o, Cu ir tive pac
No r ivable curnulative eff ts on yof the proj t area's re ur s a.re ex tetia As
described ave, desi-Inating the sites for llu3 cornrnuni tions u would result zn rninirnal
dir t d indir t im ctsm No other proj is e plann in the foreseeable future in the proj t
ar i.hat would add io this proj t's eff tsm us, the proposed designadon ruould raot
curnulativeIy aff t y resour in the prcaj tar .
3. Ite tive 3- lte ative East Vail Sif
LTnder this alte ative the West Po ,Cop r Moun °n d Shri~e Pass s3tes wouId
approv o However, an aIte ative site for the si Vai1 site would be sel t o In njunction
wi the other proposM cellul sites, the major goal of a sate in the st Va.il area would be to
provide a link tw n the Shrine Pass site d the existing site in Vai1 w•ith Ilul sign2.1
coverace0 e "covera~e" rr~ust be of sufficSent stren~th as io allow ~r'~ble operatior~
vehicles a3ong this routee This signal strengxh is depend ton the reiv sensativity of the
mobile unit, the output in Db rn sur at the tennae of the broad sting station of " Il site",
the fr uency ing broad st, d finally Lnd rnost im t, the nature or severity of the
ghysi 1 te en bezng covered4 Since ihe Feder,^.l Comrriuni tions Cornmission (FCC) has
stipulat that the 11uI °ers can only broad st up io 100 watts one can think of llula.r
working on a portable in car ba.sis only if ihe tennae of the rraobiIe can physi ly " " Lh~
tennae of e 11o In addjtion to rr' t3rag the technical r airements of 11u1 thnoiogy,
the si rraust aI m tenvironrr,en acceptability criteria, nornic f sibiliiy criteria d must
pable of in feIy maintain d o rat e
Ianpacts of this te ative, inctuding ch of the five altemative st Vail sites, wou3d be the
me as zhose discussed under Aliemative 2- The Pro s Acticsn, for the following eiernentsa
air qual_aty, soils, surface._water, ~ramnd ~vaier, noi ,ve~e ion, waldlife
, 2quati lzfe,_thr t,en ~
dend ger_ s ies, s i_on ornics, I d use _ and . r r ti
_ ono Cultural resourr-e surveys have
not n conduct on four of the alternative st Vai1 si8es discussed belowo Such surveys
would conduct zf one of the sites is identifi as the preferr llul site. Based on the
resulis of e cultural re ur s survey nduct for the four sites 2nclud in Alternative 2, e
likelihood of encounterang signifi cultural re ur s is nsider to be rninim Q
ch of the a1ternatives for se in~ the iink betw n Shrine I~ass dV~1 (see a 11) e
y 1ow.
East Vail AIfe ative Site A- Truck m This site wor ° with Shrine P s
but is within the sernent of Interstate 70. T'his was e oragan proposal to the
Colorado Dep ment of i~h~°ayse z1e it can be accessed frorr~ oid t3S ,e site is
wi in e ighway ep rnent's "A" easement for I-70. erefore, it w notdeemed
n
r
29
. ~
~
a
to be contrary to Highway De ment licy wi regards to the 1 tion of such
facilidesa is site wou1d not r uire an actu tower the tenraae wouId mounted
on pi at ch to the uipment sheltere e shelter vvould ins lei in such away
to not n from I-70o It would stall be able €o n frtsm the bikeway, but this
would rnitigat by 1 d pings e tovrer would not needed as this site sits out
on the bluff overl }ing I-70 d East
East Va° Atfe tSve Site - Bdge to the South ara West of t ck ramp on West
side of I € way 6: is site w proposed by Donna Graharrr of the F'orest Se i
for visual aIysisa is site works with Shrine Passo It accessed by old US 6e
e site will require that two rnonca 3es be built of approxirnately 80-100 f t that e
signal is not bI ked by the ridge dir t3y to the south. The site would visible frorn
e bike th d from several loca6ons an East owever, existing foliage d
pla ment of the site agaznst the ma.ss of Lhe ridee vaiil gr tly mitigate visual im ctsa.
East Vail Aifernati`•e Site aCIum of tress just Noz°th an of AIternate A:
is site has bn analyzed as part of Alternative 2, e Proposed Action.
East Vail Alternatir°e Site D - idge on the East side of Iw70 above the Water Tankm
is site fs the best site when considering only errgin ring issuesm It illuminates I-70,
d d s the st job of coverin- East Vail. Z'he problem with this site is that is not
h;dden by e mass of the exisfing te in as is the se for the sites on e West side of '
the fr waya in addifion, the exisdng water tank is proposed to be re1 t fu er up
e hiIl on Fsarest Se i pro rty in the future (personal mmuni don with Tim
tharn, oly Crcass Ranger istrict)m A. road wouId have to built to the site in
addition to wer d telephone. f
East Vai1 A1fe atit9e E - e'Mountaint R h1oun °n rs situat approximate1y 1
mile to the west d south of Alternate D. This site was 1 k at by CelIul ne in
the inifi design phase of the proj t delim3nat b u it wiIl not illurriinate both
the fr way towards Shrine Pass d ver the a.rr of st Va-ilm In addidon, it is not
' clear how wer d telephone se i s could brought to the siteo Sin this site d s
not ti?er st Va.ii, it would r uire that LTS YIF-ST ewV tor, Inco dCellaal ne
buil one d ssibly two addi6on sites in zhe `Iaii Valley4 It is not clear at this
would nomi ly f ible to either cornp yor desirable from a cumulative impacts
s d int.
3
~
<
~
Section IV
COORDINATION AND CONSULTATION
A. blk Ni011 n _
In May 1992, the White River National Forest sent a comprehensive scoping packet
reg ding the proposed proj t to awide v"ety of gove rnent agenc3es, organized
- groups d itldlvldl1als 1TlcltldII1g bUt t3ot IlT7lIYed to; Summit ~ounty, gle County,
'I`own of Vail, Colorado Mountain Glub, Surnmii Huts d T °ls As aadon4 CoIorado
Snowmobile As iation, Shrine F'ass Inn, and Cop rMoun °n Resor#a Agencies,
org i fions d individ contacted were en urag saabrrait y mrnents to the
Forest Se i or to ruest addxtioraal informadon if n s 4 Irt addifion, news
rel s were ssent to local newspa rs in Summit d g1e countiesv
A11 comments r iv throu~h the public invc~Iverr~er~t pr ss ~°ere addressed in
developang the lzst of issues which guid the anaIysis of the proposed actiora. e issues
e present in the second section of this Environmental Ass-essrraent. In addition, the
Town of Vail Pl ning d EnvironmenW Commission held a public h °ng oza the
proposal on Iune 1992, d the Town of Vai1 Council held awork session on the
proposal on 3une 9, 1 20
B. ommented or~ the
Towrt of VaiI
°chard H. DeV , Vaal, Colorado
Colorado ivision of Wfldlife
Summit County Cornmunity Development ep rnent
Cop r oun °n Resozt
. Intc rd-it~lirt~ ~n n.r ~b~t~
Area of Rga2anLibilitv
Jeff °ley, USFS, illon istrict Ranger
Barry Sh ey, USFS, Dillon Realty S za,list
arla erkel, LTSF°5, illon R ty S iaIist
thl n Phelpsp USFS, illon ioiogist
re avis, USFS, illon R r tion
Kent Sh , USFS, Dillon R r tion °
illiam Wood, USFS, Ho1y Cross istrict Ranger
Tim tharsaa, tJSF 4 Holy Cross Realty S ialist
Donna G arn, USFS, Glenwood Springs Visual Re ur s
o rt wton, USFS, Glenwood Springs R ty S ialist
ave Carneron, reystone Consul ts Wiidlife, rten dnd ger
S ies
31
~
, .
n ug1as, Greyst~~~ ~onsc,l ts Air d Nai
Judy W , Greystone Consu1 ts Aq fics
I,aisa Welch, Cireystone Consu1 ts Land LT ,Vis s, R r tiort
1McK , Greystone Corasul ts WetI ds dVegetation
Will ahoney, Greystone Consul ts Surfa Water, {;roundvvater, Soils
Byron alker, Lireystorae Consul ts T s taon
J ette sc, Greystone Consul ts S i nomics
Michael et f, Met f Archa Iogists Cultural Resour s
e Mc onald, Metcalf Archa logists Cultural ~esour s
Ada.m P,Western Land e rt Prep tion
Dan Pike, Westem Land Caroup Re rt F'rep tion
DavSd Rutter, e Walter Group Technical AnaIysi~ of Sites
ri Pem rton, e WaIter Group T hnical Anaiysis of Sites
len addell, t7S 'I° NewV tor Technical Analyszs of Si s
ri Seyfo , Seyforth dAs iates Siie P1 nin , Vis s
Rex Cr k, 7°-Rez Archi ts - Site P3 ning, 1,isuals
Colorado Dep ment of T ,s tion
U.S. Fzsh d Wildlife Se a
Town of Vai1
Cop r ountain Re rt
summit Couniy
gle County
Colorado csun°n Club
Colorado Dep ment of Par dutd r Recreadon
Summit °T 'ls d Huts As iafion
CoIorado Snowmobite As iation
Terr oun °n T °1 As iadan
Town of Frisco
Town of illon
Town of Silverthorne
Co1o do ivision of ildlife
igh oun °n Snowmobile Club
illon Fire Prot tion ;strict
Silverthome Fire Prot tion istrict
Frisco Fire rot don istrict
op r oun "n Fire Prot tion istrict
Su rr?it County Sheriffls ep rnent w
Sierra Club
32
r~
Sedion
REFERENCES
Alge issen, S. T. 1969m Seismic risk studies xn e tlnit tafess Pr ings of the Fourth
World Conference on Earffiquake gin ring, S tiago, Chi3e. adonal Occanic d
Atmospheric Admino Reprint 1 :14m27m
isseil, S. Ja4 d M. B. DiIIon. 19820 Colorado Mamma.t istribution d1ong Study. S nd
idonm CoIoO Div. of ildle, Denver, CoIoo 24pp.
Brown, L. 1985. G s1a ds. The Audubon Society Nature Guidesm AIfr A. opf, New
1'ork, N. Y.
ry t, m, L. W. McGrew, d aA. obusa 198 Io G 1ogic Map of the Denver 1° X 2°
Quadrangle, North-Central Colo dcro U.S. G ]a Su . Map I-1163w
urchetta R. R. 1990. Earthquak-es in Neb . S ond e tlnivo of ebr, uc< Circ. os 4aa
2 p.
Ch ,Co A. III, S. J. Bisseila 14mE. ingery, d W. D. Graul, itorsa 1982, Colcarado Bird
istribution tilong Study. Coloe Field Ornicholm, Denver, Colos 7$ppe .
Colorado Air uality Conirol Comrnisszono 1991. egulation Num r 3, "Regulation R uiring
an Air PoIlu t Erraission I1odcem Emission Pe it F s", Colorado Air PoIIution ControI
ivision, Denver, COa
Colorado ep rnent of Labor Employrnente 1992. Colorado Labor For eview, 1992.
Colom epe of Labor d Employment, Denver, Coioo SSppm
ammer n, G. A. I982a Amphybi s d Reptiles in Calo doe Coiom Diva of Wildla, Denver,
Colo. I31ppa
Hammerson, G. Aa, dD. Langlois, 19$lm Colorado Reptile d Amphibi is °bution
tilong Study. Sond a Colom iva ildlo, Denver, Colos 24ppo
c na.ld, a, d a. Met fo 1992s CeIlul ne Cornmun? tions Pads d A ss oads
Cultural e ur s Inventory in Clear Cr k, umrnit, and gle Coundes, CoIozadoa
et f Archa la Consult., Incm, g1e, Co1og 9ppm
ei1, R. a, D. S. Ftomine, eC. More3 d, R. K. Dansdill, R. H. ontgome , d J. E.
ip o 197a dSoils of Colorado. Co1oa State Univ. ulietin 5 S. 4 p9
Hoover, R. L,a, d. L. Wi1Is, itors, 1984o Managing Forest ds for ildlifea Co10.
iv. of ildla tJSDA For. Se a, Denver, Colom 459pg.
33
~
rs
o, K. L. 1 2a Per nal mr,nuni fiono Assas t Colorado State Su i r, U.S. Fish d
_ ildlife Servi , Golden, Co1o.
Stover, C. a, G. G. Reagor, d S, T. Alge as n. 1988. Seismiscity ap of e Sta of
CoIorado. U.S. G la Su o ap F'-2036.
Tweto, n, 14. Moench, d J. C. R , 7r. 1978. G logic Map of e Ltadville 1" X 2"
Quadrangle, Northwesterra Colorado. U.S. G la Su . a Im a
. . Bur u of e Censusm 1992. Preliminary 1990 Census a s U.S. ov. Printing Offo,
hingtorr, D.C.
gl d, R. C9, B. J. C h , M. M. iner, E. A. Wiisorr, J. D. nnett, d aA. Jen °ns.
1 2m a r esour s a for CoIozzado, aier Year 1991. Vol. 2m U.S. I. Surv.
atera a Repe C-91 a2 0 41 6ppo
tJS AForest Se ice. 1984. Fina1 Environmental Impact St.atement on the Land desour
Management Pl for the ite °ver ation F°oresto S AFor. Se o, Glenwood
Sprin s, CoIoa
~
3
MEMORANDUM
TC3e PIanning and Environmental Commissaon
FRO ; Corrimunity Development Department
DATE: August 24, 1992
SUBJECT: A request for a ajor amendment to SDD No, 69 to remove a previous
condotion of approvai for Unit Noa 30, Phase I, Vai1 ViIIage Inn/7 Ofl ast
eadow DriveNail Village F'I a Condominiums.
App1icant: BSC of Vailq Colorado, L„P,/Frank Cicero
F'Iannere ike Mollica
19 DESC IP°fEOhJ OF 9T°HE RE UEST
The applicanta F'rank Cicerol SC of Vaii, CoIorado9 is requesting a major amendmen#
to Special Deveiopment District oa 6(Vail i1i!lage Inn) s`n order to rernove a previous
conditiort of approval for Unit Nom 3Os Iocated in Phase The applicant is requesting
that Section 2, B af Ordinance No. 24% Series of 1989, be efiminated. This section of
the rdinance places certaln rental restrictions upon condominium Unit No. 30 o# the
Vail Village Inn PIaza Gondominiums. Specifically, Section 2of #he rdinance reads
as follows-
eBCondo inium Unit 30 of the Vail ViIlage Plaza Condominiums
shall be subject to the restrictions of Section 17,260075 of the
Town of Vail Subdavision ReguIa#6ons if utilszed for residentlal
purposes. The Town Council hereby fnds9 determines and
declares that this Ordinance is necessary an proper for the
health, safety and welfare of the T'own of 1/ail and the inhabitants
thereofm"
Ilm ACK lJND A HIST'ORY
°Che following outline reconstructs the planning process which occurred an 1989;
aliowing condominium Unit No0 30 of the Vail Village inn Plaza Condominfums to be
converked frorn comrnercial use to residentiai usee Acopy of the pertinent staff
mernorandum, rrreeting rninutes and the final Ordlnance are attached to this
memorandum.
a. September 26a 1989 - T'he PIannEng and Environmental Corramission
recommended denial of the request to amend Special Developrnent District Nom
6(Vai1 Village Inn) to increase the ross Residentfal Flcaor Area by 6,000
square feeto This a endment wou1d aIlow the applicant to convert an existing
commerciai space (Good's) to a res:denfaal unitw The PEC recornmende denial
of the requestg by a vote of 4 to 3, finding that a 3ass of corrz ercial space in
the core was not appropriate,
b. ctober 17s 1989 - Ordinance No. 24, Series of 1989 (Firs# eadsng) was
reviewed an discussed by the Town Counci9m Subsequentlye the Ordinance
was tabled unti1 the next everting meetingm
C. overnber 7, 1989 - Ordinance Na, 24, Series of 1989 (First eading) was
agaan revoewed by the 1°own Council, After discussions the 7°own Councll
approved the Ordinance unanir~ously9 by a vote of 7#o 0.
d. November 21, 1989 - Ordinance No. 24, Series o# 1989 (Second eading) ~~s
unanlmousiy approved by #he ?°own ~ouncii, by a vote of 7 to 0, on the consent
agendaa
1HIm SPECIAL DE1/ELOPME T" ISTICT CFiiTERlA
T"he criteria fo be used to evalua#e this proposal are the nine Special Deveiopment istrict
( D) development standards set forth in the specia1 develo ment d°astrict chapter of the
Zon1ng Codeo The criteria are as follows:
A. esi n compati ility nd serasi#ivit t t i edia# nvir en#,
neighborhood n jcent roperties r I#iv t rc it ct r I si n,
sc le, ta! , uildin i t, uffer zones, i e tity, c r c#er, vistaal
inte rity an rien# #i .
This request envolves no physical changes to the existin bul1din s architec#ural
design, character, or any ofi the other review criter9a stated above. The staff
belmeotes that this developrnent standard is not applicable to the app6ecant's
requeste
B. es, ctivit at~ ensi#y ic r vi c ti 1e, ici rtt n
r I r I ti nshi it rr un i uses n ctivity.
As indicated in the sfiaff rrremoran urn dated eptember 268 1989, #he staff
confinues to recognize the difificulty of supportin second and thlr floor retail
u~~s within this part of the Village. e also continue to support the goals of
the Land Use Pian, as uvell as the Vail Villa e Master Plan, which indicate that
one method of strengthening and continuin the existin Village Care vatality is
to encourage both hi h-quali retail and a shorttlterrr, bed base, dditionally9
because the appiicant's original request was for an increase in density (i,e.9
FA) the staff contirtues to ma?ntairt that the proposed dweliin unit shoul be
utilized rimariiy fior tourist-oriented accommodations and, thuss shouSd be
restricted accordlng #o Section 17.2 mp75 (Condorninium Conversion) of the
Town of Vail Subdivision Regulatiansa copy of this Sec#lon of the Subdivision
Reguia#ions is attached to thfs mernorandumo
-2-
C. Compliance it rkin n 1 in re tairements as utlined in apt r
1 p52.
The °Town's parking and ioading staradards for res3den#ial use have been met
ith the conversion ofi condomi~ium l9nit om 30 from retail commercial #o
residen#iala
D. onfor ity it lica Ie e!ements f the V i! o rehensive 1art,
Town licies ra rn Desi n I ra .
T"he fiol1owing sections of #he l°own of Vami Land llse Plan specificaily re1ate to
#his proposala
Commercial
3e1 - °Che hotel bed base should be preserved and tased r~~~~
~~~~~entlya
3.3 - Hotels are important to the continued success ofi the Town of
Vails therefiore convers6on to condominiurr,s shouid be
discouraged.
Villaae Core-Lionshead
4,2 - Increased density in the core areas is acceptable so Iong as #he
existing character of each area is preserved through
i plementation of the llrban Desigrt uide Plan artd the Vail
Vmlla e Masfer Pian.
l°he following sections of the Vail Village Master Plan specifically relate to this
praposaL°
2 - oal - #o fioster a strong tourist indust and pro ote year-round
economic health and viability fior the Viilage and for the
co munity as a whole,
2.3 - b°ecfive - increase the number of residential units availabie for
short-term overni ht accommoda#ions.
2.3.1 - Poiic - The development of short-term accommoda#ion units is
strongly encouraged, esidential units that are develope above
existin density Ievels are required to be designed or managed in
a manner tha# makes them available for short-term overni ht
renta{,
-3-
E. i entificati r? an iti #i n f n tur I n / r ge I ic haz r t at affect
# r y n ic te speci Ievel e t istrict i r se p
o natural and/or geoiogic hazards are present or affect this properfym
F. ite 1a11, tail irt e i t1 an locati 11 ace r vis3 t1s
desi ne to r ce a functional eve1 nt responsive nd sensitiv
to naturaf fe #ur s, vege#ation and ov rall esthetic qu lity f#
community.
This development standard is not applicable to the appii~ant's requesta
G. circul #i n yst esa ne # r th vehicles and pedestrsan
addressing n n Wsit tr ic circul ti n.
This development standard is not applicable to the applicantHs request.
H. unctional n esthetec landsc in n ert space in r er # ti ize
n reserve natural features, rcre #i n, vie n functi nsa
T°his development standard is not applicable to the applicant's request.
1. sirt Ian rs ivisi rt 1n that ill i tairt ork 1, furtcti n 1
and fficient rel tions i t r ut te deve1 t# t ci 1
evel ertt istrictm
T'his development standard is not appiicable to the applicant's requestm
lVa STAFF RECOMME A°fIO
11pon de#aiied review of the applican#'s request to elirrrina#e a previous condition of
approval for lJnit Nos 30, the staffi recornmendation is for deniaL e beileve that
mainta3ning the rental restriction on the unit furthers fhe goals of the Lan llse P1an9 as
well as the goals of the Vai! itcllage aster Plans as indicated in ect6on lil, of this
memorandum. e also believe that aintainin #he rental restriction wou1d e
corasistent with revious Town a provals9 where applicants re uested additional FA
and vaere require to restrict residential unitsa uch projec#s were the arden of the
Gods, Tivoli Lodge, ashorn, Vail Village Inn (Phase V), and the Chrrstiania.
c:1P9c\mamo5\vvi82492 -4-
d
TO> Planni.ng and Er1vi.ronmeri°tal Commi~s
FROM: Co urzity Development Department
I7ATE0 September 26, 1989
StJBJECT a re tzest to axnend Sp~cia1. I7evelopment District No. 6 in
or~~~ amend the °to°tal grcs~s residential floor area that is
pe itted to be cor~~truc°ted within the da.strict.
Appli~antz BSC o£ Vaa.l, Golorado, Incorparated
I. PLTRPOSE ~F TFiE RE~t7ES'~
The applicant, BSC of Vai1, Colorado, r~quests ar~ amendment to
Special DeveIopment Distric°t Nos 6 in order to amend the total
gross residentia1 f1~or area tha°t is perma.tted to be constructed
i.n the district. SDD No. 6 currently allows the total GTZFA of
120~600 ~ ~~~t to be canstructed withan the district, a1.1. ~f
which is either cor~~tructed or proposed to be constructed within
future phases of the development.
The applicant's request i.n this amendment is to allow an
at3ditional 5,714 ~quare feet of GRFA to be added to SDD No. 6.
This arnendment woul allow the applicant to convert existing
commercial space, which is primarily secand and third floor, to
residential usee The appla.cant's reasorz for the request is the
ques°tionable vi,ability of second and third floor zetail space.
The subj ect space referred to is uni°t #3 0 of the z7ai1 Vil1 age
Plaza Condomini,umsa tlnit #30 i~ ~omprised of two units previoazsly
numbered 30 and 32 an now combined into one unit. These una.ts
were previously° designat~d within the coradominium dec1aration as
offic~ or commercial use and the space is currently occupied by
the Goods etai.1 Clothing Store. The owners of this space have
recei.ve the neces~ary ap rovals from the other owners within the
buildin to amend the declaration ir~ order °to a11ow the use of the
space for dwelling an lodging purposeso
If thi proposed amendment is approved, the total GRF'A p~rmitted
witYtin SDD oa 6 wot11 be 126,314 sqa1~~~ This proposal does
not change the exista,n re irement that a minimum of 148
accommodation urti.ts an 6°7, 36°7 square fee°t of GFtFA be devote to
acCommodatio71 tlni°ts iYl P3"1ase IV a71d PYld~e V Qf SDD No. 6.
The 5,417 squar feet that is bein requested includes the
exa,stin square foo°ta e of condominium una,t #30, as well as an
allowance for square footage that cou1 potenti.ally be added in
the condomini.um unit #30 space, wi,thout changin the ex~ers,or of
the bui]. ing. his s ace cou1d be added by buildin 1ofts and
infilli.n areas that are open to a °two story space.
II. COMP ISON OF T E ENDMENT TO TH UNDERLYING ZONE DISTRTCT
For Special Development Di~trict No. 6, the Publa.c Accammodation
Di.~tric°t is the underlyi.n zone da,strict. Public Accommodation zoning
would allow a proxima°teIy 120,000 s are feet of GRFA on this sa.te.
IZIo SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRIGT DESIGN CRITE IA
It shaIl be the burden of the applicant to demonstrate that
submittal material and the proposed development plan comply with
each of the fo11owing standards or to demonstrate that one or more
of them are not applicable or that a practical solution consistent
with the public interest has been achieved.
A. DESIGN COMPATIBILITY AND SENSITIVITY TO THE IMMEDIATE
E IRONMENT, NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT PROFERTIES RE TIVE TO
ARCHITECTU L DESIGN' SCALE' BULK, BUTLDING HEIGHT, BUFFER
ZONES, IDENTITY, CH CTER, VISUAL TNTEGRITY D
ORIENTATIONm
There are very limited design issues re1ated to this
propasalw By changing the use of the existing Goods retail
store to residential, there is virtually no elimination of
first floor retail space. The staircase that accesses this
space does contain a display windowA The applicant has
proposed to maintain this display window and allow at to be
used by the adjacent retaii space, now occupied by Vail
Vi11age Inn Sports. Although the entry may be changed as
part of a future proposal to remodel the condominium space,
it is assumed that any design issues can be reviewed and
dealt with by the Design Review Board regarding changes to
the street level.
If this conversion were to utilize some of the GRFA that is
proposed but unbuilt in SDD No. 6, it is possible that there
would be a minar design impact on those future phasess
Exactly what that impact would be and whether it would be
positive or negative is impossible to determine through this
roposal.
B. USES, ACTIVITY AND DENSITY ICH PROVIDE A COMPATIBLE,
EFFICIENT AN WOR LE RE TIONS IP WIT SU OUNDING USES AND
ACTTVITY.
SDD Noa 6 provides a mix of uses which is efficient and
workable wit the surroun in areao SDD No. 6 cantains
retail stores, restaurants, condominium units, as well as
short term accommodation units. It is a goal of the
Department of Community Development an is stated in the Land
se Plan as well as the Vail Village Master Plan, that one
way to strengthen and continue the existing Village Core is
to encourage both high ality retail and a short term bed
basea While we are somewhat disa ointed to see this retail
s ac iiminate ,we understan the ifficulties in
su ortin secon and third floor retail within this art of
the Villa e. We do fee1 that the roposed dwellin unit
should b uti1ized primarily for tourist-oriented
accommodations an , thus, shoul be restricted according ta
ection 17.26.075 of the Town of Vai1 Subdivision
Regulations.
C. CO PLIANCE WITH PKTNG D ADI GRE UIRE E TS AS OUTLTNED
I SECTION 18.52.
Parking and loading standards for residential use are
significantly lower than for a retail store of this size.
Parking for this retai1 space has been accommodate within
the parking requirements for SDD No.6 and the staff sees no
problem with the parking and loading re irements with the
respect to this applicationa
D. CO FO TTY WITH APPLICABLE ELEMENTS OF THE VAIL GOMPREHENSIVE
P , TO POLICIES D URB DESIGN P So
The foliowing sections of the Town of Vai1 Land Use Plan
re1ate to this proposal:
Commercial
3.1 The hotel bed base should be preserved and used more
efficientlya
4.2 Increased density in the Core areas is acceptable so
lon as the existing character of each area is preserved
through implementation of the Urban Design Guide P1an
and the Vail Village Master Plan.
E. IDE TIFZCATION AND ITIGATION OF NATU L DJO GEOLOGIC
Z DS T T AFFECT TH PROPERTY UPON WHICH THE SPECIAL
D VELOP ENT ISTRZCT IS PROPOSEDa
No hazards are present or effect this property.
F. SIT P , UILDING DESIGN AND LOCATIONe AND OPEN SPACE
PROVISIONS DESIG ED TO PRO UCE FUNCTIONAL DEVELOP ENT
RESPONSIVE DSENSITIVE TO NATU LFEATU ES, VEGETATION AND
OVE LL AESTHETIC QUALITY OF T ECO ITY.
The staff's o inion is that there is very little impact upon
this proposal. There is very little physical change that
ould occur in aconversion of this space from reta31 to
residential.
G. A CIRCU TION SYSTEM DESIGNED FO BOTH VEHICLES AND
PDESTRIANS ADDRESSING ON D OFF SITE TFFIC CIRCU TION.
T existin circulation system which accesses this
articular condominium unit wi11 remain essentially the same,
althou h it is possible that a remodel may occur and wiil
ive this area a more resi ential fee1. We believe any
issues that may be raised by this future remo e1 may be
a ressed by the Design eview oard.
H. FU CTIONAL D AESTHETIC LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE IN ORDER
TO flPTIMIZE D IMPROVE ATU L FEATURES, RECREATION, VIEWS
D FUNCTIONS.
There is no landscapin or open space proposed for this
development, nor does the staff fee1 that is ap ropriate to
request anya
I. PSING PLAN OR SUBDIVISION PLAN T TWILL INTAIN A
WORKABLE, FUNCTIONAL D EFFICIENT RE TIONSHIP THROUGHOUT
THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SP CIAL DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT.
We do not feel that this criteria is appl3cable to this
app1icatione
IV. ENVIRONMENTAL I PACT EPORT
The staff has waived the requirement for an environmental impact
report on this proposal.
V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The staff recammendation for this request is for a proval with the
foll~win two con i;ta.onso
1. That Special Development District Na e 6 be amende by addi.ng
a total of 3,927 s are feet to the exi.sting allowance of
120,600 sguare feet. The 3,92°7 s are foot figure is th~
~xista.ng square footage of condorninium unit #30. The staff
feels that the exi.sti.n sare footage is sufficient for a
successfu1 conversion f~om retail to residentia1 and that the
request for an addit.~onal 1,787 square feet which may be
added to unit # 3 0 ira the future, is extran~ous and above and
beyond what a.s re ired for tha.s conversion.
2. That th~s unit be azse rest~~cted, accord~ng to Secti.on
17.26m 075 of the Town of Vail Subdivasion Regulationsm
P1~nn1.ng and L' ~vironmental 6..~~mi~sion
e3ep6.em&Jer 26p 1997
M13'11Ites
Preser~~ ~~~ff Present
Jim Vie1e Peter Patterz
Kathy Warren Mike Mo11ica
Diana Doncavan Rick Pylmar~
Sid Schultz Kristan Pr~~~
~~m Hopkir~s
Peggy Osterfa~~
~hucl~ Cr~ ~t
The Planning and Enva.ronm~ntal ~ommissi.on began at 9:40 a.ma
Jim Viele began the meeting wa.th Itexns Noa 4and 5. He asked for any
publ ic input. The~e was nonea
Craig Snowdon, architect for It~m No. 5, Riva Ridge South Condominiums,
~~~cussed °the staff recommendatioz2 for this item. The staff
recommended approval of the front setback variarzce with the conditiora
that the Riva Ridge South Coradomini.um A~~~ciation agr~e to not have any
delivery or 1oading in from°t caf the erxtrance along Willow Creek Circ1.ea
Craig, represerating Riva I2idg~ ~outh, agreed tcs th~ staff
recoznmendatican and condition of approval e ~
Item No9 4 A request for aside setback variance for a roof
overhan at the Willows coradominiuans, Lot 8,, B1ock 6,
A~sociation
Item No. 5 A r~~uest for a front setback vari.ance and a~ommon area
~ariance for a a~ew entry and elevatcsr at Riva Ride
Scstath, on Lot 7, block 6, z7ail Villaqe First Filinqm
Appli~~n°t~ Ri~r~ Ric~q~ S~~zth Con~~miniums
Chuck inotioned to consent
seconded the motior~.
Vote:
Item Noo 6 A reguest ~or an ex°~erior alteratian a°t the Slifer
It~m tab1~d until October 9, 1989.
Item Noo 1 A reauest to amend
(VVI) to increase th~
6 0~~ Rick Py1man gave the staff presentationv He explained that the
applicant was requesting an amendment to Special Develapment District
Nom 6 in order to a11ow the addition of 5,714 square feet of gross
residential floor areao This amendment wou1d a11ow the applicant to
convert existing commercial space (currently occupied by GOODS) to a
residential unit. Rick reviewed the design criteria and explained that
there wou1d be very Zittle design impact from the conversione The
staff recommendation was for approval with the following two
conditaons:
1. Special Development District No. 6 be amended by adding atota1 of
3,927 square feet to the existing a11owance.
2a The unit be use restricted according to Section 17a26o075 0f the
Town of Vai1 Subdivision Regu1ationso
Peter Jamar, architect for the project, pointed out that the reason the
owners were making this request was because the existing space was not
viable as aretai1 spacem He added that the reason the applicant
wished to add a fu11 1,787 square feet to the existing space was to
allow glexibility for possible future additionsa Althaugh the
applicant could accept the staff's condition of additional square
footage, the applicant did not agree with the staff's recommendataon
regarding the rental agreement.
There was a lengthy discussion among the Board and applicant. The
planning members had mixed opinionsm The Board, in general, did not
support the amount of additional space requested. Severa1 suggestions
and changes to the proposal were offered by the Boardm Jim pointed out
that he did not feel comfortab1e changing a proposal and then voting on
something different than what was proposed. He felt that the Board
shou1d maintain procedure and vote on the proposal as presented.
Pam motioned for a~p roval of the r~~u~~~ to amend SDD Nos 6 as per the
staff memo with th~~e ~g~n tha~ the ~hol~ u~~ot be restricted,
but that a minimum of 2 bedraoms each beinq ~I~~~t
restricted~and that_-the increase of GRFA b~$27
would be erved ~ as it
exists, that the entrance be on the west, and that the exis:~inq ~i~play
space go to the ba~ed on the ~I~
t~~~ ist. Sid seconded the motions
Votee 3-4. defeateds
Pe moved to recommend to the Town Council denial of the requ~t a~
pi~ifs nted due to a 1oss of commercial fpa~n
-4cement of a r~~ail that is not
a~~~~p~ia~~ conded the motion.
Voteo 4-3, deniala
PETER jA A ASS C1ATES, 1NC,
PLANNING, UEVELOPMENT A(VALYSiS, RESEARGN ~ epf
FM
V T,
~
~ T
~
-71
l
t ~
~
~ t
)
~
~ 0/J L
j , ~
2 , ~ ,
Ctk~ 65 , I '
Suite 308, Vail National Bank Buildina of-ei C-E ~Jv V -7 A, 9
106 Soufh Frontage Road WesY - Vail. Colorado 81657 •(303) 476-7154
a
S F ZI L, COLORADO
.W rw.~.;o
c/o F'rank Cicero, Jrm
'r and Ellis
1999 road ay, Suite 4000
Denver, Colorado 80202
August 20, 1990
vIA TELEFAX
Mrm Ma.xe r~ollica
Towr~ ~f Vail
Department of co unity Development
75 Soutn Frontage Roaa
Vaa.l, Colorad~ 8165°T
Dear Mr. Mo12ica:
This is to confirm our agreement that Vail Vi11age
Condoma.nium Tlnit 30 will be subject to 5ection 17m 26.075 of the
Town of Vaa.i Sub-Divisa.on Regulati.ons; and that prior °to
r~~eiving a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, t3~~~e
restra.ctions shall be recordeci as part of the Condozninium
Declaration with the Eagle County Clerk arxd Recordera
~
S~Traln_kC-ice(r ncer~ ~rottrs,
, Jr o s ~'Cmjf
6SC-L03mfC
SI7BDIVISIONS
C. PIans a.nd descriptions showzng hcsw the following wili be
perforrnede
lo A.II site work shall be brought up to cttrrent town
standards unless a variance therefrom is granted io the
applicant by the tcswra councii in accordance with the
variance procedures cof this Title 17. T°he town council
ay, if at deerrts rtecessary, require additional parking
facilities to rrieet require ents of owners and guests of the
coIldo 1Ilflt1 llIll$S,
2. Corrections of violations cited in the condominium
conversion repori by the building flnspector,
3. Co€ado iniu projects shafll eet current LJnzfor Build-
ing C:ode require ents for heat and fire detection devices
and sysiemso
{Ord. 29 (1983) § 1; Orda 2 (1483) § 1 (part).)
17m26o075 Condomi °um corsversion.
Any applicant seeking to convert any accornrriodataon unit
within the town shall compiy with the requirements of ihis
section. °I°he requirements coniained in this section shafll not
appiy to structures or buildings which contain two units sar Iesse
A. 1°he requirements and restrictions herein contained shall be
included in the condomiraiu deciaxation frar tlae project, arad
filed of record with the Eagie Courscy cIerk and recorder. The
conda aniu uniis created shaii remain in the short ter
(vaii 11-15-83) 298-4
~
,
C"C)NI)(3MINIUMS ANIJ C'ONDOMiIVIUM COhIVERSlONS
rental rr?arket to be used a.s terriporary accommodations
avaalable to the generat publico
1. An owner"s personaI use of his or her unit shail be
restr?cted io twenty eight days durir~g the seasonal
~seriod of December 24th tsa January lsi and
February ist to March 20th, °This seasonal period is
here,n~ Fier i-eferred to as "high seasotam`9 gaC}wner's
personal use" shall be defined as owner's czccupancy
of a unat or rson-paying guest of the owner or taking
the can?t off of the renta] market during ihe seasonal
pericsc3s s-eferred to hereirs for any reason other than
for riecessary repairs w}iich cannot be postporscc3 or
which anay make the unit unrentable. Qgq~~s~~y uf
~ ur~it by ~a t~d~e r~~ar~a~~r or si~ff ernployed bY iiie
lodge. hovvever, shall not be restrjcted by thss
s~ca'
2m A vaolation csf the owraer's use resirictaon by auraat owner
shall subject the owner to a daily assessmenx rate by the
condorriiniuni associat3on of three tirrbes a rate considered
io be a reasonable daily rental raie for ihe unit at the tizne
of the violatior?, which assessrzaent when paid shall be
corramon eIements of the cczrsdominiu s, A3l surns
assessed against the owner for violation of ihe ovvner°s
personal use restriction and unpaid shall ccsnstitute a 1ien
for the benefit of ihe condo iniurri association on that
owner's unai, w•llech lien shall be evidenced by wratieaa
notice pla~ed of record `an ihe office of the clerk and
recorder of Eagle County, Colorado, and which ay be
collected by foreclosure, on an owner's condo iraiurrt
iinit by the association in like maraner as a mortg~~~ or
deed of trust on real propertye'T`he condo inicz associa-
tior,'s failcare to enforce the tswner's persor?a1 use restric-
tion shall gflve the town the right enforce the resir3ciion
by the assess ent and the lien provided for hereundero if
ihe town enforces ihe restrictiora, the town sliall receive
the funds collecied as a resuli of such enforcementa In the
event litigation resuits from the enforcement of ihe
restriction, as pari of its reward to the prevailing party,
the couri shall award such pariy its ~ourt costs together
with reascsnable aitorney's fees incurreda
298-5
(vaal 12-1-87)
~
A
Sl/BDIVISIO1`eS fl
3, 7'he town sha13 have the right to require from the
ccarado aniun' asssacaation an annuaH report of owner's
personal use dcargng the high seasons for all convea-ted
coradcsraiin?unc uni8s.
4. T"he converted Ic3d e units shalt not be used as
perniat'crai res?dences. or the purposes of this
sectiora, a person shall be presumed to be a
persiianezit resident rf such persors has resided in the
unit for six cons~cutive rxacsrrths notwithstarrding
ft-c'si3 fliti2c; to ii,iic vus•inb such six month perisad the
persora niay briefly dwell irs ot1ier p8aces,
B. Any lodge located wiihin the iown which has coraverted
acccrm csdation units to condorniniums shall continue to
pi-s,vsd~ cusiomary iodge facilities and services enclud]ng
a cusiomary arketing prograni.
C. Th~ converted condorra`sniu units shali remaan available
to the general iocarist market. If unsold thirty days af$er
recordgng of the condominiurr, map, the unsold con-
verteti cssndorrainittrns shall be required ics be furnished
and rnade available tca the general twurist rs,arket wathin
ninety days afder the date o#' recording of the condom
, rt,iraiu ape This requirement may be met by inclusion
csf the units of Yhe ccsndominiurrfl project at ccsrriparable
razes, in ariy local reservation syste for the rentat of
lodge or condcan,iniu units in the tcswrae
D. The co rnon areas of any lodge with corrverted units shall
remajn corn on areas and be mainiained in a manner
cor?sistenl rviih its previsaus chasac8er. Aray changeso aHiera-
tions or reraovaiions made ics comrrmon areas shall not
dirrzinash the si~e or qualaty of the common areas.
E. Arry accorrflmosiation units that vaere utilized to prcsr°ide
housing for emplsryees at any ti e during the three years
psevfous to ihe date of the applica8ion shall remaira as
employee units for such daaration as may be required by the
planrsing arad er?vironanental commissian or the town councilo
F. Applicabiiiiy, A81 conciitioras sei forth withirs th;s section shall
be snade binding on the applicant, the appiicant`s successors,
heirs, personal a-epreseraSai?ves and asszgns and shail goverr?
the presperty wh?cl, is the subject of the applacat?on for the life
248-b ;
gv:,il 12-1-87, ~
CONDOMlNILJMS A1vD COitiDOMINIIIM CONVERStONS
~
~
of the survivcsr of the present town counczl plus twenty_one
c ~ . years. Conversiczn of accorramodatian a.iniis Iocated within a
c q ~ lodge pursuar~t ts~ this sestic~n9 shall be rr,odified only b~~ the
~ wrizten agreernent of the town council and the owraer or
c orr~e~vners of the ~anats ~~hich have been cc~r~~°erted anto condo-
iniums. °rhe docurslents creating and governing any accozrimoda-
C '1
tion unit which has been converted into a condQrniniurri shaid
be rreodified by the owners of sizch unats only with the priar
written approval of the town council.
G. Procedurea `1`he ctrnversion of an accorrirt-aodation tznit in an
existing lodge shall be accorriplished pursuant to the subW
division review processe The applicant shall provide the
following documentation io the zown at the iirrle ca1' zhe
application to convert accorramodatiora unzts located in a
lodge to condomzniurn uraitso
1. Proof of ownerstiip9
2. Site inventcary for the property rndicating in detail the
actual location of any aznenitics serving the lodgeq
3. Affidavit of services provided as is called for in subm
paragraph 2 above9
4o I7esigraatiors arad descriptaon of ali ernployee units;
5. Plan of irriprovernents tcs be rriade to the property a3ong
with estimaied cosis therefor.
tOrd. 2]( 19$7) 1-3. Ord, 2(19$3) § l(Part).}
17a26o08fl Action wn preli inary a o
A. Ai the hearing on the preli inary rraap9 the plaranirrg co mis-
siora shall consider whether the proposed con+rersiora is
c<ansisten€ with the fol3owing housing goals of the town:
1, To encourage continuaiion of social and econornic
_ diversity in the town through a varaety of housing types;
2. °To expand the supply of decent housing for low and
a - moderate incorrre farnilies9
3, To achieve greater ecor~omic balar~ce f°or the tcswn by
increasing the nu ber of3o6s and the supply of housing
04 for pewple who will hold them,
B. The comzaaission may requare that a. reasonable percentage of
~ the converted uraits be reserved for sale or rental to persons tsf
oderate irtcorrse.
~ 298-7
(Vaai 12-1-87)
ORDINANCE N4/e 24
SeI"]ses C7f 19$9
AN Ok2L?INAIQCE AMEIVIaIIJG SECTION 8 C7F
OI2DINAfl~~E NO. 14 SERIES OF 1987 TO k'F2Ot7II1E
FOR TI3E ANiEND1~'IEN`i' 0F DENS:C`1'X Ok BI°fiE
AS.C' AZa6 Y A.`i D 6d a'J Y S.°s A.sSJ L" d°a.L`s A`4 e.A. L" - A`e FO 8'4
S$. ECa8. AL A1.L:o V ELt6 P$"$.L.9NA $J .L S3. RIt..« Pd. N4d m 6
DIOW, TI£EF2EFOREf BE I~.' ORi314Ii3ED I3Y TIII; TOV3ri COLTNCIL OF `I'I-IE TOW1V OF
VA;CLp COTaO DOf AS F'OIala~~~ ~
~~ction 1e L~gis1ative Intent
A. ITI 1976' the Va3s1. Towll GC)1.12'1cil pc°tSSEe~ ord]mI1ance Z3Oo 7{
~eries of 1976, ~stablishing Sp~cia1 Developanez-it t3:isf:rict Noe 6 tca
i,nsure the u~LXied and coordirz~~ed develpmezit of a cra.ta~~~~ site as a
who1e and in a azaanner suitable fcar the area in whicli it was sa.t;uatecla
B. ~~~cia1 Development Di.~~rict Na a6 provicteci in Sectioii 14
ttaat the Town Ccauz~ciz reserve th~ riglat to akarogate or mcadify Special Development District No. 6 for good cause through the enactment of aa7
ordinance in canLorma,ty wa,th tIie zonitzg code of the Tocarl of Vai1e
C. Ita 1985, the Vai1 Tcawn Ccaunca.l passed Orelinance No. 1, .
~era,es of 1985 provida,i~~ ~ertaii-i aznendments t~o tk~e develcaprnent plari
fcar Special DeveIcapment Distrf ct NowG.
D. In 1.9$°3, the t~ail Tawn Cottzic.il passecl ordinance N~. 14,
Series of 1987 providirag certairz arttiendz~ent~ ~eve3.eapntent plazi
fear Special DeveIopment District No. 6.
E. Applzcation 2aas been mac~e to the °S'own of Vai1 to zncadify ancl
aznend Sectiora 8 af Ordit-iarzce No, 14, ~eries af 1987 Lahicl2 re1at~s to
the allowed clensity of the C~eveZQpT11eI"it pZan for Special Deve:l.capmezat
j
Distr:tct No. 6.
F. The P1.at'ning and Envixoninental Commi~sion of the Town of
'~ai1 has rieviewed the charages.
G. Tize Vail Town ~ouz~cil cotZsic~ers that the aznerrdmez1ts provicle
amcare tanified and a~sthetica1,1y pleasing developmerz~ ~criti.~al
sa.te withi.n the Town anel such amendments are of benefa.t to the healtlz,
safety, wel.fare o;C the i.nhabitaaits of tize Towiz caf VaiI a
~~~tion 2.
A. Secti.orx 18.50.130 Density is herekay amended to reac2 as
folIowsm
r The gra~s reszdenti.al f1oor area (GRFA) of a1l da~~tri.cts in the
Speci.a1 i~evelopanent I~~~trict shall raot exceed 124,527 sqtaare f'eet.
There shall be a minimum caf 148 accommodati.on units and 67,36°7 sqtz~~~
~~et of GRFA e~evoted to accommoc~ata.on uni.ts i.n Phase IV and P1iase V of
~~~~~al Developmer~t Distri~t Nbm 6. 3, 92°7 square feet caf GRFA sha1l
b~ allacated to unit 30 of the Vail Village P1aza Condominiums orxlya
B. Secta.ori 11 e~~ Ordiz~an~e 14, Series of 1387 a.s herelay ameradecl
by th€~ ~~ditiran of saz}asection 9 wha.ch shall read as fo1.Iowsw
3. Cond~minium unit 30 ~f the Vail Vi.l.lage Plaza Coradomirii.ums slzall
be sczbject to. the r~~tr~cticans of Sectior~ 17. 2Ca .07 i of the Town of
Vai1 Stzbc1ivision Regttlatioz~s if utila.zed ~~r r~sideratial purposes,
The Towrz Ccatzracil hereby finds, sletermines and declares that thas
orda.ziance is rx~~~~~ary and proper for the health, sa~~ty and we3.fare
of the Tcawn cs f Vail and ~~e infaabitants thereofa
~~ction 3.
If ar~y part, secta.on, subsect,ican, sentence, clause or phrase of this
carclinance is for any reason he1.d tca be i.nval:id, such deci.sion sha11
ncat aff~~t the validity caf ~~e remaining porta.ons of thi~ ordinance;
and the Tcawn Council herelay dec1ares it wcauld have passed this
ordinarace, and each part, section, subsecticanm sexatence,
cI~~~e or pYar~~e therecaf, regardless caf the fact that any one or snore
parts~ ~~cti.ons, subs~cticsns, sentences, clauses or phrases be
declarec3 invalida
Sectioz~ 4. The repeal or the repeal arad re-enactment of any
provisicar~~ of fi.kae t7aa.l Municipal Ccade as prova.ded in this ordinarace
sha11 ~ffect aray right which h~~ ~~~rued, any duty impeased., any
vi.olat3.on that occurred pri.or to the effective date hereof, aray
prosecuti.ozl com7neraced, rzear any oLher acta.on or praceeda.rsg as cc~mmer~~~d
ur~~er or by virtue o£ the provisior~ ~epealeel or repea1ed ancl re°°
enacted. Tt~e repeal of any provisiran hereby shaIl not revive aray
prova.sion or any ordinar~~~ previ.ously repealed or superseded unl.ess
expressl~ stated herein.
~ ~ z.. ..m
~
~ f
. INTTZQD[TCEIJ j F2EATJ AND P.ASSED ON FIRST I2EADIrTG THIS 7th
~ day of
Novernber ,1989, and a public hearing shal.l kae held on this
cardinance on the 7th day of Nove'nber° , 1389 at 7:30 p.zn. in tti~
~ouncil Chambers caf the t7ai1 MuraicipaT Building, Vai.3, CoIorar.iom
Ordered pubT. ished in fu1l this' 7 th ciay of Noveniber
, 1989.
3 ~
s ,A'I"I'EST s I{ent R. Ro~sew ayo2
~
Pamela. ~~°~ndmeyer, Town C1e~°k
IN`I'F2OI)t3CEi~, RE.AD AI1L? APPI3OVEIa ON SECOND REA,DTIVG ANi7 f3F2I7EREt) PLiBIaISFiEL?
_}~~ssed b~ titl~ only ~~1~ 21st day of Ncavember
, 1.9€39 .
~
AT'`ES"T' : Kent IZ . RoM yo
f
P3.aAw ~Brand~cie~re, Town F~1.~rk
MINUTES
VATL TOWN COUNCIL NlEETING
OCTQBER 17g 1989
7o3Q P.M.
A regular meeting of the Vai1 Town Council was held an Tuesday, Octo'ber 17, 1989, at
7a30 psm., in the Council Chambers af the Uail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENTo Kent Rose, May~r
John Slevin, Ma,yor Pr°o Tem
Michae1 Cacioppo
Merv Lapin
Gail Wahrlich-Lowenthal
Tom Ste7nberg
MEMBERS ABSENTe Eric Affeldt
TOWN OFFTCIALS P.RESENI°o Ron Phillips, Town Manager
' Larry Eskwith, Town Attorney
Pam Brandmeyer, Town C1 erk
The first order of business was Or°dinance Nom 23, Series of 19$9} first reading,
adopti ng a 1990 budget and fi nanc1 al pl an a Mayor Rose read the ftal l ti tl eo Sterte
Barwick noted the changes Council had made at the wor°k session that day, then
, briefly explained vahat the new budget would include, gave background informatian on
fund bal arocesg and what the f i gures vaoul dcover w Ma,yor Rose stated the budget was
the resuit af a series of budget work sessions over the last couple of monthsa
There were no comments from the publ ica Mi ke Caci oppo remarked he wwu1 d vote
agai nst the ordi narice because he di d not bel ieve the Community Deve1 opment
Department needed an irrcrease in staff (it shou1d be getting smaller, not larger),
he was disappointed there was no West Va11 fire station or television trans1ators
i rrcluded in the budget, di d not agree wi th a f 1 ve percent i ncrease far th~ ~own
Manager°'s position, did not agree with the large increase for the Marketing Board
budgeta or the $35,000 funding to Br°avo! Co1or°ado. Merv Lapin had some questions
regard the actual projected and the proposed budgets, to which Steve Barwlck
respondeda Mer°v Lapin stated he was not hapPY regarding the insurance caver°age
premi um , but that everyth i ng was a eompromi s~ ~ituati on wi th a$20 rni 11 ion budget e
Torn Steinberg commented the number of emplayees had remained relativel~ static the
1 ast four years whi 1e ser°vices had been expanded and upgraded a He bel ieved the Town
shou1 d hir°e more empl oyees and take eare of themF or the Town woul d pay. Ron
Ph i 11 i ps gave addi ti onal i nformation wn i nsurance costs. Merv Lap1 n made a moti on
to approve the ordi nance as amended, vai th Tom Steinberg secondi ng W A vote was taken
and the motion passed 5°1, with Mike Caciappo opposingw Johre Slevin thanked the
staff for their time and effort on this major pr°oject.
~ The second item was Urdinance No. 24A Series of 1989; first reading, amending
~s Special Development District Noe 6s The full title of the ordinance vaas read by
Mayor Rosea Peter Patten reviewed the staff me?no to the Planning and Envir~nmental
Commission dated September 26, 1989g and explained the request. He gave background
information and rev~ewed the SDD design criteria. Peter then stated the staff
recommended approval with two conditionsa
l. That SDD Noe 6 be arnended by adding a total of 3,927 square feet to the
existing allowance of 120,600 square feeta The 3,927 square foot figure is the
existing square footage of candomin3um unit #30o The staff feels that the existing
square footage is suff i ri ent for as€acc~~~ful conversi on -From retai 1to resi denti ai
and that the request for an additional I,7$7 square feet which may be added to unit
#30 i nthe futureg is extrae~~ous and above and be,yond what is requir°ed for thi s
conversion.
2m That this unit be use restricted, according to Sect1on 17o26a075 of the
Town of Vail Subd7vision Regulationso
Peter stated the PEC denied the request by a 4-3 voteg so the ordinance was coming
to the Counci1 without a PEC recommendationa Ne a1so had additianal 1anguage he
requested be addedm Merv Lapin guestioned the logic behind the recomenendationg to
i which Peter° r~sponded9 Peggy Osterfioss, of the PEC, gave further information
regardi ng the request and the PEG fls evo1 vement to the deni al deci sionw After sosne
discussion by Counci1, Peter JamarA representing the applicant, BSC of Vail,
~
Colorado, I nca, expl ai rred vahy °the appi icant auas maki ng the req~~st and why they were
asking the Council for approval of the ordinanceW There was thert some d1scussion by
Council regarding parking spaces for° the condominiump and total build-out for the
Uai1 Uillage Plazaa It was decided that if the space was eonverted, zt would not
change any r°equirements for the Uai1 Vi 11 age P1 aza a Merv Lapi n stated he was
agai nst increased GRFA over the 1 imi t, there was much di ~cussi on by Council
regarding GRFA. Peter Jamar requested the itern be tabled for a few weeks so he and
Peter Patten coul d do some more reseaa^ch , the Counci l coul d go an a si te vi si t to
the area, and they could discuss at a wark session. Councilmembers thert explained
qtaesti ons and prabl ems they had with the requestm Mi ke 'Caci oppo made a ma tion to
table the ordinance for th~~e weeks to the next evening meeting, arrd John Slevin
secondedm Avote was taken and the rnotion passed unanirnously 6-0o
The next item was R~~~~ ution No, 61$ Seri es of 1989, endorsi ng and supporti ng Ni,y
Choi ce . Drug Free Co1 orado red ribbon campai gn4 Marka Moser thanked the Counci i
for the support they had provided a1readya She then briefily reviewed the planned
events for the next weekF October 22-29, 3989a Amotion to approve the resolution
was made by Meru.Lapi nand seconded by John S1 evi n. Merv Lapin and Mayor Rose then
thanked Mar~a fbr taking this project as far as she hado A vote was taken and the m~tion passed unanimously 6-0a
The fourth order oF business was the appea1 of a Design Review Board decision
denying a sign for Nick's? 228 Bridge Str~eta Kristan Pritz stated that on
September 16, 1989, the DRB had a tie vote on this item, which results in
recommending deniala She passed around a photograph of the proposed location, then
reviewed a summary of the DRB' s comrnents a T4~ere was di scussi on b,y Counci 1 regarding
no prahibltion of neon signs, and others 1ocated in tawns PeggY Osterfoss commented
~ z f Council did rrot want neon i n the Vi 11 age, they need to instruct staff to head
that way4she was empatheti c, but the deci si an was up to the Courtci 1 a Michae1
Staughton, the appl icant, gave addi t1 ona1 i nformation regardi ng the propased si gnm
After more discussion by Couneil, Michael gave further reasons why he felt they
shou1 dapprove the sign, wh,y i t was apprapr~ ate, and shoul d be gr°anted rJo Br°own
questioned haw the Tawn had kept most neora out of the Vi 1 i age up to now, to which
Gaunci 1members responded, ,°desi gn guidel ines a°` N!i chae1 Staughton requested the itesn
be tabl ed unti 1 the next eveni ng meeti ng , so he cou1 d bring more pi ctures and
i rtfiormati on to Counci1 a The Council asked that Nli chael pa^eserr G informati on on neon
at a work sessian before the sign was reviewed for appr°ovalw John Slevin then made
a mc,tion to tabl e the item unt1 i the next eveni ng meeti ng, and Gai1 Wahrl i ch-
LoL~enthal secanded a A vote was taken and the mation passed 5-0-1, wi th Torn
Steirtber°g abstaining.
The next i ~em was the appoi ntment of frt ve regu7 ~r muni ci pal e1 ection j udges °for the
November 21, 1989 e1 ecti one There was no diseussion by Counci 1 or the publ ico Nferv
Lapin made a r~~~~on to approve the five propased judges, which Tam Ste1nber°g
secor?dede A vote vaas taken and the motion passed unanimousl,y 6°0.
There was no Citizen Parti cipati on .
Mike Cacioppo announced the r°~sul ts of an October 11, 1989 Heal th Departm~~t
memorandum ai r mani tor resul ts at the Mi nturn Mi ddle Schoal o He remarked the r°eport
scared himm
Larry Eskwith gave a brief attorney`s repart to Councilm He stated he had received
noti ce the Tertth Court of Appeal s supported the Town af Ua71 in the Defal co vso Tawn
of Uai 1case. Ne rroted thi scase had been handl ed by the Tow:z' s 4insurance
attorneys. N~ then gave background i nformati on on the W1 l1~ams vsv the Town and
Ghester and Chester vs.the Town 1 awsui ts, and chrono1 ogi ca11 y revi ewed what had
happened ta datee
There being no fur°ther° bzasiness, the m~eting was adjottrned at 9:40 potn.
Respectfully submitted,
X~ Ket~t R, Rose, Pamel a A a Btdmeyer; Town-G1 erk
Mi nutes taken by Brenda Chesman
MINUTES
VASL TOWN CflUNCIL MEETING
NQUEMBER 7, 1989
7e3Q P.M.
`Areuiar meeti~ of the Vail Town Counci1 was held on Tuesda November 71989,
9 ~ Y~ ~ at
7:30 p.mm, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building.
MEMBERS PRESENTm Kent Rose, Mayor
John S1 euin, Mayor Pro 1°em
Eric Rffeldt
Michael Cacioppo
Merv Lapin
Gai1 Wahrlich-Lowentha1
Tom Ste1nberg
MEMBERS ABSENTm None
TQWN QFFICIAL5' PRESENTm Ron Phi11ips, Tovrn Manager
Parn Brandmeyer, Town C1 erk
The first order of business was a Ten Year Employment Rnniversary Award to Mike
Rose. Ron Rhillips gave background 1nformation on Mike, the Superintendent of
Rarkirtg wi th the Town af Vai1 g and thi s was fo11 owed by comments from Stan
Berryman. Mike thanked ever,yone, and Kent Rose stated the Counci1 appr~~~ated
Mi ke6s hard wor°k over the yearsa
The second i tem of busi ness an the agenda was a consen°t agenda of the fol lowi ng
i tems:
A. Approval of the October 3and 17, 1989 Meeting Minutes
B. Appointment of Steve Simonett as a Local Licensing Authority Boar°d Member
After a brief d7scussion regarding the minutesg Merv Lapin made a motian to approve
the eonsent agenda, which John Slevin secondedo A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-0w
The next item was Qrdinance Noa 23, Series of 2989, second reading, adopt3ng a 1990
budget and financial plan. Mayor Rose read the full titlee Steve Barwick noted the
changes made for second readi ng m Tom Ste1 nberg questl aned th~ surve,yor° posi ti on and
the possibility of a better wa,y to hand1e it; Mayor Rose agreed he also had
qsaestions regarding that and felt it should be put on a future Work Sess1on agenda
for discussianW Er1c Affeldt commended staff on their reporting and information
gathering for Gouncil a He felt the Town was in the best financial position ever,
~ but was disappainted the public was not that interested. He noted he was not in
favor of as 1 arge an increase i nthe ?narketi ng budget as what was approved at f i r^st
reading. Mike Cacioppo agreed with Eric regarding the marketing budget, and that
was one reason why he voted against the ardinance at first readingm John Slevin
briefly explalned why he thought it was increased to the final amountw After ~ome
discussion, Mayor Rose stated the amount should be 1eft as it was at this p~~ntp to
be d~~~rmined 1 ater , depending on Town of Avon, Eag1 e Gounty Aand Vail Rssoci atese
contributions@ Merv Lapin made a rnotion to approve the ordinance on second reading
wi th a reducti on in the mar°keting fund to $117,000 instead of the $163, 000 , and Er°7 c
Affe? dt seconded. Rob !_e!f 7 ne commented wh,r he fel t the $163,000 shoul d be 1eft in,
A vote was taken and the moti on fai 1ed 3-4, wi th Tom Stei nberg, Kent Rose, John
Slevin, and Gail Wahrlich-Lowentha1 opposingw Eric Affeldt then made a motion to
approve the ordinance on second reading w1th the marketing fund amount of $163,000o
Tom Steinberg seconded the motionm Mike Cacioppo remarked he wwuld vote against the
ordi nance because he di d not bel ieve the Community Devel opmen't Department needed an
i ncrease in staff (it shoul d be getti ng srnal l er, not 1 arger ) , he was di sappoi nted
there was no West Vail fire stat7on inc1uded in the budget, did not agree with a
five percent increase for the Town Manager's position, did nat agree with the large
increase for the Marketing Board btadget, or the $35,000 funding to Bravo! Coloradow
Ma,yor Rose remarked there was a five percent increase in the budget, but no actual
increase had been approved yetP so the money was not guaranteed to be spentm Avote
; was taken and the ?notion passed 6-1g with Mike Cacioppo opposing.
~
,
~
•
The fourth order o°F business was 4rdinance No4 29, Series of 1989, first reading,
regarding sa1es tax revenue bonds for the parking stru~ture expansion and
renovation4 The full title was read by Nayor Rose. Charlie Wick introduced 5teve
JefFerss of Kirchner Moore, and Dee Wisor, of Sherrnan & Noward. Steve distributed
revised copi es of the ordi nance with changes made ear°1 ier today a He revi ewed the
. changes and explained the reasoning for thema Steve then a~swered questions of
Council a Mer°v Lap~n made a motion to approrre the ordinance, and Tam Steinberg
secandeda A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimousl,y 7W0.
The neact -issue was Urdinanee Nom 30, Series of 1989, first reading, establishing a
program of investments to provide for the payment of the Town's outstanding bondsm
Mayor Rose read the full titleW S~eve Jeffers noted twa tninor changes in the
ordi nance, arrd expl ained what the ordinan~e wou1 d do. He and Dee W1 sor then
ar~swered questions af Counc1 i. After some di scuss ion b,y Counci1 p Mer°v Lapi n made a
motion to approve the ordinancem The motion was seconded by Mike Cacioppo. A vote
was then taken,ana the motion passed unanirnously 7-0a
Next vuas Ord i nance No0 24, Seri es of 1989 q fi rst readi ng garnertdl ng Speci a1
Devel opment Di stri ct No B 6conv~rti ng condami ni um uni t no e 30 from commercz a1 ~o
residential a The fu13 title of the ord%na~~e was r°ead by Mayor Rosee Peter Patten
commented th is i tem had been tabi ed at the 1 ast Everri ng Meeting, and the request vdas
to canvert the Goods retai 1 candomi ni um uni tin the Vai1 Vi 11 age I nra into
residential spacea He noted ther°e had been some revisians to the proposal since the
1ast meeti ng; he expl ai ned what the changes werea Peter then gave background
informati ort regar°di ng Phases Iand I Iof the condon7ira i ums in the Vai l Ui 11 age Irrn,
and added staff continued their ~~~ommendati on for approval of the conversi on a
There was then sosne d7 scussi on between Counci 1, Peter Jamar, and Pe9gy Osterfoss
~4LL, regarding the Planning and Envi ronmental Commi ssion °s deci si on and reasoni ng for
denying the request by avote of 4-3 s Amot1 motion ta approve the ordi nance was then
made by Merv Lapi nand seeonded by Gaii Wahrl ich-Lowenthal m After more di scussion
between Council and Peter Jamar$ avo~e was taken and the motion passed unanimously
7°Oa
Ordinance No, 25a 5eries of 1989, first reading, amending Title 17 to provide a
def i niti ort for singl e fami 1 ysubdi vi si ons vaas next on the agenda m Mayor Rose read
the ful1 titie. Mike Mollica brief1y explained the ar°dinance, and then answered
questions Qf Gouncil. After a short discussion, Eric Affeldt made a motion to
approve the ordinance, vahich Mike Cac7oppo secondedm Avote was taken and the
moti on passed 6-1, wi th Merv Lapi n opposi ng m
The eighth or°der of bus1ness was 0?^dinanee NaW 26, 5eries of 1989, first reading,
amending Sect1on 18.24.020 by adding e'Cammercial Ski Storage.'° The full titie was
read by Mayor Roseo There was no discussion by Council or the publicm Merv Lapin
made a motion to approve the ordinance, and John Slevin secondedo A erote was taken
and the motion passed unanimousl,y 7-0o
T'he next item vaas Ordinance Noa 27, Series of 1989, first readinq, arnending Chapter
2.20 by adding an app1ication fee for temporary liquar licensese Nayar Rose read
the compl ete ti t1 em Pam Brandmeyer expl ained the reasoni ng for the ordi nance, and
answered questi ans of Counc1 i. Amoti on to approve the ordinance on fi ~st r°eadi ng
was made by Merv Lapin and seconded by John S1evirra A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimously 7-04
The ten~~ ~ ~em on the agenda was Ordi ~~~~e No, 28, SerAes uf 3989, fi rst reading9
amendi ng Chap~er 16 m 22 regul ati ng si gns in the Ar°teri a1 Busi ness Di stri ct and
Commercial Core III zone districte Mayor Rose read the tit1e. Mike Mo11ica gave
backg~ound informati on on the ordinance, and commented the P1 anni ng and
Environmental Commis~~on unart7mously recommended approval a Merv Lapin made a motion
to apprave,wi th John Slevi n secondinga A vote t~~s taken and the motion passed
unanimausiy 7-0v
7he 1ast item on the agenda was a Gart Brathers si gn variance request a Kri stan
Pri tz reviewed the requ~sts for var1 ances of si ze, he1 ght, and nurnber of sign~ ~ and
reviewed criteria used for the requestsd She then explained vrhy staff recommended
approval. Kristan commented the Desi gn Revi eva Qoard had approved the requ~sts by a
5m0 vate for the variance, and a 4-1 vote for the design; ane did not like the black
and white striped barber pole. After some discussion by Council, Gai1
Wahr1 ich-Lavaenthal made a rnrati on to approve the three variance requests i n
accor°dance with the findings in the staff memorandum dated October 18, 1989p John
Slevin seconded the motiono A vote was taken and the motion passed 4-3, with Tom
Steinbergp Eric Affieldt, and Merv Lapin opposinga Gail Wahrlich-Lowentha1 and John
Slevin explained ta staff that Council should be infarmed of ~omething like this
._.MINUTES
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETTNG
NOVEMBER 21, 19$9
763Q P.M.
A re~zi ar tneeti ~of the Vai 1 Town Gour~ci 1 was hel dot~ Tuesda~{November 21 ]:989
~ ~ ~1 .Y 9 . 9 . !
at 7a30 pama, in the Council Charnbers of the Vail Munieipal BuildingA
MEMBERS PRESENT: Kent Rose, Mayor°
John Slevin4 Ma,yor Pro Tem
Eric Affeldt
Michae1 Cacioppo
Merv L.api n
Gai1 Wahrl i ch-Lowenthal
Tom Steinberg
MEMBERS ABSENT4 None
,
`COWN QFFICIALS`RRESENTm Ron Phillips, Town Managea^
Larry Eskwith, Town Rttorne,y
Pam Brandmeyer, Town C1 erk
Mike Cacioppo was not present at the tirne the meeting begana
The first order of business was Resolution Nom 62P Series of 1989, r°ecognizing and
. congratulating Red Sandstone Elementary School for winning the 1989 State Champion
physlcal fitness awarda Ann Sanders and Firooz Zadeh accepted the resalutiorro on
behalf of the children, and thanked the Couneil for recognizing the studentso
M7ke Cacioppa arrived.
A tnotion was made by Gail Wahrlich-Lowentha1 to approve the resolution. 7he motian
was seconded by Torn Steinbergo R vote was taken and the motion passed unanirnously
7-Oe
The next item was Ordinance Noo 29, Series of 1989g second reading, regarding saies
tax revenue bonds for thte parki ng structur°e expansi on and renovati ona The ful 1
title was read by Mayor RoseW Joe Bat^rows (representing Steve Jeffers), of Kirchner
Maare, and Dee Wisor, af Shermart & Noward, remarked on a few changes made 1n the
ordinance since first reading, and whyo They distr°ibuted revised copies of the
ordinance wi th the noted changesa They a1 so commented on the bond r°atings and a
rate Change, and then answered questions of Counci1. Eric Affeldt rnade amotion to
approve the ordinance with the changes presented b,y Dee Wisore John Slevin
secondeda Avote was taken and the motion passed unanimous1y 7-0a
Item three vaas Ordinance Noa 30Q Series of 3989, second reading, establishing a
pr°ogram of i nvestments to provi de for the payment of the To~ar~ ss autstar~dir~g bor~dse
Mayor Rase read the full titlem Qee Wisor distributed updated copies of the
or°di nance wi th the exact amounts f i 11 ed in, Joe Barrows and Dee then answered
questzons of Counci1W After some discussion, Eric Affeldt made a motion to approve
the ordinance wi th the changes as presented b,y Dee Wi sor m The moti an was seconded
by 6~erv Lapinw Avote was then taken and the motion passed unanimousl,y 7-0.
i he next order of busin~~s was a Consent Agenda of the foi i ow ing i tems:
A. Ordinance Noe 24, Series af 1989, second reading, amendir?g Special
Develapment District No. 6 converting condotninium tanit noe 30 from commercial to
residentiala
B. Ordinance Non 25, Series af 1989, secand reading, amending Title 17 to
provide a definition for sing1e fami7y subdivisians.
C. Ordinance Nam 26, Ser°ies of 1989, second reading, amending Section
18d24e020 by adding "Commercial Ski Storagea"
D. Ordi nance Na m 27, Seri es of 1989, second readi ng, amend7 ng Chaptev° 2.20 by
adding an application fee far temporary liquor 11censesa
~ . . _,..,,.i . . ...............~,w .wnf.nxhJ_.^~i:Y^M1'5':uyY&Kh~m¢,.,.,,:~a.i,a........
N~ t
~ E
E e Ordinance Noa28, Seri es of 1989, second readi ng, amendi ng Chapter 16 e 22
regu1 ati ng si gns in the Arter7 a1 Busiraess Di stri ct and Commerci al Core I I Izone
district.
Mayor Rase read the fu11 tit1e of ~~ch. J~e Macy, of Vaal Assaciates, Incap stated
; he had a problem with 0rdinance No. 28, and asked Council to have this itern
withdrawn from the Corrsent Agenda and tabled to a 1ater datem Merv Lapin had a
question regardi rrg Qrdinance No. 25, and asked to have it wi thdravan from the Cons~nt
Agenda, alsoa Merv Lapin then made a motion to approve Qrdinances 24, 26, and 27 0n
the Consent Agenda. The motion was secanded by John Sievinm A Vote was taken a,nd
the motion passed unanirnously 7-0o
Qrdznance Noa 25g Series of 1989, second reading, was then discussed4 Merv Lapin
asked to have the or°dinance clar3fied. Peter Patten tried to clarify the
subd7vision issue and expiained just what the ordinance wou1d doa
Mayor Rose int~rrupted the meeting at this point to announce the outcorne of the
municipal electionv He stated that PeggY Osterfoss, Rob LeVine, and Jim Gibson were
elected for four year terms, and Lynn Fritz1en was e1ected for a tvao year terrn. R
ten rnirrute break followede
Discussion r°egardi r9g Ordinance Nom 25 conti nued m Larry Eskwi th gave further
c1ar°ificatzon. Merv Lapin then made amotion to approve the ord1nance on second
reading, and Tam Steinberg seconded. A vote was taken and the mation passed
unanimously 7W0a
Ordi nance No. 28, Series of 1989, second readi ng , was next w Joe INacy read the
par°agraph he objected to - page 3, Section 4. He gave a hypothetical case of a
potential probl em as he saw z t e Ne fel tit was unfair that a new busi ness
teehnica11 ywoul d not be a 1 1 owed a si gn i f the bui 1 di ng di dnot have an approved
sigrr program, Larry Eskwith explained the same language vaas used as was used for
signage in the Cammer°cia1 Core III sign codee Bruce Allen remarked the problem Joe
wa~ ~~lki ng abotat was not h,ypotheti cal , but a rea1 probl em which exi sted currentl,y.
Kristan Pri tz exp1 ai ned the reasoni ng for the paragraph °s i ncl us1 on i n the
ordi nance4 She stated that si gn prograsns wer°e requi red in CC3 to try and deve1 op a
comprehensive approach to si gnage for the 1 arge °'shoppi ng ma11 tYpe bui 1 di ngs i n
West Uaila Merv Lapin discussed tabling the ordinance for two weeks so the staff
coul d work on rewordi ng m There was some di scussi on regarding the probl etnsa Eric
Affel dt made a moti on to tabl e the ordi nance unti1the next Eveni ng Meeti ng December
5, which Mike Cac1oppo secorrded. Eric commented he agreed with Merv, that if
something vaas in the Code we did nat enfov°ce, either enfarce it or get rid of it;
there was no reason to leave something on the books if we were root going to enfar°ce
its Bruce was told to contaet Kristan with his concer°nse A vote was taken and the
mation passed unanimously 7-0w
The fourth item on the agenda was the si gn vari ance request for the F'ini shi ng Touch
Furni ture Showr~om 1~~ated in the I nn at Uai 1(Appl icantm Jirn' Wi 1son Larry
Eskvaith gave ehronological background infor°mat7on up to the current datea He stated
that the applicant had never appealed the Design Review Board decisian on the design
of the awning pso there was no basi s for the app1 i carrt to be before the Counci1
tonight. Mayor Rose asked how things got to this point, to vahich Larry r°ep1ied he
had just 1ooked at the staff memorandum for the fiirst time today< Peter Patten
added that they had found the error toda,y at 5000 poma Peter then reviewed the
Design Review Board`s actions up to this pointa After ~ome discussion regarding
probl ems and optZ ons, Tom Stei nberg made a moti on to tabl e the i tem unt11 the
project was r°ev3ewed by the DRB and the applicant appeals the DRB decision on the
design of the si gnage o Eri c Affel dt seconded m A vote was taken and the motion
passed unanimous1,y 7-0@
Under Citizen Participationp Mike Gac1oppo requested to continue receivlng check
regi sterse Ne stated fae woul d pay for the copi esgand scabmi t a check an amonthl y
basasm
Tom Steinberg asked ifi the problem regarding the Vi11a Cartina vras being addressede
Ron Phillips stated it would beo Peter Patten remarked it was an old problemo
Mayor Rose asked that i f al1 busi ness was conci uded, he woul d 1ike the Couraci 1 to
mave into an Exeeutive Sessian at this tirne to discuss a cantinuing land
negotiationa
~
MEMORANDUM
aTO: Pianning and Environmental Comm6ssion
FR a Com unity evelopment Depart ent
DATEa Au tast 24, 1992
SU JECTo A request for a side setback variance in order to construct a new home
ort Lot 15, Vail Village West FiIing Noe 2, 1793 Shasta Place.
Ap iican#a Joseph and e9gY Hepler
Plannero Tim Devlin
L DESC IP°Tl~ F THE RE l1E T
The applicant is requestin aside setback variance in order to construct a new pri ary
unit on vacant Lot 159 Vail Viflage West Filing o0 2s 1793 hasta P3ace. The
applicant is a1so requestin to construct a restricted secondary dwe11in unit aboue the
arage for employee housing of fullatime lJpper agle Valley ern loyeesa °The 11,600
sguare foo# lot as zone rimaryl econda esidential District ( d)p
The applmcant's specific request is for a variance to allow 505 an 7.0 foot
encroach ents into te required 15 foot sade se#back on the south ed e of the
pro er , #o acco modate two corners of the building foot rintm T°he areas f the
triangular 5.5 and 7,0 fioot encroachrnents are approximafiely 42m3 s e fto and 65.3 sqa
ftm respectively (please see attached site plan). The approximate dimensions of the
arage are 20 feet wi e (inside iension) y 24 feet Ion ,
The Iot is somewhat unique in that it is g° iemshape " an has a relatively short (3 fts)
proper Iine alon hasta Place. Although the a plicant is roposin to lace the
house 5 to 74 feet from the street, the variance is requested to acco modate the
roposed bui1 ing and to provi e 24 feet of backyar space between #he house an
the wiliows on the edge of ore Creekm The Iots on oth si es of the applicant's Iot
are vacant, and ail but one of the other houses on Shast PIace are less than 30 feet
fro #he street.
~
II. ZO i ANALYSlS
l°he following #able su marizes the plicartt's requestm
Allowable r~ ~~ed
G F6l 39325 sqa 1S. 3,325 sqa a
Sate Coverage 20% 15.6%
Setbacks:
Front 20 feet 25 feet
Side (north) 15 feet 15 fee#
Side {sotath} 15 feet - a5 f t'
Rear (Gore Creek) 50 feet 62 feet
Parking 4 spaces required 4 spaces ropose
lll, VA IA CE C I°T !A A FINDINGS
Upon review of Criteri and Findin s, Section 1.62e060 of the Val! unicapal Code,
the Depart ent of Community Develop ent recommends approval of the requested
variance based upon the following factors:
A. Consideration of Factars
1. The relati nshi f#e r ue t v rianc t er xis#in r
te ti 1 ta s and structures in the vici it o
taffi reco nizes that the structure has been designed to mini ize
impacts on adjacent properties by Ifmiting the encroachments into the
side setback #o two areas. e feel these encroachmerats couId be
re uced further by shiftin the house 4 feet west towards the Creekm
either the propose architectural design, nor the si eset ack
encroach ent sha66 i pede views of adjacent ropertiesa °fhe location
of the house will be co patibie w`sth the nei horhoo m e believe that
the dimensions of the gara e have been kept to a mani um in order to
decrease the encroachmente The Iots on both si es of the applicant's
iot are vacant, °fhere is no existin use of the setb ck area an there
are no utilit?es Iocated on the side of #he Iot that the varwance is bein
requested #orm
2. T r t ic r li f fr t #ric# and Iwt r 1 i# r ret ti
and nf rcement f cific ruI ti i In r r t
chi ve c #i ility n u if r ity f tr t # among it i
t vicini#y r t t# i t jctiv f t is title it ut r nt f
eci i rivilege.
' Requires variance.
7°he staffi recognazes that the narrow piemshape of the Iot oes constitute
a physical hardship an the structure must be placed to the rear of the
lot wcth limited space between the house an ore Creek, as well as the
willows presen# alon the Creek, o trees will be removed to
accommodate the new structure, e beiieve the applicant shoul adjust
the Iocation o# the pro ~~ed hause to mmnimize the side setback
encroachment and to provide adequate space at the rear of the property
be een the house and the wi91ows9 ore Creek by ovin the structure
4 feet to the west. This will decf~~~~ th~ amolJi1~ the sI e set~~ck
encroachmerrts to approxAmate]y 3.75 feet and 5 feet, or 18 s o ft. and
37 sqe ft, respectivelys Also, thls will require the distance #ro the house
L6d 11 Le m79.8 eet ffi6d Ie 9'as9 CiPA.se ~o be 4oe! B62 G@6 9 78 $kdety and the dIsLa6 kffioe
from the house to the centeriine of Gore Creek will be approxi ately 58
feet, ~~aff teels that this loCatioCl will mit7imlze the 8mpact of the
varianc~ surroundin propertiese yet re ain far enough away #rom
Gore Creek and the wiIlovvs as to not adversely affect either,
3. T ffiect # t v ri nc n li t, ir, population, #r ti n,
#r ic, utiliti , nd pu lic fet .
The sta## fieels that none of the above are adverse1y affected y the
applican#9s request for a side setback variancea
40 Compliance ith iI9s Comprehensive Pl a
The proposed design provades for off-street and covered parking, an
the request to provide an employee housing unit is consistent with Vail's
omprehensive Plan,
B. 7°he Pla~~i~~
before
1 m l°hat the grarating of the variance will not constitute a rant of special
rivilege inconsistent with the If itations on other roperties cIassified in
the same dlstrictm
a T'hat the ranting of the variance will not be detrimental to the ublic
health, safiety or weifare, or ateria!!y °snjurious to roperties or
i provemen#s in th vicinitya
3. °Tha# the variance is warrante for one or ore of th foilo in reasons:
as The strict literal inter retation or en#orcement of the s ecif1e
regulation would result in ractica1 difficul or unnecessary
physical hardshi inconsistent with the objectives of this titleo
b. There are exceptions or extraordinary clrcumstances or
0 conditions applicable #o the same site o# the uariance that o rtot
-3-
apply eneraify to other properties in the same zone.
C. The strict interpre#ation or enforcement of the specifiied regulation
wou1d deprive the plicant ofi priviieges enjoyed by the owners
of other proper#ies in the same dmstrict,
IVo STAFF ENDAT1ON
Based on the crfteria discussed above, the sta#f reccammends approval of the reguest
for the side setback variance9 wifh the foliowlng conditions:
1. That the stru~ture be shifted approxlma#ely 4 feet to the west of where the
applscant has proposed to Iocate ito
2e taff reco mends tha# a specific condltion of approval be that the wi1lows are
adequately protected dtaring construction of the home and should remain as an
integral part of the sitem
3. All existang trees on the site should re asn as a condition of a provalm
4e °fhe propose riveway shail nof exceed 8% in rade.
5, ne 6-8 spruce and o to three 2B° caliper aspens shall be planted at each
area o# encroach ento
The variance is not a ran# of special privilege and does not i pact adjacent ropertaes
in a negative manner. The staff feels that there are extraor inary circumst nces or
conditions (specificallyg the narrow p0emshape o# the lot) that affect this site that o no#
generaily appiy #o other properties in the same district. °The sta feels that the
proposed employee housing unit (approxirrrately 47 sq, ftm) is a positlve aspect of the
projecta "fhe enciosed and off-s#reet parking is also ositive and wiil not a versely
affect the appearance of the neighborhoodm
-4-
~
t ~ . ,
/ yq~T
LOr 14 / s
FnD. Mo 6 REBsR EDUE OF
9CwER ~4"OLE
Riw EL.= ~9a7 S FND. e0 wiTw{5S C9RbER
I t .
Poo 20fi55
~,,~'r~
He eoz
~ S 8 73793° t391.99 PMO 6
,fj.5' PiNE o7o i
~ J'°v
~ _ + _ _ "_`~"L . ? r-."~ `Fp ~ g' ss~st3 e~seuesat-°° m
. ~ ~
a , I d ~
T 9
;
E9GE JF CR E Ea
ededt. (m+ez{
i ` . ~ 6tH DawG SC'BaPCS
~ • ~ ' r ~
scr
tNTERA3ATED ffrOA+ II Laaa ~ ~ ' m a ~
100 YEGR P190')PL-`4
HYDWO-YRI&p LTp
h 9 / P (
qy ' ATE t~6.D4=E0'
.AY, 1575 15~
8y ~ i ~ !l . ::'ANrf~^', ,~~~'''~9 ~ s ~ /e+J'7~ Y
E Sc76aCKK ~l\ ( o. ~ i ~ ~ ~ y I ~i Ct'Ya?
i
~ Xw
~ w
• ai ~ ~ i I ~ ~r'" _ ~ ~~P
rNormse~ sewea FyVdi PER
v
E&SEPnEEVSD r~ se~;eui~~,c ~i I AIa
~ ce~rea cW caeeK I U
. /
,
i
t 1 ( ~ ~v
!7lF,~ i '
~
U RND. 90~ WIYhE55 . , 1 . ' . a
1 tORNER t 5 ~ .
No.20693 b
~ i ,r~~~•~'~~ ~ LOl' 16
~
AxnIf
~
j
y ~ 0
%zo
9 9ove
I
~
99159b
$
C
(b ~ ~ m 'Op
_ ~C 7F C
5
p C
f
~
II ii I ~
i I leeoaC-CM z eeoaccn 311 II cLOSer ~ e 3 g
~2~ a
'i i ~ t9A8TCR I
I ~ ~ ( OGORCY,a7
a~er;, ~ ~~uWPr r s,z o~ o» m':I t_--oAru
_ s, ' ~ I.~ I ~
B6PS-0 ~ ~ ~ i I 9~ CNiRT K i iGS7CH ~ I -
~ I I Im
9P0({>G£
F O°o
~ ~ °°i ~ i ii - - ryI i I
I I I II D1NINt i a ,I ' I
if------------- ~ ;
- I I liviwG ~ 'I eI ~ I _ 4 n.~.cP i i cei n~n7'
oecx ~~I a{ 0~ 9 -k •
#36 nova vIsTa rsAin etooR Ptan a36 NovA vrsrA Lorr rLaaR PtaN
~l
pA ~5,g
Z~4
~~t~.:%3~~ t~'w~~J~s: p.t+"¢_3 /~`~s~~'4 B~af,~ Z~qar"r,~,"3~°~~J.:">i. l8d~".''~m$~s~tG,°_3_: «Ir ,a°S~'x'e~ _
• ~ ID ~
` 11 9 9 ~ •S; ~
!33558
? ~
c
O ~ C ~m " C
'~p U O p U}
II ~ I I ( ~ ~I~ ~ ~ I I ~ I ~ ~ I I - ~f i I I I I DSgo
~ I t_ I~ ~ I ~ I i U w a ~ 7~ S
w ~
I I
L ~
I I~ C
~ I I i I I [ ~ 'Op
i. I I ~ I I o<> ~ e. II I r=.'«J~LOQ U
r
~~IuLI~ ~I _I
~Q, I~IILL 2",L~~~I
I~IjI I ~.il I~ ~i I ~i r I-Joll Ij ~iil I~- I II~
#36 ;IOVA VISTA REAR tLEVpTiON#36 NOVA V15TA rROM7 ELEVATiON ~
( I
I
es I
III I~i~ !I I~~, ~'~II~J.'I ~I ~I I I!! ilil,l~~ Ili I il I~ i~l I I~ ~II II i ~ ~ i!
~ I
; I I
~
i I -~I ~ 1-1 ~ ~
. ~ #
_
#36 NOVb VIS?A RiGN7SitJE CLCVs3TION
36 NO a V 5,a L~FT S DLC ELEVATiOM ~ d.
.q
,
.ets.- '~~..»Jf~.:r°
~ , ~ ,a~- ~z.~ ~ 14
S 3? i 8
Page #129
o~
~UVIYIIIVIUIYI
24 23 2
15 1967 1957194
16 25
2079
sE 2os9 17 29 28 26 Isn o~• 20
r~~ I 2039 2019 1987 31 19
• 2009 G~ch - 1956 V~ 19
2719 30 32 Q. 1984 \
1995 0 1969 1949 ~u= 21 ~
18
mj 1817
1994
38 37 36 35 34 33 17 16 15 14 13 ~
BRANDE55 004 2000 1492 1970 1950 1901 895 1879 1859 1639 1819
)NS BLDG. MEADOW R~ 0 Q,
2077 1953 OGE
39 40 41
1933 7 8 9 10 II 12
• 1880 1860 178
H R00 T
TATE 70
V. ) ( IN T.O. V. )
4
79 2
13 3 1784 4
SPRUCE CREEK 14 1773 I76 II
1750 TOWNMOMES 15 763~ c4 1753 7 6
793 8 1765 1755
1e 9 1775
180
17 1785 2 1 . DONOVAN
fk
27 2 24 23 22 I 20 !9 18 1813 N 795 1756 74 IA PARK
^5 1895 1883 1875 ~8i l855 1845 1~:1825 1815 29 1699
30 n )75a 28
A
CREEK DR. ~ 3,q 79 ls q 17 COLDSTREAM
43 181g r 35 I806 ~ 1750 3 19A ~ EaGLE . 53
49 50 48 47 46 Fsi !76! S 4 1707 '99 69 E pQINTP 1476
396 1886 1876 1868 1858 4~ 41 824 ~ 8 • 4.~Q 1762 1709 17061704~a Z G~ G,~G~,E • I500\
49 45 26 A ~ g v' 1708 22 OBBR
I837 1827 44 39 76 8 23 MqT7'~~ HILL
6 180 1797 1787 D~j ~ 7 17 41 18 23g ~ 632 RN- i -
97 765 6 13 C~~? I7Q 20 A 8 27A 1548
15 38 16 128 14 8 1693 710 1673 22 24 1~ I~a U 1.A7 D PARK
S/Fl~ 808 IT68 7 1715 178 64 1633
27 f 26 1550 EADO
T Cj 1552 1343 52
t6I3
RA 17 98 9 28
1840 26 799 12 II 10 m 8A 12 ~ 1593 p7B 4 1395
TS 1 ~
~ 820 23 ~ 18 ~ 1717 1694 612 G~ 1453
~8~ 1e 9~< ne eg !I B 13 14 UNPLATTED G~P 5 51
13 1T8 759 1718 1664 1644 1437 I 85
le~a 23 20 g ~TTFRNp~N 6 3 454 ~ 4s
~R- 14 760 1719 72 ~g 1439 456 2 sj~ 3~ 13Z
11 178322 o 21 lo II A 1634 ~ l ~ 1379 qr'F,y
~
uUcERNE t.AN 1461 y
TAH E DR. 240 7 17 1722 16 8 \y~ 458 TRACT B ~
27 15 16 1880 624 1463 20 22 ~'yy
T 1780 0 1876 1878 9 ~ 1460 I$ 380 F
4H~~ ~ 0 pg 18 1465 v 19 1359 ~y 3:
`9 R. 18~ ALpINE DR. 1882 TRA~CT 1462 23 12E
'R 21 •
e77 20 19 10 II 01339 r 24 c;
1879 1881 1467 1469 25
= DONOV~ ~2 13 14
31
~~e4 PA 13~ 1370 1350 27
RK 15 17 ' a 280 I:
1330 1310
~ ' LSZ
Y ~
i~TOWN OF VAIL Y
Contact: Caroline Fisher 479-2115 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NEWS August 11, 1992
SOMETHING ON YOUR MIND?
TOWN OF VAIL INVITES YOU TO "SPEAK UP"
~ The Town of Vail will host another series of community Speak Up meetings
k~ and extends an invitation to Vail residents, second homeowners, merchants,
and others interested in issues currently facing the Vail community. The
meetings will be held every Wednesday between August 19 and September
9, at various locations and times (see list below).
Unlike the previous two series of Speak Up meetings, which were more
general in nature, each upcoming session will address a specific issue
facing the community. Topics will include the "Vail Vision," the proposed
performance and conference center, quality service, and local government
regulations and policies. Time will be allocated at the end of each meeting
~ - to address general issues of concern to attendees.
~ ~."Answers to challenges facing the community are not always easy to come
by," Mayor Peggy Osterfoss said. "The Town Council and staff rely heavily
- on input from residents and merchants in establishing our priorities and in
overall budgeting. The Speak Up meetings have proven to be a useful
~x mechanism for receiving community input and for faciiitating discussion of
issues."
The Town hosts the Speak Up series three times per year, with meetings
scheduled for a variety of times and locations throughout Vail. The goal is
to provide easily accessible meeting locations with a variety of iimes of day
to accommodate the schedules of most residents and merchants. The
upcoming meeting schedule is as follows
~
Date Location Time
Wednesday, August 19 C.J. Capers 5:15 P.M.
~ a
The Vail Vision... Does it exist? If Not, Is It Time It Did? What is your
vision for the Vail community? What long range direction do you believe is
best for our future success? There are many varied views of what is best
~ for Vail... and many ideas which have not yet been heard. Please share
your views with Vail Town Council members and Town staff.
--MORE--
~
75 SOl°lH FN(1\7AGE R0:1D
N'All_. COIORAI)O £ilbSi
TP.LI.PHOSE 303-474-2100
_
k PLANNt~~ ~~~~~~~~~NTAt,. Co ISStON
AUGUST 1 1992
AGENDA
11;00 AM Site Visits
1: ork ession
2o u lic Hearin
ite Visitso
1°es ui
T11eyB heimer
ii Val(ey edica1 Center
r olf ourse
unici I uil in`
Worksession: 1:00 P.M.
1. request for ork sessi n for can itional use er it for an a dition to the
unics a! uf1 in to hous #he il olice e art en#, Icate at 7 ouf Fronta e
oa st ( t the east nd of the xisting Munici aI uil in and as Ie liy
escribed be1o ;
part of the Southe t f/ of ction ,°fowns i South, rt e 0est of
te ixth rinci aI ri in, County of a 1e9 tat of CbloradoF ore
particularly escrs ed as fiallowsm Commencing t the outheast corner of sai
ction , t nce North 00 degrees 28 inu$es 16 secon s West an alon fh
st line ot sai ut east 1 /4 of said Sectaon 72.75 the East line bf s id
outh st 1A fs i ction 72.75 fe t to a point, sai oint ein 110.00
fe tn heast rly from the so therly ri ht-of- y li e of ' i h y o. as
me sure # ri ht n!es thereto; tence North 7 e rees 46 minutes 11
seconds West nd agon #ine par IleI to si s utherBy ri ht- y Iine
1. 0#eet to 1°he True Point of eginnin y thence No h 1 rs 08
inute 47 se nds East 78.00 feet; thence o de rees 08 , inutes 35
seconds West 4.70 feet; thence No h 6e re s 1 inutes 9secon s
st 152.57 # et, th r~~~ South 7e rees 4 inutes 40 s conds West
192.66 #eet, thence South 52 rees 4 inutes 50 secon s st 36.32 feet
to a oint9 sai oint eing 110.00 feet no heast #ro sai South ri htmof- ay
li of U.S. i yo. s'easur' t ri t n Ies theceto9 thence South
7 e rees 4 inutes 11 secon s st n ion a line paralleI ts i out
ri h# ot y line 585.56 feet to TTrue Point fe inn6n
xc # thaf ortion conveye to th oar of aunty Co is ioners afi a Ie
unty, n the Department ofi' ' i ys9 t t of oIorado y rule nor er
recor e January g 1971 in Book 1 t a 1.
Applicant: To n of Vail
lanher; ike Moliica
~
ublic Hearin 2: 0 .
1. re uest for eter rnation of the parkin requirement for the roposed Booth Fa1ls
P r o8fcours 9 1oc ted on Tract , ai! Villa e 13th Filin ,
Applicant: Vail ecreation istrict
Ianner: ike MoIlic
. re uest for n amendment to an a roved deveIopment lan to aIfo #he shi lh of
te buil sng envelopes t°fhe V ileye hse 700 Iock of uffehr reek oa o
p lican#e neimer
Iannerm n y nu tsen
3. request for front and s°s e set ck v riances in order #o construct an a d°stion at 898
. e. . nds18988e 1rcle/Lot 7, BlBOia k ..9. . il Village ...`h F6l889. o
Applicant: uI n Janet °T s ui e
Plannero °fim Devlin
4. re uest for a conditron Iuse per it to IIow an addition, tempora tr i1ers9 an roof
to ech nical to the ViI Valley Medical ent r Ioc ted a# 11 West Meadow
rive/L ts sasl Villa n ilin ,
Applicant: ViI V f1 y Medical enter9 re resente yan Feeney
I nner: helly eIIo
. otification to the Ianrtin rt nvironmentai o ission concernin inor
amen ent to SDD #4 - Cascade Vi11a e rea A, Cos ri rcel h asca s,
ener liy loc te south of iiirace Condo iniu s nd west of Testin Resort, Vaii,
to aflow an ex nsion to ui8 in foot rint ot to exce fe tA
Applicant: st est rtersg re resente ye th ey
1 n ero h 11y eIIo
o request to mo ify th fndsca in 6an ssoci te €t th reviously approved
xteri r Iter tion ropos 1 for the Nfer ual in , 230 ridge StreeVPart of Lots n
. y Ll.8t. 5, V J~ Village 1fi s` Fi'ii 9 :
Applicant: o and Bet lifer
ianner4 1°s evBln
24,1992
7. A reqtaest for a variance to Section 1895$,320 to allouv for sate19ite dish antennas to be
locate t 'C r n and ApoH r on ominiumse Tr ct y ' il iU e th
Filing/442 n ron#age Road East.
lic rtte ' r rt rt oll ondomir?ium AssocA ti ns
iannero 1"i eviin
TABLED INDEFINITELY
8. request for ork session #or a ajor eh ent to SDD 4 ascade Vi19a to
amen ' th uela ent 1n for th ' aterfor rcef locate t 1275 esth ven
rive n s !e Ify escri e sm
°Th t a of th 1/4 1! $ Section 12, "Townshi outh, ange 1 est
\Af i ~S'/Ab P9 ini60 pa& eC7 d9aA 6,. To n kdJ VSA'lg a.le C . eAnt y ~ lor 3nPy es9Afi B .e.
as fVll47ws4
eginnin t oint on the sout erly ri ht-afp ay line of Interstat Fii h ay o.
7 hence n iron pin ith & stic cap markin the center of said Sec#ion 12
e rs 301 91 " 1447.03 feet; thence Ing s r southly ri ht-of- y line
two courses
1) ° 0°2 229.66 f #
2} i B 74-389 A7" E 160.70 8ee5;
thenc epa in s i 5outheriy ri h#-of-way 1in 04 ' 7" 138.93 #eet;
`hei 9ce S 40o4 914ea 94.32 feetg L$ ~eniae S 180 1 93..99 W 54.08 f SoLy `he0 9ce 101'3 " 205.02 feeta thence 12°07'3 „ 110.2 fieet; thence
2802.93 09 . 164.48 feetg ~~en6de. 40 017'04" W 211.16 ..~eety ..thentide.:.
49042'5 9B .7o 0 f G5g the8 S./ o .5 { i9 5e59 feet; `0 $eB.i.~a 0 P2 5@
{
5.10 feet; thence 9.4 feet aIon the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left
vin ra itas f 65Q fet, a central n 1e of 1014'4~2" nd a chor that
e rs ° 5' `e 66.22 feets thence 3700 ' f„ 118.50 feet °T The
7"rue ant of Beginning, ounty of Eagle, tate of oioradoo
Applicant: MECM nter rises re resent y ustaqui in
1annero helly e1i
, Appeal fstafif inter ret tion of ection 18.58.300- eack fro atercours of the
To n of Vail unici al ode.
Appellant: ob KandeI(
fannerd Ti vIinB ike Moliic
WITHDRAWN
1. sscussBon of final ecisi n re r in Cfon ring amendment.
ay r Pe >y sterfoss
Th a 1ic tions n i fior ation out the ropos Is ar v ila Ie for u lic r vie in th
o unity velopment Department o ice,
11 o Update on PEC issu s
, nta Fe Conf r n- tember.
b. Par 3 Go6f Cour~~ Public Meeting, August 20th, 7:00 p,m,, Counci! Chambers,
C. uck, rist - c edut o
de Cemetery °fask Forcem
u lished in 1°h ae1 Tr ilg ugust 9 1992
-3-
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMI i
August 10, 1992
Present ta#f
reg Amsden ris#an ri
Jeff owen ike ollgca
Chuck rist n y Knu tsen
iana onovan 'fi evlin
Kathy Lart ~nwalter helly e19o
DaIton iiliams
Gena hittert
tarting at a roximately 1000 ..a work session was hel to discuss the Police tai! in ,
The pu lic meetin vvas calle to or er at 2025 m e y hairperson ian onovano
1. A request for a deter inatiort of the parkin requirement for the pro osed Booth FaIIs
ar 3 olfcourse, locate 'on T'ract A9 Vail Vi61a e 13th Filin ,
PPIicant; ail ecrea#oon istrrct
lannera ike Mo9fica
Kristan ritz artnounced that there oul e a eneral ub9ic meeting ort u usti 20th
at 7;00 ,rrto he aske that comments at to ay's meetEng be kept to a inimu if
they i ' not concern the parkin issue So that oth r ite s on the agenda could be
ad resse . cana Donouan reiterated that the PEC as here to iscuss arkin ,ut
that other co ents woul e note m ike MoIlic went Ento the ack roun of the
pro er o DRB does nee ' to ap rove the praject, ut this meeting is bein hel to
eter 'ine the nu ber of parking spaces to be requare for t e course, Jim Morter,
architect for the starter shack9 has tlone an analys0s of fhe parking sace nee , as i
the staff: ike Mo11ica reviewed the analysfs done; vvhach came up avith a nee for 24
parking spacesa H'e afso mentioned fhat the project ill be reviewe after one year to
see hether any ore s aees will e neededa Jo orter of orter rc itects9 the
architect for the starter house came up with a proxi ately the same nu ber of
s ; aces, but use a ifferent analysis. Kathy Langen aBter ske here handicapped
arkin fit on. Ji orfier sae that o handicap ed spaces ere Ianrae , an these
were inc9u ed in the nu ers mentione earlier. alton Wilfia s su geste that we
iay out now the s aces that lght be nee ed' after one year. Ji orfer saa that that
had een done. reg Amsden said e shoul' look for aximu nee for arkln .
Je owen questioraed Ji orter's state ent that the parkira area wouI not used
in the winter timeo H'e responde that this is request fro fhe resi entso alton
illia s sai that the Iot i te use ' yeople ho rive to the road an thera take
the us into #ownm ike MoIlic rea o Ietters received y th 'fo n fro area
resi etttso
. ,
fter bein questioned abau# whether the course wou1 e revenue-producin 9ob
Robirrsons irector of the Vail ecreation istrict said that the Vail olf Course is9 as
ill this course be after approximately 7 yearsa iana onovan asked about fraffic
safety issueso Krisfan ritz responded that these are to be revievved by the Desi n
Rev'sew Boar a Jim orter said that the Public Works Department wi11 aIso review the
tra#fic safety issuess The environmental issues wGII ead resse y the Recreation
District at the August 20th eetin , re Amsden sai tha# a water uafity study is
currently bein done for the 1'ovvn of Vail and the Vail olf Course is being studie
which ay refate to the Par 3oIf Coursee
iana onovan then asked if there was any public input, an the follo ing people
responded.
ob ord, a resident of ald ountaln Road said that wanter arking for bus r'sders
couid e a roblem as the buses are already over~~ow e : He sai you have to get
on the bus go'ng east ound in order t~ ~~entually et to vail. T'm usko, an ast vair
resident, a reed with the use of the busm e sa°s there were no salid numbers. Ffe
also believes the arking wi1l e an eyesores ut er s f ht hel a e ante to
know ifi an environmental study had been onea e sai he has 1 50 signatures of
peo Ie who are op ose to the ~oursee e sai that he as not ar of the revious
public meetings that ere hel on thi5 uesfiono ln res onse to that statement9 ob
obinson said th ec, istrict ran $120.00 worth of ads. Kristan ad e thati the
meetang on the 20th is bein faci9itated by the Town of Vail and notsces ill be sent to
a jacent roperty owners. he su es#e that the lstrict i ht want t run so e
more ads and the l"own will talk #o some 6f the local re orters about eftin an article
in the papers, T"a Krebs thought the issue was a11 about oney. e felt everythin
is bein paved and Irri ated. Tom Fitch stated he liked iife in the valley the ay i# is.
Fie thou ht open space should be ke t i4 and doesn't think this is an appro riafe use
of ublic oney. vie nott of 2645 al ounfain oad c6ai ed she did not receive
notifiication of earlAer ee#sngsm he was concerne a out the number of arkin
spaces an is o osed to the roject. She thou ht someone shoul check the a ie-
Vail ar- oi€ ourse for the nu ber of carsm he as aIso very concerne a out
safety and wanted a decision on the parking to be ta le until after the Au ust 2
meetin . eter Schaefer of 265 al ountain Roa ' 'ad several concernsa e
purchase his house ecause of the oen space an he believe the ark6ng an
#ra ic are retty ad no e wante #b know if a study had been done on ' hether
there is anee for aar-3 oIfi course; an he taestione the safe af the houses
aroun the goIf course and the cars goin o n 1-70o
reg Amsden ta(ked about zonirt 9Kristan ritz sai that Iease for the goIf course
had not yet een si ned9 and that some issues have been raise re ar in the
environ; ental € ac#s an #hat they i!I e answered at the 2 th eetin . ail a1loy
entione that all recreational arkin in a!e-Vail 0s in the Battle Mouratain i h
chool arking lota ob For asked iana Dor~ovart v?hether she was priuately
involve in fi htin the goif course and sh~ ~~swere #hati she was nots Her an
Stauffer thou ht that the roject should` be Iesse todaye Cofleen McCarthy saE that
the issue today rs parkin and that if a major portion af the com unaty is o posed9 that
the roject woul ' be withdrawn. Jirrr 'or#er agaln reiterated that we are to ay ealin
2
with parkin . e af~O mentione that the Eagle-Vail Par-3 course does nat have
parking 1ot and aske the P1anning ComrnEssion to keep an open mindo Sonny aster
of a1 ounta°sn Roada who re resented six other resi ents, is for the projecte He
afso mentioned that he had recei~~ every single notice that was sent out on this
pro;ect, ail alloy, a resfdent of anhs anch oad, was very concerne aout the
parkin if the lo# ere to be lowe m he did not think it was currently a retty iece of
proper no and there remaine 500,004 acres of wi{derness just sho distance
away.
aIton illiams aske if the Fire Departrrtent needs a pfowed access. ai! aIfoy
responde that a fire (ane would e fine, ancy Li sky seconded eve thin that
onny Caster saado he stated that at the iast eetan ea majority of the eople was
for the rojectm She stated that the plans for the golf course sh~ a ve natural area,
nat mowed rass, and she rrtentioned that af ountain Roa has a lot of na#ural
snow meIto vie not wante to kno how arkin i!I e revented as the snow
melts.
Kathy Langenwalter said that the PEC shoul o ith hat the staff reco ends. he
wante 24 spaces plus two handica ped spaces, an the capability to ex an to 30a
Chuck rist requeste that the course be heavily bermed and the parkin close in the
inter: reg Asden wanted to plan for 2-30 cars, with an a ditional for
ex answon. FIe favored ber ing an hea lartdscapin m aBtion illiams wante 23-
24 saces p1us the han icap ed spaces and anras in favor of lannin for the
ex ansion and also berrroih . tie saed that the intersec#ion as bad an aybe some
work shoul be done to improve i#. Jeff Bowen an ena hitten a reed ith the
revious cornmentso re Amsden talked about the liability to cars bein hit by aafi
and oin off the roa , e belseve alor fiability covera e was neede for n everrt
like that. iana Dortovara ante ` 24 spaces art o hart ica ed spacess an six
a ditional spaces to be desi ned for later usev re Amsden sai that if the park°sn
!ot is fuI[ and people start parking on af ountain oa , somethin i!I nee to be
doneo Kristan ritz mentione that an a reement mi ht e ae wefh Vail ountairt
chool if' overflow arkin is nee e; huck Crist ante to k~ow hen iay i61 s#arto
Jim Morter as not sure. ick aiIey9 1andsca e architect for the course, thou ht they
ouI et ra ing and so in Iace this fail, akin the course 1aya Ie for the fall of
1993 r i-summer 1 94e vie Knott anted to krto af 30 spaces coul e staked
efore the August 20 eetFng so eo Ie coul see here the arkin Bot ouI e. lt
as aree that this was a oo ieam Access to the Iot oul e from Bald Mountain
oa , The tofal acreage of the ; roject is 14 acres: athy Langen aiter ade a
mo#°son to deter ine the arkin requIre ent to e 24 s aces and two han ?capped
s acesg ith a capability to expan to 30q base on.a review 1-year after opengra of
the coursea ena hitten seconde the motiona vote ' as taken an the otion
passed unanimouslye
2. A request for an amendment to an approued developrnent plan #o allow the shiftirag o#
the buifding enve9opes at The VaSley, Phase IV/1700 iock of uffehr reek oa :
p Ilcant: tl Znea er
lanner. ndy Knu tsen
-3-
e ~
<
An y nudtsen went over the changes made from two weeks agom e specifical1y
identified the frees ta e preserrved aroun the buildin envelopes4 e sai the
enveIopes were shi ed ap roxi atefy 1 feet out in the meadow, the riueways ha
been redesi ned, and the distarroce fro the house to the road was now acce tablea
1"here was a concern about retaining walls an the road en . iana Donovan
uestioned the requirements of the passing area on the raa 'a ra neimer an#e to
know ?f the Com ission would convey this to the Fire Departmente The Co ission
conclude that the passin area should be deleted fro the design. The Boar #e8t
stron ly a out enchin the units into the hiNside. ra neimer ante to kno if this
rrreant there shoul never be any cut#inga reg Amsden roposed' revise Ian uage
that inc1uded the phrase "in a reasonable fashion.`° iana Donovan sai they nte
hi to add some trees to the est of the entrance and est of the for er ond site.
ro Zneimer said he will do a3t he can not to excee 6 feet in the retaining wails, but
that there may be some 3nstances where he wouId need more #han one 6-foot a1l,
He aIso reques#ed errnission from the Corrra issiort to construct ent features si ilar
to those on As en idge Roa . The Com issson said that those wou1 e acce table.
r; neimer faniShed by sayan how professional and helpful everyone on the
a affee an staf€ has eena aiton Wi#liams moved to a rove the evelopment
1an ith the changes note yAn y Knudtseno Jeff owen seconded an the motiors
was unanimous(y ap rove 9 it the fo9lowin con itionso
1 e rior to the issuance of any uil in rits on ertveiopes 4 throu h 7, the
a pl°acant shall su ft a metes an boun s le a1 escription for each of the
ap roved buildin envelo esm These Ie al escriptions shall reflect the staking
and site Ian presente to the P1anning Commission brt Au ust 109 1992:
2. The trees i ehtifie in this merrro, which vvere used to deter qne the Iocation of
the buil in envelope boun ariesn ay not e estroye ursn the
developrraent of each eravelope. If a tree is destroyed, the applicant shall
re lace lt uui#h another tree or trees which rouide a si ilar amount of
screenin , The DRB shali deter ine rti I and r l number and
specses neede an order to achieve the sar~~ effec#n tease see sste lan dated
Augusf 7, 1992 for Iocation of trees.
3, The applicant sha81 rovide detailed survey ah architectural rawings at the
ti e of evelop ent showin that the retaBnEng wa61s needed for the riveways
to erater on #he sides of the enve1opes do not excee feetm ny ropose
soIuti~n which wouId require retaindng of ore than one -foot hi h all sha16
not e alfo ed un(ess a r t amount of landscaping is adde to the
isturbed area aroun the rivewaym
4. The a licant shall be required to esign the homes in this hase enchin the
structure into the hil}side i r 1 f i in or er to revent ex ssiv
regra ing or retainin ehin the homesa
0 The ap licant has a ree to 1an four conlferous and eIeven as en in front of
the riveway for buiiding envelope 5m
-4-
a
6. The a licanf shal{ lant clusters of trees y the entrance of the deveIop ent
and vuest of the forrxaer ond sitea
7. T'he Piannrng an Eravironmen#af Commission strongly recommends th t #he
Town not require a ull-out0e for cars to pass9 locate roxi afe(y between
envelopes 5 an 60
3, request for front and si e setback variances in or er to construct an additaon at 9
e andstone CircIefLot 7, Iock 3, Vai1 Village 9th i1in m
pplicanto aul an Janet Tes uide
iannera Ti evlin
'fim Deviin gave a quick avee°view ofi this requesfi. A variance had been a roved
several years ago, but nas expire . Tne a plocant now wants a 5-foot sx e and a -
foot front setback variance for construction of a garage and ent Ikitchen additions °The
applicant is vvell tander on FA and site covera eo taff recommen s ap roval of # e
3-feet firont an 5-feet sade setback variancese with con ftions that one €oot taken up by
stone face on a portion of the raorth and vvest facades, and a artpon of #he aspha1t
parkin ad be re aved and the area landscape, iana onovan sai the only
ques#ion was where the asphalt should be re oved. ne of the nearby roper
owners, the Hochtls at 890 ed Sandstone irc(e9 reco end a rovals ena
hitten ha a reservatlon about grantin variances, bu# #his is okay s if is tastefully
es€ he and the Iocation of tfie house warranted so e flexi ili . enera18y9 the
asphalt not in #ront of the new parkin arage wiil e r~ ove an lart sca e, Je
oen rnoue that a sl e and front setback variance be approve ith the stipulation
that asphalt be removed to the east and west of the ra e t at is not use for access
to the gara e an the area shall be iandsca eand tht 1 ft. of the vari nce was fo
alio for the stone. The motion as seconded by huck rist and unanimously
a rove by the Committeem
4. , request for conditional use per it to aIIow an addition an roo# top mechanical to
the Vail Va91ey e ical Center Iocated at 181 West eadow rave/Lots ,Va41
VsBiage 2n Filin ;
ppl6canto 1/ail Valkey e icai Center, represented by an Feeney
lanner: heiiy ello
heliy ou#lined' the major issues. °fhe VV C wants ari 80 sqd it addition; the
tempora trailer an satellite dish have been remove from the request. There iH
also be additaonal roof-$op mechanical, whdch vVill not excee the hei ht of the exfstrn
rraechanicala Parkin is one of the a}or 'sssues on this siteo ith this a dition, the
VV C now has a surp€us of fkve parking spacesa taff reco ends a rova9 ith one
con ition they ou! like to see the barrier fence an revegetation of the strea bank
ort the west instalfe r?or to the release of a'te porary ce ificate of occupancy for the
roject. 1'his wrfl improve an insure the condition of the s#rea anko
an Feeney„ re resenten the VV a ree ith these rovisions an Iso a ree to
recons?der the propose facade ;aterials an brin the to the DRB. Jet€ owen
wante #o know if there is a set ti e for the Ie rnin , fab to move. The answer as no,
-5-
m
.
ut it wifl be moved etrentuallyo He then asked t~~t when that parking space b~~~
available, wiEf it be a roble to terminate the lot 10 arkin a;an feeney state that
the VV C has contingency plans when that happensa They kno tha# sametime in the
future they wil4 Iose fhe Iot 14 parking spacesa aIton illiams had a corscern about
the parking on °Town 'roper o omeday someone t the 1°own may take th~~~ ~
~waym ill the hos ital e able to acco oate the Ioss? DaItort ifliams wen# on to
request bus sto right in front ofi the hospital, The VV re resen#atives state fhat
this has been discusse in the past, ut that there are many pro Iemsa ristan ritz
sai she would brIII It up lfh PlJbllc Works. iana DonoVatl waClted it noted !#1 the
record that any time the Iease vuas cancefied the a licant ouId ave to 'rovide the
the 10 parking spaces on sitem Jeff owen aske what rent as bein pai o The
VV repreSentative respon ed that it was $10.00 er year an that the VMC has
paid for existin lightin esecurity9 an pavin 9etc.W vvhich exis#s in return fior the abiiity
#o use the parkin aKathy LangenwaIter move to a proue the request for
conditional use per it with the condition that the stream lan sca ln an barrier e ut
~n within 30 days ofi the issuance of a buldin per it an that the VV C ali e
required to rovide aIternatlve parkin to iot 10 with their next ex ansione Chuck rgst
seconded the otion, and the request as unani ousIY aPproved.
5, otifica#ion to the lanning and nvironmental Co rnissson cortcernen, inor
a endment to SDD #4 - Cascaae vcllage rea s cos riff Parceirrne Cascadese
enerally Iocafed south of il9race Condo iniu s and west of The Westan Resort, Vail,
to ai9ow an ex artsion to a buil in foot rint rtot to exceed 5 feet,
p6icant: East est artners, re resente by ed Gwa#h ey
fartnere helly eIIo
~
DaIton Wiliiams expressed' cmncern abou# the parking situatlon ort VVesthaven C7rive9
which is befn riven y the closure of Ievel 3of the Casca e illa earktn
tructureo Kr°sstan ritz res onde that she is piannin to iscuss the issue ' a#h the
Town ouracil on this mattera a6ton ii9ia s feeis we shoul ' Ut ressure on (f the
deveIopmenfs in SDD4 to resolve the arkin ro Ie , ena , hitten sai that e
shoaai not ut ressure on only one person to solve this ro ie o Jeff oen sai the
o ittee should o ahead and ap rove this, ut something shoul ~ one in the
future. a#hy L.an ehvvalter thou ht at inap ro riate to rtot approve this request due to
the arkin issuem he asked if'the PEC coul sert a le er to ro erty owners sta#in
th~ ~oncerns about` a rovong anythkn in that SDD with the currerat arkin ro le s;
ristan ritz said something needs to be done an ' the staff is working on the issue;
huck risf oved to sup ort the staff decision with the con ition that the staff dra a
letter to the °fowrt ouncil on behalf of the PEC discuss?n their concerns, hich as
seconded by re sden and unani ously a rove 'e
otson was ade by a#hy Langenwaiter and seconde y huck rist to table and
with raw the re ainin ite s on #he agenda.
,
.
MEMORAhlDl1M
°f m I nnan an nvir nment I ommission
F . ommunity eveIopmen# artmertt
1° m ugust 1, 1992
U J 1°A request f ra rk session for canditional use ' r it for n a ition to the
Munici Iuil in to huse the ViI olice De rt en#', Ioc te t 7 outh
rontage Road West ( t the e st end of the existin unici Iuil in nd as
( aIly escri e elo o
'a fi t outhe t 1'! fectiort , Township 5 Souths ne 80
West of the ixth rinei af eri ian, otanty o# Eagle, tate of olorado,
more pa icularly escribe s fallo sa ommencin t the South s#
corner of sid Secti n, thence No ree inutes 1
seconds s# nd alon the East Iine of sai outh st 1/ o# sai
ection 72.75 th st {ine of s i uth st il f s i ectiort
7,7 feet to a point9 s i Ant in 110.00 #eet ortheasterly fro the
southerly ri ht-of- y lin f U.S. i,h yo. s measure t rl ht
an Ies th re#o, #h nce No h 7; e r es 46 inutes 11 s conds West
n lon ifne par lIel to sai southerly ri htmof4 y line 145.50 feet #o
The T"rue Point of Beginning; thence North 1 e rees 08 inutes 47
seeonds East 78.00 fee#e thence arth 6 e rees 08 inutes 3
secon sest 4.7 feet; th nce North 66 de rees 1 inutes 29
secort s ' est 152,57 feet, thertce South 27 e rees 4 inutes 4
seconds West 192.66 feet; thence Sout 52 e rees ` intates 50
seconds st 36.32 fiet to oan#9 sai oint ein 110.00 feet
no east fr s i out ri ht-of- y 1ine of o o igh yo. s
measure at ri tn 1s ther to; tnce outh 7 e rees 46 mnufies
11seconds Easf n ion &ine r IIeI to sai outh ri ht of y line
585.56 fe # to The °Tru oint of eginnin ;
xcept that orkion conveye to the aar f ounty om issdoners of a l
ounty, n t e e art ent of i haysa tate of oIora rule an r r
recor e J nuary 5, 1971 in Bo0 219 at age 4 10
Applicant: Ta n of il
lanner: i ilica
w:.•..:>:
.:f: .
1. DESCRIP'flON OF °T1°!E RROPOSED REQ11ES'T
Th Town of Vai6 is ruesting a Conditional se Per it to a1[o f r th xpansion of
the Vai6 olice De r nt, Iocafed at 7 outh Front e Ro o The property on
hich th unici al ' ui in ( i includes the exestin Vail . olice e ent) is
!oc te ; is zon lic Use Districte u !ic buil ings and pu Iic s rvice facilities r
consi red Con ition Ises ithin the istrict, ursuant fo h ter 18.36.030 of the
Town's unici fi odea ecaus t e ro os x nsion t th VaiI olice
Departmen# is a modific tion to rt xisting us , a Con stiona! iJse Per it is r uir v
The Pu Iic Use District is f iriy uni ue in th t the development stan rs #or the istric#
re specific !ly rscri e ythe Ianning Co ission urin the reuiew of
v lopment roposa14 This revie is not unlike the Special evelopment istrict
rocess here yset acksg uil Fn h i hts ensity contro#g sitie covera 9 and
I ndsc in rt site deveIopmertt ar speci#ical4y tie to a development i ne T o -
stree# r in requirements r Iso establishe by the Inning and Envaronment I
o issionm
IL PRELIMINARY I t
°The proposed expansion to the Vail Police Department would be located irr,mediately
to the st of the ex?sti olice f cilityo o-s#ory bui6 ing of approximately 17,400
squ re fe t o# offsce space wouI e constructed on top of o Iev ls of struc#ure
rkin m The ross ar of th o levels o# structure rking wouI consist of
a proxi ately 33,172 s s o T°his includes 4,065 s e fto edicate to th s Ily rt,
ooking, hof ing ceils, ec nic i, stor , nd circu1 ti n corri orse The r r
# t tir r j t would 50,572 o ft> 1ase see th tt ched sit lan an
floor Ins far rspecific in#or ation re r in the l yout of the ropos I. l'o ssist
in the rview of this rojects a scal ode1 ill' e resente t th hearin .
} rkan:
°fhe new parking gacage wi61 accommodate 70 vehicles, pfus tvvo spaces in the
sally o m 1'he entire u r Ievel of t rking stru ure wou1 edic ted to
secured police rkin (34 spaces), an the 1ower 1eve1 oul st fi# n /or u 1ic
rkin
The existing parking for the Murticspal site is as follouvsa
7 spaces - east o# unici 1 ual ing
49 spaces _ etween the Munici ! uil irt n th urtaci I nrt x
11 s ac s - s# f the MuniC's l Anrtex
1
The existing surface parking betweert the Municipal Bui9ding and the Murt6cipa( Annex
(4 s ces), n the r fng spaces west of the Mun'sci l Ann x (11 spac s) wi1I e
ret in `ith t; oIic xansion, The r ' tr t r r i )
and #F~~ surface parking which will be re#aIned after the PoIice addition (60
spaces) ' 130 gi
-2-
) ite re m
1'he Municipal si#e consists o# 1,482 acresa or 64s556 square feet.
C) iLe~~
The existing sit cov re is approximately 17,775 squar feet, or 7.
°Th roposed site cov rage9 ith t ne olice additione is proxi tely 28&5
squ r feet, r 434%o This does not inclu the f a rint o# th under run r in ,
which is ro ose to be co Ietely eneath the su ace of the roun m
) tail irt_ eightm
1°he maximum hei ht of #h existin unic°s al uiI in is approximately 34 fee#.
T iu hei ht of the propose itabn to th olice uil irt is approximately
4 feeto
Ila 1 1 1 INGS
Because #his is a work session, the staff will not address each of the review criteria for
the Coraditional Use permit at this time. However; the fo1lowing criteria will be used at
th fsn 1 he rsn to deter in h ther or not t e rogecf shoul rove or enie o
1 o elafibnshi rt , i ct o# th use on deve1o nt o jctives of th To n.
m Th c& of i mds ?Al1g6H6 68d Brq. dC~~~ibutEo8.9.f pop6Al R8onyStl nJpVr 6,'o .
f CIlIt1 s' utlllt9 s, ~chools: ~ s an f creat9 n facIlitl 5, 9l ' oth r Li jic
needsa
3. 1"h ffect upon tr ic wit icular ref r nc to congestion, utomotive and
pedestri n s fety nd conveniencep tr ic flow and con#rol, ccess;
aneuver ili gan r ovaI of sn fro street n r°n rso
4; Eect uon char cter of the area in hich th ro ose 'use is to focate ,
inc1u ln the sc 1 nd bulk o# the pro ose use in rel tion to the surrounding
useso
1. 1
1 0 5ife PlaMinn
° S.m6ld86 8. $ootpr9@ I((se1.b . 6d . q.
° Vehicular ccessp
- e ~~tri n access {side ax , crosswaIks, uil ing entri s}p
m Landsc itt n; ra in g
0 CDOT ccess per it! auth Front e Ro t rove entsa
2. rchitectural onsi eratiorts
. . ss. . n .b8Alk:sc 8ey
- Co ti iiify ith th existing Munici l Buil in 9
- S ofi aterials;
- Fenestratians
4 eveBo ent tandards
- rkin ,
p Buildfng tteight;
- Set cks;
- °rte cav r e;
_ Lndsc 'n,
m FIoor I ns
_ ompati ility ith t existin unici fuil in ;
- verall ! youto
, Comprehensive lart
- L nd Use Ian;
~ ce tw n Tr ils I ng
- Trans ; o ation I n.
CAMIKEWE ; ~~OME -
'
EXtT RAMp
r•: ~
• ~ ~ - • `no
lnsxrr~ rE`n~Grp'rasy+~ a,.
1 f°"•a
- . . ~ " 3 .a 1~+. i ~ p •
. . ...i . .z ~ ~ . 1.~. y: .
. >
-T,
+4 i w ~
1`° ...si ~ Y
. . . ~ . . _ .
2
:~90~L, 16
"
~
~
~
RGAA
inIJiYJ~ ! a r~
~
~
= 11, ,
Q
e ~
~ -f-
~ . I~LL LOGKERS~ LOG%ERS
g . ~ -1 . ~ . . . ' . .
000
. A50 L - . M ~ (•AiRGt y . .
ca-wiwirr sance 8 ~ L~SC~J ENFOnGE I I~~ . SLEEP bl._ ! G 6EANT ~ C. R GS1 t M7Rr
9
~ r~ ~ , c~ ~ _.__l •
a
STO~A6E . ~ b .
O ~J
~H f
y~ 37~
8. } ~PR£P ~ INVES11BAilIN~S~ ' SCERGEANT l.s'v~ EQJIPH¢NT
I`•.~, p Q Q j 0 D p<l~ ~ 1
~H <7 r
• GpAI
FEGOaD5 -
. CJ ~ . . .
, W._. ~ _
~ : Ti0/'ERtt STEN6 A P2 . . . . . ~ . . . . .
~ Fl- -INT - ~
9
!
~
:
~
~ A AIN FLOOR PLA
R6UP SELOW
r°---------------°--
1
_e..._~_~~___ '
~
i ~
~ q
I „Ah6 I
G0NFEFaENGE I
I Pd5 ST MYAC GO"fR)TER 1
! L~-_
1 ~
9
I
~ ~ i
MEGN 9~171N phd t
_ ~
O -G~g -J '
? `s 70ILEY Y-Y
` 0 IP~R I
GOFPEE
~ GOPr i ° ~ ~ IIN 1
\
DI A7G8i f~
et o Q 1
!
G aG Iu C.I NT UE.7TENAFlT 5E F M
pP1 T
~ ~GE ~
t C? D CI
/ d
E Y D
i 3
i
DEGK ~r- J
~ ~
i
~ry
LJ iJ ~ , . ' K ~ ,~@, - ,~S ~ ~ i •r .o. _ - .
yR
m~
~
Y ROoF BeLow,
~
. , 4 4'• :
UPPER FLOOR PL,AN
. . . . .,s . A . ~i5~aw .z. a
~ ° z~ l _ ?vs""~,. ° r~~~ e51i 1 ~ . ~~9e ~ •
~
~
~
I
v,~c~
( 8. ~
~ F77,7
931 ~ 4t I '191 241~. ~It 22~~' Zl: .
- t 95 16 27: ig.~
PATROL PARKING,
ACCES§ TO lQBBY~ -StCVRE STAIR
TO.'A&OVE
R80VE~,:.POi1CE AN6 STAFf
1
~ .
~ ..5~. 24
` 4 34.~. 33.~ 32~ 31! 30~~. 29~ 271 26 ,
o~ T UBS1E ~ VY a~N UP ~
- H 4/ AC'
r.SEPaenil0 ' . ~ .
i&OMo~.SFn . '
.SAI.I.YFORT
T
; _ ~
,
IidTOX fLEC7RtCAL
MECN STt3R' ?
. MUN3C BOOK}N ~ . ~ ~ - • . ~ ~ , .
_ ~ ~i,
.
_Tl `RAMP.~p~Nj•.. , .
~
~ L HdLDIrIG' • . ~ VSTAFF~
I53TaR V. . ~ ~J . . .
~ . , _ .
~JUi!EN CROddP ~ C + - -
allSTING i NEW ~ '
~ GARPGE ACCESS
- _ • PA7Rdl
_ - • 57,0.FF
> Vi5170R
~ ~
A
. , _ ~ ~ . . ~ ~ ~
• _ 'P` ~ ~t~`•)"~ j~~ ~ ~Pi.
.
~ • . + 4 { ~ ~ ~ t L' al~St~~ ~ ~ ~rv,'~ :SJf~
• . . - ~ ~ 2 ,~q! r~~, ` < .i. '`7~ jr i ~rt'.~i,~:a -
. ' o ' 1 ~V ` y3i}~ ~4J1 ~.t ~l..F 4 5 ; J•n Lb.i~"~~ r~:'Cr : at . {w
, ~A' 'a•vs^~ay..•• F`:4 'r~t:-~d'ro'~a' .r4y:, s.it~ ~a, n~
e°Y._5.. i,g :9';?„' .,83`''~aa'°+•`i:'~: '-k.i','cs4,«.>:. *`i.i,f. ~3~ ~
. ~ ~ .f ...4.
, - •,t
`r
: r,~• :'s.~.
- `r~; ~.s'~~:,~
i,-°•.. .c.,_
~
:•,.n <
f'
r... p
.`q'•
p~,r• ~.+~'i':.i.:.;;'.., a ~_+.-v.
,
t-
,
P s
+JL~f
<
~ . , . - ~ ~ .
e,~°"X.•;'~,.d k~'~':.~::,'.
. , ,
i <i
~
" ~ a4~
. . . ~ . 'H..:., ~
^f~ ' 'iF
. .~F=e :a,e „3.,
!~#,%j=% -.4_
t
.'~e - ~'3~~ .a: q~ 1'~~r,:,~r~,.. ,:+gg. ~-„~f .'2"l ±,L^:~. .e~.?~^• i>:a'.-_
- ~:s• , a.,~ ~
.~A
4{y.
a stEd::
~`5~ ,•°u ~t Ii::~r. 5+.,-'z
.r 3~. .f: - f. rA 1v•
. s'
~
A
!
:f ' 1 ~ : / y~ h^ . 4 /,,~6
k~' 'u~Y e i ~ ,;y'b~,% -''~,y • '~;q4 ~it••~~.,, ~ ~k - ~a^ ~ft.~' `"ne~^. , ~ ~;';w
~
.
,
- '-*~rea:t~ ~„i, ~ i .t ~ar w a i { : ,r~ ' ^I` • ' t:'`' .~h'; ^ '~+..¢,w
. ~
. r.,~
. , e .
i.
~
~
. ~ , ne+.. . .
~
~n ;t,a~' ; • r
r.~
J~ .F•a.,
s_... .
- -c~~
.
s~
_"'.u"~ ~
! n mk _
[:y *'Y 1 ¢Y; j ~ .~~at.~,' j''?`,°J . ;d:,* ,,s "•r^.,~~np~[°r..~:a.«r:t,•t*~~?.- i„ " ;x .
' ~ ' ~ I ~Aµ',1~ ' } _y,- - ~ t±N k^ ~ "R`t...'., .)'="'~yt ~ •
~ I . Y LL V $ y 4 F f H,
~i iq•y~ :..,y ~ ;8c.n ~ .,p4°'l > Y 'p
m, { , ~~~~~•~"#"~'~g°.'~o- ~.~;y~p, ,A
. 1 K ~4.• ~s1x~.,aw,~{?M1 L,~~ 'u.u,,
'T~.l~~i
~ . I' ~ : " --1e~° .rt.;-•° ~c~;, t~~~rF ~ ~,t F
W 30~,r~, - "h' ) - ~ 4 i J?
' . • ~ :'fl I , ~''.~5'.'M _ _ ° ~ - .r ~ § ~ w t tp~'t ~ s~, . +
_ -~~;.t`~xrr . - yy-•-~
n".Y j
~ - , . _ . . '`N"" . ..a'~ ....y - _ ~``w,s •i?~ '~`~ix>`: ; - <i''~.3:.a'7.,
.
~ . . .
,
MEMORANDUM
T : PIannin and Enveron erttal o ission
F . ommunity eveIopmen# epart ent
T e ugust i ae 1992
U J Tm request €or eter cnation of the parkin re uaremenf for the ro osed
Booth Falls Par 3 oIfi Course, iocated on Tr ct ; Vail Vallage 13th iIin .
p Iicartte Vail Recreation istric#
Planrterm ike ollica
1. DESCRIPTION
°C ai3 ecreati n istrict is ropos?n to construct a-hole, ar-3 oIf course an the
Boat FalIs area, generally Iocated south of I ountain Road an north of
interstate-7 e The property upon hich the golf course is roposed ta e Iocate ' is
currently owne y the °town of Vaify an is le ally escri ed s Tract , V i# Vilia e
13th Filin s The rope y is zone ricultural and Open Spacee 7'he ropose ar-
If course is consi ere 8e er ie use°° an is a11o e as a use- y-ri hte esi n
Revie oar roval is re uir efore construction can be in,
The r t f r t t ing and Envir tf Commission i t tr i
the parking requirement for the proposed 9-hote, par-3 golf course. This request
is ursuant to ha ter 1: ,1 (c,1 1`) of the To n of V II unics aI oe: ecause
f the if#icul of listing aII the pot ntia! uses art #heir ssociated parkin
requiremen#s in th nin a , any use not 1iste ' in the Code shaC1 e deter Ine
yth lannin an nviran ental Co ission, hence this requeste
IIm ANALYSIS
At the request of the planning staff, the applicant has estirTtated what they believe to
the appro riat nu er of r uire rki~ spaces for the proposed goIf course
facility@ Attached t this memorandum is Ie r from the Vai9 ecreation istrict's
rchltect, Ji o r, ate ' July 20g 1992, eta°rlin his an lysis nconc6u in th t23
arking spaces shoul e require for the rojecta
The Ianning staff has si u1taneously co Iete research ith re ar to the required
number of par 'n s aces for the facili . e have consulte local n rtationaily
reco nized goIf course archi#ects9 etropolitan istricts hiCh oper te -hole goIf
course f cilitiess an front-range munwcApalities in or er t fully uh erstan the par 'n
eman ` of a par- facilitya Trou h t is research9 it as becb e apparent that there is
no standar : r- oif course parking requirementm
The plannfng staff has taken a conservative ap roach vvith regard to our
reCommendation for the required parkin for the goIf course. hile we be{~eve that
adequate parking needs #o be require s e are very sensitive to the residential
char cter of the immediate area an to th site°s natural characteristics (potential
wetlands)9 nd woul refer to mini ize the ount o# s halt used for the r jecta
e beiieve th t hen the ro osed goIf course is at axi um capacity, to#al of nine
foursomes would be on th coursew In addition, e believe t at one fourso e ill e
itin #a Iay on #he course, nd one foursome wiIi e finishin , This tot ls eIevert
€oursomes or 44 eo Ieo From our researchID the staff has estimate that on the
aeaverage°` there woui e two people per vehicle9 for a total of 22 vehicles.
d ition 11y9 the Recreation District has an#icipate that ther~ ould be two staff
members neede to operate the goff course facilitya it is antici ate t t each sta
e ber oul rive their own vehicle, for total ofi o staff vehic6es. s
ti t i,t 1 i t ti t t f ttI f 24 parking spaces
shouId be reqtaired for this facitityo Thas estimate is based on a proposa9 with no
restauran r9 Ii it ret il (350 s o ft.) an it s a11 snack rof a roxi atelY
15 s , fto in sizes
Itlo STAFF 1
ltport review of the applicant's request and based upbn the anaiyses in Secfiion 11
ove, th staff ou1 recommen thafi total of 24 arkln saces e require for the
ropose -hole, ar03 oIf coursea ecause we readily ackno !edge that this parkih
analysis is based upon a nta er of ssu tions, the sta oul aEso r commen th t
the par-3 goif urs faciii reviewe y the PEC orte ye r fro Ets initiaf' openira
ate: T e int nt of this r view would be to deter ine i# th required number of parking
spaces ss ufficient. houl the estimates a y th Ianning staff be fo 9an the
4arking space rov to be insufficient to han I the rkin nee s f the goIf
courseg the PEC woul ` the h ve th opportuni t re uire additional parking at #his
oneaye r revae eThe initial si n of the parkin rea should a61o for ossi 1e
future ex ansian of erha s four #o ei ht ditional spaceso
c:Uts6WmemosSpev3 -2-
A us on C ;=po~at:txr
a ~
J4 ; MORTER ARCHITECTS
1.^i t`.v..C'..._ . . . .
Jtzly 20, 1992
Plannin arad Envaronmenta1.
Cornrnissior~ embers
Greg s n
Jeff Bowera
Chazck Crist
D3.ana onovan
Kathy Langenwalter
~~ltan Wi.llaarns
Gena Whitteax
Dear EC Mernbers,
We'11 be c~~ing to see yau at the Plannin and nvironmental
Co ission meetizag on Au ust 10, to confirm the number of arkin
spaces required f or the proposed Par Three Golf Course at the Booth
Creek aread
Per instrtzctions from ake ollica, Assi:staa~~ Director of Planrxin ,
I have determiraed how many spaces I feel are ap r~pra.ate based ono
experi.ence in designira olf faca:li.ties; industry ui elines; and
roj ections for the user types of this arta.cular course,
urin the three ubla:c i~put sessioras aver the past year,
resi ents in °the Booth Creek ar°ea haue been xzite c1ear on at Ieast
fa,ve oints regardin the roposed Par Three Golf Course o
1.0 They enthusiastica1:ly support the a. ea of constructing the
course, with the understarading that m . o- . o _
24 The sgarter house and parking must be located' at the east end
af the roperty a
3. The arking must be screened from view to the exten°t ossi lem
4. Th~ arkin area (s) m~st be as small as possi le„ arkin the
fewest number of cars as is ractical.-
5s The parking area (s) are not to be use in tl~e wint+er time.
MORTERARCHITECTS
PEC Letter, Page 2
gach a:scu~sion has er~~~~~ ar i.n how, an ' y who , the course
will e tzseda
1. he project wi11. ONLY inc3.u e the nane ho]:~ ~ar three course,
associated starter otase and ~arkin , an a sma7:1 r~~ti~e
putting reen for th~ ~f t~~~~ who wall lay the course.
2. 'I°he s~arter house wi31 include; an area far the st.arter,
and for minimal sales of such requa.re items as alls g loves,
etc; an area for venda.ng xna,chines; restrooms; a rop~~ate
storage; an ar~a for course maintenance e ui ment; and a e~ .
There will be no praetsee tee; no si nifi.carat retaiI, and no
restatzrant operation.
3. The coazrse will e used rimarily by4 ~ami3ies, ath vi.siting
and local; chil ren; and beqinning o1fers jus°t learning the
amem
There will be a maxgmum of thirteen four~omes of eo 1e at the
course at any one time - nine f oursomes on the course, an f our
f oursomes either waiting to play, ~or having refreshments aft r
Iay. Of those thirteer~ ~oursames, we estimate six will be
families; three will be children; and faur saill be made up of
mi:scellaneotzs p1ayers a
e roject: one and one- a3.f cars er family foursome (~~~e
f oursomes wilR include one f amily, some two f aanilies) ; no cars f or
goursomes of children, and f or the remaining foux goursomes, we
project twelve cars (f~ur cars each far three foursornes, and one
foursome arriving by Town o£ Vail bus)m In ad ition, we lan ta
rova e two staff ar ing s aces ° or~~ erson will run the
operation, and one maintenance vehicle will e coming and goingm
P Y TY~ ~ ~ S
Family Foursomes (6 x 1.5 cars') 9
Chi1. x°en's Fotsrsorttes (3 x 0 cars) 0'
i~~el1aneous Foursomes (3 x 4 ~ars) 12
Bus aders (I x 0 cars ) 0
Staff (2 x 1 car) 2
TOTAL 23 C S
MORTERARCHITECTS
EC Iae't.°t,era Page 3
e l.ook fe~rward to isctzssing th~~e nurnbers wz.th you ~n August 10.
r
J~ s m ~rt~~°, AI1~
TE ~~TIT~CTS
cc: Ro Robinson
a m e A 1~ 9
P
CL„vt OL r-
~RECEIVED _
V , CC) 61 ~ ~ 0 J~t ~ 19
'2 R °
, i °
C` A
~
_ ~ !c~-
CLA
, C
Cut
1'~ j µ . ~
ii
C C~ ~ a ra v-f --~c- e 4-z;, ~
' b 1c# ~ha-Lile ,
cit Pe r' u i 4z 1-,,ave
CL CCqv~e l~ z a , ~ ~'3 f? Y' koC? .
~
~ ~ ~ ~ ` + iS /
S CL a^ c~
G~
~ ~ •
A-R C~ ~
~ CC-f-LISe 7 ci S f 0 f-S d
~ CL,~
~
' C, Y 00 vIi a" ~ 4 ,
9
IS ct
c;
~
ecl $cOes
' # Cj m s~ C Y"`Ca. Z. e
4-G~c +'U Y
ci n
A c,
,
Ova-
4CA S t
Va'a vak-~-~-~- i °`-t. o a
h ci P) a v~ c;(c4
I Y,
ac ~e C;c ed f a ~ ~ ~ 4 0 lcj ~--1Nt~ ,
~ ?
cv- non¢ a
~
C>Y -P- C) T ' ti
C) cIO /if d'tA ~ vt CA
C (mi J yvt v s j- kyll .AA, cl
. 0 C° C'L 10 bc~ c
„
cj CA 4t) avn"
(A 'cl-t ve I o ~ d- f l-n tvvvck, . ~ cl e
C~ $
cWt
FC~
c I
~
0
i
~
~ , .
rvl CL t~
d
~ ~ • H p ~ o b , CIL,3 CLkA-,4 b
-F t,,c
~x
~:im ;
~ . w r 'iS4"" e' ~ Prin`~
~ iy` ~ ~ y- i-
, C
J U l 2 ~ ~90
. CA 6 . B ~ ~ ~ e~l B
f q: ~ v c'(6-. a. 4- Q 1 vi -LVk, rV t 4At , . ~ 4-
c
L' 01"7 C Se- $ v,
c_ : l d
r . ,
~ "cj s k-e~ o
1
° v -p- to p wLtv,+ of f-~o-~ p c~~ ~ ~ .
('34,tl CVLX- ~ ~
' ~ CL/VICI .
~ ~ ~ y- i ~ o s-°, CA-1-cl
vo + Le
c
,f~ ~ ?11 ~
V A'Lk ~ ~ e vv,, .
,
~ ~ ~ VA o L'o
4,
0
CIr.~ 1 I , r't ~ ~ 4- `°e ` S ~
S4-t ,
~ ci,t ce
t -t
favl ~
. Ct ( ~ Yx Vt S ~ c, i'C ~ .
JUL
a , a, m o
PRA,C79CE L1M1T'ED T'O ENI7OC24NT3CS July .23, 1992
Pl.annixag Commission
Co unity Development
75 S ~ Frontage Rd ,
Vai1~ ~O
Dear Ssr:
Niy wi~e and Twish to express our complete suppoxt for
the Golf Course praject_ a.n the Ba1ci Mountain Road area,
ril axad Ihave hacl our home at 2550 ld Maaantain Road,
East half, for eleven years. Ig is very exciting; tm see
saac~ a we11 developecl pI.arrm It is obvious that a great deal
of thought and ingea~uity has gone i.nta this project and
ri1.yn and i appreciate a1l the t' eanci effort that has
made this project co~e t~ ~eality!
Vail is a great p1ace ta lave, va~~tiora and playa
I hnpe that it wi1T a1ways contgnue to be a-p1ace of en~~
1ally
Ran ~Jo11ard, D,I3. S .
RLJ/
PLAZA PARKWA.Y BUILDIIVG, SU#°tE 517
4620 NiCHOLS P,4RKV+/tkY
KANSAS CiTY, M1SS0UR! 64112
816-561-9666 896-561-9667
~
MEMORANDUM
T o 8annin nd Env€ronmental ommission
FROM: Community eveIopmertt epartment
T: uust1;1 2
SUBJECT: request for n en ment #o an ap roued development f n to Ilo the
shi fn f the buiI in nv Iopes t T'h iley, Phase 1W1700 lock of uffehr
Creek o ,
Applicanta Ed Zneimer
lann ro n y nu tsen
BACKGROUND
On ovember 12, 1990, the fanning and Enviro ent I Commission approved th
evel nt I rt for hase VI f Te Iley. 1' is s a mo ifi tion from an Eagle
County approval hich Ilo ed 4 unifs an 77,150 s, , t F o 1°he T n of VaiI
appcoval allowed thirteen primary/secondarry homes (26 un1ts) and 65s900 sq. ft, ofi
F o If uilts each secondary unit iI'I b require # e a deed-restrict c retak r
unito ix of th uil ing envelopes rloc t n hof uffe r.reek o and
seven were located on the south si e. l"hree sin Ie family resi nces h v een
deg/eloped at this t9 e o!1 the sol~th sI e.
1111e DESCRIPTION
n i r, #e dev io rn li nts uI lik to just t Ic#°son of the
r inin four nvefopes south of u r reek Ro, lieves t t yshifting
th velopes, th re lnin ho s to be constructed wiIf e Iess visa { ill
lac te in a more environmentaliy sensitive manner. °C curr nt a iic tiort invalvesm
o hiftin uiI in envelopes q, n 7# th s#,
hiftin th uil ing enveIopes to t southF ouf of the meado nd pa ially
1nt0 the Sfeesq
o evis'sn the 6cation f the road so th t it is c! s r t the h es;
e edesi in the road so th t it ruir s less fill tconstrucfo
Illm RECENT # MODIFICATIONS
Since the work sessionS the appltcant has dropped his reguest to expand the building
enveIope sizeo has iso revise the uildin nv 1o e Io tmons t reserve sf n s
of trees that or er the envelopesa eI 6s an analysis of th f ctors us to
t r ine the Ications of each sit ofi ach uil in nve6o e. ome of th ener I
ssu tions us sn justsng the site In since the work sessiort r s followse
1. u{l ifi envelope size IIl not be mof~ th 41 4,500 . e Th~ sh es of the
bui! ing envelopes are not i enfi I r ct ngles9 ut are Itere to refiect st nds
of tr es a j cent to the enveIopeso
2. T ere are seuer l cIusters of trees aroun th ull ing envefopes hich iII e
r serve m uil ing envelope 4 has a cIuster of six ines on t e e t si e, o
aspen on the north side$ an three ines on the west si eo uil ing envelope 5
has a cluster of six aspen and o iraes on th nor#he st corn r and one I r
spen on t e n rt side of th envelope th t €ll e reserve o uil in
nv !o h cluster of trees on t no heast corn r roun hich te
bui1 ing env 1ope has been notch .There re approximately fift en trees in
this cluster th t ill be reserve o Iso, there is one i re pine on th st
side of t envelope that wiII e reserved. inally, uil i~ enve{o 7 h s
0 1ar e ines on the east si e, hic r us #o set the boundary of #hat
velopeo Thesep t0.P0P; ill G.0 serve. i Ify . C06 8 ~he pro0P . 3sf l86BnTtr16cG0o9 9y
any of th s tr s re destroye ; the applicant hs ree to re I ce the it
s many tr s as are neede to rovide t same effecto The DRB i11
eter in the s`rze, number n s ci s of the trees t lant , I se see
te affached site plan for locations f these trees.
. nv lopes re shrfte roxi tely 1 fie tut in front f t toe of the slope
in an effo to balance i ac to the meadow n for ste hi1iside.
. share riveway has been desi ne for uil in envelo s 4 an , as II
s uii ing ehvelopes 6an 7: 1°h riv ys h ve been i entifie t#his ti
n it is gener Ily understoa h t trees i11 e cut do nin r er to
accommo t the riveways, 9n each cas s they have been desi ned to
approach th uil ing envelope #ro th s4 eo
m 1'he se r tion be een the house an t ro (s measure t the mid- oint
f the envelo ) ranges €ro 7 t to 29 f t for nvelopes 4, 5, an $
rs ctivel o t th ork session on July 7p th i th ts ar ti n
between t ro and the homes of approximately 35 f touI e acce t! a
o i t il9 e a1ntai~ed at i# t for ost # the ro o T'h ir
Department hs requeste th tn 1 foot i " ull-out'° Inn for th
a 6e f the rive ay etween envelopes 5 an m This wou1 IIow two c rs
# ; ass in this rea.
I. STAFF i
Staff believes #hat the applicant has situated the ertveiopes irt the best locations
possi ! . iuen t smze of the enveiopes an th a unt f GRFA r viously
approved, the mass and bulk of the homes ill be signific nta However, staff eIieves
th t thes Iacations iti ate the mass and bui s much s possi Ieo
-2-
fter fkin the site €th the licartt$ sta lieves th #the rtainin II hei ts
require for t ts deveIopment ar reasona I a For envelopes pan 7, it is appar nt
fro lkirs th site that one ret irtirt lI {six feet or less} is robably !i th t ill e
needed. The current survey was one with approximately feet of snow on th
roun ,n th licant has requeste the surveyor to resh ot the reas h r th
rive ys ill a roac the rages. nce this det iled inf r tion i r' vide, t
applicant 1i ves that the survey infor ation ill e r ccur te an ill sho th #
lis r ter #h fee# are not neede. fa oul like to hve this assu tion
con i#i n of approval. I# the rvise topo r hy n rchitectur l rings
sho that or retainin is neede th n h t ne -fioot ll can rbvi , sta
li ves th iic nt ust ad si nific rtt o rtt fi(n sc in t t disturbed
reas. 1°he applic nt has a ree to pl tconif rous trees an 11 aspen in the area
around the rive y #or buiidlng envelope 5,
nother con ition of approval that staff eiieves is appropriate is to require the
applicant to surv y the proved enuelopes an rovi e a metes and bounds I aI
scri tion #or #he o Staff ei'seves t at this shoul e o e for env Iopes throu h 7
rior t the issuanc fny building per it f rthis hs o
rtother issue hic iScussed urin th eeting was enc in fn'° each f
the homes Anto the hiilsi em l°his s Iof ev lopmertt ini szes # ount o€
xcavatiort and sc rrin on the hillsi hin th homesa T e applicant has use this
conce t for uif in envelope 3 an ?s pl nnin tus it f r his next house. e
believes that usin t is s Ie is critic Iin ar er to ke th eve(opment fit ant the
hillsi eo is rtot intereste in havin this as a con iti n, however, in n effort t
rovi e futur rchitec ith f8exi ility for their esi ns. The st ff eIieves this conce t
shoul e condition of approval in or er to make sure the homes i ct the hi01si
s little s ossi Ie.
If ss( staff ul like to see the applicant esign the ro ith n in itv e
believe t is y h I the road fit :be r ith the me o. °fh Fir nt Y
h v st n rs re rin this and the road en ineer yaIsq h v certairt
requir nts, If ossi le, stafif wouf lik the applicant to caor in t th changes in the
rad design with staff so that it has a more n tur shape.
In gener 1, sta iieves the app9icant hs been responsive to the concerns af the
-1 nnin nd Environmental Com issiong s we19 th °T n st . Th 1°rcant is
no Ion r ursuin 'n increased siz af th nuela e and has worke ili ent1y to #in
the bes# site for ch of the envela s. Staff Iieves th t the trees t t hve been
i entified to be preserved are si ni#icant n i!I i r ve th r nce f Th lIey
evel nts
V. RECOMMENDATION
Staff recorr,rxtends that the P#anning and Environmenta! Commission aPprove the
reques6 0.o amend tffiAe. . eVioBffiJpmGCfit plan9or T9@e Va"eyy, hase V$y w8`h68tl~ foll6J B68 .
Vo8 8 ...ite B tlsa .
0
0
1' s rior to the i~~uance of any uil in r it~ nve1opes 4 t rou h 7, t
applicant shall submi# a metes and bounds 1 1 scri tion for each f the
approved bui! ing envelopeso i°hese 1ega1 escri tions saII r flect the st kin
nsite In resented to the Pl nin Co issaon n August 1 a9 1992.
a T° tr s ientifEe 'in this memo, hict? ere use to det r in the loc ti rt of
# uil ing envelope boundaries, y not e destroye urin th
eveIopment of each envefopee If tree is des#royed, t 1ecant sh ll
r Iace it ith nother tree or trees hich rovide a si iI r a unt o#
scr enin a 1'he DRB shall deter in the number, siz nd species neede in
r er to achiev t e same effect9 fease see sft } n t ugust 7, 1992
for loc tion of treess
o °The p licant shall provide detailed survey , n rchitectur 1 r ings t the
#i e of ve1o merrt showin that the ret ining walI neede for th riv ays
to enter o t sides of the envela s do n t excee #eet. ny roposed
solution hich ouId requ€re retainin re t r tan on -foot i h ll sh II no#
e a980 e ; tartless a significant ourtt ofi ian sc fn is adde to the
dis#urbe rea around the rive yv
. T°he a lic n# shall be reguire to design the homes in t is hse benchin th
tructure into the hil3side in order t revent xcessiv re r in ar ret inin
behind the homes.
m °fh licant has agreed to lan four coniferous nd e1even as en in front of
the riveway for buildang enveiope o
c: w;emoMnglmgr -4-
S
9Y
~
awa \ \ ~.__s-- '.../~__~~•S"'? ._L..._ . . .
SCPIE 1'=40'
e 1i
, J r
{
y T ~
- _ i x3•• i..
~ z~.~c. _ _ _ _ _ ,
~
~
Two .~spp-n
~a~
@
Six Aspem siy. pmes-
EaosOa. ea~ES trvp.I alE
. . < ' .
~ Aspen
ZOA ~ AsiH~Y j ~ ~ ~ •
~eAnPtY9X.;.15 @ ,
~wa~aauenm•ss^e ~ ~ s.
r ~
i
. ~
o~ .yg. 8 4?y ~
EUVft-pE'S•TfP'rJ
o ~
.
r.
y
38 i.F, 95° CNP w!i'FS . , - . - . . , . . - . . . .
~m'v, nN. - 23.00
TWO pIYtCS - ~ iwv S. 25.00 a exuax. stoae t
~ l - / ~ az cROM
vPf~ A6l bw•INhGP
, }S.l.f 15' CiAPW/F'ES R~Up~
~
STA lCf-ITS + GRPlY H.
y _
Po. a 16.00
- . • J WY. S. a 15.00~.~
cQL.F 15° CMP w/fE45
STA.
P9 M.W
) r~ / ~ d . ~ d 7 1 IPdY. 5. OS~ ~ !
a lr;ld
EMORANDU
1°O: Planning and Envffronmental Corr7rrrission
F a ~ unity evelopment e artment
T" : u ust 10, 199
tJ J T. request for a side an front setback varlance an or er to consfruct a arage
on Lot 7, lock aVasl Vil1age th Fs{in , 9 ed Sandstone Circle
Applicant: auI n Janet Testwuide
Iannero Tim DevIin
BACKGROUND
1"he Planning and Environrrrrentai Commission initially heard a request for a variance at
the Testwuide resadence for a=foot encroach ent into the 15-foof si e se ack
requirement an -fbot encroach ent into the 20-fioot front setback re uiremen# at
the Jun 11, 1 eetin . PEC s general{y supportive of the 3-foot si e
set ack variance request, ' ut ex resse ' concern ith the -foot front set ack variance
re uest. The item was fiable to the June 25, 1 0eetin a
t the June 2 9# 0 PEC meetdn , the a licant returne ith re uest #or a
variance for a 3-foot encro ch ent into #he 1-foot si e set ack an 2-foot
encroachment into the 2 -foot #ront set ack. oth setbacks were uIti tely a roved
y PEC, ~th the con ition th t the Desi n Review Boar e aske to revie . oth the
ian sca ing plan an the ossi i!ity of eli in tin the existing as halt arkin a on
the east s0~~ the pro OSe f6vewayv
ii htly over o years has passed since the varlance request as r nte ythe C
for a 3-#oot si e and 2-foot #r nt set ack eracroach entm The variance has ex ired,
ra t 1i f i r tl r ti t ri r# f r 4 t
side setback encroachment artd a 3=foot front setbaclc encroachtnenta
11. DESCRIPTION , T PS l1 `F
°the applicant is requesting a 5-foot side arrd 3-#oot froraf setback variance in order to
construct a garage and ent itchen a 6tion on an existin sin 1e fa ily homeo The
a licant is roposin to use stone facing on both the front and so e of the wes# side
of the gara e, ~~ounting pa ially for the increase # the previous9y approved set ack
variances, 'fhe ropose garage as iotal rea of` a roxi ately 16 s. ft. an the
ent /kitchen ad ifiion has a total area o€ a roximately 182 s o ft. ith the xce tion
of the front an side set ' ck v riance re uests, ali ther evelopment s ndar s wi!I
e meto
The 12,850 sq, fte site is currently occupied by a single famify siructure Iocated in the
T° O-Fa ily (uplex) zone istr°rct. The bui6 in has an existing GRFA of ,345 s e ff.y
ith an allowed GRFA of 3,638 sqo ft. The a licant's request includes a roximately
1 s o a of garage area (not included in GRFA), a proxi ately 182 s . . of ent
a ition areas n a 23 s m .addition on the east side of the rest ence (the fatter is
not itaclude in the v riance request)e ringin #h ropose tota6 F to 2,76 s a ft.
The current 1,081 s o . af site coverage iil e increase to 2914 s . ;a inc1u in
roof overhang areas exceedin 4 fe t, resulting in a sit cover e of 1 : 2 %
site c verage iS er i ed in this zone distr6ct.
illm V iANCE C IT' 1, AND FFINDINGS
on review of riteria and Fin ings, ection 18.62.060 of the Vai1 unicipai Co e,
the Department of ommunaty eve1o ment recommends a roval af #he re ueste
variance ased upon the fotlo ing factors:
A. Considerat?on of -~ct r~;
1, The r 1ti i f# r t rianc t t r i#i r
t ti 1 tr t r i t ici if a
The addition of the garage should nofi create any problems to existirag or
potentiai uses or structures in the vocinityo The roper ost 9ikely #o e
affected woul e the sin !e f i!y ho e on Lot to the west of the
roposed garage. The existin residence on Lot ?s ap roxi ately 15
feef from the edge of ave ent fo the north. The ro osed arage
wou! e a roxi ate(y 10 feet fro ' the west roper lrr~~ an
approximately 29 feet fro the south e e of vement: o trees or
shrubs ill be remove to ccommo at th a itiona The applicant has
proposed a itionaf lan sca in ta inciude two new CoIor o ruce (
feet fni u hei ht)9 fifteen ne -alion Potent?1ia; and ei h# ne
inch !i er uakin spen.
2• The r t i rtiffr t trit and litrlitrrtti
and f r tf a specifi r ! ti i to ac i v
compatibility if r it f tr t t
it i t ici i t
r t tt ~ t among
j tiv t t i titl it # r tf speci l
privilege.
The stafif recograizes that the sitrrtg of the existing building dqes
consfwtute a physical hardshi o cause of #h existin Ioc tion of the
house in th upper center of th Iot, the applicant aui requir
setback v riance far ny ar e that is Ioc ted on the front (narth) si e
of the rope yo I' e only ay to avoi variance wouI e to construct
lon rive y # access a garage on the south est corner of the sitee
Th?s a proach is unreasonab)e and woui have negative i c#s on the
nei hors on Lot s The a Iic nt has adjuste the Iocation and size of
the roposed garage to ini ize the ertcraach ent necessary snto the
front set ack,
ff t fit r t ri !i t and tr, t fri ti fi
poputatton, transportat3on and traffic fiactlittes, pubttc facftities and
utilittes, and ubiic safetym
The staff finds that the requested variance ill have aositive effect
upon ubl'sc sa€ety, trans ortation and traffic faicilities by provi ing
encIosed parksn that is out of the u lic ri ht-of4 ye The proposaI i11
h ve no si ni#icant effect upon ny of th other ove issuesm
B. The Iannina and Environmental Commission sha#1 ak the #ollo fn LiM
before ranting a var"sancea
1. °That the ranting of the variance 'sll not consti#ute rant of speciaE
rivilege inconsostent ith the {a itations ort other rope ies classified en
the same cstric#a
2m T'hat the ranting of #e variance ili rtot eetri ental to the pu 1ic
health, safety or elfare9 or aterially in4urious to roperties or
i provements in the vicinity.
. °That the v riance is arranted for one rore fi the followin reasons:
a. The strict li#eral inter retataon or enforcement of #he s ecifie
re u9 tion oul result in ractic 0 difficul or unnecessary
hysacal' hardship inconsistent ith fhe o jectives of this tEtle,
e Thece are exce tions or extr or ina circu stances or
conditaons ap CEc I to th s me site of the vargance th to not
a ly eneraily to other ro ies in fhe s e zone.
C. Th strict inter retation or nforce nt of the specifie regul tion
woul' epriv the applicant of riviieges enjoye y the o ners
of other rope aes in the same istrict.
IVo l' FF RECOMMENDATION
Based on the criteria discussed above, the staff recorrimends approval of the request
for -fioot front an a -foot si e set ack variancen if the canditian that
approxi; ately one (1') foot on both the front nd side set ck encroachments e for
th ro ose stane face #reatmenta secon'' con ition is tat the po ion f the
exisfing as halt parkih sa " east of the ro ose riveway should be li enated an
Iandsc e { 'Iease see ttache it 1an}a The varianc is not r nt of special
rivilege and does nof i act adjacent roperties in a ne ative ; nnerm e fin that
there re extraordinary circumst nces or con itions th t affect this site th t o not
en r i{y a ly to other roperties in the same istrictm
The sta feels that the addition of ehclosed parkin ill i rove the general
appearance af the nei hborhoo a ith the garage addition, there wi!I e a maximum
of 4-5 parking spaces rovided on4site9 e en ing on hether or not the entire as halt
rking pa re insm ta #inds that the garage and entryfkitchen ad ition haue been
Iocated so that the encroach ent to the si eand front set ack have been ini ize s
ith a sI€ h# increase in the de ree of the variance requested due in par# to #he extersor
ston treatment on both the rtorttt and west facades:
c:Vec\memesacestwusae -4-
~
~V .
' _
~ ~ i¢_•_ ...---`~'"'~-^-"....rm-^^`.~--!..°`m_.°r~! ./.Y~ P ,p iq~~ O S
4eb Y er
~ • 4 e~ q ~ ~ ~
B ~ ~ r ^."'..s m ~ Y ~e ~Y¢ y~ " P ~ ~ § ' ~
5... ^
~ PWtTg~~
~
tv
s 3
"4-
m ~ ~~i`~'~tt~i6~' t
LoT
~a
~ .
3
q ~
~
~
- ° ~
, -
L.97"°
~
,
f
SITE PLAN
f
~ f •
~
. ^ ,
' . ~ , . ~ ,
~ ~ , ~ 1 ' . e,.
~
. . ~ .
t . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . .._W~'_r....._~ ~ ` _
.
~
~
~ ' . . . i~ . . . . _ . -
~ ' . ~ 1 ~ . .
. ; , . . . , . ~ . ~ . , _ . . . -
. . . . ' .
: , - - -
' ~ ~ . . . ~ . ` . . . . . . . . . . - - . . . . . ~ . .
~ ~ . ~ . . ~ -
. ~ . ~ . _ . .
, , .
- , - . _
a , ~r~ o 0
:
i a
, . ' , . ' ~ , . r r~.
I~~ ~ ~ . ~ .
-Aj
fl.. . .
, ~ ..~.w.. . . . . -
~ L
. 5
d ~.~~iui+v~ 'f P ~ - - ~ ~ ,
~ , . . ' ' , .
~ ! ~ . . . . . . . `i,~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
' m . . " . ~.Y
~i ' ~ . . . .
~ . . '
B ~ ' 1 ~ , .
F,~wr &AITUNE
i
i '
~
ENTRY LIVEL
i ~
~ ,v
i
6F ' . •
. v .
. . e `4. . . '3 . , ' `
~ s
~ ' _ ~ ' g. . . ~ ~ ~ t p, -
, • ' . , ' ~r.g4~ ~~v h~'~} . . ~ ' g . . ' . . . ~ ` t
. ' ~ ( ~,n;: 44 ~ d ' 9 ~ , , . S~ ~i
. , _
, ~ . . . . c
~
y , . • ~ ~ : ~.s ~i
.
~
, . ..y.s...,, ..o....-..:
.
-
f q _ _
,
; _ _
•i _
v
`}e" f
,
:
~
r$
..,r . , .
;
~
.
i. '
. .
'
'f -
. .
we
.r . .
.
. . _ . . : . ~ . . . ^
. . _,:.,;r . , . y , .
f bta' _
S~• g .
~ - _
+'-Y
A~
.1~ .d~ .•-~-~'_~_y_ `,~(4
~
~ v '
[
.
• [4 'T'~-- ~
r 8 _ f J..
. , .
' «e7~4
~...r _
,•.y r.~ ' p ° ~a
-:t'°e^µ`.`°
~A
. ~
( ~•F'
. , , _ , _
~ .
. ^
y
;
.~w ?f~~ ::Y
~ iv + y
A.
y
.
-•~,~C
, ...4'> "j..
.
_ . :
. t
t . >.:.'+c-•'v:.
' ? . ~ ' ~ v. m~. . } _
't ^t
G
. . . . _ . . _ . - „ . z_.._' ~
, y e ~ ,,,r
. . a g. ~ . . . . . . ~ ~ ~ b . '.:7 v .~,yp„9 +rv w...p,--..,s~...+..~'Pv I~ " E.~: a
. . - . • . , s , . F~ . x ~r ~ :+~d x ~ - - - - "'a-iY 'r_' ' 4 _ . '
..~r"'~" .F,
.
,
.
.+Y•~ jF " ':.t~r-a~'. . ^x", ^YY~ f 4 .~1 .
.
~t•' +'E.' ?t~ dt~ .bp!"ei ~~i b~_ '
.
" .
= e
. ~ . .
r .
t.
- r
~q.
p~t.`' ~~.r - ~-r• 't.
:
< .
,
.
y ~~r _
.
, . . . ~
. . s 'a 3
, .
~ r~ ;.x, ~,a'' ~ s s' e gv n =1~ 'i'} aa ~ ~7'' ~'aw. ;i b.~, ry" 'b
~ .
" ~.5~ , .,.~<;a';; - ^r. ~Y~ - '~#•'r'~ ~';.j t - • - - ,yjd s
~
. ~ '
_ ,tr-; a i' 7 ; ' a~ • - _ ( ~ ~ ,
.
:
_ _ j f ~3 a.
...e. a.~ !
;~1"• ,d`~ 1 ~r .Y'
f
''4 I
c t t '~e~ ~3 'id ~Y.,... ~ i
:
:
a 3 ~ 4 +h=~' #
_,L'y--
. .
. . ~
d
.
~ • ~ ~r
F °
.:.'.".3.'.'" s_•.~.~' _ , ~'I':~ -Sr>' .K-.
+9 ~ . "1 y
( ..1,
.f= r
r 3 1!r . ~ P.t'D~'~~•
..'i 'b ."I~ M, .-~-4,.-•!^~-`-."
. e~ , ....~r--i
..a
.
~ . w. }
y <r {
~F
i:
5'° ^ ?
~ j
. ,
.
..Y•"~i• ~
. _ r
:
,t
4*~ F~p
a. :
$
1• ~ y~a .
~
1 n#
iR f+ 't.a
c.
~
'+:,:~`G'~- Q~;' x '••~~s: = .;s-,. „
b.sf':s „
, ~ .
-.j" ° " 's`:~a..' ~^'*r:<•:_.' ~g. '4.~"=:Y:;.'R: °'c~,z~~,~~ ~.i~f'~ .7fix,c,,e. .4> . . _ P ~ ~ ' -
r~ .nF : ' 6~~6`~;p,~,> s"rY;. tg...,~•~. ~r rr.. da ro$b„S~.a~^~+' ~ p..°~ , e'F . .
,-n ~i . *'R'. r'.~T ^ ~.~.'.1 ,z°~ .kt .p,.,'""`~~. .:y°~',n_• tr.-:~.~'.'~`. :~'z,~"J: r'+..~.,~°°~,.',~,~a,..,, . , .
.;1rr. ~a;`' ~,^r r5 ~ ~ ~~J •JS~, b ~.$i'.'-'i'X , . . .
. . '?~l°: ; r:*S~:y "~'.~`a~wi~' t: ',;,r~'1" ° '?,~q: °,i:`~' ;.it~ ~~',~~Si:~..~~- &`Y;. • :;4~~?~° . . ~ , .
vt y. * q
`~r,y~ µr~r ~ }y,, .~~;r,i't:'~f:: "~-"y~ •.t", ,at ' - .
~.x '-II~ `iL.a i~s's~ Kj, x ^i P • ~~L ~+Y ~ k.'~ ' i , y Y , . : '
q~f
. "y'rv3 . ~~~,...~*'"~os5 ~A£:~,+k!, 4~~.~...?E~'a.~y.1*..Y' ed$~ ~'Jt~i';J~~ - 't~,.e~~> . . ' ~ ' ,
~}qr'~Y~
P•F ~Y. 5~.`c e :}af! ~:r+' °~lI' ~ 4. ~ ~ ~~.~P~ F~ ~Y ~~~i' . ~ , -
•yl :,`r.', :-.r;3ry... ;~1.' B .
,~,`:.L; '~~Ae.•~A,. m,~$. r . . , .
e. " ' ~ (3.~~„ - ' ~ ' ~e. • ,
'~„ti , . ~ e, .<k:j ,~,..•i' . , ~ tx.. ' ~ ~ ~ : . ,
Pia
. • . . . _ .
~ ~ , r i. , _ ' a. - • 4~ . ' b , t ~ ~ ,g yb.~ , ~ , . Y_„. . . . .
, c
r p
- ~ . , ,i . . ? , . ' . ' . ~ . ' 6 ~
.
.
e.
~
~ . ~ ..r
' ~„J E' ~ - , t ` . . ,,t rJ
V~ _p
J J ~
. J5 <
"`•i~ a
j ~
a{
~ f
~ +F?I o-Me13 ~ ~ ~ . • iI---- ~ _ ' >
<.~#< . ~-;r. ~ y,~.• ~ . rf'~ 9'.,.. ` - xm ~L ' p ` ~ ~
v.Mv. '.C. y~~~d4vrsm M~a. t t^ 4 f
1
~r
'•p ~ , ~,1~ 1
1~1
a .
n~ {
~•A° -
L
5
v #
}
3prt' 6
. S'
! { }
j"r~~ > ec* S
y (~.R z
~i
3~ e7i
d{` J1
t
;f
Cn
.
Y~; ^,a'Ye«,~,, a
'~u~ •k
9
i:+S J
°.rV.
"r
I'
~
#
? 5•
yG
~
~ . . , nx r : }
. .1~.... • . .n.
}
•
f
•~~t~~ ~;~Y
~
P!% e .
~j?~
..4, •:.l,' A~w}+ ~..1 ~ ~
:45
.
w Ai.
*
: wf?
M
- tt
1
~
-
~
,
5 ~
, .
s~ y_N
a
S-
f
,
br.
".t.v
~ cr
.
.
•i!~-:
~,,0..:. x"A 1
1
;-S ~ el Si
S
, b
. : *
...a»:• . ~
~g Tl
. ~ ~ _
. `.Y- a:.~i+. ,,:ti. . ~t'. ~ 3? •
...5
>fa~:
.P, i4Y
t ~
.q Y
~ .
C.
i
e~~ - f .':i•Y,..
- k
"1 .
~
i
~
a• ,ga - ~
~
4a
y _
6
. ~i•, ~ .
e ~A9 I
: .
ye 'r {Y
' t .
. n.
~m - ° a`t, % s~~ T~ `~`Y~•: 'ro, - f ,
e p {
~r" .u n*
a ~ .f..° q'h' u~.'.v .`t~}X ? ~Fi ~ . 4- . 5 . 6. ;`T~~r Y .P ' ~ k ~ i 1. 1 +Y
`~M
i
~ i . . : ' . . . .
.
. . .!t
\',~~4e°..';.. _N••.': e : s,m.,'.Y.__+~.: f+i.Y"B5.?:. •i'.yi~`,,: ~,\'`„i ::1`.~~..i . . .
J "~ts
~
.
~;6:~>c'
R . P
-
F
~ j
14':4 Vbf^ . i . { e j
KT^~ v
,;•l•'-x..'~~4 . _ , °Y~ i}. , a S$
. 1
i.
i
ln
. 'si
. . s
g .
. a ~ . . . . , . . , a e P w
_ , . .
Y
MEMORANDI)M
T a Ianning and Environmenta8 ommassion
F . ommunity evelopment epartment
T o ugust 1os 1992
l1 J CT: request for a con itwona( use per it to al1ow an office ad itiongan r of #op
mechanical tio the Vaii VaIIey ' e ical enter Iocated af 181 es# eadow
Drive/Lots F, Vail Village 2n ilin .
pplicanta VaiI VaIley edical Center
Iannera helfy ello
fo DESCRIPTION F l"H PROPOSED (J
The Vaii Va{Iey Rnedica9 Certter is Iocated in the Public lJ~~ ~one dfstrict artd any
ex ansion in this istrict requares a con rtsona! use revre .°fhe hospital is requesting
a con itiortal use per it to ex an the hos ita1m 1°h additionaf space wi11 e de icated
to office and stora e use. Additional roof top mechanical ill aIso e adde to t e
pra}ect9 hich does not require a conditional use per ita However, the staff felt that
the PEC should e aware of the additional rnechanicaf on the roof.
The conditionai use request includesm
- onstruetion f 80 s . ft. at o ievels consistirt af 0 s . ft. of
office/conferertce at IeveI 1and 38 s, ft. of stora e at the ase ent Ievel,
locate on the southwest corner of the ui4 in a jacent to the hospita('s
south est rrehic6e entrym
11, IT 1 FINDINGS
lJpon review of Section 18.60, the Corrimunity Development Department recommends
araval of the con' itiona( use per it ase upon th foi{o in factars.
onsideration of Facforse
1 a elationship and impact of the use on the deveIopment objectives of the
Towno '
Trle staff belleVes tha$ the addItI(}n is (3os9$i\F~,' a.~'i 1t c4at'i1p'ei'11ents eXis$1ng
medicaI services n the sit v It makes sense t conso6i ate e 6c I
services on this site as Iong as parking and other eve{opment
stan r s can be ets
~ •
In the recently a roved Stceetscape Master 1an9 certain i rovements
are c fle for long West eado rivea These inciude Ioc tin rick
aver waIk (on the nort si of West eado rive and addin
lan s~ e buffer on 4ot 1 etween the waIk n the hospit 19s exRSting
parkin a t this ti eF staff is not requesting any of thes i rove ents
due #o the li ited scope of the rojectm The staff believes such
i rovements re more a rgi riate at the ti f the next jor VV
ex artsions
2. 1°he effect ofi the use on laqht nd air, istribu#ion gf po ul~#i~~,
transoorkati~~
an ` other u IAc facilifges needsm
Thi -expansion shoul have no si nificant i pac on these factorsa,
o ffecf uoon traffic Ith artfcul r reference to congestianq automotive
and pedestrf n satetv and convenience, traffic flow and control, cc
aneuvera ili gan remova1 of sno fro the -street an arkinq areas.
T°fie follo in 'cha su ariz s the parking aIlocation on th hos ital
site iven t is x nsionp
urrently Futur onversion f Cggrnin_
vaila i Lab at Ievm 8135 lnto
arkin tructur 204 s ces 250 spaces
Surf ce rkin 105 spac s 105 spaces
Lot 1 1s aces 1g2aces
t I 7 spaces
uail 1e Parking 327 spaces 373 spaces
v r reen rking -20 spaces -2 spaces
Le'rrain ent r La -i'7 spaces -17 s aces
1 m spaces - 2 spaces
°s1 ation Iank - s ces - sces
xisting Hos'it 1` - 7 spaces - 7 spaces
ELgposed 1
E~~g.nsion
ur lus __LMaces ~ aces
xci'u irt Lot 1 -1 saces 33 spaces
rkirt efici# su lus
Th chart ove in ic tes that after this ex nsion ther ill e a 5-
s c sur {us of arkin in the VVMC structur . Th second cofumn
in ic tes #hat fispaces woul e avail ie hen the Iearnirt Ia irt the
parkin structure fs converte to rkin in the futur a 33 ar in
~ spaces woul e avai1a Ie if n hert the iearning lab is converted an `
the iot 1 ar ing is vacate :
ix spaces hve 1so beert approved by the hospital n Town ounci1
to eet the parkin r uirements for Va€l National ank. tota1 of
spaces re ctu lfy use y the anka T'h ank chose to purch se two
additional saces fro the has ital in or er to be Ie to roui e
additional arkin n These a saces were not urch e to meet ny
T'~ n parkin re uirement, i°he Bank's use of any additional parking in
t VVMC struc#ur ta eet arkin requirements #or future expansions
ill require °Town of VaiI PEC an /or ouncil approval. t this ti 9 th
ouncil has st te th t II futur expansions o# the V il ational an
u3lding will require park€n to be iocated on nk ro ertya
[n ril of 1 p the V il V Iley e ic Ient r re uest con ition i
use per it t ex n ' the parking structure y p1>I2 Ievels. °fhe re uest
Iso inciuded a fearnsng center ia hich oul e Iocate in the Io est
1eve1 of the parkin structure. l" o break-out aneis are onctu ed in th
structure to connect to the a;aicent ver reen rkin ,
urin the 1990 review, the PIanning Co ission ex ressed some
concem about the hos it I"s re(iance on the 1 r?n 'spaces located
on Lot i'. 1° is Iot is owne y the To rt of aaf' n is 1cated on the
south est corn rf the VVMC rkin Iot j cent to West ea o
rive4 It is use jointly to rovi e rkin for #h hospit 8; the li ra
n the V a
°fhe haspitalp through a lease agreement with the Town9 has the raght to
use 1 rkih spaceso ccor fng to the reement, „thms lease sh 11 e
automaticaBiy renewe for su sequent i -yer terms unl ss either pr
ives ritten notic to th other of its intent no# to renew no 1af r th n
60 ys raor to th en of th ie s ter aA, T"he end of t lease fer
is April Oth of eac yearo
fln a ition, the Town°s treetsc easter 1an specifi s a esign #or
est Meadow riv t lIo for ett r edestria cccss n safety; s
welI s i rved emer ncy n vehicu6 r traff ic flo : Ih th future9 it
ay necessa to utElize Aon of Lot it accommo te tnese
desi n I Covemenfs,
taff elieves that it is reasona !e to suppo this expansion of'the
hos ital hich requir s n additional #hree -arkin s acese owever,
for futur si nificant ex ansions, staff recommen s th t th os 6tal
incor or te the 1spaces on Lot 1 into parking on te hs ital
rope m Th staff s also aske tfi V to rev?se th ster 1 n
reviewed y the PEC. appears th tsome of th ex rtsi ns y not
necessary.
k m
1°he 4/ sf f f rt sta#eso
~ Addition of one h ff IeveI of arking on top of the east si e of th
structure. T°his wi1l rovi e de ic ted access and par an fior a
new emer ency roo that iEl eventual!y 'ui! at t e e st
n f the roperty, ith ccess mrectly offi outh Frontage
Ro m
- Construction of a de#ached building at the west end of the
roper e This facili ElI cortsoli t ysaci n's o ices en 1ing
us to ex n hos it I epartments in# spac currently occu ie
y t es functi ns,
m onstruction of fou h fioor on top of the west win just
complete 4 This floor ili cco odate ad itional a#ient eds,
as weII s t e harmacys I orato and building se Sce
departments,
~ emoii#ion of #h ori in I hospit I t th east en f the roperty9
nd construction of new buil in joinin th south sa of th
arking sfructurea Thfs east in m{1 1nc1ude a itional rkin ,
refoc te in Io ynd admissions rea, a new emergency
roo ith ve icul r ccess off South rontage Road, an
r 1ocate uI nce bays.
taff eli ues th tth three space rkmn requirement f r thss roject
shou1 n t tri er th re oval f the Lot 10 arkin o owevern the taff
fin s that it is reason [e to ask th hos ita1, in consr erin future
ex ansf ns9 t lso include pac''ng to compensate for th 18 spaces on
Lot 1 w
taff ouI lik to s th curr nt sn remoual nd storage ractice on
the west edge of` t ro y c nge, urrently sno is u5h into
th cree 9 hich has su se ue t1y i cte #h streambank. 1n
r sponse to st 's conc'rn, #h Iicant h s r e t r ve etate the
strea 'nk and construct o fience (a roxi t i feet hi h)
si ilar #o th tus n t south st corner of th roperty in or er t
rotect the strea uring sno remov Ia
. Effect uDon the character of the rea in hich
loc te ,°rnclu irr the scale an ul of the roposed use ffn reIatfon to
surroun in_ uses,
Tne area for expansion is located unaer the existang secona floor of the
h spitat ort e south e1ev tiora: 1°h a ition ill infifl spac ne th th
second fl or nd add stora e rea ta th ase nt I veI. 'fh stepping
back fthe buml in fro the 2n to 1st 1eve1 ilows for relief in the
Ievation. The ex nsion oes rrot xten 'eyon th xistin Isne of
i p
th uiI in n the south and west elev tions: This expansion shoul
n # h ve a major impact on th sca1e and buIk of t uif in o "The DRB
wi1l rvie the roposed addition for compatibility of t ria1sa t fif
suggest th t rick and bo r for concr te be used ihst a of th
roposed metal si in
Te applicant is 1so roposing one addi#iona1 rooftop mechanic I
syste o This system is necessary for I space ithin the hospital. The
syst il1 e visi l fr the u r floors of th adjac nt ra e is, as
wef1 s fro the n h, e tnd west property lines, lt gs not necessa
#o t in a condition !use per it fot th€ss ut the staff felt th t th
should be 'w re of the additsona( ech nic I syste m It ill e
reviewe y the DRB.
IIl. FINDINGS
Th Iinina an nvironmentaI o ission sha91 ake the follo in findin. s efore
A. °Th t the roposed locati n of #h se in accor ith the pur oses of this
r inance an the pur ses of the istrict in hich the sit iS focatedo
B. T at the ropose loc tion of t use n th 'con itions urt er hich it oui
e oer ted or int ined wou( not tri ent 1 to th ublic haIth, s fety,
or eIf ror teri liy injurious to ro aes or i rouements in the vicini .
C. Th t the ro osed use ul co ly ith each o# the applica I rouisions of
this r i nc .
IVo l' F REC TI
Staff recommends approval of this conditional use request with the condition that the
str nk n th est si of t r e y e I ndscaped and a per anent arrier
In the west side of th rope y inst U rior t th isuance of Temporary
Certificate of ccu ancy for the addition in or r to rvent isturbance of the stre
rea. e wouI Iso recommen ; th t the DRB cans°s er rick and boar f r ed
cbncr t for the exterior # th o ice a ition: ea8s recommen th t DRB ake
sur # ech nic I' unrt is int ark ro n to tc th xisting mechanfc la "fhe
ropose use is ico Iianc ith th urpose f the pu Iic use zon istric#, 1"here
wou1 e no ne tive i ac#s on u lic heait , safety r eIf c an the ropos 1
co lies ith the c n itionai us rview cri#egiaa
C:~~~~~~~\vvmc -5-
'v e p
5 n
~u.•~ _ - . . _o 13~t or,. . . . .
~
r
~ - i.T I _~~1„ a,~ cxst.wCU9nCRLTAtHIedGwNL ~ ~ . ~J~.
carJrnaaroR'4 ~sr.4GiNq aaea I ~
. fOFG~DURpPON ~ ~RO,I9C,
C;cISTiNG AM-t1LANC'iE ~
aUfGCNNG
.
~ _ .
i
_ _ ~ • -
~ ' I ' ' ` ~ 1R ~ ~ . ' ~ ~ . i. . . . . . . . . ~ . . " . , ~a
6Ri5f1NG n5~'MMn~T.PavirKi . . .
I
I i ' i { ~ , ' ~ . 'r i ~ ?
1 ~
, x
. ;
V ~
;
~
RPIR C -
a+ . . ( ~ ( '
' ' , 'C w xF ~R• ` ~ .=X.STIN6 r105^I7AL 3JILCi1v.G
/ ~ , . . . . ~ ( ~ ~ ~ . . ~ . . ~ ~j..
~ / ' . . \ . . . ~ .
rz
~e+esr fwso r,-/ ~-_rwacrz~w.ve
4 ! ~ ~ ~ ( I ~ I ~ f \ .ENiRANGE V65Tl5t1LE
, i
, I ~ ~ i ~ t y . . . . . . . ~
\ i^ ~ . \ y.. ~~i.~.. ~ ~
\ \
~ h
~ ~ .
,
, 4~R Cp r+~
t~NRLwGE S~6M `
rusrASrensP'`". IW,ia . cviar ~
_r.uwaea~no~ ~ / i \ 1 ~rr z ~ ? ~S ~ Y` ~sr~e.~+s • :
b:CSEL :IIEI TANrc r. Y\ \ . \ ~ p i.
8 lo ~ ~\'~'~l'R. ?s •T 6° ~a` ! e `y ~ ~ `l".'y'~~ ~ `M~
~ •0 ~
n . Fx~s }u. =ne ~ . ~ ~~"w ~ `i . . ~ . i i \ ? ? ~ ~ ~ \ "`~t ~ ~ . .
. . ~ ~ . ' ~ ! ~ i. ~ 4 a~sr s~e~.R~.een-c~+nae~ I~~ ¢x,sr.
nATE&. vALV1S. \ E%~5~. OsYGEN I ~ a.,.•••0
FJSt.M.N. .3 ~'\..P 3&~..~.4 1~ ~ 3~URKa£EN4:3URE ~ i ~ENLt05REN.
_ l
~ ~
~`-~-rr
vwLP
. _ . ~ s^ F.X'LT r3?waLT 9n"xG_... . \ ~ . . ~ EkS7 wt7e:
~ Y°~--~ ~ . . ` ~ \ . . . . . ~WN4a
-
~ ~ .
a D---
UH rar4~, r9
MATGH ~XI~'T'itiE~'j C t
_j
~XI4~TlNC ~
~14'~IN4 ~ N~-~d ~ ~-xl-~o"T'1h6C+
1
I _
. ,
Fp
Sl
. . , . , .
_ tiff. 1 . . .
f~ . , . . .
_
~ Ii
~ -
0
` ~ px3~•'r{ N~W _ S~ST"lh~~
~
~
'
~
I
~
~ -
nr-
~ coNF RN.
~.OF~I~ ~ ~~IG~ ' 1
! I
~
a /t r g~t~}
:i
vaiI val[ey
181 West hPieadow [7rive, Suite 100
~ Vail, Caforado 81657
~ mediccil center (303) 476-2451
August 7, 1992
Idis. Shelly Mello
Town of Va.il Commura~ty Develop~~nt
75 South Frontage Roaci
Vail, Calorada 81657
Dear Shelly a
As you know, the hospa.tal is developir~~ ~emodel plans affectin
°three departmentsm
1. our pathologi.cal laboratory will relocate to space
presently occupied by the business office, on the first
floor, west (new) wizag. .
2. The business office will move to the second' floor, into
space currently used by Medical Recordsm
3. Medical Records wi:ll move to space now used by the
Laboratory m
While this remodel prog~am will no't add to the size of the
hos ital, it saill enable us to achi.eve several desirabTe goalss
~ Relocat3on of the laboratory continues the process o€
consolidating our clinical departments in the new building,
our present Iaboratory°s physical lant does not rneet the
sarne high standards we have set for other cls.nical
departments ovex the last six years. In additican, it is
re3.atively isolated from other clina.cal departments
( espeeially the Emergency Room), as well as the large
nuznber af patients who seek its servaces d
v Relocation of the busiraess office consoia:dates that
department with our accourats receivable oaccounts paya le,
and data processira functiarss, lea in to sa.gnifi.care~ staff
efficiencieso
0 Medi.cal ecords can be reZocate ta the £ar eastern en
of the buil in withaut seri.ous incoaaveniences, since
patients have less cantact caith thgs eartment than the
gaboratory or usiness officep
Ray McManan
Administrator
F
~
melloa !7/92
pg.2
With one exception, the remodel 3.s consistent with our current
master pian, as presented t~ the PEC in 1990 m That one exception
is the neca laborat~ry, which w.ill be Iocated on the maira floor,
~ather than the proposed fourth floorm We fee1 that this is a
sa:gnificant arnprover~~nt in the m~ster plan, sirzce a laboratory is
a high-traffi.c departmerat {especially for out-~ata.ents}, and as
anore cssnvenient, on the grcaurad f loarti
Zn my' l~tter c~~ August 3$ 1990, to Krs.stera Pratz, ccapy a°ttacheci, I
outlined the main elements of oaar master plana These elements
remain as stateda
Our expected t.zmetable for a.mplementing these elemerats has groven
to be toO c~~gresS]. Veo hoYJ£.'iTero That 't.lIi1L~~ble c3B'1t1C3.p3ted thc~~ the
propose fourth floor wou3d be under coz~structian at this time.
This has not been necessary, primaxily because utilizaticarz of in-
pa,tient beds has not grown as rapidly as we projected.
There is one other factor that will provide relief for ~ur exis-ting
facilities at the main hosps.tal o Our proposed out-patiertt ciiraic
at Beaver Cree}c will treat as many as tweraty persons daily. I~
~~evious years, these patients would have been treated at the
Emergency Romm here at the Yto~pi'tal o
While Qur Governin oard is co a.tted to coaatincaing to improve the
quality and scope of medical care we offer the community, this will
most likely be accomplished through remodel projects, upgrades of
exista:ng medicai equipmen°t, and small-scale proj,ects, such as our
proposed 1,000 square foot ad iti.on for the Vail Orthopaedzcs &
Sports Medicine grou a At present, we have no firm target date for
araother major expansson project.
Sincerely,
F
La n : • E. o..
P Yta er
DFo s
ccs RaZr McMahan
enc
~
w!
° „ .
~
v(~~l vailey
181 West Meadow Drive, Sui#e 100
~ ~ ~ Vail, Colcsrc~eio 8'9b57
?
3 August 1990 (303}476-2457
Kristen Pritz
Director ot Communit,y Developrnent
Town of Vail
75 South Frontage Road
VaiB4 CO 81657
Dear Kristena
Fo11awing is a s,ynopsis of the hospitalgs master p1an, presented 7n the
sequenee we feel is mast pr°obeble, Like aT1 r,;aster plans, it will be subject
to frequent review and possible revisions to scope and sequence. The synopsis
dovetails vrith drawings prepared by Page Southerland Page, previously
submitted to yous
Construction of approximately 1600 square feeL of nevr spaee aL around
ievel on the north and west side of Lhe west cving, f6r housing a magnetic
resonance imager (MRI)a The aPPlication for accnditaonal use perrrit has been
submitted`o
Addition of one half 1eve3 of parking on top of the east side of the
str°ucture curr~entl,y under° cons"Cructione This will provide dedicated access
and parking for a new emergenc,y room that we will eventually build at the east
end of our property, with access directly off South F?°ontage Roado
Construction af a detached bu9iding at the west end of aur property.
This facility will consalidate physician's off%ces enabling us to expamd
hospital departments into space currentl,y occupied by these functionso
Construction of a fourth f7oor on top of the west wing just
coanpleted. This filobr will accommodate additionai patient beds, as wel] as
our° pharmacy, laboratory and building service departmentss
Demolitian of the original hospital at the east end af our propert;y,
and cons$ructicn of a rrew building adjoining the south side of the parking
structure currently ur'deraray. This east wing will inciude additaonal parking,
arelocated main iobby and admissior,s area, anew emergeraey ~~om wath
vehicular access off SouLh Frontage Road, and relocated ambulanee bays.
Other than the MRI unit, the seheduling foa~ these various phases has not been
dete ined,
rn,er 7
~
oject Ma er
DJF/bh
cc. Ra,y McMahan RQy McMahan
Jay Pete6"SOt1 cnief Fx utive CYfficer
AidguSt 3::992
Town of Vasl
EnvironmentaZ Commission
VaI.1 r CO $1657 RE I Pu17l1G HearlI2cT
8-1d-92
I am an owr2er at 252 West Meadow Drive, across from
the Vail VaIIey Medi:cal Center, ard wish to protest
d YE'qt1eSt fOS °Pt21i3~'do.Y'aY'y tY"d2l°rs aY3d an add1tZ011al
Sat@11.1te dISht0 a
We have seen West Meadow Drive become nightmare of
~ars, busses, bikes, skaters, and what-have-you cl~ring
the past several years, 1nclud1ng the rrtonster Vail VaIley
M~dical ~entero
'T'he Environmental Commission has graz2ted every
request made by the Medical Center and I think that
the Commission should start saying NOa
How temporary will the trailers be, and why arzother
satellite dash°?
I wfsh that sorrteone ora the Commission wou1.d have guts
eraough to turn down arequest lake this gnstead of the
old rubber staznp.
~ ~ °
.
Wenclel l E. Ha1ey
B x
MEMORANDUM
l°; larsning and nvironmental Com ission
F . ommun?ty eveIopmen# epartment
To ugust 4, 1992
i1 J'Ta otificat°san to the P concernin ainor amen ent to Ilo for the
expansion of uiIdin foot rint rto# to excee 5 feet to oascade
Vilfage rea A, Cos ri arcei/1"he Cascadesy ener ify Iocated south of
°sllrace Condominiurrts and west ofi The Westin ResortY VaiI, and more
speci#ica1ly escribed as follows:
act of the 1/4 1/~, ection 12, Townshs 5 , ange 81 of the th
rincipa( meri ian, ounty of a 1e9 tate of CoIorado, described as fo610 s.
e inning at oint hence an fron in ' ith lastsc ca arkin the cenfier of
s i ecteon 12 bears 4019" .3 fta thence 501`a 89.84 ftm
thertce S 57025' 0`° 169.46 mthence S 320 '3 141047 fta tence
65° 1'3 e4 95.04 d thence 6°0193 103,02 ft: thence 204° 9`°
319.09 to the oint of e°snnin
Applicant: st- est Partners
Iannero heI{y eIIo
la DESCRIPTION F 1°Fi lJ T
East-West Partners, developer of the Cosgriff Parce16The Cascades in Area A of Cascade
1/illa es has re ueste minor amett ent to the xisting Special ;evelopment istrict o, .
°The inor en ent is requeste ursuant to Chapter 1 .40.10 - endment rocedures9
hich rovide for inor a ifications hich are consistent ith th esi rt criteria outlaned in
the SDD sect€ort of the zoning code. T"he 1°own zonrng code defines inor endment°' s
meanin a
AB[... ]o ifi:cations to buil in :pEans,. site o.rIantlscapepfansthat donat alter the
basic intent or character af the a rove ecial Develop ent istrict, n re
consistent Ath the desi n crateri of the SDD cha ter. inor a 'end ents may
anclude9 tst are rtot ii ite toa variations of rtot ore than five feet to approved
setbacks rt /or ull in foot rintsa changes to lan scape or site pl ns that o
not a versely impact edestrian or vehacu9ar circuiation throu hout th special
evelopment istric#g or changes to ross f{oor rea (exc1udin resi enfial uses)
of not ore th~~ 5% of the a roved square footage of retail9 officep common
areas an other non-resadential floor areao°e
The applicant requests a minor amen ' ent to !1o for the ex ansion of the buil in
foot rint n Buil in a nit o The buil ing footprint ouId extend an addition I feet
to the southm l'he result is an increase of 3 squ re feet of sote covera e and ?
squar feet of F o Total F ecomes 1 , 3 square feet an total site
cover e °rs 6,638 ~ uar feet. 1°he maximum 11owable GRF for thas site is 10m50
squ re feet an fhe maximum i1owable site coverage is 3 % or approximately 16,500
square feeto
Iln T F CI I N
taff hs reviewe the ap Iic nt°s re ue tan has ap rove the inor mendment to usl in
4, Unit of the Cascades Devefopment ian of SDD o. 4s ursu nt to ha ter 1$,40a1 0().
°f'he sta has found that the proposed odifications #o the Cos riff arcel/("he Cascades
parcel ouI not alter the basgc intent or° char cter of the approved Specia! ev Iopment
istrict; an that the propose odific tiort is consistent ith the desi n criteri of fhe SDD
cha #er4
c` \rr,emoss cvisl -
Z
WIN6 P
lUE.
T£RM i HE.T 1 .
/
PAlNY LCC.S4a~7 R4TL
PRIME~4Po0 ?AlNT S 112 ~r_ .
~ ~ - 574tNE0 C.DAa SuttxES - 77P
SNP M197L FtA51-~ IPoG
~
S C H I5.
4 T Y
srucco
2x CEDAR iRIM \---oEoae RasczaiseFFfr - rrP
- - - - --~----'~".-Ei i i s ~ -~s ° ~
P0.IN7ED STGEL ~
RAILIN6 TP.
~0 q6 ~.0.. t ~ (
~ CL°DaR SiOiN6 OVER
GA8A~.00OR
LEVEL
EL I09' S•~
B ~ ~rv~--^--rr-...P e_ (XILUhTd FT6°4. I
Ly ,y y, 7 P! P(~ D f
-IINE ~ - - m.~ P~ L~ zt - J._..,._°- --eezs>t.
FIX1tJOB.i1QPa YgALL ~ .
.......L3.LL>..4f..tNG....4.:..~` ~OUIPS ELEYPiTIlll°8~
sSraLE, it6• • ~t~•-O°
G
d
%
~
~ xb" 6 i 2
G
c~ `
g ' ~ ~
m~ u5w-
a Q`,
o Oc')
STOY.:: ' f _ _I ~ 7 • W~ti.Jw ~
SkYLIGNFS / ~ •
RAiS D S.ONE Aa9'JE
' 'aT uEA2?~ E MFM1~EL~.: - t I. 1
r ~t
L iNs oF- a.
. . CEIliN6:
~ 2 3REAK~
t'
LtwE.,~ ....;f. . . ~
O_, ,.;IG
OPEN
a~ . ~
~55 ~
~
~ .
1 ' p
1L./
r-
o 0 0
~g...• . oo~e eobea
i f
! (
~ ~ EN'BY QCOF ~ i i..
7 e.- '
,
a
;.:,,.r~". ~~"'~n`~~''~..'t~ s"`... . ~ ~.n•r' ~~>~,-""~7§~ g~
514Yf:tG~T5
'ERMINA'fIQS f.
~ t
(
4k~4'R~.i pK ^s tATL
C'iMNEY CAP. ~Y
. . P4-E .hND PaiV'
StAiREd CEDAR SHAa
StiT. MTE FLASNINC-~ ~
:."nvG Z !
~'f (K
a ~y ~rc~cQ crona FascinIsaF=I
21 CEJdR ?RIM---d.
El ilb' C
P41 V'ED STE_L RAfi i'V6 - TY?
5-'~r.7
S13fORG OYER
GA4A6E ~
EL 106' _p
~ i
a
GJLJ 1,•,.L t. N..G a^F vL.l6J 7 P^9 ELEV P°9 7 3 117 V
. . .
SGtLE. g1 . 11_01
i~
a.
- a. .s~-s iix• .
_ - ~ - ~-a
~ ~
~ ~ t9'~O 9ia• J
16210 . Z
IIa <.z ,g ~
17 ;
Fg 1 rr i~•.o.~_ -r e••i• L ~ x e r' y._D. a..s.~ i{a y..y a.ivx•--- e•-~ iir-#--- .
y ifS' ~ 1 .
<f . 14~ ,
Ij
90 1_:'~ r rua
ue. Fsias.s~ n~ w a
fA ~-----7
jw 4EY: I 4S~LTY~YGLbCJ~i )R/tS
~ WALL MW
NTL
BAILiN6
R9D6E /1
'
~k'..
vEWC~
11'.A IJ3` 8~ 3 s !°-B° ~.if:••Y•
RI%CD~.3KYLiSNYS
AB ~ • ~
OVE~ C~NP~RED
° R.0.1 SEO SYON£ OYER STA R
C.. uecaru~. uaaaaeL
rs f.~' ~ f a ~ e s.z . 1 cE"~,~`-°9 r ,
~y. H16sd ay. . . B4EAK.
~w~E WALL 1 ~ aI w ,
<
,~-L~~~
~ LV •~oFEirris {
- ~
m
BREAK
~ ~ ~ ~ EL 135 6° { . ~ '
a
ss
e y~
~
_ y~ sra
3ro 0
.~Eccw
; Q' ' i ~ ~ ~m..>• ~ ~ f`
Q D/ • ~ -7
N k ~
Qdov r+~CAr
I a•~. i~.• re-r o~d'a+e'v~5 I ~~~,.:t~ae f ~~.,a• I io•-o"
~~e~_ d~•.6 ~t8' ~ ( -~-_'_-"'-Yt O _ . .
~
. . . _ . . . ~V_ . . . . .
Ra+raw°e64 ~ ~ . ~ :
~ . . b. ~ . . . . . . a9'-f 1/1' ~ . . .
. A_._e_.
Y
EcTQY BQOF
9 fl..IIXH 1
bd . 8 f T . ,
$
~4 § 3. ~
B U I L D I N G A - L1 P P E P L V L PL AR! ~qJ
. ~,~~a
e. ~ ,
AVUUX - _ kUAilUNAL
~ , . . . y . • g~' M~~ f ~•M, Y r ~ .
" .
~ . R ::s-e
. . . ` " . . SEPTEIMER . . Y ` ~A. , ' '
° J-c -
: ~ . ~ . ~ . . . . . ~
y _ . . . . . . . _ :
. 6. ~.::a F.. ~ ~ . ~ . . . . . . . . .
~ Ar
.
,
• - _ „ ~ . » . . +e
, .
. . , . .
S U . ~of .~.e . ~w~gf~m ~ f ~ p~~`e~, -
o . r, q . . . ° . _
~ . = e . . .r . ~ . . . o edo ff . e.
g,_ . ~ . . ~ ' , .
~~9~n~ ~'I ~anar~~~ Mitchefl.
- f.. • - .
> 1Um=n1,a17Tmes RfteeT1 YhoY~t _
-~.:Y 0n Olle Square ~ 1884
.
_
.
, ~
.
~
.
a _ . , . . • ~
KEl'N ~DRESSe Ieieal ~ -Exoetlenfl Neal pi
em $s a PRE-COI~EREN(M . ~ORK-
, nationally-syndicated " y i
-
. i : $ ovminmt political e e - Y aftenwm, SVt: 1 )o Anton
DsC.s has wrsttm extms'rvely is a fair md bahnced ana2yst IaTe1eswa9 Professcsr a8 itaat$en
about the future of `v ' f A.
<
.
and
citi American poiitics. o o m _e 0 a will
He is tbe aathor of T~e Bwk of ieen a conmltant on vasous ~ - preowt 'A i~ ~ fcw
° ide Fa f
' (19~3), t , decisive ° of W ~ f Mwtity
sesies of books on ngiorW State and Iocal $cav t ; - we gave of rempWm a *'om_
. . . , - , t
e ro ~°y . > I have1ound rm Pierce . ss i ti ? e
what our communities may be io be en ° g and chaUeng- _ co ts create a seaw
, e, e year 50o f plam? ,
for cali ' e , I fed . i e , 1-
I)allas, he tarafll prcavide in,saght our regicgW audience wiU find bualda~g exercisew '~ou wj1I lay
, ' to gov t, liti , vl- his ' s
ionmental sssues, and urban -fiwllingly straight fcsrward,": MOdedS to create a site plmo So
affairs as we move into tlae noxt 'T° Ho , P ` g . . . 11 up yow slwves,
_ . ~ , .onff eaginftfing scge, and jo,
century. : . ~ =-~°aty csf Al~r~~ . Li~is is a ~s+asr~ ~,n ~lt
.
°14~ta F'~~ ~~f°~ ~ ~~1 t ° I . .
perSperAive oat post-war urban
velopment tmds. , i .s I .
kew eye he focuses on t2ae ~ ~ ~ Saturday nwrna "
criticat role of local gove t ` a Sept. 19j: e SmaU TTown
I ~
a- ~a vision ve= de ic °v Ie a and ~ the
~ ~a~~ti~e'~ op on
m .
Mark aw, consultant
Past ' m APA ivo Council °cD
le
goals, t
kow to, anat,y~ economic op-
, for one$s community.
-This
_ . ~ and partici ° g ses-
, . ~ - saons
, _ . -
r3• 3 , ..'a ~'4 WIL~T
?.L~d P' ~m r . ` 1~~`
1.. ~ ~ n- , , ' _ . ' _ , . `@~"' s ~Y4 = ~.ar ~ q y .P . . . • , . .
:a ` ' : A ~ ~ ' ' . ~ • ! . ive
~ . ~ ~
. qg YM •r,~ ~ ' ~ Yg ~$r ' p ' 4. Amm
- " . d . ~ . ~{~y~ ~ _
Am F~- r x
~
.
-Ckbem
- , `
.
` 9 412 -
Associates=
ibrenw?residew "sf ION
I , ~y .
Y fi
~ . ,
. . . C . gpA a ^ y (4
. ~ . . . 2 ) 5c " ~F . .
FWBRS" q
Maly . . 9
. . . ~ . . .
SeyfidlLmo
di ~ ' ~ ~ i ,v ~ffi . _ : • ` { uya ~Y~. w y ~ ~ ftvw ~ ~ ~ w1~,~ '1o~$f.°
~tQW1AZ » t " ~ ' ~ .
~ ~ ~ ffi~:: ' . :
,
ISM: ibm RXLMPI" of:blendiqg "
- ` 1JRBAdd,~D COMAITNTT"1'I2ESBC`s1V ".:.`:j,h,°j" ~ _
v * . ~ ~e ~
~ e~ ~ ~°p•.
. _ .
. .
_ .,3 k Chud/NM
~ s~ ' ° {fl y,' .~L3 Poop
De}
. . _ . '
- Wdfcand Somnwako'roW ` - . ~br'~if 411Yoei1d,91) I'miticiplaft { +ra muel from
p~ - m • ~ -
Alonic
~~g ~.@ Wg . " ~ p~.> .v W ~d ~ ~il5~il~i416'=.YiF~
. . ry,~~y~8 6R7: E31T.r~
U YW&8 d 6[o YSCGB'8S~ . . • ' '~&d ~ 4 ~~~ar5~e. , ~'~69 ~ ~ ~ S88 ~ iema : .
' ~,,p q .
. n . . .
o. , . . " . . attractions e
. . . ..v a - . - , . i l ,eg~ , . g p bnving
. 6B , « -Dsvid y$ e 8 y.. . . .
. . : . . i : *secm em T DCs or . .
. VqFRASTRUCTURE rv . . . . . ~ , -4... . C ~ . e ~ . ~ . . . : . y and
~ FOUNDATION county punnias inues ad fn dt noonaf
_ - ~
. . Richard CrombicifNM
Bud . y/ Vrieth ° P~I
~
- Others so 1e~ announced
ROD Shafferm _ , ZIA AY, s ~ m 19
G IY"Y - e m . ' ,g~ (It2 COMMUNrrY ~ 'A T . . . . -~CbBTIAC UAWWCO . ' : ' tlaya lo(8X<4S People)
Others , . . i. ' e
. . .
. . . . . »
Tun . Sww;aAICP/NM
Leshe Lamont1cO 0.. . . ' ~ of two . _ ~
~ _ . - ' : $jPOS of dweHYYT~ ~ vWB.m
. . . . . . . . ~ . _ ~ _ ' . a a~~. pueblo . . d c24 h ' . The
- '~~Y1AYs S~.1S~° ~168eblQA ~'8ffi~#S ~"B~ ~ }1li-dS -
PUBuc . . RT . o - a
' T i` of ...a Omm. -h conua a conuil p
~ is _ ~ .
~ Coit: ,
_
- a~ walking wtar of the ~ Sam" ~ - 6eyonst 9b, pwblo am the c1eff d"18- .
_ CI3I.°t'[M&Y. I?IVEW7"'Y/ ' _ - --a xrea w°sII Ofigm YOae tsO the hi*Arkd ' e Wou ~ .
ALIALAP-BLBALXLANNIN k s VdkAes, . f, - . . ` . H .
- .
~ uNTrY BAsE} oitamizA° SEPT. 16: , Rancho de Us 0oldrinas ~ . WorkaUW
Ns: WORKING FOR ECON (l12 yg$ 0
~
. 0. ENV., Dm Tow of Santa Fe (7 p ° q e 48.
~ . . ' - JWAX, IS poop{~C} ~ ~ ~p V' ~ useBBifl Ss a ~
Chudis lawLINW _ : Free (See Abme) ~ , , m i .
Dism ~ Jonu/NM
- . - . - . . , -.'south of Santa Fso 1,offess a glimpse
Yin Maca LeeitZtdE . -,11toadsa+nDer T°aur of SU" Fc, (1 -1C2 .hxo $iY te ~
.
~ . . , . . . . 8
. 9 x p,~G) . ° nmumwnstomd bu'ddiqp. o _
~ . Cost; 1110.0Q ~ ; _ . . ~ Fia :BSOv $w 4anch wt3 a way
TRADMON ~ ~ ~~AMN: A , k ~ vehi ~ . ' gr z+ ~ - . . . . . w . .
6 . N G CULTURAL
*YkiR[999~ ~f th6%.h8awy of:Sam mARo(i afta htving S8m,0:F1.° d8i& E Catnioo. ; ~ .
COhOAUNrM The . . . . . _ - - . . ~.s . o . C..& . e
` ~ . . . , . e . a ' « ~ . -
~e~~Q6~ ~ ' .'~S ~fl~E) ~ " " ~ . , ~ waWing ~S ~YK~ ~ ~Y[I ~ ~ .
. . .c ' . Dixon/CO . ~a $25.00 ' ;
MikG EBY&S3$1AZ , . . . Alon the nmdma . ~ Valle$Ty . .
othen _ . _ _ sR , `
-•lbe$`G SL a qBb1hW pamm of Win
. ' ~ _ .
- . ,
. . , . - . _ . .
, ' ^ . _,W~ . ~ .
.e . ~ .....e. . _ ' f. . . _ ..4.F. . ~~~-a
_
CONFERENCE : 7- ; ` i ~
410ded into riv~ ~ te tra+cks~ AMe follo ° ~ions are p ' inary and am subject tc~ e prior
cR the ce.-
- ~a:~ .r=' ~:wea w.K=
. .
. . . . . . ~ . .ti . ~ .
. . . ,.d•
.
. . . . , ~ ' ~ `
_ _ - . . « . . ,y . . . . - - ' w-
' . _ . . . _ o _ , ' ' , ' _ ~ . ' « " - ^ . s ' , . . • , . . ~ ' .
- ~ 1 ~9~ ~
' . - : - . ~=~.:;~'r'j~~d»- ~ •~C_~° °~^':r, - ' . .
, . _ , . - , • . & _ ,..T.'~= =~Y°-' - ~;~'a^ 'R-m=f~'- _ _ ~=i`_ +,a~ ' . -
LrDZEN
. ~ . ~~1~} . ' e, ' _ $eda F.SRY'4.31~FVSS'oi9 A ~'t~~-`• - ~~qy"^.~'°m~/ ~ - ~ .
P? . ' ' ~.^a~ ` _ ° 'F'' . ~ . _ _ . . . _
7RAMPO"AMN . ~ %ALXMENTARYLAWFM
6 " • , ' . -
, ~ygq ' A : . _ ' _ . .
i9V ~ S- . " ' CATIONS POlt LAND USE
AND
f' ~ ..=z.. " '
- SERVJM _ . m -_MRANSPORTATION pa &A
aruce ccwmwo"anning Dited",
mave MINIC
~ Worth, 7X MAmm8 ~APA
. ~ - •°~'"C ' ' , s ' " "
RaY Qua'Y a .
Zong b AICPIW.
-Pbocnix, " ~ . ~ ° . . _ •
- RUI]XING CONSENSUS 81 4p ga ' s . _ - . ~ . " ~ S
UMTI-RnMRM /q
S . t ' .
9d
, - ro µ _ • . AICPINM
" . . . . . Steve • . _ . . _ - . . r . . - . ; ~ .a - _ ~ .
• @ Raber/AZ
.
H. . FLANNINGCOMMISSIONDECISION
, CEil+MOtai GRC3tTDtI)a 1?N ElaTVIROf3- - ` iROCESSESe VAREED
NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS; R P ES
O , NATIONAL X
t.F1M SOi,VING? - ' Roba8 Cokp~,, a~~a~
Fmwo ~ oG ~9 i~AdbdfB`e?Vd - ~ ~fEb ~`~V85CB ~..°P/,~d ~ . .l '
J & Wooldridge, AICPINM
. . . " , _ . , . " i
aiy Lou Haywood-SpeU&INM . COWLETING InE
. .c ON . OLE OF ~ .
~ . - . . ~ . . - ° -.SIONERS AND PROFESSIO
BUDGETING _
L G KMS IN PLANNING y _ OVEMEINTS PROGRAMMING
- ` . . .
Kam y AICPINM Ramona X. MuHaheytHA . NSMU _ MikeTruffilloINM
- ' . ' . ' .
V. GaU ,tn CP and _ A ' . , zdwn
SW FiFt9Cll/FA
Craig S. lly - ~ _ G ; . . ASIAINM 'VFSIONINt's0 PRCSteRAMS ~ . - Mklwl tDgden, PEJBeYIy1 ROY.E PLAY
S' - OLI AT O'T IOti _ . ° o ; _ •
Chris c ° k1 ALBUQUERQUE
-Bonatae TYatnerlCO . ~ • _ ~ ~ . ~ Pa&C$Ll'4°A°I°tNfa' MEETINGS/
Jerry bBey9 ! (a training
Jasel WooldftefNM ..,Aese") • Nonnan GaanWIRIM _ ,
-To be annoumw
-
•
< , ' 4 • : ° ' , -.r:=:K:` - -
y f' y - . . _ ` - , ~ - • : ' ,
- . ' . : - _ _ - :~;'~'s• ~ _,°:sa-`..« s{~ - "`'"•c```,?~`°`` ~ - ' - ,
. . _ s;?a'a...y..4y e~F" h' _ _ _ ir ~..f."•y'' - - ' _
' - ;:,je: _ - s:r`.. "a'~,"-~~'~7_" ~~r. - a " '
~
. ~ • , w _ ~ . _ . _
. • _ - c .:o-~i;~ _ v . '3`,°-~:' ac` - - "s
. ' _ . a. ,._v., i` .•PID~ ~ _'`-.~„_..'•~`'^y`t~~..,..~'~~``~:''~'=.:,_ ~7~s.; .
BRtNG A LtGtf'T JACKE'C. RAINWE,AR FOR OC iO L MOl1fV°tA1N SHOWER.S, AND W NG SHOESn `.'it
nw ~ I 1 t E . 1 ! 1
_ . " . 1 , I ,
BF 1fOt! ARE FtYlhtG 1!Y'f'Ci ALBLlQUERQUE tNTERRA'ftONA! J0.iRP'C}RT9 THERE I5 A SFIt1TT°tE SERiIICE
AVAILABLE , $20.00 . :50 AM, m . 1s1 , .
- 31m55m 2 PtVd, 3e25, 5m30,6;~i5.8:15. AND 10m15. _ , •
t i i ~
RESERVATIf3NS BEFORE ARRtVilVG AT't"1°iE CONFERENCEo "'i°HE fOLLOVNING A L1S1° OF RES3'Al/RAN'fS~
MODESTLY 1 IVE, t a ' 1;
TERTULIA, 988-2769; PRANZA L 1 a 984-2645; COYOTE A 983-7712, III
988-3030; , 988-9232; ! , 983-7712, SANTACAFE, 984-1788; -
° +Ct3MP'O11Nt8e 982-4353>
! 1 1 I . I~. , _
CON'tAG"f PAt1l.pi 0ONAHlJE A°T 505m76$«3932,
• ' - - - . u ° _ . ~b''+a~~_}„' . - . f`. _ r1, a . . ,
_ . . . - - ~ " . . . ; . _ _ . . e . . v
' CONFERENCE
AND
- ~ . + • . . ' - ' ~ ~ : . ,.i._ °•t:.~::'' xa',"^'° " . . - .
APAIAICP CONFERENCE
. . ow°. :°~._.r".,. ~ ~ . .
- NAME:
t 7~tg fs raqsa@red ~~r ~38
_ ~ ~ ~44P~PA st a~gbS8r8f@~ tr&0@ ~4 ~ @~v eve
- ORGANIZATION:-
~ iastr9es#rd @~ ~aa ~tteb f~tfbcBeW@ as. - ,
ftolitration twca a eti to *31 1e5210*1 8excep$ IeO tira~ee .
"
7fl7LE: ks . sr~ as vam tmrs B~ ~izA t~re Wt a
rre>,
. awites9i8sa 8S "i$ aY S $ . Amirsllay Ss $$on, 8'vtday
• ~ a . -
ADDRESS:
C%S9':
~ . . • . , . _ .
STRTEftIP CM£: . - - _ .,.L< _ , . ~ -
9'ELfP110WE Sday anunrber?;
REGISTRFBTI f£E: - " . - - i _
AND
-
~ RegSsta-a41on for APA member by 9/1942 ` 730. IP CONFERM
Regiskratlon for non-aember by 481992 130, ~ ~ 16 - 20
- Sessderat Fee (tvidence af s&udent st:tus s°tpulred) 75.00 W
Cne-day s°egtstratfoea Sspec4fy xhich day: ) 75,
~ Late regtstsa@6on for APA member daftes 9b1J923 150.
~ Late regtstrat! for nort-mobers (tfter 971/92) - 1. i E TWO FCONFERENCE TELS £ E TfE AND THE INN AT L RETtO. SNE
Gi L CDNFERENCE WitE BE NE A4 THE FONDA ILE E ADA/A2CS' LEADERSHIP
- CONFERENCE WILL BE AT E FNk AT LORETTO. A"fiY $
- 86etessen prt-c ferente rkz 1o i XT Y AT 1S> 1992 Ai
v.. STAR Traltt$ng rkshop 25.
- Friday Brt8kfast wt$h Thttrsdmmy`s speakers 1.00
(timSttd to aQ persons)
. ~
- "A tASTE Of TNE SOUTHWEST" dinntr/dantiraq . . 35. - L 4 3_ =3t . $i
Friday evenicag/Pa3ace the ver°s ~ P.O. x 12 .
: att Fe4 37SWI209 ` -As rx # oxtetwed stax)
~ ,
I AT LORETTO 1 J-5532 = . - 100.00
l .
- iednesday 19a1k1ng 7oue frte . 286 06d Saeett Fe ?rat1 : - - - _ , - ~
os4ent:tloee to Santt £e at 7 P.M. Santt ft, Mm P501 - _ ` - isame'rat! !`br extenftd sUy)
.o. Thursday #lalkltaq i r of SanBa Ft f e - = • . - _ ;.,.`~,°,,ti_o_~ . _
_
ihua-s6ay R draaesntr T r pf 5avc8s Ft ' - - lo.00. L ta ~4 105 .00
125 3hi b4
4 fe'lday R de°uaanea T r of 5aet$a Fe
E8.
00
Friday 'SanFa ie: H4s@ory to #eeturr' ivalking ! r !5. _ nta feo . ? 1 , b a r _ ; ~ ~;_4,~: a - _ . •
~ Thursdsy Puebios/Eapaeaola Morkshop 25.00
hop 25.00 I F 1
Friday Los A9ffi s MaE9 at ta raBarq rkt
Saturday Barodel9er Natt a! nt T r " 25.00 ~ ~ ~ - ~o ' - . - - .
00
~ Sataaaday E1 Ranc de )as 1 r8nas T ,
~~W • ~
_ GARRETT*S MERT 3 I 1!5 . W.00
61ST TI SAl ~ 311 OId Sata Fe Te°at!
. taFto t
P9etsa 9R eet8m4ea49ca aoo ct*tk $o fOB { s
l6.PA, tdo Coeitwsns P14m8wq, 890 GsWf . SeBRe 266, AB r , 91
, x
" • ' _ _ ' " . cy,> . - " - ~ '_.,s;: . _ ` . _ . .
9 s ~4i3 ~ Ot !1 BlaSbon wocelwd t 1, 190.
aKIIYg 3L(3T'eS tlSei°'IZ°lexla!)+< tLetil1I°Zls
shouldn't be a proble , nor shouid long firm.
lines at the register. Several barriers stand in the way. Em-
iJnfortunately, it doesn't always work Please see SERVICE on TFi
out that way. .An informal survey of n-
GBPPy ChepiBSMf C
4 ~ ~k ~ A
3't
~ f
Aspen architect garners
Vt x.
g'
,S'~w'`°~~ - S
#
1
y 4 contract to revamp Banff
s~~aS
; . _ ' .
' y 1on M. PPB$ '
Speciat to The Denver Post a.
n A~~~ n Aspen architectraral Iandscape
firrn beat out 42 internationai de-
sign tea s to wi1t the $250,000
rnaster pIa ing cantract to redesi and
enhanee the recently emaracipated Cana.dim
an town of Banff.
The Aspen office of Design arkshop,
together with I,andplan Associates of Cal-
~
gary, Alberta, will deveiop the anff, AI-
berta, Downtadvn Enhancerraent F'roject
ca ~ next year - a venture expeeted to cost $6
illion to $8 iiliort.
anff fs a 100pyear-old vaeation catrz- munity that won auto~awmy fro the Cana- 1a
dl$Yl fede2°$l gOVeI'22IT1eTlt $ ye$P ag0. NeS-
tI in the heart of a f National Park in
w~
the Canadian R,oc °es, the town of 79004 is x
e n n sidez°ed t h e p a r k' s g a tew a y and h o s t s
° Y ° F : . : • „ - Y~ ~ zn
ore than 3 ifllion visit0rs each year.
°The naaster plan - ereated by Desf n
Special to Tfie Deraver Pos4 / eS! n Work5hop Prittc9 aI ic$1
USER-FRIENDLY: 1 n wouf re uce i ttt of a° s8reet¢ enhance s's ewa91csa Please see BANFF an 6M ha s
Ads downtown 'aces' but p'lays t h,em - ~Iose to vest
and possibly J.C. Penney in a$3QQ znil- ty is the now-vacant Dezaver Dry Goods shosv the people of this cfty that dowr
lian groject iocated either at a znidpoint store at 16th and Galifot°nia streets, So town carz be fixed. It's aIsm the best wa
shaw ~aub an tha~ th~r~'s rn~r~ tha
on the 16th Street iVlall or sotnewhere far, efforts to ju p-start downtowrz wiCt~ to
neaa° the mail's lower dawntown end, a IJenver T)ry project have been, to put it one way to fix it. ,
Desgite the huge break it got frozn Re- iENlity ' btuzatly, half-baked. n t y ,
gezzey's demise, Taub an, deueloper af Waxrnan's camera and eideo will take
Ross I'erat caused a lat af ruckus
Cherry Creek, is p1ayitzg its hacad very - half the retaii space but a tenant for the
carefu31y. And for good reason. other 1~alf hasn't beet~ found. I~ew Ya~rk and he rnade the econoariy the No. 1~ss~
` Soon, Taubman arsd ats znvestors are develwper Jonathan Rose had half the in the presidezstial earnpaigna
~roing to came to Denver taxpayers with a rnent is irreFutable, sgace aatd I3avid F°rench, recently tossed We may rzever know rvhy he bowed ot
~~~and fcar a huge subsidy - ost tikely And when it coznesto deterzniniragj the aut, had the other ktaif. Just last week the Iast week, but zt's clear Perot couldn
inithe form o#1w-cost loans. size of the subszdy) BePb1AY LA 4J d69WAdLO R 13 sales tax district to pay for the t~ver stand the media heat - t~o~° ~rvould he ris
g°~aey o argue that times at°e agencies wili have ~zo ehoice brzt to witine renovation bcr~tds was slashed, far spendzng perhaps $200 million der t
tough i, that risks at°e very a 1`zttle, th~~n cough ug the dough. _ rt wacaldrt9t be able ta razse the znon- fiz~ish second. "Phe pazndit who "I~o
},Sobe 4ha4 9R4PF2C+ANC n,-Pri aes inr*Pntivp tn ma,o -iv rn'rntprwnicxht T-h~an'e e3T C1eC@SSaPy to pay fOS° the pPOJec$. CaI2't be a b3llionaire populist" WaS Plgt
~
T posT
v ~zz
~ ~
~ ir dem
A
the W
77It1z1-ce Bajiff ~aild BANFF fCt3d71P3ge I H
?
i teor Worksh op P ~°in~i~ai Ra~ha~d ~h~c~ ~ ~ ~ S~~th~
froa~a tt~e ~xthe~° tearrss,,, corst~amr~
az~d I,aradplar~ F'rizz~i~aal Garth c~~ ~aid. 7'h~ t~~rrz ~s rime ~e~n~tt f~r up .
~ ~3a11s 1~I~ yn a conso~°taa~rra ~f ~ve
- Pz°oposes a ~sedesta°fan- e ~,11 t() ~ou
fo
~ fflz°tri~~
fziend1y dowr~tovvr~ area PZ a 3~i~~ ~e s augh aco-d~s~ ~i P~ a rs , R
. ~av~a°y ~ark, ~ ~~~r a~ ' ~7SS1 1l1tIeS invoived the entire cOzazr~~an ty,~the
~~~6~cr~~
ci~Sal cez~- ~ ~ Parar~sete~°s fa~° th~ pa°c~~e~t
~E~~~° ter, a tourist iz~f~arrr~atia~n centerp ut ~"e, 1
~ ara ar~aphitheate~° arad ~ sca1e replf- set. wea°e
d~' ca of Barzff ~iat2or~al Pari~d rehe SiVp pl 66~°he corraaaaas~aztp was i~z from
kbe' 'The ir~r~ovatave and revoiutz~ar~m OI' a ~h~ begiat~in A9 ss
aging tr ~azd ~h~w. 'Tha~
c~~~ ar~ ~~~~z~t~~t~r f~~ ~h~
On" aTy PIan calls #oz° red~acf~ag the ~c
~r~ ~~L~.
~adth ~f th~ ~~za~~~~~d ~tr~~t and c~°ec~.ti ~i~~Iat~ t~Z~~r v~l ~a~~ ~~ad w~s ~
f~°or~ foua° ianes to two, wzde °g r~~l 0pgc~rtur~itp for therri to do COMM . E
' ~t arad enhanc~g sidewa~ space arad ~~1°~f~'1~ lac f ~sk s ~ te~aa~ ~r Desi ~ orksfio s ~~3 E. ~
sr~ ~~~r~~~a~~ p~rk~z~~ c~utside the t~Jltsm w 1le i~'s values.'9 ~~~t r~~ ~~o E~t~~
_ g downtown cvre.
Pendira ~ ij1~ ~.~1~1 Bar~ff ~ras long rez ed as Ca~aa-
~pProval by the towza da's prem#er resort destinataon.
council ixa February 1993, con- eXiSt1 atteS ve B~at the town is now faeed with
a stz°uctasar~ is slated ta~ begsn izi A ,
- 1994m ~h~ $6-ra~illi~a~ fi~°~t priI ~9 e C~n, ~ ~ st;ff cozapetition ~ate atioraail3~
sh~~ld b~ e~rriplet~ b Phase . . .
o~° .~ccordirtg to Bennett, ssUnless tVover~ber, with ra~ost ~ft~ d~~ Ve Co hes1Ve ~ we address sozne of theissues of
pconstr~actioaa finished befaa°e the cI'e~.t1ve h~~ir~~ s~ rnar~3' Pe~~l~ h~z°~9 th~
la toaaa°ists will end u
to~a~°zsrrt seasort sEaa°ts , chair of the P goizag ~oa~~-
downtow~a enhas~ceaza~nt corn~ait- RIchard ~he ~~sea ~ ~ tca k
tee aIld ~}~lltC47Ft2 £?tItIT~e 8t~~~.sr ~ 43i1Y° `
9 er said. p Y~yoz° ~r~r~t ~a~- D~st ~V~rk~h~p ~as d~v~flop~d
, ~`ztl~d user-fz°3er~dIY pflace of tot~risrn, g~aster plaras ar~d site pia •
tains " ir~'or to the ouno t~hile vflsuaIizin how exAStin ~rt comrraitges, hoteds , v Ilaggees ` d R
p the g I~l~rk- t~a~ns have ~~ra~ ~z~ ~ I~a~- and mour~tain base areas ttzrou g h- ~ w
~ shop/Z,~z~dpia~z ~sDsociates pa°o ~os- vexy cohesive, cr~ata~~re ~ for a . ~
a fl esa~phaszzed Pian 99 ~u t ~an~da si~~~ 197~ ~s ~ell as
us~~-fa°i~r~dI creatirs Shaw said. "Our 9 Spa~, ,~apaaa, ~lTo ~ a aad Rus-
3' p~ace for touz°ists abal~t~r t~ illu~- ~
ta°ate the th~ng as being tangibte sfa. Shaw cailed ~'~~ad~ ~~s
that draws on the natural beauty fl
of Bazzff, reIied heavzly on graphics.,' ral location for us" because of t-he
Banfff Towrs anager Jim Beno ease that characterizes the ~ay e
Banff citizens pgayed a large nett said the cornpetataon was ~~ovincial goverz~araez~t9 p~vate an-
Pa iz~ devel~ping a fresh °~ge 69ve a°' ~l~se, espe~fall~ a ansta°y a~ad local ~
- for the town. (3ne of the a~~w to t~~ tw~ t~~rns.,, ~ th~ ~'ovea°t~ er~ts
' work
cOuncad's fia°st acts c~as organg ° g `6T°he Desi n ~ogetber. .
< ar~ in~~rr~~tiorsafl ~c~ ~ orksho sa WorkshOg fS a 50- ID
t p~tat~mn t~ pl~n ~~~oc~ates' ~ ~1Larad- bea° land planr~rag~ arsd arc~tectur-
fir~d a firan that would update, i~ plaa~, the qualzty of thezr presenta-
Pproach to the al landsca~se ~~g~a wzth ~ffi~~s ~n
corsarr~unity. W3zyle hundreds of tion ar~d thear experiersce played a PauI~ Br ,
iVaa
rth Arr~ericaaa fia°z~s were taz~- large parg zn setting the aart oen.~ rev~~ ~~d ~h~~~~. A S~~ s b
geted, Desf ~ ~zi
d, a~ffse~ will s~~a~
ed ~h~t thear WorkshoP sp ttIat- P ~
graphzcs and rssk takiz~g ~~arned9 SUCC'ESSF'i1I, BiJT DI5S~4~~.'ISFIEl~9?
them the top spot.
66The fa~~ th$t i sake more vacatians, spend more time with
Quge my '
;3 pIdI1 bQga~°j ~ family, and make mom money than most to
oSSlbilit1es FOI' tI2e fII' prove~ngsyszemfthai cautd maked ou CEO's by
,t1PF°e9 2S1 a f.'0I12~TTe~ie2lSltye pja2Y foP YpeoPle to leam my
. rnanaging tragfic arad cs°eagi~ a y Headthy & Wealthy.
~ $4018$1-6036
W43n
~
IliE DE _._____RP0ST
~
~
PL.A~NN1NG AND ENVfRONMENTAL. COMMISSION
July 27, 1992
resent taff
re Amsden ristan Pritz
Jeff ovuen helly el1~
Ch18ck CrIs$ ike Mo'li~a
Diana Dort~van Tim ev1in
Kathy L.angenwalter Andy Knudtsen
DaIton il9ia s a Caster
Gena hitten
The meeting was caIled to or er at 2:45 a o y ChaAr exson iana Donovana
Public Negrina
1. ' re uest for a conditional use permit and a site caverage variance to a61ow f6r the
expansion ofi an existing outdoor in6ng deck for weet asi9' estaurant, 193 ore
CCeek rIve9 a9"t of Lot , I~ck 5 ' VaIl Vilsage FICst FilICI ;
Applicant: Kevin Clair
Plannero Shelly MeIIo
helly presente the request to the Go issiona he state the maan concerns of the
staff vver the rovEsion of ad itional 1andsca in ,the locations for the use o#' charcoal
avers an the deek railing aterial. ed wathmey9 re resenting the applicant,
ad res5e the omission reviewing the proposa1. He stated that the a licant
agreed ith a1l of the staff9s recommendatoons ith the exception of the railing an
ian scapin . There was iscuss?on re ardin the paving; aroura the eck as far as
pavers versus #he as halt resently there, 1t as a reed that the avers should;
replace the aspha9t for a more unifor Iooke iscussion #ollowe regardin the
planting of a tree in the planter in the southuvest fanter area. Kevsn iair, #he
ap iicant, feIt a tree lante in front of his door wouI' eter customers from enterin
h°rs establish ent. fter some 1scussion, it was a ree by the a licant and the
Commission to Eant o trees on either si e of the business in the two °°notches°' of
the Ianter not yet indicated on the Ians. fter further uestion, Jeff Bovven rnade a
motion to a rove the request ith the 'sraclusion of the tree soIution an the use of
avers around the soldier course to be included per the staff merno. re msden
seconded the mo#iora; A vote was taken and the motion passed9 5-2, vvith Kathy
Langen aIter and iana Donovan vating a ainst the motion because they dsd not
befieve public ining decks shouf' be located on pu lic lan an that there as rEVate
9an to expand the deck oratoa
2s request to amend acondition af a revious(y ap roved exterior alteration, re ardin
the CGI parking pay-in-fieu fee #or the Red Liora uEldin ; located at 304 rid e
treetILats , F, an Fl, ' lock 5 , Vaif Vi1lage First Filing,
A Iicant: Vencura, Lt /Jay eterson
P6artnerm ike Mo11ica
°ske ad ressed the Commissions aving the back roun of the request. Jay Peterson,
represeratin the applicant, stated that the ap iicant had com lded with the requests of
the °fown Council hen the ori ina1 exterior afteration was ap roved. He stated that
the a Ilcant ha given up 2 d eilirt units and F , and believe that 1tem #12 of
the can itions of a proua! was no# fair to hi ,I# as noted y the sta #hat the BeII
°Tower uilding and Pepi°s ski stocage were not requeste to pay the increased fee
adopte , l'here was no pubiic input regardin this cequest. After further discussion;
re A sden rrta' e a motion to approve the appHicant's request. ena hitten
secora e the rrtotion. vote was taken and the motion passed unani ouslya 7- e
3. Items 39 4and 5on the agenda had een requested to be tabled until the uust 10,
1992 meetin n alton iliiams made a motion to reschedule these itemsa huck rist
seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the mation passed unanimouslya
7-0.
ork Session
1 m A re uest for a work session for an exterior alterataon for the Vail Lionshead Center
taaldin , Iocate at Lot 5, Iock 1, Vail Lionshead First Filing/ 520 ast Lionshead
Circleo
p licanto scar L. l'an
Planner. ndy l4nu tsen
An y resente the request ta the Co mfssion, statin that the staff fielt overali this
as a ood esa n ut as concerned about the hite metal ullions, the indovv
roupings, iandscapAn s the setback varianceq an service and deIivery issues4 ill
Pierce9 the architect representin the applicant; a dresse the o mission; s#atfn the
roject was ira the schematic stage at this oirtt and there had een alot of ive and
take and compromise put into this roject as they dealt with ro erty owners and
bus1ness owners Iocated in the build?n aThere was uch iscussion fiollovuin
regardmn the roposed changes to the existin uildin . It as felt y all a ies that
the Iartdsca in at the est en of the uii in was needed art couId be enhance .
There was iscussion as to hat couB e done to the uiIdin itself to soften the Iines,
such as roun ed corners, additional lanters an Ian sca in 9 exterior arnt, etc.
pecifically„ each ommissaon e er state ` their o inions on the roposal'e reg
Amsden sai that the use of woo instea of white etal for fhe store sho fronts
wouf e an imprave ent, °fhe roof over the roposed addltional was not a concern to
hi at this timea He belieare that the Iandsca ing and ent' to AIfie Packer's needed
fUrther studye e ardin the northeast corner of the buECd€n , he elieved that o
so1'utions wouId be accepta 1e to hi : the ap licant.couid either chara e the semi-
circle of Ianting behind the skier scuf ture to allow pedestrian access or the a plicant
cou( trp off the roposed corner of the buil in ,
athy Langenwalter sai ' that she wante to see changes in the amount tha# the
uil ing encroached' into the setback. The fuff 10-foot setback as not requare , ut
feet of setback ould e goo a Concernin the skier scuE ture, a#hy state that aray
o ifications to it shoufd invoIve reworking ali' of the area aroun It; an that cIBpping
off corners on each side to im rove pedestrian access was not a soIution to consider.
he conc1ude her ents by statan thafi #he uil ing neede to become sofitere
aiton wlliams was concerned' a out the image of the facade9 art suggested that it
shoul match the building better. Fie believe ' there couid e a befiter material selected
inaLead o1 t6.9~ metal and5hougB Ct tS Oat'L s! 6ou6. be something"mountaEny.Dr He
continue by sayan the stores neede more in iuidual character9 that the 8andscaping
island near the en#rance neede to be softened', that the Iandscapin by lfie F'acker
rill needed to be maintained at the s~ ~~quare foatage as currently exists? and that
there was no roo for 9anters or tree rates in front of the ad itionm
ena hitten beiieve thai the use ofi white muflions ort the fiacade neede to be
changed an~ sug este #haf ood wouId e a better aterial. he like the "ins and
outste of the facade, but thought that the frequent use of them made the building too
regular. he belieered a ditional study neede to be given for oth corners of fhe
buifdingg the one y the ifiie Packer rill, as well as the northeast corner of the
buif in , he stated that a ini um 5-foot setback as neededo
Chuck rist thou ht that the facade needed more relief and that ore variety should
elanrted °snto the desi na He su ested that ining tables and an avvning couId hei
rovide varietym oncerning pedestrian access y the northeast corner, he sai that
the building corner needed to be cut or e[se the lanter y the skier scuf ture neede '
to be remoued entirelym e concIude y sayin that the hite metaf as not an
a pro riate material on the facade.
iana Donovan concluded the Boar 's comments by sayin that the Alfie Packer entry
area shoul be rewarkeda the buil ing should be pulled ack; the addi#ion shoul e
softened and the entrance fo the condo iniums should not e ade into a "hole."
°Che Co ission expressed their appreciation #o the a piicant, represented yana
°fan ,an the architecfi for their ork thus far and Stated they'Iooked fo ard to
workin fth the in the fufure ta up rade this area of Lionshea 'o
2. request for a work session for an amendment ta n a prove evelo ent Iah to
aIIo the shiftin of the ui9 Ang ertvelopes at The Valley, Phase IW1700 Iock of
uff ehr reek oad, (30 inutes)
plicant: neimer
Plannerm ndy nud#sen
Andy nudtsen a ressed the Com €ssion regardin fhis worksession etem. He
rev?ewed the staff memo with the Commission9 sta#ing that this ro}eet had ori inaCly
een ap rave in 1990. 1`he ap licant9 d,nei er, addresse ;the ~ommissron,
ivin an overview of the roject to date. l"here was much 6scussion fo9lowin relatin
to the Iocation of the entrance roa to the roject an the driveways to each uiI in ,
There vvas discuss°ron relatin to the stze of the bui! ings an the tradeoffs to change
the pre(imina design. Lan sca 'ing was aIso iscusse ,
irection rnras iven to #he a Iicant to work ith staff on sitin the r~ad an the
building envelopes. The PEC state that they ante to see the envelopes situa#ed in
-3-
1 . .
ways that reserve as many of the trees on the site as po ible.
3e A request #or a wor session for a major amend ent to SDD 4 Cascade Vi16age to
amend the development Iara for the Waterfor parce1 Iocated at 1275 esthaven
riire.
Ap licant: EC nter rises represente by ustaquio ortina
P1annerm he}{y eIIo
1°he staff revsewe the ta~~ o an stated that at this time the staff is concerned with
1. ompatNbility of mass with surroundin uses;
2, lncrease of landscaptng, especxaily at the Cascade ViIlage entrance, by
decreasfng at grade parking and crrcuiationp
3. Imprauements to Westhaven rive in order to meet l° V s#andards and
subsequent dedicatiort of roadway to the Town o# VaiIR
4. Res6Cution of interdependent arking plan for the Corners$one and ' aterford
rojects:
5. II cond's#ions set forth y the Publlc Works Department and Fire De art ent,
hich reiafe to roper : raina e an fire access, will nee to e ad resse pr6or
to the approval of the e, o
l"he a plicant then co ented on the general uil ing concept an their intent to
resolve the interdepen ence ith Cornerstone9 the a jacent proper ,The members
commented an in 'eneral felt that the rraassan gespecially on the west and south
e9evations, shoul e ramse 9 the parking shoul eet the 75% encIosed requirement,
the interdependence with Cornerstone must e resolved, the parkin prablerras in
Cascade Village should e addres5ed irt this application if possi 1e and the esthaven
shou! ' e dedicated to the To rt.
4. The inutes of the July 79 1992 eeting were revievueda A motion was ae f
ap, rove #he inutes as written. vote was taken an the mo#ion passe
unani otasky, 7- .
s there was no further busihess, the meeting was adjourned at .00 p. , approx°sma#elyv
-4-